Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

F-35 pilot held 50-minute airborne conference call with engineers before crash

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 440 posts

Re: F-35 pilot held 50-minute airborne conference call with engineers before crash

#141

Post by prmoustache »

crote wrote: post #97
5f3cfa1a wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ejecting from an airplane is no joke: 18g of force leaves 20-30% with spinal fractures, and ejection seats have an 8% mortality rate[1] It seems to me that continuing flight with inoperative/damaged landing gear while you discuss alternatives with engineers is the safest option. Burn fuel, make a plan, let people on the ground mobilize to help, and eject when you've tried what you can and it truly becomes the safest…

It makes you wonder if it would be possible for ejection seats to have a safer bailout mode. Sure, the "compress your spine" mode is definitely appropriate during a wartime situation where someone has shot your wings off, but is it really required when a mechanical failure leaves you unable to land yet in a more-or-less stable flight at a reasonably low speed? Perhaps a 6g ejection might be more appropriate in those…

Did you see how the plane went down in the video? It is like he just had shutted down completely and was in free fall. Better eject fast when you have no idea in which angle and how fast the plane is about to fall.

Re: F-35 pilot held 50-minute airborne conference call with engineers before crash

#142

Post by Aurornis »

crote wrote: post #97
5f3cfa1a wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ejecting from an airplane is no joke: 18g of force leaves 20-30% with spinal fractures, and ejection seats have an 8% mortality rate[1] It seems to me that continuing flight with inoperative/damaged landing gear while you discuss alternatives with engineers is the safest option. Burn fuel, make a plan, let people on the ground mobilize to help, and eject when you've tried what you can and it truly becomes the safest…

It makes you wonder if it would be possible for ejection seats to have a safer bailout mode. Sure, the "compress your spine" mode is definitely appropriate during a wartime situation where someone has shot your wings off, but is it really required when a mechanical failure leaves you unable to land yet in a more-or-less stable flight at a reasonably low speed? Perhaps a 6g ejection might be more appropriate in those…

The ejection force is to ensure the pilot clears the airplane as they enter the airstream. Think about how much force you feel when you hold your hand out a car window at 60MPH, then remember that wind resistance increases with the square of speed. You have to be launched hard to get away from the tail.

Also the last thing you want in the critical emergency safety gear is more levels of complexity and additional things for the pilot to consider.

Re: F-35 pilot held 50-minute airborne conference call with engineers before crash

#143

Post by hypeatei »

jWhick wrote: post #112

I'm wondering why these days, when my washing machine has an internet connection, they can't take over control of a plane remotely. I guess it could be considered a security vulnerability, however i'm quite sure it could be done securely. Like let the pilot eject and you try to land a plane with remote control

That would require even more R&D to maybe be useful in a rare situation. Like you mentioned, the vulnerability surface would increase. The last you thing you'd want is a remote control vuln being discovered in your $200M jet during a conflict.

That and I'm not sure what an ejection actually means for the planes internals i.e. is it even guaranteed the electronic components won't be damaged?

Re: F-35 pilot held 50-minute airborne conference call with engineers before crash

#144

Post by pengaru » 

  > The report notes Lockheed Martin had issued guidance on the problem the F-35’s
  > sensors had in extreme cold weather in a maintenance newsletter in April 2024,
  > about nine months before the crash. The problem could make it “difficult for
  > the pilot to maintain control of the aircraft,” the guidance said.
  >
  > The temperature at the time of the crash was -1 degree Fahrenheit, the report
  > said.
Isn't it pretty much always at least that cold at the altitudes these things operate at? It's unclear from the article if -1F qualifies as "extreme cold weather" but unless I'm mistaken you're going to encounter extreme cold temps up there - it's not some exceptional condition.

Re: F-35 pilot held 50-minute airborne conference call with engineers before crash

#145

Post by jakubmazanec »

> if the conference call participants had referenced the 2024 maintenance newsletter, “they likely would have advised a planned full stop landing or a controlled ejection instead of a second touch-and-go” that eventually led to the conditions that caused the crash

So nobody remembered to search for and read all available documentation? Useful lesson for every software engineer.

Re: F-35 pilot held 50-minute airborne conference call with engineers before crash

#146

Post by gchadwick »

svieira wrote: post #127

> But those attempts failed to recenter the nose wheel and resulted in both the left and right main landing gears freezing up and not being able to extend fully to attempt an actual landing. > At that point, the F-35’s sensors indicated it was on the ground and the jet’s computer systems transitioned to “automated ground-operation mode,” the report said. And there wasn't a way to override that? I get that "manual mod…

Potentially it happened so quickly the pilot had no way to respond before they lost control of the aircraft and had to hit the eject?

Still you'd hope transitions between major operation modes could have some manual confirmation. Is there some essential reason the aircraft has to automatically transition to 'automated ground operation mode' when it thinks landing is complete? Could you not just expect the pilot to punch a button to do it instead?

Re: F-35 pilot held 50-minute airborne conference call with engineers before crash

#147

Post by Aurornis »

jWhick wrote: post #112

I'm wondering why these days, when my washing machine has an internet connection, they can't take over control of a plane remotely. I guess it could be considered a security vulnerability, however i'm quite sure it could be done securely. Like let the pilot eject and you try to land a plane with remote control

Going from “I can check my washing machine remotely” to “it should be easy to remotely control fighter jets without any security risks” is quite a leap.

Anyway it’s missing the point. If the pilot can’t adequately control the airplane then a remote operator isn’t going to have a better experience.

Re: F-35 pilot held 50-minute airborne conference call with engineers before crash

#148

Post by FatalLogic »

tigerBL00D wrote: post #49
m000 wrote: post #8

This is wild. You can't get away from these zoom calls even as an F-35 pilot.

Am I the only one thinking that it's time for something like an R2D2? Presumably it could get into some crammed spaces and thaw things out of needed. I'm sure it's a stupid idea, BTW, but a fun one )

It's a fun idea. Though it would have to be a really small R2-D2 that could work from the inside.

The fictional R2-D2 had a big advantage of being in vacuum so it could work from the outside, without disturbing the airflow, and without having its work disturbed by the airflow.

Envisage what happens at 900km/h in atmosphere, if R2-D2 tries to lift up an exterior wing panel to troubleshoot a blocked line?

Re: F-35 pilot held 50-minute airborne conference call with engineers before crash

#149

Post by marcosdumay »

tigerBL00D wrote: post #49
m000 wrote: post #8

This is wild. You can't get away from these zoom calls even as an F-35 pilot.

Am I the only one thinking that it's time for something like an R2D2? Presumably it could get into some crammed spaces and thaw things out of needed. I'm sure it's a stupid idea, BTW, but a fun one )

Well... aircraft maintenance doesn't work like that.

Even car maintenance doesn't work like that anymore. There's almost nothing you can do just by crawling around and messing with the parts there.

Re: F-35 pilot held 50-minute airborne conference call with engineers before crash

#150

Post by mytailorisrich »

ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote: post #89
mytailorisrich wrote: post #56

The F-35 is unstable by design and requires constant adjustments by the computer system to fly. So it is actually impossible to "just" turn the computer off and fly manually.

This is true for basically every fighter jet and stealth aircraft

"Modern" jet fighters, yes. I believe it started to be "hard" to fly manually with the F-16 and now it is completely impossible, but feel free to correct me.
Post reply on HN