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

281–290 of 440 posts

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

#281

Post by the__alchemist »

diggan wrote: post #267
dfox wrote: post #223

The article is somewhat sensationalistic. If you read the actual report you will find out that: The pilot was not part of the conference call! What froze was not hydraulic fluid for actuators (in some hydraulic line), but hydraulic fluid in the shock absorbers. The last paragraph of the article and seems to be missing a few words and reads as the investigators blaming the people directly involved, which is essentiall…

> The article is somewhat sensationalistic somewhat sensationalistic?! The article clearly tries to give the impression the pilot was on the call: > A US Air Force F-35 pilot spent 50 minutes on an airborne conference call with Lockheed Martin engineers trying to solve a problem with his fighter jet before he ejected Knowing the quality of media these days, it wouldn't surprise me if it CNN just got it really wrong,…

SOF initiates Conference Hotel procedures, FYI. It's a (rarely used) checklist in their book. SOF is the pilot sitting in the tower to liase with ATC and handle emergencies from an ops perspective.

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

#282

Post by andy_xor_andrew »

the__alchemist wrote: post #278
andy_xor_andrew wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the article (twice) and I still have the impression the pilot was in fact the one in the conference call Opening line: > A US Air Force F-35 pilot spent 50 minutes on an airborne conference call with Lockheed Martin engineers trying to solve a problem with his fighter jet before he ejected Am I illiterate or misreading it? > After going through system checklists in an attempt to remedy the problem, the pilot g…

Don't read the article; read the report.

Sure, of course I will trust the report as the source of truth.

But I'm interested in the reporting. There are, you know, journalistic standards, which are considered kinda "journalism 101"! For instance, getting the basic facts of a story correct - especially the facts stated in the headline.

So I'm curious, did the reporter do their due diligence, and write the article in a way that is factually correct, but highly misleading? Or did they simply not follow basic reporting protocol?

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

#283

Post by dwpdwpdwpdwpdwp »

andy_xor_andrew wrote: post #270
dfox wrote: post #223

The article is somewhat sensationalistic. If you read the actual report you will find out that: The pilot was not part of the conference call! What froze was not hydraulic fluid for actuators (in some hydraulic line), but hydraulic fluid in the shock absorbers. The last paragraph of the article and seems to be missing a few words and reads as the investigators blaming the people directly involved, which is essentiall…

I read the article (twice) and I still have the impression the pilot was in fact the one in the conference call Opening line: > A US Air Force F-35 pilot spent 50 minutes on an airborne conference call with Lockheed Martin engineers trying to solve a problem with his fighter jet before he ejected Am I illiterate or misreading it? > After going through system checklists in an attempt to remedy the problem, the pilot g…

From the report:

> The MP initiated a conference call with Lockheed Martin engineers through the on-duty supervisor of flying (SOF)

"MP" is the pilot

> A conference hotel is a call that can be initiated by the SOF to speak directly with Lockheed Martin engineers to discuss an abnormality/malfunction not addressed in the PCL (Tab V-13.1, 14.1, 15.1, 16.1, 17.1). While waiting for the conference hotel to convene, the MP initiated a series of “sturns” with gravitational forces up to 2.5Gs, as well as a slip maneuver (i.e., left stick input with full right rudder pedal) to see if the nose wheel orientation would change (Tabs N-12, BB-201- 02). Upon visual inspection, the MW reported no change to the nose wheel (Tab N-13). The SOF informed the MP he was on the phone with the conference hotel and Lockheed Martin were getting the LG subject matter experts (SME)

So the pilot was, in effect, on the call, even if not directly on the phone. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing an F-35 pilot had radio comms with the SOF who was on a phone line. It's a layer of indirection, but the pilot was essentially exchanging info in real time with the conference call. Its not a stretch to colloquially say that the pilot was "in the conference call"

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

#284

Post by grues-dinner »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #273
dfox wrote: post #223

The article is somewhat sensationalistic. If you read the actual report you will find out that: The pilot was not part of the conference call! What froze was not hydraulic fluid for actuators (in some hydraulic line), but hydraulic fluid in the shock absorbers. The last paragraph of the article and seems to be missing a few words and reads as the investigators blaming the people directly involved, which is essentiall…

The last paragraph of the article and seems to be missing a few words Something, something, mote in your neighbor's eye, mumble, something...

Muphry's Law strikes again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law

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

#285

Post by LeifCarrotson »

ozim wrote: post #272
dfox wrote: post #223

The article is somewhat sensationalistic. If you read the actual report you will find out that: The pilot was not part of the conference call! What froze was not hydraulic fluid for actuators (in some hydraulic line), but hydraulic fluid in the shock absorbers. The last paragraph of the article and seems to be missing a few words and reads as the investigators blaming the people directly involved, which is essentiall…

Still interesting part is: them trying to fix the problem - made the plane crash. Of course it couldn’t land but still, tweaking stuff while flying was ultimately causing loss of control.

The report actually says it could have landed. A week later, another F35 at the same base had the same problem, it landed with its nose gear 6 degrees off center and the pilot barely noticed.

Basically, Lockheed Martin engineers told the air force to attempt re-centering with touch-and-go landings, but didn't realize that this could mess with the weight-on-wheels sensors and cause it to switch flight modes.

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

#286

Post by gregoriol »

airstrike wrote: post #77
yellow_lead wrote: post #43

> Five engineers participated in the call, including a senior software engineer, a flight safety engineer and three specialists in landing gear systems, the report said. I can't imagine the stress of being on this call as an engineer. It's like a production outage but the consequences are life and death. Of course, the pilot probably felt more stressed.

I don't think there was ever a risk of the plane crashing with the pilot still in the cockpit, despite the fact that the headline sort of leads people to that conclusion. The pilot could eject at any time. Still dangerous, but more of a debugging session to avoid other similar costly in the future than a Hollywood-like "if we don't solve this now the pilot dies"

The pilot could eject at mostly any time, not if the plane starts spinning uncontrollably though. Also, the plane can become very dangerous to what may be on the ground: if the pilot looses control and must eject it may not always be in a safe place to crash. Or even worse, the plane may continue to fly some distance and crash at a very different place than expected. So yeah, very stressful for everyone involved.

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

#287

Post by the__alchemist »

andy_xor_andrew wrote: post #282
the__alchemist wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't read the article; read the report.

Sure, of course I will trust the report as the source of truth. But I'm interested in the reporting. There are, you know, journalistic standards, which are considered kinda "journalism 101"! For instance, getting the basic facts of a story correct - especially the facts stated in the headline . So I'm curious, did the reporter do their due diligence, and write the article in a way that is factually correct, but highl…

The article is standard news stuff. It is sloppy and misleading. The report is what you want.

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

#288

Post by benhurmarcel »

stef25 wrote: post #115
yellow_lead wrote: post #43

> Five engineers participated in the call, including a senior software engineer, a flight safety engineer and three specialists in landing gear systems, the report said. I can't imagine the stress of being on this call as an engineer. It's like a production outage but the consequences are life and death. Of course, the pilot probably felt more stressed.

Fix this bug in 30 min or we loose a USD200M plane and possibly the pilot. I'll stick to building crud apps :D

Funny thing is that building CRUD apps pays more

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

#289

Post by RyanOD »

dfox wrote: post #223

The article is somewhat sensationalistic. If you read the actual report you will find out that: The pilot was not part of the conference call! What froze was not hydraulic fluid for actuators (in some hydraulic line), but hydraulic fluid in the shock absorbers. The last paragraph of the article and seems to be missing a few words and reads as the investigators blaming the people directly involved, which is essentiall…

And, of course, CNN only links to their own articles. Why bother linking to the actual report? The rise in sites that only link to themselves 99% of the time really frustrates me.

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

#290

Post by positron26 »

reactordev wrote: post #229
tsunamifury wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s interesting now that a side effect of LLMs is that people can say anything outside their experience is just a hallucination. I didn’t realize how the fear of hallucination could enable this level of belligerence.

I’m more worried about the young generation taking LLM as fact. Or thinking they are talking to an expert in the field. When an expert will say “Let’s find out!”. They weren’t taught to think, they were taught to ask. Taught that there’s only “one way” to live. “One way” to a good paying job. “One way” to go to college. When that’s a lie they tell you so that you conform, pay tuition, or pay restitution. There’s pilo…

Look, they said this about us using Google. Oh no. The Dewey Decibel System [sic]

And then twenty years later, I'm pretty convinced that the online siloing has worn us down. A lot of us. But the problems that came weren't what the reactionaries were going on about. It never is.

It's been ten years since my friend and I were saying as I was walking out the door, "This whole internet thing, let just.." "...yeah, let's turn it off." There was profound sense of optimism in the early internet. We saw it together, and we knew it hadn't worked out, that it was stabilizing onto a kind of bad trajectory.

I still don't think the optimism was wrong. I think we're in some kind of perverse equilibrium where there are dams exist that, if they did not, would lead to some wildly different world rushing in, like what if you came to realize one day that 9/11 and all its self-inflicted after-effects never happened levels of mass self-transformation.

Someone else brought up surveillance economy, and that's really relevant here and to what I'm doing. I think the ad-economy alone has a lot of perverse incentive that has basically destroyed journalism and the meaning of credibility for now. But the idea of the surveillance economy is right about how the pieces fit together like cursed legos. We have content that is addictive but not entertaining being used to serve us ads for things we don't need.

It's not just that we need to commercialize open source if it will ever reach mass market. We have to better monetize independent media for its goodness and coherence with reality or we're never going to have a shared set of facts in our social consciousness again.

Post reply on HN