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

Marine pilot loses command after ejecting from F-35B that kept flying

marinecorpstimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 508 posts

Re: Marine pilot loses command after ejecting from F-35B that kept flying

#31

Post by Syonyk »

Havoc wrote: post #5

Yeah I mean bailing on a plane that keeps going for 10+ more minutes was never going to be a good look

The problem here is that when you make the call to get out, you don't know that.

There's no shortage of "planes that can no longer maintain flight" according to all sorts of standards continuing to do so - a few that come to mind were a B-36 that had several engines fail and several others unable to make full rated power, was unable to hold altitude, and so the crew bailed out. The plane somehow managed another 200 miles before crashing.

There was that F-15 that lost a wing from a midair collision, and the pilot landed safely - because neither the pilot nor the instructor could tell exactly what was missing, and the escaping fuel vapor hid the extent of the damage from other planes in the flight. After landing with one wing, even the manufacturer didn't believe that the plane could fly in that condition.

You have to make what is, often, a split second decision based on incomplete information, and after the Air Force lost a wave of pilots trying to save aircraft that could not be saved, the training switched around to "When in doubt, eject."

Anyway, it's pretty easy to quarterback it from after the fact, but a highly trained pilot decided, based on everything he knew, that the plane couldn't be saved, ejected, and survived. Yes, there are consequences to that action, but if he stayed with it and was wrong, there would be far more terminal consequences.

Re: Marine pilot loses command after ejecting from F-35B that kept flying

#32

Post by michaelt »

talldayo wrote: post #3

> “How in the hell do you lose an F-35?” Mace posted on X, formerly known as Twitter. “How is there not a tracking device and we’re asking the public to what, find a jet and turn it in?” This sounds like a potent critique of 5th generation fighters but it's quite not. The F-35 is meant to be lost - it can't even use standard Link 16 because it reveals too much of it's presence to enemy fighters. The idea of it lackin…

I mean, stealth is all very well when nobody's ejected. But shouldn't an ejection trigger some sort of beacon? We probably want to find the pilot, after all.

You'd think the military's budget could stretch to a $300 Garmin InReach.

Re: Marine pilot loses command after ejecting from F-35B that kept flying

#34

Post by Syonyk »

jasonlotito wrote: post #23
defrost wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not in hindsight, no. What sucks for the pilot is he followed procedure and at the time had no way of knowing whether the craft would remain stable or totally brick and spiral any second (rendering a procedural ejection even more dangerous).

> VMX-1 is in charge of assessing the Corps’ aircraft and helping develop and refine tactics, techniques and procedures to fly them in combat successfully. > What sucks for the pilot is he followed procedure He was the commander. He defines those procedures.

In other words, he was a rather experienced pilot in that airframe and knew it better than most pilots should.

And still decided that the successful outcome of the flight was in doubt based on the condition of the airframe and systems failures, in the middle of the situation. He survived. Working as intended, as far as I'm concerned.

Re: Marine pilot loses command after ejecting from F-35B that kept flying

#36

Post by jonas21 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #17
synapsomorphy wrote: post #7

The report criticizes the pilot for ejecting, but also says he did everything by the book (F35 manual), but the book was wrong. And the pilot should've figured that out? Feels like they just need someone to blame for losing the plane.

He was, and was fired from his role as, commander of Marine Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron 1 (VMX-1), which exists largely to validate and update “the book” for the rest of Corps. So, if there is any position where simply “following the book” isn’t adequate to keep one’s job, it kind of makes sense that his was that position.

Also note that he wasn't fired specifically due to ejecting -- he was fired "for loss of trust and confidence in his ability to execute the responsibilities of his command." And the investigation was completed back in January, so before he assumed command of the squadron.

It wouldn't surprise me if the test pilots serving under him did not respect or trust his judgement, and this is what led to his firing rather than some top-down directive.

Re: Marine pilot loses command after ejecting from F-35B that kept flying

#37

Post by margalabargala »

krunck wrote: post #16

The pilot had a justifiable lack of faith in the aircraft and didn't care to be the next pilot victim.

For those downvoting you, the "justifiable lack of faith" here, above and beyond what was enumerated in the article, is that at the time this happened there had been two fatal F35 malfunctions/crashes in the preceding six weeks. I don't blame the pilot for not wanting to become another statistic.

Re: Marine pilot loses command after ejecting from F-35B that kept flying

#38

Post by Syonyk »

wbl wrote: post #15
Havoc wrote: post #5

Yeah I mean bailing on a plane that keeps going for 10+ more minutes was never going to be a good look

Flat spins can get resolved by the CG adjustment from ejection: the famous cornfield bomber.

It's far more likely to have been the "equal and opposite" reaction to the ejection seat departing shoving the nose down that solved the spin. Shifting the CG aft won't improve your chances of departing from a flat spin. Various airframe designs have corner cases that they can't escape normally - delta wings are a bit prone to a flat spin, and you can get a T-tailed configuration into a "deep stall" where the disrupted airflow from the wings is blanketing the tail such that you cannot get the nose down with aerodynamic controls. The correct action is to avoid entering such conditions.

A rocket blasting off from the nose, meanwhile, is not subject to the same constraints, and will force the nose down enough that the plane can obviously, in at least a few conditions, recover controlled flight.

Re: Marine pilot loses command after ejecting from F-35B that kept flying

#39

Post by serf »

jonas21 wrote: post #36
dragonwriter wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was, and was fired from his role as, commander of Marine Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron 1 (VMX-1), which exists largely to validate and update “the book” for the rest of Corps. So, if there is any position where simply “following the book” isn’t adequate to keep one’s job, it kind of makes sense that his was that position.

Also note that he wasn't fired specifically due to ejecting -- he was fired "for loss of trust and confidence in his ability to execute the responsibilities of his command." And the investigation was completed back in January, so before he assumed command of the squadron. It wouldn't surprise me if the test pilots serving under him did not respect or trust his judgement, and this is what led to his firing rather than…

that's the same boiler-plate reason they give for every firing due to an embarrassing mishap.

google 'for loss of trust and confidence in his ability military' and look at the news tab, every embarrassment to a military group gets thrown that bone.

Re: Marine pilot loses command after ejecting from F-35B that kept flying

#40

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

Manuel_D wrote: post #18
synapsomorphy wrote: post #7

The report criticizes the pilot for ejecting, but also says he did everything by the book (F35 manual), but the book was wrong. And the pilot should've figured that out? Feels like they just need someone to blame for losing the plane.

> Del Pizzo’s F-35B malfunctioned and its primary displays and communications cut out as Del Pizzo was attempting to land through rain at Joint Base Charleston, South Carolina. However, the report said its standby flight display and backup communication system “remained basically functional.” > The report said Del Pizzo followed the F-35B manual’s recommendations for ejecting from an out-of-control jet but also criti…

The problem seems to be a pilot from AZ unaccustomed to flying in heavy rain with insufficient practice using the backup instruments.
Post reply on HN