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

A decision to eject from a failing F-35B fighter and the betrayal in its wake

postandcourier.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 213 posts

Re: A decision to eject from a failing F-35B fighter and the betrayal in its wake

#31

Post by ralph84 »

spoonjim wrote: post #14

It's not a bad practice to automatically dismiss any pilot who ejects from a plane (other than test pilots) except in cases which are wholly obvious equipment failures. It will ensure that for these planes which cost hundreds of millions of dollars, the pilot doesn't eject unless, yes, they really fucking need to eject. Will this mean you accidentally fire some great pilots? Yes. But given the cost of these airplanes…

The cost of the pilot will always be less than the cost of the plane. So why provide the capability to eject in the first place? Presumably you get better pilots when they know a problem with the plane doesn’t mean death for them or their career.

Re: A decision to eject from a failing F-35B fighter and the betrayal in its wake

#32

Post by bradgranath »

spoonjim wrote: post #14

It's not a bad practice to automatically dismiss any pilot who ejects from a plane (other than test pilots) except in cases which are wholly obvious equipment failures. It will ensure that for these planes which cost hundreds of millions of dollars, the pilot doesn't eject unless, yes, they really fucking need to eject. Will this mean you accidentally fire some great pilots? Yes. But given the cost of these airplanes…

It is absolutely bad practice to throw away a $25 million investment because of a single mistake (that was not a mistake in this case).

Don't throw good money after bad.

Re: A decision to eject from a failing F-35B fighter and the betrayal in its wake

#33

Post by tass »

spoonjim wrote: post #14

It's not a bad practice to automatically dismiss any pilot who ejects from a plane (other than test pilots) except in cases which are wholly obvious equipment failures. It will ensure that for these planes which cost hundreds of millions of dollars, the pilot doesn't eject unless, yes, they really fucking need to eject. Will this mean you accidentally fire some great pilots? Yes. But given the cost of these airplanes…

Eject and lose your career means more pilots will crash.

It’s similar to why search and rescue don’t bill you after they’re called - they don’t want to add a reason to hesitate and make your problems worse.

Re: A decision to eject from a failing F-35B fighter and the betrayal in its wake

#34

Post by daemoens »

pjmlp wrote: post #16
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My feeling is that the F-35 is "too big to fail" Allies cancelling orders may force Washington’s hand: the cost of additional jets, parts, et cerera skyrocket if spread over fewer planes.

That is only happening thanks to the way US view on the world has changed, and the remote kill switch used against Ukrainian jets. US has killed the allies trust. Had these two events not happened, and most likely sales would not have been cancelled regardless of the F-35 issues.

No such kill switch exists, the US stopped providing electronic warfare intelligence that made the jets more survivable. The stoppage of all military aid was significantly more damaging.

Re: A decision to eject from a failing F-35B fighter and the betrayal in its wake

#35

Post by bradgranath »

condensedcrab wrote: post #26
spoonjim wrote: post #14

It's not a bad practice to automatically dismiss any pilot who ejects from a plane (other than test pilots) except in cases which are wholly obvious equipment failures. It will ensure that for these planes which cost hundreds of millions of dollars, the pilot doesn't eject unless, yes, they really fucking need to eject. Will this mean you accidentally fire some great pilots? Yes. But given the cost of these airplanes…

I think you’ll find that the cost to train pilots is also substantial. Mostly pilots have 100-1000s of hours to be “combat ready” at many $1000s/flight hr. Google says around $10M for F-35 pilot. Better to follow protocol and eject. The link is a story where a good pilot followed protocol but still got screwed over.

10m for new pilot. This guy was a full bird instructor with 1000s of hours. Probably closer to 30 or 50 million.

Re: A decision to eject from a failing F-35B fighter and the betrayal in its wake

#36

Post by russdill »

maxglute wrote: post #29
kelnos wrote: post #19

This was discussed four months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42098475 From my memory at the time, I was initially fully on the side of the pilot, but after reading through the discussion, I wasn't really sure anymore. He didn't try to see if his flight controls (pitch, yaw, roll) were still responding, he didn't make use of the backup instruments, he didn't try the backup radio, and he had enough fuel to…

IIRC he had no visibility so he couldn't test controls with eyeballs, can only assume out-of-control-flight scenario. Backup instruments said he was below 6000ft above ground level, aka trust instrument = potential for single digit seconds from hitting ground, and supposedly the F35 manual states ejection is the only option under those conditions.

The recent video of the air ambulance impacting the ground is really "instructive" here. There are good indications that they believed they were in level flight either because of some instrument failure or lack of attention.

Re: A decision to eject from a failing F-35B fighter and the betrayal in its wake

#37

Post by unsnap_biceps »

kelnos wrote: post #19

This was discussed four months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42098475 From my memory at the time, I was initially fully on the side of the pilot, but after reading through the discussion, I wasn't really sure anymore. He didn't try to see if his flight controls (pitch, yaw, roll) were still responding, he didn't make use of the backup instruments, he didn't try the backup radio, and he had enough fuel to…

> He didn't try to see if his flight controls (pitch, yaw, roll) were still responding, he didn't make use of the backup instruments, he didn't try the backup radio, and he had enough fuel to land elsewhere. The letter of the procedures may have said that he was in an out-of-control flight condition, but the procedures were too vague, and he should have had the experience to second-guess them and ascertain if his plane was actually out of control.

If the article is correct, the issue started when he was 750 feet above the ground depending at 800 feet per minute. He decided to eject approximately 30 seconds layer, at an approximate above ground height of 350 feet. Presuming he decided to continue troubleshooting, he was going to impact the ground in 25 seconds, and the ejection seat does take a few seconds for the pilot to clear the fuselage (and any explosions at impact).

This is a tragic situation to be in. He was under an immense time pressure to make a decision and from his understanding, the plane was out-of-control. He also doesn't know for sure if his rate of decent has accelerated, so he might have been dozens of feet above the ground.

I understand the armchair flying with perfect understanding and time to think it through means that he should have tried more stuff, but in the seat? I would have ejected. I think the majority of folks would have.

Re: A decision to eject from a failing F-35B fighter and the betrayal in its wake

#38

Post by kelnos »

tass wrote: post #33
spoonjim wrote: post #14

It's not a bad practice to automatically dismiss any pilot who ejects from a plane (other than test pilots) except in cases which are wholly obvious equipment failures. It will ensure that for these planes which cost hundreds of millions of dollars, the pilot doesn't eject unless, yes, they really fucking need to eject. Will this mean you accidentally fire some great pilots? Yes. But given the cost of these airplanes…

Eject and lose your career means more pilots will crash. It’s similar to why search and rescue don’t bill you after they’re called - they don’t want to add a reason to hesitate and make your problems worse.

> Eject and lose your career means more pilots will crash.

Maybe, maybe not. But I do expect that if another pilot finds himself in Del Pizzo's situation, they're going to do a more thorough survey of the plane's capabilities before ejecting. Maybe that's the outcome the Marines is looking for, even if it puts their pilots at risk more often.

Re: A decision to eject from a failing F-35B fighter and the betrayal in its wake

#40

Post by bradgranath »

russellbeattie wrote: post #12

Seems like there was already a thread about this. But after reading the article, my one takeaway is this: Pilots can decide in less than a minute to bail out of a fighter jet aimed at who knows what and that's OK?? I don't expect every pilot to go down with their plane, but holy crap. That plane could have taken out half a street of houses. I'm not sure how one pilot's life is worth more than potentially dozens of in…

It's much, much less than a minute. Usually less than ten seconds.

Planes most commonly crash during takeoff and landing (why they turn on the seatbelt sign below 10000ft).

The FAA tries to make sure that approach lanes are mostly clear, but they can't plan for every scenario.

In this case the pilot knew that last time he checked, he was less than a thousand feet off the ground and descending in a plane that was out of his control with no comms (if you want to blame someone, how bout Lockheed?).

He's suppose to spend the next five seconds doing... what exactly?

This was as textbook a reaction as they could have asked for.

Post reply on HN