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

321–330 of 508 posts

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

#321

Post by m4rtink »

lupusreal wrote: post #305
the5avage wrote: post #251

> The investigation report said the F-35′s transponder failed as a result of the electrical malfunction So there is serious electrical malfunction and the pilot loses communication and also some of his displays multiple times. In hindsight we know it wasn't that serious and the plane could have kept flying. But how can the pilot figure that out, while flying the aircraft? One needs to evaluate decisions based on the…

If a ship's captain is asleep, as he logically must be some of the time, and the officers on watch crash the ship into a reef, that captain's career is over even though by normal civilian standards it might be surmised that he did nothing wrong. Even if he's got the receipts to prove he trained his men properly according to the book and they passed all their tests. Civilian intuition about blame doesn't really apply.

Oh, so you need people who are lucky ?

And no need to worry about loosing talented people due to circumstances outside of their control (and preventing other from even consideringto join) - they attract bad luck and that is more dangerous in the long term!

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

#322

Post by close04 »

cwillu wrote: post #310
petre wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He did the right thing. He's alive and well, fired from his command instead of deceased like the other servicemen in the OV-22 and FA-18D.

“Better to die than to look bad” is one of the more toxic sayings associated with military aviation.

Nothing in the incident report suggests the pilot's life was at any point in imminent danger, with the backup instruments functioning, and the plane being flyable.

He "technically" did well to eject only because the manual was too vague. But at the very least "I could have done more but technically didn't have to" is not what you're looking for in a squadron commander. Which is why he's still allowed to fly (he follows the manual) but not trusted with more than that (because those extras are not in the manual).

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

#323

Post by tzs »

lenkite wrote: post #213
tzs wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Planes were cheaper then. I wonder if the higher costs of today's planes results in any pressure to try to save planes that in your dad's day would have been considered not worth the risk? An F-86 ranged from $180-$580k in 1950 dollars, depending on the model. That's around $2.4-7.8 million now. That's quite a bit lower than the statistical value of human life that is currently used by the government for regulatory a…

Out of curiosity, is there a source for the "statistical value of human life" at $13.1 million ?

“HHS Standard Values for Regulatory Analysis, 2024” [1]

[1] https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cd2a1348e...

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

#325

Post by Vecr »

GaryNumanVevo wrote: post #264
petre wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He did the right thing. He's alive and well, fired from his command instead of deceased like the other servicemen in the OV-22 and FA-18D.

The jet was fine, it kept flying for 64 miles. He probably ejected because there had been a recent osprey crash with causalities and he was scared.

The map is not the territory. Unless you can convincingly explain how your map would have been better in the situation, and together with his apparent dislike of dying would still have had you stick with the aircraft, he shouldn't be blamed.

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

#326

Post by vladms »

m4rtink wrote: post #321
lupusreal wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a ship's captain is asleep, as he logically must be some of the time, and the officers on watch crash the ship into a reef, that captain's career is over even though by normal civilian standards it might be surmised that he did nothing wrong. Even if he's got the receipts to prove he trained his men properly according to the book and they passed all their tests. Civilian intuition about blame doesn't really apply.

Oh, so you need people who are lucky ? And no need to worry about loosing talented people due to circumstances outside of their control (and preventing other from even consideringto join) - they attract bad luck and that is more dangerous in the long term!

There are some situations where you try to reduce type II errors (false negative) even if you increase type I errors (false positive).

The hypothesis is "the captain was to blame". If this is true but you reject it (type I error) you will probably loose another ship. If this is false but you reject it (type II error) you need to find another qualified captain (which, depending on the field might or might not be a problem).

My guess is that there are more pilots/captains trained that planes/ships.

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

#327

Post by red_admiral »

bigfatkitten wrote: post #68
michaelt wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> We probably want to find the pilot, after all. You don't want the enemy to find the pilot. That's why pilots carry these, which they can use when it's operationally safe for them to do so. https://gdmissionsystems.com/products/communications/radios/...

> Web browser administration

Should I be worried?

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

#328

Post by InDubioProRubio »

Hilift wrote: post #295
acyou wrote: post #228

If you're familiar with USA military history, the Americans are (were) famous for not doing things by the book for the right reasons, and letting common sense prevail, as well as incentivizing good outcomes. “A serious problem in planning against American doctrine is that the Americans do not read their manuals, nor do they feel any obligation to follow their doctrine.” “The reason that the American Navy does so well…

That quote was Russian observations on their securing valuable technical information, but lamenting on their inability to overcome their capability gap through spying due to changes in tactics of their "main adversary". In WW2, a major factor for the US Naval success in the Pacific was a change in attack doctrine. Aircraft would attack relentlessly from multiple directions, overwhelming the Japanese defenses. In the…

[flagged]

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

#329

Post by bjornsing »

the5avage wrote: post #251

> The investigation report said the F-35′s transponder failed as a result of the electrical malfunction So there is serious electrical malfunction and the pilot loses communication and also some of his displays multiple times. In hindsight we know it wasn't that serious and the plane could have kept flying. But how can the pilot figure that out, while flying the aircraft? One needs to evaluate decisions based on the…

> One needs to evaluate decisions based on the information available at the time the decision was made.

Sure. He was at 1900 feet and in a climb when he ejected. I can understand it’s nerve wrecking to trust your backup instruments in this situation, but it’s not like ejecting is a completely safe zero risk option either. That jet could have come down anywhere.

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

#330

Post by shadowgovt »

stavros wrote: post #277
adastra22 wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But how can the pilot figure that out, while flying the aircraft? Looking out the window.

So you're in a thing going close to the speed of sound, the thing starts malfunctioning, you look out the window, think "ahh the weather is nice, therefore the machine will probably not kill me" and keep flying? How does that thought process go?

You more or less described standard operating procedure for operating a malfunctioning aircraft. That's why training starts with the eyes of the pilot and instrument-only flying comes later.

(And if you're going the speed of sound on a landing approach, something has already gone way off the rails).

Post reply on HN