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

331–340 of 508 posts

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

#331

Post by batushka5 »

lumost wrote: post #14
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.

Fighter pilots are extremely highly trained individuals. While data is scarce for the exact dollar cost - an F-22 pilot costs roughly 11 Million USD to train, pilots are expected to use judgement and be capable of dealing with high pressure/ambiguous outcomes.

The fact that he chickened out of flyable F35 is floating in the air. I don't imagine how he could continue to work with such baggage in the eyes of colleagues. Retiring is sad, but the better option.

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

#332

Post by the5avage »

close04 wrote: post #317
adastra22 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pilots are trained to fly without instruments. Even in inclement weather conditions.

> the report said its standby flight display and backup communication system “remained basically functional.” Just to be clear, the pilot had the backup instruments available and functional, and the plane could be substantially controlled (i.e. could be pointed in the pilot's desired direction). People are using feelings rather than facts to judge this pilot. So they do it differently then they would for example a po…

He didn't kill someone. He bailed out of a malfunctioning plane with little time to decide.

If his plane went towards the ground with mach 1 at 1900 feet impact would occur in 1.5 seconds.

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

#333

Post by potato3732842 »

bjornsing wrote: post #329
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.

1900ft in a climb is a lot better than 1900ft at idle coming in to land.

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

#334

Post by burnt-resistor »

Stevvo wrote: post #4

Several light aircraft can land autonomously at the closest safe airport. Would be useful for fighter jets, where there is a much higher risk of pilot incapacitation.

Bullshit. If you lose the engine at low altitude on climb out, there is no hope of banking much less returning. At that point, it's all about looking for a straight road or level field without power lines +- 30 to 45 degrees of runway heading. For other light aircraft that get themselves into unrecoverable situations like deep stalls where there is sufficient energy, Cirrus SR series have parachutes (CAPS) that reduce the horizontal vector to almost 0 and the vertical component to about 17 mph / 25 ft/s / 7.6 m/s. CAPS isn't deployable < 500' AGL, so if the terrain is unforgiving on a failure on takeoff, there's no safe recovery option except a rough "landing".

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

#335

Post by potato3732842 »

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!

I hate this sort of "everything that requires subjective judgement is luck" trope that is pervasive on HN and similar parts of the internet.

The line between luck and skill is blurry. The captain's job is to avoid the preconditions for failure. Maybe that means a different route, maybe that means scheduling such that you're awake for the sketchy stuff. Yes, all of this is subjective and has tradeoffs, that's why it's skilled work people take years to develop the skills for.

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

#336

Post by whizzter »

rightbyte wrote: post #255
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…

These sort of quotes are cute but not really usefull. Probably counterproductive. There is 0 people in the US Navy that did service in the 2WW. There has been multiple generations. There is no way there is that much of institutional inertia, if the quote was correct at the time. Punnishing failure disincentives a lot of things. It has drawbacks.

It fits perfectly if you look at it from a "balls" standpoint, this pilot ejected for whatever by-the-book reason when his electronics were bad and yet the airplane continued for 11 minutes just on autopilot.

How would you expect a pilot that gives up so "easily" to lead other men into a high risk-high reward operation when he gives up himself so easily?

Yes, maybe he was at low altitude during the descent and found himself feeling in peril but the optics sure doesn't look good when it went on for 11 minutes.

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

#338

Post by ceejayoz »

GolfPopper wrote: post #227
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> its not like flying planes is a new phenomenom. Why were the procedures still bad after all this time? It’s a new plane! Also, a pilot blaming procedure for a bad call is ass covering. That’s not appropriate for a mission critical role.

>It’s a new plane! The F-35B has been operational with the US Marie Corps since June 2015.

Which makes it a new plane, considering the same organization flies planes from the 1950s too.

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

#339

Post by conradfr »

close04 wrote: post #322
cwillu wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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 follo…

Maybe this pilot did not have the upmost faith in this aircraft.

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

#340

Post by Prbeek »

cdot2 wrote: post #304
victorbjorklund wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US pilots havent really been engaged in a war against a peer since ww2. It might be true. But we probably shouldnt extrapolate from bombing terrorists in the desert to actually fighting against say China.

The US air force fought significant enemy air forces in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and in the Balkans. Their doctrine has not remained untested since 1945.

Take Vietnam for instance where the Soviets supplied the Vietcongs with AD systems and at times manned them The Americans lost over 10,000 aircrafts over a 10 year period which is an average of 3 per day.

The US airforce cannot survive the attrition rate that a war with Russia or China would bring.

Post reply on HN