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

331–340 of 440 posts

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

#331

Post by jasonlotito »

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…

From the Report:

> The MP initiated a conference call with Lockheed Martin engineers through the on-duty supervisor of flying (SOF). The MA held for approximately 50 minutes while the team developed a plan of action.

Seems accurate to what CNN was reporting. It's simplified a bit, but it's not misleading to me.

I mean, I guess if you want to nit pick and suggest "No the pilot wasn't literally on a phone and there was an intermediary in between" or some such, but the report makes it seem like CNN is accurate.

https://www.pacaf.af.mil/Portals/6/documents/3_AIB%20Report....

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

#332

Post by jasonlotito »

eduction wrote: post #304
VerminOctopus1 wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m guessing you also didn’t read the report given that he was indeed on the conference call.

One clear indication he was not, from PDF p14 (8 as numbered) ("MP"="mishap pilot"): "At 21:12:52Z, the SOF informed the MP, “Alright the engineers uh are not optimistic about this COA but, extremely low PK [probability kill, meaning the probability this would fix the issue], but we’re going to try anyway is a touch-and-go on the runway, mains only, do not touch the nose gear, uh lift back off in all cases and have t…

From the Report:

> The MP initiated a conference call with Lockheed Martin engineers through the on-duty supervisor of flying (SOF). The MA held for approximately 50 minutes while the team developed a plan of action.

"though the SOF" implies a middle-man, but I imagine that's because you don't want literally hook up a conference call directly to the cockpit. That being said, seems like the pilot was effectively on the conference call.

Unless you want to suggest I don't trust the report?

https://www.pacaf.af.mil/Portals/6/documents/3_AIB%20Report....

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

#333

Post by jasonlotito »

avs733 wrote: post #305
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…

To clarify because everyone is confused here. The report is a little vague and information is buried in a couple places. Using PDF page numbers > "The MP responded “14.5” ... and then opined a “conference hotel” was appropriate for this situation (Tab N-12)." (pg. 13) > "The MP, utilizing the on-duty supervisor of flying (SOF) in the air traffic control (ATC) tower, initiated a conference call with Lockheed Martin (L…

> If you want to harp on CNN for accuracy, I'm sure there are plenty of opportunities but this feels pedantic. It is like saying 'the astronauts weren't talking to mission control, they were talking to the capcom. Only the capcom talked to mission control'.

Um, actually, they were talking to a mic. And the mic converted the noise... /s

But yeah, excellent comment here.

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

#334

Post by quest88 »

reactordev wrote: post #313
quest88 wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How’s Phil going to see someone’s arm at night? Just to clarify to unfamiliar readers: class deltas exist with ground and tower, and after hours pilot controlled lighting. Untowered class echoes are everywhere, with pilot controlled lighting. Yes, many untowered airports have pilot controlled lighting via ctaf, as stated in the airport facilities directory. This is very common at class E airports. For example, look a…

Now you got it. That is indeed my argument. You definitely should call Phil before you land at his place. You can also call him while you’re at 10DME. Phil likes to walk the dogs and isn’t always by his radio. But to dismiss basic VFR to say “That’s not in the manual!” “Sounds like LLM nonsense” and say Phil can’t see your arm waving from a Piper is ridiculous.

I'm a 98% VFR pilot. I've not once said "That's not in the manual!". Is it ridiculous to think that Phil cannot see a small arm hundreds of feet in the air, at night, in an environment so dark a pilot needs the strip lit up? What type of wave does the pilot need to do to indicate "Can I land?" versus "Hi Phil"? Can Phil distinguish the two at night? At day? At night, a pilot that doesn't know Phil's land won't be flying low enough to see an arm due to hidden obstacles (wires, towers, etc).

Your points are all over the place here, and I have to conclude you don't have any experience in this topic, and you've invented some contrived example that won't happen in practice.

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

#335

Post by esseph »

mulmen wrote: post #311
the__alchemist wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To the uninitiated: SOF is Supervisor of Flying.

Thanks!

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

#336

Post by emchammer »

datameta wrote: post #271
Daneel_ wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had no issue. Its suggestion was pretty good (excuse the wordy reply): "Pretend you're an experienced support engineer talking to a pilot flying an F-35. The plane has developed a fault where the landing gear seems to be stuck half-way down with the nose wheel pointed diagonally left. Aattempts to raise or lower the landing gear do not result in any motion. a single touch-and-go has been performed with no change in…

I'll be honest I couldn't bring myself to read the whole thing, but it leads me to hoping we never entrust vibe-coders to work on mission-critical systems...

Therac-25 is also on the front page right now. I like to reread the reports about that every few years, especially the human effects. Maybe we need formally-verified methods to be more accessible.

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

#337

Post by jjk166 »

RyanOD wrote: post #303
MostlyStable wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Journalism's failure to adopt linking to sources etc in the internet age is kind of infuriating. I get it, back in physical newspaper/magazine days, linking wasn't possible, and it takes a while for new norms to change and habits to form, but articles have been internet-first for well over a decade at this point. It should be completely unacceptable not to have linking to sources whenever relevant. I'm not sure I hav…

Sites with no external linking are like highways with no exits.

Backed up, slow, and avoided by those familiar with the area?

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

#338

Post by zrail »

bedane wrote: post #26
zrail wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ultimately the US taxpayers will eat the loss in either case. If the government tried to charge it back to Lockheed Martin they'd just raise the price on subsequent programs to compensate. The government does insure weapons of war. Who would write the policy?

is insurance for military equipment a thing? I had no idea. If you have very deep pockets like a nation has, why not simply replace the lost hardware and never insure/pay premiums(which would be calculated to net a profit to the insurer)?

ugh I meant "does _not_" that's what I get for posting while eating breakfast.

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

#339

Post by zrail »

zrail wrote: post #19
MaxPock wrote: post #6

Who eats the loss under such circumstances? Government or Lockheed Martin or are these 200 million dollar jets insured ?

Ultimately the US taxpayers will eat the loss in either case. If the government tried to charge it back to Lockheed Martin they'd just raise the price on subsequent programs to compensate. The government does insure weapons of war. Who would write the policy?

late edit: "does _not_ insure weapons of war"

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

#340

Post by reactordev »

quest88 wrote: post #334
reactordev wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now you got it. That is indeed my argument. You definitely should call Phil before you land at his place. You can also call him while you’re at 10DME. Phil likes to walk the dogs and isn’t always by his radio. But to dismiss basic VFR to say “That’s not in the manual!” “Sounds like LLM nonsense” and say Phil can’t see your arm waving from a Piper is ridiculous.

I'm a 98% VFR pilot. I've not once said "That's not in the manual!". Is it ridiculous to think that Phil cannot see a small arm hundreds of feet in the air, at night, in an environment so dark a pilot needs the strip lit up? What type of wave does the pilot need to do to indicate "Can I land?" versus "Hi Phil"? Can Phil distinguish the two at night? At day? At night, a pilot that doesn't know Phil's land won't be fly…

My points are not additive which you seem to assume. There are many ways to contact a strip.

Obviously you can’t wave your arm at night to get someone’s attention. You’re picking arguments against common sense and straw manning them into something I didn’t proclaim.

On a bright sunny day, when I’m in my cub, I often wave. Sometimes I get a wave back to bring her down. To argue that, because you’re some commercial pilot or something with 98% VFR flights, you’ve never been directed by arm signal? Where did you learn to fly?

I stated that in some fields, you may be able to wave your arm and that would be enough. You may use your radio to control the PCL. You may use your radio to tell Fred to turn the lights on. You may call Phil to do the same. You might even phone his telephony system he rigged and press #5 to turn the lights on.

Waving your arms at night will get you no where. Try paramotoring at dusk and see how well your glass cockpit training does then.

Post reply on HN