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

391–400 of 508 posts

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

#391

Post by aleph_minus_one »

bumby wrote: post #384
aleph_minus_one wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? If you use an ejection seat, there is also a given high pro…

> I strongly prefer hyperrational risk calculators My problem with this take is that humans are very poor risk estimators, and it gets worse as the probability of risk gets lower. I'm willing to bet that even if he made the "right" decision to stay with the craft, he wouldn't have been able to accurately calculate the risk in an after-action-report, even with the benefit of lower stress and an abundance of time.

> My problem with this take is that humans are very poor risk estimators

Indeed few people have this rare capability, that's why I explicitly named them this way ("hyperrational risk calculators").

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

#392

Post by nradov »

dotancohen wrote: post #283
nradov wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. As long as it has electrical power and the flight controls are working it can remain stable and glide even with a complete engine failure. Of course the glide ratio is fairly low but it's totally possible for a skilled pilot to make a dead stick landing provided there's a suitable site nearby with acceptable weather conditions.

He was transitioning the aircraft from mode 4 (STOL) to mode 1 (normal flight) when he made the decision to bail. The wings were not generating lift - without computer control the aircraft could have rolled severely. Pilots eject when the wings are level. If he was facing the possibility of severe uncontrolled roll (or believed he was) then ejecting now before the roll was a good call. At least so far as his wife and…

The wings were generating lift and not stalled. Changing the flight control mode doesn't imply that the aircraft was in vertical flight.

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

#393

Post by wbl »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #159
throwaway2037 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Woah, I could not believe this post, until I looked it up. Wiki says: > That is 150M USD per plane. However, this might include maintenance costs, which would make it different from most F35 purchases that I have seen. Does anyone know any more specific details? Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen

The wikipedia page lists 9 digit flyaway costs for other Gripen versions, so even if it includes some support, the bulk of the price is the jet. Edit: 5th generation jets are just incredibly expensive. I can't imagine how mad Turkey was when the US bilked them for their F35s, keeping both the jets and the billions Turkey paid.

Shouldn't have planned to let Russia see the radar returns then.

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

#394

Post by maronato »

konschubert wrote: post #298
Timshel wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And as a bit of context it's mentionned at the end that: >It was the Marines’ third aviation crash in six weeks, following the August crash of an F/A-18D Hornet in southern California, which killed its pilot, and an MV-22 Osprey crash in Australia that killed three Marines.

But I don’t think THIS dude flew all these planes?

No, but 3 crashes in 6 weeks looks bad, and he was the only one that survived. That makes him a prime candidate for under-the-bus throwing by leadership.

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

#395

Post by chipdart »

bluGill wrote: post #390
chipdart wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (...) and they keep winning That's the textbook definition of survivorship bias. It's like a lottery winner boasting about his winning strategy that everyone else is just not able to learn.

At what point do we conclude the lottery isn't as random as they claim if one person keeps winning. Statistically someone will win, there are good odds someone will win twice, but the odds of anyone winning 3 times is almost zero.

> At what point do we conclude the lottery isn't as random as they claim if one person keeps winning.

The whole thing about survivorship bias is that you make a critical failure in analysis when confusing partial observations of post-facto results with causality.

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

#396

Post by ikekkdcjkfke »

SonicScrub wrote: post #359
adrr wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or that F-35 failed its goals. Double the price. 50% more expensive than estimated operational cost. Its 3x the price to operate than a F16. Planes are obsolete technologies, should have invested in drones/loitering munitions. In 10 years, its all going to be drones.

> Planes are obsolete technologies, should have invested in drones/loitering munitions. In 10 years, its all going to be drones. This is speculation on what the future will be, not our current reality. In the War in Ukraine, reliance on cheap drones has more to do neither sides ability to achieve air superiority due to AA systems. Introduce stealth and/or effective SEAD tactics (suppression of enemy air defense) into…

What is the use case for a manned missile taxi anyway?

Does it have the agency to fire at will or does it need to confirm all attacks?

Edit: i guess in high EW environments where you need fast delivery

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

#397

Post by ChicagoBoy11 »

It all makes sense, but it must have a chilling effect on any military aviator reading this who finds themselves in a position to consider doing the same.Z

Cirrus flight instruction uses the military statistic that historically military aviators have had a really strong negative bias to ejection during training compared to in combat. Part of the rationale was that of course ejecting during combat is easy to save face, whereas in training far more pilots would try to save a rapidly eroding flight. The lesson for Cirrus pilots was that CAPS is there to save your life, and this attitude of "but I can make it" really is just a strong predictor for killing yourself in an otherwise saveable situation.

Here, it is acknowledged he followed the procedures, but there's an implication that he could have reasoned his way into realizing it wasn't as serious as he thought. Well, to acknowledge he "did everything right," but it wasn't right enough, and therefore negatively impact his career, doesn't bode well for other pilots who'll find themselves in his situation. Of course the one asterisk is to all of this is if you fundamentally believe that at this particular job all this reasoning should inherently not apply.

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

#398

Post by ok_dad »

rob74 wrote: post #247
bawolff wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree, penalising people for making mistakes where procedures are bad tends to cover up root causes and causes more problems in the long term. After all, its not like flying planes is a new phenomenom. Why were the procedures still bad after all this time?

The procedures were not bad, they were ambiguous: I think most pilots understand what “unresponsive to the pilot’s commands“ means (that they should check if the plane responds to basic controls like pitch, roll and yaw before ejecting), but it leaves room to wiggle out of your responsibility by saying that you misunderstood this statement. And if someone is willing to do that, you might conclude that he is not a goo…

Lots of armchair admirals in here, but as a former naval officer your answer is the correct one. The pilot should have tried the flight controls, if I had abandoned ship because my displays turned off but we could still control the helm, I’d be drummed out too.

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

#399

Post by ChicagoBoy11 »

WalterBright wrote: post #116

My dad was reprimanded for not following orders ejecting when the engine on his F-86 failed. He did the calculations and figured he could make the field, which he did. They said the pilot was far more valuable than the airplane.

When I did my flight training on a CAPS-enabled airplane, they showed us footage and stats from the military to say that there was a clear bias towards "saving" planes, especially in training, and that it led to more fatalities than if folks stuck by the book. Thought it was super interesting, and definitely helped to cement the attitude of using the resources of the plane by the book, which, (I think sadly), this guy is being punished for.

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

#400

Post by bluGill »

Spooky23 wrote: post #380
elashri wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The closest wars are the Iraqi and Balkans ware. For the first the vast majority of Iraq air force were destroyed on the ground or fled to neighboring countries, there were rarely any meaningful air to air fights. For Balkans, there were minimal air activities for Serbian air force. They were up against NATO (not only US) and all of the little opposition they had were using air defence systems which managed to down a…

Huh? The US was essentially fighting the Soviets in Korea and Vietnam. It was a contentious, significant conflict. Vietnam in particular saw the cost of allowing the SAC/bomber mafia from dominating strategy. The Soviet and Vietnamese pilots were pretty badly mauling the US Air Force and Navy, whose armament and tactics were built around bomber interception.

Korea has been in cease fire since 1953. Vietnam ended in 1975. There has been a lot of changes since then. Not only have people studied and tried to learn lessons, but technology has changed significnatly. We have no clue how the current military would approach Vietnam or Korea if they happened today (both sides would be different!)
Post reply on HN