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

41–50 of 213 posts

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

#41

Post by kelnos »

ralph84 wrote: post #31
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.

Not just that, but training pilots takes time, and getting them the experience they need to be seasoned pilots takes even more time. While you can certainly put a dollar amount on the cost of that training and experience, it's harder to quantify how much it's worth to have a trained, experienced pilot right now, vs. a new one that's starting from scratch and won't be at the same level for years.

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

#42

Post by gtsop »

_cs2017_ wrote: post #27
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…

"But for better or worse, the actual outcome does matter" -- curious what you mean by that?

He means that he prefers for that poor lad to have died trying to save a piece of metal. Simple stuff, there is no going around it. For some people money is above human life.

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

#43

Post by stonogo »

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 alternative solution, using planes that don't cost hundreds of millions of dollars, seems easier

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

#44

Post by XorNot »

daemoens wrote: post #34
pjmlp wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah this is both bad but also being heavily misreported: the US can't shutdown hardware remotely, but loss of access to proprietary software effectively disables critical functionality which can effectively render a platform useless.

Up till now, there was no demonstrated risk of this happening - but that's a broken trust which won't be repaired for generations, if ever.

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

#45

Post by atmosx »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #9
avidiax wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My feeling is that the F-35 is "too big to fail". They needed to blame the pilot, and certainly didn't need anyone familiar with the defects of the plane in a prominent command or as a general. So they fire the guy, and promote someone else that can be relied on to say that the F-35 has no more defects than any other plane had at this point in the program, and we can trust the US military industrial complex to delive…

> 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.

A common misconception - often echoed on this site - is that NATO allies and the U.S. operate on equal terms. They don’t. If the U.S. wants to sell 100 F-35s to European nations, it will happen.

Even today, with all this talk around NATO, there’s a massive U.S. military presence at NATO bases across Europe.

These forces are, in effect, under U.S. control, stationed in countries like Germany and Italy. And if Germany suddenly decided it wanted them gone - well, it’s not their call.

TL;DR: Life on the empire’s periphery might be comfortable, but you don’t get to choose your enemies - and you still have to pay your dues, or else.

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

#46

Post by stevage »

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #24

If you hate the long form filler and know what a fighter jet is, start (with the knowledge that the pilot is landing in poor weather) at "Suddenly, at 1:32:05 p.m", read until the first two sentences in section 2, then skip to section 5. Edit: That said, there are no answers. It's just the long known story: A pilot ejects from a malfunctioning (but likely flyable) jet, gets cleared in the first two investigations bec…

I feel like in previous reporting I'd seen suggestions that the other pilots had lost confidence in him, and that you couldn't be the leader of a squadron if any of the pilots had any doubts.

This story seems to completely discount any "lost confidence" as a made up story.

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

#47

Post by unsnap_biceps »

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…

In the event of an ejection, the belief is that jet is uncontrollable. In highlight with perfect knowledge, we know this wasn't the case, but in the pilot's mind, the jet was going down. It could go down with him on board, or it could go down without him on board. I think he made the right decision given the circumstances.

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

#48

Post by stevage »

avidiax wrote: post #8
YZF wrote: post #2

I feel like we had a discussion of this crash in the past. Would be nice to find those threads. Feels like we're missing a piece of the puzzle in this story. Maybe something else happened over that year? Politics? The story starts as you'd expect. Accidents happen. Support. Returning to duty. What went wrong?

My feeling is that the F-35 is "too big to fail". They needed to blame the pilot, and certainly didn't need anyone familiar with the defects of the plane in a prominent command or as a general. So they fire the guy, and promote someone else that can be relied on to say that the F-35 has no more defects than any other plane had at this point in the program, and we can trust the US military industrial complex to delive…

I'm always surprised about this line of thinking. Surely an active duty pilot is going to keep his mouth shut, whereas as we see, as a retired one he's happy to talk to the papers.

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

#49

Post by atmosx »

Aeolun wrote: post #11
avidiax wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My feeling is that the F-35 is "too big to fail". They needed to blame the pilot, and certainly didn't need anyone familiar with the defects of the plane in a prominent command or as a general. So they fire the guy, and promote someone else that can be relied on to say that the F-35 has no more defects than any other plane had at this point in the program, and we can trust the US military industrial complex to delive…

It’s bizzare to think that high command in the US is that shortsighted.

True. However, did you notice the emojis used in relation to the leaked Huthi attack? It’s difficult to place confidence in individuals wielding significant power when they conduct themselves like adolescents.

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

#50

Post by kelnos »

bradgranath wrote: post #40
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…

He's supposed to spend the next 5 seconds actually testing the flight controls to see what's working and what isn't. He's supposed to look at the backup instruments to see what his status is. He's supposed to try the backup radio to see if someone outside can help him figure out his status.

Instead, he switched the flight mode from STOL to forward flight, misinterpreted the result of that as his engine spooling down, didn't see if he could maneuver the aircraft, didn't do anything with the backup instruments except glance at them, didn't try the backup radio, and punched out.

Sure, he was descending. Did he try to pull up? Did he look at the backup instruments while doing so to see if their response to that agreed with his actions, and thus gain some information as to whether both the flight controls and backup instruments were functional? Seems like he didn't.

I'm not saying I would have made a different decision in his situation. I'm not a pilot, and I can't fathom what being in that situation would have been like. But it sounds like that third mishap report, as well as the Marine brass, believed he should have known that he had more time to ascertain his plane's capabilities at the time.

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

He was a test pilot who was later given command of a group responsible for that textbook. It sounds like he's not supposed to just follow the textbook; he's supposed to know when the textbook is too vague, and dig deeper. Yes, it seems, even in a crisis situation where he might die if he delays his decisions for too long.

And I'm not saying he absolutely should have gone down with the plane if that's what would have happened. But also consider that it seems like a near miracle that the plane didn't eventually come down in a residential area, for instance, and kill a bunch of people, especially considering how long it continued flying after he ejected. It sounds like he only considered that after he was on the ground. He needed to be thinking about that before he pulled that ejection lever.

Post reply on HN