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

501–508 of 508 posts

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

#501

Post by nradov »

datavirtue wrote: post #500
nradov wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a little too late for that. The JSF program probably should have been cancelled or completely restructured circa 1996. But now there's no remaining alternative. The inventory of legacy AV-8, F-16, and A-10 aircraft are going to be retired no matter what because they're literally falling apart and it's impossible to keep extending their service lives.

You can build five F-18s for the price of one F-35.

Wrong. The current unit cost for an F-35B is about $109M while an F/A-18E/F is about $55M. That's a difference of 2×, not 5×. And more importantly, the F/A-18 can't operate from amphibious ships to support Marine Corps ground forces. If it can't accomplish the required mission then the cost is moot.

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/10/newest-f-35-f-15ex-contr...

It's disappointing to see people post lazy, low-effort comments like this without bothering to do even basic fact checking.

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

#502

Post by lazide »

Y_Y wrote: post #270
zeusk wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US Govt. says we're at war. https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-i-chapter...

I feel like terrorism is about to give up and come to the negotiating table though.

Any day now…..

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

#503

Post by Supermancho »

hgomersall wrote: post #459
Supermancho wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm fairly confident the British navy had huge difficulty manning their ships properly. "very valuable" compared to a ship? Not so much. > It took many years to train someone in the proper functioning of the ship I'm not sure where you get this from. Many duties on ships could be successfully crewed by children^. Crew were commonly pressed into service, in lieu of volunteers and proper enlisted (transferred, et al)…

Sailing circa 1800 was certainly danger prone, but it was also very sophisticated. Manoeuvring a three mast ship of the line takes multiple synchronised actions involving hundreds of men, at least a significant fraction of whom need to know what they are doing. This is an interesting read on the general question of manning the Royal Navy in the Napoleonic era: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:a2cf9a3d-daf2-446b-88c8…

> Manoeuvring a three mast ship of the line takes multiple synchronised actions involving hundreds of men, at least a significant fraction of whom need to know what they are doing.

They needed to know how to do relatively straightforward tasks (many of which were unpleasant) when directed. Same as any other structured military force or industrial line. It was not sophisticated for the vast majority of sailors. Skills varied to be sure.

Debating soft terms like skillful, sophistication, and value will not definitively answer the question of a calculation. We look to other signals, like culture. The culture was such that the ships (including weaponry and anything else worth salvage) were more valuable than manpower by virtue of the historical figure sentiments. I have not seen a compelling contradiction.

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

#504

Post by calmbonsai »

bumby wrote: post #464
calmbonsai wrote: post #463

I'm amazed by the volume of opinions on this matter. If you've never been a military pilot, I don't think you can give a qualified opinion on this incident.

Surely, other opinions can have relevance. Do you think an aerospace engineer can have no opinion? What about an avionics tech that works on display and comms systems? What about an aviation safety officer or a commercial pilot? These are all people with relevant perspectives.

On certain topics related to a confluence of judgment for real-time decisions and lived experience, no.

Any aerospace engineer could credibly comment on the avionics. Any pilot could comment on basic emergency procedure compliance. Any ATC could comment on route planning.

But, no one aside from another military pilot could judge the totality of that military pilot's judgment on that day.

The same would apply to subjects like emergency trauma, combat, firefighting, an all professional athletic competitions.

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

#505

Post by bumby »

calmbonsai wrote: post #504
bumby wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely, other opinions can have relevance. Do you think an aerospace engineer can have no opinion? What about an avionics tech that works on display and comms systems? What about an aviation safety officer or a commercial pilot? These are all people with relevant perspectives.

On certain topics related to a confluence of judgment for real-time decisions and lived experience, no. Any aerospace engineer could credibly comment on the avionics. Any pilot could comment on basic emergency procedure compliance. Any ATC could comment on route planning. But, no one aside from another military pilot could judge the totality of that military pilot's judgment on that day. The same would apply to subje…

>Any aerospace engineer could credibly comment on the avionics.

This is central to the claim about the airworthiness of the aircraft. (And FWIW, aerospace engineer is generally not the same as someone who works on, or designs, avionics. The latter are typically more aligned with electrical engineering.)

>no one aside from another military pilot could judge the totality of that military pilot's judgment on that day.

I think this is being needlessly constrained. I would take the opinion of someone familiar with the specific comm/nav avionics of the F35 than, say, a military pilot that has never flown that airframe. I may even prefer an avionics tech’s opinion over that of the pilot, depending on the pilots technical knowledge. Given what we know about human psychology and memory, I don't even know if that specific pilot can give the most accurate representation of what was going on in the cockpit. A pilot can give great insight into crossing aspects, like human factors engineering, but they are not always the best at understanding the full system. It’s like when you talk to a high-level race car driver and find out they don’t actually know much about automotive engineering; sometimes their job doesn’t actually require that to perform at a high level.

I do agree with your overall sentiment though. All it takes is coming across a HN thread about something you're actually well-versed in to understand these types of forums are saturated with comments with more confidence than sense.

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

#506

Post by calmbonsai »

bumby wrote: post #505
calmbonsai wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On certain topics related to a confluence of judgment for real-time decisions and lived experience, no. Any aerospace engineer could credibly comment on the avionics. Any pilot could comment on basic emergency procedure compliance. Any ATC could comment on route planning. But, no one aside from another military pilot could judge the totality of that military pilot's judgment on that day. The same would apply to subje…

> Any aerospace engineer could credibly comment on the avionics. This is central to the claim about the airworthiness of the aircraft. (And FWIW, aerospace engineer is generally not the same as someone who works on, or designs, avionics. The latter are typically more aligned with electrical engineering.) > no one aside from another military pilot could judge the totality of that military pilot's judgment on that day.…

Truth re: incident recall of the pilot. It's amazing how memory become highly selective on certain details and "blind" to others during flight or fight.

You learn that "the hard way" during even basic private pilot training. Black boxes are essential.

You're also correct on an EE background for avionics. Ask me how I know. ;)

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

#507

Post by bumby »

calmbonsai wrote: post #506
bumby wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any aerospace engineer could credibly comment on the avionics. This is central to the claim about the airworthiness of the aircraft. (And FWIW, aerospace engineer is generally not the same as someone who works on, or designs, avionics. The latter are typically more aligned with electrical engineering.) > no one aside from another military pilot could judge the totality of that military pilot's judgment on that day.…

Truth re: incident recall of the pilot. It's amazing how memory become highly selective on certain details and "blind" to others during flight or fight. You learn that "the hard way" during even basic private pilot training. Black boxes are essential. You're also correct on an EE background for avionics. Ask me how I know. ;)

>Ask me how I know. ;)

Likely the same way I do ;-)

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

#508

Post by jyounker »

walrushunter wrote: post #416
jyounker wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I've seen too many software systems that failed in undetectable ways, and the user was disbelieved. The damn thing is fly-by-wire and if the instruments are failing for unknown reasons, then I could easily believe that the controls started glitching too, and that this isn't reflected anywhere.

Interesting because I'm willing to give the US Marine Corp, which conducted a comprehensive investigation before firing him, the benefit of the doubt.

You're free to do that, but I'm not sure that this is the best thing in the world. Of the people who I know who were in the US military, generally the more highly placed they were, the less faith they had in the command structure.
Post reply on HN