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

91–100 of 508 posts

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

#91

Post by j16sdiz »

4ad wrote: post #69
tzs wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ejection was months before he got the role at VMX-1. Even if it had been after he got the role I'm not sure it should matter. I'd expect validating and updating "the book" to be a carefully planned and methodical activity, with alternate approaches tested during simulated failure or failures induced under controlled conditions. Would they really expect a pilot who encounters a failure not under such conditions to…

Plus this idea of "updating the book" makes it sound like this was some sort of experimental aircraft where they still have to finalize the manual. This is a production aircraft, over 1000 were built, it is deployed in 30+ countries.

huh? Commercial aircraft updates its manual all the times

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

#92

Post by KennyBlanken »

tzs wrote: post #60
dragonwriter wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was, and was fired from his role as, commander of Marine Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron 1 (VMX-1), which exists largely to validate and update “the book” for the rest of Corps. So, if there is any position where simply “following the book” isn’t adequate to keep one’s job, it kind of makes sense that his was that position.

The ejection was months before he got the role at VMX-1. Even if it had been after he got the role I'm not sure it should matter. I'd expect validating and updating "the book" to be a carefully planned and methodical activity, with alternate approaches tested during simulated failure or failures induced under controlled conditions. Would they really expect a pilot who encounters a failure not under such conditions to…

From the article:

"Del Pizzo’s “decision to eject was ultimately inappropriate, because commanded flight inputs were in-progress at the time of ejection, standby flight instrumentation was providing accurate data, and the [jet’s] backup radio was, at least partially, functional. Furthermore, the aircraft continued to fly for an extended period after ejection.”"

He lost contact with the tower and his wingman, and did not try to use his backup radio.

He lost some primary instruments - the HUD - and did not try to use backup instruments.

If he'd contacted his wingman and the tower he could have verified at least some of his instruments, or followed his wingman in for a landing.

The whole thing is absurd. The guy lost his cool, freaked out, and punched out - and is trying to cover his ass by using the cover-their-ass section of the aircraft manual.

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

#93

Post by jki275 »

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.

I don't think it says exactly that. It says he still had backup instruments and good flight controls and ejected from a flyable plane. If that were strictly true, they'd be well within standards to fire him.

I'm not sure I agree though -- it was a shitty situation all around, missed approach, go around, instrument only conditions, lightning strike that took out the HMD and most of the cockpit displays. That's a real shitshow in a completely fly by wire plane.

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

#95

Post by jki275 »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #92
tzs wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ejection was months before he got the role at VMX-1. Even if it had been after he got the role I'm not sure it should matter. I'd expect validating and updating "the book" to be a carefully planned and methodical activity, with alternate approaches tested during simulated failure or failures induced under controlled conditions. Would they really expect a pilot who encounters a failure not under such conditions to…

From the article: "Del Pizzo’s “decision to eject was ultimately inappropriate, because commanded flight inputs were in-progress at the time of ejection, standby flight instrumentation was providing accurate data, and the [jet’s] backup radio was, at least partially, functional. Furthermore, the aircraft continued to fly for an extended period after ejection.”" He lost contact with the tower and his wingman, and did…

he was at very low altitude, struck by lightning, in a completely glass cockpit plane.

You don't "call your wingman" in that situation, you decide and you do. He didn't believe the plane was flyable, and in those conditions I don't think he had enough time or separation from the ground to make sure.

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

#96

Post by jki275 »

jonas21 wrote: post #36
dragonwriter wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was, and was fired from his role as, commander of Marine Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron 1 (VMX-1), which exists largely to validate and update “the book” for the rest of Corps. So, if there is any position where simply “following the book” isn’t adequate to keep one’s job, it kind of makes sense that his was that position.

Also note that he wasn't fired specifically due to ejecting -- he was fired "for loss of trust and confidence in his ability to execute the responsibilities of his command." And the investigation was completed back in January, so before he assumed command of the squadron. It wouldn't surprise me if the test pilots serving under him did not respect or trust his judgement, and this is what led to his firing rather than…

That's what everybody in the military gets fired for. It's just boilerplate for public consumption.

We don't know why he was fired, but the logical conclusion is that it was this incident.

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

#97

Post by jki275 »

jameshart wrote: post #81
s1artibartfast wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

seems reasonable to me. If someone lost a 110 million dollar asset in a questionable way, I wouldn't have trust and confidence in their ability either. Flying cutting edge military jets isn't exactly a human right.

On the other hand, the USMC has invested considerable time and effort in training this person to operate the F-35. Replacing him with someone else will take time and money. For the organization that invested all that into him to say ‘nope, we don’t want you to fly these things any more’ is itself a massive waste of resources.

He's certainly a highly trained Naval Aviator, but he had very little time in the F35.

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

#99

Post by lmm »

4ad wrote: post #69
tzs wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ejection was months before he got the role at VMX-1. Even if it had been after he got the role I'm not sure it should matter. I'd expect validating and updating "the book" to be a carefully planned and methodical activity, with alternate approaches tested during simulated failure or failures induced under controlled conditions. Would they really expect a pilot who encounters a failure not under such conditions to…

Plus this idea of "updating the book" makes it sound like this was some sort of experimental aircraft where they still have to finalize the manual. This is a production aircraft, over 1000 were built, it is deployed in 30+ countries.

It's still officially in development, hasn't passed its validation tests yet.

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

#100

Post by KennyBlanken »

derekp7 wrote: post #89
s1artibartfast wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

seems reasonable to me. If someone lost a 110 million dollar asset in a questionable way, I wouldn't have trust and confidence in their ability either. Flying cutting edge military jets isn't exactly a human right.

That's all well and good, except the next pilot facing a potential loss of aircraft will probably hesitate (worrying about getting shafted), and keep trying to recover the craft until it is too late. Then you have a crashed plane, and a dead pilot. People make better decisions when there is precident for a no-fault management style.

No, because he was not fired for ejecting from an unsafe aircraft, which is what you're claiming would be the situation where the pilot would hesitate. He was fired because the General didn't feel he'd shown the judgement and skill commiserate with his station.

The cardinal rule for an in-flight emergency is that if the plane is flying, you're OK in that moment, there's no need to panic.

He was fired because as a test pilot, he panicked after the HUD malfunctioned, and ejected from an aircraft with an hour's worth of fuel that was not losing altitude or experiencing any mechanical failures, and did not make even an attempt to verify his primary instruments against the backup secondaries, or to use a functioning backup radio.

He could have used the backup radio to contact the tower to verify his altitude, speed, heading, rate of climb, etc and then get vectored back to reunite with his wingman ,and followed his wingman in for a landing.

Post reply on HN