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

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 innocent people who happen to be living under a plane's flight path.

It's a miracle the plane landed in a swamp, of all places. Especially given how long it was in the air flying around on its own. Pretty much anywhere else besides the open ocean and it could have been an epic disaster.

I'm sure this has been expressed in the other thread, but I figured I'd share my shock for the others just reading about this now.

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 of his control with no comms (if you want to blame someone, how bout Lockheed?).

He's suppose to spend the next five seconds doing... what exactly?

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

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.

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.

If you're going down in zero visibility, what good can you do staying in the jet?

There was also some talk of feeling like he was falling but of course with no vision you will have no idea what way you are going based on you senses.

Don't these planes have the basic instruments as a backup to the helmet display?

> 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.

Isn’t that only for test flights?

He had no vision to aim the jet at an unpopulated area, not bailing out might have just killed +1 person and leave an even greater mystery about the plane's technical condition and the pilots state of mind.

> I'm not a pilot, and I can't fathom what being in that situation would have been like.

In IFR conditions (= you can't see anything) losing your instruments means you're hosed as you can't trust your senses.