←back to thread

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

(www.postandcourier.com)
247 points po | 1 comments | 31 Mar 25 04:25 UTC | HN request time: 0.204s | source
Show context
spoonjim ◴[31 Mar 25 05:50 UTC] No.43531541[source]▶
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 it is better to spend some more money on training a few more pilots.

replies(9): >>43531579 #>>43531606 #>>43531617 #>>43531640 #>>43531645 #>>43531650 #>>43531737 #>>43531887 #>>43536588 #
ralph84 ◴[31 Mar 25 06:06 UTC] No.43531640[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>43531710 #
1. kelnos ◴[31 Mar 25 06:17 UTC] No.43531710[source]▶
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.