←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: 0.2s | source
Show context
tgsovlerkhgsel ◴[31 Mar 25 06:00 UTC] No.43531597[source]▶
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 because most other pilots would have interpreted the situation similarly, promoted, and then fired less than 4 months after moving with his family to the location of his new role. It remains unclear why but scapegoating to distract from the plane's issues is commonly seen as the most likely explanation, with all the risks it entails (pilots becoming more hesitant to eject or openly admit mistakes so safety can be improved).

replies(8): >>43531627 #>>43531761 #>>43531786 #>>43531827 #>>43532269 #>>43532487 #>>43532577 #>>43533425 #
1. atoav ◴[31 Mar 25 06:28 UTC] No.43531786[source]▶
To me that smells like a plane that is too expensive to lose and someone higher up was looking for an excuse.

Sure the pilot with his life on the line could have risked the investment into his education on top of the investment into the aircraft to figure out whether an ill-prepared procedure was really ill-prepared — but should that really be the expectation?

If you rely on your pilot having to interpret written procedure in a very specific way by mind magic, that is on those who wrote the procedure. I am not sure if "ignores the procedure of a aircraft that expensive" is the skill you are looking for, even if it safes the aircraft for the moment.