←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 | 2 comments | 31 Mar 25 04:25 UTC | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
stevage ◴[31 Mar 25 06:24 UTC] No.43531761[source]▶
I feel like in previous reporting I'd seen suggestions that the other pilots had lost confidence in him, and that you couldn't be the leader of a squadron if any of the pilots had any doubts.

This story seems to completely discount any "lost confidence" as a made up story.

replies(2): >>43531917 #>>43533632 #
1. motorest ◴[31 Mar 25 06:45 UTC] No.43531917[source]▶
> This story seems to completely discount any "lost confidence" as a made up story.

The "lost confidence" angle would be discarded if it was just made-up nonsense. It is also a convenient angle to pin the blame on a scapegoat who was proven to have zero blame or responsibility.

One can only imagine what would have been written on the guy if he crashed and went down with the plane. Certainly we would be reading about human errors and failures in judgement and lack of training and reckless behavior.

This is what mid/upper management types do in large organizations to cover their ass.

I recall a story about a high-speed train accident in Spain where the conductor was found to be the sole responsible due to speeding, and it took an investigator from the European Union to call out the company's managers for unexplainably failing to implement and run a pretty standard traffic control system on that track section whose basic features include automatically enforcing speed limits. The system would render impossible that sort of failure and, in spite of having been installed, it was unexplainably disconnected. But it was human error, of course.

replies(1): >>43532527 #
2. exe34 ◴[31 Mar 25 08:20 UTC] No.43532527[source]▶
> human error, of course

Well management is only human...