←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 | 4 comments | 31 Mar 25 04:25 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
instagib ◴[31 Mar 25 06:46 UTC] No.43531927[source]▶
They had one short sentence in there that he still had a tiny alternate primary flight display. Still had control surfaces. He knew he was descending and his authorized air space. Pull up, look at the pfd, do some resets, follow helmet malfunction protocols.

There was very little about a devils advocate side to the story.

I could imagine others joking about ejecting for minor warnings or trolling him. Especially in the marines.

Do a FOIA on all ejections because his is just one. He had a good 27 year career and ended as a colonel with retirement benefits.

replies(2): >>43531978 #>>43532162 #
TomK32 ◴[31 Mar 25 07:26 UTC] No.43532162[source]▶
Even if he would have trusted the alternative controls the jet has, he was in clouds over a densely populated area going 350mph just 750 feet above the ground, far below the 6000 feet the article quotes from the manual.

"In fact, the F-35B’s flight manual said, “the aircraft is considered to be in out of controlled flight (OCF) when it fails to respond properly to pilot inputs,” adding, “if out of control below 6,000 feet AGL (above ground level): EJECT.”"

replies(2): >>43532913 #>>43534762 #
1. rob74 ◴[31 Mar 25 09:24 UTC] No.43532913[source]▶
Well, that's the crux of the issue: apparently the aircraft still did respond properly to pilot inputs. Of course, it's totally understandable to get spooked by all the electronics failing and decide to rather bail out than bet on the plane still being flyable, but if you go by the book, he shouldn't have ejected...
replies(2): >>43533260 #>>43548068 #
2. chopin ◴[31 Mar 25 10:24 UTC] No.43533260[source]▶
You can't know whether the plane responds correctly to your inputs under instrument conditions when you can't trust the instruments.
replies(1): >>43537335 #
3. SR2Z ◴[31 Mar 25 17:14 UTC] No.43537335[source]▶
The "small screen" the article is talking about that was still functional is likely a backup PFD, or at the VERY LEAST an attitude indicator. Validating that an attitude indicator is working is not particularly hard, especially if the flight controls are still working.

Ejecting over a populated area at a low altitude is a dangerous decision in its own right, and the unfortunate truth here is that if the choice is between "the life of the pilot" and "the lives of people on the ground" then the pilot is obligated to fly the jet until a crash is assured. Obviously I don't have all the details, but the article itself doesn't say that required instruments were unavailable.

Part of the issue here, too, is that pilots and aviation in general is an "old boys club" and this extends to giving long-tenured pilots extraordinary leeway for mistakes they made that newer or less popular people would have been crucified for. I was left wondering if that's what the first two flight reviews did, and the third one didn't.

4. TomK32 ◴[01 Apr 25 15:37 UTC] No.43548068[source]▶
You haven't read the article, or the part I quoted from it referring to the manual, which I would consider as "going by the book". Two of the three boards looking into the mishap "concluded that most highly experienced pilots with similar levels of experience in an F-35 would have punched out of the plane".