←back to thread

247 points po | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.559s | source
Show context
tgsovlerkhgsel ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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. stogot ◴[] No.43533632[source]
It seemed only to be one commandant that said he was “at fault” (in complete disregard to the other two investigations and stellar reviews to his two bosses).

Simplest reason: that commandant had a vendetta against him