←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: 0.934s | 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 #
yard2010 ◴[31 Mar 25 06:34 UTC] No.43531827[source]▶
The soviet russians nuked Chernobyl with this attitude, it must be good
replies(1): >>43532213 #
Sabinus ◴[31 Mar 25 07:35 UTC] No.43532213[source]▶
Your comment reminded me, an excellent showcase of institutional shenanigans is the Chernobyl miniseries on Netflix. Denial, blame, coverups, accountability. It's a very well made series in a grim Soviet setting.
replies(2): >>43532410 #>>43532613 #
yaro330 ◴[31 Mar 25 08:34 UTC] No.43532613[source]▶
Just please don't take it as a documentary. It's a disservice to the people that actually worked at the plant that day and portrays them as arrogant fools, which none of them actually were.

That Chernobyl Guy on YouTube did great breakdowns.

replies(4): >>43532676 #>>43532741 #>>43533646 #>>43543270 #
1. lesuorac ◴[31 Mar 25 11:18 UTC] No.43533646[source]▶
Meh, the only thing you need to know about Chernobyl is

* The soviets designed a nuclear reactor and engineering plan/blueprint to making power plants

* That engineering plan required certain safety tests to be preformed before actually operating the plant

* Chernyobl did not pass those safety tests before plant operation

* Chernyobl then tried to run those safety tests after the plant was in operation (for some time).

* Chernyobl then catastrophically failed the safety tests due at least to the test setup being incorrect (you aren't supposed to be operating the plant before hand).

replies(1): >>43537733 #
2. layla5alive ◴[31 Mar 25 17:50 UTC] No.43537733[source]▶
I disagree, this is true, but the failure was complex and worth understanding some extra nuances:

* The design of the reactors made them unsafe in a scenario where you needed to quickly insert the control rods. Doing so should reduce power output, but due to their graphite tips, it led to a sudden surge of power output.

* Leadership repeatedly didn't listen to or believe what they were hearing from boots on the ground.

* Leadership took a "it can't be that bad, let's wait and see" approach instead of a cautious approach.

* Add to this that boots on the ground were afraid to stand up to leadership.

* This repeatedly led to delayed reactions to the problems, and an increase in the severity of the outcomes.

* All of this combined with cooling failures, led to disaster.

(Heat and pressure accumulated, the reactor didn't have enough water, and then when control rods were finally reinserted, they sped up the reaction instead of slowing it down... boom.)

replies(1): >>43540190 #
3. lesuorac ◴[31 Mar 25 21:28 UTC] No.43540190[source]▶
I mean it's a cool sequence of events and definitely if engineering interests you it's worth studying. Although I ultimately find the question of if the USSR knew about the graphite tip problem beforehand the most interesting part of the story (the HBO series taking the side of they knew). With the scandal not being the explosion but that the state was blind to problems it was causing.

But the common person just really needs to understand "garbage in, garbage out". Operating a nuclear reactor outside of specifications may result in catastrophic failure; which is why the West has so many regulations about them.

replies(1): >>43553148 #
4. philistine ◴[02 Apr 25 02:23 UTC] No.43553148{3}[source]▶
> "garbage in, garbage out"

The HBO series has a beautiful way to phrase it: It's the cost of lies.