←back to thread

247 points po | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.706s | source
Show context
kelnos ◴[] No.43531565[source]
This was discussed four months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42098475

From my memory at the time, I was initially fully on the side of the pilot, but after reading through the discussion, I wasn't really sure anymore.

He didn't try to see if his flight controls (pitch, yaw, roll) were still responding, he didn't make use of the backup instruments, he didn't try the backup radio, and he had enough fuel to land elsewhere. The letter of the procedures may have said that he was in an out-of-control flight condition, but the procedures were too vague, and he should have had the experience to second-guess them and ascertain if his plane was actually out of control.

Sure, maybe all those things wouldn't have worked, and he would have had to eject. Or worse, they wouldn't have worked, and he would have spent enough time trying them that it would have been too late and he would have died.

But for better or worse, the actual outcome does matter: the plane was still flyable, and either a) he would have likely been able to successfully land, possibly at an alternate location with better weather, or b) he would have had the time and flight stability to try a bunch more options before deciding to eject.

I do find the circumstances strange, in how long it took for Marine brass to decide to relieve him of his command and torpedo his career. But I have no frame of reference for or experience around this, so perhaps it's not unusual. If he were just a rank-and-file pilot, he likely would have kept his position and continued on, perhaps with a bit of a bumpy road ahead. But he was given the command of an important group, a group tasked to refine flight procedures around this plane, and that comes with different expectations for his actions in the scenario he was in.

replies(6): >>43531622 #>>43531632 #>>43531674 #>>43531859 #>>43532104 #>>43532858 #
bjornsing ◴[] No.43532858[source]
Personally I think the risk he exposed others to gets too little attention. That jet could have come down anywhere. I can understand it’s a nerve wrecking situation and that ejecting is a likely outcome in any event, so “sooner rather than later” might feel like the better option. But sending the jet off as a cruise missile could have been avoided.
replies(1): >>43534097 #
echoangle ◴[] No.43534097[source]
If you don't see anything, staying in the aircraft doesn't make it any less of a missile. If he didn't eject, he could have still crashed into houses exactly like it could have after ejecting.
replies(1): >>43544271 #
1. bjornsing ◴[] No.43544271[source]
In the extreme, sure. And I’m not saying I know he was in the wrong. I’m just saying it’s something I think gets too little attention.

It was obviously possible to get the plane into a climb, because that’s how it ended up after he ejected. Once you are there is time to think and plan. Bad visibility doesn’t stretch infinity in the upward direction.

replies(1): >>43544367 #
2. echoangle ◴[] No.43544367[source]
And how would you know if you’re climbing or not if you don’t trust the instruments?

If you still have a working attitude indicator you can trust, you obviously shouldn’t eject, but it sounds like he wasn’t sure if he could still rely on that. You don’t feel the direction the plane is going without instruments.

replies(1): >>43579648 #
3. bjornsing ◴[] No.43579648[source]
He had functioning backup instruments. It’s nerve wrecking of course, and I’m aware it’s a lot to ask, but if you want to fly a fighter jet I think that comes with an obligation to stay in the cockpit and try to avert a catastrophe even at significant risk to your own life. I would certainly be willing to take that risk myself.