←back to thread

F-35 pilot held 50-minute airborne conference call with engineers before crash

(www.cnn.com)
278 points Michelangelo11 | 8 comments | 27 Aug 25 11:38 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
Molitor5901 ◴[27 Aug 25 12:12 UTC] No.45038583[source]▶
Considering they relieved a pilot of command for ejecting when his F-35 become unresponsive, now they make them sit on conference calls. That pilot is very brave, I think others would have ejected by now. Making them fly around up there is ridiculous.
replies(4): >>45039343 #>>45039426 #>>45039456 #>>45039485 #
5f3cfa1a ◴[27 Aug 25 13:23 UTC] No.45039343[source]▶
Ejecting from an airplane is no joke: 18g of force leaves 20-30% with spinal fractures, and ejection seats have an 8% mortality rate[1]

It seems to me that continuing flight with inoperative/damaged landing gear while you discuss alternatives with engineers is the safest option. Burn fuel, make a plan, let people on the ground mobilize to help, and eject when you've tried what you can and it truly becomes the safest option.

[1]: https://sites.nd.edu/biomechanics-in-the-wild/2021/04/06/top...

replies(2): >>45039577 #>>45039587 #
1. crote ◴[27 Aug 25 13:44 UTC] No.45039577[source]▶
It makes you wonder if it would be possible for ejection seats to have a safer bailout mode. Sure, the "compress your spine" mode is definitely appropriate during a wartime situation where someone has shot your wings off, but is it really required when a mechanical failure leaves you unable to land yet in a more-or-less stable flight at a reasonably low speed? Perhaps a 6g ejection might be more appropriate in those cases?
replies(5): >>45039735 #>>45039854 #>>45039886 #>>45039903 #>>45040118 #
2. HPsquared ◴[27 Aug 25 13:55 UTC] No.45039735[source]▶
Maybe they want it to be a bit injurious so people only do it as a last resort.
3. the__alchemist ◴[27 Aug 25 14:02 UTC] No.45039854[source]▶
I wonder about that. Maybe the added complexity is a con? I.e. the default would still be full force, but a controlled ejection mode could be gentler, but still capable of clearing the aircraft reliably in straight/level flight.
replies(1): >>45044379 #
4. prmoustache ◴[27 Aug 25 14:04 UTC] No.45039886[source]▶
Did you see how the plane went down in the video? It is like he just had shutted down completely and was in free fall. Better eject fast when you have no idea in which angle and how fast the plane is about to fall.
5. Aurornis ◴[27 Aug 25 14:05 UTC] No.45039903[source]▶
The ejection force is to ensure the pilot clears the airplane as they enter the airstream. Think about how much force you feel when you hold your hand out a car window at 60MPH, then remember that wind resistance increases with the square of speed. You have to be launched hard to get away from the tail.

Also the last thing you want in the critical emergency safety gear is more levels of complexity and additional things for the pilot to consider.

replies(1): >>45044000 #
6. lazide ◴[27 Aug 25 14:21 UTC] No.45040118[source]▶
Did you watch the latest Tom Cruise mission impossible movie? Unless you want to be the bad guy at the end, you need to be very clear of the aircraft if you’re ejecting. For a fighter aircraft, that necessarily requires very violent forces.

It’s a major concern with skydiving too - there are many aircraft it’s impossible to safely exit in flight without impacting some part of the airframe.

7. HPsquared ◴[27 Aug 25 19:31 UTC] No.45044000[source]▶
That airspeed is highly variable though, the plane can go supersonic or at approach/landing speed with flaps extended. Probably 10x+ less aerodynamic force going at low (indicated) airspeed.
8. LorenPechtel ◴[27 Aug 25 19:58 UTC] No.45044379[source]▶
Straight and level isn't the issue, airspeed is.