[HN Gopher] Marine pilot loses command after ejecting from F-35B...
___________________________________________________________________
Marine pilot loses command after ejecting from F-35B that kept
flying
Author : nafnlj
Score : 26 points
Date : 2024-11-10 03:48 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.marinecorpstimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.marinecorpstimes.com)
| talldayo wrote:
| > "How in the hell do you lose an F-35?" Mace posted on X,
| formerly known as Twitter. "How is there not a tracking device
| and we're asking the public to what, find a jet and turn it in?"
|
| This sounds like a potent critique of 5th generation fighters but
| it's quite not. The F-35 is _meant_ to be lost - it can 't even
| use standard Link 16 because it reveals too much of it's presence
| to enemy fighters.
|
| The idea of it lacking an active tracking beacon isn't really
| that surprising to me. There is no "Find My" for fighter jets,
| sorry.
| bigfatkitten wrote:
| It has an SSR transponder, but the electrical problem took that
| out along with most of the other avionics.
| echoangle wrote:
| Being a stealth jet doesn't mean you can't accommodate this
| problem when training. The F-35 already has radar reflectors
| which increase radar signature to obscure stealth properties
| during peace time, having a beacon on top of that isn't that
| absurd.
| michaelt wrote:
| I mean, stealth is all very well when nobody's ejected. But
| shouldn't an ejection trigger some sort of beacon? We probably
| want to find the pilot, after all.
|
| You'd think the military's budget could stretch to a $300
| Garmin InReach.
| Stevvo wrote:
| Several light aircraft can land autonomously at the closest safe
| airport. Would be useful for fighter jets, where there is a much
| higher risk of pilot incapacitation.
| jerlam wrote:
| Not sure you want the stealthy $80 million dollar plane packed
| full of restricted electronics and bombs to land at an insecure
| airport full of civilians.
|
| Also: in air refueling and carriers mean the plane may not be
| anywhere near a safe airport.
| Stevvo wrote:
| Mostly these jets fly above NATO countries where nobody is
| going to fuck with it. I guess such a system would get turned
| off when flying somewhere unfriendly.
| wrs wrote:
| Better to have it shred itself in some random cornfield or
| big box mall parking lot? I guess that is a sort of built-in
| self-destruct mechanism...
| Havoc wrote:
| Yeah I mean bailing on a plane that keeps going for 10+ more
| minutes was never going to be a good look
| defrost wrote:
| Not in hindsight, no.
|
| What sucks for the pilot is he followed procedure and _at the
| time_ had no way of knowing whether the craft would remain
| stable or totally brick and spiral any second (rendering a
| procedural ejection even more dangerous).
| jasonlotito wrote:
| > VMX-1 is in charge of assessing the Corps' aircraft and
| helping develop and refine tactics, techniques and procedures
| to fly them in combat successfully.
|
| > What sucks for the pilot is he followed procedure
|
| He was the commander. He defines those procedures.
| Syonyk wrote:
| In other words, he was a rather experienced pilot in that
| airframe and knew it better than most pilots should.
|
| And still decided that the successful outcome of the flight
| was in doubt based on the condition of the airframe and
| systems failures, in the middle of the situation. He
| survived. Working as intended, as far as I'm concerned.
| dialup_sounds wrote:
| The crash happened in September of 2023. He was made
| commander of VMX-1 in June of 2024.
| wbl wrote:
| Flat spins can get resolved by the CG adjustment from ejection:
| the famous cornfield bomber.
| Syonyk wrote:
| It's far more likely to have been the "equal and opposite"
| reaction to the ejection seat departing shoving the nose down
| that solved the spin. Shifting the CG aft won't improve your
| chances of departing from a flat spin. Various airframe
| designs have corner cases that they can't escape normally -
| delta wings are a bit prone to a flat spin, and you can get a
| T-tailed configuration into a "deep stall" where the
| disrupted airflow from the wings is blanketing the tail such
| that you _cannot_ get the nose down with aerodynamic
| controls. The correct action is to avoid entering such
| conditions.
|
| A rocket blasting off from the nose, meanwhile, is not
| subject to the same constraints, and will force the nose down
| enough that the plane can obviously, in at least a few
| conditions, recover controlled flight.
| Syonyk wrote:
| The problem here is that when you make the call to get out, you
| _don 't know_ that.
|
| There's no shortage of "planes that can no longer maintain
| flight" according to all sorts of standards continuing to do so
| - a few that come to mind were a B-36 that had several engines
| fail and several others unable to make full rated power, was
| unable to hold altitude, and so the crew bailed out. The plane
| somehow managed another 200 miles before crashing.
|
| There was that F-15 that lost a wing from a midair collision,
| and the pilot landed safely - because neither the pilot nor the
| instructor could tell exactly what was missing, and the
| escaping fuel vapor hid the extent of the damage from other
| planes in the flight. After landing with one wing, even the
| manufacturer didn't believe that the plane could fly in that
| condition.
|
| You have to make what is, often, a split second decision based
| on incomplete information, and after the Air Force lost a wave
| of pilots trying to save aircraft that could not be saved, the
| training switched around to "When in doubt, eject."
|
| Anyway, it's pretty easy to quarterback it from after the fact,
| but a highly trained pilot decided, based on everything he
| knew, that the plane couldn't be saved, ejected, and survived.
| Yes, there are consequences to that action, but if he stayed
| with it and was wrong, there would be far more terminal
| consequences.
| synapsomorphy wrote:
| The report criticizes the pilot for ejecting, but also says he
| did everything by the book (F35 manual), but the book was wrong.
| And the pilot should've figured that out? Feels like they just
| need someone to blame for losing the plane.
| emptiestplace wrote:
| > And the pilot should've figured that out?
|
| Yes, probably. I suspect you're lacking context on the
| sophistication and comprehensiveness of their training.
| fargle wrote:
| as harsh as it sounds, the point is that as the commander: "the
| buck stops here"
|
| yes, he didn't do anything by the book, but the command still
| suffered a great deal of embarrassment and loss. there's
| nothing dishonorable but it's normal to rotate him out of
| leadership.
| lumost wrote:
| Fighter pilots are extremely highly trained individuals. While
| data is scarce for the exact dollar cost - an F-22 pilot costs
| roughly 11 Million USD to train, pilots are expected to use
| judgement and be capable of dealing with high
| pressure/ambiguous outcomes.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| He was, and was fired from his role as, commander of Marine
| Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron 1 (VMX-1), which
| exists largely to validate and update "the book" for the rest
| of Corps.
|
| So, if there is any position where simply "following the book"
| isn't adequate to keep one's job, it kind of makes sense that
| his was that position.
| LanceH wrote:
| 100% pure speculation:
|
| I'm trying to read between the lines one this one. He's a
| Colonel and in command. How much flying does he do normally?
| Is he just keeping up flying to get the flight pay? Just up
| there flying because he can? Or was this a regularly
| scheduled training mission?
|
| This wouldn't be the first case of someone flying beyond
| their actual role. They are never found at fault -- their
| career is just derailed.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| I can't imagine any military pilot flying for the pay. They
| fly because it's their very identity. Being grounded is
| worse than being fired or even jailed.
| Tuna-Fish wrote:
| In any other squadron, you'd have a point... but it's the
| VMX-1.
|
| It's staffed by very experienced pilots, often of rank and
| age past the point where people would normally actually fly
| planes, whose job is to fly the planes, figure out how they
| are supposed to be flown, and teach this to everyone else.
| vlovich123 wrote:
| This feels political face saving considering it was the third
| class A mishaps the Marines had in 6 weeks, the other two
| being fatal.
|
| I would imagine you update the book on the ground, not mid
| flight during the emergency.
| jonas21 wrote:
| Also note that he wasn't fired specifically due to ejecting
| -- he was fired "for loss of trust and confidence in his
| ability to execute the responsibilities of his command." And
| the investigation was completed back in January, so before he
| assumed command of the squadron.
|
| It wouldn't surprise me if the test pilots serving under him
| did not respect or trust his judgement, and this is what led
| to his firing rather than some top-down directive.
| serf wrote:
| that's the same boiler-plate reason they give for every
| firing due to an embarrassing mishap.
|
| google 'for loss of trust and confidence in his ability
| military' and look at the news tab, every embarrassment to
| a military group gets thrown that bone.
| hluska wrote:
| Loss of trust and confidence is huge in military (and
| adjacent) circles. Many of these roles involve ordering
| others into situations that are likely fatal.
|
| There's no boilerplate involved. Trust and confidence are
| immense in command roles, particularly in a role like CO
| of a trust and evaluation squadron.
|
| It's also important to note that the Marine Corps itself
| did not lose trust in Colonel Del Pizzo - as per this
| article he was offered follow-on orders of his choice.
|
| https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/10/31/pilot-
| of-f-35...
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| seems reasonable to me. If someone lost a 110 million
| dollar asset in a questionable way, I wouldn't have trust
| and confidence in their ability either.
|
| Flying cutting edge military jets isn't exactly a human
| right.
| jtbayly wrote:
| He didn't have that job until a year later.
| tzs wrote:
| The ejection was months before he got the role at VMX-1.
|
| Even if it had been after he got the role I'm not sure it
| should matter. I'd expect validating and updating "the book"
| to be a carefully planned and methodical activity, with
| alternate approaches tested during simulated failure or
| failures induced under controlled conditions.
|
| Would they really expect a pilot who encounters a failure not
| under such conditions to decide it is a great opportunity to
| try out non-book approaches to see how the work?
| Manuel_D wrote:
| > Del Pizzo's F-35B malfunctioned and its primary displays and
| communications cut out as Del Pizzo was attempting to land
| through rain at Joint Base Charleston, South Carolina. However,
| the report said its standby flight display and backup
| communication system "remained basically functional."
|
| > The report said Del Pizzo followed the F-35B manual's
| recommendations for ejecting from an out-of-control jet but
| also criticized the manual's definition of out-of-control as
| too broad.
|
| It sounds like the displays blacked out, but radios and flight
| controls still worked. This is still definitely an aircraft
| that can land safely.
| jordibunster wrote:
| I've never flown an F35. From what I understand they're
| basically rockets that "fly" because of software that makes
| micro corrections several times per second.
|
| Maybe if the screens are out the pilot couldn't rely on that?
| arghwhat wrote:
| That really, really depends on what conditions you are flying
| under. This is not a naturally stable aircraft flown at
| relatively low speeds far away from any obstacle, and it is
| not being flown from a couch with a gamepad.
|
| Even if he fucked up severely and needlessly burned an
| insanely expensive asset at the cost of tax payers, that's a
| fuckup from an individual actually qualified for and skilled
| at flying the thing, unlike everyone at this site.
|
| The whole lot of us would probably have the plane go up in
| flames before we even got into it.
| thrill wrote:
| The flight control software was not malfunctioning. He had
| instruments and communication capability that would have
| let him land an otherwise flyable aircraft.
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| > This is still definitely an aircraft that can land safely.
|
| This is not a prop plane. It's a heavy jet which should be
| almost stalling to land _safely_. Tower guys can roughly
| guide you on the course and speed but there would be at least
| 1-2 seconds lag between the reading, _reading_ and acting. I
| wouldn 't say what you can "definitely land _safely_ " in
| these conditions.
| dangle1 wrote:
| Interesting detail in TFA is that the pilot had converted
| to the plane's short take off and vertical landing mode,
| but instead carried out a missed approach procedure when
| his helmet-mounted display malfunctioned.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| The problem seems to be a pilot from AZ unaccustomed to
| flying in heavy rain with insufficient practice using the
| backup instruments.
| ics wrote:
| The pilot is from Atlanta, GA. His assignment to VMX-1 in
| Arizona happened _after_ the investigation as noted in the
| article.
| chinathrow wrote:
| Setting correct pitch and power using the standby instruments
| should be enough then?
|
| Seen on the lower right part of the center console: https://i
| mg.militaryaerospace.com/files/base/ebm/mae/image/2...
| jtbayly wrote:
| The radios did _not_ work. One was out, the other was
| "basically functional." At 2000 feet, while in VTOL mode, how
| long do you have to figure out if your backup radio is
| "basically functional"? And to evaluate whether the standby
| flight display was working properly? And to figure out
| whether the plane is accelerating up and out of VTOL mode
| like you told it to or heading toward the ground?
| psunavy03 wrote:
| That's not what the report is alleged to have said. This news
| story alleges that he executed proper emergency procedures, but
| for the WRONG emergency. It alleges he ejected per the
| procedure for out-of-control flight when what he actually
| (allegedly) had was partial electrical failure with operable
| standby instruments. Which is not a situation mandating
| immediate ejection.
| jasonlotito wrote:
| FTA: VMX-1 is in charge of assessing the Corps' aircraft and
| helping develop and refine tactics, techniques and procedures
| to fly them in combat successfully.
|
| He was the commander of VMX-1. They effectively write the book.
|
| "And the pilot should've figured that out?"
|
| Yes. That's the job.
| jtbayly wrote:
| That was his job _later._
| dialup_sounds wrote:
| The timeline is kind of awkward: he was selected for the
| position in 2022, the crash happened in 2023, and he assumed
| command in 2024.
| tzs wrote:
| I doubt that the job is to figure out updates to the book
| when an unplanned failure occurs over a heavily populated
| civilian area.
| Merad wrote:
| That's not correct. He decided that the aircraft was out of
| control because his primary displays went out at low altitude -
| the manual says eject if out of control below 6000 ft. But in
| fact the plane was still flying and responding to controls just
| fine.
|
| A big factor in this seems to be his overall lack of experience
| in the F-35 and not flying enough hours to really stay
| proficient. Highly recommend this analysis by two former naval
| aviators:
| https://www.youtube.com/live/g8PBA7k6vP8?si=o2DDBX1XqmM_x1gR
| krunck wrote:
| The pilot had a justifiable lack of faith in the aircraft and
| didn't care to be the next pilot victim.
| dlachausse wrote:
| Yes, as the old saying goes "better to be judged by 12 than
| carried by 6."
|
| The decision to relieve him was made with the benefit of having
| much more data and time to make a decision available to them
| than the pilot had.
| elif wrote:
| 64 miles the school bus sized rocket flew before crashing into
| some suburb.
|
| Imagine if someone accidentally fired a tomahawk missile in
| South Carolina for some reason by procedure.
|
| The operator had 10 minutes to cancel but instead acted
| prematurely.
| jtbayly wrote:
| It takes 10 minutes to fall 2000 feet? Then why do the
| instructions say eject if you're below 6k?
| thrill wrote:
| Normally such instructions say to eject if you're _out of
| control_ below some specific altitude that the ejection
| system is known to be capable of operating within.
| varjag wrote:
| There was exactly 1 (one) fatality involving F-35s. In Japan
| air force, attributed to the piloting error.
| margalabargala wrote:
| For those downvoting you, the "justifiable lack of faith" here,
| above and beyond what was enumerated in the article, is that at
| the time this happened there had been two _fatal_ F35
| malfunctions /crashes in the preceding six weeks. I don't blame
| the pilot for not wanting to become another statistic.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Per the article, the other crashes weren't F35s. They were a
| "F/A-18D Hornet in southern California, which killed its
| pilot, and an MV-22 Osprey crash in Australia that killed
| three Marines."
|
| I dont blame someone if they were to get scared and bail, but
| I also dont blame the marines if they dont want people like
| this flying their 110 million dollar jets.
| temp0826 wrote:
| He really wanted one of those Bremont watches that they only sell
| to people who have ejected using one of their seats.
| throwanem wrote:
| Relieved because he wasn't Yeager enough for the job.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| You landed a nice pun.
| timbit42 wrote:
| Launched and landed.
| hluska wrote:
| Here is a military.com article with more information on the
| crash:
|
| https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/10/31/pilot-of-f-35...
|
| There are two interesting additions in this version:
|
| 1.) A discussion on spatial disorientation.
|
| 2.) Comments by the Colonel's wife, who discussed how they
| uprooted their lives in Virginia (almost a year after the crash)
| after being assured that the crash would not impact his command.
| Three months after getting to Yuma, there was an "oops sorry" and
| they removed the Colonel from command. However, they did offer
| him his choice of a next assignment.
| drivingmenuts wrote:
| in any situation where you "serve at the pleasure of" another
| person. you can literally be removed for any or even no reason at
| all. the person who decides to discontinue your service might
| themself have to answer to someone else, but you're still out of
| a job.
|
| it might not be right or fair, but that's not necessarily a
| disqualified in the military.
| ics wrote:
| Brief summary and my understanding of why this occurred:
| - Pilot ejects, survives while losing very expensive plane
| - The crash is Marine's third in several weeks, the other two
| having fatalities; leads to a safety stand down across the entire
| corps - Investigation concludes that ejection was
| unnecessary and so fault of the crash is on the pilot, however
| adding that the procedures written were overly broad -
| Pilot is offered to lead VMX-1 after all this; key part of the
| responsibility is improving procedures
|
| Reading between the lines, it appears that somewhere in the
| leadership was a belief that putting the pilot in charge of VMX-1
| was an opportunity for both; let the guy who made a mistake move
| forward as they'll be least likely to make it twice kind of
| thing. General Eric disagreed and ordered him out; it's not
| stated whether that was based on his own judgement only or if
| others in VMX-1 lost confidence and that factored in. Nobody
| disagrees that they have the ability to fire him for what
| happened.
| underseacables wrote:
| I think it is grossly unfair what happened to the pilot. He
| followed orders, followed procedure, followed the damn manual.
| Wholly inappropriate response by the marine corps. I can only
| assume that it got political and the brass got embarrassed.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-11 23:00 UTC)