12 ms·

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

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 2y ago
> 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 2y ago
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.
- p1esk 2y ago
  If only big tech CEOs were held at the same standards…
- Aeolun 2y ago
  You are trying to say only the one at the top is safe from rotation to cover for blunders?
lumost 2y ago
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.
- Peteragain 2y ago
  Yes. And pilots are harder to replace than planes. The manual will say "if in doubt, punch out". Being in doubt is the issue: should he have been able to figure out he was safe in the time it took to eject? There is the question, and it is a question of training, not moral character.
  - lumost 2y ago
    That’s why they have reviews of these items. Ultimately, a fighter pilot is piloting a very expensive and very dangerous aircraft, if they can’t use good judgement - then they can’t be trusted to operate the aircraft. As an example, a us navy pilot mistook a training exercise for a live fire mission and shot down a us Air Force jet. Mistakes were made in the mission setup, but critically - the pilot should have used judgement to change the mission parameters rather than execute what he believed to be the order. https://www.twz.com/the-bizarre-story-of-how-a-navy-f-14-shot-down-an-air-force-f-4 https://www.twz.com/the-bizarre-story-of-how-a-navy-f-14-sho...
- batushka5 2y ago
  The fact that he chickened out of flyable F35 is floating in the air. I don't imagine how he could continue to work with such baggage in the eyes of colleagues. Retiring is sad, but the better option.
dragonwriter 2y ago
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 2y ago
  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 2y ago
    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 2y ago
    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.
    - LanceH 2y ago
      I'm not familiar with VMX-1 and will take your word on it. This may be exactly as appears. On the other hand, there are way too many instances of officer shenanigans only punished by snubbing them on their career path. "he followed procedure" combined with firing gives off these vibes. Call me cynical, but if there is a lack of trust, it because of a lack of transparency in the past.
Manuel_D 2y ago
> 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 2y ago
  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?
  - db48x 2y ago
    No, the screens are a separate system from the fly–by–wire computer. You don’t throw your desktop computer out of a window just because one monitor goes out. You use the other monitor to order a replacement from IT or Newegg or whatever. In this case the F–35 has three independent displays that can all redundantly display the same information: the HUD in the pilot’s helmet, the primary display, and the standby display. The standby display is smaller and below the primary display in the cockpit, but it is designed to keep working even when everything else doesn’t. Their whole purpose is to be the backup in case the other displays fail.
    - arghwhat 2y ago
      > In this case the F–35 has three independent displays that can all redundantly display the same information This is not true. The standby display is just a tiny artificial horizon by the pilot's right knee, so when HUD and primary display is out, all you're left with is your speed, altitude and attitude. This cannot in any way or form be considered "the same information" as the primary flight display of an F35B, and leaves you without a lot of control. Whether you can limp along with such backup system depends entirely on what is going on at the time the primary flight displays go dark. In a fighter jet, that display may in some cases just tell you what angle and velocity you are going to die at. Furthermore, in challenging conditions you might have to make a decision very quickly and might not have time tuning yourself into the standby display and its degraded information. This type of degraded backups exist in many aircrafts - you don't want the pilot of an Airbus you're in to be confronted with the plane dropping to mechanical law, or even direct law if taking off or landing, even if these modes are technically flyable and well documented.
psunavy03 2y ago
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.
- the5avage 2y ago
  When a modern aircaft like this has an electrical failure I would feel very uncomfortable. He also lost part of his displays during conditions with little sight. So imo the question should be if it would have been possible for him to check if the airplane is really out of control, in a way that it wouldn't cost his life if it was.
  - psunavy03 2y ago
    If his standby instruments were operable, the answer to that question is likely "yes." Having not flown a STOVL aircraft, the only part I can't speak to is whether his thrust vectoring/lift fan was in an unknown configuration, and how that plays into things. But generally out-of-control flight results from a spike in angle of attack at low speeds leading to aerodynamic stall and departure, and modern fly-by-wire aircraft are highly resistant to this.
jasonlotito 2y ago
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 2y ago
  That was his job later.
- dialup_sounds 2y ago
  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 2y ago
  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 2y ago
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 https://www.youtube.com/live/g8PBA7k6vP8?si=o2DDBX1XqmM_x1gR
dyauspitr 2y ago
The pilot should have figured it out especially since all the controls were working. It’s like he ejected from a $100 million aircraft because one of the screens went out.
mmooss 2y ago
At least one concept of it is that officers (and NCOs and maybe others) are expected to succeed when the 'book' is insufficient. Following the manual is not nearly enough. Warfare is chaos; unexpected things happen; the manual is one input but people are expected to take initiative and overcome problems with or without it. It's not extra credit, it's a baseline expectation for the job. Also, this person is a colonel, not a second lieutenant.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- KennyBlanken 2y ago
  This and the fact that he didn't make the slightest attempt to work around it. He had a flyable plane with plenty of fuel, a functioning backup radio and instruments he could have verified primaries against or just switched to, and even failing everything else, he could have verified against what the tower saw on radar for speed, heading, altitude, etc...and then asked the tower to get him to his wingman, and then followed his wingman in. Instead he decided "HUD freaking out, that means I can't trust my instruments, that means I'm in immediate danger! PUNCH OUT!"
  - unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
    The article states he was at 1,900 feet in heavy rain with nonfunctional instument panels. He was there, he's got the experience, and he ejected (which is dangerous too). Maybe the commandant of the Marines would have liked a better headline, but another way of looking at it is the pilot lost his video server and really needed a functioning screen. I just threw away a video card in exactly the same scenario, and I felt I was troubleshooting far too long as it was. Maybe the commandant wanted the pilot to troubleshoot on the ground? But the computer was not any better after it hit the ground.
    - db48x 2y ago
      > with nonfunctional instrument panels This is incorrect. He lost his HUD and the primary flight display, but not the standby instruments. Those are intended as a backup in case the other systems fail, and they did their job and kept operating. You can't use them to fire missiles or keep track of enemy anti–air radar systems, but you can use them to fly the plane, avoid terrain, and land safely. And he didn’t even check to see if they were still working before he ejected.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jki275 2y ago
I don't think it says exactly that. It says he still had backup instruments and good flight controls and ejected from a flyable plane. If that were strictly true, they'd be well within standards to fire him. I'm not sure I agree though -- it was a shitty situation all around, missed approach, go around, instrument only conditions, lightning strike that took out the HMD and most of the cockpit displays. That's a real shitshow in a completely fly by wire plane.
UltraSane 2y ago
The fact that the plane was able to fly over 60 miles after he ejected kinda proves that ejecting wasn't really needed.
- the5avage 2y ago
  But it doesn't proof that it was possible for the pilot to know this.
  - close04 2y ago
    Which is why he still has the job as a pilot. He followed an overly broad procedure so wasn't derelict in his duties but ejecting from a flyable plane was considered a mistake. He was a squadron commander so the expectation of assessing a situation even under pressure and with limited information is a lot stronger.
db48x 2y ago
The book said that ejecting is the correct action when the plane is “unresponsive to the pilot’s commands“. This simple, straight forward statement turns out to be more ambiguous than they intended. Do you eject if the radio doesn’t change channel? No, that would be silly, even though the plane didn’t respond to your command to change the channel. The plane is still flyable without the radio! Common sense says that you should just land and get the radio fixed. There’s even a whole procedure that pilots have to memorize about how to land at an airport safely even if you have no radio. In this case the pilot changed from mode 4 (SVTOL for landing) to mode 1 (normal flight) when the ILS system went offline. But because the HUD blinked on and off several times, he didn’t realize that the plane was actually transitioning back to mode 1. He didn’t wait long enough for it to finish, and without his HUD he thought that the plane was unresponsive, so he ejected. But the plane was still flyable, even if it had actually been stuck in mode 4! You probably can’t dogfight in mode 4, but you can certainly fly to your alternate airport and land. So instead of penalizing him for following his training to the letter, they changed the manual to state that ejecting is the correct course of action if the plane is unresponsive to the pilot’s “pitch, roll, or yaw commands” specifically.
- imglorp 2y ago
  Fully agree but as usual it was more complicated than this even. Losing controls and instruments in IMC conditions could mean you're straight and level with many minutes to troubleshoot and try things off book, or maybe another attitude like a graveyard spiral towards the deck with seconds to decide. We might not have all the details to armchair fly it.
  - db48x 2y ago
    He didn’t lose the controls _or_ the instruments. He lost his HUD and the primary flight display. But the standby instrument display was still working correctly, and the fly–by–wire system was still accepting input and acting on it correctly. Sure, if those things had failed then ejecting would have been fine. But he didn’t even check them to see if they were still working or not, he just bailed out of a flyable plane.
WalterBright 2y ago
Many, many airplanes and lives were saved by pilots not following the book. See "Aviation Disasters" on TV.
blindriver 2y ago
This is why books like Catch-22 were written.
cirrus3 2y ago
The technical reason was “for loss of trust and confidence in his ability to execute the responsibilities of his command” which is not related to him following the book or if the book is right or wrong. Which makes sense. It was subjective and that is ok. “As a commander you serve at the pleasure of the commandant,” Del Pizzo said. “It was an absolute privilege to have the opportunity to lead the Marines, sailors and civilians of VMX-1.” also “he made the decision to relieve the commanding officer of [VMX-1], due to the unique mission of VMX-1.”
datavirtue 2y ago
Yeah, PR and politics was going sideways in light of having all those crashes stacking up on their record. Someone needed a write-off.
kamaal 2y ago
>>Feels like they just need someone to blame for losing the plane. Its always hard to be a the last man in the hierarchy of a big budget project run by idiots. They always need somebody to fire to 'cya'.
veunes 2y ago
This seems to be less about fault and more about perception
ExoticPearTree 2y ago
I read the whole article and from what is described, VMX-1 is where the best pilots of the USMC evaluate aircraft. Which I take it they are test pilots and are expected to perform much better than "standard" pilots are required to. I guess the USMC expected him to try until the very last moment to recover the aircraft.

emptiestplace 2y ago

> 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 2y ago

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.

p1esk 2y ago
If only big tech CEOs were held at the same standards…
Aeolun 2y ago
You are trying to say only the one at the top is safe from rotation to cover for blunders?

lumost 2y ago

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.

Peteragain 2y ago
Yes. And pilots are harder to replace than planes. The manual will say "if in doubt, punch out". Being in doubt is the issue: should he have been able to figure out he was safe in the time it took to eject? There is the question, and it is a question of training, not moral character.
- lumost 2y ago
  That’s why they have reviews of these items. Ultimately, a fighter pilot is piloting a very expensive and very dangerous aircraft, if they can’t use good judgement - then they can’t be trusted to operate the aircraft. As an example, a us navy pilot mistook a training exercise for a live fire mission and shot down a us Air Force jet. Mistakes were made in the mission setup, but critically - the pilot should have used judgement to change the mission parameters rather than execute what he believed to be the order. https://www.twz.com/the-bizarre-story-of-how-a-navy-f-14-shot-down-an-air-force-f-4 https://www.twz.com/the-bizarre-story-of-how-a-navy-f-14-sho...
batushka5 2y ago
The fact that he chickened out of flyable F35 is floating in the air. I don't imagine how he could continue to work with such baggage in the eyes of colleagues. Retiring is sad, but the better option.

dragonwriter 2y ago

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 2y ago
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 2y ago
  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 2y ago
  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.
  - LanceH 2y ago
    I'm not familiar with VMX-1 and will take your word on it. This may be exactly as appears. On the other hand, there are way too many instances of officer shenanigans only punished by snubbing them on their career path. "he followed procedure" combined with firing gives off these vibes. Call me cynical, but if there is a lack of trust, it because of a lack of transparency in the past.

Manuel_D 2y ago

> 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 2y ago
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?
- db48x 2y ago
  No, the screens are a separate system from the fly–by–wire computer. You don’t throw your desktop computer out of a window just because one monitor goes out. You use the other monitor to order a replacement from IT or Newegg or whatever. In this case the F–35 has three independent displays that can all redundantly display the same information: the HUD in the pilot’s helmet, the primary display, and the standby display. The standby display is smaller and below the primary display in the cockpit, but it is designed to keep working even when everything else doesn’t. Their whole purpose is to be the backup in case the other displays fail.
  - arghwhat 2y ago
    > In this case the F–35 has three independent displays that can all redundantly display the same information This is not true. The standby display is just a tiny artificial horizon by the pilot's right knee, so when HUD and primary display is out, all you're left with is your speed, altitude and attitude. This cannot in any way or form be considered "the same information" as the primary flight display of an F35B, and leaves you without a lot of control. Whether you can limp along with such backup system depends entirely on what is going on at the time the primary flight displays go dark. In a fighter jet, that display may in some cases just tell you what angle and velocity you are going to die at. Furthermore, in challenging conditions you might have to make a decision very quickly and might not have time tuning yourself into the standby display and its degraded information. This type of degraded backups exist in many aircrafts - you don't want the pilot of an Airbus you're in to be confronted with the plane dropping to mechanical law, or even direct law if taking off or landing, even if these modes are technically flyable and well documented.

psunavy03 2y ago

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.

the5avage 2y ago
When a modern aircaft like this has an electrical failure I would feel very uncomfortable. He also lost part of his displays during conditions with little sight. So imo the question should be if it would have been possible for him to check if the airplane is really out of control, in a way that it wouldn't cost his life if it was.
- psunavy03 2y ago
  If his standby instruments were operable, the answer to that question is likely "yes." Having not flown a STOVL aircraft, the only part I can't speak to is whether his thrust vectoring/lift fan was in an unknown configuration, and how that plays into things. But generally out-of-control flight results from a spike in angle of attack at low speeds leading to aerodynamic stall and departure, and modern fly-by-wire aircraft are highly resistant to this.

jasonlotito 2y ago

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 2y ago
That was his job later.
dialup_sounds 2y ago
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 2y ago
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 2y ago

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 https://www.youtube.com/live/g8PBA7k6vP8?si=o2DDBX1XqmM_x1gR

dyauspitr 2y ago

The pilot should have figured it out especially since all the controls were working. It’s like he ejected from a $100 million aircraft because one of the screens went out.

mmooss 2y ago

At least one concept of it is that officers (and NCOs and maybe others) are expected to succeed when the 'book' is insufficient. Following the manual is not nearly enough. Warfare is chaos; unexpected things happen; the manual is one input but people are expected to take initiative and overcome problems with or without it. It's not extra credit, it's a baseline expectation for the job. Also, this person is a colonel, not a second lieutenant.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
KennyBlanken 2y ago
This and the fact that he didn't make the slightest attempt to work around it. He had a flyable plane with plenty of fuel, a functioning backup radio and instruments he could have verified primaries against or just switched to, and even failing everything else, he could have verified against what the tower saw on radar for speed, heading, altitude, etc...and then asked the tower to get him to his wingman, and then followed his wingman in. Instead he decided "HUD freaking out, that means I can't trust my instruments, that means I'm in immediate danger! PUNCH OUT!"
- unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
  The article states he was at 1,900 feet in heavy rain with nonfunctional instument panels. He was there, he's got the experience, and he ejected (which is dangerous too). Maybe the commandant of the Marines would have liked a better headline, but another way of looking at it is the pilot lost his video server and really needed a functioning screen. I just threw away a video card in exactly the same scenario, and I felt I was troubleshooting far too long as it was. Maybe the commandant wanted the pilot to troubleshoot on the ground? But the computer was not any better after it hit the ground.
  - db48x 2y ago
    > with nonfunctional instrument panels This is incorrect. He lost his HUD and the primary flight display, but not the standby instruments. Those are intended as a backup in case the other systems fail, and they did their job and kept operating. You can't use them to fire missiles or keep track of enemy anti–air radar systems, but you can use them to fly the plane, avoid terrain, and land safely. And he didn’t even check to see if they were still working before he ejected.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

jki275 2y ago

I don't think it says exactly that. It says he still had backup instruments and good flight controls and ejected from a flyable plane. If that were strictly true, they'd be well within standards to fire him. I'm not sure I agree though -- it was a shitty situation all around, missed approach, go around, instrument only conditions, lightning strike that took out the HMD and most of the cockpit displays. That's a real shitshow in a completely fly by wire plane.

UltraSane 2y ago

The fact that the plane was able to fly over 60 miles after he ejected kinda proves that ejecting wasn't really needed.

the5avage 2y ago
But it doesn't proof that it was possible for the pilot to know this.
- close04 2y ago
  Which is why he still has the job as a pilot. He followed an overly broad procedure so wasn't derelict in his duties but ejecting from a flyable plane was considered a mistake. He was a squadron commander so the expectation of assessing a situation even under pressure and with limited information is a lot stronger.

db48x 2y ago

The book said that ejecting is the correct action when the plane is “unresponsive to the pilot’s commands“. This simple, straight forward statement turns out to be more ambiguous than they intended. Do you eject if the radio doesn’t change channel? No, that would be silly, even though the plane didn’t respond to your command to change the channel. The plane is still flyable without the radio! Common sense says that you should just land and get the radio fixed. There’s even a whole procedure that pilots have to memorize about how to land at an airport safely even if you have no radio. In this case the pilot changed from mode 4 (SVTOL for landing) to mode 1 (normal flight) when the ILS system went offline. But because the HUD blinked on and off several times, he didn’t realize that the plane was actually transitioning back to mode 1. He didn’t wait long enough for it to finish, and without his HUD he thought that the plane was unresponsive, so he ejected. But the plane was still flyable, even if it had actually been stuck in mode 4! You probably can’t dogfight in mode 4, but you can certainly fly to your alternate airport and land. So instead of penalizing him for following his training to the letter, they changed the manual to state that ejecting is the correct course of action if the plane is unresponsive to the pilot’s “pitch, roll, or yaw commands” specifically.

imglorp 2y ago
Fully agree but as usual it was more complicated than this even. Losing controls and instruments in IMC conditions could mean you're straight and level with many minutes to troubleshoot and try things off book, or maybe another attitude like a graveyard spiral towards the deck with seconds to decide. We might not have all the details to armchair fly it.
- db48x 2y ago
  He didn’t lose the controls _or_ the instruments. He lost his HUD and the primary flight display. But the standby instrument display was still working correctly, and the fly–by–wire system was still accepting input and acting on it correctly. Sure, if those things had failed then ejecting would have been fine. But he didn’t even check them to see if they were still working or not, he just bailed out of a flyable plane.

WalterBright 2y ago

Many, many airplanes and lives were saved by pilots not following the book. See "Aviation Disasters" on TV.

blindriver 2y ago

This is why books like Catch-22 were written.

cirrus3 2y ago

The technical reason was “for loss of trust and confidence in his ability to execute the responsibilities of his command” which is not related to him following the book or if the book is right or wrong. Which makes sense. It was subjective and that is ok. “As a commander you serve at the pleasure of the commandant,” Del Pizzo said. “It was an absolute privilege to have the opportunity to lead the Marines, sailors and civilians of VMX-1.” also “he made the decision to relieve the commanding officer of [VMX-1], due to the unique mission of VMX-1.”

datavirtue 2y ago

Yeah, PR and politics was going sideways in light of having all those crashes stacking up on their record. Someone needed a write-off.

kamaal 2y ago

>>Feels like they just need someone to blame for losing the plane. Its always hard to be a the last man in the hierarchy of a big budget project run by idiots. They always need somebody to fire to 'cya'.

veunes 2y ago

This seems to be less about fault and more about perception

ExoticPearTree 2y ago

I read the whole article and from what is described, VMX-1 is where the best pilots of the USMC evaluate aircraft. Which I take it they are test pilots and are expected to perform much better than "standard" pilots are required to. I guess the USMC expected him to try until the very last moment to recover the aircraft.