6 ms·

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

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.
vlovich123 2y ago
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 2y ago
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 2y ago
  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 2y ago
    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-crashed-south-carolina-ejected-after-malfunctions-disorientation.html https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/10/31/pilot-of-f-35...
    - Aeolun 2y ago
      I think that’s just to make the shafting a little bit softer. You are still being shafted for valuing your own life over an expensive airplane.
      - walrushunter 2y ago
        That plane is significantly more valuable to the American people than his life is. That plane cost the entire federal tax bill of 1000 senior software engineers. If he's not willing to risk his life to keep it in the air, he shouldn't be flying it.
jtbayly 2y ago
He didn’t have that job until a year later.
- ExoticPearTree 2y ago
  Yes, but I guess command decided he wouldn't be a good fit to lead others because of his past experience which as not yet know when he was assigned to be the CO of VMX-1.
  - jtbayly 2y ago
    His past experience was known when he took that assignment. It was considered by all before he accepted it. That doesn’t mean his boss can’t fire him, but let’s not pretend that it wasn’t a complete reversal of what had previously been decided.
    - ExoticPearTree 2y ago
      What is not clear is if this report was available when he got the job or not. Because "he crashed a plane unde difficult conditions" without additional context might be fine and then 5 months later the report comes out and it is not fine for him to be the CO of that unit. And, being the military (and this also happens in big orgs as well), the people above him can fire hime from a post without much issues.
tzs 2y ago
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?
- 4ad 2y ago
  Plus this idea of "updating the book" makes it sound like this was some sort of experimental aircraft where they still have to finalize the manual. This is a production aircraft, over 1000 were built, it is deployed in 30+ countries.
  - j16sdiz 2y ago
    huh? Commercial aircraft updates its manual all the times
  - lmm 2y ago
    It's still officially in development, hasn't passed its validation tests yet.
- KennyBlanken 2y ago
  From the article: "Del Pizzo’s “decision to eject was ultimately inappropriate, because commanded flight inputs were in-progress at the time of ejection, standby flight instrumentation was providing accurate data, and the [jet’s] backup radio was, at least partially, functional. Furthermore, the aircraft continued to fly for an extended period after ejection.”" He lost contact with the tower and his wingman, and did not try to use his backup radio. He lost some primary instruments - the HUD - and did not try to use backup instruments. If he'd contacted his wingman and the tower he could have verified at least some of his instruments, or followed his wingman in for a landing. The whole thing is absurd. The guy lost his cool, freaked out, and punched out - and is trying to cover his ass by using the cover-their-ass section of the aircraft manual.

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.

vlovich123 2y ago

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 2y ago

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 2y ago
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 2y ago
  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-crashed-south-carolina-ejected-after-malfunctions-disorientation.html https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/10/31/pilot-of-f-35...
  - Aeolun 2y ago
    I think that’s just to make the shafting a little bit softer. You are still being shafted for valuing your own life over an expensive airplane.
    - walrushunter 2y ago
      That plane is significantly more valuable to the American people than his life is. That plane cost the entire federal tax bill of 1000 senior software engineers. If he's not willing to risk his life to keep it in the air, he shouldn't be flying it.

jtbayly 2y ago

He didn’t have that job until a year later.

ExoticPearTree 2y ago
Yes, but I guess command decided he wouldn't be a good fit to lead others because of his past experience which as not yet know when he was assigned to be the CO of VMX-1.
- jtbayly 2y ago
  His past experience was known when he took that assignment. It was considered by all before he accepted it. That doesn’t mean his boss can’t fire him, but let’s not pretend that it wasn’t a complete reversal of what had previously been decided.
  - ExoticPearTree 2y ago
    What is not clear is if this report was available when he got the job or not. Because "he crashed a plane unde difficult conditions" without additional context might be fine and then 5 months later the report comes out and it is not fine for him to be the CO of that unit. And, being the military (and this also happens in big orgs as well), the people above him can fire hime from a post without much issues.

tzs 2y ago

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?

4ad 2y ago
Plus this idea of "updating the book" makes it sound like this was some sort of experimental aircraft where they still have to finalize the manual. This is a production aircraft, over 1000 were built, it is deployed in 30+ countries.
- j16sdiz 2y ago
  huh? Commercial aircraft updates its manual all the times
- lmm 2y ago
  It's still officially in development, hasn't passed its validation tests yet.
KennyBlanken 2y ago
From the article: "Del Pizzo’s “decision to eject was ultimately inappropriate, because commanded flight inputs were in-progress at the time of ejection, standby flight instrumentation was providing accurate data, and the [jet’s] backup radio was, at least partially, functional. Furthermore, the aircraft continued to fly for an extended period after ejection.”" He lost contact with the tower and his wingman, and did not try to use his backup radio. He lost some primary instruments - the HUD - and did not try to use backup instruments. If he'd contacted his wingman and the tower he could have verified at least some of his instruments, or followed his wingman in for a landing. The whole thing is absurd. The guy lost his cool, freaked out, and punched out - and is trying to cover his ass by using the cover-their-ass section of the aircraft manual.