4 ms·
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
by 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 agothat'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 agoLoss 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 agoI 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 agoThat 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.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoseems 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.
- jameshart 2y agoOn the other hand, the USMC has invested considerable time and effort in training this person to operate the F-35. Replacing him with someone else will take time and money. For the organization that invested all that into him to say ‘nope, we don’t want you to fly these things any more’ is itself a massive waste of resources.
- jki275 2y agoHe's certainly a highly trained Naval Aviator, but he had very little time in the F35.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoSure, that makes sense as a waste if you are operating under the assumption that they have no questions of ability and are simply being railroaded, and will never fly again. In this case, the pilot is still flying. They are just not leading as prestigious and high risk command, because there are doubts that they suitable. There is no new cost, they are just rotating the roster. he will fly elsewhere and a different pilot will take that role. It is only a loss if you double down thinking that he was the best or only fit for that role.
- the__alchemist 2y agoHe was fired from command, not stripped of his wings.
- master_crab 2y agoEhh. While I understand your point, I think we should also ask ourselves if it’s reasonable for a fighter to cost $110m a pop.
- jki275 2y agoThat's what everybody in the military gets fired for. It's just boilerplate for public consumption. We don't know why he was fired, but the logical conclusion is that it was this incident.