4 ms·

Upon first reading the headline I was thinking it was some sort of test flight. Nope, poor guy was just trying to fly and ended up forced into a high-stakes tro

Upon first reading the headline I was thinking it was some sort of test flight. Nope, poor guy was just trying to fly and ended up forced into a high-stakes troubleshooting tree while on a conference call, as if there's not enough on your mind in a fighter cockpit. I don't know how many human-manned gens of aircraft are left, but my first inclination is to think a remote-control fallback option wouldn't be out of line here if the security could be done right.

lazide 1y ago
Honestly, an override switch was all they needed. The problem is they went all digital and didn’t have one.
nradov 1y ago
Remote control for what? That doesn't really help in the case of a serious mechanical failure. There are probably several more generations of crewed tactical aircraft left. Autonomous flight control software is decades away from being able to handle complex missions and remote piloting can only work when you have secure, reliable, high-bandwidth communication links. The concept of operations for the next few generations will rely on manned/unmanned teaming where drones are sent forward to do most of the fighting and the manned aircraft hang back slightly but still within line of sight to act as control nodes.
- RankingMember 1y ago
  > Remote control for what? That doesn't really help in the case of a serious mechanical failure. In my theoretical, the pilot would safely eject as he did here (or possibly before the touch-and-gos) and the remote control would come into play to try and belly land the plane without it simply becoming a fireball immediately after ejection.
  - nradov 1y ago
    Your theoretical is stupid. The mishap aircraft was uncontrollable.
    - RankingMember 1y ago
      It clearly was controllable up until the last touch-and-go. The point is they could've attempted an actual landing with the pilot clear of the aircraft prior to it becoming completely uncontrollable had their been a remote option. It's about pilot safety.
      - nradov 1y ago
        That's silly. You're talking about spending years and billions of dollars developing a capability that might be used once every few years. It's not going to do anything to enhance pilot safety.

lazide 1y ago

Honestly, an override switch was all they needed. The problem is they went all digital and didn’t have one.

nradov 1y ago

Remote control for what? That doesn't really help in the case of a serious mechanical failure. There are probably several more generations of crewed tactical aircraft left. Autonomous flight control software is decades away from being able to handle complex missions and remote piloting can only work when you have secure, reliable, high-bandwidth communication links. The concept of operations for the next few generations will rely on manned/unmanned teaming where drones are sent forward to do most of the fighting and the manned aircraft hang back slightly but still within line of sight to act as control nodes.

RankingMember 1y ago
> Remote control for what? That doesn't really help in the case of a serious mechanical failure. In my theoretical, the pilot would safely eject as he did here (or possibly before the touch-and-gos) and the remote control would come into play to try and belly land the plane without it simply becoming a fireball immediately after ejection.
- nradov 1y ago
  Your theoretical is stupid. The mishap aircraft was uncontrollable.
  - RankingMember 1y ago
    It clearly was controllable up until the last touch-and-go. The point is they could've attempted an actual landing with the pilot clear of the aircraft prior to it becoming completely uncontrollable had their been a remote option. It's about pilot safety.
    - nradov 1y ago
      That's silly. You're talking about spending years and billions of dollars developing a capability that might be used once every few years. It's not going to do anything to enhance pilot safety.