3 ms·
One clear indication he was not, from PDF p14 (8 as numbered) ("MP"="mishap pilot"): "At 21:12:52Z, the SOF informed the MP, “Alright the engineers uh are not
by eduction 1y ago
One clear indication he was not, from PDF p14 (8 as numbered) ("MP"="mishap pilot"):
"At 21:12:52Z, the SOF informed the MP, “Alright the engineers uh are not optimistic about this
COA but, extremely low PK [probability kill, meaning the probability this would fix the issue],
but we’re going to try anyway is a touch-and-go on the runway, mains only, do not touch the nose
gear, uh lift back off in all cases and have the uh have Yeti 4 reconfirm the nose gear position once
your safely airborne.”"
No need for this if the pilot was on the call directly.
- jasonlotito 1y agoFrom the Report: > The MP initiated a conference call with Lockheed Martin engineers through the on-duty supervisor of flying (SOF). The MA held for approximately 50 minutes while the team developed a plan of action. "though the SOF" implies a middle-man, but I imagine that's because you don't want literally hook up a conference call directly to the cockpit. That being said, seems like the pilot was effectively on the conference call. Unless you want to suggest I don't trust the report? https://www.pacaf.af.mil/Portals/6/documents/3_AIB%20Report.pdf?ver=z-QJglR9Qm7slupMlo6zeA%3D%3D https://www.pacaf.af.mil/Portals/6/documents/3_AIB%20Report....
- eduction 1y agoWhat I said is he was not on the call /directly/. You can argue over whether he was “effectively” on the call because someone was summarizing it for him per what I quoted. I just think it’s worth nothing he was not “on” the call the way someone is traditionally on a conference call.