[Updated] How Did an F-35 Fighter Jet Go Missing While on Autopilot?

[Baluncore]

The possibilities are endless here. We do not know if the ejection was voluntary, or if the avionics ejected the pilot. To be flying upside down on autopilot, suggests that the cruise state was reached via an unexpected path.

Faulty software is one explanation, reliable software is another; since the aircraft partially recovered normal flight after the ejection event.
We will have to wait for the accident report to leak from the military investigation.

 

[DaveC426913]

or if the avionics ejected the pilot.

What?? This is a possibility???

What if he was picking his nose at the time??

 

[Vanadium 50]

We will have to wait for the accident report to leak from the military investigation.

These usually are made public, with some redactions, usually names.

However,

• We don't know the plane was inverted. Just that some non-expert witnesses reported it.
• We don't know why the aviator ejected.
• We don't know if or when the aircraft fires the ejection seat on its own. Just that such an action is technically possible when it wasn't so in the past.

I am not an aviator, but I find it plausible that a modern fighter aircraft can, in good weather, flight straight and level to the nearest pre-programmed landing area and safely put thge plane down, all with a good probability of success. I find it less plausible that the plane can recover on its own from an abnormal condition and do this, and as such expect that this feature on this airframe is intended to be used rarely.

In short, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

 

[DaveC426913]

It is not clear to me whether these witnesses saw the plane inverted ejection or after ejection.

I can certainly understand the latter scenario, and that is what i had been assuming until yall started discussing inverted ejection.

 

[.Scott]

In previous US fighters, ejection was commanded by the pilot through mechanical means. I can't image the ejection decision being made by software because if the pilot does not prep himself, the injuries could be severe or fatal.
According to reports of the 911 conversation, the pilot reported "I ejected" and later reported an "aircraft failure".

Since the plane continued on for about a minute after the ejection, I would guess that it was more-or-less upright during the ejection, but rolled into inverted flight afterwards.

The pilot reported parachuting from 2000 feet. The military has reported the mishap as occuring at 1000 feet. The air station is on the coast at an elevation of about 37 feet, so there is no big difference between MSL and AGL elevation numbers. More likely, the pilot managed an unplanned climb to 2000 before ejecting.

 

[DaveC426913]

I am not an aviator, but I find it plausible that a modern fighter aircraft can, in good weather, flight straight and level to the nearest pre-programmed landing area and safely put thge plane down, all with a good probability of success.

I know nothing. Is this really within the realm of plausibility in modern aircraft?

I mean, I know commercial aircraft practically land themselves these days, but I assumed that word 'practically' to be doing some heavy lifting there.

 

[Baluncore]

I know nothing. Is this really within the realm of plausibility in modern aircraft?

Stealth aircraft have ugly shapes that are difficult to fly safely, so the avionics keeps the plane safe by interpreting the pilot's requests and staying within the flight envelope (= departure resistance). It would not take much for the redundant avionics to recover automatically after an upset, or the autopilot to return to base and land without input from the pilot.
Wikipedia on the F-35: "Relaxed stability and triplex-redundant fly-by-wire controls provide excellent handling qualities and departure resistance."
Wikipedia on the F-117: "It is aerodynamically unstable in all three aircraft principal axes and thus requires constant flight corrections via a fly-by-wire (FBW) flight system to maintain controlled flight."

 

[DaveC426913]

Stealth aircraft have ugly shapes that are difficult to fly safely, so the avionics keeps the plane safe by interpreting the pilot's requests and staying within the flight envelope (= departure resistance). It would not take much for the redundant avionics to recover automatically after an upset, or the autopilot to return to base and land without input from the pilot.
Wikipedia on the F-35: "Relaxed stability and triplex-redundant fly-by-wire controls provide excellent handling qualities and departure resistance."
Wikipedia on the F-117: "It is aerodynamically unstable in all three aircraft principal axes and thus requires constant flight corrections via a fly-by-wire (FBW) flight system to maintain controlled flight."

Sure, but find an airport and land?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Why is finding an airport hard? The military practically invented GPS. Airports - or more likely Naval Air Stations - don't move very fast,

 

[DaveC426913]

Why is finding an airport hard? The military practically invented GPS. Airports - or more likely Naval Air Stations - don't move very fast,

No, I get it. All the pieces are there, I am just having trouble imagining the reality of a pilot telling his plane to land itself a hundred miles away and then hunkering down for a nap, to only wake up when it taxis to a stop.

 

[jrmichler]

Sure, but find an airport and land?

Autoland has been a standard option on several general aviation aircraft for several years. It's for emergencies only. So far.

Piper M600: https://www.piper.com/model/m600sls/. From their web site:
PHASE 1: Autoland Engages Manually or Automatically
The moment Autoland is needed, it gains situational awareness and takes control of all systems necessary to bring you and your passengers safely to the nearest runway.

PHASE 2: Communicates Clearly with ATC and Passengers
Once Autoland is in control, passengers and air traffic control are alerted to the new flight plan and estimated time until landing.

PHASE 3: Fully Monitors Situational Awareness
Autoland continues to monitor and adjust to real-time inputs as if the pilot were still at the controls. It takes into account runway size, wind, time, fuel range. glide path and considers weather conditions en route to the nearest safe runway.

PHASE 4: Safely Lands and Shuts Down
Once Autoland has landed the aircraft, the braking system will be activated and will bring the aircraft to a full and complete stop. Finally, the engine will shut down and instructions will be provided about how to exit the aircraft.

TBM 960: https://www.tbm.aero/page/tbm960. From their web site: The TBM 960’s HomeSafe™ emergency autoland function automatically brings the airplane to a runway touchdown if the pilot is incapacitated. This game-changing technology extends Daher’s innovation to a feature that specifically addresses safety from the passengers’ point of view.

Also the Cirrus Vision Jet, TBM 940, and King Air 200. Garmin developed it: https://discover.garmin.com/en-US/autonomi/

 

[DaveC426913]

Has it ever been executed successfully in-the-wild?

 

[russ_watters]

I know nothing. Is this really within the realm of plausibility in modern aircraft?

I mean, I know commercial aircraft practically land themselves these days, but I assumed that word 'practically' to be doing some heavy lifting there.

Re"practically"; It's not. The pilots can indeed just sit there and watch.

 

[berkeman]

Sure, but find an airport and land?

That's the easy part, and not controversial. The controversial part is where the autonomous aircraft uses weapons to clear other traffic out of the way...

 

[DaveC426913]

That's the easy part, and not controversial. The controversial part is where the autonomous aircraft uses weapons to clear other traffic out of the way...

You have 20 seconds to comply...

 

[russ_watters]

Autoland has been a standard option on several general aviation aircraft for several years. It's for emergencies only. So far.

My understanding was that on commercial airliners, a significant fraction of landings use it.

 

[.Scott]

There are a few different forms of flight automation.

One is fly-by-wire. Normally a plane is designed to be dynamically stable - a change in pitch or roll tends to correct itself. But the Space Shuttle and many fighter aircraft do not follow those design rules. As they fly, the control surfaces must be continuously adjusted to keep the aircraft under control. Fly-by-wire (FBW) reads pilot control inputs and drives the aircraft control surface to roll/pitch/yaw as instructed. Fly-by-wire is a necessary component of an unstable aircraft design. The Space Shuttle had five independent FBW computers. Normally, four of the systems would vote on the correct control surface operations and potentially "vote out" a malfunctioning computer among them. The fifth computer was developed independently with software of completely different authorship. A button on the pilots control stick (known by astronauts as the "career-limiting switch") would switch control over to that fifth computer.

The next is autopilot. Autopilots come with different abilities and operating modes. At best, they can maintain an airspeed, altitude, heading, or track a navigation signal (for example, from GPS, a VOR, or an ILS). Although you can often queue up a few instructions to an autopilot, they only process one command at a time. When tracking an ILS, some autopilots can land on a runway and keep the aircraft on the center line during roll out. Importantly, some autopilots are able to received instructions from onboard navigation systems.

Finally there is a "Flight Management System" (FMS). I have never used an FMS, but I have contributed to the development of the nautical equivalent: an ECDIS (actually an ECDIS-N) that supports Autopilot. An ECDIS or FMS can process an approved voyage plan, monitor the position and direction (GPS, etc), and control a craft through the autopilot. In both cases, they are as much planning systems as real-time navigation systems.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The controversial part is where the autonomous aircraft uses weapons to clear other traffic out of the way...

"You are number 24 to land"
<bzzt> "24? I'll give you 24!"

 

[Vanadium 50]

So, an interesting fact was released. The aviator was 47 years old.

That is very significant. A 47 year old aviator is likely a colonel or a lieutenant colonel about to be promoted to colonel. I don't want to dox the fellow, but there is one exceptionally good candidate.

Whoever he is, he's not some nugget fresh out of flight school. He's someone who has had lots of experience: thousands of hours of flying, at least four different aircraft - three of which are supersonic jets - including in combat. He is almost certainly carrier-qualified. He is almost too senior to be up in that plane.

His 911 call (which is a hoot) says he punched out at 2000 feet. The plane went on for 60 miles, which means either it had a gradual 1/3 degree* downward trajectory or flew straight and level until the end of the flight when it pitched suddenly down. Either way, it suggests a measure of control, if only FBW and neutral inputs.

* Probably even less when one considers the difference between altitude and height above ground.

 

[DaveC426913]

So, an interesting fact was released. The aviator was 47 years old.

That is very significant. A 47 year old aviator is likely a colonel or a lieutenant colonel about to be promoted to colonel. I don't want to dox the fellow, but there is one exceptionally good candidate.

Whoever he is, he's not some nugget fresh out of flight school. He's someone who has had lots of experience: thousands of hours of flying, at least four different aircraft - three of which are supersonic jets - including in combat. He is almost certainly carrier-qualified. He is almost too senior to be up in that plane.

I can only conclude that you have a pretty good idea who it is, otherwise I can't fathom how you surmise - from 911 audio - his rank, pending promotion and the number of supersonic jets he's flown (something in the timber of his voice??)

 

[berkeman]

I can only conclude that you have a pretty good idea who it is, otherwise I can't fathom how you surmise - from 911 audio - his rank, pending promotion and the number of supersonic jets he's flown (something in the timber of his voice??)

It's prob in the news stories somewhere. Off with you to find it!

 

[Vanadium 50]

I can only conclude that you have a pretty good idea who it is, otherwise I can't fathom how you surmise

I can, with >50% confidence, name him.

But it works the other way. His age gives you a very good idea of his time in the service, and that in turn gives you a very good idea of his rank.

If he's flying the F-35, he's flown the F/A-18 before, and the T-38 before that. Plus a subsonic trainer. Maybe more. He would have started to fly just about the time F-4's and A-4's were being replaced.

If he made lieutenant or full colonel, he has spent thousands of hours in the air, and did not avoid combat. Unfortunately, there have been many opportunities. Flying officers who don't fly don't get promoted. Neither do ones who could have fought but didn't.

If you work backwards from that, there aren't many possibilities.

 

[Baluncore]

If you work backwards from that, there aren't many possibilities.

My analysis from that, is that the USA requires warfare in order to promote senior officers.

Australia seems to join the USA in any available conflict, only because it needs to promote another rank of stagnating officers.

There must be such a thing as "non-destructive promotion", to explain how the most senior officers are promoted in the Swedish air force.

 

[Vanadium 50]

USA requires warfare in order to promote senior officers.

No. And be thankful that it doesn't - you wouldn't want to apply it to, say, ballistic missile submarines.

However, it is generally considered A Bad Thing to promote people who have managed to avoid combat over those who did not.

 

[Vanadium 50]

This is the same Marine Air Wing that lost an F/A-18 a month ago in Miramar. I suspect there may be a new commanding general sooner rather than later.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The Navy just announced that the cleanup of the crash site has been cleaned up. They mentioned "soil contaminants" which I assume means "unburned fuel"

 

[berkeman]

It doesn't look like they've published anything about what the "mishap" was and what prompted the pilot to eject. Has anybody seen anything yet?

 

[Flyboy]

It doesn't look like they've published anything about what the "mishap" was and what prompted the pilot to eject. Has anybody seen anything yet?

Not yet, and I'm not surprised. I'm expecting something in the next couple weeks, though.

 

[DaveC426913]

^{"There was a spider."}

 

[Baluncore]

"There was a spider."

I remember a scifi short story, “Tales of Pirx the Pilot”, by Stanislaw Lem, of Solaris fame, in which two student space-pilots must pass their final solo practical exam, with separate flights around the Moon. They each find a bee in their cockpit and are distracted. One manages to ignore the bee, to land back on Earth, the other over-reacts, and crashes into the Moon.

As the successful student leaves the cockpit after the flight, he sees the (failed) student, being carried on a stretcher from the other spacecraft. The failed student could not ignore the bee, so crashed into the moon, and suffered the psychological trauma of, what later turned out to be, simulated flights, with simulated bees.

Was the spider in the F35 pilot's helmet real, or simulated?

 

[berkeman]

It's been over a month now with no updates that I can find about the "mishap". Has anybody seen anything?

I did find this info about a previous "mishap" and resulting crash:

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/...rbulence-caused-air-force-f-35-crash-in-utah/

The accident unfolded just after 6 p.m. local time on Oct. 19, 2022, as a quartet of F-35As returned to Hill from an “uneventful” training sortie, the report said. The jet that crashed, assigned to Hill’s 421st Fighter Squadron, was approaching the base as the third aircraft in the four-ship formation.

As they prepared to land, the pilot felt a “slight rumbling” of turbulence from the wake of the aircraft in front of him, the report said. The bumpy air caused the F-35′s flight controls to register incorrect flight data, and the jet stopped responding to the pilot’s attempts at manual control.

The pilot tried to abort the landing and try again, but the jet responded by sharply banking to the left. Further attempts to right the aircraft failed, and the pilot safely ejected north of the base. His F-35 crashed near a runway at Hill.

Does anybody know if the jet that crashed last month was lead or wingman in their two-ship?

 

[Vanadium 50]

It's a little early for the accident report.

One might look at the web site for the various units involved and compare the leadership staff today with those before the mishap. If there are changes, it might indicate that people in the chain of command have been reassigned because of "loss of confidence".

This is something the Navy does when they don't think you've done anything illegal (requiring a court martial) but they also don't want you doing it again. There are plenty of other people out there who could do the job but haven't lost their airframe.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Another F-35 crashed in New Mexico yesterday. Details are sketchy - it appears to have been modified for tests, was the USMC version, and being ferried by a USAF pilot. The pilot is in serious but stable condition.

 

[berkeman]

Glad the pilot survived.

https://www.military.com/daily-news...uquerque-airport-pilot-serious-condition.html

 

[MidgetDwarf]

It is SKYNET!!!

Or so the tin foil hats are calling it.

Ie,, the aircraft became aware, so the governmemt decided to destroy it.

 

[berkeman]

The F-35 crash a few days ago made me think of this older thread and whether a crash report ever came out...

It's been over a month now with no updates that I can find about the "mishap". Has anybody seen anything?

A quick search now does turn up the final report. It sounds like the storm that the pilot was flying through was part of the problem, and a lightning strike took out a lot of his critical instrumentation. He got disoriented enough that he did not feel safe trying to fly the aircraft and ejected. The report seems to say he should have been able to save it, but that is easy for them to say, IMO.

https://www.2ndmaw.marines.mil/News...ommand-investigation-into-f-35b-lightning-ii/

Contributing factors to the mishap included an electrical event during flight, which induced failures of both primary radios, the transponder, the tactical air navigation system, and the instrument landing system; and the probability that the helmet-mounted display and panoramic cockpit display were not operational for at least three distinct periods. This caused the pilot to become disoriented in challenging instrument and meteorological conditions.

 

[Flyboy]

If you’re in IMC and you lose instruments and radios, that’s absolutely a recipe for disaster. You can’t form up on another plane, not with such limited visibility, and having no horizon references while struggling with trying to diagnose the issue(s)… yeah, I don’t blame him for punching out.

 

[jrmichler]

If you’re in IMC and you lose instruments and radios, that’s absolutely a recipe for disaster.

Flying with partial instrument failures is part of the curriculum for an instrument rating. It's a real challenge for somebody who is current and proficient. Been there, done that. Part of the challenge is figuring out which instruments are functioning, and which have failed. Flying in IMC without any instruments is not possible.