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

[russ_watters]

What if that budget runs out?P

The plane shuts off and the pilot has to eject.

 

[DaveC426913]

So it travelled about 64 miles on auto. At, say, 500mph That'd be about 8 minutes.

Detours, according to the article:
"Traffic traveling north on Old Georgetown Road should turn right on Midway Road, left on Baptist Road, left on Bartells Road and right on Old Georgetown Road.

Southbound traffic should turn left on Bartells Road, right on Baptist Road, right on Midway Road and left on Old Georgetown Road."

... suggest the debris field is right about here:

33.7531, -79.5746

To match that detour area, the debris field would look something like this:

 

[DaveC426913]

News article:

https://digg.com/digg-vids/link/f-35-crash-witness-williamsburg-county-DO7XFNrJp0

This guy, whom the reporter shows as living at this address, heard it over head while he was shaving.

Randolph White says "I was in the bathroom takin' a shave and I heard a screechin' sortta between a screech a whistle ... AAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!! ... * then I heard a boom!"

*_{Sortta loses something in the translation. Gotta hear it for yourself.}Here's a capture of his house from the news clip:

And here is Google street view:

That's at 33.7599, -79.5781

^{Debris field is estimated.}

(I hope this doesn't qualify as doxxing. This is basic Google maps stuff.)

 

[Baluncore]

(I hope this doesn't qualify as doxxing. This is basic Google maps stuff.)

Judging by the mast, antenna and rotator, he is a ham radio operator, callsign?

 

[Vanadium 50]

NBC reports that eyewitnesses say the plane was flying inverted. I am not sure what to make of this - determining the orientation of a plane, especially an unfamiliar one, is non-trivial, especially when it is far away. But that's what they are saying.

 

[DaveC426913]

... the plane was flying inverted...

...determining the orientation of a plane, especially an unfamiliar one, is non-trivial...

Nonsense. Everyone who saw Top Gun became an instant expert on the subject.

 

[Tom.G]

determining the orientation of a plane, especially an unfamiliar one, is non-trivial,

Aw, come on! If the tail do point at da ground, it be downside-up.

 

[DaveC426913]

Let the memes begin...

 

[berkeman]

NBC reports that eyewitnesses say the plane was flying inverted. I am not sure what to make of this - determining the orientation of a plane, especially an unfamiliar one, is non-trivial, especially when it is far away. But that's what they are saying.

Lordy, can you imagine if the "mishap" were that the plane flipped inverted at 1000' and the pilot could not recover it? Deciding to eject inverted at that low altitude would be a tough decision...

 

[nsaspook]

Lordy, can you imagine if the "mishap" were that the plane flipped inverted at 1000' and the pilot could not recover it? Deciding to eject inverted at that low altitude would be a tough decision...

Thank goodness it's got a great zero-zero seat.

 

[Vanadium 50]

great zero-zero seat.

If you are inverted, doesn't a zero-zero seat shoot you into the ground?

 

[berkeman]

If you are inverted, doesn't a zero-zero seat shoot you into the ground?

Yeah, that's what I was wondering. Hopefully it has the "brains" to vector you sideways and up as soon as you clear the plane, but who knows. I'm off to Google...

 

[berkeman]

And Google led me straight to Wikipedia...

The minimal ejection altitude for ACES II seat in inverted flight is about 140 feet (43 m) above ground level at 150 KIAS, while the Russian counterpart – K-36DM has the minimal ejection altitude from inverted flight of 100 feet (30 m) AGL. When an aircraft is equipped with the NPP Zvezda K-36DM ejection seat and the pilot is wearing the КО-15 protective gear, they are able to eject at airspeeds from 0 to 1,400 kilometres per hour (870 mph) and altitudes of 0 to 25 km (16 mi or about 82,000 ft). The K-36DM ejection seat features drag chutes and a small shield that rises between the pilot's legs to deflect air around the pilot.[12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejection_seat

 

[Vanadium 50]

"Russian counterpart" - I am imagining Boris and Natasha saying "Seat automatically buries pilot. Saves cost of funeral."

It's an interesting safety question - seat design can probably make some incidents have a much better outcome at a cost of making some other outcomes worse. I suppose by now there is unfortunately enough data to make an informed engineering choice.

I presume that these days avionics are sufficiently advanced enough to decide on their own to eject the pilot. Yes, it has an element of HAL9000 about it, but at 9g's or more the pilot may be in no condition to do it herself.

* Yes, I know they were Potsylvanian, not Russian.

 

[.Scott]

If you are inverted, doesn't a zero-zero seat shoot you into the ground?

Yes, but most people don't do it that way.
It's easier to do it directly under an I beam in a hanger.

 

[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??)