news
Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.
Rules:
-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --
-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --
-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --
-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today/ . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --
-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--
-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--
-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --
-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --
view the rest of the comments
Full 39 page report here for those that want the primary source instead of CNN. It's a direct link to the public PDF from a US Air Force website, so I highly recommend a use of a VPN if you are concerned about that.
Honestly this crash is more of a mishap in maintenance than an error with the plane. Hydraulic fluid that was filled with water froze, causing the landing gear to get stuck and the sensors that determine if the aircraft is on the ground or not (WoW, or weight on wheels sensors) to state that the aircraft was on the ground, which put the aircrafts flight control system in ground control mode and made it uncontrollable. None of this is specific to the F-35, fly by wire and automated control systems that take input from sensors have existed for over 50 years now in fighter aircraft. "Conference calls" is something that every manufacturer, civilian or military, will provide for their aircraft if there's an issue, someone will always be available for consultation.
What is a mistake, and one more and more likely to be made, is the priotizing and full entrusting of those sensors. A sensor has existed for 50 years, but the software made in such a way that overriding is impossible. Or without overriding, why does "on the ground" mode stop the full fly-by-wire controls of the aircraft? Should just continue to work anyways for touch and go regardless of how many sensors say something. Ridiculous that it doesn't. This means that this was a missed safety condition in development, or one that was accepted without noticing the likelihood that it would happen given the maintenance procedures (procedures and the parties that will perform actions are ALSO part of any good safety analysis). So maintenance failures are still something that should reflect on performance in a system. It's not separable
seems massively stupid not to have a pilot override. i mean, i've had plenty of equipment with safety "features" with no operator override and they're all pieces of shit. i can't imagine what would drive someone to do that with a fighter jet.
But there are no manual controls on a modern fighter, they are aerodynamically unstable so even if you wanted to implement a manual backup system, it would be impossible. The way modern flight control systems work, is that they take the pilot's inputs, interpret the desired outcome that the pilot wants from said inputs, and achieve it by calculating the various movements of control surfaces required to achieve the desired outcome. This means the movements of ailerons, rudders, elevators, flaps and engine controls to achieve that, without the pilot being aware of all of this, just that the aircraft is behaving as expected from the control inputs. The system also is constantly adjusting these inputs to keep the aircraft stable and within it's performance envelope without the pilot's involvement. Hence why something like an F-35 or B-2 can fly in the first place, and why a Su-35 can pull off spectacular maneuvers.
If you mean a manual override for not going into certain control law configurations, I'm not sure if that can be implemented. The flight control system is constantly "blending" between different flight modes and adjusting based off of data from all the sensors onboard. It's not a binary thing. While I'm sure there are forms of manual overrides, it's not that simple. Here the F-35 went into ground control flight laws once 3/5 of the weight on wheels sensors stated that the aircraft was on the ground.
As for using different sensors, airspeed can't be used as the aircraft could be above V1/rotation speed and still have wheels on the ground during takeoff, or it could be below that speed or below stall speed and still airborne. And I don't think the altimeter is precise enough to know exactly when each wheel lifts off of the ground either. As for a cutoff that states "if the aircraft is above X speed and Y altitude it's definitely airborne", we'll just be back to square one, once we drop below that cutoff. So it's not hugely useful either.
This is good info, but it still seems like a manual “I’m actually still in the air” button could be available to influence those algorithms
Keep in mind that the pilot would have had 9 seconds to determine that the problem is being in ground control law, decide to flip the switch, unguard the switch and flip it. Once the aircraft thinks it is on the ground, it begins to actively crash and if the issue isn't the flight control law, those wasted seconds risk killing the operator.
Are you aware of what the F-35 cockpit looks like? It's mostly a giant touchscreen. What's all this nonsense about "flipping a switch"? Surely you mean navigate to the correct settings menu.
Oh so it's even worse than I thought. That's a surprising lack of guarded switches.
Definitely, Marmite Lover is just wrong here to use it as a defense. The technical explanation of computer controlling systems has no impact on the fact that software can put an aircraft in a state without any pilot override.
How did the pilot fly it for 50 minutes in that state if manual control is impossible?
Because at the start only 1 of the sensors, the one on the nose gear wheel, was stating that the aircraft was on the ground. After multiple touch and go landing attempts, the two main landing gear struts froze as well, and the other sensors also then stated that the aircraft was on the ground. Once that point was reached, only then the aircraft went into ground control flight laws.
When I say modern fighter aircraft don't have "manual control", I mean there's no physical connection between the flight stick and the control surfaces, it all goes through a computer.
Understood, thank you for the explanation. Still think a 'go to air mode now' switch on that bug dumb control panel those things have would be a good idea for cases like this.
in the abstract, of course. It's good there is one less of these shitty death machines.
everything's computer
That's actually the most simple and concise way to explain it lol.
He didn't. He was flying for 50 minutes in the normal and correct "fly-by-wire" settings. Then he did two touch and go landings. On the second touch and go the F-35 decided that he was now on the ground. The new fly-by-wire settings were now in ground mode and this made it impossible to fly the plane properly in the air.
Okay. I am confused why he would be in the call then if things were working. And no I am not gonna read this transcript, sorry to ask you questions about it.
Also, wouldn't a good override for a case like this be: "hey plane, I am not on the ground, resume flight mode you fucking 100+ million dollar piece of shit"? You know, instead of turning the assistance off?
The F-35 is a piece of shit. There were two separate problems.
A. Problem 1 is that the hydraulic fluid froze because of shitty maintenance. It's not supposed to do that. This caused the landing gear to become stuck in a partially retracted position. The pilot couldn't land so he called tech support and spent 50 minutes on a conference call. B. The tech support guys told him to do some touch and go landings to see if that fixes the problem. Basically hitting the landing gear against the runway to see if that fixes it. C. During the 2nd touch and go landing the F-35 decided it was landed and switch the pilot from the flying controls to the ground controls. These are really only meant for doing stuff on the ground like taxi-ing or starting the take-off. You can't fly the plane like this so the pilot ejected and the plane crashed.
Yes there should be an override but also that may not have helped in this situation. Once the F-35 decided it was on the ground he would have only a few seconds to figure out the problem, override the system, and pilot his way out of a crash. What would have been useful is an override he could have set up in advance to prevent the F-35 from switching to ground mode regardless of what its sensors tell it. I'm sure Lockheed can code something like that for a few billion dollars.
but in that case, couldn't the "blend" be altered like a coffee or something? or if that's a stupid question, couldn't the weight on wheels sensors be disabled? idk it just seems like there's a lot of stuff that could have been overridden