[diggan]

> The article is somewhat sensationalistic

somewhat sensationalistic?! The article clearly tries to give the impression the pilot was on the call:

> A US Air Force F-35 pilot spent 50 minutes on an airborne conference call with Lockheed Martin engineers trying to solve a problem with his fighter jet before he ejected

Knowing the quality of media these days, it wouldn't surprise me if it CNN just got it really wrong, but also wouldn't surprise me they'd do some brazen lie for clicks.

Edit: Reading the report, it seems like you, dear fellow HN commentator, got it wrong in this case, sorry to say :) Seems indeed the pilot itself was on the call:

> The mishap pilot (MP), assigned to the 354th FW, ejected safely before impact. [...] The MP initiated a conference call with Lockheed Martin engineers. The MA held for approximately 50 minutes while the team developed a plan of action

Page 35 from https://www.pacaf.af.mil/Portals/6/documents/3_AIB%20Report....

[jonas21]

You omitted an important part of the sentence (in italics below):

> 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.

So it was the SOF on the conference call, relaying information to and from the pilot over the radio. This is more clear if you read the sequence of events on pages 7-10.

Not that it makes that much of a difference. Either way, he's up there waiting for the engineers on the ground to troubleshoot the problem.

[diggan]

Confusingly enough, there are these two parts in the previously linked document:

> The MP initiated a conference call with Lockheed Martin engineers. The MA held for approximately 50 minutes while the team developed a plan of action - Page 35

And

> 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 - Page 2

I quoted from the Page 35, you quoted from the Page 2, not confusing at all of them to have very similar stuff with slightly different meaning, all in the same document :) Thanks nonetheless for the additional context!

[the__alchemist]

SOF initiates Conference Hotel procedures, FYI. It's a (rarely used) checklist in their book. SOF is the pilot sitting in the tower to liase with ATC and handle emergencies from an ops perspective.

[mulmen]

To the uninitiated: SOF is Supervisor of Flying.

[CapricornNoble]

Classic DoD with its overloaded acronyms. I first read the sentence thinking "what does this have to do with Special Operations Forces"?

[BHSPitMonkey]

> Classic DoD with its overloaded acronyms.

What does Depth of Discharge have to do with anything?

[esseph]

Thanks!

[CompuHacker]

Prepared By: The Boeing Company Field Service Technical Support (Aircraft Information) Aviation Life Support Systems (Crew Rescue Information) Please contact your local Boeing Field Service Office for additional information or copies of this booklet.

Boeing has an emergency response program called “Conference Hotel” (USAF) or called “Conference X-Ray” (USN/USMC) to provide units with engineering and test pilot expertise during airborne emergencies. This 24 hour a day service is available by calling (866)543-5### toll free or commercial (314) 232-9###. Callers may also contact the regional DSN operator at DSN 693-1### and ask to be connected to the Boeing STL operator at (314) 232-9###. It can also be used overseas via long distance phone lines or MARS radio patches. When the Boeing operator answers, callers must identify themselves and request Conference Hotel or Conference X-Ray assistance. The operator will ask for specific information to identify the appropriate Boeing personal to respond. Conference Hotel or Conference X-Ray is available to assist in airborne emergencies only. Do not utilize this capability as a part of pre-mishap drills.

F/A-18E/F Aircraft Crash Rescue; Fire Fighting Information; January 2006

[etler]

I think there's just some nuance to the scenario. The pilot wasn't directly on the call, but was participating in the call with the flight supervisor relaying the information.

I'd compare it to being in the room with someone on a conference phone call and they're relaying the conversation to you and them both ways. I would still say you were participating in the call even though you weren't directly on the call.

Also, he did initiate the call so "F-35 pilot held" is imprecise, but not totally wrong. Either way, the pilot was in an active tech support session with the plane engineers, making this one of the most intense tech support calls in history.

[charlieo88]

dang, I was looking forward to reading about the same F150 CarPlay and MS Teams being available in f35.