By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Pilot Col. Charles “Tre” Del Pizzo ejected from an operational F-35B stealth fighter jet when he became disoriented due to multiple system failures during a storm, according to a Marine Corps investigation. The aircraft’s radios, transponder, air navigation system, and helmet-mounted display began to fail due to an “electrical event”. The investigation found Del Pizzo’s decision to eject was “ultimately inappropriate,” as other instruments remained partially operational. Although he lost his command post in Arizona as a result of the incident, no punitive action was taken against Del Pizzo. The mishap occured over a year ago, and the report’s delay has sparked concerns about potential systemic issues with the aircraft.
Read the original article here
Pilot error is a term that has reverberated throughout the aviation world, often serving as a convenient scapegoat whenever incidents arise that defy explanation. The recent case involving the missing F-35 jet and the pilot’s subsequent ejection over North Charleston raises complicated questions about accountability, training, and the limitations of mere terminology. As someone who has experienced the intricate dance of flying, I find this topic particularly poignant and deserving of a thoughtful examination.
When I learned that the F-35 pilot ejected after encountering a critical failure, my first instinct was to empathize with his predicament. Disorientated amidst a cascade of system failures, with instruments failing around him, the pilot ultimately made a decision rooted in his training—a decision that likely saved his life. As the dispatcher noted, “What caused the fall?” It’s striking that, while the pilot was grappling with potentially lethal circumstances, the ensuing investigation would later classify the incident with a blunt label of “pilot error.” There’s a human tendency to oversimplify complex situations, but such a designation, at its core, diminishes the real challenges pilots face in the cockpit.
From my perspective as someone who has logged hours in the sky, I can tell you that these classifications often ignore the multifaceted nature of aviation. An ejection is no trivial matter; it’s a last resort, often accompanied by severe physical and psychological consequences. For anyone who has ever experienced it, the thought of being cast from the very craft you’ve trained to master can feel like an admission of failure. Yet, as this incident demonstrates, the ability to separate personal decisions from the confines of systemic failure is crucial for understanding the real dynamics at play.
Looking back, I couldn’t help but recognize a familiar pattern when investigations fail to uncover clear mechanical reasons for an incident. The instinct is to circle back around and place the blame on the pilot. It’s a reflection of the military culture, which often seeks a “fall guy” to shoulder the burden of perceived failure, rather than engaging deeply with the operational environment that led to such incidents. Despite this tendency, it’s essential to grasp the broader picture—a flawed system, inadequate support, or perhaps even outdated procedures can all contribute to a situation that is misclassified as pilot error.
The ejected pilot followed his training and the written protocols to the letter, yet he is painted as the one who failed. How many times have we seen that play out in military aviation? This pilot was faced with an extraordinary set of challenges—a malfunctioning aircraft and limited instruments. The blame, laid thickly upon him, obscures the failures of the very systems designed to assure his safety. I find it rather alarming that despite the lessons learned from past incidents, this timeline of events continues to repeat itself.
What especially troubles me is the notion that there was still functionality within the aircraft after ejection. Sure, the F-35 still had operational controls, but understanding pilot capability is paramount. It’s mind-boggling to consider that even amidst partial system functionality, the stress of the environment, compounded with potential additional failures, would lead one to question the command of an obviously experienced pilot. This isn’t to deny that pilots must be aware of contingencies, but it’s also critical to acknowledge the weight of decision-making under such complex circumstances.
The military invariably aims to maintain an illusion of control, yet in real-time, split-second decisions unfold in the chaos of flight. It’s easy to assume from the safety of the ground that one could have made a different choice. However, those who’ve been in that cockpit know the pressure can be near insurmountable. A pilot’s role encompasses navigating both the technical elements of flight and those unpredictable human elements, which can drastically