Pilot’s 50-minute in-flight conference call with tech support failed to avert $200 million F-35 fireball — pilot ejected and suffered only minor injuries

F-35 crash
(Image credit: Lockheed Martin)

An accident report has revealed that a U.S. Air Force pilot spent 50 minutes on a conference call with Lockheed Martin engineers ahead of his plane plummeting to the ground and exploding in a fireball. Thankfully, the unnamed pilot ejected safely with just minor injuries, reports CNN, but the $200 million F-35 fighter jet was destroyed.

This incident took place on January 28, near Eielson Air Force Base, Fairbanks, Alaska. Investigations point towards the presence of water in hydraulic lines as the root cause of this military jet crash. But the investigator’s report also suggests the pilot and engineering team’s handling of the landing gear issue could have been better.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Mark Tyson
News Editor

Mark Tyson is a news editor at Tom's Hardware. He enjoys covering the full breadth of PC tech; from business and semiconductor design to products approaching the edge of reason.

  • bit_user
    Too bad it wasn't a F-35B, with the STOVL system.
    F-35B Joint Strike Fighter (thrust vectoring nozzle and lift fan)
    F-35B Lightning II lands aboard HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08) on 17 October 2019 (191017-N-QI061-1159)Glad everyone walked away from it, though.
    Reply
  • Moleyman69
    "Your call is important to us... you are caller number 35 in the queue..."
    Reply
  • KyaraM
    Oof. That is something nobody wants, or should have to, experience. Glad there were no heavy injuries. It does sound like the maintenance crew kriffed up there, though. Considering another plane had the same issue, I would check all planes, the hydraulic fluid used (might have been an issue there after all), and give the maintenance crew a refresher. That stuff is dangerous.
    Reply
  • USAFRet
    Water in the hyd system sounds like 100% maintenance fault.

    "On inspection of the wreckage, the hydraulic system appears to have mistakenly been partly filled with water (a third of the fluid present)."
    Reply
  • gg83
    USAFRet said:
    Water in the hyd system sounds like 100% maintenance fault.

    "On inspection of the wreckage, the hydraulic system appears to have mistakenly been partly filled with water (a third of the fluid present)."
    Almost sounds like sabotage to me.
    Reply
  • USAFRet
    gg83 said:
    Almost sounds like sabotage to me.
    Not to me.
    Maintenance does screw up sometimes. Not often, but it happens.
    Reply
  • COLGeek
    USAFRet said:
    Not to me.
    Maintenance does screw up sometimes. Not often, but it happens.
    Agreed. This was human error. Some failure in the maintenance procedure led to this. These aircraft have been flown successfully in these environments for years.
    Reply
  • EzzyB
    COLGeek said:
    Agreed. This was human error. Some failure in the maintenance procedure led to this. These aircraft have been flown successfully in these environments for years.
    Yeah, when you're in Alaska, and 30% of you hydraulic fluid is water.... ooof!
    Reply
  • Dragonwatcher
    It comes down to three people. First the Hydraulics specialist who checked and filled the reservoirs, His name and man number will be in the Aircraft Forms along with the person who signed off the Red X that would have grounded the aircraft. Second the Crew Chief for those aircraft, it is their job to check those systems prior to flight, post flight, and on a predetermined schedule. Especially if there was a grounding issue such as opening the reservoir to service it. Lastly the pilot should have checked after reviewing the aircraft forms prior to flight and seeing that there reservoir(s) were opened and serviced.

    I was Flightline maintenance on B52's for several years. The Air Force runs on paperwork just as much as it does on JP4.
    Reply
  • USAFRet
    Dragonwatcher said:
    I was Flightline maintenance on B52's for several years.
    As was I, on fighters, for most of 2 decades.
    Reply