What Really Happened to That F-35

On September 17, 2023, an F-35B Lightning II belonging to Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron 501 crashed in South Carolina after its pilot ejected. What made this incident extraordinary wasn’t just the loss of a $100 million stealth fighter—it was that the aircraft continued flying for over an hour after the pilot ejected, eventually crashing 60 miles from where the pilot landed safely. The incident raised profound questions about F-35 systems, pilot decision-making, and military aviation safety.

The Sequence of Events

The aircraft departed Joint Base Charleston as part of a routine training formation. According to investigators and public statements, the pilot experienced what he described as a malfunction requiring ejection. The pilot ejected successfully, landing in a North Charleston neighborhood and receiving minor injuries.

Here’s where the story becomes unusual: the F-35 didn’t crash immediately. With its pilot gone, the aircraft continued flying on autopilot. Because the F-35B variant is designed for short takeoff and vertical landing operations—requiring sophisticated automated flight systems—the aircraft was capable of maintaining stable flight without pilot input.

The military faced an unprecedented situation: a fully armed, stealthy fifth-generation fighter flying unpiloted through South Carolina airspace. Authorities lost radar contact due to the aircraft’s stealth characteristics, making tracking extremely difficult. Eventually, debris was located in a rural area of Williamsburg County, approximately 60 miles northeast of where the pilot ejected.

Why Didn’t the Plane Crash Immediately?

When a pilot ejects from most fighter aircraft, the ejection sequence disrupts flight controls sufficiently that the aircraft becomes uncontrollable and crashes quickly. The F-35’s highly automated flight systems apparently continued functioning after ejection.

The F-35B variant includes:

Autonomous Flight Capability: The aircraft can maintain stable flight with minimal pilot input, essential for the precision required in vertical landing operations.

Triple-Redundant Flight Computers: The aircraft’s four flight control computers can manage flight even with multiple failures—designed to protect pilots, but in this case, the redundancy kept a pilotless aircraft flying.

Automatic Throttle Management: Engine power is computer-controlled, maintaining airspeed without pilot adjustment.

This combination of automation—designed to make the F-35 safer and easier to fly—had the unintended consequence of enabling extended unpiloted flight after ejection.

The Search Challenge

Finding the downed aircraft proved surprisingly difficult. The military asked the public for help locating the crashed fighter—an embarrassing request given the advanced tracking capabilities normally available for military aircraft.

Several factors complicated the search:

Stealth Design: The F-35 is specifically designed to avoid radar detection. These same features that make it invisible to enemy radar also complicated tracking by friendly systems once normal transponder signals weren’t being transmitted.

Transponder Status: Investigators have not fully explained why the aircraft’s transponder was in a mode that didn’t facilitate tracking. Whether this was related to training procedures or the in-flight emergency remains under investigation.

Rural Crash Site: The aircraft came down in a heavily wooded area of rural South Carolina, making visual detection difficult even when the general area was identified.

The Investigation

The Marine Corps convened an investigation to determine what malfunction prompted the ejection and why the aircraft behaved as it did afterward. Key questions include:

What Was the Emergency? The pilot’s characterization of the malfunction has not been publicly detailed. F-35s have experienced various issues during development and operational service, from software glitches to structural concerns to engine problems. Determining the specific failure—if there was a genuine failure—is crucial.

Was Ejection Necessary? Pilots are trained to eject when continued flight is unsafe, but the aircraft’s extended post-ejection flight raises questions about whether the pilot’s assessment was accurate. This is not to criticize the pilot—ejection decisions must be made in seconds with limited information—but understanding the decision helps prevent future incidents.

Why Did Systems Continue Functioning? Understanding how the aircraft maintained flight after ejection has implications for ejection system design across the F-35 fleet and other highly automated aircraft.

Transponder and Tracking Issues: Why was the aircraft difficult to track, and what procedures might prevent similar situations?

The F-35 Program Context

This incident occurred against a backdrop of ongoing F-35 program challenges:

Development Issues: The F-35 program has been plagued by delays, cost overruns, and technical problems since its inception. While many issues have been resolved, the aircraft’s complexity continues generating new challenges.

Software Dependencies: The F-35 runs on millions of lines of code. Software updates are continuous, and the interaction between numerous systems creates potential for unexpected behaviors.

Operational Record: Despite development difficulties, the F-35 has established a reasonably good operational safety record. This incident is notable partly because serious F-35 accidents have been relatively rare given the fleet size and flight hours accumulated.

Ejection Seat Technology

The pilot’s successful ejection demonstrates the life-saving capability of modern ejection seats:

The F-35 uses the Martin-Baker US16E ejection seat, designed specifically for the aircraft. It can safely eject pilots across a wide range of speeds and altitudes, including zero-zero capability (zero airspeed, zero altitude).

Modern ejection seats incorporate:

• Rocket motors that accelerate the seat away from the aircraft
• Automatic parachute deployment based on altitude and descent rate
• Survival equipment including life rafts, radios, and emergency supplies
• Limb restraints preventing flailing injuries during ejection
• Sensors that adjust deployment timing based on conditions

The pilot’s minor injuries—remarkable given the violence of ejection—reflect the seat’s sophisticated design. However, ejection always carries risks including spinal compression, limb injuries, and parachute landing hazards.

The Aftermath

The incident prompted several immediate responses:

Stand-Down: The squadron temporarily suspended flight operations while initial investigation occurred—standard practice after serious incidents.

Community Relations: The crash site’s rural location minimized risk to civilians, but the military worked to address community concerns about debris and potential hazards.

Public Scrutiny: The unusual nature of the incident—a stealthy, pilotless fighter flying across populated areas—generated significant media attention and questions about military aviation safety.

Congressional Interest: Lawmakers requested briefings on the incident, part of ongoing oversight of the expensive and strategically important F-35 program.

Lessons for Aviation

The incident offers several potential lessons:

Automation Trade-offs: The same automation that makes modern fighters more capable and survivable can create unexpected scenarios. Aircraft designers must consider not just normal operations but failure modes including post-ejection behavior.

Tracking Capabilities: Even stealth aircraft need reliable tracking by friendly forces. The incident highlights gaps in monitoring assets that deliberately minimize their radar signatures.

Ejection Decision-Making: Understanding what information led to the ejection decision—and whether that information was accurate—can improve pilot training and cockpit displays that aid emergency decisions.

System Integration: The F-35’s complexity means that failures can interact in unpredictable ways. Comprehensive testing can’t anticipate every combination of conditions that might occur in operational service.

Similar Historical Incidents

While unusual, aircraft continuing to fly after pilot ejection isn’t unprecedented:

In 1970, a Soviet pilot ejected from a Su-15 after engine problems. The aircraft flew another 900 kilometers before crashing in Poland, creating a diplomatic incident as a Soviet military aircraft crossed NATO airspace unpiloted.

Various other incidents have seen aircraft fly considerable distances after pilot departure, whether through ejection or other circumstances. The F-35 incident is notable for the aircraft’s value, stealth characteristics, and the difficulty locating the crash site.

The Pilot’s Perspective

The pilot faced a situation all military aviators train for but hope never to encounter: an emergency requiring the decision to abandon an aircraft. This decision must be made in seconds, often with incomplete information and the knowledge that ejection itself carries significant risks.

Pilot training emphasizes: when in doubt, get out. An aircraft can be replaced; a pilot cannot. Whatever the investigation ultimately reveals, the pilot’s safe recovery reflects proper training and execution of emergency procedures.

The pilot has not made public statements about the incident. Privacy for individuals involved in aviation accidents is standard practice, allowing them to participate fully in investigations without media pressure.

Key Takeaways

• An F-35B continued flying for over an hour after pilot ejection, eventually crashing 60 miles away
• The aircraft’s sophisticated automation—designed for safety—enabled extended unpiloted flight
• Stealth characteristics complicated tracking the aircraft after it lost normal transponder signal
• Investigation focuses on the original malfunction, ejection decision, and post-ejection aircraft behavior
• The pilot ejected successfully with minor injuries, demonstrating modern ejection seat effectiveness
• The incident highlights automation trade-offs and tracking challenges for stealth aircraft

Analysis based on Department of Defense statements, Marine Corps information releases, local emergency response reports, and aviation safety research. Investigation findings remain pending at time of writing.