general bogdan, the ejection seat. obviously, this is not performing, supposed to be life saving, not life-threatening. could you share information on this? what is the problem and how is it being fixed and what does it take to implement that correction? >> yes, congressman. if you'll indulge me, it's a complex problem and will spend a little bit of time to try to clear up the misinformation you might have. first and foremost safety irs paramount for me and my team. i would never ask a pilot to do anything i wouldn't do myself. the air worthiness authorities that work with me on the navy and air force side feel and act the same way. so we take this deficiency with the ejection and safe escape very seriously. let me explain what the problem is and what we're doing about it. as we begin, as you said, congressman, the ejection seat we had in this airplane was designed to cover the widest range of pilot weights and sizes we've ever had in a fighter airplane. the seat is -- the seat and the ejection system is designed to de

general bogdan, you have anything else to add? >> yes, ma'am. what you described just now was exactly what i think should be done with the f-35. that is test it in a realistic operational environment for the cast mission that the air force intends the f-35 to do. not the cast mission the air force intends the f-35 to do looking like an a-10. the problem i have is that money i'm going to spend doing the testing on the a-10 could be used elsewhere. i know the outcome of that test. i'll give you an example. you have a decathlete in the olympics. you have 100 meter splinter. if i put the 100 meter splinter and decathlete on the starting line for 100 meter sprint, i don't have to run that race to know who's going to win it. i don't need to test the a-10 to figure out what the f-35 can do in a close air support role. what i would prefer to do is test the f-35 in its close air support role as the air force sees the requirements for that mission for the f-35. >> i hear you and i'm out of time but i think us envisioning that we're never going to have clo

general bogdan, you got anything else to add? >> yes, ma'am. what you described just now was exactly what i think should be done with the f-35. and that is test it in a realistic operational environment for the cast mission that the air force intends the f-35 to do. not the cast mission that the air force intends the f-35 to do looking like an a-10. the problem that i have is that money that i'm going to spend doing the testing on the a-10 could be used elsewhere. and i know the outcome of that test. i'll give you an example. you have a decathlete in the olympics. and you have a 100-meter sprinter. if i put the 100-meter sprinter and a decathlete on the starting line for a 100-meter sprint, i don't have to run that race to know who's going to win it. i don't need to test the a-10 to figure out what the f-35 can do in a close air support role. what i would prefer to do is test the f-35 in its close air support role as the air force sees the requirements for that mission for the f-35. >> i hear you, and i'm out of time, but i think us envisioning

general bogdan, do you have anything else to add? >> yes, ma'am. what you described is exactly what i think should be done with the f-35. that is, test it in ra realistic operational environment for the cast mission that the air force intends the f-35 to do. not the cast mission that the air force intends the f-35 to, do looking like an a-10. the problem that i have is that money that i'm going to spend doing the testing on the a-10 could be used elsewhere. and i know the outcome of that test. i'll give you an example. you have a deck athlete in the olympics, you have a 100-meter sprinter. fy put the 100-meter sprinter and the deck athlete on the starting line for a 100-meter sprint, i don't know who's going to win it. i don't need to test the a-10 to figure out what the f-35 can do in a close air support role. what i would prefer to do is test the air-355 as the air force sees the requirements for that mission for the f-35. >> i hear you and i'm out of time. but i think us envisioning that we're never going to have close air support where guys are

reported to have for some after our website we also have a gallery all these wonderful holy pictures bogdan kron4news-dot-com >> diane: into ventures in invocations clear skies all-around as well including around golden gate bridge area of clouds later on this evening for the most part mostly clear skies tonight to the jurors right now over '70s for the valley's 79 and yet conquered livermore pleasanton. they shoreline cities between the '70s mid-70s richmond. 66 fought for san francisco 50 daly city wednesday pitiful bit because the transition of high ridge pressure system in place he was the warmth of the chair is in clear skies and i have been sealed fate of just a little bit it off our oakland fifth. gene heyward and 16 mi. an hour half moon bay 12, livermore and what's ahead for you into tomorrow noon time to arrive by 9:00 p.m. clear skies for the valley 64 the bayside 7:00 a.m. tomorrow morning and then the temperature is 52 to 56 at valley by noon times and conditions of the warm things up again try conditions in the nevada location the state's shoreline cities as well and then cele

and exactly what general bogdan said is how it was communicated to us. in fact they've shown us the chart, how it lays out and what the risk levels are. as the general said, there is certain risks there we've accepted it. except at the low end beneath 136 pounds. >> well, there's been some report that there's been a memo that you accepted, general bogdan, that accepted a 1 in 4 risk of death if -- with the -- with the problem with the ejection system as being a risk that is worth taking i guess. is that correct? >> ma'am, that is incorrect. the data that you have came from a reporter who got a copy of an official use only internal dod document that my team put together to assess the risks of a lightweight pilot and a pilot between 136 and 165 pounds. that document should have never been publicly released. i have an investigation ongoing to figure out how that reporter got it. but the worst part of this is, the reporter did not know how to read the report, ma'am, so let me give you the actual facts. today, a pilot that weighs less than 136 pounds if he st

and general bogdan, you did a nice job last time explaining to a layman what happened to that june 23rd fire, the heat issue and all of that. where is that at at this point in terms of corrections? >> sir, we have already validated the full correction to the engine problem. every engine coming off the production line since about seven months ago had the fix in it. so we're producing fully capable engines right now on the production line. we have 134 airplanes out in the field today. 61 of them have been retrofit with the new parts so that there's no longer a restriction on them. that's about 44%. by june of 2016, all 134 fielded airplanes will have the same fix in them that the production airplanes are now going down the production line with. so in my mind, it was a problem, it was unfortunate, but we're putting it behind us. >> did we learn anything that goes beyond the specific issue in that in terms of the testing standard in that of what we can extrapolate going forward from that incident? >> one of the thins that we did learn was that the design of that portion of the engine is ver