←back to thread

247 points po | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.954s | source
Show context
kelnos ◴[] No.43531565[source]
This was discussed four months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42098475

From my memory at the time, I was initially fully on the side of the pilot, but after reading through the discussion, I wasn't really sure anymore.

He didn't try to see if his flight controls (pitch, yaw, roll) were still responding, he didn't make use of the backup instruments, he didn't try the backup radio, and he had enough fuel to land elsewhere. The letter of the procedures may have said that he was in an out-of-control flight condition, but the procedures were too vague, and he should have had the experience to second-guess them and ascertain if his plane was actually out of control.

Sure, maybe all those things wouldn't have worked, and he would have had to eject. Or worse, they wouldn't have worked, and he would have spent enough time trying them that it would have been too late and he would have died.

But for better or worse, the actual outcome does matter: the plane was still flyable, and either a) he would have likely been able to successfully land, possibly at an alternate location with better weather, or b) he would have had the time and flight stability to try a bunch more options before deciding to eject.

I do find the circumstances strange, in how long it took for Marine brass to decide to relieve him of his command and torpedo his career. But I have no frame of reference for or experience around this, so perhaps it's not unusual. If he were just a rank-and-file pilot, he likely would have kept his position and continued on, perhaps with a bit of a bumpy road ahead. But he was given the command of an important group, a group tasked to refine flight procedures around this plane, and that comes with different expectations for his actions in the scenario he was in.

replies(6): >>43531622 #>>43531632 #>>43531674 #>>43531859 #>>43532104 #>>43532858 #
_cs2017_ ◴[] No.43531622[source]
"But for better or worse, the actual outcome does matter" -- curious what you mean by that?
replies(1): >>43531717 #
1. gtsop ◴[] No.43531717[source]
He means that he prefers for that poor lad to have died trying to save a piece of metal. Simple stuff, there is no going around it. For some people money is above human life.
replies(2): >>43531960 #>>43537423 #
2. IshKebab ◴[] No.43531960[source]
Money is above human life at some point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life

But in this situation it sounds like the plane was highly likely to crash anyway so the estimated value you would save by potentially sacrificing him is low. Also I think the calculation is probably quite different in this situation compared to e.g. paying for safety measures in advance.

replies(1): >>43532931 #
3. Peanuts99 ◴[] No.43532931[source]
If I'm in a jet travelling towards the floor and I have the chance to survive by ejecting I will pull the level 10 times out of 10. The value of my life to me is approaching infinity in relative terms to the cost of a jet my employer pays for.
replies(1): >>43534109 #
4. IshKebab ◴[] No.43534109{3}[source]
Of course. This calculation obviously only applies to an abstract life.
5. _cs2017_ ◴[] No.43537423[source]
Sorry but I'm sure that's not what he meant.