←back to thread

247 points po | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.747s | source
Show context
spoonjim ◴[] No.43531541[source]
It's not a bad practice to automatically dismiss any pilot who ejects from a plane (other than test pilots) except in cases which are wholly obvious equipment failures. It will ensure that for these planes which cost hundreds of millions of dollars, the pilot doesn't eject unless, yes, they really fucking need to eject.

Will this mean you accidentally fire some great pilots? Yes. But given the cost of these airplanes it is better to spend some more money on training a few more pilots.

replies(9): >>43531579 #>>43531606 #>>43531617 #>>43531640 #>>43531645 #>>43531650 #>>43531737 #>>43531887 #>>43536588 #
1. computerex ◴[] No.43531887[source]
In other words to you human lives are worth less than F-35s.
replies(3): >>43531979 #>>43532678 #>>43542026 #
2. blatantly ◴[] No.43531979[source]
Yes. There is a finite $ value on a human life from a government point of view.

For your loved ones it is infinite.

But for a government with X funds and Y lives to save, there has to be a price.

If someone ejects on every little problem, you spend billions more on that and billions less on some other life saving initiatives.

Putting aside the bad ejection survival stats.

replies(1): >>43532933 #
3. windward ◴[] No.43532678[source]
This angle doesn't make much sense in the context of a weapon
4. graemep ◴[] No.43532933[source]
Yes, governments will assign a value to human lives for making decisions.
5. spoonjim ◴[] No.43542026[source]
First of all, the F-35's job is to kill people, let's not get overly moralistic here, but of all places, the military is quite explicit about using human lives as expendable resources to achieve military objectives. If the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is asked to choose between losing 20 enlisted privates in a training accident vs. losing 20 B-2 bombers which one is he going to choose?