1. I will draw an implication...there were technical problems well prior to this aircraft just suddenly dropping out of the sky. Yet the pilot chose to or was instructed to fly over a heavily populated area when another base was available without flying over a heavily populated area.
2. After an investigation it is possible that this pilot could be found to be responsible for saving his own skin at the expense of 2 dead children. Maybe not, we will have to see.
3. So, there were no technical problems at all as a warning? The plane just dropped suddenly like a rock with no warning at all? Not what has been reported.
4. To criticize any member of the military for any action is subverting the entire military? Perhaps there was more this pilot could have done to avoid this tragedy. A very valid question, and one that deserves an answer. The ultimate answer could be “no”. This should come out in time.
5. Perhaps you should admit to some of the flaws of your argument.
1. The accident board will determine if he followed proper emergency procedures and/or if standing orders for the squadron need to be changed.
2. Asinine point. How could he possibly know that bailing out would cause more casualties than riding it in? You’re out of your mind if you think such moral considerations flash through a person’s mind in the split seconds required to make the decision.
3. Twin engine aircraft operating with a single engine shut down for an emergency is not an infrequent occurence at any military or civil airport. If you live near an airport you’ve probably had numerous twin engine airliners that have lost an engine routed over your house. ATC will attempt to give you the best routing in an emergency.
4. This was not what he was arguing against. Wayne S implied that the Naval Aviators of today were somehow a lesser breed than yesteryear because he had a mythical impression of the past.
5. All the MS FlightSim fighter jocks need to give it a rest and let the accident investigation board do its work.
1. I will draw an implication...there were technical problems well prior to this aircraft just suddenly dropping out of the sky. Yet the pilot chose to or was instructed to fly over a heavily populated area when another base was available without flying over a heavily populated area.
2. After an investigation it is possible that this pilot could be found to be responsible for saving his own skin at the expense of 2 dead children. Maybe not, we will have to see.
3. So, there were no technical problems at all as a warning? The plane just dropped suddenly like a rock with no warning at all? Not what has been reported.
4. To criticize any member of the military for any action is subverting the entire military? Perhaps there was more this pilot could have done to avoid this tragedy. A very valid question, and one that deserves an answer. The ultimate answer could be “no”. This should come out in time.
5. Perhaps you should admit to some of the flaws of your argument.
Azrael,
Sorry I didn’t get back to you sooner, I took a month off FR for Christmas/New Year’s.
My argument doesn’t have to accomodate your misuse of logic, nor your attempted defense of the indefensible.
But for learning purposes: 1. You don’t specify what preexisting “technical problems” existed, though you imply they were sufficient to have forewarned a crash; 2. You premise the repulsive possibility of manslaughter based on pilot cowardice with ZERO evidence; 3. You repeat your first implication again, and again without divulging any technical problems you are aware of; 4. You mis-represent the generalization issue twice, once by mis-attributing to mere criticism of the pilot rather than all Naval aviators (”back in the day”), and again by expanding Naval Aviation to “the entire military;” and then you combine this double spin with a third nonspecific FUD musing about “perhaps” something could have been done - so as to again mis-representing the argument, this time towards whether or not such a question “deserves” an answer; 5. You then imply these faux-logic implications are somehow derived from my posting, rather than being solely your creations.
Therefore, pay attention and receive your just desserts. FYI, the technical problems (which you addressed three times) OBVIOUSLY did NOT indicate a possible shut-down of the SECOND engine over a population before landing could be achieved. HOW do we know this, you might ask? Simple: by ASSUMING that the pilot and flight officers involved in the decisionmaking process during this crisis would NOT have knowingly risked danger to... now how did YOU put it... “a heavily populated area” in order to “save his own skin at the expense of 2 dead children” (how... objective... of you...). Of course, you obviously believe that the military and professional status of those involved in this decisionmaking process do NOT rule out such a presumption of murderous cowardice, so - in the name of fairness in seeking the truth, of course - you had to include it as an objection to my... illogically... leaving it out.
I don’t know, maybe you’re just a professional shill trying to support your flailing partner by making your smug implications of military cowardice even more pointed, in order to try to cover for his getting smacked for the same attempt.
Or you could just be a liberal true-believer, in which case I suggest your local Junior College for a basic logic class, and Al-Anon for help with co-dependency.
Of course, just like your potentially mass-murderous and cowardly Naval aviators, the ultimate answer to these speculations about your character could be “no”. This should come out in time. Until then, perhaps you should admit to some of the flaws of your argument.