4 ms·

It fits perfectly if you look at it from a "balls" standpoint, this pilot ejected for whatever by-the-book reason when his electronics were bad and yet the airp

It fits perfectly if you look at it from a "balls" standpoint, this pilot ejected for whatever by-the-book reason when his electronics were bad and yet the airplane continued for 11 minutes just on autopilot. How would you expect a pilot that gives up so "easily" to lead other men into a high risk-high reward operation when he gives up himself so easily? Yes, maybe he was at low altitude during the descent and found himself feeling in peril but the optics sure doesn't look good when it went on for 11 minutes.

aleph_minus_one 2y ago
> It fits perfectly if you look at it from a "balls" standpoint, this pilot ejected for whatever by-the-book reason when his electronics were bad and yet the airplane continued for 11 minutes just on autopilot. > How would you expect a pilot that gives up so "easily" to lead other men into a high risk-high reward operation when he gives up himself so easily? If you use an ejection seat, there is also a given high probability that you will never be capable of flying a fighter jet afterwards, so it also takes quite some balls to make the decision to use it. Also, the pilot did not "give up", but decided that it is smarter to retreat and save lives instead of going to death. In a a high risk-high reward situation, I strongly prefer hyperrational risk calculators (in opposite to risk avoiders - the common person in society) over hypermasculine risk takers - but I'm a nerd. So, the only explanation that I have is that the military wants to bully around and show macho behavior.
- rightbyte 2y ago
  > So, the only explanation that I have is that the military wants to bully around and show macho behavior. Ye that goes without saying. With attrition trench warfare being in fashion again I expect this to get worse. Soldiers need to feel they are perpetrators, not victims. It 'takes balls' to wait out shell after shell for the one with your name on it. A conservative risk reward analysis would suggest bailing. People that don't understand the odds of waiting or fragging are preferrable.
- pjc50 2y ago
  > Also, the pilot did not "give up", but decided that it is smarter to retreat and save lives instead of going to death. The thing is, millennia of military culture is devoted to training people out of simply avoiding fighting by running away, or even fear of death, because otherwise it can't function and those who run away endanger others by doing so. I'm reminded of Admiral Byng being court-martialled (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Byng https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Byng) and the famous line "in this country, it is good to kill an admiral from time to time pour encourager les autres"; the phrase "pour encourager les autres" has entered English to refer to any punishment which is intended to have a strong behavioral effect on the non-punished members of the same class. There will definitely be an element of that here. This guy is being punished conspicuously to remind other pilots that ejecting is a last resort. > In a a high risk-high reward situation, I strongly prefer hyperrational risk calculators (in opposite to risk avoiders - the common person in society) over hypermasculine risk takers - but I'm a nerd. There are no such "hyperrational risk calculators", you just mean "someone who would make the same decision as me in this situation". > the military wants to bully around and show macho behavior Well, yes, that's kind of intrinsic to the nature of an organization which exists to project force.
  - aleph_minus_one 2y ago
    > There are no such "hyperrational risk calculators", you just mean "someone who would make the same decision as me in this situation". No, I don't mean that. 1. I'm not the kind of person who believes that their own judgement is the best and most rational one. 2. I am very convinced these people do exist. For example look at rationalism websites and forums: there you might find some of such people. --- > Well, yes, that's kind of intrinsic to the nature of an organization which exists to project force. I don't think so: you can project force either by a) gore violence ("hyper-masculinity") or b) intellectual supremacy
  - flir 2y ago
    Candide. Fun fact (and nothing to do with the article): The country was pissed at Byng. The road to London was lined with pitchfork-wielding yokels for pretty much the first fifteen miles. I don't think he did anything wrong but I can see why, in that atmosphere, he was the bone thrown to appease the dogs.
- bumby 2y ago
  >I strongly prefer hyperrational risk calculators My problem with this take is that humans are very poor risk estimators, and it gets worse as the probability of risk gets lower. I'm willing to bet that even if he made the "right" decision to stay with the craft, he wouldn't have been able to accurately calculate the risk in an after-action-report, even with the benefit of lower stress and an abundance of time.
  - aleph_minus_one 2y ago
    > My problem with this take is that humans are very poor risk estimators Indeed few people have this rare capability, that's why I explicitly named them this way ("hyperrational risk calculators").
    - bumby 2y ago
      I’m somewhat skeptical that they exist, at least in the numbers needed to fill pilot slots. Barring certain neurological disease, I don’t think people are “hyper rational” despite even appearing that way to the outside, or identifying themselves as such. We like to sometimes think of our brains as cold computers but they’re not, and even less so in time-critical situations like flying a damaged aircraft. We’re moreso “hypertationalizers” than “hyperrational”
      - aleph_minus_one 2y ago
        > I don’t think people are “hyper rational” despite even appearing that way to the outside, or identifying themselves as such. As I wrote in my parallel answer https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42115831 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42115831 I do believe that on rationalism websites or forums, it's quite plausible that some of this breed of people hangs around. --- > I’m somewhat skeptical that they exist [...] in the numbers needed to fill pilot slots. I think we agree with this weaker statement that I created by using the ellipsis. But, as I wrote, > In a a high risk-high reward situation, I strongly prefer hyperrational risk calculators (in opposite to risk avoiders - the common person in society) over hypermasculine risk takers I'd strongly prefer these people - assuming such a choice exists.
rightbyte 2y ago
It cuts both ways. Personally I wouldn't want to be led by someone that rather hit the ground in a ball of fire than risk the embarrassment of ejecting. A pilot that eject has at least shown that he has the balls to lose... Fighter jets fall out of the sky quite often. I don't get why it suddenly is such a big deal with F35. It seems like some hardware fanboyism.
- themaninthedark 2y ago
  That is from your point of view. Perhaps the military point of view is they would rather have a leader who takes more risky action and attempts to win the fight for the team rather than one who only prioritizes their personal survival.
  - rightbyte 2y ago
    Sure. But it is a trade off. I guess it is somewhat futile to reason about the pilot since we don't really know how bad the situation appeared to him. Like, we don't know where he is on the scale, except that we know he is not suicidal.
- nkrisc 2y ago
  Genuine question: have you served in any branch of any military?
  - rightbyte 2y ago
    Yes. Platoon sgt. mech. inf. No deployment anywhere.
wkat4242 2y ago
It's been known to happen that airplanes that were unrecoverable, recovered after the pilot ejected due to the massive shift in centre of gravity and the ejection forces. Like the cornfield bomber: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornfield_Bomber https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornfield_Bomber So just the fact that it continued flying isn't really enough to justify that it was a wrong decision. Like all aviation matters it requires a comprehensive analysis.

aleph_minus_one 2y ago

> It fits perfectly if you look at it from a "balls" standpoint, this pilot ejected for whatever by-the-book reason when his electronics were bad and yet the airplane continued for 11 minutes just on autopilot. > How would you expect a pilot that gives up so "easily" to lead other men into a high risk-high reward operation when he gives up himself so easily? If you use an ejection seat, there is also a given high probability that you will never be capable of flying a fighter jet afterwards, so it also takes quite some balls to make the decision to use it. Also, the pilot did not "give up", but decided that it is smarter to retreat and save lives instead of going to death. In a a high risk-high reward situation, I strongly prefer hyperrational risk calculators (in opposite to risk avoiders - the common person in society) over hypermasculine risk takers - but I'm a nerd. So, the only explanation that I have is that the military wants to bully around and show macho behavior.

rightbyte 2y ago
> So, the only explanation that I have is that the military wants to bully around and show macho behavior. Ye that goes without saying. With attrition trench warfare being in fashion again I expect this to get worse. Soldiers need to feel they are perpetrators, not victims. It 'takes balls' to wait out shell after shell for the one with your name on it. A conservative risk reward analysis would suggest bailing. People that don't understand the odds of waiting or fragging are preferrable.
pjc50 2y ago
> Also, the pilot did not "give up", but decided that it is smarter to retreat and save lives instead of going to death. The thing is, millennia of military culture is devoted to training people out of simply avoiding fighting by running away, or even fear of death, because otherwise it can't function and those who run away endanger others by doing so. I'm reminded of Admiral Byng being court-martialled (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Byng https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Byng) and the famous line "in this country, it is good to kill an admiral from time to time pour encourager les autres"; the phrase "pour encourager les autres" has entered English to refer to any punishment which is intended to have a strong behavioral effect on the non-punished members of the same class. There will definitely be an element of that here. This guy is being punished conspicuously to remind other pilots that ejecting is a last resort. > In a a high risk-high reward situation, I strongly prefer hyperrational risk calculators (in opposite to risk avoiders - the common person in society) over hypermasculine risk takers - but I'm a nerd. There are no such "hyperrational risk calculators", you just mean "someone who would make the same decision as me in this situation". > the military wants to bully around and show macho behavior Well, yes, that's kind of intrinsic to the nature of an organization which exists to project force.
- aleph_minus_one 2y ago
  > There are no such "hyperrational risk calculators", you just mean "someone who would make the same decision as me in this situation". No, I don't mean that. 1. I'm not the kind of person who believes that their own judgement is the best and most rational one. 2. I am very convinced these people do exist. For example look at rationalism websites and forums: there you might find some of such people. --- > Well, yes, that's kind of intrinsic to the nature of an organization which exists to project force. I don't think so: you can project force either by a) gore violence ("hyper-masculinity") or b) intellectual supremacy
- flir 2y ago
  Candide. Fun fact (and nothing to do with the article): The country was pissed at Byng. The road to London was lined with pitchfork-wielding yokels for pretty much the first fifteen miles. I don't think he did anything wrong but I can see why, in that atmosphere, he was the bone thrown to appease the dogs.
bumby 2y ago
>I strongly prefer hyperrational risk calculators My problem with this take is that humans are very poor risk estimators, and it gets worse as the probability of risk gets lower. I'm willing to bet that even if he made the "right" decision to stay with the craft, he wouldn't have been able to accurately calculate the risk in an after-action-report, even with the benefit of lower stress and an abundance of time.
- aleph_minus_one 2y ago
  > My problem with this take is that humans are very poor risk estimators Indeed few people have this rare capability, that's why I explicitly named them this way ("hyperrational risk calculators").
  - bumby 2y ago
    I’m somewhat skeptical that they exist, at least in the numbers needed to fill pilot slots. Barring certain neurological disease, I don’t think people are “hyper rational” despite even appearing that way to the outside, or identifying themselves as such. We like to sometimes think of our brains as cold computers but they’re not, and even less so in time-critical situations like flying a damaged aircraft. We’re moreso “hypertationalizers” than “hyperrational”
    - aleph_minus_one 2y ago
      > I don’t think people are “hyper rational” despite even appearing that way to the outside, or identifying themselves as such. As I wrote in my parallel answer https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42115831 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42115831 I do believe that on rationalism websites or forums, it's quite plausible that some of this breed of people hangs around. --- > I’m somewhat skeptical that they exist [...] in the numbers needed to fill pilot slots. I think we agree with this weaker statement that I created by using the ellipsis. But, as I wrote, > In a a high risk-high reward situation, I strongly prefer hyperrational risk calculators (in opposite to risk avoiders - the common person in society) over hypermasculine risk takers I'd strongly prefer these people - assuming such a choice exists.

rightbyte 2y ago

It cuts both ways. Personally I wouldn't want to be led by someone that rather hit the ground in a ball of fire than risk the embarrassment of ejecting. A pilot that eject has at least shown that he has the balls to lose... Fighter jets fall out of the sky quite often. I don't get why it suddenly is such a big deal with F35. It seems like some hardware fanboyism.

themaninthedark 2y ago
That is from your point of view. Perhaps the military point of view is they would rather have a leader who takes more risky action and attempts to win the fight for the team rather than one who only prioritizes their personal survival.
- rightbyte 2y ago
  Sure. But it is a trade off. I guess it is somewhat futile to reason about the pilot since we don't really know how bad the situation appeared to him. Like, we don't know where he is on the scale, except that we know he is not suicidal.
nkrisc 2y ago
Genuine question: have you served in any branch of any military?
- rightbyte 2y ago
  Yes. Platoon sgt. mech. inf. No deployment anywhere.

wkat4242 2y ago

It's been known to happen that airplanes that were unrecoverable, recovered after the pilot ejected due to the massive shift in centre of gravity and the ejection forces. Like the cornfield bomber: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornfield_Bomber https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornfield_Bomber So just the fact that it continued flying isn't really enough to justify that it was a wrong decision. Like all aviation matters it requires a comprehensive analysis.