Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I think that's ridiculous. Pilots are correctly very reluctant to hit things. Historically, we have wanted them to do their best to avoid that.

You could argue that we should now train pilots to carefully pause and consider whether the thing they are about to hit is safe to hit. But for that, you'd have to show that the additional reaction time in avoiding collisions is really net safer. And if you did argue that, you couldn't judge the current pilots by your proposed new standard.

For those interested, by the way, in really thinking through accident retrospectives, I strongly recommend Sidney Dekker's "Field Guide to Human Error": https://www.amazon.com/Field-Guide-Understanding-Human-Error...

I read it just out of curiosity, but it turned out to be very applicable to software development.

Well by avoiding trying to hit one thing, they hit the ground. That's (arguably?) worse than hitting just about anything else other than perhaps another large aircraft or a missle.

In this case, maybe. But you have to do a sum over all cases to prove that your proposed solution is better. Otherwise it's just a way, post facto, to blame somebody. An error which is one of the biggest topics of Dekker's book.

You do realize that the ground has a fixed force based on the landing -- while an accident at 1000 ft with a non gliding helicopter means falling to terminal velocity with certain death?

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact