To crash or not

[Glenn E. Meyer]

http://aviationweek.com/blog/shoot-d...-down-question

Interesting drama on a trial of a pilot who shot down an airliner (not real). I recall seeing the interviews with the two American F-15 (IIRC) pilots who were going to crash into the last 9/11 plane to stop it. However, the passengers' actions caused it to come down.

I'd vote to acquit - as the audience did.

[Peally]

Kind of a no duh situation to me. If there's a school bus filled with kids and a nuke you know will go off in times square, you gotta stop that damned bus.

[voodoo_man]

Definitely an ethical question but a logical one at the root.

Let people die on the ground or take the life of those who would die anyway?

[Peally]

Nerd warning, but it reminds me of the first Battlestar Galactica episode (I think it was the first), where a pilot needs to shoot down a possibly commandeered ship heading for the main fleet. You don't know for sure what's going on in there but you sure as hell don't want the consequences of not blowing it to snot.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

There was a movie with Nicole Kidmann and George Clooney where they were chasing a terrorist who was going to set of a nuke in NYC. The sniper in the team had a shot but it was through a mommy and baby. They were yelling at him to take it and he couldn't it, IIRC - it was a while ago. They managed to save the day somehow - which I forget.

[Kukuforguns]

Situations like this do occasionally result in criminal prosecution and the defendants use what is called the necessity defense. The defendant admits the act and that the act was illegal, but then argues that the illegal act was necessary to prevent a greater evil. The case law on the defense is remarkable sparse because in many cases where the defense is appropriate, the prosecution elects not to prosecute. The few cases that do proceed to trial (where the defense is appropriately asserted) tend to be pretty close calls. Two examples are discussed in the article linked above: (1) fourteen passengers thrown off a lifeboat by crew to prevent the lifeboat from sinking/capsizing; and (2) passengers in a lifeboat killing and eating one of the passengers after many days without food. Another example would be dynamiting a house during a conflagration to protect other nearby houses.

[LorenzoS]

Wrong. They should use their de-escalation and conflict resolution skills to find a nonviolent solution.

[FNFAN]

Wrong. They should use their de-escalation and conflict resolution skills to find a nonviolent solution.

[Holmes375]

I'm guessing he has his tongue firmly in cheek.

[GardoneVT]

Nerd warning, but it reminds me of the first Battlestar Galactica episode (I think it was the first), where a pilot needs to shoot down a possibly commandeered ship heading for the main fleet. You don't know for sure what's going on in there but you sure as hell don't want the consequences of not blowing it to snot.

There's a crucial difference - in the BSG Episode ("33") the pilots were ordered to shoot down the airliner by their CoC .

In this case, the pilot was ordered NOT to shoot the plane down and acted against instructions anyways. That's a BIG problem, and why he should stand trial.

Think of it this way. Lets go back to 9/11 and assume the passengers on Flight 93 successfully retook the airliner. There'd be no way for intercepting pilots to know directly that the aircraft was under civilian control. A message to that effect has to be sent from the aircraft to ATC, from ATC to the military , from the military to the civlian decision makers including potentially POTUS, and back down the line to the worker bee pilots on the scene.

That's a big ol' email chain. Even if the passengers got the word out fast, the red tape lag means they'd still be at risk of getting shot down by pilots operating on old orders issued when the aircraft was in enemy hands.

For a pilot to decide on the spot to disobey a direct order NOT to shoot down the plane - and to thus presume they know more then their superiors on the matter- is a decision which demands the scrutiny of a trial. The chain of command exists for a reason. This ain't Star Trek where disobeying orders always saves the day.