If you are having a moral crises over the prospect of crashing into houses and/or people in the case of an engine failure or fuel emergency then buy a plane with a parachute. Also, stop using leaded gas, the lead is bad for kids on the ground.
That’s a common misconception: Because A is bad (smoking/drinking/lead/…) and B is bad (accidents), we don’t need to do anything about B because – yeah, there is no connection.
I also thought the OP was an interesting philosophical question, which obviously cannot have one universally accepted answer because it depends on the values of the individual answering it. Does one life always have the same value, or does it depend whether the victim is “innocent” (bystander/kid on the ground) or “guilty” (pilot/passenger in the plane)? I think in Europe, this distinction is usually made for example by the courts (in the US, it depends rather on how wealthy the victim is ;→).
Stephan_Schwab wrote:
To me the question can be answered pretty simple. As I’m using an aircraft with a parachute I will not hesitate to use it over any kind of surface – be it populated or not.
Fair enough, but I would hesitate to use any parachute over or near a wind farm. For me, that effectively closes that airspace for aerobatics.
Ditto for a fire or other emergency which needed me to dive at VNE.
In answer to the OP, it’s a good question; I hope that I’d do the right thing but in my limited experience the landing site chooses the pilot, not vice versa. If you have time to choose, it’s not much of an emergency.
