One of the problems with really autonomous vehicles – be it cars or drones – is who makes that call and who, if anyone, gets persecuted later, and for what? Gets even messier if the equation is “possibly cause [minor] injury to passenger but save the pedestrian / sunbather / cyclist”. And when the “minor” injury becomes not so minor? Eh.
I think I would ditch close to the shoreline in that situation,
This is a very real concern here in L.A., as the beaches are almost the only places to land on in an emergency (aside from some golf courses). However, in summer they are packed….. I would ditch close to shore. Might make a different call on a winter morning, though.
I think I would ditch close to the shoreline in that situation,
Likewise, if that were possible. But who can be sure how things might work out in the heat of the moment.
Discuss
No (my answer to your question). First, in my opinion, innocent bystanders deserve more protection than people who willingly boarded a potentially dangerous vehicle and second, threats need to be worked in their natural order. The immediate threat is to those bystanders (or sunbathers in this case) and only after this threat is averted, the secondary threat to the people onboard the aeroplane must be addressed. For the same reason I have always been of the opinion that it completely wrong and unethic to shoot down a hijacked plane because it might become a threat later on.
And regarding this beach landing: If I would be called as a jury member in a court case which deals with such an accident I would plea for manslaughter. When there are people on the beach one has to ditch. My pleasure (flying), my risk, my consequences.
The thing is a beach might look empty, until at the last moment you realise someone is present and didn’t look obvious as they were laying down on the sand, sunbathing, and you’ve no longer he energy to change your trajectory. Or indeed, you never see them as they get obscured by the cowling.
Likewise landing in the water, is risky also. Those in the water won’t be very visible if it’s just a head sticking out
The question in the thread title is quite leading…
Nobody would “kill a child” or anyone else out of self protection, or not many at least. But in a situation where you are over a flat piece of real estate with an engine failure and very few options left, it’s quite 20/20 hindsight of this accident to say, never would I ever.
In an emergency the situation is NEVER just the same as it’s been briefed. How much space was there available? Did they aim for a unoccupied part of the beach and came short? Close to the beach, how do you guarantee that you don’t hit some swimmers? You can not see those any better than people on land, rather worse. How packed was that beach? Would they have reached the sea at all? Would you e.g. steer your plane into a mountain to avoid a populated but feasible landing site which gives you any chance of survival at all?
Even a plane with a shute can’t guarantee that it won’t fall onto anyone’s head.
We can easily sit here on our comfy chairs and judge others for what they have done, but how would we react in this situation? It’s definitly worth thinking about, I agree.
dublinpilot wrote:
The thing is a beach might look empty, until at the last moment you realise someone is present and didn’t look obvious as they were laying down on the sand, sunbathing, and you’ve no longer he energy to change your trajectory. Or indeed, you never see them as they get obscured by the cowling.
To be fair if there are that few people on the beach the chances of hitting them are a little like the chances of hitting another aircraft and you probably have a pretty good chance of avoiding a few people and them avoiding you.
It’s a very sad story, but the decision is a probablistic one. Surely nobody in this circumstance chooses to kill anyone over anyone else – they just try to find the least bad solution.
