There tends to be is a consensus on what’s right and what’s wrong (not unanimity, but a strong consensus), yet sometimes two very similar situations may have very different consensus moral outcomes.
Let’s consider the following situations (my hypothesis in []):
- kill an enemy to save yourself [ok, obviously]
- kill a bystander to save yourself [not ok]
- kill a bystander to save an acquaintance [not ok]
- kill a bystander to save your child (in a situation which the child is not responsible for, like young pax in your aircraft) [not ok but shallower consensus]
- have the obligation to kill someone (e.g. runaway car in a tunnel or any other thought experiment) and choose between your child and a stranger [is there a consensus ?]
The last two are equivalent from the child’s point of view.
You can see people lying on a beach (not ones in water) from at least 1000ft and from that height you have about 1 minute and about 1.5 miles glide radius. Unless they got an engine failure at very low level they would have had loads of options for either ditching away from the beach or possibly gliding somewhere inland.
However it is completely normal for school ops to not carry a life raft even when flying “temporarily” over water, and that will slant one’s decisionmaking in this sort of situation.
If I had a raft and it was some old heap of a Cessna, I would absolutely not hesitate to ditch, say 50m from the beach. If you then hit a swimmer, that would be really bad luck.
I don’t see any moral question there. You are not trading one life for another – unless you are flying over significant water without a life raft and then you are an idiot.
BeechBaby wrote:
I hope for the pilots though, that the beach was the only option they had
Indeed. Even more for their conscience than for legal reasons.
Peter wrote:
If I had a raft and it was some old heap of a Cessna, I would absolutely not hesitate to ditch, say 50m from the beach.
Even without a life raft, in Portugal in July.
I often think about this at this time of year, flying over nice firm recently cropped fields populated only with occasional huge bales of straw. Could you reliably plot a landing run in such a field and be certain of not hitting one with a wing? I think it would be very difficult. And these obstacles are huge, stationary and completely visible.
We should be cautious before judging this crew too harshly. They may have thought they had a clear landing area. (I don’t think anyone would deliberately fly into a person if they have any control left).
Peter wrote:
If I had a raft and it was some old heap of a Cessna, I would absolutely not hesitate to ditch, say 50m from the beach.
Is swimming 50m an issue? (especially if you have lifejackets on).
Raft or lifejackets would only really help if someone on the plane
a) don’t know how to swim
or
b) is injured and can’t swim (not that unlikely in a ditching, hence why the jackets would make me more confortable).
At most beaches, especially with a life jacket, the surf will push you in 50 meters. To me the issue is the plane flipping over (moreso in some types) and then getting out. After that it’s just a matter of keeping your head above water.
Aveling wrote:
We should be cautious before judging this crew too harshly. They may have thought they had a clear landing area. (I don’t think anyone would deliberately fly into a person if they have any control left).
I don’t think anyone here is judging the pilot at all (on what basis given the info we have), we’re safely talking generalities.
denopa wrote:
I don’t think anyone here is judging the pilot at all
I agree entirely, people are commenting on what appears an engine out, controlled landing to the beach. The judgement, if any were available, was to land elsewhere, other than the beach. There was a video last year where an RV I think, Italian, landed in the surf, the beach was mobbed. Everyone on the beach assisted in getting the crew from the plane. My view is that this is what would happen if you were to go into the surf line, people would rush to help.
denopa wrote:
Indeed. Even more for their conscience than for legal reasons.
Yes, I was leaning more to conscience. I ran a kid over in my car. I did not sleep for months.
I think common sense dictates landing in the sea 20-30 meters from the shore, and I think this is what 99% of pilots would do. Willfully choosing a crowded beach as an emergency field is pure madness. We don’t have enough information here anyway. He could be aiming for the sea, but was hindered by some swimmers, a boat or something. He could also come from the sea, trying desperately to get as close to the shore as possible, and made it too far, or short. Even the other direction is possible, he was aiming for the sea, over crowded land, but didn’t make it, or went too far.
There is a post over on Pprune with this link to the Mayday call. Pilot declares emergency due to engine failure and states he will land on beach. Controller asks which beach and he replies ‘Cova do Vapor’. This, according to the PPrune poster, is a much less crowded beach than the one he ended up on. Looking at a map it looks like he tried to stretch it to the ‘Cova do Vapor’ beach but didn’t make it. Not being familiar with these beaches I have no idea if the other one would have indeed been much better at the height of summer…….
