I just heard on the news that a pilot ejected out of a plane that cost the taxpayers over a hundred million dollars over a populated area. This blog will explore this whole area of pilots ejecting out of planes.
If you look at our military since the Civil War, you will notice a big change. In the Civil War the army would have several thousand men charge across an open field directly into cannon and rifle fire with many being killed on the way. I have been to several of the Civil War battle grounds, like Gettysburg and have seen where thousands died in a afternoon. If you have not been there, you should.
War and battles today are much different. The US military goes to great lengths to spare the lives of our soldiers, but that take care of some more than others. I am talking about pilots compared to infantry men. I know that the military wants to fight by standing off with special weapons that can reach an invisible enemy without risking the soldier. I think that a little of this type of thinking may be good, but it can be take too far and that is what I feel about pilots who can eject and thus destroy the expensive plane that us taxpayers work and paid taxes for. I think we need to revisit the whole business of pilots ejecting.
In the case of this recent fighter that crashed and waisted over a hundred million dollars of taxpayer money is a good place to start. Are there places, times and situations where it is best to eject? Yes! Are there similar situations where a pilot should not be allowed to eject? Yes! Now let's explore some of those different situations. Here is just a few of the things that need to be considered (1) The cost of the plane (2) The location in terms of damage to people and property on the ground (3) The chances of the pilot being killed by ejecting (4) The chances of the plane and pilot surviving by not ejecting. All these and more should be taken into account. Think about this?
What if the plane was small or inexpensive or if it was a hot air balloon? Should the criterial be the same for all? I don't think so. What about a ship's captain who goes down with his ship? Should a pilot be allowed to eject over a big city like New York? I don't think so. What normally gets into the discussion is exactly how much is a life worth. I think you have been challenged with that one a time or two, well I have. Is the pilot's life more valuable than a grandmother on the ground? That sort of thing.
Would the rules be different if it were a battle in war vs training some place. I think so and you do too. What I am concerned about is that I do not see this discussion going on anyplace. If it is and it does not include us taxpayers, then I do not have much confidence in the conclusion.
Here is another point. What if the design of the plane did not even include an ejection system? The plane would be a lot less complicated and lighter and thus could have a higher performance. Would it be better to have more planes without ejection systems or fewer or more costly planes with ejection systems? That is what we are talking about. I know that the Russian march to the concept that "Quantity has a quality all of it's own". I think that they have it right when it come to war and that is what we are talking about. What would you think if the next time you are on a flight to New York City that the pilot ejected and allowed the plane with you and the other passengers crash? Isn't that about the same thing we are talking about here?
Think about it and talk to some of you taxpayer friends and see what they think if they have even thought about it.
