Originally Posted by
itsnotthatbloodyhard
No, I think what you’re missing is not that people should think the pilot was a perfect hero and can’t be criticised. It’s the fact that people who are unfamiliar with the aircraft type, unfamiliar with that type of flying, weren’t there at the time, and have no idea exactly what those pilots experienced (either during the collision or subsequently) feel entitled to repeatedly question and criticise those pilots’ actions (while disingenuously denying questioning or criticising), while having absolutely no idea what options and thought processes were actually in play at the time.
By all means wonder if Avalon might’ve been a good option and if it was considered. No problem with that, it’s a reasonable discussion, as long as we keep in mind that there’s a huge amount we simply don’t know. But go back and look at the substance and tone of Wet Compass’ posts. That’s the sort of thing people are taking exception to. (And don’t get me started on the ridiculous nonsense about the Mayday call.)
You're arguing exactly what I said some aviators are arguing. You're arguing the decisions all require the minutiae, the detail, down in the weeds, no principles to be learned.
Ok, so if I'm in a midair in my little C152 with a big jet, over the middle of Port Philip bay and the big jet goes down in the bay and I'm flying but with a crumpled wing, where do I go? Moorabbin or Avalon? Or Essendon? Or I'm in a big jet with a heap of passengers down the back and I collide with a little C152 and the C152 goes down in the bay and I am left flying but with a crumpled wing. Where do I go?
What sort of detail causes a difference that leads to a different decision?