Originally Posted by
rodney rude
Georgee - its not true that following a midair the pilot cannot forecast the damage to his airframe. BS - he gets hit on a wing, he feels it and looks out and sees a dent in his wing. If he knows he was hit on the wing and he sees nothing but a dent, I think we can safely assume he knows the damage and therefore risks to those on the ground. A dent doesn't make things fall off. And if he assures himself the only damage he has is a dent, then its up to him, not you, not Squawk 7700 and certainly not up to Wetdream, to determine the state of his aircraft and where he should put it.
When is a dent only a dent?
Sure, it may be only a dent. But the best the PIC can say is they are now flying an aircraft that is unairworthy. At worst, if the aeroplane is still flying after the collision there may be a fracture in the airframe and the potential for imminent break up. So we have a potential spectrum of possibilities, all of which fall into the unairworthy category and possible inflight breakup. How exactly can a pilot tell where they are on the spectrum? To say they can but without explaining how a pilot would do that is at best disingenuous and at worst malicious to the writer.
If we accept the pilot can't tell where exactly they fall in the unairworthiness spectrum then the 2nd principle applies, proceed with an abundance of caution. Which then means if there is an alternative airport that doesn't risk those on the ground then take it.
All the attempts at counter arguments I have seen so far, throw out one or both of these two principles without justification and often with attacks on the writers.