Originally Posted by
Ian W
So if a 'good decision' is made and because of that decision a number of pax are injured and some die, whereas had that action not been taken all would have survived uninjured. You would still defend the decision as a good one? Interesting logic.
Let's use the SQ example. The risk of an explosion if staying? Considerable but in reality quite unknown given the wing was on fire. The risk of death in staying? Considerable but in reality quite unknown given the wing was on fire. The risk of injuring someone by evacuating? Likely. The risk of someone dying by evacuating? Very low. Personally I'd take the known low risk of some injuries by evacuating than the Unknown risk of catastrophic injuries and death by staying. If they'd evacuated after using an appropriate decision making process and injured people I would have found it reasonable and defended their decision.
I'll say it again though for the avoidance of doubt. A good outcome doesn't mean that a good decision was made. Perhaps they made no decision and were simply lucky.
The word decision implies that there are alternative courses of action. Those who claim 'this is a no-brainer' are effectively saying there is no 'decision' it is an automatic action. Easier to automate out flight crew when everything is 'no brainer' - like maintain pitch and power (another no brainer action proposed in other threads).
Was this an attempt to verbal me? I never claimed it was a no brainer. Others may have but you imply that I have. Even a 'no brainer' decision is only a good one if it went through an appropriate decision making process. I'd contend that there is always a decision to be made. Sometimes through lack of planning, foresight, experience or even information people can still make a bad one.