（评论）

（评论）
(comments)

原始链接: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40614227

本文讨论了个人（特别是厨师和运动员）根据个人兴趣和喜好选择合适的死亡方式的概念。作者举了一个例子：一名喜欢音乐剧的厨师和一名宇航员出身的飞行员，尽管年事已高，但仍继续飞行。他们认为，与意外或意外的死亡相比，因喜爱的活动而死亡可以提供安慰和成就感。相比之下，它们描述了一位患有阿尔茨海默病的老人的悲惨故事，他在社区中是一位受人尊敬的人物，但在孤立和困惑中结束了自己的日子。作者的结论是，社会对安全的担忧常常导致限制个人自由的法规，例如老年飞行员由于与年龄相关的认知能力和反应时间下降而被禁止飞行。

> He took the Earthrise photo, which Nature photographer Galen Rowell described as "the most influential environmental photograph ever taken": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthrise

Heh. I'd never read/heard that quote before. But no one's photos have touched me more than Galen Rowell's, so it bears an incredible amount of weight to read.

Thank you for sharing it.

The shutter speed was 1/250th of a second, so the earth rotated about 4 miles or 6 kms while the shutter was open. Not enough to blur the photo obviously, but crazy to think about.

I have no idea how to calculate it, but I interpreted this to mean not that the earth rotated (which everyone is trying to calculate) but that the earth was crossing the horizon of the moon such that four miles of earth crosses the horizon during the shot causing earth blur for a moon-stable reference frame.

From the moon's reference, the Earth orbits around it, traveling 2 × π × distance_moon_earth per orbit. Divide this by 27.3 days (sidereal orbital period) to get the Earth's speed. Multiply by 1/250th of a second. And we find this is, again, much less than 4 miles. Using GNU units:

  $ units "2 * pi * moondist / (27.3 day) * (second / 250)"
        Definition: 4.0958765 m

which is only 0.0025450597 miles.

I’m confused. Does this math check out?

Circumference is 24,901 - so about 1000 mph at equator.

1000 mph / 3600 s / h = 0.27 mps

0.27 * (1/250) = 0.001 miles?

Doing this math on my phone but am I missing something here?

You are correct. Using GNU units:

    $ units '2 * pi * earthradius / day * (second / 250)' 
        Definition: 1.8532517 m

Which is 0.0011515572 miles...

Even if we stretch out and look at how fast the Earth orbits the sun, it still doesn't explain the 4 mile figure.

Earth's orbital speed: 66,200 mph

66,200 mph / 3600 s/h = 18.38 mps

18.38 * (1/250) = 0.07 miles

I think it's relative and phrased poorly, since the orbiter has to circle the earth at a certain faster speed. But quick googling shows Apollo 8 was traveling about a mile a second?

rotation:

360/86,400=0.0041667deg/sec

0.0041667 * 0.004sec = 000016667degR

circumference:

2pi * 6371km = 40,030km

land covered by rotation:

40,030 / 360 = 111.194km/deg

0.000016667deg × 111.194 km/degree = 0.001854 km

km to m:

0.001854km × 1,000 meters/km = 1.854 meters

more like 0.001 miles. ... oh, woops. I see your answer is in kms.

it was something like 0.46km/s.

If the orbital period was 80 minutes then that is 1/1,200,000th of a period and with Earth's circumference being ~25,000 miles that should only be about 0.02 miles.

Or if the orbital velocity was 17,000 mph and neglecting the height of the orbit, 17000 / 3600 / 250 = 0.018 miles.

So either way, about 100 feet.

I saw the headline earlier, and my first thought was "I hope he was the pilot, because that would be a fitting way to go for a legend." Not only was he the pilot, but he was flying solo at 90 years old.

> What would be a fitting way to go for a cook or an athlete then?

Whatever they liked doing? Being an astronaut at that time implied that he was an aviator. Keeping his licence to fly into the old age of 90 means he most likely loved flying. That is why it is a “fitting way to die”.

I don’t know the cook you mention. Maybe they loved cooking for loved ones. In that case a fitting way to die would be while they are doing that. But maybe it was just their profession, but what made them enjoy their life was watching musicals in the theatre. In that case a fitting way to die would be them dying after watching a great performance on their way out of the theatre.

Maybe it would help if we would contrast this with an “unfitting” way to die? Let’s take the same cook who loves musicals. If she were to try to climb her roof to fix a leak (something she never before professed to care much about) and they slip and fall off the roof. That would be an unfitting way to die.

Dying is probably painfull, scary and confusing in many cases. But the circumstances surrounding it can make it worse or better. Dying in an accident doing something you always hated is worse than dying in an accident doing something you loved.

"Dying in an accident doing something you always hated is worse than dying in an accident doing something you loved."

Dead is dead, though. I do not think the final moments matter as much as all the years before them. So even if I will one day die on the toilet being old, that would be way better, than me dying soon in an climbing accident, even though that sounds more dramatic and I am way more into climbing than toilets.

Did I sound angry? I was just adressing the point that some people seem to value the circumstances of their death more, then the years before that. Wiliam Anders did what he wanted, fine by me, unless he actually was not fit to fly anymore (as this endangers other people), but no one had the guts to tell him that, being a national hero.

The expression is a social game to respond to death. It’s not real. We are not happy how he died. We are happy the way he lived. The game is to invert and mix the two. It’s a form of cognitive dissonance to manage our emotional response so it is positive not negative. You may not feel it yourself which is fine but appreciate that’s what others are doing. It’s not meant to be logical. It’s meant to be illogical.

> We are not happy how he died. We are happy the way he lived.

Exactly.

> It's not real.

"Just because it's made up, doesn't mean it isn't real."

> It’s meant to be illogical.

Not at all. I have a big head, many things can fit into it at the same time. I can experience moderate amount of sadness over this specific person dying at this specific day. (Only a moderate amount because I didn't them personally, and for 90 year old dying is not that remarkable.) And at the same time feel happiness over that he kept flying that long during his life. One can experience both at the same time. If this is illogical to you wait until you taste some sweet and sour sauce.

> Dead is dead, though. I do not think the final moments matter as much as all the years before them.

Well indeed. How many people give up what they love because of the fear that it will kill them? This man kept his love for aviation alive until the end.

I do wonder if perception of time changes as you die — maybe those last moments feel oh so much longer, and you experience them as another lifetime (part of why afterlife descriptions of near death can be so rich). Like ST TNG The Inner Light episode.

Perception of time changes in all extreme circumstances - if you are conscious. If you die in your sleep while being high on painkiller, I do not think you notice much. Unless of course you feel your soul make the transformation if that is a thing. No idea, but I do know that time slows down in near death situations - simply because the brain runs faster.

Because an unfitting way to die is to be stuffed with tubes, half conscious in a bed, shitting your pants uncontrollably. The perspective of dying lying helpless in a hospital or care house is not very appealing to people who had an active life.

Dying in a last scream of fear, angst and struggle regretting a thousand things that may have gone wrong or maybe were just your fault, without having the chance to tell your loved ones how much you love them, and being remembered not only by the incredible flights where no one had gone before, but finally and uttermost by the one that ended your life which will be replayed endlessly in the internets.

Not sure what would be fitting to be honest.

I'm going to visit someone who is having it worse, in my opinion.

He's slowly deteriorating from Alzheimers. He won't acknowledge it and has become seriously grumpy. He used to know everyone in his town. He was a good guy. Now, everyone thinks he's an asshole. Everyone who didn't meet him before he started this decline has had a terrible time with him. He curses all the time.

Last week, he forgot to shut off the gas and was found unconscious by the fire department. Now, he will be in a care home against his wishes until the inevitable. This is not the first incident where police had to be phoned, either.

So he's gone from a week liked, active member of the community to being the grumpy old guy that the authorities have to be phoned about in just a couple of years.

I'm going to go see him for a final farewell later this month, I hope he recognises me.

Dying from Alzheimer's is truly terrible. From what I understand, in your final moments the neurons that move your lungs and beat your heart will give up, which is usually the end. And it's not the kind of opioidic kind of forgetting that you have to breathe either. It's pure struggle 'til the final moment.

Back in school I had an art teacher whose father went that way, and it was clear that he was extremely traumatized by witnessing that.

My condolences.

We might be different types of people (your comment about regret strongly suggests we are), but I've been in some very hairy situations where I was fairly sure I was about to die traumatically and I didn't experience any of what you're suggesting. Instead it was a calm resignation or acceptance that was oddly peaceful.

Not that I don't want to live, but I don't fear death and would take the plane crash over wasting in a hospital any day. I have a DNR registered with the health service in my country to make sure that never happens.

we cannot be 100% sure this final loop in the air was completely unintended, also that he didn't have a stroke or something during this flight.

also wonder whether a seasoned pilot with lifetime experience, and a space time... screams at challenging times in the air.

> Dying in a last scream of fear, angst and struggle regretting a thousand things that may have gone wrong or maybe were just your fault…

I think you’re projecting. I didn’t know him obviously, but from what people who did have said about him, that doesn’t seem like the way he’d go out.

You're right. Parent was projecting as well. Both are hypotheticals of ways to die, not an account of what happened or would happen were he not to die from a plane crash.

He went out on his own terms subject to the rules of the way he lived. No excuses. It may not have been his intent to die but he was willing to take the risk. That is the price of true agency.

When you are prepared to die in a plane crash because of your decrepitude, how much risk to others is entailed in a case like this? If the plausible answer is “not that much” I am with you. But nonagenarian self-actualization at the cost of other people’s lives and limbs is a different story.

The risk of dying while flying in a light plane is reasonably high.

The risk of dying from a light plane crashing into you while you are on the ground is negligible.

Most people die painful and slow deaths in a bed surrounded by people they don’t know, or most likely entirely alone. Almost nobody dies peacefully in their sleep, it’s usually some horrible disease or failing bodily function.

If you’re going to die a “fitting” way, it’s going to be because you took your life passion to the extreme.

My take is that he passed doing what he clearly loved: flying. He made some of his greatest achievements in life while in flight and was still flying during his final moments.

Different lifestyles, and different deaths, have different glory and honor attached to them, whether you like it or not.

Being an astronaut that went to the moon and a pilot that dies flying at 90 will always and forever be cooler and more impressive than a cook, and most athletes too. I love this reasoning.

Probably would have been better if I had instead suggested figure formatting and page layout… I think I’ve come close to stroking out over that…

most plane crashes are at takeoff or landing, which means it's not as simple as calculating how populated their flight path is.... but yes, it's pretty rare to be smooshed by a plane.

Crashes are most common on takeoff and landing, and that means you're over populated areas.

GA and military crashes that kill people on the ground happen all the time. Used to happen all the time at airshows, too - until airshows adopted very strict rules around planes never having a trajectory that heads towards the audience.

But that's all beside the point. A 90 year old has no business flying a fighter jet, and I don't care if he was a former astronaut or not. He certainly didn't have any business doing so alone.

Reaction time goes down dramatically with age and nothing can be done about that. Mental capacity diminishes, too; mistakes skyrocket, which is why we have so many elderly people ramming their cars into convenience stores and such. Health risks like a stroke, especially in an aircraft that can generate high g's.The body's tolerance for heat and cold goes down.

It was incredibly selfish of him to keep flying.

The guy was a legend - flew fighter jets, was a test pilot, and then an astronaut. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt - I'm sure he knew exactly what he was doing.

And the obvious degradation of the body's capabilities and its potential failure points (potentially increased by traveling 300mph at 10,000 ft). Commenter is right, 90 year olds shouldn't be driving cars let alone flying. Incredibly irresponsible. Also there's really nothing that cool or heroic about dedicating your life to testing and operating flying death machines on behalf of a military. Get a grip.

Get outta here with this ageist crap. I've know several 90+ year olds who are fully capable of independence and driving. My grandma was one of them. Hell, I watched a 93 year old deadlift 450lbs. While the likelihood of some 90 year old being too old for something is high, that means less when looking at an individual.

Ageism is not inherently wrong. This also deals with a public space, where idealism and liberties are already restricted. If you make individual exceptions based on close examination, then fine. But I think it's fair for observers to assume that this individual flying was a mistake.

Using the same logic you might say that people shouldn't be allowed to drive until they are 24. Statistically far more lives would have been saved yesterday if we'd only simply restrict more liberties based on age alone.

Worth discussing! You might also suggest that driving tests should be harder/longer/repeated, specialized based on different types of driving, and license privileges restricted based on years/miles safely driven. We already do it to truck drivers. Remember, most societies have already crossed over into treating driving on public infrastructure as a privilege, not a right/liberty.

And 10 to 12 year olds can drive too. I wonder why governments of developed countries ban them from driving outright. Most places don’t even let 14 to 15 year olds drive.

There is a difference between having something and then losing it vs not having it yet. If you get a license to do a thing you should be able to keep doing it until you are deemed incapable and that will vary between people.

Also, plenty of children those ages drive on private property, especially farms. There are kids doing backflip jumps on dirt bikes at those ages. Many of them are likely safer to be driving than others who are of "prime" age. I drove with a 30yo who terrified me with his dangerous lack of skill.

People are variable in capacity and skill. The bureaucracy finds it more manageable to put policy in place than to determine individual skill.

>There is a difference between having something and then losing it vs not having it yet.

I disagree. The reason for the policy would be the same.

Probability of person of age x causing collision is too high.

>The bureaucracy finds it more manageable to put policy in place than to determine individual skill.

Yes, of course. Testing every single person all the time can get costly, and it may or may not be deemed worthwhile by a society (or whatever government leader). Obviously, when people are young, their faculties are getting better, so testing once is not unreasonable.

But at advanced ages, faculties can degrade, and degrade at varying rates. For this scenario specifically, maybe it is not onerous to sufficiently test 90+ year olds that want to fly, since there are so few.

However, since an airplane crash in an urban area has a high likelihood of causing damage to others, society does have an interest in controlling who is in the pilot's seat.

If you follow your argument to a logical conclusion it would require that we ban millions of people with mild impairments from operating machines. That is the worst kind of ageism, discrimination, and ableism.

Imagine that you studied and went through pilot training and got your license. Do you really believe that when you start solo flying that you, an inexperienced pilot, would be a safer pilot than someone like Bill Anders at 90? Experience, guile, and cunning count for far more than you can imagine.

When my mother was getting older I looked at age related accident data. I apologize that I don't have the reference handy, but it was quite striking that teenagers are far more likely to have an accident than an elderly driver. I guess we should ban teenagers from driving also? Experience matters a great deal.

How about if we find that recent immigrants are more likely to have an accident due to lack of familiarity with local driving regs? According to your logic we should make a law banning immigrants from driving. And on and on...

As far as your comments about military service, even if we are anti-war (who isn't?), it is still possible to admire the hero who is willing to put their life on the line to defend their community.

Idealistic thinking. Legends are just motivated people who are often at the right place, in the right time.

It was never my intention to take anything away from this legend of a human. I'm just trying to bring the discussion back down to earth. No harm, or pun, intended.

An absolute legend going out like a total badass. I know people will disagree but there is much to be said for living your life on your own terms and accepting the potential consequences without reservation. He was clearly one of those guys. He probably did not expect to die that day, but he knew he would die some day and he wasn’t going to nerf his life to buy a few more years.

My grandad at a ripe old age had a stroke and the doctors told him and the family that he won’t ever be able to walk. So he got a wheelchair and was eventually sent home to recuperate. A few days later my mom visited him and found him wheeling around in the wineyard. It seemed that my grandad (her dad), ever the engineer, pimped his ride to make it more off-road worthy and was in the process of figuring out how he can continue with yard maintenance in his new state.

My mum was very angry with him. From her perspective her dad was “risking his life” doing what he was doing. I tried to gently point out that while she is right that staying in bed would be safer for him, wouldn’t he be one step closer to the grave if he were to give up on his favourite activities?

> I tried to gently point out that while she is right that staying in bed would be safer for him, wouldn’t he be one step closer to the grave if he were to give up on his favourite activities?

More than one step closer! Being bedridden is usually the beginning of the end. Once you can’t even get basic exercise done, everything starts to degrade rapidly.

I wonder if something happened and he knew he wasn’t going to make it, and so crashed intentionally to avoid the possibility of hitting something when the fuel ran out. There are so many little islands in that area, and he could have plausibly ditched in the water, however cold it would be. Badass yes.

This is precisely why I have elected to put off my riskier hobbies until my later years. I find my tolerance for risk goes up as I become less instruyan in the lives of my loved ones. One day, I’ll feel free to take the risks implicit in my stupider ambitions.

For a good overview of the likely cause of the crash, see Juan Browne's review: https://youtu.be/o0aDSMUh9N8

TLDW: the likely cause of the crash was low-level aerobatic maneuvering at an altitude of 700 to 1,000 ft, which is too low for such maneuvers. The pilot may have attempted a split S maneuver (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_S - aileron roll followed by a half loop) without getting the nose up high enough, ending up too low. It appears that the pilot had control of the airplane on the video, it wasn't stalled.

Intentional loop. He entered it too fast and too low. On the descent, he was going too fast for his aircraft to have any type of control authority and he was a passenger at that point.

The aircraft basically stalled out in a dive, and with no cohesive airflow over the control surfaces, the aircraft continued to stall to the point of impact.

I don't believe the wing was in a stall in this situation. There would have been an abundance of airspeed over the wings. While performing a Split S the issue is that you are pulling too many G's and you and the sooner you level out the more you are pulling.

Not a stall but it might've been loss of control due to aerodynamic forces and effects. There's two that come to mind when talking about leaving a loop too fast like what seems to be the case here.

There's control lockup, where the aircraft is flying so fast that the mass flow of air over the control surfaces is so high that the controls "lock in place" or "get stiff", meaning the force you can apply to your rudder stick in the cockpit isn't enough to overcome the forces acting upon the control surfaces.

Then there's control compression, where the airflow around the wing is so fast that the local airflow around the airfoil becomes supersonic (aircraft as a whole is still subsonic) and detaches after the point of maximum airfoil thickness, leaving no laminar flos for the control surfaces to work with. This will feel different in the cockpit, instead of the controls becoming stiff they get loose but no control authority is achieved because your control surfaces are in fully turbulent flow.

Both of these phenomenon were a big issue in WW2 during dive attacks, since enocuntering or even going beyond the max aircraft speed was common during dive attacks, you wouldn't be able to pull out of the dive and go straight into the ground at very high speed. Either of these could've been an issue for Anders.

I agree that it was not in stall, based on reviewing the video. At that level of G a stalled wing would enter what's called an accelerated stall, which will almost always cause a rapid snap roll to one side or the other, as one wing will stall slightly before the other.

You can stall a wing at any airspeed. It’s about the angle of attack of the wing exceeding the critical angle, not the airspeed. In accelerated flight (like the bottom of a loop), the airplane is only capable of so much acceleration/pitch rate before stalling the wing.

Barring a pre-crash sequence mechanical failure, this was pilot error. There is a safe speed called Va, or maneuvering speed. While most aircraft will have higher maximum allowed speeds, maneuvering speed is the most important figure for aerobatics because it's the maximum speed at which the airplane's flight controls can be used at full deflection (i.e. maximum effort) without exceeding the structural capabilities of the aircraft.

What most likely happened was was a loss of situational awareness in the pre-loop dive, resulting in a steeper and faster dive than intended.

Wouldn't be altitude since it was at sea level, but maybe air pressure due to temperature? But, at sea level, seems like he'd be cutting it way too close regardless.

No.

That's just... such a marginal thing. It's like complaining your supercomputer melted because the CPU got 0.1C too hot. Like - it's technically possible, but if it's that close you were already way way way past safe and sane margins.

When doing loops there are rapid changes of acceleration, specially on inverted loops. It can make you pass out easily, even if you are young. Being 91 years old, I would be extra careful.

Speaking about his famous Earthrise photograph, Anders said: "We came all this way to explore the Moon, and the most important thing that we discovered was the Earth."

Is it even a nitpick in this case? It would have been substantially more badass to die flying a jet at 90. If it's relevant to the point I don't see how it's a nitpick.

Now picking on a particular model distinction or something like that I could get on board with.

It depends on what you mean by “jet.” There’s no way he’d be allowed to fly a fighter jet or anything else with a turbojet engine at this point in his life. The medical waiver he was on wouldn’t allow it.

so many fails in such a short response. Assuming someone's profession based on almost nothing, general stereotyping, armchair mental diagnosis, insult based on 'diagnosis' that's needless and honestly irrelevant. Reminds me of the common backhanded insult on reddit, "you must be a blast at parties"

What kind of pilot would be taken seriously if they mix up such a basic aspect of professional knowledge? Jets and prop planes are very different beasts.

I can't think of any job where you can just casually mix up different classes of objects and not eventually have it result in some significant failure.

"Why did you feed the mules and not the horses?" "Don't be so autistic. I bet you're a blast a parties"

"Why did you give me cheeseburgers? The customer ordered plain burgers." "Don't be so autistic. I bet you're a blast at parties"

Yes, being specific about the things you work with is generally a sign that someone is good at their job, but it generally doesn't have much to do with autism. But I guess being condescending is what makes a good cocktail party companion?

Turboprops are not jets, it is the wrong term.

A turbine engine may be a jet engine or it may not in the case of a turboprop.

Jet aircraft use jet propulsion not propeller propulsion.

A jet gets significant thrust from exhaust gases, a turboprop gets almost none from exhaust gases, some turboprops actually are reversed intake in the rear pushing exhaust out the front like the PT6.

Turbofans are considered jet propulsion as the both the exhaust gas and fan gas are pushing though an exhaust orifice rather than the fan being in open air as is the case with a turbo-prop.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_propulsion

This is a Baha'i Prayer I like to say for people who pass on to the next life

Its hard to describe how I feel about it, its just so deep and profound...

Consciousness itself, as apart from the behavior and computation that goes on in the brain, is a mystery of neuroscience. So maybe somehow it persists after we die? NDEs kinda shed light on that

RIP up in the stars man

https://www.bahaiprayers.io/prayer?id=204020

One does beg the question of where awareness comes from. I can't see that any particular physical arrangement could explain it. I mean, maybe a fundamental particle or fundamentally different form of matter could be found to be what plays the role in producing consciousness, but then what would cause that matter to have or produce awareness? Perhaps that matter has behavior we can measure, but how would it produce conscious awareness? Would it be possible to understand?

As far as I can see all you can explain is that its there, but can't understand why, which suggests its transcendent over what we can see and measure

And what we can see in terms of the physical world is not proof that there isn't more to existence

Take the plant that gains sustenance from the sun and the earth, yet the fact that it has no faculties of perception that allows it to understand those processes is not proof that they don't exist

So perhaps we are like plants in a greater universe? Again, NDE's (near death experiences) are also suggestive of this

And also looking at how Baha'i taught equality of women / men, and the need for independent investigation of truth, and dedicating one's self to helping the poor etc... coming from 19th century Persia that was pretty barbaric and fanatical where women couldn't even show their faces in public much less get educated, and where plundering each other and favoritism was literally the primary engine for their economy... kinda shows that perhaps there is insight in the original Baha'i teachers

This is a minor nitpick, as English is not my native language, but wouldn't it make sense to say "died in" more so than "was killed in"? The guy was not a passive observer by any means and should be paid respect.

That photograph is a mere footnote to the sheer audacity of Apollo 8

- first crewed flight of the Saturn V.

- first crewed spacecraft to leave Earth's orbit.

- first crewed spacecraft to enter Lunar orbit.

- first humans to see the far side of the moon.

- most watched (at the time) live TV broadcast.

Those guys had balls of steel, and I'll be pouring one out on the stoop for Bill Anders and the crew later today in memory.

Since there’s a lot of commenting about his age, I’ll remark (as a 36-year-old private pilot) that in my opinion an elderly man flying recreationally is actually much less hazardous to the general public than an elderly man driving a car.

Flying is a specialized skill, but once you learn it it’s not especially difficult and requires less sustained focus, reflexes and reaction time than driving.

It’s not as if there’s any chance you’ll run over a 6-year-old who jumps out in front of your plane at 7,500 feet.

> Flying is a specialized skill, but once you learn it it’s not especially difficult and requires less sustained focus, reflexes and reaction time than driving.

Respectfully disagree (as a 40-something year old aerobatic pilot) with the less sustained focus part, not the specialized skill part.

I'm not a pilot, but I have a bit of a morbid fascination with aviation incidents, and I think I agree with both of you somewhat?

The average flight deck is a hell of a lot more complicated than the average driver's seat in terms of things the operator needs to pay attention to, so I'd definitely say that flying requires more sustained focus. However, during routine flight (not counting taking off and landing, because I know those are very high workload periods?) pilots have a lot more time and space than drivers do to recover from a situation before it becomes a catastrophic failure, especially when it comes to danger to others outside the vehicle. So I'd also say that driving on average requires better reflexes and reaction times to prevent accidents.

Take collisions for example; as GP alluded to, a driver's window to recognise and start responding to a developing problem is often mentioned in fractions of a second or a few whole seconds at best, because they can come out of practically nowhere. On the other hand, my impression of warning systems like TCAS and EGPWS is that the pilot has several seconds or more to start responding to the initial warning and still safely execute an avoidance/escape manoeuvre.

Aviation contains a number of scenarios where pilots can (and do, not all that infrequently) slip from being in a safe situation to being in immediate danger without noticing the transition. Things like spatial disorientation and losing situational awareness (particularly in IMC), not taking into account a changing weather situation, not tracking fuel consumption, navigational errors...

Technology is increasingly mitigating these risks, but as of now, they contribute to general aviation being significantly more risky, statistically, to its participants than driving, even when taking into account the prevalence of bad driving. On the other hand, it is considerably less dangerous to non-participants than driving is.

> Aviation contains a number of scenarios where pilots can (and do, not all that infrequently) slip from being in a safe situation to being in immediate danger without noticing the transition.

I am aware of this (and as I already said this is why piloting requires greater focus), but I don't see how that changes the fact that there actually is a transition that takes a heck of a lot longer than going from a completely safe (given all available information and proper operation) to a completely unsafe situation takes on the road.

"Focus" is a vague term; if it was supposed to encompass the sorts of scenario I wrote about, then I have provided some some specificity for third parties.

Furthermore, I feel you did not fully comprehend what I was trying to say here, which is that there are certain scenarios where, if you have partially lost this "focus", you can suddenly find yourself in a situation where an immediate response of the correct kind (and one which is sometimes profoundly counter-intuitive, as in spatial disorientation) is required. The transition may have taken some time (not necessarily "a heck of a lot longer", though), but when this has occurred without the pilot being aware of the developing situation, then in practice it is no different than the sort of road situations you are thinking of.

Note that this is not a claim that the cruise phase of a flight is just as prone to sudden surprises as any phase of driving; it is a explanation that equivalently startling scenarios, without any perceived transition period (and perception is what matters), can arise in the cruise phase of flight (and that's even if we exclude sudden equipment failure.)

I'm not sure how focus is a vague term - I thought in this context it pretty clearly means a state of concentration/active attention.

And I'd flip it and say that you don't understand what I'm trying to say, which is that while flying routinely you would have to lose focus in order to end up in a situation where you are blindsided by a signal and need to act on it immediately, while when you are driving routinely you can be doing everything completely right and be paying the utmost attention and still need to react near-instantaneously to prevent disaster on a routine basis.

In fact, bringing up sudden equipment failure just sort of reinforces my point. The response to the vast majority of failures, even stuff as critical as an uncontained engine failure, is not to fast-twitch take some reflexive action, it's to work through a checklist (even memory items are still a checklist) to be sure you're actually taking the right action - and there are tolerances built into both internal and external systems to give pilots time to do that.

Or to put it another way, flying prioritises a slower and more methodical approach to operation than driving does - prioritises conscious over unconscious decision-making. I think this article by a pilot (https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/1994/june/pilot...) explains my point quite a bit better than I can.

It is as if you did not read the final paragraph of my previous post, from which I think it should be clear that I am neither misunderstanding nor disputing the broad thrust of your position (though, personally, I am not routinely in situations requiring near-instantaneous reactions by the driver in order to prevent disaster, either as a driver or as a passenger in a road vehicle. I can see, however, that for anyone who prioritizes unconscious over conscious decision-making, this could be the case.)

What I am saying is an addendum to that broad point: situations do generally develop more slowly in the cruise stage of flight, but in those cases where they develop without the pilot being aware of that happening (which they can, and do in a small but not trivial number of cases), then they can present a situation requiring a near-instantaneous reaction to avoid disaster (if that opportunity has not already passed.)

By excluding takeoffs and landings, you are, of course, stacking the deck towards your point, especially if you take this to include flying in congested terminal airspace, particularly in IMC. By the time we exclude cases where the pilots are not doing everything right (and we had better exclude cases where other pilots, ATC and other external persons whose actions or failure to act could create a dangerous situation, and mechanical or systems failures that affect airplane controlability or structural integrity - all of these have led to disasters or near disasters), we have a point that is well-nigh unassailable, but bearing little relevance to the question of why airplanes crash.

The same goes for the linked article: it is is mostly right but there are exceptions. Given that it is from AOPA, I think it is worth noting that the aphorism (as stated from time to time by general aviation pilots) that "the most dangerous part of flying is driving to the airport" is statistically false for general aviation itself (it may well be true for airline flight in many parts of the world.)

I once met Bill Anders on Orcas Island.

Years ago I was making a video about describing a stone that I found on an Orcas beach, and I was consulting with geologists and biologists. I met at a local cafe with a marine biologist to get her opinion about barnacles on the stone. As we were talking, a man at the next table mentioned that he thought the stone was possibly volcanic. He also said he had a petrologist friend I should talk to.

Nice coincidence. The guy said his name was something-something... I'm not good with names and pretty much forget them instantly.

Later, I'm with the biologist on the beach, looking at barnacles when a P-51 Mustang comes screaming overhead on a low pass over the island. I lived on Orcas and I had never seen that before.

"Oh, that's Bill Anders," said the biologist. "Remember, you met him at the Orcas Hotel cafe. He was on Apollo 8."

That made a lot of sense. The Apollo astronauts were trained field geologists!

I suspect his crash was a suicide. I come from a flying family and this is how pilots commonly fantasize about dying on their own terms.

> I suspect his crash was a suicide.

I wouldn't count on that. Most of us wouldn't do that to the aviation world. Decreases plane availability, especially for something like a T-34 Mentor, increases insurance rates, increases FAA stance on already asinine policies, etc.

occams razor - he misjudged his aerobatics.

Unless you leave a note or tell someone, could the FAA determine it was intentional? Given the type of aircraft could a pilot plausibly commit suicide in a way that made it look like pilot error?

Absolutely could be done undetectably/unprovably. There is often no conclusive root cause for a pilot error event.

If that “error” was intentional, it would be very hard to prove.

If you hang out with pilots, I'm sure you've heard them fantasize about this as a good way to die. It doesn't happen much in real life, although there are a few incidents that have been in the news that were clearly suicides.

It's not really plausible that he misjudged the altitude. His altitude for that maneuver was about 2000 feet lower than it should have been. I've also flown a T-34 (my dad owned one on Orcas Island... I kind of wonder if Bill bought his from Dad) and did some aerobatics around Orcas. We were at much higher altitude.

God blessed him to be able to die doing what he loved at the ripe old age of 91. Prayers for his family or foundation to be able to keep the flying heritage museum well maintained in his honor.

That’s the overall stats, which is fair, but I find a significant counterbalance that the pilot is much more in control of the risk in aviation. If you die in an airplane, it’s probably a pilot issue. If you die on a bike, it could easily be someone else’s fault.

Don’t run out of gas and don’t tangle with weather beyond the ability of the airplane and pilot, and you cut out around 60% of the risk.

Man flys to the moon and back, and then 55 years later as a 91 year old dies flying a jet aircraft. Some are just built different.

In my opinion Chuck Yeager was the best pilot ever. A World War 2 ace who shot down 13 German planes. First to break the sound barrier. But Yeager took his last flight in a jet at 79 (with a copilot) and surrendered his pilots license at age 80.

I am not taking anything away from William Anders but 91 might have been just too old to be responsibly flying a jet.

The important distinction is not whether it has a propeller, but rather the powerplant: is it a reciprocating engine or a gas turbine? I'm going to go out on a limb a little and say that every single warplane in the US military has a gas turbine engine.

Some gas turbines drive a propeller (turboprop).

As a WA native: happy for the edit of the ambiguous and US-centric acronym WA -> Washington.

Also as a WA native: screw those DC assholes, why are we the only state that have to append "state" to our name?

I really like the popup text on that:

"The universe is probably littered with the one-planet graves of cultures which made the sensible economic decision that there's no good reason to go into space--each discovered, studied, and remembered by the ones who made the irrational decision."

All respect, this guy is was ~91. I’m uncomfortable driving with my mom. As a total layperson, what sort of tests does a person have to pass annually(?) to maintain a pilot’s license? Or is this dude just so O.G. that he was bound to go out living his dream?

I’ve seen a few people mentioning medical certifications, but nobody has mentioned that 8 years ago the FAA passed a system called BasicMed which allows pilots to continue flying without getting a medical examination as long as they meet certain conditions. The plane must not exceed 6,000 lbs and must carry less than six passengers. You also can’t have failed your last medical exam. The plane he crashed had a maximum takeoff weight of 5,500 lbs and only carried two people. As long as he flew below 18,000 ft and 250 knots, he was legal (I’m not saying anything about whether he was healthy enough to fly).

In all likelihood he hadn’t had a physical in 8 years. He still would have had to have passed one in his eighties, but he probably hadn’t had an FAA exam in a while.

Source: I’m a private pilot and my dad in his 60s is as well, he flies on BasicMed because he hates going to the doc.

Edit: someone actually had mentioned BasicMed a few minutes before I started typing, but I’ll leave my comment up.

You still need to get a physical (and sign off) from your primary doc every few years under BasicMed. Just not a full FAA flight physical. If someone has not had a documented physical at all in 8 years, they're not legal to fly.

This is also a matter of public record, you can look up exactly what medical class he's operating under and when his last physical exam was on the FAA website. There no need to speculate.

Edit: I just looked it up. He had his last BasicMed physical from his primary doc last year, so he was current.

The FAA only knows when you last took the BasicMed quiz and attested that you will follow the rules. Getting a physical, storing the form signed by the doctor, and maintaining a valid drivers license are up to the individual.

When you take the BasicMed class, you also have to report when your last physical was. Your physical date is public record is transmitted to the FAA and is part of your Airman Registry record.

Yes, you could lie... but the documentation for the physical is part of your logbook and subject to audit. If I were a CFI, I would be checking that before signing off anyone's BFR. You can't really get away with this for long.

Speaking with several astronauts, including Jim Lovell, Gen Tom Stafford, and TK Mattingly, my memory of those conversations is that all Apollo-era astronauts had and continue to have complete physicals from NASA every year. If that's the case he would probably have had feedback, even if the results aren't publicly available.

My memory may be faulty ... I offer this in case someone knows better.

You're probably still healthier than most of the country if you have a Third Class.

According to the FAA airman registry he was flying on BasicMed (less strict than third class, but comes with loss of certain privileges).

WILLIAM ALISON ANDERS

Airman opted-out of releasing address Medical Information: Medical Class: Third Medical Date: 10/2013 MUST HAVE AVAILABLE GLASSES FOR NEAR VISION. NOT VALID FOR ANY CLASS AFTER 10/31/2014. BasicMed Course Date: 3/22/2023 BasicMed CMEC Date: 3/22/2023 Certificates

Eh… a third class medical still is highly sensitive to your medical history. See /r/flying for various tribulations even young people have gone through for relatively benign things.

Pilots in the US need to pass a biennial flight review with a few hours of ground… or add a rating instead. It’s possible he was operating under BasicMed so he may not have needed a recent medical.

A BFR is not just ground... you have to demonstrate airborne skills as well

And even with BasicMed, your primary doctor has to certify that you are fit to fly. It's less rigorous than a full FAA flight medical by design, but it's not a rubber stamp. (You're also limited to smaller aircraft that are unlikely to do much damage on the ground.)

As in, “yup, I’m feeling good enough to fly today” and then pass our nations highly rigorous driving tests :)

I wouldn’t be surprised if he was in very good mental+physical condition though. The crash might have nothing to do with age.

overall, the bar for skills and medical is significantly higher for flying vs driving. the other comments do a good job addressing the specifics.

it's worth keeping in mind that the sky is a big place. so is the ground when you're not driving a car. it's not a great idea to keep flying in your 90s, but it's extremely unlikely that anyone gets hurt who didn't choose to be in the plane.

And 91 year olds are unfortunately known for dying simply because they fell asleep.

I hope to be 91 myself one day - nevertheless, I remain suspicious.

This wasn't sarcastic at all—any driver of a car is far more dangerous than one in a plane. 9/11 is essentially meaningless in the shadow of auto deaths (to provide a direct comparison). I can't get a firm number on number of plane fatalities in the US (or auto fatalities worldwide), but 9/11 alone would amount to about only 0.04% of total vehicle fatalities in the US since 2000.

Both scenarios are unlikely. Most likely it will be a long time of being tortured by doctors trying everything in the book to squeeze a few more days of money from your insurance.

It's an open secret in the aviation community that large numbers of aging boomers are medically unfit to fly but are able to maintain their medicals, for a variety of reasons.

I personally don’t think that people that age should be driving even a car in public. Any time I am stuck behind a car driving slow, eg. doing 30 on a 60, it’s an old person. It’s dangerous, nearly seen so many accidents with people overtaking.

But then again, if it’s someone’s own plane and there’s little risk to anyone but themself, then maybe fire in. But wow should the insurance be through the roof.

I try to be sympathetic to older drivers. I can't imagine what it's like to be 70+, have no immediate family or friends, but still be a half an hour from the closest grocery store.

Until we properly take care of our elders, I don't know what else they can do.

Meals On Wheels, et alia are saviours, imho.

Same thing for children. One of the hardest things to watch as a parent is kids who are utterly trapped by urban hell infrastructure. Society doesn't treat people without cars well at all.

A bandaid to a society being built on car reliance. Even as a fit and healthy person with a car, getting anywhere in that kind of city is such a chore.

I doubt there are reports. Such is the nature of open secrets. Once they're reported in an official fashion they cease to be "secret" and regulators' hands are forced.

So you have no personal connection and no knowledge of any particular reports. That doesn't make you wrong, but surely you can understand how reading this and not knowing what you know, this raises every possible red flag for unsubstantiated internet speculation.

>So you have no personal connection

What gives you this idea?

>no knowledge of any particular reports.

Correct

>every possible red flag

Hahaha, believe whatever you want to believe. What possible motivation could I have to make this up?

（评论） (comments)

（评论）
(comments)