https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/68491/128 was closed as "opinion-based", then I accepted the lone answer. But then a moderator unilaterally deleted it. Why not maintain it open to let others benefit from the answer?
3 Answers
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
We moderators discussed it internally and decided it was better this way.
It was not a good question for the site and keeping it would not have been a net benefit. We acknowledge that it was well written, but as the community determined, it demanded opinion-based answers.
Moreover, the accepted answer was not answering the question.
As a result, deletion was the best tool we had to deal with all the issues.
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
4
A good answer to the question would have discovered some kind of research quantifying differences between former fighter pilots those who had not given military service.
Research is expensive to conduct, and such a result may indicate that either group is "better" for some metric, or that there is no statistically significant disadvantage. With any of those results, what would be the nett gain? One group of pilots is disadvantaged compared to the other, or nothing is different.
So, there is unlikely to be money invested in such research, leaving this to anecdotal information.
Stating that another way as an example:
Consider "do glider pilots make better airline pilots" Anecdotal information from the US1549 landing in the Hudson River in 2009. Captain of the plane was a qualified glider pilot, who later said his experience in gliders helped with setting the plane down on the river, and that it could have been a softer landing if the A320 flight computers had not been limiting the inputs.
Upshot - Captain with a certain type of experience could have done a better job than computer in this specific instance. Does that mean glider pilots always emergency-land on no power better than non glider pilots ? Based on exactly one data point, that's a yes, but one data point is not statistically significant.
-
$\begingroup$ Capt. Pearson, in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider is data point two. $\endgroup$– mongoCommented Sep 23, 2019 at 15:54
-
$\begingroup$ Capt. Piche, in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236, is data point three. $\endgroup$– mongoCommented Sep 23, 2019 at 16:07
-
2$\begingroup$ @mongo yep - anecdotes. One-off incidents do not a statistically-significant result make. $\endgroup$– CriggieCommented Sep 23, 2019 at 21:35
-
2$\begingroup$ note however that under analysis of knowledge and ADM, it has been shown that glider pilots tend to enjoy better situational awareness of total energy. Hypothecated, and tested. I believe several HF papers have been written on the topic. The successful one-off incidents have a common thread. $\endgroup$– mongoCommented Sep 23, 2019 at 21:55
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
4
The question is one that is frequently discussed, and placing the varied arguments on the table would be of benefit to the community.
-
2$\begingroup$ Please see here: aviation.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask In short, "varied arguments" are welcome in chat, not in Q&A format. $\endgroup$– user14897Commented Sep 23, 2019 at 14:50
-
$\begingroup$ Varied arguments may be in the form of full answers. A distinct advantage of a forum is to permit competing opinions and facts to be aired, and for forum participants to form an opinion through critical review. There are diverse opinions on what type of prior training and experience is well suited to schedule carrier operations, and for the interested party there is benefit in hearing the debate. But in this instance, the question was closed, so I suppose there can be no chat. $\endgroup$– mongoCommented Sep 23, 2019 at 15:48
-
3$\begingroup$ But Stack Exchange is not a forum. And you don't need a question to join chat. $\endgroup$– user14897Commented Sep 23, 2019 at 16:01
-
2$\begingroup$ Nope, it is primarily opinion based and IRL boils down to each pilot on his or her own merits flying for a given company. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 25, 2019 at 15:37