Hacker News Reader

Comment by fergal_reid | Hacker News Reader

I have no specific context here, but in case it's not obvious, I think you have to read the exchange in the context of British, and I guess RAF, indirectness and understatement.

I'm guessing the air marshal means "what the hell were you thinking"; Holden is agreeing, indicating that he has learned his lesson and acknowledges the error; and the air marshal is then graciously moving on.

View on HN

My read is that the Air Marshal was confirming a gap in the orders, which were amended after this flight. Less of a "what the hell were you thinking" and more of a "what the hell were we thinking allowing this in the first place?"

That's typical RAF. Same kind of thinking as the exploding marshmallow incident in a nuclear bomber (https://www.atlasobscura.com/foods/exploding-teacakes).

A five-minute "toolbox talk" with an experienced Lightning pilot would probably have been sufficient to warn him of the afterburner detent, and "Let's maybe not do that, eh?"

You can't actually write down "No-one did anything really wrong but let's not do that again, okay?" but you can write down something that says that.

It's English Understatement all the way.

Absolutely, and beautifully so.

I think you're reading too much into the quote. RAF simply acknowledged that the whole episode was an accident that happened during routine work and they wouldn't punish their man for an accident, especially since there was not much harm done (except the repairable damage on the plane).

If he had taken the plane for a joyflight then he would have gotten a right bollocking (to put it mildly) but if it was an accident what exactly could they hold against him?

If there's something peculiarly British about it, it's that their airmen are well-trained professionals and they do not mete out unnecessary punishments just to show who's boss.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com