Greedy Goblin

Monday, October 24, 2016

Only yes means yes

On March 27th 1977, after a bunch of confusion and delay caused by a minor terrorist attack, Jacob Veldhuyzen van Zanten, famous top pilot of KLM airways was at the helm of his trusted Boeing 747 at the end of the runway. The plane was refilled, the weather was foggy, but this would all be over soon and they'll be out of this small airport not really suitable for the greatest airplane of that time. He finally heard what he wanted to hear:
"KLM eight seven zero five uh you are cleared to the Papa Beacon climb to and maintain flight level nine zero right turn after take-off proceed with heading zero four zero until intercepting the three two five radial from Las Palmas VOR."
- We're going! - he replied and set the engines full throttle.
- OK! - was the response from the tower.
There was some garbled transmission covered by interference on the radio, but he didn't care. The nose of the plane cut into the dense fog as they accelerated to takeoff speed.

Suddenly the fog revealed another Boeing 747 airliner, coming right at his. He tried to pull the plane up, but couldn't get enough altitude. Few seconds later 583 people, including the captain were dead. The reason? The tower operator told him a lot of positive things that he wanted to hear. Things that encouraged him to do what he wanted: take off. But the tower did not tell him that he is cleared for takeoff. Actually the recording of the tower contained "Stand by for take-off, I will call you.", but the captain couldn't hear it, since the other 747 pilot talked at the same time, causing garbled noise on the radio.

To prevent this ever happening again, the "only yes means yes" rule was introduced in air control. "Departure" must be used for various activities needed for a plane leaving an airport. "Takeoff" must only be used for the actual act of "engines to full, nose up". Unless a pilot loudly and clearly gets "you are cleared for takeoff", he must not take off, no matter how many "OK", "fine", "roger" or cleared flight information he gets. Only a clear yes means yes, to prevent misunderstandings in something that can cause permanent damage to people.

I think it's a good rule.

16 comments:

Provi Miner said...

And it creates a slippery slope, don't misunderstand me I agree its a good clear simple rule. However every time a good clear "rule" is enacted it is almost always followed by dozens to hundreds of "well if that was a good rule then this to..." these follow on rules almost always lack clarity and offer "exceptions".

By the way I an idea for you, your recent eve media is cheap article. Re-enter the game isk up and take over the media and push your anti dev interference agenda on the most vocal platform you can buy. That way you get the company running the game you like in an off hands way you seem to demand.

Anonymous said...

...but air traffic control radio is recorded, so no ATC operator will be able to sue the pilot 10 years later, claming 'I did not tell him he is cleared for takeoff, but he did it anyways and I couldn't intervene'. So how would this rule make any difference for court cases in practice?

Gevlon said...

@Provi Miner: devs are gods in a game, nothing works against them. Of course the dev company is a company, so real world lawsuits work as evidenced with the Lenny case.

@Anon: it won't stop a single malicous lawsuit. It's a totally unenforcable rule, since anyone can say "she said yes loud and clear". It stops misunderstandings from happening, when both sides acted in good faith.

Anonymous said...

What about "changing your mind"? One of the main issues with consent is that you can always take it back and change your mind, which doesn't happen anywhere else - if I sell/gift a house, I sign a paper and that's it, I no longer have any claim to the property. This doesn't legally happen with consent.

Also, what about "sometimes yes means no"? This isn't a laughing matter, either, especially when intimidation (potentially even unintentional intimidation) enters the mix. Maybe she only said yes because she was afraid to do otherwise, which still makes the whole affair wrong and considerably illegal.

What I'm saying is, there is no easy rule, no easy way out, simply because the issue in question is so different from anything else we have to deal with.

dobablo said...

I find that correct and sensible behaviour is often first established, not by bastions of morality, champions of safety or pillers of the community, but by the amoral commercial law community. It isn't surprising really. When money is involved people are red hot on making sure they don't get cheated.
The UK's precedent is Felthouse v Bindley (1862) which specified that you cannot impose an obligation based on someone's failure to reject an offer.

maxim said...

Airplane pilots do actually use a lot of procedures to safeguard against human error.
Another example is that there is this list of obvious things to check that always must be read out loud by the co-captain and carried out explicitly by the captain (and controlled by the co-captain). It doesn't matter how good or experienced the captain and co-captain are, this (on the surface - pretty damn dumb) ritual of checking that everything works as intended must always be carried out.

Stories like these do, in fact, constitute the actual meaning behind the social construct known as "ritual".

Slawomir Chmielewski said...

It works for air traffic.

It is absolutely terrible for sex consent.

Every woman always says no. Then says no again. And again. If she doesn't say it, she will use body language or other non verbals. Then she sleeps with you anyway, without ever saying yes.

Women always set up roadblocks for men to overcome. By feminism standards each and every man is a rapist, cause they all had sex with girls who said no.

Gevlon said...

@Slavomir: I never had problems with finding women saying yes. Maybe because I wasn't dating in a dark alley with a knife.

Hanura H'arasch said...

This makes no sense to me. Clear consent is crucial for any sexual activity, no reasonable person is going to deny that. But what is "only yes means yes" even supposed to mean? Is one supposed to ask his partner, "Are you still consenting?", every 10 seconds during sex?

The hole comparison makes no sense really. The main problem why misunderstandings like this crash happen is because they need to only rely on voice without any context. But this is not at all the case in the bedroom.

PS: I'd never have guessed what this post was about before I read the comments. Oh well.

Jacek Kaliszuk said...

@Sławomir I totally agree with Gavlon.

Look, no matter what she says, later both of you - unless witnesses are involved - can claim whatever you want. Its just about avoiding misunderstanding.

On the other hand, if someone would try to educate me on consent by organizing compulsory classes... yea... feminism lol.

@Gavlon But knife helped in those other places, right? ;)

99smite said...

Need more context to understand the whole reason for bringing up the story.

Is it about pre take-off flight procedures or is it about sexual consent?

I never had any problems with consenting girls/women and usually no one should have.
It only becomes edgy when you meet with people you barely know and most likely are drunk or otherwise uninhibited. Then comes trouble! The girls peers judge her a slut for sleeping with some random guy. The crush from last night only wanted sex, no romance, so she is disappopinted and regrets her decision of letting him seduce her. This regret is then transformed into hate and then quickly becomes a "I didn't really want to do it and I now feel raped..."

Poor judgement or poor decisions do not make a sexual contact a rape! Only at the time of intercourse does consent matter. Afterwards, you can only call it a bad experience...

And, yes, when I still worked as a lawyer I have dealt with several cases of rape, real and alleged.
I remember this case when the young woman told the audience in the court room that he ex-boyfriend met her at a party after they had just split up. She wnated to talk with him and hoped that he would come back to her. They left the room and went onto the balcony. There they had sex, anal while standing upright. He then told her that he was with another girl and that they would never be together again. He just wanted to have some "good-bye-sex"... She then felt used nad told her best friend. She then told her that she had to accuse him of rape...

The court room was absolutely quiet. Judge, prosecutor and me just looked at each other.
The judge then asked us for our notions. We both requested my client to be released immediately and that was it. The judge ended the trial right there and then explained in a very calm voice to that young woman why this was not rape, but just a bad experience in romance...

Oh, and regarding this Laci Green crap, if a girl can no longer drive, she can no longer consent. That is BS! The same would apply for the boy too, so he would never be responsible for his actions...

Gevlon said...

99smite: I don't agree. If someone is too drunk to consenting selling her home for $1 (any lawyer would annul that "contract" in no time), she is too drunk to consent to something that can make "peers judge her a slut for sleeping with some random guy. The crush from last night only wanted sex, no romance, so she is disappointed and regrets"

Also this law is prescriptive, its goal is to change existing behaviors like the one banning landlords to reject black tenant-applicants. The lawmaker thinks that drunk women should be protected from taken advantage of.

As a personal note: why would anyone want anything from a drunken woman? They are horribly clumsy and prone to fall asleep and/or vomit in the bad. Bleh.

Slawomir Chmielewski said...

@Gevlon
Unless your sexual experience is extremely limited, you are a rapist.

At least once in your life you had a situation when woman initially refused, then you didn't give up, then she slept with you afterwards. By feminist standards the moment you tried to hold her hand and she moved her hand away (or any other similarly innocent gesture) she refused consent, everything after was you coercing her against her will. You should have noticed her lack of "enthusiastic consent" and go back to your mancave, instead of pressuring her. Even if she said yes explicitly, it was the effect of your coercion, her too scared or confused to refuse.

Not that any of this matters. Since all of this happens in dark bedrooms, it is always "he said, she said" situation, which courts should refuse to deal with at all. Unless woman was resisting physically there should be no case (of course, not including rape at knife point, but those are never confusing after all)



Hanura H'arasch said...

@Gevlon: "I don't agree. If someone is too drunk to consenting selling her home for $1 (any lawyer would annul that "contract" in no time),"

Counterexample: If you're drunk and decide that driving your car back home is a good idea, you're prosecuted regardless.

Ultimately, I think one must bear the consequences of ones actions, regardless if one's drunk or not. That however doesn't mean that merely being unable to resist constitutes consent. That's where I'd draw the line.

As to why someone would want anything from a drunken woman, well I guess it's the same reason why people fight with frigates in EVE. It's the best they can do.

Gevlon said...

@Slawomir: all my girlfriends were friends for months or even years before we actually became couple. When she pulled her hand away, I didn't bother her with sexual advances for a few days.

It's he said she said IF IT GETS TO COURT. If you are both happy, no one files suit.

99smite said...

Gevlon, you misunderstand the point feminists make. The alcohol limit for driving is very low and usually people are still aware of their surróundings and what goes on around them.

The alcohol limit in Germany can be reached by drinking 2 glasses of 0.3l of beer. Try it out, let your gf drink two glasses of beer and observe her behaviour...

I am not talking about alcohol levels where people are literally alcohol corpses.
The point is that this low level of alcohol does not hinder you to make choices. And therefore, a person who is just too drunk to drive is still able to give consent or to refuse.
If a person could no longer give consent, because of alcohol intoxication, same goes for a "rapist". He was drunk, therefore unaware of his actions, bad luck for the girl....

There is a law that states that people of a certain alcohol level can no longer be held possible for their actions. Although one might argue that in these cases, no sexual activity will be successful ever...

There are always two sides to a coin... And lowering the alcohol levels that take peoples responsibility away from them is not a good idea...