As I understand it, HIMS is very successful and has a much lower recidivism rate than similar programs. Maybe something to do with pilots being tenacious? Or more likely really just wanting their jobs back. But as mentioned, you have to confess and ask for help. Not after you’re caught.
Is that part of the Five Step Statement?
Had to look that up:
“Refractory, also known as treatment-resistant, describes conditions that do not respond to at least two different medications.” – UT Health Houston
There’s a commercial on the radio for Hims for some online ED medicine. Not that I am interested in them but thanks for the testimonial. 
A male pilot who took Hims just before a flight might not fit under the control yoke.
It’d sure give new meaning to the word “cockpit,” though.
Yah, and if they come close to stalling there is a stick shaker. So there’s that to look forward to.
Well, jeez, you can’t say he didn’t try.
It said if the conference call participants had referenced the 2024 maintenance newsletter, “they likely would have advised a planned full stop landing or a controlled ejection instead of a second touch-and-go” that eventually led to the conditions that caused the crash, the report said.
IOW: ‘It’s your fault for not reading the instructions!’
If you read the article, note how a faulty (as in inflexible) AI was mostly responsible.
I would think a bad landing with ejection is better than an airborne ejection and a $200M lawn dart.
The survival and not-crippled-for-life rate for ejections close to the ground is much worse than for controlled ejections at altitude.
IME back in the day, if you got into a malfunction situation where ejection was high on the list of potential endpoints, then the official attitude was that the jet was already forfeit. So the choice was between destroyed jet AND high likelihood of damaged or destroyed pilot VERSUS destroyed jet AND lower likelihood of damaged or destroyed pilot. Pretty obvious which way both the pilot and their chain of command will decide.
With a nosegear hardover or partly deployed main gear, once you touch down the airplane could go nearly any direction and nearly instantly so. Including veering towards hangars and parked airplanes and …
Better to write off one jet than risk ten jets and some buildings.
The bizjet I work with at the moment is very modern - computers are part of nearly everything and that sort of situation is my nightmare. Getting into a weird, in-between mode where the jet thinks one thing is happening, and it’s actually something else. Then you’re sitting there going, “Open the pod bay doors, HAL”, and possibly running out of options.
A somewhat similar situation happened with an airliner a while back, but with a much better outcome:
The airplane suffered damage from an uncontained engine failure resulting in system effects that couldn’t be completely understood. The pilots never really knew how the plane was going to react as they landed and tried to slow to a stop. Fortunately, it worked out.
Not to say these sorts of system logic problems couldn’t happen in purely mechanical systems, but these days we have computers between the pilots and most moving parts. Not fun when the electronic brains stop cooperating.
An F-16 at a Polish air show:
May the pilot rest in peace.
On a less tragic note:
Looks fully under control until the pilot notices the ground is coming up more quickly than desired. Then he goes for a hard pull but it’s too late.
It’d be interesting to see the 10 seconds before where the vids start. His G-loading before the hard pull doesn’t look like much. Perhaps an almost G-LOC and he’d eased off earlier in the recovery?
Darn shame. But it didn’t hurt for long.
See the video at the top of this thread:
Since removed by the moderators there.
I don’t disagree with anything you said except for this. Once the pilot ejects, the plane is an unknown unless there is a “lawn dart” button and they’re in a remote area.
This was a job for Bob Hoover.
It’s amazing how often that seems to happen.
I saw it happen to an F/A-18 at an airshow at MCAS El Toro. The pilot attempted a loop, lost energy at the top, stalled (inverted, IIRC) and just didn’t have enough room to recover. His nose was pointed up, his afterburners were on, but there was that pesky downward momentum. The colonel flying (who I believe was of Polish descent, now that I think of it – Not that Poles are poor pilots; just look at their RAF squadron in WWII) sustained serious injuries, but I believe he flew again after a couple/few years.