← Back to context Comment by philipallstar 9 hours ago Either way, your original claim that he got in trouble for totalling the plane seems wrong. 1 comment philipallstar Reply loeg 9 hours ago In what way? He was unambiguously punished, and it was unambiguously because he ditched the plane. The only point of contention is whether the ditching was justified or not. Hence “arguably” in my original statement.
loeg 9 hours ago In what way? He was unambiguously punished, and it was unambiguously because he ditched the plane. The only point of contention is whether the ditching was justified or not. Hence “arguably” in my original statement.
In what way? He was unambiguously punished, and it was unambiguously because he ditched the plane. The only point of contention is whether the ditching was justified or not. Hence “arguably” in my original statement.