[–] Myrv 0 points 11 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago
Probably because it is one of the prohibitions in the Hague/Geneva conventions.
From the Hague 1922-23:
When an aircraft has been disabled, the occupants when endeavoring to escape by means of parachute must not be attacked in the course of their descent
US Army Field Manual (1956)
- Persons Descending by Parachute
The law of war does not prohibit firing upon paratroops or other persons who are or appear to be bound upon hostile missions while such persons are descending by parachute. Persons other than those mentioned in the preceding sentence who are descending by parachute from disabled aircraft may not be fired upon
Geneva Conventions (1977)
Article 42 - Occupants of aircraft
No person parachuting from an aircraft in distress shall be made the object of attack during his descent.
Upon reaching the ground in territory controlled by an adverse Party, a person who has parachuted from an aircraft in distress shall be given an opportunity to surrender before being made the object of attack, unless it is apparent that he is engaging in a hostile act.
Airborne troops are not protected by this Article.[1]
A pilot escaping from a disabled aircraft has essentially been disarmed (and quite possibly wounded). To fire upon a parachuting pilot would be the same as firing on an unarmed/wounded ground solder. It's a take no prisoners approach (no quarter given) that is frowned up by most militaries.
[–] respondwithdata [S] 1 point 3 points 4 points (+4|-1) ago
I wonder how they would treat predator drones in the Hague?
[–] [deleted] 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
[–] respondwithdata [S] ago
The only 'great' wars were fought over principals. Not the theft of oil or to create more war for profit.