About six months ago I threw in the towel on trying to limit speculation about aircraft incidents. With all the videos, flight tracking, ATC recordings, and God knows what else that circulates online within minutes of most noteworthy mishaps, I figured it was pointless to try to stem the tide. In fact, I’ve been doing my part to feed that by trying to get helpful multimedia posted whenever I can.
My hope was that we would get more real information earlier on in these high-profile incidents to allow for more informed analysis by the thousands of armchair investigators out there. I think it’s actually worked in some cases, and I also think it’s made those who investigate aviation accidents more nimble in releasing the facts they can sooner rather than later. Perfect? No. Better? Maybe. But I think the sum total is that we know more about accidents earlier and the information is better so the speculation is also better.
But even though we have pretty decent detail on many incidents within 24 hours or so, that’s not enough for some. What hasn’t changed with this torrent of data is the rush to judgment of our fellow aviators. We’re a tough crowd and anyone who has the misfortune to bend some metal should be prepared for, in many cases, harsh and completely unjustified criticism. We often complain when mainstream media uses the shopworn and often meaningless “pilot error” term, but many of us are pretty willing to pigeonhole a variety of accident scenarios as gigantic screw-ups even if that narrative really doesn’t make any sense. A few examples come to mind.
A couple of months ago NetJets had its first hull loss, which in itself is pretty remarkable given the hours it flies, when a Cessna Latitude went down short of Laredo Airport on an unfortunately complex section of interstate. One of the passengers died in the rough landing, but the other five occupants were saved by passersby who smashed their way into the cabin. The lack of a post-crash fire made that possible. All signs pointed to fuel exhaustion or starvation and the immediate comments were focused on how an experienced crew flying a state-of-the-art business jet could possibly run out of gas.
I actually wonder if all the unjustified venom directed at the pilots, maintenance folks, and manufacturer prompted a faster-than-usual preliminary report from the NTSB. In case you missed it, a fuel pressure sensor broke off a fuel pipe and all the Jet A drained out. The pilots did a heroic job of setting down on the highway, in the absence of any other viable choices, and five out of six souls on board walked away.
We still don’t have all the details on the Vietnam Airlines 787 mishap in Munich last week, but it would appear pilot action saved the day in the end. I’ll admit that I too wondered how a 787 could use up 13,323 feet of runway, plus 125 feet of overrun, and I agonized as the takeoff run stretched longer than a full minute in a video posted before they came back to land. But the account from the pilots and the skid marks at the end of that massive stretch of asphalt suggest a much different scenario than the immediate theories about parking brakes and typos on the FMS.
A preliminary report from the German equivalent to the NTSB says the plane decelerated twice, once at about the midway point of the takeoff run and the second time just before the end of the runway. I guess we’ll find out in due course why the pilots kept going after the first instance. These things are almost never neat and tidy. In any case, when the split-second decision to firewall those massive engines and haul back on the yoke was finally made, superb engineering took over and allowed mere mortals to put hundreds of tons of airplane filled with hundreds of people back on the ground with only a few frazzled nerves as the consequence.
The final example has almost nothing to do with aviation and yet it appeared in AvBrief. A couple of weeks ago, Canadian premium economy carrier Porter Airlines got out ahead of some potentially bad publicity and issued a statement on the 24-hour delay on its daily 10:30 p.m. redeye from Victoria to Toronto. The image it conjured was a two-year-old terrorist holding the whole plane hostage by refusing to get buckled in. We jumped on that bandwagon and painted a similar picture with our coverage.
Oh, such was the indignation from across the land and throughout the comments on AvBrief. Basically, an alien reading those comments would deduce that we’ve collectively lost the ability to raise our young because of the behavior of that tyke and the inability of its Gen-Whatever parents to perform that most basic of human functions. Maybe it’s because my granddaughter is visiting but I actually intervened in the comments to suggest that Porter was telling the story with its own interests in mind.
A few days later, someone who was on that flight got hold of a reporter and defended the child and parent. The kid kept slithering down between the seats in a fit of stark terror. The parent was completely helpless and mortified and wanted nothing more than to be taken back to the terminal to calm the child and let his or her fellow passengers get on their way. Would that it could be that straightforward. Once the plane turned around a veritable encyclopedia of rules and regs kicked in. Victoria Airport has an inviolable 12:30 a.m. curfew under which no Jet A can be burned until the first rays of the sun reappear. By the time they got back to the gate, the airline made the call that it couldn’t pull the baggage and get airborne in time.
Because of Canada’s rules regarding flight delay compensation, Porter was not required to put the passengers up in hotels for the night. Certainly the kid’s meltdown (and the parents’ decision to take a red-eye with a toddler) was a factor, but the airline was in the driver’s seat the whole time and it was Porter’s decisions that led to more than 100 people scrambling to find a place to lay their heads for an extended stay in what is arguably one of the most charming cities anywhere. I’m guessing all the attention on the kid blunted any bad PR the airline got for leaving 100 people high and dry at a deserted airport in the middle of the night. Legal or not, it’s not a good look.
So I write this not to lecture anyone on jumping to conclusions or going off half-cocked. It’s so easy to issue harsh judgment from the privacy the internet affords, and we could all benefit from taking a breath before hitting the keyboard. I’m sure everyone who railed against this kid and parent is considered to be a nice person by those around them and it’s likely that more than a few have the honor of being called Grandpa. It’s worth considering when the itch hits those fingertips.
Thanks for the essay Russ. Reading comments which castigated the Viet Nam Airlines crew before the real story, including their own versions become public was painful. Taking the prize for inappropriate speculation and an unmerited superiority complex is the one which insinuated that the crew went airborne after V1 foolishly out of unthinking rote behavior rather than doing the right thing and aborting this particular takeoff after V1.
Quote: “V1, accelerate stop, accelerate go and all that stuff are great reference points. But how about let’s also just look out the front window knowing the conditions and say, “you know what? I don’t think it’s gonna fly and this doesn’t look right!”
If the investigation ultimately draws that conclusion, we’ll have no choice but to accept it. Pending official causal findings, insinuating this allegation is sophomoric and beneath common decency let alone professional behavior.
In the 33 years I’ve been flying heavy jets, I don’t think I’ve EVER had a training event/simulator session where we were required to abort a takeoff after V1. Aviation history is rife with high speed aborts that didn’t end well, which is why we are trained to continue the takeoff.
I have. There are scenarios where it’s the only choice, and some of them are modeled in Flight Safety’s go/no-go advanced training course.
Report says, “787 Lost acceleration twice during takeoff roll.” But didn’t abort?
And You’re OK with that?
”Report says”. There is no report. The German BFU is investigating and is the only official voice. To date the BFU has not issued a report, so there is no report. Since I am not on that board and don’t know all the facts, yes I am ok with reserving judgement. If you’re not on that board and lay any claim to professionalism you should be ok with silence too.
A preliminary report was released late Thursday and I included information about two losses of deceleration that were outlined in that report. I just tidied it up a bit because my late-night addition was clumsy.
Information confirming two losses of deceleration does not equal all the facts and circumstances surrounding decisions made. We’re talking here about impuning pilots’ decisions and actions before knowing facts and circumstances just as was done with the Latitude in Laredo.
Well John, we just watched at least 2 heavy jets, Air India and UPS lumber into the sky in the last year, only to come back down in the local neighborhoods. So we have all seen first hand how big the fireball is when they don’t make it.
All of which is 100% irrelevant to whether or not it is ethical behavior for speculating pilots to be impugning accident pilots’ actions prior to all the facts and circumstances being made public by the official investigation body. In this case that body is solely the German BFU, not even the Viet Namese investigative board which Juan Browne referenced today.
I too have been through the Flight Safety go/no go models and am happy to see an article followed by a discussion on AvBrief about ingredients which call for rejected takeoffs after V1. It’s a valid subject for discussion but not in a comments section responding to a currently uninvestigated incident. Truth be known, I once performed a successful RTO after V1 in a critical airfoil swept winged jet resulting in zero damage. I am no stranger to the subject.
Freedom of speech includes freedom to speculate and have an opinion, which is what a discussion board is all about. Somewhere around the 1st amendment of the Constitution as I recall. I’ll decide what is appropriate for me to think and say, thank you very much. If you wish to remain silent, as I recall that you previously advocated, that is also your right and privilege. But So far you have not chosen to do that. And that’s ok too. When you look to government agencies and bureaucracies as the final authority on everything including what you can say and believe, then don’t be surprised when they tell you that you can no longer express your opinion, even while they do very harmful things as a result of internal corruption. That’s not ok.
We’re all free to speak. This is not a freedom of speech issue. Freedom of speech does not address ethical speech. We all do that on our own recognizance guided by the ethics of our profession.
Actually, if I may, you comment here at my pleasure and I’m not finding this pleasurable. Exchange emails and duke it out privately, you two. This is getting away from the topic.
Amen!
Thank – You Sir!
I’m reminded of the saying “it’s often too early to know but never too early to speculate.”
Speculation about an accident causes us all to start down the path of considering causal factors. If we find out later that we were wrong, then at least we have hopefully learned from considering the possibilities. AVbrief is a discussion board, not a government agency that makes final declarations. To say that NTSB officials never ever err in their conclusions post crash is foolish. They are only human just like the pilots who crashed airplanes. And yes, pilot error is still by far the most likely cause of an aircraft accident. Aviation Insurance Underwriters don’t stand in line to ask aircraft parts, ticket agents, flight attendants, CEO’s, mechanics, controllers and other airline personnel to fill out forms declaring how many type ratings, hours, recency of experience and medical qualifications they have. None of them actually fly the airplane. Even when mechanical failures occur, the FAA still holds the pilot in command responsible for knowing the condition of the aircraft when he accepts it for flight.
The biggest problem with the label “pilot error” is that is almost never explains why. Why did an experience, supposedly trained, and sometimes professional pilot make an error that caused injury or bent metal? Without that crucial data, simply blaming a crash on pilot error provides nothing to learn from. Worse, it encourages pilots to discount the possibility of learning anything worthwhile; they simply go into I-would-never-make-that-mistake mode and move on.
Super well said Russ. However, early speculation is going to always be around. As long as it just speculates on the many possible causes, without becoming adamant or presented in a critical or rude way, I don’t mind joining in myself and enjoy others thoughts. Lots of experience out there frequently speaking. Even being far off wrong with thoughts still brings awareness of safety considerations. (Whatever I just said…)
Russ, the link to the 787 mishap connects to the Laredo Netjet crash.
Outstanding and much needed these days!
Well done, Russ! I am guilty of accident-pilot immediate condemnation. I may try to be a little less harsh in the future. Why is it that I am constantly impressed with your writing? I read a lot but few authors/writers/reporters make me feel like they have made their point so well as to affect my decision making. You have a gift, which I suspect has everything to do with why AvBrief has become so successful so fast. Thank you for being the wise voice of reason in a world filled with static noise!
Gary, your comments about Russ are so accurate. I feel today, after reading Russ’ comments, that aviation journalism, thru AvBrief and Russ Niles, is back where it should be. There’s real quality and substance to his work.
Russ, The Porter statement link connects to the Laredo crash
I worked for the old Garrett Airesearch back in the 1980’s. One of my responsibilities was supporting the Gulfstream GIV flight test program. We were tasked with testing all the major subsystem software packages to make sure they were
compatible with one another. It seems that during testing of one of the first “brake by wire” systems, the antilock sensors
and software on one set of MLG sensed a skid on one wheel, over-compensated and locked the other wheel. The locked tire immediately blew and made a really (really) big mess. There is WAY more software now.
Russ,
Well said. Thanks
I choose to never comment on the commenters any more. And rarely, if ever on the stories. Because I usually comment on someone who is determined to be right and won’t stop commenting on my comment. I don’t need the hassle.
No Comment
Oh yes it is
Exactly 😉 !
I may get the last word in, but I have not won the argument, and never will. Everyman is right in his own eyes.