Speculation about accidents

[AfricanSkies]

It has been stated elsewhere on this forum that “Speculation in advance of the official inquiry may be inevitable but that doesn't mean it's acceptable on a public forum”.

Why? Speculation on this forum concerning just about every other subject under the sun is not frowned upon, in fact it is invited and welcomed. However, when accidents are concerned, it’s a big no-no.

Why not speculate? The accident was a public accident. It is a matter of public discussion. This is a public discussion forum. Therefore we are entitled to discuss the accident here. It is even called a 'Rumour Network'.

Even if we speculate about pilot error, we aren’t trying to castigate the dead pilot(s), or apportion blame, we are merely trying to piece together, for ourselves and no-one else, what MAY have happened, in order to learn from their (possible) mistake(s). There but for the grace of God go I, sort of thing.

It has been commented that journalists cannot be expected to distinguish between informed and misinformed speculation posted on this site. This 'Rumour Network'!

Why not? Surely as professional journalists they ARE expected to verify their sources? And not just print any old twaddle they read or overhear? Why should we have to beware of journalists misconstruing our posts? That’s THEIR lookout. Don’t blame me for what the journalist publishes. If I was the journo who reported that someone had ejected from a Firefly, I’d be feeling a bit silly when my error had been pointed out to me. Pursuing that vein, does everybody believe what’s printed in the newspapers? And, why leave the speculation to the newspapers?

It’s all very well to say authoritatively, “LEAVE the speculation to the professionals.”….However, many here ARE experienced professionals and we all have much to learn by formulating possible reasons for accidents, and by reading and evaluating the speculation and criticism of others.

This little gem has been offered elsewhere on this forum : “to those who speculate and offer unsound opinions I would say one word, DON'T. You probably don't know what you are talking about since you were not on board, and every opinion is based upon pure speculation”.

Don’t? Whyever not? I may very well know what I am talking about. I may even be privy to information that the AAIB is never going to be privy to. So my ‘speculation’ could be based on solid insider knowledge that is never going to be publicised, for whatever reason. In fact, YOU’RE speculating that I’M speculating!

Finally, why should we all shut up and not be allowed to discuss it until many months later when the AAIB report is published? Should thousands and thousands of pilots, professional or otherwise, simply blinker their minds to accidents until they read the report months later? When the memories of the witnesses have faded?

What makes me sick are the ‘having been there, and done that, and known so-and-so, and I have an opinion of what happened but it shall remain private’ -types who are too scared to air their views in front of their peers so that these views may be publicly examined and criticised. If you’re so good and so experienced, your views are obviously valuable and should be aired for the good of all.

Then there’s the condolences crowd. I’m sure Jane Sixpack and the kids really appreciate condolences from some silly nickname on a public forum.

Sure, I agree that accidents are sensitive issues, but that does NOT mean we should shut or minds and gag ourselves because to offer an opinion on the matter is viewed as ‘damned speculation’ and ‘insensitive’.

It is through adversity that we advance.

[Golf Charlie Charlie]

A-S, I certainly endorse your comment about the "condolences crowd". Thank you for having the courage to say it. I wouldn't have.

[zerozero]

African Skies--I agree with your entire post.

I think speculation is "natural" and maybe even healthy as I have learned about possible scenarios (scenarii?) that I would've never imagined on my own.

However.

You know the old saw about one bad apple...?

Some do take the opportunity to offer some really outrageous opinions (personal, professional or otherwise).

You know who you are!

[RUDAS]

I agree! I think its essential that people talk about relevant issues, whether they are crashes or incidents or any other safety issue-they all affect us and its natural and correct to do so.

Firstly,this isnt an 'official investigation' site,as you say,its a 'Rumour network',so as the title says, its for speculation and rumours and discussion.

Secondly,while i agree fully that sensitivity towards those involved is called for,its very petty of people to take up positions on the moral high ground and sanctimoniously preach and condemn or criticise those who genuinely want to discuss pertinent issues.

Well done African skies!

[Flying Bean]

Here Here.
I also could not agree more. I get fed up with the "don't speculate" brigade. Accident reports take months, even years to appear and never get the publicity of the original report.
I think that a great deal of the comment immediately after the accident brings out a lot of very valuble information which is of use to pilots NOW, not in 2 years time. And yes we are professionals who can show some discernment in what is relavent or not.
For example a recent (fatal) accident involving an Aztec and its baggage door had a wealth of information on the subject of various small twins and baggage doors.

[broadreach]

Eloquently put, AS.

What rightly gets up people’s noses is when someone goes beyond speculation and categorically apportions blame. On a public forum there are inevitably going to be people like that and you just have to accept that opinionatedness is usually in inverse proportion to knowledge.

Accident investigation is not conducted by mindless robots; a large part of their job is speculation and lateral thinking. So Flying Bean’s comment about the wealth of information that appeared on the subject of light twins and baggage doors in a thread about an Aztec accident is apropos. I would think, sorry, speculate, that a Pprune thread about a specific accident would be well monitored by an investigation team for sparks of insight.

[Jerricho]

AS, not trying to p*ss in your pocket, but good post.

However, as Zero mentions about bad apples...........the internet is a great tool for people who use it to hide behind while trying to make themselves seem to be the master of what they portray.

[Bealzebub]

African Skies,

You raise an interesting point. The press are in the business of news reporting. It is therefore natural that they speculate as to causes from the very first moment. Accidents and serious incidents to Civil aircraft are often the stuff of headlines. The investigations that lead to the real causes are usually long and painstaking examinations requiring a lot of experts and a lot of study and investigation. For the seriously concerned consumer the only valuable result is the official investigation. For the News consumer the only value lies in the entertainment offered on screen or other preferred media.

I have never seen any evidence of restrictions to speculation here on PPRuNe so there wouldn't appear to be any merit in suggesting that was the case. If you read the title however it is actually the "PROFESSIONAL PILOTS" Rumour network, and so it is not unreasonable to accept that in many such peoples views speculation may be unhelpful in arriving at a conclusion of any meaningful significance.

The site is not generally restricted to any particular group of people and it follows that opininons and comments range from the informed and qualified to the inane and offensive with of course the whole spectrum in between. No doubt all of this will continue but again I can well understand how many aviation professionals would dare to suggest that the real value of information lies in the expert findings and not those of CNN ,Fox news ,sky's man on the scene or even the cut and paste or condolence merchants here on PPRuNe or other bulletin boards.

[lomapaseo]

There is absolutely no way the regular forum members can stop either informed speculation or uninformed speculation.

I like the idea of being able to choose what I read and believe as well as write.

If the forum management decides someday to arbitrarily ban speculation then I will make other choices.

Right now I am happy:D

[GlueBall]

AfricanSkies: What noteworthy sermon are you trying to make about forum participants who may "speculate" about a theory, or about a probable cause, of an airplane accident?

Isn't it self evident that you or anyone else in this forum is permitted to engage one's brain to sort out people's opinions?

Obviously, many participants are not "professional pilots." In fact, many interested forum participants may be clueless about aviation altogether; yet they may easily masquerade on Pprune as such, because it's free, because it's easy to sign up, and because it doesn't require an aviation employe identity check.

So, relax and be at least entertained by these global discussions.

[Blacksheep]

Unfortunately, not all air accident investigations meet the standards we expect. I am thinking of the disgraceful early leak of internal information from the NTSB investigation team engaged on the Egyptian accident. In that particular case, a verdict of suicide-murder was effectively passed upon one of the crew long before the investigators had finished exploring all possibilities. A new twist on the old 'pilot error' verdict scenario? Perhaps, perhaps not, but well outside the customary impartiality expected of investigations. Such a conclusion ought only to be made after exhaustive consideration of all other possibilities; certainly not immediately after the initial examination of CVR and DFDR data. The investigation would have stopped right there if not for external argument. In the end I am satisfied that a correct "probable cause" was established and published, but it was informed "speculation" in a number of public fora including this one, that obliged the NTSB to knuckle down and do the job properly. Speculation can and does have positive as well as negative outcomes.

**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

[Loc-out]

Speculation, is exactly that. Speculation.

Yes I think if we are honest we have all done it.

The down side is when a postmorten is carried out in the public arena. Pprune for example. These are read and in some cases reported by the media and believed by the vast majority of their readers.

In an accident, which involves fatalities, this can have a devastating effect on the bereaved, when some of the so call experts come up with a theory that could implicate the dead. Some speculation of recent events has been nothing short of slanderous, not to mention cowardly. Can the dead offer any defence?

[broadreach]

LOC-OUT

When you say “the bereaved’ one assumes you’re referring to the family/friends of those upon whom speculators in a public forum might throw blame.

I wonder, and there are two specific Pprune threads in the past few years where I’ve thought to myself “what must those families think if they read this”. One was the AA Airbus rudder accident in New York, the other a Gulf Air A319/320 (?) go-round accident in Dubai.

In the first case the threads contained speculation as to the first officer’s handling abilities and, in particular, to his use of the rudder pedals in countering wake turbulence. In the second, allegations of the pilot’s being inexperienced in type and possibly having been bumped up the ladder prematurely.

In the weeks following the accidents the threads contained a mixture of fact, speculation and the occasional blindly idiotic comment. If the families of the crew involved were accompanying those threads, which I doubt, they would have found some comments offensive.

I really tend to think that they would have heard worse elsewhere. Kids at school, for example. An overheard conversation in an office. I suspect that if anything, reading those threads could well have brought a degree of comfort to the bereaved because they highlighted things outside the immediate control of their loved ones, possibly latent design defects as well as phenomena that relatively few professionals encounter in their working lives – in those two cases severe wake turbulence and somatograhic illusion respectively if I remember correctly.

When we despair at the potential for offense to the bereaved, we have to add to the other side of the scale the sheer wealth ok knowledge and experience threads like those brought together on this easily-accessible-to-any-twelve-year-old public forum. Like school playgrounds, forums are bound to have a leavening of idiots. Not too difficult to identify them, though, is it? On the upside, just think how many people must have read those threads, consigned bits of them to memory and, perhaps, flashed the memory back at precisely the right moment. :D

[Loc-out]

Point taken.

Thanks.

[PPRuNe Towers]

I've left this thread to develop for a few days before chipping in with our thoughts from the Towers.

It is very easy, warm and cuddly to take the apparent high moral ground and simply condemn speculation either on the grounds of taste or, far more spuriously, wait for the experts report. However there are several significant factors that cause Danny and I to have always refused to take that path.

First, foremost and the honest truth. Aviators tend not to have the coffee machine/water cooler discussion moments that other professions have. PPRuNe was concieved as an antidote to this. An electronic crew hotel bar where everyone can discuss the news of the day. Specifically, if there is an accident it will be a significant topic of discussion in every crew bar - PPRuNe simply mirrors and extends this. Conversations on PPRuNe can be 'overheard' in exactly the same way as in a downroute bar. The discussions can seem brutal and tactless but they are still valuable.

Next: As and until the aviation world seriously takes on aviation confidential safety reporting and disemination we provide vital information and discussion. A huge proportion of our pro readers are not covered by a Nasa or Chirps system, don't hear of best or even different practice and are shielded by a long career in an airline suffering from 'not invented here.' Gann's 'tryanny of the seniority number' extends to having no idea of what's happening outside a hermetically sealed, inward looking but 'mature' airline.

A case in point is a huge airline such as AA which over a period of many years indoctrinated its crews in handling techniques which are strange to those outside it. They are not alone in this. Cross fertilsation of SOP's and technique through discussion here is something we're very proud of. Prior to PPRuNe this only happened at high level within and across companies or at the aforesaid crew bar:uhoh: :uhoh:

Finally, PPRuNe provides a thorn in the sides of some, a pricker of consciences and, most importantly, a huge and vital collective memory in an industry that has expanded hugely and greatly diluted the hardwon and often tragic lessons of the past.

And so to accidents and the discussion of them here. Anyone who's been around a while knows the huge pressures on those producing accident reports in even the most developed aviation nations. Final drafts are delayed for months and years as airlines, airframers and engine manufacturers fight tooth and nail to influence the final report.

There were the usual objections to the discussions on the site regarding the Crossair Jumbolina crash. We were criticised for speculation, it was loathsome and any professional should simply wait for the outcome of the report.

Here we are now, entering the third winter since the accident. No wise discussion regarding the carefully drafted and checked deliberations? Why not???

The reason we encourage and allow speculation and discussion is because it only works for the good when the incident is fresh in the minds. Reviewing our own operations critically in the light of discussion is when it works best and sinks in. Whether as individual aviators, departments or publications it is the time when habits, procedures and culture can be changed with the maximum goodwill and enthusiasm. Years later just doesn't work. It's a simple as that.

The Crossair incident got line folks, trainers and boffins all thinking very hard about their work. Altitudes in windows - MDA or go around????? Implications for the autoflight system??? Observance of MSA's in a terminal radar environment. The effects of MEL allowances in icing and contamination conditions.

I could go on and on about what was discussed it in the aftermath of that accident. I could point out the huge learning that went on in every major accident that has happened in the 8 years PPRuNe has been extant. I suspect that every single reader learned something both new and extremely valuable regarding TCAS during the days immediately following the mid air over Switzerland. Because of the intense, visceral effect of the tradgedy the learning will have stayed with most of us.

The fact is that in the immediate aftermath of an accident we find it is the time to learn from it - not years later. That's exactly how we work with our children and pets - we are no different.

The discussion simply will not happen in any great degree when the report comes out.

This is a basic truth about human beings - positive thought and change to our behaviour and attitudes comes in the immediate aftermath. We know we should giive up smoking, cut back on the drinking or stop riding that huge motorbike for years but don't until someone very close to us dies or something really frightens us.

Yep, we have to sort out the wheat from the chaff when we read these discussions. We know that the stupid and uninformed grab onto the wrong parts and start spouting whether on the site or in the press. However the site was started for aviation professionals - it remains that way and the benefits of discussion and speculation outweigh the negative factors many times over.

PPRuNe policy is that discussion, including speculation continues. You might find it interesting that we have drawn and recruited some of our most respected moderators from such discussions. Wise, experienced and thoughtful heads show up very strongly during these periods - why not searched on the posts by 'Belgique' to prove the point. If you're new to the site you'll soon draw up your own list of contributors you respect and will consciously or unconsciously give greater weight to opinions they post. There's a huge amount to be learned out there - PPRuNe does have its uses you know.........

Regards
Rob Lloyd

PS In case anyone hasn't drawn the true conclusion to my post here it is.

The final report very often doesn't matter to us. It will in all probability affect systemic operations and cultures way above our paygrade at a time far into the future from our day to day operations. It will have been cursed and castrated by the paranoid machinations of groundbound businessmen and lawyers. The causes may well be entirely different from the majority of the discussion on the site. This again is utterly immaterial - it has served its purpose, got us all thinking and learning again. We review our operations and compare them with others. We do it willingly and, usually, openly. It's the only time it happens on a grand scale and it is completely and utterly worthwhile for that reason alone.

[PPRuNe Pop]

Wanna job moderating Rob? I'll get called names but who cares.........great stuff mate. :ok:

[niknak]

I think that most of us who are "professional aviators" can tell the difference between informed speculation, and that which is complete twaddle, or perhaps someone seeking a sensationalist reaction which can then be reproduced as "authoritive comment", all because it originated from these erstwhile pages.

I'll freely admit that I was very anti pre AIB report speculation until last year, when a friend told me he'd read of speculative cause of a fatal C310 accident in the U.S.A , he checked his own identical model - only to find a similar fault, which was a major contributary cause to the original accident.
Of course I accept that the chances of this happening again are remote - but that doesn't matter if it helps someone in a similar situation.

[AfricanSkies]

Some very interesting replies. Especially the one from the Towers; it's good to have ones views reinforced in such a substantial way, thank you, Rob, and all others.

More interesting is that the 'DON'T SPECULATE' brigade are conspicuous by their absence.

No doubt they'll pop up as soon as there's another incident...

[604guy]

Ok, I’ll wade back in to this discussion. There have been some excellent points made in this thread and I agree and support all that has been said. As professional aviators we can often offer up some legitimate speculation with the immediate evidence at hand as to likely scenarios and contributing factors. More often than not those initial thoughts bear some striking similarities to the final conclusions.

As for journalists seeking to separate fact from fancy it has been my observation that (at least on this continent) this is becoming less and less the case. In the haste to “scoop” the story in today’s 24-hour news outlets there is an apparent need to find a quote or that bit of information that others don’t yet have. Then other news agencies quote the information that “network xyz or wire service 123” is saying blah blah blah. It then becomes a vicious circle and in effect a feeding frenzy. Unfortunately, it becomes very difficult to correct erroneous information down the road. Human nature such that it is, we (using the global we) often formulate opinion and decision on first impression.

On a recent thread I chastised a contributor for raising the specter of pilot error without seemingly much in the way of evidence to back that up. I am sure that the contributor did so with no malice but it got my back up. Why you might ask? Fourteen years ago a very close friend of mine died tragically along with his crew and passengers. The crew was made to blame almost before the flames were extinguished by not only their colleagues but also media and members of the public alike. It was only after a thorough investigation did it come to light that the crew was indeed and irrefutably blameless. But even today, fourteen years later it is firm in many peoples minds that my friend really pooched it that night. About eighteen months ago there was even a small reference in a media story citing them as an example, among others, of pilot error.

Speculation is something that will continue on here, in crew rooms, in the pub and in the media. It can and often will serve a useful purpose. But I think back fourteen years when I was one of those colleagues asking, Geeze guys what the hell were you thinking? That is the baggage that I bring to the discussion.

[PPRuNe Towers]

Every point solid gold 604guy. From the media feeding frenzy to the horror of seeing and hearing friends and colleages reputations and careers callously sideswiped whether by talking hairspray or by fellow aviators.

We will always be damned if we do and damned if we don't here at the Towers. We are loathsome sh1ts of the first order when we allow speculation concerning those of your own tribe and flaccid PC wusses if we don't.

We long ago sorted it out in our own minds - the benefits greatly outweigh the negative as long as we make sure we bin the insensitive excesses of some. We will always break some hearts along the way but we've been in aviation for a while. It's happened to me and Danny - losing several friends along the way. Danny made the last safe flight of one twin turboprop. Its next takeoff saw it roll in with instrument problems.

We've both been in the crowd waiting for news like many of you and because of that take our responsibilities seriously.

Regards
Rob Lloyd