Crashs together

[drivez]

A very bad week in aviation, three crashes. Kinda strange none and then three in a week, kinda got me thinking why is it when one crash happens suddenly a whole host of other crashes seem to happen around the same time. A couple years back comair jet crash preceded a few days earlier by a plane overshooting on landing in Canada. Don't know how accurate I am but In my mind they always seem to happen around each other?

[SNS3Guppy]

That would be the well recognized, scientifically documented concept known as "coincidence."

[bucket_and_spade]

And the fact that the media will jump on any aviation-related story after an incident like the one in Madrid. I'm not sure Virgin's 747 issue at LGW shortly after the Madrid crash would have been such "Breaking News" otherwise...

Remember - your perception of what's happening is usually only what the media decides to broadcast/publish...

[JEM60]

Pure coincidence. In MY humble opinion, I always think that the time immediately following a disaster is perhaps the safest time to fly, with all crews being on top form, and complacency taking a back seat [if there was complacencey in the first place.]

[Rainboe]

Look, it's luck of the draw! Can you explain what on earth you think it could be other than pure coincidence? Are you suggesting the fairies have got something to do with it?

[barry lloyd]

...and how many people are killed on the roads around the world every day?
Probably about the same number as were killed in the Madrid accident. Never hear that on your TV news in the evening do you?
Ever heard of anyone who's afraid of getting onto a bus?
The media feeds off aircraft accidents like locusts, which is why these events seem even worse.

[GiveMeABreak]

Not just the media unfortunately....look at the 40+ pages of 'expert' analysis on the Rumours and News forum !!

[Knife-Edge]

...and how many people are killed on the roads around the world every day?

A quick Google on that suggests it's over 2,000 road deaths per day on average - but that's not newsworthy because it happens every day of the year!

[Felix Saddler]

A quick Google on that suggests it's over 2,000 road deaths per day on average - but that's not newsworthy because it happens every day of the year!

Or because its not a seldom accumulation of fatalities.. Of course a plane crash is going to wake the media, it's a fairly rare and devastating occurrence. Have some respect for those who perished instead of causing petty arguments, the guy was only asking a plausible question.

For your information road deaths; car accidents, are frequently reported and broadcast in the tabloids, and across the news channels, a quick search in google can verify this. These, however, only grab the minorities attention unlike an air disaster. Nevertheless this certainly causes the ubiquitous ppruner to frantically search the news channels so that they can be the first to the post, which will then be followed by a dozen similar postings cantankerously speculating their 'adept' viewpoint.

Any aviation related incident gets extensive coverage here on pprune, it's obviously in the public interest, why can't it be so in the media?

Barry Lloyd:

...and how many people are killed on the roads around the world every day?
Probably about the same number as were killed in the Madrid accident. Never hear that on your TV news in the evening do you?
Ever heard of anyone who's afraid of getting onto a bus?

If as you say, which is clearly a wayward approximation, the total killed on the roads is the equivalent to the total of those who perished on spanair, then if all these cars simultaneously hit head on on the M1, causing a singular catastrophic accident, in which many people lost their lives, do you believe this would then merit the media's attention?

[drivez]

Rainboe buddy have I upset you or something? dang you deserve that toxicity. No i'm just saying however trajic a road crash they happen frequently because there are alot more cars than planes and the drivers are not trained professionals. I'm not saying faries but i'm just saying kinda strange. I'm not talking about planes turning around i'm talking about three actuall crashes in a week. That doesn't happen every week. But the crashes are not the first I remeber all happening within a short space of time together. Usually around august, summer time?

[Rainboe]

I think you'll find you either don't clock or even hear about the odd crash in foreignland, but come a few together and suddenly it's all over the press. There is no law of nature that makes them run together, and rest assured there is no connection!

[aviate1138]

I imagine a big black sheet of board and in my hand a number of grains of sand. I throw the grains way up in the air. They land on the board. About as random a pattern as one can get. Is each grain exactly the same distance apart as each other grain? No. And life and illness and accidents and coincidences are all ruled by the same 'randomness'
There is no such thing as 100% safety and never will be. And our brains don't help because we 'see' coincidences in so many things that are actually just random occurrences.
Accidents happen but they don't happen regularly, on the hour/day/week basis.

The New York Lottery was won twice by the same man. [Happened 3 different times in all]
Bernard Bobowicz of Clifton, New Jersey, won a $3,500,000 Lotto jackpot on November 2, 1985 and another $7,000,000 Lotto jackpot on September 22, 1993.

Conspiracy Theories come from the same grey matter. As does Religion IMHO.

Chem Trails, Scientology, Faeries, Anthropogenic Global Warming, UFO's, Reincarnation, Witches, Dragons, Ectoplasm, Virgin Birth and so many more scams.

I am an Occam's Razor man and it rarely lets one down. IMHO

[SNS3Guppy]

There is no such thing as 100% safety and never will be.

Though it rarely is accomplished, 100% safety IS achievable, and is never an accident or coincidence.

Occam suggested that all things being equal, the most simple solution was usually the right one, and that the obvious tended to be the truth. In aviation, that's often not the case, as we live and work in an industry of technical complexity; things are often not what they appear. The autopilot problem may well in fact be a smoldering galley fire, the compressor stall in fact a bird strike, and ground effect in fact not at all a cushion of air, but a reduction in induced drag.

When mishaps occur, sometimes they may be tied together, and sometimes great lessons are learned. Hopefully before any more get tied together. Regulations are often written in blood, meaning that nothing gets changed, no rules get established, until a disaster or a death and public pressure prompts the change; it's always been that way from the early days of flying..from the days with no parachutes or even seat belts, until today.

Several years ago I had an opportunity to be interviewed as part of an investigation into a death in a government operation. I was fairly passionate in my commentary, and not at all candid. Nor in my recommendations. At the end of the discussion, the lead investigator, sitting in a room of other investigators, said to me, "We appreciate your time and attention in this matter. We'll take it under advisement. If anyone else dies, we will be able to see a trend, and then we can do something about it." That really tends to sum up the whole process...and the fact that it is very possible for more than one even to occur and be tied to the same problem.

As an example, we've got another thread going on in this forum about lightening striking a 747. The 747 had to be underneath a thunderstorm for this to occur...and in fact, this was the case. For many years, this was common practice. Not until Delta Flight 191 was lost in Dallas due to windshear and a microburst, was greater pressure put on airlines, regulators, training departments, weather agencies, and others to change policies regarding the discovery, operation around, and respect of thunderstorms and microbursts. It kicked off millions of dollars in studies about microbursts, was a big part of the impetus for changes to modern radar today, and affected the way we all operate. How many aircraft were destroyed, or affected in their daily operations before, with the same common link to this one mishap? Many.

Several years ago, Chevron experienced fuel contamination issue. Suddenly a miriad of mishaps, incidents, and circumstances occured with forced landings, failed engines, engine damage, system damage, etc. Looking for a common cause was indeed important, and can't be disregarded.

I learned to fly in the "old school," so to speak. In older airplanes. I flew old airplanes in which an engine failure wasn't even considered an emergency. Today, we declare an emergency with an engine failure. How do we know that the failure was isolated, that another won't occur? We don't. Recently we saw the loss of a 747 in Colombia...three engines down. When one went, one could reasonably say it's extremely unusual for another to go...but less than a minute later, another did go. And so on. Coincidence? Hardly. Exactly why this occured is irrelevant and it's not my purpose to discuss (it's under investigation)...but the point is that be it several engines on the same airplane, several airplanes at the same airline, several airlines in the same country, or several airplanes around the globe...often as not it's coincidence, but not always.

We can't afford to ever assume it is.

In this case (reference this thread), where several entirely unrelated incidents occured, not linked by the same fuel source, same weather conditions, same geopolitical conditions, same company, same maintenance, same aircraft type, same aircrew training or experience, or any other common thread, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we see coincidence.

One might rightfully suggest it's somewhat of a stretch to believe in the superstitious "bad things always come in threes" theorem, or that Satan's just playing...it's coincidence. Despite common sense, we also rightfully never stop looking for the connections, learning from each one, so that we don't duplicate it again. Where it does happen again, what we have is failure to learn the first time and that, like creating a safe operation, is never a coincidence.

[Knife-Edge]

Felix Saddler

Have some respect for those who perished instead of causing petty arguments, the guy was only asking a plausible question.

Causing petty arguments - Lack of respect - How is that then?
I have answered a question for BL and made a statement of fact nothing more nothing less. Does this offend in some way?

[aviate1138]

SNS3G said in part.....
"Though it rarely is accomplished, 100% safety IS achievable, and is never an accident or coincidence."


So that means no need for insurance then? Hmmmmm.......

Also no more Sod's Law either?

[SNS3Guppy]

So that means no need for insurance then? Hmmmmm.......

I don't believe I said anything of insurance. And no, it doesn't.

I'm not familiar with this Sod, or his or her law. You may be referring to Murphy's law, which of course has the same scientific value as the principles of chaos and coincidence. If anything can go wrong, it will...and for that very reason extreme vigilliance is necessary to ensure that nothing can go wrong...and where that isn't achievable, means are provided to prepare for and deal with the fallout when things do go wrong. Safety is possible, and in nearly every case of mishap, we can in retrospect identify means by which the incident could have been prevented. We can prevent mishaps; the power to do that lies with us. Where this does not occur, it becomes a failing on our part.

To suggest that overcoming these failings is not possible is to defeat success before it even begins. Of course we can operate safely. It is possible. Whether we make it so is within the scope of our own effort and ability, and we do have that ability; that leaves only our own determination and effort, and in that, too often, we fall short.

This doesn't have to be.

[Il Duce]

On the same day as the Madrid crash, there was the RAF Hawk crash at Cranwell. BBC Radio Lincolnshire reported that the incidents were "unrelated"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm glad they broadcast that fact - I may not have been able to work it out for myself

[Simtech]

Murphy's Law states that if it can go wrong it will go wrong.

Sod's Law states that Murphy was an optomist.