Why Speculating on Crashes is a Good Thing

[Widow]

Why Speculating on Crashes is a Good Thing Email this blog |Print this blog

By Paul Bertorelli





In case you haven’t noticed, the way you receive and process information has undergone a fundamental revolution during the past decade. You now have stuff coming at you a mile a minute from dozens of sources—Web sites, e-mail, print, cellphone and texting, radio, cable. What you may not have noticed is that this has radically changed the way we hear about and think about aircraft accidents.

The salient recent example is Air France 447, in which bits and pieces of information continue to trickle out slow-leak fashion, like a box of jigsaw puzzle pieces with a hole in one corner. Another example is the Colgan crash in Buffalo, where the NTSB was unusually forthcoming with detailed information as the crash investigation got underway.

What this does, of course, is to fuel rampant speculation about causes. In days of yore, we used to consider ourselves smug professionals in showing the discipline and sophistication to avoid speculating until the accident investigators had done their job. Now, it’s more or less a free for all in every aviation forum across cyberspace, not to mention the talking heads on cable TV.

Is this is a bad thing? In my view, it’s a good thing. For one, it permits the individual reader to place his or her own opinions and beliefs against a broader perspective. Nothing clarifies the thinking like having it exposed to even semi-rigorous review. Second, long threads discussing these sorts of things inevitably draw in participants who have not just informed opinions, but direct, hands on expertise with the airplane’s being discussed. I’ve learned more about the Airbus series of airplanes by blogging about the type than I ever would have otherwise.

The potential downside of this—and it’s not much of one for the sophisticated reader—is the closed-loop feedback syndrome. At one point a couple of weeks ago, CNN was quoting the scattershot opinions and views expressed on PPrune as actual news. That’s just dumb journalism, in my view, but the savvy viewer should be able to recognize it for what it is. And generally, the participants in AVweb’s forums are quite savvy.

So, if you have an opinion, a question or information to add about an aviation accident, by all means feel free to express it. I certainly do. If the idea has high dingbat value, don’t worry, someone will let you know. Besides, the world needs dingbats, too.

http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AvWe ... 562-1.html

[carholme]

Seems a pretty weak defense for turning AvCanada into the daily version of the Enquirer.
There is nothing wrong with speculation based on knowledge but any informed knowledge seems to have been thwarted by googling and copying of any newspaper article barely related to the circumstance.

carholme

[Widow]

AvCanada is hardly the only place this happens. As the article said, "If the idea has high dingbat value, don’t worry, someone will let you know."

[2R]

Sometimes it takes a child, to tell the Emperor" he has poor clothing choices"

[carholme]

Widow;

Who cares if it happpens elsewhere? Is that justification why it has to happen here all the time?

But trying to argue the point for AvCanada to be something above the fray seems to have gone the way of the dodo bird.

Back to the Enquirer.

carholme

[YHZChick]

PPRuNe is probably the most widely visited aviation forum in the world (unfortunately, not as actively by Canadian aviators). It is regularly quoted in the media (which frankly, is scary, given it's an internet forum) in both the UK, Europe and North America--hell, CNN was reading posts from it on the air. That is because it has a large following of professional pilots, aviation engineers and technicians--people who work in the industry.

AF 447 is a perfect example of why PPRuNE is quoted in media, and AvCan never will be (besides the fact of smaller user base). The users of PPRuNe have very little use for a) uninformed ("stupid") questions and suggestions from laymen/MSFS pilots, b) groundless speculation and c) constant posting of articles and links from the MSM (because they are notorious for getting it wrong and being inaccurate).

The moderators there are vigilant about monitoring threads, and delete posts as neccessary, as many as 50% of AF 447 posts were deleted before they finally just shut the thread down.

Anyhow, all that to say, sharing available information about an accident may be helpful and interesting, but I've yet to see an aviation forum determine all of the contributory causes of an aviation accident prior to, or better than, the accident investigation.

But speculate away.....

[Rockie]

Thinking about what may have caused an accident and applying it to your own operation of an aircraft is beneficial. Accident investigations are beneficial. Speculating is entertainment...much like the flirting issue.

[Widow]

Carholme, you are very knowledgable on a number of topics. I understand why you are sometimes disturbed by speculation, especially when it comes from someone who may have little understanding of a particular issue. But honestly, this is an aviation discussion forum and I don't think it would be fair to exclude people with little or no understanding of an issue from asking questions or theorizing. Even dingbats like me can sometimes contribute something valuable.

Moderating is not an easy task, and can be extremely time consuming. As YHZChick pointed out, something like 50% of posts were removed from the first AF447 thread on PPruNe before it was locked - only to start up again, of course - and in several areas of the site. This was not just due to "a) uninformed ("stupid") questions and suggestions from laymen/MSFS pilots, b) groundless speculation and c) constant posting of articles and links from the MSM (because they are notorious for getting it wrong and being inaccurate", but also a lot of repetitive information (because people don't read the whole thread before posting). PPruNe has been around a lot longer than AvCanada, if I'm not mistaken, and have more "experienced" moderators actively monitoring threads.

We do our best here. If you don't like the way AvCanada is moderated, make a suggestion to admin, ask to become a mod, stay away, or start your own discussion board.

[carholme]

Widow;

Please don't put words in my mouth, I did not advocate exclusion of anyone, those were your words.


carholme

[Widow]

My apologies carholme. How do you propose taking the site "above the fray" and reducing uninformed speculation without being exclusionary?

[carholme]

Widow;

The moderators are the ones who have the power to keep topics within a reasonable border of common sense and it does not take an intimate knowledge of the subject matter to see when wild speculation, and plain nonsense are creeping into threads.

Obviously the moderators here are working within the boundaries set by the owners and if it is going to be a free for all. so be it.

Rather than let it degrade into something personal. I will withdraw from the thread and watch from the sidelines.

carholme

[canwhitewolf]

dltd

[atpl53]

... How do you propose taking the site "above the fray" and reducing uninformed speculation without being exclusionary?

Hi Widow,

Perhaps, just perhaps, the removal of anonymity would take things "above the fray". If people understood that slanderous, libelous and defamation of character comments might find them in a rather expensive lawsuit, perhaps they might engage their brain before moving their fingers across the keyboard. People might then become self exclusionary. As far as the "uninformed speculation" that will always be with us. It is how we think aloud and then we rely on those with more, better, or different knowledge to help us find our way. I am in no way against people proposing outrageous perspective as long as they are clear that they may take some extreme flack.

[Sidebar]

Perhaps, just perhaps, the removal of anonymity would take things "above the fray".

Removal of anonymity would stop me from posting. I expect my employer would quickly reprimand me for my participation in some of the so-called "discussions" on this site.

Like some pilots, some posters are "idiots" or "morons." Some of the drivel on this site is absolutely worthless, but I try to ignore it as best I can and not bitch about it. That enables me to focus on those threads I find interesting and of value.

If someone doesn't like the conversation, they can vote with their mouse and go elsewhere.

[atpl53]

Removal of anonymity would stop me from posting. I expect my employer would quickly reprimand me for my participation in some of the so-called "discussions" on this site.

Point taken. It does make me wonder, and not as any kind of slight on you Sidebar, why we are so prepared to say things behind the mask of never 'having to be accountable' that we would be unwilling to say to someones face. Most of the witty banter which goes on on this site can be amusing to me. It sometimes cuts the boredom of waiting in the airport pilot's lounge. However I do take seriously

If someone doesn't like the conversation, they can vote with their mouse and go elsewhere.

Most times I do vote to leave. It helps the blood pressure stay low for the next medical.

[Cat Driver]

why we are so prepared to say things behind the mask of never 'having to be accountable' that we would be unwilling to say to someones face.

Excellent question.

However knowing that a post is written by someone who prefers to not be identified means you should take that into consideration.

Look at it this way, you can look like an idiot and no one will know who you are.

[Widow]

Atpl53, I think there was a “known user forum”, and assume it is now gone due to lack of use. That being said, some of the most prolific posters to the site (including myself) are, nonetheless, very open about who they really are.

Widow;
The moderators are the ones who have the power to keep topics within a reasonable border of common sense and it does not take an intimate knowledge of the subject matter to see when wild speculation, and plain nonsense are creeping into threads.

Obviously the moderators here are working within the boundaries set by the owners and if it is going to be a free for all. so be it.

Rather than let it degrade into something personal. I will withdraw from the thread and watch from the sidelines.

The mods all have different levels of understanding and/or experience. Some of us are mods on all boards within the forum, others only on some. Some have more “power” than others (e.g. I do not have the ability to ban an IP address, or split/merge threads). We all are quite capable of editing, rebuking or challenging the decision of other mods though, if we think it advisable.

Please trust me when I say, neither admin nor any of the mods want it to be a “free for all”. We would all like to see everyone here acting/typing as professionally as possible – and not just during discussion of accidents. Any advice our users may have as to how we can better achieve this would be most welcome.

If any user has concerns about a particular post or thread, feel free to PM a mod or make a report (the exclamation point at the bottom of the post). A moderator will then examine your concern and, if deemed advisable, edit the post or pull the thread for review by “the team”. Sometimes we don’t see what you see until it is pointed out. Sometimes the only mod who has had a chance to review a thread does not feel they have enough knowledge of a particular issue to make a call. We are human, as well as being mods

[Ogee]

Some of you may recall the thread here about the Jet Ranger crash in Cranbrook a year or so back. There was a great deal of media coverage of that crash and I was involved to a small extent in that. I made a number of posts on this forum, and included some graphics, all with the intent of helping to understand what might have happened. I do recall what might be described as speculation in some of the posts. Here's how I see it on that issue.

There are a number of helicopter pilots on this forum and I'm sure everyone of them, including myself, wonder what the hell would cause a 206 to go silent and fall out of the sky into a residential street. And is it something that might happen to others of us, not knowing what caused this one? The thread contained very reliable information, and some very good insights from experienced pilots. There wasn't even a hint of blame directed towards our brother pilot who died in the crash.

I have for most of my aviation career been a student of aircraft crashes, particularly of the types I fly. I think it is good that groups like ours immediately try to understand what the causes of a crash might have been and if they impact our present work and safety. That of necessity involves speculation and so long as that speculation does not reflect on the character or abilities of a dead pilot who cannot defend himself or herself, I think it is a good thing.

I'm trying to divine why Carholme takes the somewhat haughty position he does. No doubt he's a knowledgeable guy, but I think he's wrong to try and exclude discussion from "speculators".

I'd be very surprised if the cause of the AF447 crash hasn't already been accurately speculated upon here.

[square]

Yes we've all heard the justifications before. Oh we're learning. Well if it's about learning why doesn't anyone ever start an excited thread about a new ACCIDENT REPORT? They don't care about the one that happened a year ago, they care about the scandalous crash that happened yesterday. Even though there's no information about anything that just happened, and ALL the details of the crash in the new accident report.

But hey, people are people

[YHZChick]

Moderating is not an easy task, and can be extremely time consuming. As YHZChick pointed out, something like 50% of posts were removed from the first AF447 thread on PPruNe before it was locked - only to start up again, of course - and in several areas of the site. This was not just due to "a) uninformed ("stupid") questions and suggestions from laymen/MSFS pilots, b) groundless speculation and c) constant posting of articles and links from the MSM (because they are notorious for getting it wrong and being inaccurate", but also a lot of repetitive information (because people don't read the whole thread before posting). PPruNe has been around a lot longer than AvCanada, if I'm not mistaken, and have more "experienced" moderators actively monitoring threads.

Why do you think there were so many repetitive posts? Because the thread was growing by 5 pages an hour with people posting MSM links, groundless speculation, and "stupid" questions (yes, there is such thing as a stupid question. I prefer to pose mine to my aviation pals in person or email over posting them on an aviation forum, and even then, only after I tired to find the answer myself, because I find they are more than happy to be given a chance to try to impress a cute curious blonde chick with their vast aviation knowledge ).

The moderators at PPRuNe are ALL aviation professionals. They know what they are talking about, and they very much see that board as a forum for other aviation professionals. It is very easy for them to spot those who know what they are talking about and those who don't. I post very little there because I recognize as a non-pilot, there is little I can contribute. PPRuNe is a great source of information simply because people like me AREN'T the primary posters.

[Liquid Charlie]

Speculation on an incident is flawed right from the start except in the few exceptions where someone has "first hand" knowledge --

Where does the information come from for people to speculate on -- the media and we all know how unbiased that is -- there is very little news reporting these days - it's all about speculation so by the time it gets here we get speculation on speculation -- great information to get people thinking about safety and accident prevention but as far as piecing together what happened -- as stated before -- it's entertainment and an exercise in seeing how the human mind works --

The last thing that most pilots want to hear is that there was an accident the crew could do nothing about -- we all get defensive when "pilot error" raises it's ugly head but deep down we breath a collective sigh of relief because we never want to face the dreaded scenario we have no control over -- it's a much better "feel good" situation when the figure can be pointed and you say to yourself -- "that would never happen to me" -- speculation is about our needs not to actually about solving the mystery -- lets face it any forum is a good percentage gossip and hearsay -

Speculate enough and someone is bound to come close but without the knowledge of having done so --

Entertain away --

[Widow]

why doesn't anyone ever start an excited thread about a new ACCIDENT REPORT?

Publically released official reports are posted all the time. Albeit, they tend to be released a long time after the fact - and not until translation is done, delaying it further.

You're right though, by the time they are released most have lost interest.

[Koizie1]

Speculation 'the contemplation or consideration of some subject'. Speculation raises new questions, offers new insight, and may even show someone that their opinion may in fact be wrong (myself excluded). Isn't the whole point of Avcanada to anonymously post and read opinions, maybe even learn something along the way. Its the internet, and by now everyone knows that everything you read is taken with a pinch of salt. Speculation rocks, as does the Enquirer.

If facts are all that matter, wait unitl the TSB report is issued because unless you were there during or after the accident how can anyone be sure of the facts. Certainly not from watching/reading ANY news media.

As for Pprune, it is a good website, but I've read as much crap and wild speculation on that website as Avcanada.

CADORS BRASILIA - Translated 1 June, 2009 0615UTC : An Unidentified Flying Object reported by several aircraft at approx 32,000ft ASL Eastbound. No radar signal was detected. No further action.

[Heliian]

Pprune= professional pilots rumour network.

the name says it all. Rumours, speculation and innuendo is the whole site. I don't really bother with that site because i find it very cluttered and filled with grossly innaccurate information. AvCanada i find to be more proffesional and informative beleive it or not. As for speculating on an occurence, go for it but keep it within some respectable boundries. Laying blame or pointing a finger at someone before all the facts are released can be considered slanderous. If you want to theorize on what happened or give an opinion, that would be o.k. in my books.

I

[mag check]

Some time ago, I posted this about speculating on crashes, and my opinion on it still stands.

The problem with waiting for the facts, and not speculating is that there is a lot of learning that is missed.
I feel it is the speculation that can teach more than the actual facts that come to light months/years later.
When people speculate, they are giving opinions based on their experiances, and this is where there is great opertunity to learn.
Take this for example: A C-180, on skis is seen turning final, and witnesses observe the plane pitch down and spin in. The low time pilot is killed. Now the full report won't come out for at least a year, but there can be a lot of opinions.
Experianced ski guys would speculate that a bungee broke, or that he was slipping and blanked out the tail, or his cargo shifted, making the plane uncontrollable, which are all possible, and would allow others to consider these things the next time they fly.
Then the facts come out, and it turns out that he was just inexperianced, and did the classic stall/spin turn onto final.
All that good useful info would never have come out if there was no speculation.

I say bring it on, it is how we learn.

Any questions as to the merit of pilots sharing experiance to avoid future accidents?