What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

High Road on Accident Speculation

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

David-aviator

Well Known Member
There was a post about an hour ago suggesting this forum consider having a Beech style "crash talk" section on accidents.

DR diverted the message to a private discussion as it constituted a discussion on a rules change which is a private matter here, not a public one.

Unfortunately, I read Jim's message before it was scrubbed and believe it warrants a public response - not on the subject of a rules change - but on the notion that accident speculation can be a learning experience and is justification for the Beech "crash talk" opportunity.

This was my response to the message.

Jim,

I have to respond to your theory on what constitutes a learning experience with regard to accidents.

An accident is a real event involving real people. It is not a class room situation where rampant speculation can harm no one.

In the real world Joe Pilot crashes. Every arm chair, sometimes not nearly qualified, pilot with a computer has an opportunity to contribute to "crash talk" with a theory on what caused the accident. That can not be a learning experience - it is based on speculation, not facts. It may be fun but it is meaningless exercise. The root cause of any accident is determined on facts, not speculation. Only then can something be learned about the event.

What is most troublesome about "crash talk" is such speculation always effects a pilots reputation, many times unfairly, especially so when the facts are yet to be known.

A pilot's reputation is at stake, that trumps "crash talk" speculation. I am surprised such a forum exists, if it does, but then just about anything goes these days so what's new?

dd
 
As Doug and others have repeatedly posted over the years, there are *lots* of other forums that allow crash discussion. I have yet to see a thread on one of those forums that didn't quickly degenerate into nitpicking and armchair quarterbacking... "What idiot would do that?" kind of talk.

I would like to see more discussion of RV accidents here, as aviation accidents are a hobby of mine (investigating them, not having them)... But given the performance i've seen on other sites, it's darned near impossible to keep the discussions factual and non-judgemental.
 
A word from an official card-carrying safety guy

Gang,
I have to agree with Doug on this one, but I do believe discussions on aviation mishaps have a time and place here in the VAF. Key phrase: Time and place.

First, consider my background: I am currently the Director of Safety for Air Combat Command, and the previous Chief of Aviation Safety for the Air Force. I am responsible for executing Safety Investigation Boards for every Air Combat Command mishap. The F-16 that overran the runway at Oshkosh? My staff executed that safety board for my 4-star general convening authority.

Of all the lessons I have learned in my career, and particularly as a flight safety officer, this is the single most important: You NEVER know what you don't know, and without the benefit of all the evidence, no amount of speculation is EVER accurate. Speculation taints investigation boards, inaccurately sways public opinion, feeds media sharks, and ultimately does great harm to an otherwise innocent pilot. I spend a tremendous amount of effort keeping interested parties (including big scary generals and congressmen) OUT of my safety boards’ proceedings.

I have one advantage: Military safety boards are conducted under what’s called Safety Privilege. That’s an extension of presidential privilege granted by the Supreme Court to the Department of Defense for safety investigations…SAFETY investigations, not legal investigations. Under Safety Privilege rules, the results cannot be released to the public: Not that it’s classified secret, but it just can’t be released outside the DoD and the actual parties involved in the type of aircraft or command. Why? Two words: Mishap Prevention. Safety Investigation results can only be used for mishap prevention. Not for punitive or litigation purposes, not for the media, but ONLY for mishap prevention. Knowing these protections are in place helps witnesses (including the pilot) to more eagerly assist the investigation…they will not get hammered for mistakes admitted to this investigation board.

So when the media reports that the Air Force has announced the results of their accident board, they are actually releasing the results of a second independent investigation conducted by the Judge Advocate. Yep, that’s the one that involves lawyers, and is used for media, punitive, and litigation purposes. It doesn’t exist for mishap prevention (it doesn’t even generate recommendations). In fact, the JAG’s accident board exists specifically to protect the Safety Board’s privilege. All military services follow this construct, in accordance with DoD instruction and Supreme Court edict.

So why do I agree with Doug? Because ill-informed and un-informed conjecture is the same as mis-informed conjecture, and it’s all poison. That’s why after two+ years as a member of this VAF forum, you have never seen me write about fresh mishaps. People love to guess and build opinions, but I never pass up a perfectly good opportunity to keep my mouth shut and listen.

I strongly disagree with any sort of discussions about an OPEN mishap investigation.

So when SHOULD we discuss a mishap? Once the investigation has concluded and the results are released, THEN we have an obligation as pilots to discuss the results in the interest of mishap prevention. At that point, nobody has any right to offer conjecture: Comments should be based entirely on the evidence and conclusions captured by the NTSB or FAA investigator’s report, because therein lay the facts. I also submit: Rather than casting darts at what the pilot did, didn’t do, or should have done, we serve each other better by addressing how we can avoid the same calamity if we face a similar situation. What if I face that S-VFR weather in my Skyview-equipped -7A and one of my ADAHRS units has crumped? Would I also flip my -7A on that same grass runway if it’s wet?

Back to my canopy and wiring...

[This thread has been moved to General Discussion so the above post can receive maximum circulation; S. Buchanan]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
scrollF4 said:
but I never pass up a perfectly good opportunity to keep my mouth shut and listen.
Click to expand...

An early mentor of mine used a similar statement to this in my education. I have found those that have earned my respect virtually always have this characteristic.

Mark
 
I've always respectfully disagreed with this "rule" on here. Four things to consider...

1. When is a good time to discuss accidents? My answer, contrary to some opinions, is when they are fresh...if we wait until the NTSB report comes out, its old news and its never brought up again. The learning oppurtunity is lost.
2. Whats wrong with speculation? It gets me thinking about all kinds of things that could happen when I fly, even if it had nothing to do with the accident...its like accident brainstorming, I've seen ideas come out of these discussions from other people that I never would've considered otherwise. Thats useful.
3. If I have a mishap, I give everyone permission... I want you to disect it, speculate about it and any other possible thing you want if if helps advance your safety. Please learn from my mistake, no offense taken.
4. This all can be done in a respectful way...just mind your manners and the discussion will be just fine.

my 2 cents
 
source of differing views, an observation:

Here is an observation I have not heard anyone else make.

When discussion develops after an accident, it *can* easily become discussion of a hypothetical event. Indeed, for most everyone with a computer that discusses it, speculates about it, relates similar situations, whatever, it is removed enough from their *reality* that it is essentially a discussion of a hypothetical situation that has learning lessons imbedded in it.

Treating it as a hypothetical event removes essentially ALL of the concerns that are expressed by those that do not want to see discussion of recent accidents. The hypothetical pilot can be bashed, the chain of events can be speculated without polluting any formal investigation, and the discussion has no bearing on the outcome of legal or insurance or estate-related issues connected to a real event.

The other view: the supposedly hypothetical event under discussion will touch close to home for some people with intimate knowledge of a recent real-world event that stimulated the hypothetical one. Some feelings may still be hurt.

So, in approaching it this way, the question still arises, is the benefit of academic discussion as mishap prevention and training offset the potential for hurt feelings?

Is there a way to establish a forum section where hypothetical incidents can be presented and discussed? To the extent that such a hypothetical incident might bear strong resemblance to a recent real-world event, can people mentally partition this well enough so that their feelings aren't hurt?
 
Last edited:
The problem here:

scrollF4 said:
Gang,

So when SHOULD we discuss a mishap? Once the investigation has concluded and the results are released, THEN we have an obligation as pilots to discuss the results in the interest of mishap prevention. At that point, nobody has any right to offer conjecture: Comments should be based entirely on the evidence and conclusions captured by the NTSB or FAA investigator?s report, because therein lay the facts.
Click to expand...

The problem with this, in our context of GA accidents, is that with few exceptions, there are VERY FEW facts in the the VERY cursory NTSB report. There are occasionally even glaring errors.
There may still be very good safety lessons to learn from what "could have happened" that may be beyond the facts presented.
 
scsmith said:
There are occasionally even glaring errors.
Click to expand...

And there are some flat-out lies in accident reports. A couple of years ago I was involved in the recovery of a C150 upside-down in a bean field that days beforehand was leaking oil so bad I told the owner, who is an IA, and not a very good one, that something was wrong with it. When it was upside down in the bean field I pointed out to several helpers who were there to flip it back over to tow back to the airport that the quick drain was missing off the oil tank. The airplane simply ran out of oil. I ruined a pair of shorts from getting oil from the belly on them. Guess what the ruling was?

CARB ICE.

It just so happened that the FAA investigator was a friend of the owner and learned to fly in one of his other airplanes.

Since the nosegear collapsed they conveniently said the quick drain was knocked off. If that were the case, there would have still been a piece of it in the tank. That and the person who had removed the quick drain days before told me he forgot to tighten and safety it.
 
Last edited:
Erroneous reports

A bit of thread drift here, but entertaining.

A couple of years ago, there was a sailplane crash that was ruled an in-flight break-up because the vertical tail was not found at the crash site. Just a quick wikipedia search would have shown them that the particular model of sailplane had a V-tail.

To the point: Pictures of the wreckage sure looked like a stall-spin to me. But what do I know? I was just speculating, all the facts were in the report.

some will disagree, but educated speculation can be very beneficial.
 
The psychology of forums.
Question.... why, with so many RV based accidents with factual reports to talk about, do folks feel the need to discuss RV accidents with no or limited facts at all?
When you root cause that, id suspect we would learn a lot more about ourselves than we care to admit.
 
already answered

Kahuna said:
The psychology of forums.
Question.... why, with so many RV based accidents with factual reports to talk about, do folks feel the need to discuss RV accidents with no or limited facts at all?
When you root cause that, id suspect we would learn a lot more about ourselves than we care to admit.
Click to expand...

I think this has been answered. It is the freshness of the event.

Oh, and one other thing is missing from the NTSB reports that can be tremendously instructive: photos. With 'fresh' events come media reports that include pictures. Those pictures can be very useful for stimulating discussion, generating insights that are not in the report. (like my example above, I can often recognize a stall-spin by the orientation of the wreckage)

We could try it though. Someone glean through the old stale reports, pull one out that looks instructive, post it, and lets talk about it. Lets see how much educated speculation can fill in the gaps in the report, and provide insight into the chain of events that we can all learn from.

Someone?
 
Last edited:
RV7Ron said:
I've always respectfully disagreed with this "rule" on here. Four things to consider...

1. When is a good time to discuss accidents? My answer, contrary to some opinions, is when they are fresh...if we wait until the NTSB report comes out, its old news and its never brought up again. The learning oppurtunity is lost.
2. Whats wrong with speculation? It gets me thinking about all kinds of things that could happen when I fly, even if it had nothing to do with the accident...its like accident brainstorming, I've seen ideas come out of these discussions from other people that I never would've considered otherwise. Thats useful.
3. If I have a mishap, I give everyone permission... I want you to disect it, speculate about it and any other possible thing you want if if helps advance your safety. Please learn from my mistake, no offense taken.
4. This all can be done in a respectful way...just mind your manners and the discussion will be just fine.

my 2 cents
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. If it hurts the pilots feelings, if he/she is alive, then it enforces the point that much more. I am not talking bashing here....I'm talking sound respectful criticism. I learn a lot from this forum besides how to rivet, that's the value of the forum.

On the other hand, I do see how those discussions can turn into a circus side show. That's where our moderators, who do a great job, edit and or close the thread.

my 2 cents
 
Is there a way?

I may take a little heat for this, but I'm used to it. I agree with the folks that say that "educated speculation' can be beneficial. Aviation and RV people are smart!..Give them some credit for understanding up front that the information is preliminary, lacks specifics, and in fact, may be completely untrue as discussed. Certainly anyone smart enough to build an airplane is not silly enough to believe everything they read on the internet..even on this blog.

About a month ago, I suggested that we begin discussing medical issues..and was promptly "taken to the woodshed"..fear of FAA snooping, release of personal information, etc..and perhaps the criticism was justified..but this I know...we NEED to find a way to discuss crashes, medicals, and the so-called dark side of our passion...because ignoring the issues will not make them go away. We simply need to find a way to do it without slipping into unnecessary personal blame and wildly unsupported speculation.

Perhaps, there could be a "special" blog that requires the moderators to approve the post BEFORE it appears to the public..instead of an instant post that has to be removed later....wish I had a perfect answer..hopefully, someone who is more computer savvy than I am has a suggestion..thanks for listening.
 
scrollF4 said:
Gang,
I have to agree with Doug on this one, but I do believe discussions on aviation mishaps have a time and place here in the VAF. Key phrase: Time and place.

First, consider my background: I am currently the Director of Safety for Air Combat Command, and the previous Chief of Aviation Safety for the Air Force. I am responsible for executing Safety Investigation Boards for every Air Combat Command mishap. The F-16 that overran the runway at Oshkosh? My staff executed that safety board for my 4-star general convening authority.

Of all the lessons I have learned in my career, and particularly as a flight safety officer, this is the single most important: You NEVER know what you don't know, and without the benefit of all the evidence, no amount of speculation is EVER accurate. Speculation taints investigation boards, inaccurately sways public opinion, feeds media sharks, and ultimately does great harm to an otherwise innocent pilot. I spend a tremendous amount of effort keeping interested parties (including big scary generals and congressmen) OUT of my safety boards? proceedings.

I have one advantage: Military safety boards are conducted under what?s called Safety Privilege. That?s an extension of presidential privilege granted by the Supreme Court to the Department of Defense for safety investigations?SAFETY investigations, not legal investigations. Under Safety Privilege rules, the results cannot be released to the public: Not that it?s classified secret, but it just can?t be released outside the DoD and the actual parties involved in the type of aircraft or command. Why? Two words: Mishap Prevention. Safety Investigation results can only be used for mishap prevention. Not for punitive or litigation purposes, not for the media, but ONLY for mishap prevention. Knowing these protections are in place helps witnesses (including the pilot) to more eagerly assist the investigation?they will not get hammered for mistakes admitted to this investigation board.

So when the media reports that the Air Force has announced the results of their accident board, they are actually releasing the results of a second independent investigation conducted by the Judge Advocate. Yep, that?s the one that involves lawyers, and is used for media, punitive, and litigation purposes. It doesn?t exist for mishap prevention (it doesn?t even generate recommendations). In fact, the JAG?s accident board exists specifically to protect the Safety Board?s privilege. All military services follow this construct, in accordance with DoD instruction and Supreme Court edict.

So why do I agree with Doug? Because ill-informed and un-informed conjecture is the same as mis-informed conjecture, and it?s all poison. That?s why after two+ years as a member of this VAF forum, you have never seen me write about fresh mishaps. People love to guess and build opinions, but I never pass up a perfectly good opportunity to keep my mouth shut and listen.

I strongly disagree with any sort of discussions about an OPEN mishap investigation.

So when SHOULD we discuss a mishap? Once the investigation has concluded and the results are released, THEN we have an obligation as pilots to discuss the results in the interest of mishap prevention. At that point, nobody has any right to offer conjecture: Comments should be based entirely on the evidence and conclusions captured by the NTSB or FAA investigator?s report, because therein lay the facts. I also submit: Rather than casting darts at what the pilot did, didn?t do, or should have done, we serve each other better by addressing how we can avoid the same calamity if we face a similar situation. What if I face that S-VFR weather in my Skyview-equipped -7A and one of my ADAHRS units has crumped? Would I also flip my -7A on that same grass runway if it?s wet?

Back to my canopy and wiring...

[This thread has been moved to General Discussion so the above post can receive maximum circulation; S. Buchanan]
Click to expand...

Well said, Sir. Thank you.
 
bkc3921 said:
Perhaps, there could be a "special" blog that requires the moderators to approve the post BEFORE it appears to the public..instead of an instant post that has to be removed later....
Click to expand...

Wow....if you think moderators are unpopular now................ ;)
 
Sam Buchanan said:
Wow....if you think moderators are unpopular now................ ;)
Click to expand...

Sam, by and large, I think the moderators are very popular, because very often they do so well.

I've a few times thought, "where is a moderator when I need one" and on a couple of occasions written a PM to a moderator suggesting that a post crossed a line. The response has been very good.

In contrast to actual accident/incident discussion, look how long the threads went on discussion about 'the impossible turn' back to a runway after engine failure, and about 'overhead pattern entry'. Those were discussions that brought a lot of wisdom (on both sides of each issue).

If we convert fresh incidents to hypotheticals, couldn't we do the same thing, i.e. conduct discussions that bring a lot of wisdom?
 
Nothing New Under the Sun...

Guys, (and gals) I have made aviation my life, and have studied mishaps for over forty years. With incredibly few exceptions, it is incredibly difficult to find a new way to crash an airplane. It has pretty much all been done before. I don't think that have ever seen a truly novel or new accident report here or on the FAA database with regards to RV's since Doug started the site in 2005.

Why do I bring this up? There is just no need to rapidly speculate on the immediate causes of incidents here. From mechanicals (loose fittings, worn parts, fuel line contamination) to weather related incidents (VFR into IFR, bad judgement about the airplane's capabilities or the pilot's abilites) to Stupid Pilot tricks (aerobatic that end up minus six feet AGL) - it's all been done before. If you want to talk about it, talk about old stuff. Subscribe to the NASA Ames distribution list that reports the results of all those "get out of jail free" forms and start a discussion about those incidents - they are really good, and you're free to bring them up in the safety forum.

There is just too much overhead about trying to speculate about the cause of a recent accident. In my old job, we had a saying - "The first answer is ALWAYS wrong". And with very few exceptions, that was true. It's easy to say that pilot's shoudl take their lumps - but based on heresay, speculation, and mis-information? Come on, let's just go get some pitch forks and torches and roast the fellow - the effect is the same.

There are exceptions to the rule - if a generic "fleet" problem is uncovered that can affect everyone, asnd is truly new, I think that is imortant to uncover. But that is extremely rare. Most incidents are repeats of stuff that have been happening for years. That information is out there - if you're truly concerned about safety and learning lessons from mishaps, you'd be reading it right now.
 
scsmith said:
Sam, by and large, I think the moderators are very popular, because very often they do so well.

I've a few times thought, "where is a moderator when I need one" and on a couple of occasions written a PM to a moderator suggesting that a post crossed a line. The response has been very good.

In contrast to actual accident/incident discussion, look how long the threads went on discussion about 'the impossible turn' back to a runway after engine failure, and about 'overhead pattern entry'. Those were discussions that brought a lot of wisdom (on both sides of each issue).

If we convert fresh incidents to hypotheticals, couldn't we do the same thing, i.e. conduct discussions that bring a lot of wisdom?
Click to expand...

Steve, you are correct, for the most part I think the level of moderation on this forum is appreciated. There are instances where a poster or two doesn't think any moderation is proper (when it is their post that has crossed the line) but that is the exception rather than the rule.

In spite of what some think, the mods don't edit or delete very many posts. Mostly we just move posts to parts of the forum that are most appropriate and eliminate posting errors such as duplicates. My response was to the suggestion that we select which posts are allowed to be published. That would put the mods in a very difficult position where we would most likely make a lot of posters mad and the quality of VAF would suffer.

Even though several suggestions have been made, we keep coming back to the fact Doug has created an excellent environment for civil discussions. This forum is different from most aviation forums in the quality of discourse and civility.

Doug's definition of what he wants his forum to be has worked extremely well. I had some doubts at first, but it turns out he had remarkable vision.
 
Last edited:
scrollF4 said:
Gang,
I have to agree with Doug on this one, but I do believe discussions on aviation mishaps have a time and place here in the VAF. Key phrase: Time and place.

First, consider my background: I am currently the Director of Safety for Air Combat Command, and the previous Chief of Aviation Safety for the Air Force. I am responsible for executing Safety Investigation Boards for every Air Combat Command mishap. The F-16 that overran the runway at Oshkosh? My staff executed that safety board for my 4-star general convening authority.

Of all the lessons I have learned in my career, and particularly as a flight safety officer, this is the single most important: You NEVER know what you don't know, and without the benefit of all the evidence, no amount of speculation is EVER accurate. Speculation taints investigation boards, inaccurately sways public opinion, feeds media sharks, and ultimately does great harm to an otherwise innocent pilot. I spend a tremendous amount of effort keeping interested parties (including big scary generals and congressmen) OUT of my safety boards? proceedings.

I have one advantage: Military safety boards are conducted under what?s called Safety Privilege. That?s an extension of presidential privilege granted by the Supreme Court to the Department of Defense for safety investigations?SAFETY investigations, not legal investigations. Under Safety Privilege rules, the results cannot be released to the public: Not that it?s classified secret, but it just can?t be released outside the DoD and the actual parties involved in the type of aircraft or command. Why? Two words: Mishap Prevention. Safety Investigation results can only be used for mishap prevention. Not for punitive or litigation purposes, not for the media, but ONLY for mishap prevention. Knowing these protections are in place helps witnesses (including the pilot) to more eagerly assist the investigation?they will not get hammered for mistakes admitted to this investigation board.

So when the media reports that the Air Force has announced the results of their accident board, they are actually releasing the results of a second independent investigation conducted by the Judge Advocate. Yep, that?s the one that involves lawyers, and is used for media, punitive, and litigation purposes. It doesn?t exist for mishap prevention (it doesn?t even generate recommendations). In fact, the JAG?s accident board exists specifically to protect the Safety Board?s privilege. All military services follow this construct, in accordance with DoD instruction and Supreme Court edict.

So why do I agree with Doug? Because ill-informed and un-informed conjecture is the same as mis-informed conjecture, and it?s all poison. That?s why after two+ years as a member of this VAF forum, you have never seen me write about fresh mishaps. People love to guess and build opinions, but I never pass up a perfectly good opportunity to keep my mouth shut and listen.

I strongly disagree with any sort of discussions about an OPEN mishap investigation.

So when SHOULD we discuss a mishap? Once the investigation has concluded and the results are released, THEN we have an obligation as pilots to discuss the results in the interest of mishap prevention. At that point, nobody has any right to offer conjecture: Comments should be based entirely on the evidence and conclusions captured by the NTSB or FAA investigator?s report, because therein lay the facts. I also submit: Rather than casting darts at what the pilot did, didn?t do, or should have done, we serve each other better by addressing how we can avoid the same calamity if we face a similar situation. What if I face that S-VFR weather in my Skyview-equipped -7A and one of my ADAHRS units has crumped? Would I also flip my -7A on that same grass runway if it?s wet?

Back to my canopy and wiring...

[This thread has been moved to General Discussion so the above post can receive maximum circulation; S. Buchanan]
Click to expand...


Agree the investigators conducting a mishap board should be insulated from and avoid the pull to speculate beyond the supporting facts...but the truth of the matter is all mishap reports end in speculation. Some are supported by more facts than others but all have a degree (most often significant) of speculation. i've chaired too many mishap boards, lost pilots i've trained and commanded over my nearly 30 years active duty Navy and not one mishap board, with 1000's of man-hours expended exhaustingly investigating, collecting and analyzing facts ended without a degree or speculation - not one. The NTSB reports are even worse.

Even if the speculation is off and unsupported, it has no way to truly harm anyone. If the NTSB is trolling VAF for information we have bigger problems. Nobody forces the folks involved in the mishap to read the posts either..

Keep the language civil and express your theory, even if it is whacked beyond belief, rest assured somebody smarter and better looking will quickly square you away!
 
Ironflight said:
In my old job, we had a saying - "The first answer is ALWAYS wrong". And with very few exceptions, that was true.
Click to expand...
A very pertinent point to this discussion, however, is that in accident investigation it's generally a given that the earlier you get a statement from parties involved in an accident, the more accurate it will be. Not always possible, sadly, in aviation incidents.

Maybe this could work, moderators willing: a forum called "accident discussions", where a thread can be started with one or two posts that contain reports of the event, possibly the local news content. The thread could then be locked, until the NTSB report is released or some long time (6 months?) has passed. After that, anyone interested in discussing it could ask Doug to unlock the thread.

It might still degenerate quickly... 'Tis the nature of these discussions. And it would be a significant amount of work for Doug and the Moderators to manage. But getting the discussions all in one place might make it easier, and forcing the time delay might reduce emotional responses.
 
Speculation aka Deliberation

RV8R999 said:
Agree the investigators conducting a mishap board should be insulated from and avoid the pull to speculate beyond the supporting facts...but the truth of the matter is all mishap reports end in speculation. Some are supported by more facts than others but all have a degree (most often significant) of speculation. i've chaired too many mishap boards, lost pilots i've trained and commanded over my nearly 30 years active duty Navy and not one mishap board, with 1000's of man-hours expended exhaustingly investigating, collecting and analyzing facts ended without a degree or speculation - not one. The NTSB reports are even worse.

Even if the speculation is off and unsupported, it has no way to truly harm anyone. If the NTSB is trolling VAF for information we have bigger problems. Nobody forces the folks involved in the mishap to read the posts either..

Keep the language civil and express your theory, even if it is whacked beyond belief, rest assured somebody smarter and better looking will quickly square you away!
Click to expand...

Ken,
Cheers and a hand salute to you and your service, and cheers to civility...thank you, Sir.

I agree with your observation, although I firmly believe military safety boards take it beyond mere speculation. Armed with the evidence, and supported with analysis, the safety board can now deliberate the causes. Conversely, only the safety board is in a position to deliberate: Everyone outside the safety board can only speculate...and they shouldn't.

Yes, the causes are not always apparent, which is why we allow stumped safety boards to use the "undeterminable/most likely due to" finding. I don't let them use that as a cop-out: They've got to do the research, and we don't spare funds for our mishap boards. However, if they've reached a stand-still on several possible causes, our safety investigation process allows the board president to declare, "The mishap fuel widget failed in the open position for an undeterminable reason, but most likely due to [this], [that], or [the other]". They must explain fully why each factor could have caused the event, and why it couldn't be ruled out. Then, each possible cause must have recommendations that would prevent it from occuring (procedures, modifications, replacement, etc). We do this to speed the investigative process while ensuring we've hopefully hit the target. I don't know NTSB rules well enough, but I don't think they have this option.

About those "whacked" theories? I pay attention to them most closely. Like Iron Paul said, we're not inventing a lot of new ways to crash airplanes. However, sometimes it's the "whacked" theories that get us closest to the truth.
 
I strongly disagree

David-aviator said:
There was a post about an hour ago suggesting this forum consider having a Beech style "crash talk" section on accidents.

DR diverted the message to a private discussion as it constituted a discussion on a rules change which is a private matter here, not a public one.

Unfortunately, I read Jim's message before it was scrubbed and believe it warrants a public response - not on the subject of a rules change - but on the notion that accident speculation can be a learning experience and is justification for the Beech "crash talk" opportunity.

This was my response to the message.

Jim,

I have to respond to your theory on what constitutes a learning experience with regard to accidents.

An accident is a real event involving real people. It is not a class room situation where rampant speculation can harm no one.

In the real world Joe Pilot crashes. Every arm chair, sometimes not nearly qualified, pilot with a computer has an opportunity to contribute to "crash talk" with a theory on what caused the accident. That can not be a learning experience - it is based on speculation, not facts. It may be fun but it is meaningless exercise. The root cause of any accident is determined on facts, not speculation. Only then can something be learned about the event.

What is most troublesome about "crash talk" is such speculation always effects a pilots reputation, many times unfairly, especially so when the facts are yet to be known.

A pilot's reputation is at stake, that trumps "crash talk" speculation. I am surprised such a forum exists, if it does, but then just about anything goes these days so what's new?

dd
Click to expand...

I read and participate in similar discussions on the cave and technical dive forums that I belong too. While sometimes the discussion descends into flame wars, and often the specific accident is not solved, the discussionst frequently identify highlight, and lay bare for discussion issues in equipment, practices, and personal approach to safety that is critical in helping others stay alive.

Letting others die to save an already deceased persons feeling is imnsho a bad choice.
 
Try Facebook

Speculation, even after extensive investigation of the KNOWN facts, is often wrong based on who is doing the speculating.

Conversely, speculation on forums by people with very little information or knowledge of the events is even more damaging to those involved in the accident/incident.

Just my opinion, YMMV. 30 Years Law Enforcement/Technical Accident investigative experience. Doesn't differ much from aircraft investigations.

My Vote: Those that want to discuss accidents under investigation should do so in other forums.
 
GLPalinkas said:
. 30 Years Law Enforcement/Technical Accident investigative experience. Doesn't differ much from aircraft investigations.
Click to expand...

Yep.

30+ years of firefighting exposed me to hundreds of fire cause investigations, pretty much the same thing with speculation vs. factual investigation.

Ever notice on the TV news they almost always state that the cause of the fire is "Under investigation".

Let the pros do their job.
 
Mike S said:
Yep.

30+ years of firefighting exposed me to hundreds of fire cause investigations, pretty much the same thing with speculation vs. factual investigation.

Ever notice on the TV news they almost always state that the cause of the fire is "Under investigation".

Let the pros do their job.
Click to expand...

But we are not trying to prevent them doing their job. Indeed their job is entirely unaffected by any speculation, however wild, on an Internet forum.

However, the parallels between technical/cave diving deaths (and there are plenty and some by well known guys with 10's of thousands of dives) are strong. When there is a death in the tech diving community we rarely if ever hear of a reason. When we do, all we get is an autopsy. Guess what, guy was 7,000 feet back in a cave, of COUSE he died by drowning. Even then it's months if ever that we get even that tidbit.

Same with aviation. At least with tech diving we sometimes get the equivalent of black box data in the form of dive computer data. We never see that in our branch of aviation.

It is extremely valuable in the tech and cave diving community, and cave diving is well known to be the most dangerous sport in the world, to have these discussions. It works well. Go to thedecostop.com and check it out. The forums are heavily moderated. Often the discussions turn out to be hypothetical or philosophical discussions of safety, operational factors, decision trees, preparation and so on. Very, very valuable and the rv community is missing out on a similar value by these discussions not being available on a popular forum.

I'll reiterate, not having the discussion just to save the reputation or avoid hurting friends and family of an already dead guy is a poor choice.

If you have that sensitive of a nature, don't go that part of the site. Problem solved.
 
walkman said:
snip...
I'll reiterate, not having the discussion just to save the reputation or avoid hurting friends and family of an already dead guy is a poor choice.

If you have that sensitive of a nature, don't go that part of the site. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

Is is a poor choice if you're the guy getting the call from the crying spouse or daughter asking for you to please take if offline while they grieve. I've recieved those calls. Speculate somewhere else, please. dr
 
Last edited:
Humans have been killing themselves in aircraft accidents for over 100 years now. When I look at that history, one of the observations I can make is that we only have a very small number of accidents, but we repeat them over and over again.

It's not unique to our specific sector of aviation either. I reckon paraglider pilots (for example) only have about 6 accidents. Oh look, Joe Bloggs was ridge soaring, got blown over the back, and hit a tree. There goes Jenny Biggs, launched in a cross wind with a half inflated canopy, stalled, and broke her ankle. Mike Rash over there misjudged his landing flare and faceplanted in from 20 feet. And who's the last person who got sucked into a thundercloud, spent 20 minutes being pummelled with ice blocks in IMC while his canopy shredded, and threw his reserve at the last second while regaining consciousness on the way back down? Lather, rinse, repeat, it's all just repetitions of the same thing, with very little incremental new knowledge gained from each occurrence.

We see the same in our area of aviation. CFIT. Runway excursion on take off or landing. Mishandled EFATO. VFR into unintentional IMC. Clipping a power line during low-level idiocy. Probably a catalog of perhaps 20 accidents that light GA pilots have, magnified into thousands by the force of repetition.

In aggregate, there's very little to learn from the most recent accident that can't also be learned from the hundreds of copies of the same accident that have occurred since the Wright Brothers' first PIO.

We can convey safety messages and safety lessons without drilling down into the flying history of an identifiable community member. We can analyse the whole corpus of accidents that relate to the message we're trying to convey, and draw from aggregate patterns of behaviour instead of focussing on individuals. The messages will be the same, we'll just use names like "Many Pilots" instead of "John Smith."

Is there anyone reading this who doesn't already know a myriad of ways to avoid CFIT under IMC, and who really needs to know the name, age and GPS coordinates of someone who's done it before the lesson sinks in? If there is, I respectfully submit that it isn't the VAF comment moderation policy that's the problem.

- mark
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top