Scudrunners

Should pilots and industry professionals wait until the final report from the TSB is published before speculating about the causes of plane crashes?
Flying is a lifelong education, as the saying goes learn from others mistakes as you won’t have time to make them all yourself.
To this point I wonder why it’s a taboo to some in aviation to speculate on causes of crashes?

Let me be clear, I am talking about educated speculation not just off the cuff random thoughts.

Is it wrong to speculate about accidents ?

No.

Lesson for the children:  You don't get to choose, what you are famous for.

Story for you.  Old grandfather is talking to his young grandson.  He says,

"Look at those ships in the harbor.  I built some of those ships with my own
hands, but do they remember that?  No."

"Look at those houses on the hill.  I built some of those houses with my own
hands, but do they remember that?  No."

(you get the idea.  He goes on to say to his young, impressionable grandson)

"But you fuck ONE goat ..."

When you choose to be a pilot, you accept the fact that your actions may at
any time be scrutinized very, very closely indeed.  It comes with the job.

If privacy is the most important thing to someone, find another job, like
being an actor or a rock star or politician.  Not sure there's any difference
between those three, these days.

[quote author=ScudRunner link=topic=9557.msg27271#msg27271 date=1553225229]
Should pilots and industry professionals wait until the final report from the TSB is published before speculating about the causes of plane crashes?
[/quote]
Absolutely not.  Even if your educated (that's the important part - educated) guess is wrong you end up a better pilot or organization for considering the possibilities and how you may get drawn into a similar scenario.

See John Boyd OODA loop.

The TSB will take many years, hobbled by the political considerations
(eg both languages) to release any information about an accident.

However, in the time that they take to indulge in their defined benefits
and entitlements and review their gender fluidity and enroll in their
sensitivity training courses ...

Another accident from the same cause, may occur before the TSB
releases their findings.  Their loop is pretty big.

One might reasonably opine that the worldwide grounding of 737 Max's
is insensitive speculation.

In Canada, accident investigation appears to be performed on the
same timelines as military equipment procurement.  Time is measured
in decades, because as any government employee will tell you, it is
all pensionable time.

[quote author=Colonel Sanders link=topic=9557.msg27278#msg27278 date=1553263496]
The TSB will take many years, hobbled by the political considerations
(eg both languages) to release any information about an accident.
[/quote]
They seem to be getting better at trickling out information as they go if they think it will help others improve their safety.  The final report time is a tricky one because I think they wrap all of their wording up neatly enough to become a sort of armor against lawsuits, which as a taxpayer I can appreciate not having to fund the TSB going to court.

If Canada's TSB had any major failing, I would say it's the bias that they bring to many of their investigations.  It's clear from final reports I've read that they do often have an agenda and will use an investigation to prove themselves right.

There is a difference between a public report and what is going on behind the scenes. The TSB will try and identify safety issues within the first few days and will address their concerns with the company and/or interview people to establish a fault. I have had first hand experience with this. After the accident in YRB it was just a very short time they were interviewing 737 F/O's with one specific question. The result was one of the major factors in the findings. The public report is painfully long in being published but the wheels are in motion and safety is being addressed long before this. They don't want to publish an inaccurate finding, especially in this day and age.

While it's frustrating it's not difficult to understand why.

My thoughts about accident speculation....

To quote another poster...
“ There are no new causes of accidents”
Ergo, we can learn from past accidents without the need for as much speculation (insert gossip) , as more facts are known
....but that is not as much fun, is it?
My take on speculation...

There is no such thing as respectful speculation immediately after an accident.  Those that think so have never had friends or family involved in one. And seem oblivious to the fact that their speculation might point incorrectly to innocent people.
“Learning “ from speculation immediately after an accident is the rationalization used by ambulance chasing, blood thirsty gossips.

If people really wanted to learn from accidents they would spend some time reviewing the older ones where more facts are available and people who were impacted have had time to come to grips with it.

But Lets  face it, you simply cant demonstrate your awesome aviation knoledge and prowess to impress others from years old accidents.  Must be fresh.

And, to be fair, I catch myself indulging it it more often than I like to admit.
My rantfor the night

[quote]There is no such thing as respectful speculation immediately after an accident[/quote]

What makes you think that dead people are worthy of respect?

Most people, when they are alive, are not worthy of respect, and
fucking up and dying doesn't help much in that regard.

Here's the deal.  It is a statistical certainty that I will die in an airplane,
sooner or later.  Feel free to speculate all you want, after I'm dead,
because I won't give a shit  ;D

I'm not kidding, BTW.  I don't expect respect when I am alive or
after I am dead.  I am curious as to anyone else that thinks they are.

Most of my friends are dead in airplane crashes.  I can't do much
about that, except learn from their mistakes and resolve to never,
ever repeat them.  If that makes me a BAD PERSONâ„¢ that's ok.

My issue with some of the speculations after a crash is attacking the pilot without facts or representing opionions as facts.

If you are hypothesizing and mention that in a post, trying to make sense of the pieces of the puzzle, then there is nothing wrong with that. In a sense people "solve" a multitude of accidents that never happened that way, so people can learn a lot from these hypothetical scenarios.

On the other hand, if people start blaming the -usually deceased- pilots who can't defend themselves by writing down theories as facts, which could then get picked up by media and unscrupulous lawyers, then they are going too far.

That doesn't mean pilots can't and shouldn't be blamed if they are the cause of the accident, but that can never be determined on an internet forum 5 hours after the crash with limited information.


The prime consideration is not so much the pilot, as he is most likely dead, but the family, colleagues and friends of that pilot who will be affected by those unfounded accusations. To look at your example Colonel Sanders, if you -and I hope you won't- were to crash during an airshow by broken flight controls or another technical fault, and you kill a bunch of other people in the process. Would you prefer it that other people would blame you for being reckless, dangerous, incompetent and guilty of murdering 5 people? Or would you prefer them to wait for all the facts and the investigation so it can be established it was outside of your control?

Don't forget, the first option would not just affect your name. It could possibly affect other pilots you have trained, your family and friends. And that I find the true danger of speculation: speculating to put blame on someone, instead of speculating to figure out what happened. Both are linked, but it is a whole different attitude as to why you are speculating.

It reminds me of an ex colleague of mine. It was a nice summer, and there were a few crashes that happened in a relatively short timeframe in Europe. There was no other news, so of course the media jumped on it. The day after the 3rd crash, my colleague was interviewed in national television as to what caused all these crashes. He then stated that planes are safe but they don't fly without fuel on board. There was no way he could have known if that was the case or not. Could it have been a possible cause? Sure. Was it determined that this was the cause? No, the investigation was still on going. But at that time, he made fools out of 3 dead pilots because they allegedly went flying without enough fuel on board. Such speculation doesn't help anyone and should not be encouraged.

[img width=500 height=235]https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes ... -41-27.jpg[/img]

Maybe for some people, life is a saccharine popularity contest.

He who dies with most upvotes wins?