Getting it right

In a profession where failing to get it right can kill you, it never ceases to amaze pilots how poorly the industry is covered in the media. The truth seems to be lost somewhere between ignorance and the hysteria of a headline. Meanwhile, ‘witness reports’, iPhone images and good old-fashioned hearsay become fact, even as qualified investigators state flatly that “It’s too early to speculate on a cause.” And so the misinformed public swallow the fodder and fiction spreads like wildfire on the internet.

Now some may say that near enough is good enough for a field with such a small following. However, it immediately casts doubt on the credibility of anything else filtering down the media line as Wikipedia becomes the new fact-checking. What about the families of those potentially involved seeing the grainy images for the first time? What about the attitude of the travelling public and the economic knock-on from misplaced phobia? All the work done by aviation professionals at every level to make safety a priority can be neutralised by twelve characters on Twitter. Then, when the media has moved onto the next celebrity car crash, the industry and informed media is left with the job of dispelling the myth. By which time the headlines and advertising revenue have generally disappeared.

Then there is the pre-judgement of the crew following an event. The Kangaroo Court of the internet will try, judge and execute a career before the propellers have stopped spinning. And regardless of the outcome, mud sticks. The Captain of the Westwind that ditched off Norfolk Island was hailed a hero and within days was hung in the media’s town square. Initially, his efforts compared to Sullenberger’s landing on the Hudson River, but that all changed very quickly. Regardless of the outcome in this instance, it is ‘open season’ on the truth and the flight crew’s reputation when things appear to have gone wrong.

Some of those perpetuating the misinformation are twelve year-olds empowered with an internet connection, but some are ‘qualified journalists’. In an era of smart phones is it too time-consuming to make a couple of calls in place of ‘googling’ gossip on chat rooms? If the ATSB is still on the way to the accident scene, then I get a hunch that it may be too early to speculate on a cause.

Then there are the aviation ‘experts’. Pilots shudder at that term. From that first flight lesson it is drilled into students that you’ll never know it all. And if you’re starting to feel comfortable, watch out! Complacency is just around the corner. Consequently, discussion of an incident amongst pilots is usually in hushed tones to those they trust and pre-fixed with the phrase, “I’m not judging the bloke…” That’s because all pilots have messed up at some point and their recognition of their own human fallibility is one of their best defences against the potential threats that surface from day to day.

Yet folks will appear on television or project their voice over the radio professing to be an ‘expert’. Many of these experts have very little flight experience and have never felt the ice on the back of their neck when things have gone wrong. Only then can you step back and find that ‘no comment’ is a fairer assessment of a fellow aviator and allow the trained investigators to use their methodical approach to offer some real answers. At best the ‘experts’ should stick to the state of the industry and identifying aircraft types for the mainstream media. Perhaps ‘analyst’ would be a better term. But expert? After decades in this game, I’m still to meet one. We’re all just doing the best we can.

In the cockpit of a light aircraft, or the flight deck of a global carrier, crews are trained to assess the operation on an ongoing basis. Every decision must be viewed in terms of potential outcomes and crews should always opt for the conservative option. Whether that means carrying more fuel to cover an alternate destination, or abandoning a landing approach to come around and try again, the endeavour is to always fly in a measured manner. Shooting from the hip doesn’t sit well in the execution of aviation and yet too often it is reported in that manner.

There are those in the specialised aviation media who have credibility with those they report about. Many of these are almost impossible to identify by face and difficult to recall by name. Their ‘by line’ is small and they often follow the main media frenzy because they have paused for the dust to settle. Many have blogs of virtual anonymity, calling it as they see it based on the facts at hand, rather than speculation and spin. The ‘media pack’ should have these people’s numbers on speed-dial, but I suspect that the dramatic quotes would not be forthcoming and the instantaneous need for sensationalism would not be quenched.

Too often it is the way of the world these days. Perhaps the cockpit is one of the few domains where sitting on your hands and waiting a moment is still strongly encouraged. Whether that is the philosophy of aviation reporting or not, there must still be a need for a measured approach. There must still be a need for at least attempting to get it right.