Background noise

There is no argument that the internet has advanced a good many aspects of aviation, but it has also provided a virtually unrestricted forum for anyone and everyone regardless of their ability to contribute to the conversation.

Freedom of speech is a critical element of our democracy, however, misinformed rubbish used to have a fairly short life span and after a few days would be used to wrap up fish and chips. Now it is both instantaneous and permanent with the ability to spread like a global wildfire. A few events of late come to mind.

Firstly, there was a light aircraft accident. One almost expects the incorrect aircraft type to be stated and basic facts to be overlooked, but when the comments begin to flow in and open aviation groups commence the dialogue is when things can deteriorate even more rapidly. We all realise that everyone has an opinion, but need it be voiced within minutes of impact? In this case there were criticisms of the aircraft type, the pilot, the company and just about every aspect of the operation that you can imagine.

As the investigators were still making their way to the crash site, heated debates were flaring up all over the internet. The affected families were probably still waiting to be notified, but the armchair quarterbacks were already out in force, speaking from the seat of power, anonymity and safety. Unfortunately, a good number of ‘journalists’ were tapping into these discussions and quoting them, seemingly as fact. The wildfire had started.

The hunger for immediate answers that has drivers’ heads down and googling for the latest Golden Globe nominations also has the mass media spewing out hearsay as headlines. At no point had any significant research or fact-checking been undertaken before the ‘story’ was let loose on the world. Such haste is in stark contrast to the measured, methodical approach that aviation and its safety has been founded upon.

On a larger scale, the release of the Air Asia Flight 8501 accident report had the online experts out of the gate at break-neck pace. In the cross-hairs were the pilots’ actions and the training of stall and ‘jet upset recovery’. Full blown arguments erupted as to whether Australian pilots were trained for such events, often founded on the basis of my mate’s mate flies for an airline. Hostile disbelief at the pilots actions bordered on assassination, often with the language to match.

And then recently, 60 Minutes raised the investigation into Air France 447 again and the Facebook dialogue began. Once again, the debates that stemmed from this accident had reached around the planet and years on, some of the misconceptions are still with us. On reading the Air France 447 report, one can only imagine the horror of a deeply stalled airliner, throwing out visual and audible warnings as it plunged towards the sea. Buffeting as it fell to earth with the aerodynamic noise adding to the chaos.

In advertising, people suggest that perception can become reality and unfortunately the same can be said for aviation at times. An isolated event can be perceived as an everyday occurrence if it is given enough air to fuel the fire. Consequently, the public can form skewed opinions and mindsets that further propagate the myth.

This is not to say that pilots don’t make mistakes – they do. Perhaps that self-recognition of potential vulnerability causes the pause when pilots are asked to criticise another’s actions. Possibly closer to the truth is that a healthy safety culture recognises that such criticism holds little value and that learning from mistakes and modifying or reaffirming procedures and training is far more beneficial. Unfortunately, the deafening background noise of misguided debate and half-cocked media can drown out the real story.

The ‘real story’ are those findings uncovered by the investigators. Often the real story only comes to light long after the headlines have disappeared and the misinformation has been bedded down as fact. These findings can reveal systemic issues that continue to exist and are smouldering and waiting for the next unwitting crew on a dark and stormy night.

To blame the individual crew has long been proven as a worthless exercise. Even if their actions are shown to be incompetent through the investigation, such thinking one would assume that they are now dead so the problem is solved! The fact is that if one pilot can fall victim, so can another. We don’t need the ‘who’, we need to fix the ‘why’. Why did the crew not recognise and recover from the stall? What part did the ‘startle factor’ play in impeding the initial process of recognition of the problem? What impact does multiple warnings and significant airframe buffeting have upon a pilot’s cognitive skills? Did the crew actually receive inadequate training and if so, why? Is there an aspect of flightdeck design that played a part?

Asking these questions are not a means of relieving pilots of their personal responsibilities or their competence. They are a means of improving a system and addressing issues that may be arising as the industry changes. Perhaps there is a need for a change in the way simulator training is conducted, with more random events to address that initial startle factor that we are all prone to as human beings. The increasing level of automation may enhance safety at one end of the spectrum but is it creating issues at the other?

These are the real lessons to be learned when an aircraft of any size is lost. Endeavouring to criminalise the crew is about as effective as killing a single cane toad with a golf club and expecting the plague to go away. Any aviation tragedy is devastating, but we must all move forward, taking with us what we can learn and not what irrelevant details we can argue about. Only through delving deeply into the root causes can we discover the means to a safer future.

Often the real story only comes to light long after the headlines have disappeared.