In the wake of airline accidents in Washington, DC, Pennsylvania and Toronto, social and traditional media are flooded with photographs, (doubted) expert commentary and theories of causes. Before the investigation begins, before Ebens gathers, Witnessesses in front of anyone clicking on the link. And frankly, with inflation toys, their opinions are still worth two cells.
Our job as safety experts is to determine the cause of an accident, make that information public and provide recommendations to prevent future tragedy. As experts, we owe it to the victims to make it right. In aviation, the agency responsible for the investigation of accidents and incidents is the National Traffic Safety Board (NTSB). The NTSB, an independent body, does not have the prosecution or law enforcement teeth to issue punishment. Their only mission is to determine formulation recommendations for the causes of transport accidents and safety. However, in order to do so, you need to have the ability to access action information and support the information they have, even outside of technical expertise.
Can be parallel to the general public. Since the age of social media, the public has the ability to access information on a nearly unprecedented scale. But the quality of that information varies widely from behaviour and truth to absolute goofy (and before anyone asks, yes, the earth is round. We came up with a few sticks in the desert 3000 years ago. I would like to share my perspective on information gathering, as to why bad information just doesn’t go out of business.
How do safety experts examine the information to ensure it is behaviour and fair? The answer is simple. If it’s a little counter: by inviting vested interests to the table. The NTSB’s research process relies on what is called the party system. In high-takes research, such as fatal accidents, there are many interstated parties with interstituting outcome disorders, etc. The NTSB determines which parties are intervening and has the necessary expertise within the limits (people with legal or litigation positions are not assigned to the investigation process, but cannot exist because of this metfall). Those with technical expertise and insights are invited to actively participate in the research. Ultimately, each party is asked to prepare a fact report, and they are all asked to check the accuracy of others. The parties are taking part in the current analysis and do not report writing stages, but their own reports and findings occur in public dockets. The NTSB will deliberate on the final results and report on the findings. At its core, this party system uses the self-interest of each organization as a check of the self-interest of other organizations.
Let’s enlarge this ratio. We are constantly struck by a flood of information. Most of them are just as useful as dark sunglasses. But just because the information is bad, inaccurate or biased, does that mean it should be excluded from the public? That decision should come down to the individual. Like NTSB, we are morally responsible for ourselves and our community and are looking for the best postable information. We need to rattle a bit in our heads and decide on course of action, hearing that many different (relief) perspectives are available. I have the ability to do that. It is service to public discourse when you start to rule out that you fail the fact check or exclude the idea of ”waking up.” Have everyone place the cards on the table and use yourself on the motivator rather than the x.
Dennis Murphy is a professional airline pilot with a background in aviation safety, accident research and causality. When he’s not flying 737, I’m dedating his wife, their dogs, cats and bees company.
