Monday Morning Quarterback Poll

[201er]

How do you feel about Monday Morning Quaterback speculation about aviation and Mooney accidents?

[eman1200]

It’s done everywhere else in the internet except mooneyspace. The fact that there is a sub forum for accidents that we aren’t allowed to discuss is a joke.

[Mooneymite]

I'm not sure exactly what is meant by "Monday morning quarterbacking". If you mean an immediate discussion of the known facts about an accident, fine.  If you mean the spreading of speculative guesses about what may have happened, not fine.

I pretty much don't read the post accident threads on Mooneyspace after the initial report because of the unfettered speculation.

[steingar]

If I ever die in an aviation accident please discuss said accident even if it means ripping a big nasty hole in my fat hairy pale white six.  If a discussion of my misadventure can save one pilot from repeating my mistake it's a good thing.

[201er]

1 hour ago, Mooneymite said:

I'm not sure exactly what is meant by "Monday morning quarterbacking". If you mean an immediate discussion of the known facts about an accident, fine.  If you mean the spreading of speculative guesses about what may have happened, not fine.

I pretty much don't read the post accident threads on Mooneyspace after the initial report because of the unfettered speculation.

A bit of everything. The whole package of responses to how these discussions end up going. There aren't "known facts". It's all based on hearsay and inaccurate news reporting anyway.

Most of the Monday morning quarterbacking is posing hypothesis and solutions based on speculated facts. Is that alright? It's what the NTSB does after all. But they do have a little more insight.

[A64Pilot]

If you don’t want Monday morning quarterbacking, then only allow the accident to be posted, don’t allow any response, because other than speculations nothing can really be posted. Often even NTSB reports are actually a most probable cause, they don’t always find a smoking gun, so even some of them are speculations, quiet a few actually.

If you have ever participated in an official accident investigation, it’s a bunch of speculating, from there evidence is sought to validate or invalidate the speculations. I’ve never seen one that a theory wasn’t proposed then the search for evidence to validate the theory wasn’t the method.

The purpose of a forum is open discussion, or at least that’s my understanding anyway.

 

Polls can never be unbiased, it’s their nature. For example, just me but I think “all the above” could be correct for number 1.

 

[Marauder]

I think the issue is when it turns into a judgmental point of view. Like: “Why would he/she fly on a day like this?” Or, “they would have made it if they, if they just had done X”.

Can you imagine the family’s perspective if they read that stuff?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[201er]

1 hour ago, Marauder said:

I think the issue is when it turns into a judgmental point of view. Like: “Why would he/she fly on a day like this?”

Sounds like a very good question, doesn't it? It can be self-preserving to learn (even speculate) what would cause someone to "fly on a day like this" and take care to avoid similar reasons to foolishly "fly on a day like this"

[201er]

1 hour ago, Marauder said:

Can you imagine the family’s perspective if they read that stuff?

I don't see the harm in the questions and speculations. Alternative facts can be a bit misleading, but sitting at home we'll never have the absolute facts. The real harm is the character assassinations, "I can't believe this guy was dumb enough to do x, he had it coming from a mile away." Definitely not the place to belittle the pilot/victims.

[Marauder]

I don't see the harm in the questions and speculations. Alternative facts can be a bit misleading, but sitting at home we'll never have the absolute facts. The real harm is the character assassinations, "I can't believe this guy was dumb enough to do x, he had it coming from a mile away." Definitely not the place to belittle the pilot/victims.

I’ll give you a pass since you live in Brooklyn and having lived in Nu Hersey myself for 8 years, I know there is less sensitivity to people’s plight. It’s easy for a New Yorker to say “Can you believe he jumped off of the Tappan Zee!?”

When it comes to someone’s unexpected passing, the less speculation is better for the family. They are grieving enough about the loss than reading a lot of Monday Morning Quarterback comments about the “woulda, coulda, shoulda” stuff.

Some of us know what this means first hand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Schllc]

I don’t know how to answer the first questions.

Discussing the conditions, and options for decisions is different. 
I like reading accident reports because I prefer to learn the easy way.  
I try my best not to second guess a pilots decisions simply because one never really knows how they will react until they have to….

Monday morning quarterbacking an accident with injury or death is pretty crappy.

[Marauder]

Are referring to the perspective of the pilot's family or the family('s) of the victim(s)?
On Beechtalk, they are reporting that the deceased passenger of N4267H was the girlfriend of recently divorced owner/pilot.  There are 2 families involved.

Everyone involved. I’m just as guilty as the next guy if I make a comment on situation where I have no direct knowledge about what really happened. Especially if the comment suggests things that just aren’t proven facts.

I wasn’t in the plane, I didn’t watch it happen (and even eyewitness accounts have been shown to be inaccurate) and I certainly am not with the NTSB doing the investigation. I think it is best to let the facts be presented.

Maybe the internet has made it too easy for MMQs to provide commentary. Two people lost their lives and until the investigation is complete, everything is speculation and it does no one any good because it isn’t a proven fact at this point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Shadrach]

4 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

Polls can never be unbiased, it’s their nature. For example, just me but I think “all the above” could be correct for number 1.

^^^^This… It’s not just you. All of the above is indeed the most thoughtful answer to question #1.

[0TreeLemur]

Ethical considerations prevent aviation safety professionals from engaging in speculation about the cause of a crash without access to all the information.   Do you consider yourself an aviation safety professional?   I do.  So with regard to the first question in the poll, I'd answer that we should avoid speculation. 

With regard to the second question in the poll, I'd prefer we wait until the information is available, which usually accompanies the NTSB report but not always.   It takes a while.  Speculating after watching doorbell cam footage of a crash and presuming that's enough to draw educational conclusions is unwise.  Voyeuristic at best in my opinion.  Calling it "shameful" is perhaps a bit harsh.   "Likely to be wrong and a waste of time" might be more like it.

If you want to learn from past accidents, take a walk through the NTSB archives.  That's where you'll learn things like:  Never assume you have enough fuel.   Always check for water in the fuel.  Don't take cold medications then fly night IMC.  When you do fly, only fly airworthy aircraft.   Don't try to penetrate a thunderstorm.  Avoid steep turns in the pattern.  Don't fly in the pattern at less than 1.3 Vso. etc...  When was the last time anyone learned anything earthshaking from Monday morning quarterbacking?

Finally, "experts in the news" is subjective.  Does Scary Mary count?  For each and every expert there is an equal expert with the opposite opinion.   After the facts come out, one opinion is usually shown to be incomplete, based on faulty assumptions, and wrong.

There are exceptions to all this.   A great recent example comes from the case of the duuuud who intentionally crashed poor his airplane after an "engine failure" when he "happened" to be wearing a parachute while wielding a camera on a selfie stick to film the whole thing...  That one deserved Monday morning quarterbacking!

[whiskytango]

Consider how an Investigation is conducted.  Following the Scientific Method, the Investigator collects evidence (factual information plus physical evidence) and develops Hypotheses of potential causes of the accident.  Each Hypothesis begins as speculation.  The investigator then tests each Hypothesis through either laboratory testing of physical evidence or "cognitive testing" (deductive reasoning) in situations where physical evidence does not exist or is damaged to the point that it cannot be reliably tested in a laboratory.  Hypotheses may be ruled out through testing.  The goal is to finally develop a single Hypothesis that is supported by the evidence and testing, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty.

As MS members interested in Aviation Safety we are following the Scientific Method to some extent, but we have no access to physical evidence, cannot perform laboratory testing, and have limited access to factual information.  We are developing Hypotheses based on incomplete information, which leaves us in the speculation stage.  Some of the Hypotheses, although reasonable and potentially probable, may be hurtful to family members and friends of the pilot and passengers.  We need to keep that in mind in our comments on this public forum.  

[Jocbay]

From the threads I have read here, I believe msr's do a pretty respectable job of discussion accidents.  Sure we don't have the all the facts and the comments are only speculative, but we have a pretty astute group here (always complement your audience) and I always learn something.  

As for the FAA investigations; I believe they do a really good job of investigating Part 135 accidents, especially if there is a black box involved, but not as good a job on GA.  Not for lack of trying, but because of the lack of information and budgetary constraints.  Sometimes they aren't even able to visit the crash site.  I know of a dozen sights within 100 miles that have never been visited (Id & Mt backcountry).

So, I'm all for a respectable discussion as I believe we have been doing.  jb

 

[sleeper-319]

I don't mind curiosity so much, but I do find the for-profit Monday morning quarterbacking fairly obnoxious (eg blancolirio, Dan Gryder, etc.).

 

On 6/29/2022 at 11:59 AM, Marauder said:

When it comes to someone’s unexpected passing, the less speculation is better for the family. They are grieving enough about the loss than reading a lot of Monday Morning Quarterback comments about the “woulda, coulda, shoulda” stuff.

25ish years ago I had a family member who as PIC in a fatal crash. This was before the internet was big, and long before I was a pilot. People still speculated, but of course it's reach was smaller. In this case, it was cavalcade of bad pilot judgment (and some rule violations that nobody would ever argue are ok).

Interestingly, it was the facts themselves that the family found wildly offensive. They immediately went to work crafting a favorable fictional narrative in which the pilot had no culpability. The uninformed speculation was welcome; it gave the family room to make up their own versions of what happened (and there are multiple versions of this fiction). When you point out the NTSB report that shows like... all the DON'Ts, they refuse to even acknowledge its existence and just say "No, that's not true, the FAA told us that it was <random bullshit story du jour>."

What does it all mean? I don't know. I'm sure there lots of times when the family accepts reality, and piling unfounded judgment on the dead pilot is un-necessary and unwelcome, but I figured I'd share a personal situation where it was the opposite. My time to shine I guess.

 

[Yetti]

https://generalaviationnews.com/2015/08/03/the-last-link-dealing-with-the-loss-off-a-friend/

 

We in our hobby as pilots are required to be experts in Weather. as owners we are required to be experts in maintenance.   As Pilots we are certified and tested and retested in our capabilities to fly small airplanes.   It is not a far reach to at least have some experience in accident investigation.    I have read thousands of accident reports.   I know why most planes crash and where they crash and why they crash. (stall spin on base)  Same with motorcycles. (most motorcycle crashes are getting turned in front of by the car Nalls report)  It helps me to be a better pilot.   If I see pictures of a Mooney with a bent left wing and a crushed nose, then it is easy enough to say stall spin on final.  Pilot got slow.     Does that make me hyper aware of making sure I don't go below 90mph without flaps out as per the POH.   Yes it does.    Does flying with my instructors(see article above) voice in my head of "If you can't get it slowed down, the gear are not out"   and the fact that I never want to have to call him and tell him I gear upped the mooney then yes that makes me a better pilot.    If I can't figure out what went wrong, then I probably don't comment.   I mostly don't comment on reports.

Edited July 8, 2022 by Yetti

[dfgvbc085]

I have some inquiries if it’s not too much trouble, guide me about this. These inquiries are displayed underneath here:


https://mooneyspace.com/topic/42698-tips-for-not-busting-step-down-altitudes/

Sitting tight for most appropriate response straightaway. I’m excessively confounded here

[Hank]

12 hours ago, dfgvbc085 said:

I have some inquiries . . . Sitting tight for most appropriate response straightaway. I’m excessively confounded here

I just write the altitude on my clipboard where I scribble weather, clearances, etc., with an arrow pointing up or down to.the new altitude. 

Then just pay attention . . . . .  

[Will.iam]

I always remember this quote. The pilot was so sure of his actions that he literally bet his life on it.  

[Hank]

2 hours ago, Will.iam said:

I always remember this quote. The pilot was so sure of his actions that he literally bet his life on it.  

"Fly as if your life depended upon it. Because it does."

[ilovecornfields]

37 minutes ago, Hank said:

"Fly as if your life depended upon it. Because it does."

It’s the unsuspecting passenger deaths that really get to me. We all have different risk tolerances and for the most part what competent adults decide to do with themselves doesn’t really bother me - until it starts hurting someone else.

My risk tolerance is different with passengers because I assume that theirs is less then mine  and act accordingly. Maybe that’s the wrong attitude.

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, ilovecornfields said:

It’s the unsuspecting passenger deaths that really get to me. We all have different risk tolerances and for the most part what competent adults decide to do with themselves doesn’t really bother me - until it starts hurting someone else.

My risk tolerance is different with passengers because I assume that theirs is less then mine  and act accordingly. Maybe that’s the wrong attitude.

I think it’s precisely the correct attitude. I’ve arrived at the same conclusion but it came more with age than skill or experience. Being more risk averse with passengers helps to account for the fact that most don’t know what they don’t know regarding the risk assessment of a particular flight. Their assessment is most often based on their first or second hand personal knowledge of the PIC. That’s a poor proxy for actual risk in some cases. Most interviews with friends and family after a fatal accident are punctuated with “Joe was a (insert flattering adjective here) pilot”.  Maybe Joe was or maybe he wasn’t. The non flying public has limited tools to make such an assessment.

[MikeOH]

Hmmm, I guess I'm the outcast.  I value my life as much as my passengers'. Therefore, my risk tolerance is the same; I'm NOT going to do something more risky by myself.