Don't Wait for the Investigation Report: Speculation Can Be Good

In these times of almost ubiquitous video, we are sometimes inundated with footage from all manner of safety incidents and accidents. Coupled with social media, professional and otherwise, this makes for lively discussions on causes and contributory factors as soon as the footage becomes available. Unfortunately, a lot of these discussions are not useful and are often met with calls to wait for the investigation report and to resist the urge to speculate.

But I can’t say that I agree with the blanket call to avoid speculation and wait for an investigation report and here is why.

On a Horrible Night in Chicago

The latest video that is inspiring much conversation, speculation and calls for restrain is this one of a China Airlines Boeing 747 cargo aircraft wiping out a bunch of Ground Service Equipment (GSE) on an apron at Chicago O-Hare airport.

Obviously, something has gone wrong here and the best way to figure out what that something is, is an investigation. But do we have to refrain from speculation until that process is concluded?

Investigations Take Time

My main argument for speculation is that investigations take time to complete. Tasks like gathering data, interviews, analysis, testing, report writing, clearances, etc. involve intense periods of activity and drawn out periods of waiting. While this is happening, we could be solving problems before they precipitate another incident.

Aviation, as a whole, rarely stops to consider the impact and causes of an incident. As they say, “the show must go on”. So, the issue that might be at play in this incident may still exist in the operating environment where the incident occurred or it might exist in your operational context. Whatever thought process this incident induces could mean the difference between something bad happening and it not.

At the very least, having a look for similar circumstances is a great way of reinforcing existing risk assessments, control effectiveness reviews, safety assurance activities and supporting continuous improvement initiatives. Even if the problem that you think is present in this incident turns out not to be a factor, you may still have solved an issue at your aerodrome before it became in incident.

Food for Thought

Essentially, I am advocating using incidents as triggers for discussions and using those discussions to critically analyse our own operating environments. The lessons from this incident don’t just have to be for China Airlines or for Chicago O’Hare. They can be lessons for any airport and any airline.

While the above incident involves snow, not really a problem in Australia, that translates into a potential visibility of markings and lights issue. What if something obscured some of your markings or lights? What potential issues exist at your airport that could lead to disorientation or misalignment?

Robust what if analysis is a key component of multiple safety management processes.

Food for your SMS

One of the early (and ongoing) challenges with the implementation of Safety Management Systems (SMS) for smaller aerodrome operators has been that they don’t have the level of incident reporting to feed and generate a fully functioning system. SMS literature loves to talk about capturing data, protecting data, trend analysis, standard deviations and statistics but if your aerodrome sees maybe two incidents a month then these concepts don’t really help you.

That is where expanding your SMS input to incidents at other aerodromes can help. It provides material for safety meetings, toolbox talks, risk control effectiveness reviews and so much more. Even more traditional compliance driven activities can feed off these incidents - an emergency field exercise or table-top exercise could be given a foundation in reality if based on a similar, real-world incident.

The Social Scene

Above, I have mainly focused on bringing outside incident reports and videos into your aerodrome’s environment and speculating on it in a somewhat private manner. But this post was triggered but much more open speculation - comments and posts on social media. So, is speculating in a public forum different from what I am advocating?

Maybe…

It would depend on your objective. From my point of view, if you are interested in learning or sharing your insights, go for it. While venturing into some online forums is fraught with danger, for better or worse, the Internet offers many of us the chance to find like-minded people.

Don’t be an …hole

Of course, many people abuse the privilege afforded us by social media. The freedom to express one’s thoughts is fundamental and while government action to limit speech should be resisted, that should not stop people exerting social pressure to maintain functional communication. The interplay between opposing views is often subtle and nuanced.

Comments attached to posts about the above incident range from those asking questions to learn more through to disingenuous questions, non-sequitur conclusions, finger pointing and racist ramblings. These are rarely productive in a safety management sense but, in my opinion, they do serve a purpose. Especially on professional sites like LinkedIn.

Peoples’ comments help me to get to know them better and they guide me in building and refining my professional network. One very minor silver lining in social media over the past couple of years, in particular, has been the true colours of people coming through. And, after all, that is what the “block” and “remove connection” buttons are for.

In the end, I think some of the calls to stop speculating are the author’s attempt at reducing the noise. Its goal is to stop “feeding the trolls” with a seemingly valid argument. Unfortunately, it also stifles productive communication.

Join the Conversation

I don’t really want to throw my hands up in frustration and walk away from social media. LinkedIn connections and this blog have provided me with opportunities to meet new people, learn new things and travel the world (seriously). I don’t want to limit conversation, I just want us to have more productive discussions.

So, please feel free to speculate and ask questions and propose hypotheses and be inspired to look at your own circumstances for similar weaknesses or issues. This is part of that proactive approach to safety people like to talk about. To avoid speculation, puts us all in a reactive position, with an added delay of, potentially, years.

Post-script

This is not just a phenomena related to breaking stories and recent events. Old videos seem to do the social media rounds and after a couple of years, pop up again and inspire a new set of unproductive ramblings and assertions. In these cases, speculation is not warranted as the investigation report is available. I wrote about this type of scenario in one of my most popular posts.

It involves the collision between two Pasadena PD helicopters at their heliport. Even though the accident occurred in 2012, the video often gets shared without any context and with blame quickly apportioned to the pilot. But in this case, the results of the investigation are available.

So, calls to wait for the investigation seem like a pretty ineffective approach to increasing the value of our online discussions. Again, I think it would better for more productive minds to get involved and guide effective conversations.

Header image: Francesco Ungaro (via Pexels)