Comments people make after accidents

Toby

Toby

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
1,068
Location
Long Island, NY
Display Name
Display name:
Toby Speed
How do you react to the comments people make after there's been a local accident? Some of these comments come across as criticism disguised as concern.

"I heard about the plane crash today and immediately thought of you."

"You don't fly the kind of airplane that crashed, do you?"

"How small was that plane, anyway?"

"I was glad it wasn't you. Boy, that's TWO this week."

Etc. etc. This was tonight at rehearsal. Tomorrow I'll hear it all again at the office. Do you let it slide off with a comment like, "Yes, it's very sad"? Or do you counter with a remark about these accidents making the headlines because they're airplanes and not cars? I've tried both, and I don't feel I'm getting through, either way. I understand that people are shocked, but the way they make a special trip over to me to express their shock makes me want to sink through the floor. Before they even speak, I can see it in their faces: "Did you HEAR about the plane crash today??"
 
I hate to say it, but I hear of a plane crash and immediately think of my friends. When folks bring one up, I just say something along the lines of "It's a shame, very sad." "Yes, I fly a Cessna Skyhawk, the same type of plane that crashed. It's the safest airplane ever made." Something along those lines.
 
Yeah, I get the same thing. What kinda irks me is when they expect lurid details of exactly what happened. Never mind the fact that I just heard about it...from them...and found out when I was fifteen that, in fact, I could not read minds or make a valid claim at omniscience.
 
Hi Toby!

Great avatar, BTW.
To try to respond to your post, I ask my friends and co-workers: "gee, don't you think the media is reporting a lot more of these accidents than they used to?" People will usually agree with that type of rhetorical question, and then you can ask them "why do you think that is," and then you're sort of off and running into a discussion of training, safety, etc. I think many people want to be reassured that a plane is not going to drop onto their house/kids' school/golf course, etc, and they want you to re-assure them.
One of our local TV stations just reported on the FAA having pulled the license of the Smoketown pilot, with the usual kind of "tsk, tsk" tone to the report, and their very next story was a ride-along in a KC-135 with a local reserve unit doing mid-air refueling. I was shouting at the TV, "I bet that pilot AND his co-pilot learned to fly in "one of those small planes"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!":target:
Rant over.
Elizabeth
 
"Yes, it is very sad. But to put it in perspective you know, 100 people died on the roads in the US today. 100 people today, tomorrow, in fact every day of the year. Maybe you can help me understand the oversensitivity the public has towards aviation accidents? Are our senses simply dulled by the sheer volume of auto accidents? Or maybe the media is playing on our affection for the sensational? I really don't understand it, what do you think?"
 
That is a good response, Elizabeth. Say something that gets them to agree with you, and then you can discuss it. I find myself getting defensive and trying to protect all pilots as I scramble for a response. To the person who hoped I didn't fly the same kind of airplane that crashed, I said that it was the most common trainer and a very popular airplane, and that yes, I did. Not only was she not reassured, she walked away. Hmmmm....
 
When we see each year and think how many people can't even drive reasonably well in snow (because they don't understand how), even though it is magnitudes more common and simpler than flying, the idea of them ever understanding in any significant numbers about GA, let alone GA accidents becomes I'd say, extremely remote at best. Even a fantasy.

But since both in safety and in accidents, we in GA are now and will likely continue to be so phenomenally mysterious to them, it would be on that level that our communication with them could be skillfully manipulated for the mutual benefit of all.
 
I just say "yeah, a bad accident will happen once in a while. But man, I'm scared a lot more on the freeway, that's the most dangerous part of any flight I make!"


No, they don't understand. They have no idea how hard we work for the privilege of flying or the thousands of flights that happen everyday that don't make the headlines. All they see are those "noisy little airplanes" and think, "those private pilots in their piper cubs are going to kill us all!"
 
People seem to enjoy prescribing various punishments for crimes they see on TV. "I hope they take his license away and put him in jail". "How can you not know when you are in a restricted area?" "I'm sick of my taxes paying for (this, that, or the other)" Etc., etc. It's part of living in a legalistic, feel good society. We all do it.

I just asked them if they exceeded the speed limit on the way to work, and if they are aware how many people are injured and killed each year because of that particular violation. I explain how a transponder works, and ask if they would like to have every movement of their car monitored, including speed. Most would not like it.

Last week a put a chart of the state of Michigan on the table and asked them to find an area where you would not be welcome. They were clueless.

As my math teacher used to say, Q.E.D. (As was demonstrated...)
 
If I'm approached, I agree it is sad. If they continue to push, I compare the deaths in aviation to those on our nations roads or local homicide stats. Aviation gets the notoriety because it is unique, because the media runs on sensationalism, and because if there isn't any news, the media will make some. Check out the NTSB or the AOPA FACTCARD for stats.
I think they are very impressive considering the hours flown. You do not find that in other modes of transportation.
 
I like Elizabeth's approach, give them something they can agree with and go on from there. I will usually acknowledge that there's some additional risk in flying and then explain how most of that risk is totally under the pilot's control vs driving where much of the risk comes from other drivers sharing the roads. That's something most people can relate to because they usually think of themselves as better drivers than the rest.
 
Toby said:
Or do you counter with a remark about these accidents making the headlines because they're airplanes and not cars?
Click to expand...

Toby, I get the same thing after a motorcycle accident, and I've tried all of the above with friends/cow-orkers, and I've given up. I just end up using the old Harley saying, "Either you understand, or you don't." Those that don't (most likely) never will.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
When we see each year and think how many people can't even drive reasonably well in snow (because they don't understand how), even though it is magnitudes more common and simpler than flying, the idea of them ever understanding in any significant numbers about GA, let alone GA accidents becomes I'd say, extremely remote at best. Even a fantasy.

But since both in safety and in accidents, we in GA are now and will likely continue to be so phenomenally mysterious to them, it would be on that level that our communication with them could be skillfully manipulated for the mutual benefit of all.
Click to expand...
I think you have hit the nail on the head, Dave. Phenomenally mysterious is a good way to put it.
 
Bill Jennings said:
Toby, I get the same thing after a motorcycle accident, and I've tried all of the above with friends/cow-orkers, and I've given up. I just end up using the old Harley saying, "Either you understand, or you don't." Those that don't (most likely) never will.
Click to expand...
That is true. Two of my friends were standing there shaking their heads last night, and I agreed that it was sad and said that the accidents had made the news because they were aviation-related, and that there hadn't been any stories about all the car crashes that day. I could see instantly that their eyes glazed over -- they tuned me out. I made another remark about the media, but it was too late. I will try a different approach today at work.
 
I like the idea of offering up something, like the number of deaths locally in car accidents, that all can agree with. And the unsafe feel of the roads, particularly at rush hour. Then talk about the extra training etc of flying.

I am with you, Toby. I find myself getting defensive about flying right out of the box, and that certainly doesn't convey the confidence that I would like to instill in the listener.

Sometimes, I compare my trips home to Vermont in the car vs. the plane. 8 plus hours, even speeding, in the car, over some highways that are always under construction, seem horribly unsafe, big trucks, bad drivers etc. Versus 2 hours and 40 minutes in the plane, rarely see another plane between take off and landing. Relaxing. Faster. Quieter. Etc.

They seem to understand that and agree with it. Most of us that have to travel to visit family far away wish for a better way. We pilots have it :)

Jim G
 
It's at home, but if someone has the latest AOPA Pilot with the photo mosaic on the front they have accident stats in there. I think it was less than 1 GA fatality per 100,000 hours flown. If the average GA ground speed is 100kts that's less then 1 fatality per TEN MILLION nautical miles. Not sure how that compares to traffic accidents.

In 2003 there were 42,643 traffic fatalities. I don't know how many miles the US drivers put on each year. It looks as if the rates for automobiles are about 1 fatality per 35 million miles. Equate nm to sm and it looks like the fatality rate in airplanes is only 3 times higher than that of automobiles. Which is lower than I thought.
 
N2212R said:
In 2003 there were 42,643 traffic fatalities.
Click to expand...
If you stop and think about that for a second that averages out to one fatality every 12 minutes...
 
N2212R said:
It's at home, but if someone has the latest AOPA Pilot with the photo mosaic on the front they have accident stats in there. I think it was less than 1 GA fatality per 100,000 hours flown. If the average GA ground speed is 100kts that's less then 1 fatality per TEN MILLION nautical miles. Not sure how that compares to traffic accidents.

In 2003 there were 42,643 traffic fatalities. I don't know how many miles the US drivers put on each year. It looks as if the rates for automobiles are about 1 fatality per 35 million miles. Equate nm to sm and it looks like the fatality rate in airplanes is only 3 times higher than that of automobiles. Which is lower than I thought.
Click to expand...

So if your numbers are right and I only fly for 5% of my miles travelled, I have only increased my chance of getting killed by about 10% (total travel). I always said you can play with the numbers till you get the results you want. ;)
 
Although aimed at the airline-traveling public, the Fear of Flying Help Course might provide some useful information.

For more statistics than you might care to absorb, see the FAA's aviation safety Web site. Not that statistics will address issues that are usually rooted in fundamental misunderstanding, fear (often based on ignorance and lack of control), and so forth.
 
Toby said:
How do you react to the comments people make after there's been a local accident?
Click to expand...

You know, I actually have most everyone that knows me trained to wait for the right answer. I explain things following the general method that the NTSB uses - Take your time and find out what the heck really happened and THEN AND ONLY THEN open your mouth. They inevitably ask and often before I know something happened. I tell a very general overview of possible scenario's and they KNOW what I say is pure hypothetical possibilities and nothing else. Then I clamp down for 2-3 or however many days it takes before continuing and I always get back to them. They know they won't get any specific answer about event X until I have some sensible facts to use. I do watch what I say very carefully however I do not soft pedal the answers to do the touchy feely all happy now routine. (The ADIZ mess the other week took me a full week before I explained further than a basic explanation of what an ADIZ was and general navigation problems that could possibly cause it) Then I make sure they understand I know only part of the story and they need to wait however long it takes for a full official explanation from the correct authorities (NOT media).

Curiously in this age of instant gratification explanations, people who listen to me are slowly moving away from the mindless masses belief system since my answers are much more than all the instant hype because I take the time to find out what happened and to think my way through that type scenario in general. They are learning that waiting for the right answer is far better than the right-now-blind-wild-assumption answers. I never end up with all the facts or every detail but I point them in the right direction and they actually understand what leads to that kind of thing happening and what you can do to avoid it in the future. Heck, sometimes I never get enough to go on at all but I do get enough to point them in the right direction. That calms them down and defuses the situation much better than instant answers. It's not a perfect method by any stretch of the imagination and I'm the first to admit it, but it generally works how it needs to work for the people who want to know.

IMO: I think they ask and say the things they do because they don't know enough to ask the right questions. What they're really asking is: "How can you go from cruising along all fat and happy to being bug splat on the side of the mountain? What generally causes it? How and what can you do to avoid doing that?"
 
Last edited:
Toby said:
How do you react to the comments people make after there's been a local accident?
Click to expand...

I tell them it's a very dangerous thing to do and only the bravest and most
skilled do it.

Then I ask them how many car wreck fatalities were in the paper
last nite .. and are they going to quit driving.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top