Why Do Planes Crash? Malcolm Gladwell on Outliers, Work, Culture, Communication (2008) 1

[drawoh]

I have joined a couple of history Meetups. We were discussing authoritarian cultures in the orient. I mentioned Cockpit Resource Management in the airline industry, and someone replied that I should check out a lecture by Malcolm Gladwell. He is discussing here Avianca Flight[ ]52.

YouTube: Why Do Planes Crash? Malcolm Gladwell on Outliers, Work, Culture, Communication (2008)

--
JHG

 

[bimr]

It probably has something to do with flying at a velocity of 500 miles per hour and a maximum altitude of only 5 miles.

Pilots face endless boredom while flying on autopilot and yet they are a few seconds from crashing at any point during a flight.

An example is American Eagle Flight 4184:

Link

 

[IRstuff]

Cockpit dynamics are challenging; many accidents occur because the flight crew defer to the captain, even when it's clear they're in error. In the Avianca case, it seems the other way around; the first officer seems to have been in some weird fog.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[1503-44]

In that case I think it would have been appropriate for the controller to prompt the pilot with a, "Sir, do you wish to declare an emergency?". Not throwing blame on the controller, but sometimes a simple clarification of circumstances can get things moving on the right track.

 

[Sparweb]

drawoh,
In the subject of your second sentence, and in seeking a relevant example, look no further than this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Flight_801

It's possible that Malcolm Gladwell brought this up in Outliers, too.

KA801 is a whole new level of amazing when "the flight crew only began to challenge the captain six seconds before impact".

Please remember: we're not all rednecks!

http://www.sparweb.ca

 

[1503-44]

It can be extremely difficult to challenge any form of authority; in some cultures and governments, nearly, or totally impossible. It should be encouraged more often if not always, but that does not seem to be the way of the world... until its too late.

 

[IRstuff]

prompt the pilot with a, "Sir, do you wish to declare an emergency?".

The pilot was apparently not on the radio for whatever reason, and the pilot repeatedly asked the first officer to declare the emergency. I think the pilot was overly dependent on the first, and for some reason, didn't take over the radio call himself, when he was given a bad slot in the lineup despite being under the emergency he thought he had declared. I mean, "WTF, we declared fuel emergency and you make us circle and take a second slot?"

It can be extremely difficult to challenge any form of authority;

And yet, the first officer refused direct commands from the captain to declare the emergency and lied to his face about it.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[Sparweb]

In his talk, Gladwell points out the extreme problem created by the "power distance" between different people in the crew, and how it created a cultural barrier between them and the air traffic controllers. The co-pilot was afraid to (or couldn't even imaging trying to) challenge the ground controllers or tell them what to do, then couldn't admit to failure to the captain who might have corrected the situation. Both had too much power over him (in his mind) for him to challenge or give tasks. It lead to tragedy.

Gladwell's point is really interesting and an essential part of CRM now. But he misses something equally interesting and just as important. On any aircraft, just a few meters back behind the cockpit, the OPPOSITE needs to happen. There, we have a cabin full of individuals that have inadequate knowledge, training, or authority to take action in any situation that affects them. Only the cabin crew has this. If we tried to picture 100 passengers taking a "low-power-distance" and a "high individuality" approach to any emergency like a fire or an evacuation, we would be faced with a huge number of casualties. In the passenger cabin, the safest situation is one where everyone accepts the authority of the cabin crew without question. The opposite of the cockpit.

Please remember: we're not all rednecks!

http://www.sparweb.ca

 

[1503-44]

Yet I am sure you would not open the door at 30k ft, even if given a direct order to do so.

 

[TugboatEng]

Spar, we all know I enjoy being a contrarian so I'm going to mention the Grenfell Tower fire where residents were ordered to stay in place. Compliance did result in their deaths.

https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/30/many-survived-grenfell-disaster-werent-told-stay-put-11010305/

 

[1503-44]

I mean that's exactly why I take a parachute with me.

 

[Sparweb]

Hopefully I won't ever find myself on a plane with either of you.

Please remember: we're not all rednecks!

http://www.sparweb.ca

 

[zeusfaber]

Grenfell (and Lekanal before it) demonstrate that, in a situation where safety-critical instructions are being given, they'd jolly well better be good instructions.

That's not the same thing as suggesting that there's never a place for giving safety-critical instructions, that it's never necessary to follow them - or even that the greatest good will never require instructions to be given that disadvantage some of the people concerned.

Time and space constraints make the cabin evacuation example a bit different. You need somebody who's at least a little familiar with the situation to move the majority beyond the "I don't believe this is happening - perhaps if I wait a minute, it will all sort itself out" stage - you also need somebody to prevent it turning into a maul.

A.

 

[drawoh]

TugboatEng,

In a generic apartment building, the safest thing you can do in a fire is stay in your apartment. Several hundred people, many of who are grossly unfit, walking down the stairs is an excellent way to kill many of them with smoke inhalation. The other assumption we make is that the buildings are fireproof as all hell.

--
JHG

 

[1503-44]

OK. Just get an apartment on a floor high enough that your chute can open before you reach the ground.

 

[TugboatEng]

Spar, aircraft are so safe because there is a procedure for everything. In the commercial building the procedure didn't take in to account conditions. It was clear that containment was failing as smoke spread through the building but the procedure said to stay no matter what. The authorities should have issued an evacuation order at that point. Imagine if they had a similar order for the World Trade Center.

 

[IRstuff]

Aircraft are safe because they've crashed enough of them to figure out the better procedures for both building and flying them. Boeing and Airbus built, and build, thousands of identical airframes and architectures. Much more rigor and frequency in inspection of critical components, like fan blades. They do tend to retain the lessons learned and they face some amount of certification testing before receiving their airworthiness certification.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[Sparweb]

Apartment buildings are also safe because enough of them have burned down for fire codes and building materials to provide ready solutions to keep people safe. Following the rules is the safest thing to do, 99% of the time. Somebody smarter than you came up with those rules.
If you want to trot out the Grenfell tower or the WTC to justify panicking, then you can argue from the extreme - a logical distraction tactic. Not useful here. We would rather hear your well reasoned ideas and arguments.

Please remember: we're not all rednecks!

http://www.sparweb.ca

 

[TugboatEng]

I'm not advocating panic. When smoke broke containment the building should have been evacuated. That is all. The authorities got it wrong in that case. The fire was spreading on the outside of the building and their plan wasn't effective.