|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
In a recent accident in Toronto, Delta regional jet flipped on its side after a very hard landing.
After the strong reaction to my article about why I think most social media crash videos are more about clicks than safety, I’ve found it somewhat vindicating to witness the fallout from Dan Millican’s Taking Off video about the recent accident in Toronto, where a Delta regional jet flipped on its side after a very hard landing. In it, Millican spends most of this time speculating about the pilots’ overall qualifications, making questionable statements about their hours and training history, before ending with a quick reminder on how we should all wait until a full investigation is completed before determining a probable cause despite doing the the exact opposite for most of the show.
Not only has his video prompted outrage by the aviation community, but it has provoked numerous responses from other notable YouTubers in voicing their displeasure on the state of aviation in social media too. For example, Lewis of the LewDix channel, a popular stream that focuses on the joys of instructing and the wonderful students he teaches, posted a diatribe on how there is just a slew of YouTube content out there that is not only misinformed but just downright disheartening to watch, obviously a response to Millican’s video but not limited to it. Same is true for a recent video posted by a somewhat lesser known channel, SISKIND, entitled Dead Pilots = More Views: Aviation YouTube’s Race to the Bottom, which explains how YouTube’s algorithm rewards exploitive content and ends with a call-to-arms to demonetize it.
Look, I’m quite aware that not all crash video channels are created equally: Lumping Millican’s Taking Off channel with say Juan Brown’s blancolirio or even Hoover’s Pilot Debrief one is not even remotely fair. The former relies mostly on speculation with a sprinkling of fact while the latter two channels stick mainly to the facts with only a sprinkling of speculation. Yet to SISKIND’s overarching point, all these channels seem to be trapped in this arms race to release content as quickly as possible after an accident occurs, and that’s unfortunate since it tends to encourage others to release more speculative content as a response.
This begs the question then: Why are crash analysis channels so popular to begin with? I think part of their allure stems from the fact that they all provide a place for both pilots and non-pilots alike to try to collectively rationalize the incomprehensible: A plane just fell out of the sky, and we all want to know why. By having a highly experienced airline pilot on YouTube like Juan Brown give us a detailed, factual overview on what just happened, with a few personal insights sprinkled in between, helps us cope and grow from these events. But, even Juan has stated in several interviews that he was very reluctant to do accident analysis videos when he first started. I suspect he understood then and still does now that the dangers of speculation, sensationalism, and intrigue must be kept to a bare minimum otherwise he risks his channel devolving into tabloid journalism. Has he done a good job holding that line so far? You bet.
Unfortunately, social media platforms have become breeding grounds for the shame-and-blame game as the Taking Off video proved. Even Juan offered an informed response to it, but the damage had already been done. To be fair, Millican’s story isn’t so far removed from other channels that claim to offer “expert” analysis too. The truth is his piece was more a symptom of the problem than a root cause.
For a community that prides itself on safety, I find it extremely ironic that we have so many ambulance chasers and sensationalists on social media platforms talking about aviation. To a certain extent I get it, “don’t hate the player, hate the game” but I think as pilots and the primary consumers of these videos it is incumbent on all of us to actively root out these content providers.
Let’s be clear: I get that we all speculate in private on crashes, since as I stated above, we have a natural tendency to try to understand tragedy after it unfolds. But when we speak publicly on social media or even to our friends and family at home, we become ambassadors for aviation. And as ambassadors, I firmly believe we need to steer these conversations toward supporting our fellow pilots who were involved in the incident as well as understanding how we can prevent it from happening again. And any online content that goes against these tenets should be strictly avoided or even better, unsubscribed.
- Why Crash Videos and Social Media Don’t Mix - March 3, 2025
- Checking The Checklist Checks - February 19, 2025
- Do Crash Videos Make Us Safer Pilots? - December 16, 2024
I applaud your attempt to marginalized channels that promote misinformation, fiction and sensational commentary. Unfortunately those channels attract certain kinds of viewers who are not critical thinkers and believe almost anything. Think of those channels as the equivalent to the Esquire magazine; you see it on the way through the grocery store. Most of us know it’s probably filled with twisted stories that are mostly just for shock and awe so we pass by and give a little smirk.
Yes! You are absolutely right, unfortunately if Brown or Hoover don’t jump to it!, then the you turbers with no or little knowledge, start the mis information campaign to get more clicks, and by the time Brown or Hoover do it on their own time after they have more information then is too late, they go to the bottom of the barrel. But to be corrected Brown always did his things right away first known about an accident.
Even the best, least sensationalized social media commentators often behave just like major media in failing to provide context that the general public needs to understand the bigger picture. With multiple vlogger channels hyping crash videos, the impression that the non-flying public gets is “airplanes are falling out of the sky everywhere”. Rarely even a short mention of overall accident rates or trends to educate the public.
It’s funny you mention this. There is a video being passed around where a journalist from the Free Press states exactly this: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DGlTvVJvN0s/?igsh=MWowa25ldXJ6eXRkNw%3D%3D
Spot on, Wallace…and great link to Free Press, Alexander. Sadly, for some reason, humans are particularly triggered by aviation accidents. They ALWAYS think emotionally instead of rationally.
I’ve been flying (as a pilot…not a passenger) for 39 years. I tell people that you have about the same probability of dying in your bathtub as you do flying (and that’s only if you fly General Aviation).
One study I saw showed that about 1 person per day in the U.S. dies from an accident in their tub or shower. Its about the same for aviation deaths, but the vast majority of those deaths are GA-related.
You are roughly 10 times safer on a Part 121 or 135 commercial aircraft than you are in your bathroom.
We just did the master – I don’t even wanna think about what it would have really cost us if it was under Part 121!
I do believe that many on both sides of this article qualify as typical ‘rubber necker’! These are the despised people who slow down and clog the freeways at every accident just so they can get a good look at the carnage. Just past the scene the freeway is clear and up to speed again. They are not concerned for the people involved, they just want to see gore. Good pilots want to know all soles onboard are safe, and then morn the loss of a wonderful aircraft. Then, wait for the official report before speculation. Many times mechanical error result in the appearance of pilot error. And, when it is pilot error we do need to know so that we learn the consequences of such, without judgement.
The biggest problem with most of these video forums is that you have everyone from experienced airline pilots to those who have never flown beyond MS Flight Simulator or taken an airline flight. The latter crowd puts forth the most outlandish comments with the pilot community either futily tries to correct or remain silent. When it’s only legitimate pilots discussing possible causes in a closed aviation forum, there can be learning along the way until the official NTSB report comes out. Otherwise, it’s the Wild West and likely to frustrate most pilots.
I agree that part of the reason the videos are popular is that everyone wants to know what went wrong. We’ve had a rash of aviation incidents and there is some anxiety in the public over them. Of course on the flip side, everyone wants to be an internet analyst and clicks = money so this is the perfect opportunity to get clicks, whether you’re qualified to comment or not, hence the race to the bottom. We’ve seen the same thing happen with the news ever since the advent of the internet. I understand Juan’s reluctance but that is the exact reason his analyses are necessary – he knows what he doesn’t know and limits his commentary appropriately providing at least some counterbalance to the other click-driven videos.
A good analysis not only helps you learn from the accident but also helps you learn to consider different factors and avoid jumping to conclusions. As a pilot I deeply appreciate analyses from people like Juan Brown and Max Trescott that is informed, fact-based and safety-focused as they help me learn from accidents and become a better pilot.
One difference with Max (one of GA’s national treasures) is he has tons of content about safety and general flying tips regardless of the current accident rate. And I personally would love to see that from some of the other “crash focused” channels. Another example is Scott’s FlybyWire where he literally gets in his Bo and tries to show you how to fly outside the normal envelopes and regimes we are all used to flying.
Why can’t the aviation community also talk about pilot qualification when flying a load of passengers on a commercial carrier? Is that not relevant when there’s no flare on a landing that leads to a crash? I’m all about supporting pilots and I’m also about having qualified pilots flying innocent people around.
Couple of things: First, qualifications are not even a consideration for Part 121. Those are in the regs. Full stop. If you’re flying heavy iron for a US legacy or regional, you’re qualified by definition. Secondly, Taking Off’s video had loads of inaccuracies when Dan did report about it (including many innuendos about being an R-ATP which were grossly inaccurate, see @planegeek’s explanation in the video’s comment section). Finally, and more importantly, if you are going to talk about a pilot’s proficiency than that means looking at their training record, talking with colleagues, i.e., a full investigation – none of information is public. Doxing the pilot and speculating on his or her proficiency is just tabloid journalism at its finest.
No flare??? Autopilot landing..I figure
Legally qualified and proficient are two different things that have been harped on in recent history. I think the point is – everything needs to be analyzed to see what the common denominator is. But as you would probably find, most part 121 accidents are still pilot induced. Hence, what happened with the pilot’s decisions? Any crash videos before the NTSB report is just throwing darts. But it does go to show the circumstances surrounding the accident, which increases awareness.
For sure, human factors are the number one cause of all accidents. But just because they were pilot induced does not mean it was the primary factor that caused the crash (or its severity). Even in the accident in question, a gear collapse could have occurred due to a maintenance issue, abnormally high wind shear could have caused on over correction, and many others extenuated circumstances. There is just not enough evidence here to assume much other than it was a windy day and a hard landing (ironically, there are loads of YouTube channels with footage of even *harder* landings that did not end as severely as the Delta one).
“And as ambassadors, I firmly believe we need to steer these conversations toward supporting our fellow pilots who were involved in the incident…”
To act on your suggestion prejudices the outcome of the investigation. We should neither condemn nor praise these aviators until the investigation is complete. At this stage, we don’t know if they were victims, the cause of the accident, or why it happened. Rushing to celebrate them as heroes before the final report is released is extremely presumptuous.
Supporting pilots as human beings is a lot different than hero worship or citing fault.
I feel it’s NOT only about the Pilots, but with the planes and the people in the ATC towers to basically guide them in…
As a retired United Airlines Captain, a former Marine fixed-wing carrier pilot, a graduate of the Naval Postgraduate School in Aviation Safety, and one of (then) 4 Senior Flight Safety Investigators for United Airlines, I find ANY conjecture to be disgusting. The first rule in accident investigation is DO NOT SPECULATE. Keep your mouth (and keyboard) shut and let the facts lead you to the conclusions needed to learn from the tragedy.
Bob Giuda
Warren, NH
Aviation “professionals” who post speculative and uninformed opinions are deserving of contempt by any who understand aviation and aviation safety.
Bob, thank you for your service!
Thank you for your service. And your well-considered advice. Given incomplete factual evidence, any of us could suggest dozens of sequences that could have led to such an outcome. When the factual evidence is compiled, only one of those scenarios will be shown to be correct. Until then all is speculation and should be labeled as such. Indulge at your own peril.
I would 100% agree if times were different. The public availability of ADS-B data and videos of crashes typical many fatality accidents provides opportunities for much less speculation today. I was involved in three crashes in the 1970’s and early 1980’s. One PF with an engine failure from a short strip just after takeoff at 200 ft AGL. That one was an accident, two were crashes meaning entirely pilot error. Waiting 730 days for a the majority of final reports is unacceptable and unreasonable. All three I was part of, because I was part of, two were solved virtually on the spot. The engine failure was solved the following week by TSB Canada. No time for speculation. What is speculation, is that the minutiae of contributing factors. DCA: a helo thats lost situational awareness and ends up where it wasn’t supposed to be, ATC seeing a loss of separation renews the visual separation “contract” instead of taking back separation responsibility for positive separation given a plane load of passengers lives depended on the controller to intervene. Why no intervention given the circumstances? I won’t speculate what was in the controllers head. The YYZ crash on vid shows incorrect crosswind technique and failure to check a high rate of descent on short final coupled with no flare. I won’t speculate how this situation could have been allowed to continue to the impact. Maybe both pilots suffered from a site perception issue given blowing snow and only 160’ of the 200’ wide runway being plowed? I understand the descent rate on a carrier landing is 600-660’ if you flew a F-14, if not on a stable approach you will being going around. Pretty sure what I saw on the video exceeded a carrier landing descent rate. Lots of minutiae to figure out on contributing factors so I won’t speculate.
In 1987, Northwest Flight 255 departed Detroit Metro in an MD-82 in the early evening. Upon take-off, the stick shaker went immediately off. The Captain and FO, both of whom had thousands of hours total and in type, wrestled with the controls before the plane ultimately stalled, rolled to its side, and crash landed a few hundred yards from the departure end of the runway. Why did this happen?
If this was today, and I applied your logic, the surveillance video would have shown the plane taking off without its flaps set. ADS-B data would then corroborate that story both by showing the airspeed drop off when the plane left ground effect and its stall/spin crash shortly thereafter. Many YouTube crash analysis videos would come to the conclusion that it was the fact that the crew forgot flaps which caused the accident killing everyone onboard except for a four year-old girl who miraculously survived. Pilots fault. Thank you for your Patreon support. Done.
Did I mention that the reason why they forgot flaps is because that checklist item is ONLY on the pre-taxi checklist? Did I mention that the reason why the skipped the pre-taxi checklist was due to the in-climate weather rolling through fast they wanted to avoid? Did I mention that they got a last minute runway change which disrupted the flow of the crew? Did I mention that that the aural warning system that would have alerted the crew that the flaps were not in the take-off position was not working due to an electrical failure? Did I also mention that even it was working there is a good chance they may have ignored it since it was considered by MD-82 pilots a nuisance?
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Airlines_Flight_255
I guarantee the two accidents you mentioned Kirk will have more to them then what we are seeing on YT.
Totally agree, You make very good points
Ignorance rules the world. Intelligence is limited, ignorance is infinite. Social media runs on if ignorance.
Responsible social media? Makes zero sense. Not going to happen.
People will click on whatever they want, somebody creates content that is counter to the truth on any subject, do you wan to shut them up? The historic rules of decorum are different now. Why would airplane accident videos be any different? Don’t try and confuse REAL accident investigation with what show up on social media. Your article just Dan’s video more clicks! The Aviation community can and should talk about accidents, yes even before the 12 plus months before the final NTSB report comes out.
Great article. I couldn’t agree more. I got kicked off another forum for asking the armchair experts who posted “this is what happened” before the smoke cleared why they didn’t send their report to the investigators so they could stay home and not travel to the scene.
Kicked off? Please come and join FlyersForum.com. That is not how the rules work there. Each user is responsible for their own decisions about what they want to read or block.
2 issues. First is that you can post a crash video and let no one comment but that seems extreme. Every human and animal activity is now posted on social media. And plane crashes are often very dramatic. We know that when someone flies a 172 for 6 hours and the video says the “engine quit”, there won’t be a final NTSB report for 2 years and no one will post it, it gets no media so it will never get read – so people post on the initial crash report about another pilot running out of fuel. NTSB reports won’t be finalized any sooner going forward. Second, we can debate if the numbers are better or not, but we also know that there will be another (or several) crashes tomorrow and the next day and the day after that. And most will be due to something the pilot did or didn’t do, it’s just a fact. Most pilots want to think that they are “not like that guy”.
Joe, I couldn’t agree more. Full disclosure: Despite taking some online heat, I still stand by my last article that 10-15 minute accident videos do not make us safer pilots in it themselves. I think they can educate the non-aviation public as well as heighten our overall safety awareness (short lived though). Only a full investigation can give us the full story and from its final report, the real lessons learned. YMMV.
Censorship and free speech don’t mix well. Let it go.
There was a time when free speech didn’t raise a bunch of controversy, even biased or incorrect speech. It was assumed the reader was smart enough to figure out for himself what was fact and what was fiction. I have no issue at all with expressing disagreement with a post or statement, but I do not agree with trying to censor anybody. If you censor someone else’s truth, the day will come when someone will want to censor your truth. If look at the “wonderful” world of social media, early crash analyses are the least of our problems!
I have no idea quite frankly why “censorship” has come up. I’m advocating “unsubscribing” to a channel that puts out speculate or inappropriate content (basically demonetizing it). That’s a far cry from censorship.
How true
It flipped on its back, not its side.
People like excitement and crashes are exciting. As are blood and gore. News media and now social media will always thrive on sensationalism. And even if all pilots stopped watching the channels that are the equivalent of the National Enquirer, they would still have a huge market. Sadly, just human nature.