Misinformation Effect

Lowflynjack

Lowflynjack

En-Route
Joined
Oct 28, 2014
Messages
4,309
Display Name
Display name:
Jack Fleetwood
So with so much speculation on the internet, I started thinking about the harm that can come from it. Pilots will almost always have an opinion on a crash, even when they have little facts. Then you get the guys who make money off of their videos by sharing their uninformed opinions, and their desire to be the first to report on accidents and some of them have been proven to be dishonest. Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story...

"The misinformation effect refers to the impairment in memory for the past that arises after exposure to misleading information."

I was at a little airport in Central Texas the other day, Marlin. My pilot friend who was with me asked, "Isn't this the airport where that girl Cinnamon crashed the 206?" Maybe she was flying, maybe she wasn't. There were two pilots in the plane, but DG decided she was flying because her low time made her make a bad decision on a go-around and she stalled it. No proof and with audio of the male pilot making the calls, there's at least some reason to think he may have been flying. He had to get his uniformed opinion out there before someone else said it first, that's how he gets followers. Even though he's backed off of his theory, people remember it as her causing the crash.

On the recent 170 crash, I've seen a lot of people saying it was a stall/spin. Makes sense, that's what it looks like. Then the speculation starts. He had tundra tires and these STOL guys are trying to land slower and slower. It was very gusty, he was probably trying to do a very short landing and a gust got him. Blah, blah, blah... what if a cable broke? What if someone had a medical issue? Why do we need to come to a conclusion right now? Why do we want to be first?

What really got me thinking about this? I was supposed to fly with a guy soon for an upcoming story. I got an email saying that when he was taxiing out, he passed out, ran into a fence and totaled his plane. Turns out he had an undiagnosed brain tumor this may have been the best case scenario! If he'd taken off and passed out, stalled and died on impact, the internet sleuths would have picked it apart. Luckily he's still around, will get the surgery he needs, and be back in the air again someday.

That's my rant. Pick me apart!
 
It's been a long time since I read about this, but I think it's less to do with misinformation and more to do with what story someone hears first. The theory of primacy, just slightly tweaked. If they hear the facts first, they're less likely to remember it twisted no matter how much speculation follows.

I don't mind the speculation, and it helps me think about what not to do in situations speculated about, but I think most people put way too much weight into uninformed peoples' opinions and speculations.
 
I suspect people worried that everyone doesn't think the same way or hold the same opinion, right or wrong, do far more harm. Gossip and speculation have been around since there were people, but lately we have to be protected from it.
 
SkyChaser said:
It's been a long time since I read about this, but I think it's less to do with misinformation and more to do with what story someone hears first. The theory of primacy, just slightly tweaked. If they hear the facts first, they're less likely to remember it twisted no matter how much speculation follows.
Click to expand...
I think it's more about what happens after. In college I was in a study of this theory. In one example, they showed us photos of a car in a ditch. Nothing to suggest anything other than a car going off the road. They took the photos down and over the next few hours of discussion, people added in false data. "What about the beer cans around the car? Do you think they were there before the crash or came from this car?" There were no beer cans! "Don't you think the fact that the skidmarks are so long shows he was going too fast?" There were no skidmarks and no suggestion that the driver was male. By the end most of us remembered the altered reality!

But even if it has more to do with the story someone hears first. People like DG put out their opinions as fact and it can be the first story people hear.
 
I think some of it is today's society expectation of "I want it and I want it now". Whether that is the latest iGadget, Amazon offering, or accident investigation, we no longer accept the need to wait for gratification. As for the YouTuber's, there is also the "Look at Me, Look at Me" and financial gain they get from more hits.

I've also heard from attorneys and prosecutors, there has been the impact of shows like CSI and Law and Order on juries, that expect a case to be cleanly wrapped up in 60 minutes like on TV.

Show of hands, who remembers ordering items out of a catalog like Sears, etc., and having a 4-6 week wait for shipping. Could you imagine if Amazon made you wait a month for your order?
 
Lot of good points there. Why do we want to know quickly? Human nature to want to know what happened. Why quickly? Human nature not to want to wait. Natural instinct to solve puzzles. Have people like you / thumbs up for making the discovery of what happened, be the first, etc.

Maturity is the ability to put off instant gratification. So proper course is to follow the process to determine what really happened.

And remember - internet is not reality. The 1% of the pilot population putting out quick conclusions does not represent the pilot population at large. Lots of noise from few people.
 
I think there are times when there are legitimate reasons for a rush to judgment. It was completely appropriate that the last day of Wings Over Dallas was cancelled over the collision and it would, in my mind, be completely appropriate for there to be a reasonably quick effort at getting to the bottom of the cause. OTOH, neither the Cessna 170 crash or the 205 are likely a matter of industry urgency to be callously blunt. More than likely they fit in a well-know box or the other.

That said, there was a tremendous lot of ridiculously uninformed commentary on the airshow incident, too, and even this morning I had a conversation at the airport with someone speculating that the P-63 hit a drone.
 
Lowflynjack said:
That's my rant. Pick me apart!
Click to expand...
I'm with you. I've been posting about why I dislike accident speculation since before POA was a thing. I've been called a troll many times, and worse I expect out of earshot, but also gotten a little support from some unusual sources. So much misinformation, so much bad analysis, so much ignorance, all rationalized as "that's how we learn." I've slacked off a bit recently just because I'm tired of tilting at windmills, and I've also noticed the acceptance of rampant speculation changes somewhat when 'one of us' is close to the accident. It's a start.

Nauga,
WAGging the dog
 
I generally don't mind speculation based off of the information at-hand. I learn a lot by listening to people walk through a chain of events or cause-and-effect. I suppose it comes down to what the motive is for some people to post videos or make baseless claims. Regarding the C170 incident, I don't have any problem saying that it "looks like a stall/spin accident" or "possible failed go-around", as there's nothing nefarious about that as the pictures suggest that as a plausible event. It doesn't necessarily cast anything negative about the pilot. If someone comes in and says "I wonder if the pilot had been drinking" beforehand, well, that would be baseless on currently known information and starts the rumor-mill.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Regarding the C170 incident, I don't have any problem saying that it "looks like a stall/spin accident" or "possible failed go-around", as there's nothing nefarious about that as the pictures suggest that as a plausible event. It doesn't necessarily cast anything negative about the pilot.
Click to expand...
My aversion to it has nothing to do with anything nefarious or even casting aspersions. It's the attempt to reach a firm conclusion (and if you thing that doesn't happen you're not paying attention) with little data and 'facts' made up from whole cloth. Not long ago we had an example of people insisting a pilot was too skilled to miss something that in the end turned out to be the likely cause. Long before that we had people arguing about the characteristics of a crash based on a photo of a different crash site. What's the point? Some of the 'eyeball engineering' and 'operational analysis' that comes out in these discussions is laughable. I will admit I learn from these examples, but what I learn seldom has anything to do with the accidents themselves.

Nauga,
and his singing porcupine
 
nauga said:
My aversion to it has nothing to do with anything nefarious or even casting aspersions. It's the attempt to reach a firm conclusion (and if you thing that doesn't happen you're not paying attention) with little data and 'facts' made up from whole cloth. Not long ago we had an example of people insisting a pilot was too skilled to miss something that in the end turned out to be the likely cause. Long before that we had people arguing about the characteristics of a crash based on a photo of a different crash site. What's the point? Some of the 'eyeball engineering' and 'operational analysis' that comes out in these discussions is laughable. I will admit I learn from these examples, but what I learn seldom has anything to do with the accidents themselves.

Nauga,
and his singing porcupine
Click to expand...

thank you -- a new fav!

 
nauga said:
My aversion to it has nothing to do with anything nefarious or even casting aspersions. It's the attempt to reach a firm conclusion (and if you thing that doesn't happen you're not paying attention) with little data and 'facts' made up from whole cloth. Not long ago we had an example of people insisting a pilot was too skilled to miss something that in the end turned out to be the likely cause. Long before that we had people arguing about the characteristics of a crash based on a photo of a different crash site. What's the point? Some of the 'eyeball engineering' and 'operational analysis' that comes out in these discussions is laughable. I will admit I learn from these examples, but what I learn seldom has anything to do with the accidents themselves.

Nauga,
and his singing porcupine
Click to expand...

All that said, the forums would go awfully quiet if everyone just took known facts and only added commentary based on what was irrevocably correct, lol.
 
A very relevant post given the rampant speculation that takes place on aviation mishaps. But the dangers of prematurely jumping to conclusions is relevant far beyond diagnosing the cause of crashes.

Unfortunately as @midwestpa24 points out, our culture is impatient. Not only do we want definitive, concrete answers but we want them now. I think if we're honest with ourselves a lot of us will sadly be content accepting a half-baked answer now in lieu of a more informed one 3 months from now, and that's a recipe for coming to the wrong conclusion.

What's worse is when you find people who anchor to the original idea. As more facts come to light they invent increasingly improbable avenues to explain how their original answer could still be correct. Whenever you see this behavior you know truth isn't the motive so much as the person's desire to be correct or retain their credibility.

Speculation can be a valuable tool in exploring possibilities, but you always have to treat it as just that, speculation.
(And for the love of god, if you do speculate use the wisdom of Occam's Razor when doing so -- otherwise we all end up listening to tin-foil hat explanations for otherwise should-be simple things)
 
I was heavily criticized and was told I wasn’t a “good” back country pilot because I didn’t want to listen to Gryders theory on the otter crash in Washington.
Well, turns out Gryder was wrong, again.

Too many people watch these YouTube guys, and worship their every word.
 
I'm probably going to be banned for this, but I truly wonder how many have died from vaccine misinformation. I'm certain the answer is greater than zero and less than 1 million (roughly the number who have perished from COVID) but I don't know what it is and I doubt anyone else does either.
 
Lowflynjack said:
So with so much speculation on the internet, I started thinking about the harm that can come from it. Pilots will almost always have an opinion on a crash, even when they have little facts. Then you get the guys who make money off of their videos by sharing their uninformed opinions, and their desire to be the first to report on accidents and some of them have been proven to be dishonest. Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story...

"The misinformation effect refers to the impairment in memory for the past that arises after exposure to misleading information."

I was at a little airport in Central Texas the other day, Marlin. My pilot friend who was with me asked, "Isn't this the airport where that girl Cinnamon crashed the 206?" Maybe she was flying, maybe she wasn't. There were two pilots in the plane, but DG decided she was flying because her low time made her make a bad decision on a go-around and she stalled it. No proof and with audio of the male pilot making the calls, there's at least some reason to think he may have been flying. He had to get his uniformed opinion out there before someone else said it first, that's how he gets followers. Even though he's backed off of his theory, people remember it as her causing the crash.

On the recent 170 crash, I've seen a lot of people saying it was a stall/spin. Makes sense, that's what it looks like. Then the speculation starts. He had tundra tires and these STOL guys are trying to land slower and slower. It was very gusty, he was probably trying to do a very short landing and a gust got him. Blah, blah, blah... what if a cable broke? What if someone had a medical issue? Why do we need to come to a conclusion right now? Why do we want to be first?

What really got me thinking about this? I was supposed to fly with a guy soon for an upcoming story. I got an email saying that when he was taxiing out, he passed out, ran into a fence and totaled his plane. Turns out he had an undiagnosed brain tumor this may have been the best case scenario! If he'd taken off and passed out, stalled and died on impact, the internet sleuths would have picked it apart. Luckily he's still around, will get the surgery he needs, and be back in the air again someday.

That's my rant. Pick me apart!
Click to expand...

I was assuming DG meant directional gyro, but your sentence did not make any sense. I assumed you had poor grammar. Several posts later, I figured out what you were talking about. My mental acuity must be a slowing down due to age.
 
SkyChaser said:
It's been a long time since I read about this, but I think it's less to do with misinformation and more to do with what story someone hears first.
Click to expand...
I think a big factor is what some people *want* the answer to be. "Had to be a medical incapacitation, he was too good of a pilot," etc. Then you have those who are just plain pushing a political stance, such as the claim that the Dallas midair was due to a Covid vaccination.

Ron Wanttaja
 
I will go out on a limb and say that there is some value is amateur accident analysis (but not the type who use it for making profit). This is not like an airliner that crashes in the middle of an ocean. You have flightaware data, METAR reports, Google Earth, eye witnessess reports (all of whom have been interviewed by TV) and certificate level of the pilot. All of this is public information. NTSB doesn't have a whole lot more than that, except toxicological data and bits and pieces of the aircraft. Rarely (maybe never) have I come across an NTSB report that made a vastly different conclusion than the initial amateur analysis. Also, by the time the NTSB report comes out, most people have forgotten about the accident altogether. If we don't talk about it here and speculate on causes, we will never learn about these accidents.
 
After a fatal at the airport next to me last Friday, I've heard all the speculation. Medical event, fuel starvation, engine failure, was too low and clipped the trees.

The guy owned the airport and was a steward for our aviation community. Saved the airport from a future housing development buying it in foreclosure. Overall generous and good soul and the world needs more like him. I really don't want to hear the bs speculation. Things can just suck and be sad for a bit...until the authorities actually investigate and release findings
 
sarangan said:
I will go out on a limb and say that there is some value is amateur accident analysis (but not the type who use it for making profit).
Click to expand...
Oooo, I'm wounded. :)

One of my favorite engineering bosses had an embroidered sampler on the wall of his office: "The purpose of analysis is INSIGHT, not Bull****." Don't know how he got his dear sainted mother to embroider Bull****, but he did.

It's a very key point. You're trying to gather evidence that might prevent another accident in the future. You have to keep your mind open to the potential for unusual circumstances, but always go where the data takes you.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
You have to keep your mind open to the potential for unusual circumstances, but always go where the data takes you.
Click to expand...
...and please PLEASE understand that data must be vetted, and "I found it online" is not vetting.

And for the love of all things analytical, Occam's Razor does not mean the simplest explanation *you* can think of, with no substantiable data when such data exist, is the most likely.

Nauga,
and his data pedigree
 
There is no harm in speculation as long as it is within reasonable bounds of good faith and civility. I learn something from almost every accident discussion on POA.
 
Ed Haywood said:
There is no harm in speculation as long as it is within reasonable bounds of good faith and civility.
Click to expand...
My issue is not with the faith or the civility, it's frustration with the bull**** passed off as insight (thanks Ron!) and the poor assumptions and conclusions that go along with that.

Ed Haywood said:
I learn something from almost every accident discussion on POA.
Click to expand...
Me too. But mostly about armchair psychology.

Nauga,
who has been there
 
Ed Haywood said:
There is no harm in speculation as long as it is within reasonable bounds of good faith and civility. I learn something from almost every accident discussion on POA.
Click to expand...
For the incident near me, someone told me they heard from someone else that the guy that landed several minutes after him saw him slumped over.

Yeah, not in an extra 300 and if they did why'd they wait an hour to call ems?
 
I don't think this effect is new, or even worse than it used to be. Jumping to extremes, I'm thinking of Salem witch trials, or the US declaring war on Spain because a ship blew up.

To me, the danger is in suppressing the misinformation. Because if we've learned anything from history, what seems like misinformation can actually be the truth, and because suppressing ideas, even goofy ones, gives more rather than less credibility to the conspiracy people. Or in other words, lets people say goofy things, and let people collectively figure it out. It's one reason I miss the "weekly world news", and stories like "B-25 found on moon".
 
No picking you apart, decent rant.

I do believe there is learning value in discussing possible causes for those not involved in the investigation (in other words, all of the rest of us). Those discussions can’t happen without speculation and assumptions. I’m all for open discussion, what ifs, etc. I think if used appropriately, it can be an informal training tool (like reading for instance).

I’ve often thought and said in here that an undiagnosed health issue causing an acute event that causes a crash or a simple bug (spider/bee) in the cabin are things that could be the all too often “pilot error CFIT” conclusion drawn. How would one ever know in general aviation?
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
I’ve often thought and said in here that an undiagnosed health issue causing an acute event that causes a crash or a simple bug (spider/bee) in the cabin are things that could be the all too often “pilot error CFIT” conclusion drawn. How would one ever know in general aviation?
Click to expand...

Medical conditions are occasionally found in autopsies. But unless people are being stung by “Three-step” spiders, there should be a percentage of non-fatal cases. They’re extremely rare, don’t think I’ve seen any in the homebuilt accident list.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Medical conditions are occasionally found in autopsies. But unless people are being stung by “Three-step” spiders, there should be a percentage of non-fatal cases. They’re extremely rare, don’t think I’ve seen any in the homebuilt accident list.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

On my spider/bee comment, I wasn’t thinking about a sting or bite. Rather I was thinking of the freak-out factor and the possibility of pilot error at that moment. An investigator would never be able to figure that out unless there was a recorded radio transmission and the pilot said something.

I’d add snakes to my list, but depending on the intactntness of the plane, the evidence of a blunt-force trauma killed snake carcass might be available for the accident investigator to consider. A dead bee or spider on the other hand would likely never be found, or simply leave the accident scene on its own 8 legs or wings.:)
 
sarangan said:
I was assuming DG meant directional gyro, but your sentence did not make any sense. I assumed you had poor grammar. Several posts later, I figured out what you were talking about. My mental acuity must be a slowing down due to age.
Click to expand...

Careful, if you ever have an incident someone may pull up this post and loudly proclaim your severe senility, and that you didn't even know you were in a cockpit :biggrin:
 
Albany Tom said:
I don't think this effect is new, or even worse than it used to be. Jumping to extremes, I'm thinking of Salem witch trials, or the US declaring war on Spain because a ship blew up.

To me, the danger is in suppressing the misinformation. Because if we've learned anything from history, what seems like misinformation can actually be the truth, and because suppressing ideas, even goofy ones, gives more rather than less credibility to the conspiracy people. Or in other words, lets people say goofy things, and let people collectively figure it out. It's one reason I miss the "weekly world news", and stories like "B-25 found on moon".
Click to expand...
I agree with you and have felt that way for as long as I have had feelings on the subject (since at least 1972).

But I think we are also living with the consequences of an era in which a combination social media and political enablement/expediency have allowed both goofy and dangerous to expand as never before in history to people whose belief systems are happy to accept them. That worries me on more than one level.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
Rather I was thinking of the freak-out factor and the possibility of pilot error at that moment. An investigator would never be able to figure that out unless there was a recorded radio transmission and the pilot said something.
Click to expand...
I recall a buddy who ended up loosing control and going off the road because of a bee. But he survived to tell the tale.

I would also mention that, in my admittedly limited experience, official court recognized "experts" sometimes aren't capable of finding their own ass with two hands and a flashlight...
 
nauga said:
I'm with you. I've been posting about why I dislike accident speculation since before POA was a thing. I've been called a troll many times, and worse I expect out of earshot, but also gotten a little support from some unusual sources. So much misinformation, so much bad analysis, so much ignorance, all rationalized as "that's how we learn." I've slacked off a bit recently just because I'm tired of tilting at windmills, and I've also noticed the acceptance of rampant speculation changes somewhat when 'one of us' is close to the accident. It's a start.

Nauga,
WAGging the dog
Click to expand...
I just try to be careful not to confuse speculation with evidence.
 
Last edited:
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
I recall a buddy who ended up loosing control and going off the road because of a bee. But he survived to tell the tale.
Click to expand...

I recall an accident report about 30 years ago where an aircraft crashed on takeoff, killing both occupants and a dog. Autopsy showed the dog had a plastic bag of treats lodged in his throat. Conclusion was the dog got in their baggage, started choking on the bag, and the distraction caused the pilot to stall/spin.

Like almost all accidents, there is a good pilot lesson to be learned. A properly trimmed aircraft will maintain hands off climb at Vy, reducing the pilot's workload in the event of a distraction. Whether it was a factor in the dog accident is speculative (horrors!!!), but still a useful principle to be reminded of.

Also recall a report about a cat getting loose and fleeing into the very far end of the tail cone, causing the aircraft to be out of balance Aft. Apparently that cat did not realize its proper role was as a G-meter.
 
Last edited:
455 Bravo Uniform said:
I’d add snakes to my list, but depending on the intactntness of the plane, the evidence of a blunt-force trauma killed snake carcass might be available for the accident investigator to consider. A dead bee or spider on the other hand would likely never be found, or simply leave the accident scene on its own 8 legs or wings.:)
Click to expand...

Years ago I was training ultralight pilots and a student asked if I would ride with him to a club meeting about 65 miles away. He had a long wing Challenger and the wing roots were open inside the cockpit. As he was getting it out of the hangar a very large, cornbread fed, wharf rat came running out of the wing and landed in the middle of the rear seat (where I was soon to be sitting) and then bounded out on the ground and disappeared behind the building. Had he waited a few more moments before exiting the takeoff would have been very interesting!

Had to toss a tree frog once. He was becoming quite a distraction by bouncing all around the cockpit and upsetting the student. Quick grab and toss took care of that. We were over some swamp area so I just yelled at him to "web out" on the way down ...
 
wanttaja said:
Oooo, I'm wounded. :)

One of my favorite engineering bosses had an embroidered sampler on the wall of his office: "The purpose of analysis is INSIGHT, not Bull****." Don't know how he got his dear sainted mother to embroider Bull****, but he did.

It's a very key point. You're trying to gather evidence that might prevent another accident in the future. You have to keep your mind open to the potential for unusual circumstances, but always go where the data takes you.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

Your data posts are always extremely insightful.
 
Maybe it would help if we clearly label when we are speculating/brainstorming.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
On my spider/bee comment, I wasn’t thinking about a sting or bite. Rather I was thinking of the freak-out factor and the possibility of pilot error at that moment. An investigator would never be able to figure that out unless there was a recorded radio transmission and the pilot said something.

I’d add snakes to my list, but depending on the intactntness of the plane, the evidence of a blunt-force trauma killed snake carcass might be available for the accident investigator to consider. A dead bee or spider on the other hand would likely never be found, or simply leave the accident scene on its own 8 legs or wings.:)
Click to expand...
All is certainly possible. For my homebuilt accident database, I have about 55 specific categories to classify accidents. Out of the ~4550 accidents, there are 22 listed as "Other" and 71 as "Undetermined". Some of the latter are due to the aircraft wreckage not being found but most have some sort of activity noted. MIA05LA126, for instance: "'The abrupt steep pitch-up during the initial climb for undetermined reasons resulting in an inadvertent stall, uncontrolled descent, and in-flight collision with terrain." Could have been due to the sudden appearance of some sort of boojum. Most, though, have some sort of other circumstances described. If they happen often enough, I create a new category for them.

And, while one would expect to find some level of spider/snake involvement in the non-fatal accidents, the pilot's ego is likely to come into play: The grizzled aviator involved is probably less likely to admit he bent the airplane due to some less-than-manly reaction. I once had a spider drop out of the visor in my old 150 when I was on short final, and I Do Not Like Spiders. Had I subsequently botched the landing, I probably would have mumbled something about the sun being in my eye, or a coyote on the runway, or.....

Still, the fact is there's little evidence of this being a common cause of accidents.

Ron Wanttaja
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top