Plane Crashes: To Know or Not To Know

 

4527144457_1ed822dac5_zOn Thursday morning, we woke up to the horrific news that the German Wings co-pilot deliberately crashed the Airbus plane into the French Alps, instantly killing all those on board. I have so much trouble wrapping my head around this sickening development to an already tragic story. The most chilling detail came from the prosecutor who’s now investigating: “Death was instant. You only hear screams in final seconds.”

Imagining the terror experienced by the passengers and crew in the moments before impact is the stuff of nightmares. Seeing tiny fragments of a once huge airliner — and thinking about the actual disintegration of so many innocent human beings — is something that literally makes me nauseous. Family and friends who are grieving, are now probably also angry and confused. The company has to be wondering what signs they might have missed in this co-pilot.

Just over a year ago, Malaysian Airlines flight 370 disappeared somewhere between Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and Beijing, China. It is presumed that everyone on board died, although what exactly happened is still a mystery to this day.

It made me start to ponder which is better: Knowing, or not knowing, what caused a plane crash?

I asked the question on Twitter.  Some said they would want to know:

https://twitter.com/rwgranny/status/581069358446727170

Others said they didn’t want to know:

https://twitter.com/gilla5490/status/581069688928518145

One person said neither:

So I pose this question to you, the readers of Ricochet: If you lost someone in a plane crash, would you want to know exactly what happened, or not?

Image Credit: Flickr user croustibat51. A Germanwings A320, taken in 2010. 

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 54 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Songwriter Inactive
    Songwriter
    @user_19450

    I’d wanna know.

    • #1
  2. civil westman Inactive
    civil westman
    @user_646399

    Yes, I would want to know – my imagination is likely worse. Perhaps more importantly, the main response will be that we will have to “do something” to prevent this in the future. Prepare yourself for another layer of bureaucracy to continually evaluate pilots’ mental health. Trouble is, there is a long history of failure in the ability of experts to predict dangerousness. As with so many bureaucratic programs, there will be noise, furiously spinning wheels, smoke and little or no forward motion.

    This is near and dear to the hearts of statists who forever claim more coercive power in order to “protect us.” The sad fact is that many of their programs are failures with unintended bad consequences. This will be, too. Here is one of many examples of the fact that we are not perfectible by the state.

    • #2
  3. user_645127 Lincoln
    user_645127
    @jam

    I think I would want to know. More knowledge means more ability to prevent future crashes due to the same reason.

    • #3
  4. Israel P. Inactive
    Israel P.
    @IsraelP

    Absolutely.

    • #4
  5. user_157053 Member
    user_157053
    @DavidKnights

    I think we are jumping to conclusions here. (This happens a lot with the pressure of the 24hr news cycle.)  I don’t think investigators know for sure that the co-pilot crashed the plane.  Let the investigation play out and in 6 months from now we may have a pretty good idea of the cause.  Now, we are just speculating and as Mr. Holmes use to say:

    ‘It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.’-S. Holmes

    • #5
  6. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    That’s a bit of a silly question, isn’t it? If one didn’t know why no one would ever fly again.

    • #6
  7. 1967mustangman Inactive
    1967mustangman
    @1967mustangman

    David Knights:I think we are jumping to conclusions here. (This happens a lot with the pressure of the 24hr news cycle.) I don’t think investigators know for sure that the co-pilot crashed the plane. Let the investigation play out and in 6 months from now we may have a pretty good idea of the cause. Now, we are just speculating and as Mr. Holmes use to say:

    ‘It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.’-S. Holmes

    I am not sure this conclusion is supportable any more.  There is a door opening mechanism for those outside the cockpit to enter if the door is locked, but the occupant/occupants of the cockpit can actively override this.  In the scenario the prosecutors have laid out you can hear the pilot trying to break down the cockpit door.  He would only resort to this after trying the cockpit entry mechanism and being denied by the cockpit occupant.  If the co-pilot was incapacitated or dead the pilot could have easily gained entry to the cockpit and recovered the aircraft.

    • #7
  8. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    David Knights:I think we are jumping to conclusions here. (This happens a lot with the pressure of the 24hr news cycle.) I don’t think investigators know for sure that the co-pilot crashed the plane. Let the investigation play out and in 6 months from now we may have a pretty good idea of the cause. Now, we are just speculating and as Mr. Holmes use to say:

    ‘It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.’-S. Holmes

    I don’t trust the news or a non-flying prosecutor to get the facts straight so soon. Remember CNN told us the Malaysian flight was swallowed by a black hole.

    • #8
  9. iWc Coolidge
    iWc
    @iWe

    We have data. We do not have complete data – but we never get all the data.

    We have enough to see that there was no mechanical fault. That the co-pilot reprogrammed the autopilot to crash. That the pilot could not get in.

    The door may have been mis-designed, but that, too, is an unintended consequence of bad post-911 requirements.

    • #9
  10. The King Prawn Inactive
    The King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    I personally have no opinion on knowing or not knowing. Our society, however, must know. There are torts to deal with after all.

    • #10
  11. iWc Coolidge
    iWc
    @iWe

    I think that the question is ghoulish and unproductive. Wallowing in thoughts of oncoming death is unbecoming of Ricochet conversation.

    We can – and should – ask how to fix things that are broken.

    • #11
  12. user_989419 Inactive
    user_989419
    @ProbableCause

    It’s important to know.  Is this a one-time incident?  Or a trend?

    • #12
  13. EstoniaKat Inactive
    EstoniaKat
    @ScottAbel

    Probable Cause:It’s important to know. Is this a one-time incident? Or a trend?

    I posted this on another thread; The Crash of EgyptAir 990.

    Eerily similar.

    • #13
  14. Mendel Inactive
    Mendel
    @Mendel

    David Knights:I think we are jumping to conclusions here. I don’t think investigators know for sure that the co-pilot crashed the plane. Let the investigation play out and in 6 months from now we may have a pretty good idea of the cause.

    I just watched the press conference (in German) by Carsten Stohr, the CEO of Lufthansa. Based on his statements, his reactions, and his tone, it appears he is also nearly convinced of the deliberately-crashed narrative (his few standard legal caveats notwithstanding).

    If there is anyone with a great deal of insider knowledge and an even greater incentive to keep people from jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions, it’s probably Mr. Stohr.

    • #14
  15. Doctor Robert Member
    Doctor Robert
    @DoctorRobert

    Was the suicidal pilot a Muslim? Remember Egypt Air 990.

    • #15
  16. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    What is Germanwings market?

    Everything seems to be marketed in English, from the name to the website. Why Germanwings and not Deutscheflügel?

    • #16
  17. iWc Coolidge
    iWc
    @iWe

    EJHill:What is Germanwings market?

    Everything seems to be marketed in English, from the name to the website. Why Germanwings and not Deutscheflügel?

    The Germans do not have the French penchant for insisting on their own language. English remains the universal language oon Planet Earth.

    • #17
  18. Ricochet Moderator
    Ricochet
    @PainterJean

    Yes, of course.

    • #18
  19. Ansonia Member
    Ansonia
    @Ansonia

    I’d want to know.

    • #19
  20. Mendel Inactive
    Mendel
    @Mendel

    iWc:

    EJHill:What is Germanwings market?

    Everything seems to be marketed in English, from the name to the website. Why Germanwings and not Deutscheflügel?

    The Germans do not have the French penchant for insisting on their own language. English remains the universal language oon Planet Earth.

    English also has great cachet among young Germans. Almost all products marketed toward younger Germans (and they are the prime market for low-cost, no-frills flights to Spanish beaches) use great amounts of English in their advertisements.

    • #20
  21. user_1126573 Member
    user_1126573
    @

    This post is unbelievable.

    “Morning! Hope your enjoying your coffee. Question for ya, if you’re loved ones were obliterated in a horrific explosion against the side of a mountain, would you want to know why?”

    Are you kidding me?

    Morbid and grotesque hypotheticals that have no intellectual or philosophical value for $1000 please, Alex.

    • #21
  22. user_348375 Member
    user_348375
    @

    I’d want to know, but only to make sure any malfeasance is properly punished, not because I’d like to armchair quarterback the investigators.

    • #22
  23. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Not a terrorist attack. Workplace violence, right?

    • #23
  24. user_348375 Member
    user_348375
    @

    Probable Cause:It’s important to know. Is this a one-time incident? Or a trend?

    For investigators.  The public like us has no clue how to evaluate the data.

    • #24
  25. user_348375 Member
    user_348375
    @

    Bryan G. Stephens:Not a terrorist attack. Workplace violence, right?

    Jokes in the context of 150 people atomized.  Congrats.

    • #25
  26. Cameron Gray Inactive
    Cameron Gray
    @CameronGray

    John Wilson:This post is unbelievable.

    “Morning! Hope your enjoying your coffee. Question for ya, if you’re loved ones were obliterated in a horrific explosion against the side of a mountain, would you want to know why?”

    Are you kidding me?

    Morbid and grotesque hypotheticals that have no intellectual or philosophical value for $1000 please, Alex.

    Sorry to ruin your morning coffee, but I think there is huge philosophical value here.  It’s your choice to focus on the morbid part, I am focusing on the would you want to know part.  Cameron

    • #26
  27. user_1126573 Member
    user_1126573
    @

    What value do you gain from learning the personal preferences of how others might want to deal with horrific personal tragedy? You think there is a right answer to this question? You think there is some broadly applicable, life enriching principle to be gleaned?

    This is bizarre morbid curiosity, period.

    • #27
  28. 9thDistrictNeighbor Member
    9thDistrictNeighbor
    @9thDistrictNeighbor

    At first glance, I thought the question dealt with whether or not you as a passenger would want to know that the plane was going to crash. We know that the souls on 9/11 knew what was happening. We are told that the souls aboard this flight only screamed at the very end. Obviously a much different question.

    • #28
  29. iWc Coolidge
    iWc
    @iWe

    Tom Riehl:

    Probable Cause:It’s important to know. Is this a one-time incident? Or a trend?

    For investigators. The public like us has no clue how to evaluate the data.

    Nonsense.

    For starters, you clearly have no idea who the “us” in the conversation are.

    And for finishers: Don’t fall into appeals to authority.

    • #29
  30. user_86050 Inactive
    user_86050
    @KCMulville

    Suppose all the facts come in and we find out that the co-pilot was committing suicide. OK, that’s a crucial piece of knowledge that would explain this particular event. I’m not sure we could use that knowledge to improve the future. Pilots already go through a lot of training, and they already screen out the people who betray clues to possible problems in the future. How should we change our approach to forestall this happening in the future? I’m not sure we can do anything that’ll really help; it would likely be nothing more than a new layer of ineffective hoop-jumping that’s added only to entrench the illusion of “doing something.”

    On a personal level, would I want to “know” what was happening as the plane went into crisis? Remember that this was a developing situation at the time. The terror that they experienced before their deaths was also a period of time in which something might have been able to change the outcome. It’s a two-edged sword, therefore. If I’m on a plane that’s about to go down, I don’t want the terror, of course, but I certainly would like the opportunity to try and change the outcome. Given a choice between both and neither, I’d take both; anything to give me a fighting chance to change the outcome.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.