Upon reflection ......

[Kip Powick]

Slow day out here…snow/wind/snow. Lots of time to reflect, actually I have been reflecting for a couple of days now. As always, hindsight is 20/20 but over time the ability to reflect on what has transpired may give one cause to rethink their thought process. I’m ‘talking’ about the post that many of us thought was an affront to the pilot that had a psychological incident that necessitated a diversion into Shannon.

I say “thought’ because upon reflection I am quite sure there was no malice intended, the post was merely one individuals method of invoking a bit of humour. I do not think he, Handyman, intended to insult, ridicule or cast dispersions on the individual, or the airline the individual worked for. It should be noted that many “frequent posters”, (myself included), glossed over his posting without nary a word and did not get on the “DELETE” bandwagon, (myself included), until a member, who has been a “lurker” since ’06 made his first post on AEF. Naturally that individual has the right to express his reaction to what he may have perceived as an inappropriate comment but I think some of the posts that followed, and concurred with his post, were the result of a knee-jerk reaction to hearing that a member of the brotherhood of pilots was likely being considered as “mentally unhinged”.

We seem to think of pilots as solid upstanding individuals, all “A” personalities, and certainly immune to any pressure, be it work, personal, family etc., and to have a pilot move out of the mold, especially in view of the public while on the job, is unthinkable. In that sense it is, in my opinion, human nature for most to not say or do anything in a public environment, the forum, that may reflect badly upon our profession, hence the anger at the post in question.

We then get into an area where we seem to be super sensitive about what we would call the poor individuals condition. It seems the phrase of the day is to be…”he fell ill” for it would be impolite and disrespectful if we called a spade a spade and said/posted that he had a psychological breakdown, for reasons unknown. I would not go as far as the British Press went in actually calling the fellow “crazy”, (the post in question never stated that either), but to sanitize his condition to the point of being outraged if someone states that he had/has an unexpected and unexplained mental problem which led to mental incapacity, is ridiculous….. The screams of, “what about his family, think of his family”, is another way of justifying sanitizing the incident but in actual fact I would think his family does not even know about AEF and if they did, could care less what anyone posted as that would not be their main concern at this time.

What do you think would be more hurtful to the family, reading the “questionable post”, the British tabloid headlines or even some of the Canadian media reports? As an aside, I don’t recall anyone being terribly upset about the fact that NW crews were charged with “attempted flying” while being impaired. The text being bantered around by everyone was “drunks” yet no one was concerned about using that terminology, with respect to their employer or the individual’s family.

In a nutshell, what I am saying is that I don’t think the cry for DELETE was justified, the post was not meant to demean anyone, it was probably done in haste and would have been of little consequence had it been left on the board. While the “super-sensitivity” of some is understandable, upon reflection I think it may have been an over reaction to a very unfortunate event, one that is now relegated to the back pages of the Press. Hopefully the individual makes a full recovery.

Just my opinion.....once again

[Don Hudson]

Kip;

I'm not much for categories but such makes it easier to intialize a discussion...

Respect for someone caught in "circumstances of probability" where, "there, but for the grace...etc" may apply, is granted precisely because we know that we ourselves may be similarly caught and would want a sympathetic public and private hearing. That respect acknowledges that "fault" lies not with the person but with "life's circumstances". In the arena of "public knowledge" where only the barest of facts are known, sympathy and respect are nevertheless granted and any clear sign of disrespect towards that social convention or the person involved attracts "swift response" perhaps because none of us would wish the same for ourselves. We might call this the first group.

The "gray area" in this could be respect for someone who, by "tragic fault" (the Shakespearean tragic flaw), has slipped "normalcy" and committed (relatively) unspeakable acts which are out of character seems genuinely towards the "victim" of such tragic faults in an otherwise good person. Perhaps the traditional seven deadly sins fall into this area. We could call this a second group - very loosely.

The third group could be those in which respect for someone who we expect "ought to know better but did it anyway" is not granted by society but instead it is "open season" on the person involved because "they ought to have known better". Clearly this "rule" applies more stringently the higher the social/economic status of the "perp".

The notion of "heresy" emerges from this vast category. The "raised eyebrow" is the first sign or level of such disrespect and we use it all the time to control conversation, control children and others, the "ante" being raised in ways familiar to us all - or most of us, anyway. That is the way social control works - we keep social "mavericks" in line through ridicule. Where the "need" is deemed greatest and the stakes for control highest, shunning is employed and is extremely effective.

This is why for example, the British tabloids are routinely seen as legendary idiots - they attack the first group, (which we see as "defenseless"), but pretend to be attacking the last.

In my view, handyman's post did the same thing and we saw what happened. It was a mildly "inappropriate" remark, (in quotes because, he, like all of us is entirely free to choose to make such comments and the "risks of consequences" (of social control) are well understood beforehand - in the end anything goes; there is no "automatically opprobrious" remarks). We traditionally grant wide berth (lots of respect) for those who "don't know". In the first two groups, social "consequences" are not nearly as clearly understood by those caught in such circumstances and that is likely the greatest reason for the respect for privacy traditionally granted those especially in the first group - we know, perhaps through personal experience, the enormous depth of hurt such "disrespect", especially if done in public, for someone in these circumstances can be and we wish to avoid that hurt for ourselves and therefore for others. The notions of "reputation" and "name" are related to this.

Good question, thanks. My 2c...I'm sure there are other interpretations.

[AIP]

One thing that has not come up yet in the whole "discussion" over this episode, is the fact that the Captain had a very, very difficult decision to make.

While I realsie that this is why Captains get the big bucks so to speak, there must have been some interesting moments out there in the middle of the atlantic and in the middle of the night.

Perhaps events unfolded to make the decision easier, but cheers to him for a job well done in the most trying of circumstances.

I hope he is doing allright as well.

[Don Hudson]

AIP;

The SOPs and training worked. That is the key here. The Captain's decision will have been made with many factors in mind, the least of which will be "what will others like the media, think?"

The other thing to bear in mind is, how many times the SOPs worked and neither the passengers nor the media knew about it. I'm not indicating that crew incapacitation happens often - it doesn't, but I've seen it, handled same, and the professionalism that emerges on the part of all crew members would impress even the most cynical and disrespectul of this British tabloid lot if they only knew. That this kind of a "splash" is made about one event when our industry handles abnormalities with calm, reasoned and trained response, says as much about the public's appetite for vicarious experiences, (but god forbid they should be involved themselves) as it does about the media's unseemly appetite to "research" and publish such crap. They have no idea how the real world works in this industry.

[AIP]

AIP;

The SOPs and training worked. That is the key here. The Captain's decision will have been made with many factors in mind, the least of which will be "what will others like the media, think?"

The other thing to bear in mind is, how many times the SOPs worked and neither the passengers nor the media knew about it. I'm not indicating that crew incapacitation happens often - it doesn't, but I've seen it, handled same, and the professionalism that emerges on the part of all crew members would impress even the most cynical and disrespectul of this British tabloid lot if they only knew. That this kind of a "splash" is made about one event when our industry handles abnormalities with calm, reasoned and trained response, says as much about the public's appetite for vicarious experiences, (but god forbid they should be involved themselves) as it does about the media's unseemly appetite to "research" and publish such crap. They have no idea how the real world works in this industry.

Thanks Don;

I get all that and agree wholeheartedly. I was referring to more of the personal side of the equation, the side that the SOP's do not cover.

Absolutely this fellow (I have worked with him), did the right thing. I was just wondering aloud how hard this would have been and hoping he is allright as well.

[Guest woxof]

We seem to think of pilots as solid upstanding individuals, all “A” personalities, and certainly immune to any pressure, be it work, personal, family etc., and to have a pilot move out of the mold, especially in view of the public while on the job, is unthinkable. In that sense it is, in my opinion, human nature for most to not say or do anything in a public environment, the forum, that may reflect badly upon our profession, hence the anger at the post in question.

Of course pilots are just people and vulnerable to the same issues as anyone else. In reality what kind of mental stability check is done on us. A question from the doctor once or twice a year depending on our age.

As far as I know at least two pilots at the same company have ended it all. One only told to me from someone else and a second who I knew. He was already on leave. The reality is this. If someone is suffering from a problem are they really going to tell the doctor about it and be immediately suspended, perhaps never to fly again with all the financial and career ramifications. It is a difficult situation to solve.

[Don Hudson]

AIP;

I was referring to more of the personal side of the equation, the side that the SOP's do not cover.

Ok I see - point well made - fully agree.