This video was made possible by Raycon.
Get top-quality, comfortable, and surprisingly affordable wireless earbuds for 15% off at
buyraycon.com/wendover.
Just about once every three days, somewhere in the world, a large commercial passenger
plane crashes.
Most of these are not hugely catastrophic because most of these are fatality-free.
Of the 1,070 recorded crashes in the 2010s decade, only 112 proved fatal.
Even of these, the vast majority of passengers survive an average fatal crash.
In fact, half of all deaths from airline crashes in the previous decade are from just twelve
incidents.
That’s to say, most fatal aircraft accidents are not the kinds you see in movies—the
kinds where there are few or no survivors.
Most are more minor incidents with just one or two or a few more unlucky victims.
The industry, though, does not view them that way.
The truth is that people fear airplanes an irrational amount, so in order for air travel
to be as commonplace as it is, they require a standard of safety far higher than any other
method of transport.
Safety and profitability go hand in hand for airlines.
Despite this, though, accidents are effectively an inevitability for any of the largest airlines.
Statistically, some of these largest airlines are also some of the safest, yet none are
100% safe.
Therefore, with enough flying, an accident will happen.
All ten of the world’s largest airlines have had fatal accidents in their histories
and so, with this level of inevitability, airlines must have a strictly defined plan
for what to do after one of their airplanes crash.
So, let’s say an accident happens.
This will almost certainly have something to do with landing or taking off.
The overwhelming majority of accidents involve the runway, however, if an accident is fatal,
it is much more likely that it has to do with a loss of control inflight or a controlled
crash into terrain.
Runway accidents represent more than ninety percent of accidents, but only account for
twenty-five percent of fatal accidents.
The airline really never is the first responder to an accident.
That is typically firefighters and other emergency personnel, but as soon as word of an accident
reaches them, the airline will begin to mobilize.
Almost every airline out there will have what’s called a “go-team.”
This is a group of people, typically working at the airline’s headquarters, who train
to be part of the crisis response function on top of their ordinary jobs.
With larger airlines, this go-team can be comprised of as many as hundreds of individuals
filling a huge variety of functions.
Larger, long-haul airlines might also have smaller teams comprised of people working
at their outstations who can more quickly get to crash sites while the main team travels
from a headquarters.
Now, each airline will have different procedures and protocols, but there are lose standards
adopted by all.
Typically within three to four hours of a crash, an airline's go-team will have assembled
and taken off from the headquarter’s airport.
Usually, a standby flight crew and aircraft would be used for this dedicated flight.
With them, they’d bring a go-kit.
Considering accidents can happen quite literally anywhere, this would include all sorts of
things like satellite communications equipment, food, water, cooking equipment, personal protective
equipment, warm clothing, tents, generators, tools, and more.
The team’s personnel are typically split up into dealing with three main areas: crisis
support, humanitarian support, and communications.
Each of these would likely be split up into a forward team and rear team.
If the crash occurs in a remote location, for example, the forward team, including the
mos t essential members of each of the larger teams, would likely go to the crash site and
set up a literal base camp using the equipment in the go-kit.
Meanwhile, the rear team might set up in the nearest town with accommodations and facilities.
At the crash site, a triage area is set up away and upwind from the aircraft wreckage.
This might be done by some of the crisis-response go-team members, or by emergency personnel.
There, individuals would be split up into three groups—deceased, injured, and uninjured.
The deceased and injured would typically be cared for by firefighters, medics, and other
emergency personnel, whereas the airline go-team would likely deal with the uninjured passengers.
The rear go-team will have, meanwhile, set up a survivor reception center—usually at
a nearby hotel—and arranged transportation to that site.
The largest group in the go-team is typically the humanitarian assistance team which is
made up of volunteers among the airlines’ customer service staff—flight attendants,
airport agents, and others.
By grouping the passengers together in one facility, the airline separates them from
media, and centralizes them for investigatory interviews and support functions.
The aircraft’s surviving crew will typically be dealt with by a different team which would
bring them to a different facility than the passengers—which is recommended for both
legal and public relations reasons.
Another subset of the humanitarian assistance team will set up a facility for friends and
family of the passengers near the accident site.
They might also set up a separate facility at the origin or destination of the flight—where
large clusters of friends and family might be.
The individuals there would be provided with updates as a group, and then would be sorted
so that friends and family of survivors would be brought to an area to reunite, whereas
others might be broken the news that their family member or friend has died.
The role of these family assistance centers is amplified in the case of crashes where
there is a significant, long-term search and rescue operation, as is often the case with
crashes into the ocean.
In the case of the Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 disappearance, for example, the family
assistance centers were in operation for two months.
The passenger and family assistance centers might need to house hundreds and thousands
of individuals, respectively, so the setup and functions of these is likely defined prior
to any accident.
Airlines will decide, for example, that they need a general lounge, a faith area, a psychological
assistance area, a press area, a phone and internet area, and more and more beforehand,
and then it’s just about deciding which area goes where once a location for the facility
is identified.
With this and all other response efforts, actions are proceduralized so that each member
of the team knows what to do, even in a fast-moving, chaotic scenario.
Away from the crash-site, airlines will set up a crisis command center in their headquarters,
including executives from each aspect of the airline’s operations in order to coordinate
their response.
In addition, a call center is often quickly set up and staffed to answer questions from
family and friends of passengers and the media.
This is just a small part of the overall communications efforts, though, because more than anything
else, probably the best thing an airline can do for themselves after an accident is communicate.
That’s why the third primary aspect of a go-team, beyond crisis and humanitarian response,
is communications.
After one of their aircraft crash, an airline is concerned with business continuity—they’re
concerned with how they’ll emerge from the other end of the incident—and so their communications
have to be strategic.
Crisis communications is a subset of public relations intended to minimize reputation
damage after an incident at a company.
Within this, airlines want to be sure that, to the extent possible, they are able to control
the narrative.
That means they need to communicate fast and loudly to drown out any other noise.
So, they put communications go-team members on-site to be able to disseminate accurate
information as fast as possible to the media, survivors, and family and friends.
There will also, however, be a team back at the airline HQ that will have to make more
methodical, strategic communications decisions.
Now, at the end of the day, there ends up being two main options for responding to an
incident: accepting blame or deferring blame.
Academic research into the matter shows that taking responsibility early typically leads
to a better public response and actually tends to decrease the size of settlements that end
up getting paid out, however, the risk one runs is that, by accepting responsibility,
this can open a company up to legal consequences.
Therefore, despite overwhelming evidence that it is not the prudent move, organizations
will often defer responsibility until it is absolutely certain that it is indeed their
fault.
If it is absolutely sure that an accident is not the airline’s fault, such as in the
case of aircraft manufacturing defects, deferring blame can actually shift public sentiment
to position the airline as a victim themselves, but the evidence for such cases typically
only becomes conclusive after years of investigation, so in the immediate aftermath of the crash
it can seem to the public as evading responsibility.
Therefore, deciding whether to take or shift blame is quite the tough choice for airlines.
One of the recent case studies in crisis communication involves Southwest Airlines Flight 1308 in
2018.
Shortly upon reaching cruise after its departure from LaGuardia Airport, its left engine failed
and fragments were flung into the aircraft fuselage.
With that, one window was broken and, due to the rapid decompression and fast-moving
debris, the passenger sitting next to that window died from her injuries.
The aircraft ended up landing safely and there were only minor injuries among the other passengers,
but for Southwest this was a major crisis.
It was the first aircraft accident fatality in the US since 2009, and their first ever.
Southwest essentially took responsibility right away—giving each passenger $5,000
in cash and $1,000 in flight credits.
They also, very quickly, issued empathetic, personable statements which, combined with
their prior positive reputation, were effective in persuading the public that they were truly
sorry.
The company also paused all marketing for a month to let the sensitive situation fade
away in public discourse, so, all told, this incident and its response cost them about
$100 million.
In the end, after the investigation was fully completed, it was determined that it probably
wasn’t Southwest’s fault.
The accident was caused by a tiny, largely invisible fatigue fracture on one of the engine
fan blades.
Southwest followed all maintenance and inspection protocols for this aircraft, but for some
reason these didn’t catch the issue.
Therefore, the protocols were updated after the fact.
Southwest went for the expensive yet effective crisis communication method.
If they had deferred blame, they might have been able to lose less money, but if in the
end it was found that they should bear some blame, this could result in significant reputational
damage.
In the immediate response to a plane crash, the incentives of the airline and victims
are often aligned because the public responds positively to positive treatment of the victims.
It is later on, though, where incentives increasingly split—victims often look for compensation,
airlines look to minimize their financial responsibility.
By that time, the public is no longer interested in a plane crash.
Crashes are interesting when there’s a burning pile of debris, not when a bunch of lawyers
are sitting in a courtroom.
Therefore, that’s exactly why airlines put a huge, disproportionate amount of planning,
money, and effort into the phase of response with the burning pile of debris.
It’s the most effective use of those resources and, at the end of the day, to airlines, airplane
crashes are a financial problem.
If you’re anything like me, you listen to music, podcasts, and audiobooks constantly
while working.
That means that you probably have earbuds in for many hours per day so it’s worth
making sure the ones you use are good.
Having now tried them, I can attest that Raycon’s wireless earbuds are good.
They have great audio quality and are super comfortable, yet they also stayed in perfectly
while I was out on a run, which was impressive.
Their everyday E25s have six hours of playtime, seamless bluetooth pairing, a compact noise-isolating
fit, and, most impressively, they cost about half as much as comparable premium wireless
earbuds.
On top of that, they’re an even better deal considering they’re giving Wendover viewers
15% off by going to buyraycon.com/wendover, and you’ll be supporting the channel with
your purchase.