This question is directed more to the commercial airline industry than private pilots and private aircraft. Of course, any private pilots with extensive experience are free to assist here. Superstition in some fields is well know. What comes to mind at the moment is professional baseball. NASCAR has its set of superstitions. Another would be ocean-going ships and their crews.
But do superstitions exist in the commercial airline industry? If an aircraft has a series of nagging “problems,” do airline personnel try to get reassigned to other aircraft, or even refuse to fly aboard it because of superstition? This question is prompted by this news story out of Australia where a QANTAS 747 that suffered a mid-air explosion at 29,000 feet now has suffered another incident on the ground while being towed for maintenance.
I spent 15 years flying Boeings for a major. I also spent 8 years flying jets for USAF. I’ve never heard of any pilot in either organization having superstitions like that.
We did ocasionally run into flight attendants who said things you could call superstitious about airplanes or routes or … But that was usually just after they explained how their parakeet was a Taurus & that’s why they were late for work. In other words, a flake so flakey even the other flakes noticed.
Yes. As noted above, flight attendants, for instance, have a variety of superstitions. Some airlines do not have a row labeled 13, but others do.
This is more complicated. An educated guess based on extensive study of superstition would be that (1) commercial airline superstitions largely continue the superstitions of older forms of commercial transport (rail and ship); (2) these superstitions are much less prominent, because superstitions thrive in a climate of risk, chance, or games [as with your sports examples above], but the airline regulations, esp. safety regulations, leave as little as possible to chance or risk, and (3) these superstitions would be less prominent because in general there is less tolerance for superstitious practices in international corporate culture, unless it is to manipulate them to make a buck. For this case in particular, the airlines seem to take pains to reduce the personality of the individual airships, giving them numbers rather than names and discussing them more often by model number (777, 737) anyway.
I think a reasonable person can refuse to fly on a plane that has both exploded in mid-air and crashed while on the ground without resorting to superstition.
Why? Once it’s fixed it’s as likely to have another incident as any of the others in the fleet. It didn’t “crash” on the ground, the wingtip of one clipped the nose of another while being towed by engineering.
I call two huge things hitting each other a crash.
How much stress did this last incident put on the wing and other parts of the plane? Is it possible that parts of the plane developed micro stress fractures that might be undetectable until they fail? Could this failure possibly be catastrophic?
This line of reasoning leads me to believe that once this plane is fixed it is more likely to have another incident than others in the fleet.
Do the Ghosts of Flight 401 count? IIRC, equipment salvaged from a crashed plane was removed from other planes in the fleet because of spoooky goings on.
I was on a flight on Friday that didn’t have a row 13. It also didn’t have a row 11, for some unknown reason. This was in the area of the emergency exit rows.
Well the thing will be inspected to make sure it hasn’t suffered that sort of damage. These kinds of ground incidents aren’t unheard of. Anyway, if there is any reasonable suspicion that the aircraft is likely to have further problems then it won’t be allowed to fly.
My wife is a former flight attendant. I never heard about superstitions about certain planes or routes per se, but some hotels they’d stay at would have a reputation for being haunted.
If parallel threads develop, I’d like to see someone address superstition in the healthcare industry, and especially nursing. I browsed a thread in a nursing career board once that had page after page after page of hair-raising stories.
Do you know what undetectable means? Did you read my link?
I’m not saying that this plane is for sure going to crash. What I’m saying is that this plane will probably never be as good as new and there’s a non-zero chance that damage it suffered now could cause catastrophic failure in the future.
But the aeroplane wasn’t new. The question is whether it is as good as it was. Post inspection it is impossible to say. It may be better than it was as it will have had items replaced and inspections carried out that would not normally happen on an undamaged aircraft.
I think the non-zero chance is so small that a reasonable persons could NOT refuse to fly on it. Do you think if a crew refused to fly on it the company (or anyone) would say “oh well fair enough we’ll get someone else to fly it”?
Brussels Airlines changed their logo last year (a letter ‘b’ made up of 13 dots) after complaints from customers. I wonder if potential employees stayed away because of it?
No I hadn’t, because I was busy and have read several similar accident reports over the years.
Now I have taken the time to read it and I don’t think it says what you think it says. The accident was caused by metal fatigue due to an incorrect repair. The thing is, there’s a chance for poor engineering and maintenance to cause problems throughout an aircraft’s life regardless of whether the maintenance is scheduled or not. American Airlines flight 191 crashed due to prior damage caused by poor engine changing procedures. Do you think a reasonable person can refuse to fly an aircraft that has had an engine change?
My point is that, as you probably know, there are many factors that ultimately come together to cause a crash. A history of damage may be a factor, as may be maintenance procedures, weather, flying procedures, training, management, company culture etc. It would be as reasonable to refuse to fly in that one Qantas aircraft as it would be to refuse to fly to Sydney today because it’s raining and requires an instrument approach.
Superstition has no place on the flight deck of an airliner. The airplane is tested and certified. The mechanics are trained, we are trained and the controllers are trained.
I would rather fly an airplane that has been damaged and repaired than fly with another pilot who said he was superstitious. And I have flown airplanes that have undergone major repairs, with no ill effects. I have yet to fly with another pilot who was overtly superstitious (and I’ve been flying for a living for 18 years).
