dvis3yzawwgr9p4du4g7rcqsie1vi7

Why Are “Accidents” Termed “Mishaps” in the Military?

Published on

in

,

Have you ever noticed the military does not use the term “accident” or “accident investigation?” They use the term “mishap.” The reason, I think, is that all these “unintended occurrences” are driven by human actions and not some invisible “hand of god.” The term “accident” seems dismissive like “stuff happens” or the passive voice “it broke.” In this larger viewpoint, there are really no “accidents,” without cause. There is always a chain of events and actions that lead to a “mishap.” Learning requires taking responsibility, and a “mishap investigation” usually gets to the root cause. A lot can be learned from careful analysis and examination. MIshap investigations reveal an active path of flawed decisions and/or activity. There is usually some negligence and lack of vigilance involved too. A “mishap investigation” seeks to really drill down on this series of events and learn/improve from each occurrence.

When loss of life or equipment occurs (or the Space X “rapid unplanned disassembly”RUD) the military investigates each very comprehensively and uncovers the series of steps that led up to the unfortunate end result. The motivation of each investigation is an improvement or more comprehensive knowledge. This is a positive motivation, to seek a better, more efficient and successful, system. Hopefully, this prevents similar unhappy results in the future.

This grammatical distinction may seem trivial to some, but I would argue this inspires a whole different mindset in how we regard these events. The word “accident” is dismissive. “Accident” seems to say, “it happened” by some outside force. The legal definition seems to bear out this perspective:

“Accident” in law : “an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which legal relief may be sought”

Even if an outcome is desirable, every organization and pilot should reflect constantly on their performance. This is the only way to improve. As mentioned in many other blogs, a successful outcome by itself is not always a cause for celebration and reinforcement of those procedures. We must always reflect after every activity asking important questions: “Were proper procedures and skillful execution the reason for success or did we luck out?” Is the final outcome repeatable or desirable following SOPs?” Fly safely out there (and often)!


See our website and “social wall” HERE

Join SAFE and get great benefits. You get 1/3 off ForeFlight and your membership supports our mission of increasing aviation safety by promoting excellence in education.  Our FREE SAFE Toolkit App puts required pilot endorsements and experience requirements right on your smartphone and facilitates CFI+DPE teamwork. Our CFI insurance was developed by SAFE specifically for CFIs (and is the best value in the business).  10 Tools for New CFIs Here


7 responses to “Why Are “Accidents” Termed “Mishaps” in the Military?”

  1. David St. George Avatar
    David St. George

    Testing comments…new blog format soon!

  2. Dudley Henriques Avatar
    Dudley Henriques

    David and I are running an MIR. (Military for “Major Incident Report” on the blog.
    This post is a test.

  3. David St. George Avatar
    David St. George

    OK, Dudley…I think we got you back “on the air!” Thanks for your persistence, your input is always valuable (and appreciated)!

    1. Dudley Henriques Avatar
      Dudley Henriques

      I think we nailed it.

  4. Michael Hare Avatar
    Michael Hare

    It’s been a few years but I thought when the Air Force suffered a loss they would initiate two boards. The first was an Accident Board that would technically figure out what happened. The second was a Safety Board which was aimed more at the why of an incident. Between the two they’d decide what changes were needed to prevent a reoccurrence.

    1. Jeff Edwards Avatar
      Jeff Edwards

      One board was convened for legal reasons… the other for safety reasons. The two boards were independent and did not share privileged information. True across all branches of service. I was a Naval Safety Center IIC.

  5. Jeff Edwards Avatar
    Jeff Edwards

    There are two boards… legal and safety. They are separate boards and do not share priveleged information. All military branches follow these Olivier. I was a Naval Safety Center IIC.

Tell us what *you* think!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


Thanks for Visiting!

Thank you for visiting the SAFE Blog. There are over 500 specifically tailored articles covering a wide range of aviation issues related to flight training both as a pilot and as a CFI. Search HERE for a specific article, and Join SAFE

Please try our new AI Tool (Chat 5.2 trained on SAFE Blog content) for your specific topics of answers to your aviation questions. SAFE crafted AI Tool


Notification Here!

Stay updated with our latest tips and other news by joining our newsletter.


Free SAFE Toolkit App

Everything a busy CFI needs at their fingertips, *plus* resources for pilot applicants: “Checkride Ready” (with all the DPE advice on how to pass your practical test) FREE Download

Discover more from Aviation Ideas and Discussion!

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading