FlyArystan Case: when technical regulations don't save a reputation

New Year's Eve noise in the Kazakhstani information field is often seasoned with avia cases. The outgoing December was no exception. The "anti-crisis" on board the FlyArystan "not everything should work" gave rise to sad jokes on social networks, and the communicators were temporarily reminded of how important it is to be able to manage the perception of a communication message.

What happened?

The reason for the public outcry was a video posted on social media and picked up by many media outlets. On the recording, the aircraft commander, explaining the reasons for the delay, utters the phrase:

"Believe me, I've flown a lot of times when the device wasn't working. (…) This is a normal situation. Not everything has to work." It was this fragment that triggered the wave of negativity.:

What did the press service say?

As FlyArystan's press service later explained, the aircraft had a malfunction in the auxiliary power plant, an element responsible for power supply and air conditioning on the ground, as well as for starting the engines. "The APU does not affect the control of the aircraft in flight, but it is an important element of ground procedures, and if it does not work properly, the flight cannot be completed. Departure with a faulty APU is allowed in accordance with the List of minimum equipment. It was decided to use another aircraft to carry out the flight," the airline's press service quoted Zakon.kz.

What the audience heard

Formally, the airline operated strictly within the framework of regulations, and the key principle of safety was respected. However, for an ordinary passenger, the professional terms are completely incomprehensible. He evaluates the situation through a basic sense of security. And when a phrase comes out of the mouth of the captain, which may be correct within the aviation community, but is not adapted for a wide audience, it is perceived as: "the plane is defective, but this is normal." In conditions of long waiting, lack of information and fatigue, such a message not only does not inspire confidence, but also increases the wave of discontent.

The official position of the airline, disseminated by the media, was verified and detailed. She closed the question "what really happened", but did not block the emotional effect of the already widespread video. The main mistake is the lack of a clear communication protocol for the crew in non-standard situations. The captain should not improvise formulations that may be misinterpreted. Flight status updates should be provided regularly, in simple language, and with an emphasis on the fact that the decision to delay or replace a flight is made precisely for safety reasons.

The lesson of the case

Security is not only about technical procedures and their strict observance, but also about verbal communication. You can do everything correctly according to the regulations and at the same time provoke a crisis of trust if communication with passengers is built without taking into account the peculiarities of information perception. It is this gap between intention and perception that is increasingly causing a reputational crisis today.