Patterns in the Sky. Why Seat 11A Became a Legend – and What It Tells Us About the Human Mind?
A coincidence that went viral
On 12 June 2025 Air India Flight 171 crashed just seconds after take-off from Ahmedabad. Of the 242 people on board, only one passenger survived: British-Indian businessman Vishwash Kumar Ramesh in seat 11A. News outlets were quick to christen the episode a “miracle”
Within hours, commentators noticed an eerie echo: in 1998 Thai Airways Flight TG 261 also counted a survivor in 11A – singer Ruangsak Loychusak – though 44 other passengers lived as well.
Two catastrophes, 27 years apart, two men walking away from the same seat number. A myth was born.
Why our brains chase patterns
Humans are spectacular pattern-spotters. When faced with chaos, we try to impose order – a process neuroscientists call apophenia (Brugger 2001). Michael Shermer describes this as “patternicity” – our tendency to find meaningful connections in random data (Shermer 2008).
Evolutionarily it makes sense: seeing a pattern in rustling grass (“Maybe that’s a predator”) was safer than ignoring it. In aviation disasters, the same mechanism drives us to hunt for “lucky rows”, “bad aircraft types”, or – this month – “seat 11A”.
Finding comfort through meaning-making
Psychologists link this impulse to terror-management theory: reminders of mortality trigger a search for symbolic reassurance (Pyszczynski, Solomon & Greenberg 2015). If survival can be explained by a special seat, destiny feels less arbitrary.
For fearful flyers the effect is magnified – uncertainty spikes anxiety, and any story that promises a rule (“Just avoid row 11”) feels soothing, even if logically false.
From whispers to headlines – the social amplification of risk
When an accident hits the news, traditional and social media amplify certain details (Kasperson et al. 1988). A single survivor makes a gripping headline; “seat 11A” is a memorable hook.
This cycle is now turbo-charged by AI-generated “leaks” and doctored documents, something safety analysts flagged after Flight 171. Rumour psychology shows that high emotion + low verified data = perfect breeding ground for misinformation (DiFonzo & Bordia 2007).
Fear of flying: when availability beats statistics
Cognitive studies on aviophobia reveal that vivid stories outweigh cold numbers (Oakes & Bor 2010). One viral clip of a sole survivor walking from the wreckage can eclipse decades of safe flights in a passenger’s memory. This is the availability heuristic at work (Tversky & Kahneman 1973).
What responsible communicators can do
| Goal |
Practical action |
|---|---|
| Calm speculation |
State what is known and explicitly note what is not (wait for the accident report). |
| Respect emotion |
Acknowledge that searching for patterns is natural coping, then gently separate coincidence from cause. |
| Counter fear |
Re-anchor the discussion in baseline safety figures (e.g., 2024 accident rate ≈ 0.24 fatal accidents per million flights, ICAO). |
| Explain mechanisms |
Use plain language to describe apophenia, heuristics, and why brains latch onto stories like 11A. |
| Provide support |
For anxious travellers, point to evidence-based interventions (CBT, exposure therapy, mindfulness apps designed by qualified clinicians). |
Stories such as “The miracle of seat 11A” remind us how powerfully narrative can shape risk perception. They also highlight the shared task of industry professionals, journalists and psychologists: to honour the human drive for meaning, while guiding it with facts and empathy.
But above all, we must remember: behind every headline is a profound human tragedy. The families, colleagues, and loved ones affected by the Air India Flight 171 crash — and every aviation accident — deserve space, dignity, and truth. That’s why it is essential we resist speculation and allow official investigators to do their work, carefully and thoroughly.
In the end, no row, seat or symbolic detail explains survival or loss. Only evidence does. What we can do, in the meantime, is communicate responsibly, support those affected, and continue working toward an aviation system that learns, improves, and protects — always.
References
Brugger, P. (2001) ‘From haunted brain to haunted science: a cognitive neuroscience view of paranormal and pseudoscientific thought’, Hauntings and Poltergeists
DiFonzo, N. & Bordia, P. (2007) Rumor Psychology: Social and Organizational Approaches. Washington, DC: APA.
Kasperson, R.E. et al. (1988) ‘The social amplification of risk’, Risk Analysis, 8 (2)
Oakes, M. & Bor, R. (2010) The Psychology of Fear of Flying. Farnham: Ashgate.
Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S. & Greenberg, J. (2015) Thirty Years of Terror Management Theory. New York: Routledge.
Shermer, M. (2008) Patternicity: Finding meaningful patterns in meaningless noise. Scientific American, 299 (2)
Slovic, P. (2000) The Perception of Risk. London: Earthscan.
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1973) ‘Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability’, Cognitive Psychology, 5 (2),
(Additional primary sources on AI 171 & TG 261 survivors: NDTV, 14 Jun 2025; CBS News, 13 Jun 2025; Washington Post, 13 Jun 2025; Times of India, 14 Jun 2025)
Author
Aleksandra Kapela
I’m Aleksandra Kapela — an aviation psychologist, human factors specialist, and certified ground instructor with over a decade of experience in pilot assessment, training, human factors and well-being. I work with flight schools, airlines, and training organizations to improve pilot selection, support, and development — especially through CBTA, psychometrics, and human factors integration. I’m also a speaker at global conferences. Through MyWingman.eu, I offer practical resources for pilots, airlines and flight schools — including assessments, well-being programs, and consultancy. On this blog, I share psychological insights that help aviation professionals perform, stay safe, and thrive — on the ground and in the sky.
