Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Phil Greenspun debunks Malcolm Gladwell on airline safety

philip.greenspun.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 43 posts

Re: Phil Greenspun debunks Malcolm Gladwell on airline safety

#31

Post by camccann »

tokenadult wrote: post #23
larsberg wrote: post #17

Gladwell's books are not scholarly research. They're more like hipster coffee shop conversations, and should be taken with a healthy dose of rigorous skepticism, even though they are usually quite enjoyable.

Gladwell's books are not scholarly research. They're more like hipster coffee shop conversations, and should be taken with a healthy dose of rigorous skepticism, even though they are usually quite enjoyable. I think Gladwell would largely agree with this description of his writings, or at least with the part that says that his writings should be approached skeptically and that they don't purport to be scholarly. From…

So basically, sometimes he says things that are flat-out wrong, and he doesn't care as long as they're thought-provoking falsehoods, and people read it anyway because it's fun and engaging and thought-provoking in a way completely unrelated to accuracy.

In other words, he's basically an entertainer. Debunking Gladwell is like "debunking" the historical accuracy of Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Re: Phil Greenspun debunks Malcolm Gladwell on airline safety

#32

Post by jamesbkel »

camccann wrote: post #31
tokenadult wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gladwell's books are not scholarly research. They're more like hipster coffee shop conversations, and should be taken with a healthy dose of rigorous skepticism, even though they are usually quite enjoyable. I think Gladwell would largely agree with this description of his writings, or at least with the part that says that his writings should be approached skeptically and that they don't purport to be scholarly. From…

So basically, sometimes he says things that are flat-out wrong, and he doesn't care as long as they're thought-provoking falsehoods, and people read it anyway because it's fun and engaging and thought-provoking in a way completely unrelated to accuracy. In other words, he's basically an entertainer. Debunking Gladwell is like "debunking" the historical accuracy of Monty Python and the Holy Grail .

Agreed. The problem is that nobody (or hopefully, very few) people ever took 'MP: Holy Grail' as historically accurate. As someone with a degree in Decision Science my main issue is not so much with Gladwell, but the fact that most people I encounter assume since it's in a book which references scholarly articles that it's true.

Re: Phil Greenspun debunks Malcolm Gladwell on airline safety

#33

Post by rubyrescue »

pc wrote: post #2

Though the overall point may be correct, it weakens philg's argument to claim that a non-US pilot may become "Captain at Major Airline" after just 20 hours of pilot-in-command time: that's just not true for any jurisdiction I'm aware of (the article claims it's "typical"), and I'd love to know of even one such case. (I'm an occasional pilot, with both US and "foreign" licenses.)

agreed. There is no way anyone is Captain at a major airline anywhere in the world after 270 hours... I'm a licensed private pilot in the US. I know commercial pilots from the states that fly for Major "foreign" airlines and i know the requirements were much greater.

Re: Phil Greenspun debunks Malcolm Gladwell on airline safety

#34

Post by camccann »

jamesbkel wrote: post #32
camccann wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically, sometimes he says things that are flat-out wrong, and he doesn't care as long as they're thought-provoking falsehoods, and people read it anyway because it's fun and engaging and thought-provoking in a way completely unrelated to accuracy. In other words, he's basically an entertainer. Debunking Gladwell is like "debunking" the historical accuracy of Monty Python and the Holy Grail .

Agreed. The problem is that nobody (or hopefully, very few) people ever took 'MP: Holy Grail' as historically accurate. As someone with a degree in Decision Science my main issue is not so much with Gladwell, but the fact that most people I encounter assume since it's in a book which references scholarly articles that it's true.

Yeah, I don't mean to bash Gladwell himself either. At times he indulges in glib bullshitting[0] but his infectious enthusiasm for exploring neat-sounding ideas is charming, and refreshing compared to some of the utter tripe that's out there. And he really is an excellent writer.

The downside is his books ending up in the hands of people whose capacity for entertaining novel ideas far exceeds their capacity for rational critical thinking.

[0] "Bullshit" in the sense of H. Frankfurt's technical term for assertions intended neither to inform nor deceive.

Re: Phil Greenspun debunks Malcolm Gladwell on airline safety

#35

Post by pgreenspun »

defen wrote: post #12

Not having read Outliers, I can't really comment on the argument presented here. However, I found it rather... odd?... that he chose Martha's Vinyard as his example destination for a private pilot, who would need to "check the weather, ..., and decide whether the risks are a reasonable match for his or her skills and equipment", considering that there was a very famous plane crash under similar circumstances, of whic…

One of my readers pointed me to this discussion. The Martha's Vineyard reference was just a typical destination for folks at our flight school. There is no point in renting an airplane to go to Providence; it is quicker to drive! There is no point in renting an airplane to go to New York City; the car service from Teterboro costs more than the Amtrak ticket from Boston. Block Island, Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard, Montauk, on the other hand, are destinations that are actually much easier to reach by private airplane than by car or train. KMVY has a good on-airport restaurant. KMVY has an ILS and GPS/LPV approaches, plus an approach lighting system on Runway 24, which makes it a relatively easy place to land in actual instrument conditions. And the island is home to three of my favorite girls (one of whom has four legs).

KMVY averages 141 operations per day, so the JFK, Jr. crash in 1999 has been followed by approximately 500,000 less eventful takeoffs and landings.

-- Philip

Re: Phil Greenspun debunks Malcolm Gladwell on airline safety

#36

Post by pgreenspun »

Elepsis wrote: post #8

I just read Outliers yesterday, conveniently enough, so the chapter is fresh on my mind. While Greenspun certainly refutes a thesis quite effectively, I don't think it's actually the thesis of the chapter he's discussing. First of all, Gladwell does not at any point claim that American or Canadian pilots are "the best" due to the power distance index--in fact, he doesn't claim that at all. If you look at the book, th…

Gladwell does not explicitly say that American pilots are the best. However, he does use the U.S. major airline safety record as the standard (to which the cited foreign carriers fail to rise). U.S. major airlines conduct most of their operations with U.S. and Canadian pilots at U.S. and Canadian airports.

The error chain leading up to an accident is an old concept. The key to preventing accidents is to break the chain, which is typically best done by a pilot who has a lot of extra situational awareness. Sadly, situational awareness mostly comes with experience, so educating a 150-hour pilot about the error chain is not going to enable him or her to deal with a challenging situation as well as a 5000-hour pilot.

Re: Phil Greenspun debunks Malcolm Gladwell on airline safety

#37

Post by pgreenspun »

pc wrote: post #2

Though the overall point may be correct, it weakens philg's argument to claim that a non-US pilot may become "Captain at Major Airline" after just 20 hours of pilot-in-command time: that's just not true for any jurisdiction I'm aware of (the article claims it's "typical"), and I'd love to know of even one such case. (I'm an occasional pilot, with both US and "foreign" licenses.)

It depends on what you mean by PIC time. The pilot going through a professional flight training program will log all of the time after he gets his or her Private as PIC time, e.g., during instrument rating training. However, logging de jure PIC time while an instructor is in the aircraft is not the same as being the de facto PIC.

In a country that doesn't have a regional airline system, there is really no other way than to create captains out of people who have spent nearly all of their flying hours as first officer (second in command).

Re: Phil Greenspun debunks Malcolm Gladwell on airline safety

#38

Post by pgreenspun »

rubyrescue wrote: post #33
pc wrote: post #2

Though the overall point may be correct, it weakens philg's argument to claim that a non-US pilot may become "Captain at Major Airline" after just 20 hours of pilot-in-command time: that's just not true for any jurisdiction I'm aware of (the article claims it's "typical"), and I'd love to know of even one such case. (I'm an occasional pilot, with both US and "foreign" licenses.)

agreed. There is no way anyone is Captain at a major airline anywhere in the world after 270 hours... I'm a licensed private pilot in the US. I know commercial pilots from the states that fly for Major "foreign" airlines and i know the requirements were much greater.

My article did not assert that a pilot became captain at a foreign carrier after 270 hours. The article asserted that a person became captain at a foreign carrier after thousands of hours... nearly all as second in command. That is a very different background than someone who becomes captain at a major U.S. airline (who would have to have been pilot in command at a regional airline for 1000+ hours or pilot in command of a USAF airplane).

Re: Phil Greenspun debunks Malcolm Gladwell on airline safety

#39

Post by philelly »

tokenadult wrote: post #23
larsberg wrote: post #17

Gladwell's books are not scholarly research. They're more like hipster coffee shop conversations, and should be taken with a healthy dose of rigorous skepticism, even though they are usually quite enjoyable.

Gladwell's books are not scholarly research. They're more like hipster coffee shop conversations, and should be taken with a healthy dose of rigorous skepticism, even though they are usually quite enjoyable. I think Gladwell would largely agree with this description of his writings, or at least with the part that says that his writings should be approached skeptically and that they don't purport to be scholarly. From…

yet, his personal blog is largely attacks on people who publish essays questioning his conclusions. for instance, he appears to be still steaming over the whole pinker review/ eigenvalue debacle. i guess i can't really argue with the quotation you provide but he seems to me like someone who takes his conclusions (too) seriously.

Re: Phil Greenspun debunks Malcolm Gladwell on airline safety

#40

Post by jrockway »

nraynaud wrote: post #28

Am I crazy to think that cutting the world in "US" and "the rest" is profoundly dumb? I mean, putting in the same bag Benin, China and Germany? did anybody loose his mind?

Did you read his argument, or are you just upset that your favorite country was lumped in with your least-favorite country? I think, for the very limited category described in the article, that this is not outrageous.
Post reply on HN