Phil Greenspun debunks Malcolm Gladwell on airline safety
philip.greenspun.com
Phil Greenspun debunks Malcolm Gladwell on airline safety
1–10 of 43 posts
Re: Phil Greenspun debunks Malcolm Gladwell on airline safety
#2Though 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.)
Re: Phil Greenspun debunks Malcolm Gladwell on airline safety
#3It's a bit hard to believe that training programs can be split into US and foreign. There are many countries in the second category and it's very probable that most of them have their own requirements. I'm not an expert, I may be wrong. But every sentence comparing country X to "the rest of the world" activates my BS detector.
And this "Unless the country is very large, there won't be any regional airlines." seems silly. I haven't heard of any European country with no regional airline. Even Iceland has their own with only 2 "real cities".
There's a lot of hand-waving in the post. I'd really like to stick some [citation needed] in there.
Re: Phil Greenspun debunks Malcolm Gladwell on airline safety
#4You don't need to exaggerate the article by calling it a 'debunking,' it posits another theory and lays out some facts. It's very even-handed and a good read.
Re: Phil Greenspun debunks Malcolm Gladwell on airline safety
#5Though 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.)
Yes, even knowing nothing about the subject at hand this argument looked a wee bit exaggerated. If the situation were truly so astonishingly extreme, wouldn't the USA become a major net exporter of airline-pilot talent?
Come to think of it, is the USA a major net exporter of airline-pilot talent? And if not, why not? Is the fix in, as it is with doctors and lawyers? (Getting a medical degree is one thing, moving to the USA is another, but getting licensed to practice medicine in the USA without a US medical degree is, alas, a third.) Or is the language and cultural barrier too high? (I was under the impression that international airline pilots all spoke at least enough English to communicate with air traffic control, which is to say: pretty decent English. You'd think that you could have a pretty decent life as an expatriate American airline pilot.) Or would it just cost more than folks are willing to pay?
Re: Phil Greenspun debunks Malcolm Gladwell on airline safety
#6You don't need to exaggerate the article by calling it a 'debunking,' it posits another theory and lays out some facts. It's very even-handed and a good read.
well he is definitely trying to debunk gladwell, as indicated by him bashing gladwell's lack of airline pilot and scientific credentials at the end of the article. it certainly isn't an unbiased alternative theory by an impartial third-party.
Re: Phil Greenspun debunks Malcolm Gladwell on airline safety
#7Though 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.)
Yes, even knowing nothing about the subject at hand this argument looked a wee bit exaggerated. If the situation were truly so astonishingly extreme, wouldn't the USA become a major net exporter of airline-pilot talent? Come to think of it, is the USA a major net exporter of airline-pilot talent? And if not, why not? Is the fix in, as it is with doctors and lawyers? (Getting a medical degree is one thing, moving to t…
Come to think of it, is the USA a major net exporter of airline-pilot talent?
Dunno, but I have a hunch the answer is yes. (Not "net", but we probably do export.)
I was very surprised when I was flying from Hong Kong to Shanghai on Dragonair a few months ago; both the captain and first officer were white guys with American accents. Not what I expected from an airline that only flies from mainland China to Hong Kong. (I also flew on Cathay Pacific on that trip, and the flight crew had British accents. They were not Chinese, which is what surprised me.)
So I assume there are some pilots that choose to work for a foreign carrier rather than a US carrier. It makes sense, because English is an important skill, and the pay must be about the same. If my work life would become less stressful by moving to Hong Kong, I would gladly do it. I don't see why pilots would be any different.
Re: Phil Greenspun debunks Malcolm Gladwell on airline safety
#8I 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, the U.S. has the fifth-lowest index (lower being "better" for these purposes), behind New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and Ireland, and he never says anything in the chapter that even implies that American pilots are best.
Nor does he say anywhere that the power distance index is the primary cause of plane crashes. Indeed, he explicitly says that any accident is caused by 6-7 small mistakes building on one another without being caught--something that could quite possibly be caused by inexperience, as Greenspun notes--but which can be exacerbated by two people in the cockpit unable to communicate in a direct way.
So while I think the article is a useful and interesting theory about differences in rates of crashes (though it should be noted that U.S. airlines do not have an overwhelmingly better safety record than, say, major European ones [1]), it is ultimately another in a series of "hey, let me overgeneralize what Malcolm Gladwell is saying and back it up with minor factual gaffes I found in the book" articles.
Re: Phil Greenspun debunks Malcolm Gladwell on airline safety
#9I 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…
I read it several months ago and had the same reaction to this article. Thank you for confirming.
I don't recall that chapter being about ethnocentrism or even about how to fly planes, but rather about power dynamics, and reverence versus the "entitlement" that he talks about elsewhere in the book.
Re: Phil Greenspun debunks Malcolm Gladwell on airline safety
#10http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"You can make up a new title if you want, but if you put gratuitous editorial spin on it, the editors may rewrite it."