I would like to see his response to this article by Phillip Greenspun that argues that the real reason why American airlines have a better track record than Korean ones is that American pilots have roughly 30 times more hours in the air by the time they become a pilot at a major airline: http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/foreign-airline-safety .
It sounds like Malcolm Gladwell's publisher never bothered to fact check the piece with an actual airline pilot before publishing.
> It sounds like Malcolm Gladwell's publisher never bothered to fact check the piece with an actual airline pilot before publishing.
"Why did I fail to interview a Korean pilot? If you had bothered to ask me before your published your article, I could have answered that question for you. I researched that chapter over the course of many months. I spoke to numerous pilots, Korean and otherwise. I interviewed crash investigators and human factors experts I interviewed the pilots who ran the Korean Air training program. I read internal Korean Air memorandum, the audit by Delta Airlines, as well as every relevant NTSB document related to crashes involving cultural deference. The only thing I did not do was interview current Korean Air management. They repeatedly declined my requests for interviews. "
In Gladwell's example of KAL801 the captain and first officer were in their forties (not to mention there also being flight engineer his late fifties) and had ample hours of commercial experience and military backgrounds; certainly comparable to Greenspun's examples of that required at US majors.
If I was to do fact checking with an actual airline pilot I certainly wouldn't choose Greenspun either, not with statements like "Unless the country is very large, there won't be any regional airlines"
It sounds like Malcolm Gladwell's publisher never bothered to fact check the piece with an actual airline pilot before publishing.