Author of the article here. Reading this thread, some commenters get it, but others have not.
The sexism doesn't have anything to do with the crash, nor did I claim that it does. So why did I even bring it up? This is probably news to most of you, but I'm a woman, and let me tell you, when we hear a man say something like that, we pay attention. I was shocked when I read his statements in the CVR, and felt it would be eye-opening for some people to hear them. Nor is it character assassination to point out that the things he said are wrong and contribute to a hostile working environment for women.
What could—not DID, but COULD—have actually contributed to the crash was the stress that the captain was under as a result of the incident. The hypothesis that he was stressed before the flight is supported by the length of his discussion of this one stressful topic, extending into periods where off-topic conversation was banned. Note that I specifically characterize this as a hypothesis supported by evidence; I didn't portray it as established fact, and I specifically pointed out that I was going beyond the NTSB report. However, the NTSB report doesn't say anything one way or the other about whether this was a potential cause of the captain's stress (stress which the report did identify as a contributing factor). I'm not contradicting anything in the report, but rather highlighting a connection which really stood out to me, from my particular perspective. So to those who say "if it was a problem, the NTSB would have mentioned it," is it not equally true to say "if it wasn't a problem, the NTSB would have refuted it?" To me, silence on the topic leaves the door open to independent analysis. If the NTSB didn't want people to make this connection, they should have addressed it.
Lastly, I want to mention that I actually contacted the relevant NTSB investigators for comment before publishing this, but they declined interviews.
It seems problematic with pilots who get into arguments with others, based on those other people's gender, or in other cases maybe skin color or whatever. And who in that way make themselves upset, so they cannot concentrate on flying! Sexist pilots are an air safety risk?
It's interesting in another way too: I think the crazy thing he said, suggests that he is a bit dumb. (Both for having such thoughts, and for sharing them with others, whilst being recorded.) Which is of relevance, I think. And might indicate that there was a recruitment problem as well. (The airline company hires dumb and sexist pilots?)
Disagree. To me, the main point was that the human brain fails, under stress. It starts imagining things, forgetting things.
But checklists, they stay the same, don't change, under stress. So, follow the checklists. But they didn't.
(Of relevance for software too, I think: DevOps and Site Reliability Engineering)
The sexist things are not just interesting, but of some relevance to the crash, for other reasons I think -- see my reply to the sibling to your comment if you want.
The sexism doesn't have anything to do with the crash, nor did I claim that it does. So why did I even bring it up? This is probably news to most of you, but I'm a woman, and let me tell you, when we hear a man say something like that, we pay attention. I was shocked when I read his statements in the CVR, and felt it would be eye-opening for some people to hear them. Nor is it character assassination to point out that the things he said are wrong and contribute to a hostile working environment for women.
What could—not DID, but COULD—have actually contributed to the crash was the stress that the captain was under as a result of the incident. The hypothesis that he was stressed before the flight is supported by the length of his discussion of this one stressful topic, extending into periods where off-topic conversation was banned. Note that I specifically characterize this as a hypothesis supported by evidence; I didn't portray it as established fact, and I specifically pointed out that I was going beyond the NTSB report. However, the NTSB report doesn't say anything one way or the other about whether this was a potential cause of the captain's stress (stress which the report did identify as a contributing factor). I'm not contradicting anything in the report, but rather highlighting a connection which really stood out to me, from my particular perspective. So to those who say "if it was a problem, the NTSB would have mentioned it," is it not equally true to say "if it wasn't a problem, the NTSB would have refuted it?" To me, silence on the topic leaves the door open to independent analysis. If the NTSB didn't want people to make this connection, they should have addressed it.
Lastly, I want to mention that I actually contacted the relevant NTSB investigators for comment before publishing this, but they declined interviews.