View Single Post
Old 12-29-2014, 03:12 PM
  #12  
ayecarumba
Line Holder
 
ayecarumba's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2012
Position: assume it
Posts: 54
Default What does "he was a commercial pilot" mean?

Originally Posted by jagbn View Post
OK, ayecarumba, I'll bite.

You state, "[Langewieshce's] opinion: Sully & Skiles deserve none of the credit for carrying out one of the few successful ditchings in history, the computer deserves the glory."

I pulled out my copy of "Fly by Wire" last night. I skimmed basically the entire book. I could find nothing remotely approaching your assertion. Instead, I found several instances of Langewiesche effusively praising the crew. Perhaps you could quote to me the exact language where you contend Langewiesche throws Sullenberger and Skiles under the bus.

As far as throwing his ass in the box with someone he's never flown with, etc., you do realize that Langewiesche was once an airline pilot?

I will agree with you that Langewiesche was a bit over-the-top in praise of the Airbus design philosophy. He does address the paradox of the "uncrashable" airplane having a mishap record no better than the 737 in the chapter "The Paradox" in "Fly by Wire."

Once the truth of AF447 came out, it conflicted rather uncomfortably with some of Langewiesche's praise of the Airbus system. I would have liked to see him address that issue more forthrightly in his most recent article. Instead, he avoided it.

As for AF447, the aircraft suffered a simple, basic, easily handled malfunction. I've had two airspeed indicator failures, both in Navy airplanes, which is nearly a non-event in AOA-gauge-equipped aircraft. All the Air France crew had to do was hold the same attitude and power setting they'd been staring at for over an hour and everything would have been fine. The fact that these three Air France pilots crashed a perfectly good airplane after a transitory airspeed indicator failure is outrageous, and in my opinion every pilot should be ashamed of the performance of this crew. The airspeed indicator started working again within a couple minutes; the criminally incompetent pilots held the airplane in a full stall for many minutes thereafter, crashing a perfectly good airplane.

Why this mishap has not prompted the FAA and other regulatory agencies (or airlines themselves) to mandate AOA gauges in commercial airliners beggars belief. AOA is the single most direct and valuable measure of the aerodynamic health of the wing, and commercial aircraft hide that information from the pilots. I have no idea why. It's idiotic.

Sorry for the lag in response time...a quick look around this forum tells me a lot of guys aren't getting out on their layovers!

I have not read LWs book on the USAir event. Rather, my opinion of his editorial slant is shaped by his other articles (like the AF447 piece in VF), appearances, interviews, and books he has written about commercial aviation.

Here is a quick sampling:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/bo...book.html?_r=0

and the reviewers conclusion:
"...This prickly and uneven but plainspoken book will not make Mr. Langewiesche many friends among commercial pilots, about whom, as a group, he is not admiring."

and another piece that is critical of his lack of objectivity on an unrelated story:
'When Journalism is Too Good to Be True,' It Usually Isn't: William Langewiesche Edition - Hit & Run : Reason.com

So, though he is careful to damn Sullenberger with the faintest of praise, he is not a friend of the professional pilot, nor the profession. Thus the origin of my "thrown under the bus" analogy. Read/watch his many interviews and Youtube appearances...he thinks if you pay McDonald's wages, there will be no effect on airline safety. He is critical of Sullenberger for making the point that as airline pay erodes, so does the quality of the individual seeking it as a career as he completely disagrees.

That's just my opinion and I understand we may differ, and that is ok. I respect your opinion and merely state mine.

The danger is that the NYT reviewers, other journalists, and the general public look to someone like LW and his books/articles, his stated bona fides as a "commercial pilot" (which, btw, I can't really find information about online at least...except this little gem:
Q&A with author William Langewiesche | NEAL THOMPSON
"He picked up flying jobs over the years, but never wanted to become full-time professional pilot. "...this could be a whole other thread, but after the UVA/Duke LaCrosse rape stories, what does it mean when the journalist says he was a "Commercial Pilot?"), and it shapes their thinking, opinions, and ideas.

This profession has been battered enough and is under relentless assault, so LW and his ilk, are not helping any of us.

Hope that kinda helps 'splain myself.
ayecarumba is offline