Originally Posted by
ptarmigan
Obviously the agenda is to draw attention to the issue and the book, which is why I took on the task. Sadly, too many have read the Vanity Fair article and perhaps even the report but let their own bias sneak into their view. It is all too easy to look at a situation in hindsight and see exactly where someone made the wrong choice. However, things are a lot tougher when in a situation.
Would it surprise the readers here the front-seaters of AF447 had sailplane and aerobatic experience? That they came from aviation families?
One thing that really came to light through some surveys discussed in the book was the gaping holes in average pilot knowledge out there. I addressed some of it in a previous blog article, but it is much worse than I imagined even for pilots with a lot of experience, military and civilian, and major airlines.
I fully agree with some of the points above on proficiency, but it is even worse than that. Of course, finding someone to admit they're not proficient, good luck with that!
Too many excuses being made for the abinitio 2900 hr pilot in the right seat and the management guy flying his one trip in 3 months in the left seat. Trace his 2900 hrs in terms of fleet (330 and 320) and the legs he's done and it's quickly clear most of his time was spent at cruise babysitting the autopilot. Very little actual stick time. Sully had glider time and he said it had absolutely nothing to do with his outcome at the Hudson, and that he was surprised the media was running with the idea. I get that you have a book to sell, your signature is a link to your book and website so it's only reasonable that you're gonna try and market it.