And before we leave this Air India topic, I thought I’d share something I learned from a number of sources in that region of the world.

Apparently this kind of story – pilots both leaving the cockpit with flight attendants turned inro monitors – is not that unusual. This is not the first time it happened … just the first time most of the rest of the world heard about it.

I rarely comment in blogs for fear of exactly what is happening. I think you’ve covered it.

The comment that I originally made was actually off topic to what you were writing about. The comment was about you and your writing style and your subsequent comments. Clearly, as many pointed out, and you agreed, gender had nothing to do with it the object of the story. Your comments later in the blog prove that you “get it”.

I probably stirred the pot by calling you out on “how” you retracted/apologized for what you said. Doing something like that in the public forum of a blog was probably the wrong venue. That’s on me, I was just too lazy to find your email address.

I agree that absent the word “female” the whole gender thing would never have occurred.

The article about the stupidity of qualified people leaving the cockpit in the hands of completely unqualified people is the issue. Everyone involved should have lost their jobs. The attendants should have refused and Air India has culpability as well in that they have fostered an environment where this could even happen.

That said, stupid things like this happen all the time, not just in aviation. $2 Billion trading errors at JPMorgan, Nuclear Power Plant safety systems bypassed, parents leaving their kids in the car on 90 degree days, the list is endless.

My kids are writers and I’ve called them out on their writing when they (as young adults do) rant on paper or in a blog and the way that they have written distracts from WHAT is written and the object of the communication fails. I’m guilty of the same thing. I guess that is what I was trying to convey.

Let’s move on to what’s more important – and that is the focus you bring in your blog.

A point on Air India: As long as the Indian government keeps using it to park cronies in management positions as “rewards” & treating it like their own personal bizjet fleet, the professionals who are within the airline will not have a chance of making a difference.

Professionalism is an attitude and flying is all about attitude. If you have bad attitude, your aircraft isn’t going to fly very well, right? :) :)

My topic was why four people acted so stupidly and irresponsibly putting the lives of 162 other people in danger and most of this concept has gotten beaten down about how unprofessional I acted by mentioning the sex of the seat monitors.

But let’s see … I think I agreed that the sex of the people involved was irrelevant, but that the term “seat monitors” would stay because that is accurate.

I agree with some of the other comments that perhaps this is precisely why so little gets done in Congress.

We need someone to stand up and blow a whistle to grab everyone’s attention with, “Yes, yes … you all have valid points about some of the language, but let’s actually talk about the problem itself.”

And isn’t it interesting as well that some of the people who have spoken the loudest about the irrelevance of some of the language have so very little to add about the point of the story.

Perhaps I need to repeat some of what I said in my first comment … “I’m very sorry if I’m not being politically correct here …”

Ah well … back to work.

Thank you everyone for your input, even those with whom I have disagreed.

(The next statement is my opinion and not PC.)

The whole trouble with the nations state of affairs is no one is willing to call out “poor behavior” because of the PC police and there message of “NONE RESPONSIBILITY FOR PERSONAL BEHAVIOR”. It always somebody else, who made them do it.

Again, I only reported what was actually happening on the flight, but to be fair I would have needed to explain that the two pilots were male or not mention any of it as some of you have pointed out.

But maybe you need to read the last comment just before yours appeared … the one where I acknowledged the point a number of you have made here about the irrelevance of the sex of the pilots and the flight attendants. Seems to me I have been reading the comments rather closely to tell you the truth.

So maybe we can all take a deep breath, forget the sex of the individuals involved, which I will say again is indeed irrelevant and allow someone to explain why these four airline professionals believe it was perfectly OK to leave the command of a A321 with 166 people aboard in the hands of two untrained flight attendants.

If you want to write about professionalism, you need to step up and be a professional yourself. Otherwise you’re like a captain flying a heading of 270 who criticizes his FO for pointing out that their assigned heading was 170: in other words, you’re demonstrating what professionalism IS by being an example of what it ISN’T.

OK yes, the fact that the flight attendants were young ladies was not relevant … only the fact that they were employees just about as dumb as the pilots who supposedly convinced them to keep the seats occupied while those two highly-trained professionals a break.

What masculine arrogance has to do with this topic though eludes me.
This incident is about plain old stupidity to me … and I don’t think sex — as Ellen said last night — has anything to do with it.

But I also have to agree with Ellen. You lose professionalism in writing and weaken your message when you describe the flight attendants, not just as “non-pilots”, not just as “young”, but as “female seat monitors”! Maybe the masculine arrogance implied here is part of the problem.

The ONLY objection was to the placement of the award in the order of precedence. I realize this sounds pretty esoteric, but ‘in the industry’ of the military, precedence is everything. Placing the new medal in order of precedence above a Purple Heart, for which people give up blood, tears, and in some cases, pieces of their body, or above a Bronze Star, which requires putting your butt in harm’s way, was just stupid.

My Bronze Star, earned in Desert Storm for actions in a battle, does not have a V device, and I point that out to people whenever they bring up my medal. It’s important, and that stuff matters to people ‘in the business’, and that’s what created the ruckus – placing it above medals that require you to be there just didn’t make sense.

In the world of military service, and amongst combat veterans, AT&T’s marketing slogan doesn’t work – Long Distance is NOT the next best thing to being there. You gotta be there.

I realize you read an Air Force study and interviewed some folks, but frankly, you need to have been there to understand, and you need to have been there to write about it with any degree of credibility. Just interviewing guys about their flying experiences doesn’t quite get it done. Ask Joe Galloway or Bill Broyles about how that works……

Dennis Boykin
Major, U.S. Army, Retired
VFW Post 1177, Loudoun County, VA

“….there are pilots jumping into some pretty large airplanes that seem completely unaware of their role as professional aviators.”

Generally, I don’t disagree. The “bad apples” are still amongst us.

However, I have to say that the younger generation is just like the older generation….it’s a mixed bag. I remember being a flight engineer for some extremely unprofessional pilots who would have made front page news had they been caught. OTOH, I presently fly with young people who are every bit as professional as the best of “our day”.

Professionalism is not a generational thing. It’s an individual thing. Some are, some aren’t.

Planeman

.