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.
Can't edit the albums more than 12 hours after posting unfortunately, take it up with Imgur's website design department lol. I didn't expect these to be read off of Reddit so I didn't make that convenient (until recently).
Since I'm not logged in to Imgur when I post the albums, it allows me to modify the text only within 12 hours after posting. This annoys me a lot but I've yet to find a better platform that has all the attributes I want. (I don't want to make an account and actually upload it there because then I'm submitting it to an audience that I have no intention of engaging with and know nothing about.)
More recent ones do have my username in them. I just never expected anyone outside of Reddit to read it so I didn't structure it in a way that would make that convenient.
I wrote this. I noticed it jumped 12,000 views and I got no username mention on Reddit, so I asked around and found it came from here. Made an account just to post the source. I'm pretty pissed that someone linked it completely without credit.
As for what it is, it's part of a series I write for reddit where I read as many sources as I can about a plane crash, write it up in a way that's understandable to laymen, and then post it for others to read. Taken away from me and my reputation on Reddit it has zero credibility because it's just a random album on Imgur.
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.