4 ms·

He is just saying that the larger power distance[1] in some cultures sometimes lowers one of the benefits of having two pilots. There are, of course, a number

He is just saying that the larger power distance[1] in some cultures sometimes lowers one of the benefits of having two pilots. There are, of course, a number of different ways for an airline to handle this. They can for example encourage an organizational, occupational or situational culture where the "normal" cultural "rules" are temporarily relaxed or suspended - making it ok to speak up to your superiors. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_distance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_distance

chetanahuja 13y ago
Well you seem to be defending the "cultralism" hypothesis without actually committing to any sort of an explanation of the extreme differential among the Japanese and Korean airline performances. Again, note that the Japanese airlines are among the safest in the world. It's not just a marginal difference. The vague point you seem to be making is that the Japanese pilots are trained to "suspend" the culture somehow. Soo... it's just training then, isn't it ?
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  I didn't read this before. Training to suspend the influence of culture makes sense, if that's what happens. That sounds like Japanese pilots are trained such that Japanese pilot culture overrides Japanese national culture. Best explanation I've heard for the differences in training. Off-topic, there's no space between the last word of a question and the question mark. Also, you're being overly aggressive in many of your replies about this topic.
  - chetanahuja 13y ago
    I'm getting tired of this thread. In particular, I'll simply ignore personally directed snide remarks. I'll instead focus on the one sentence that actually addresses the topic at hand: "That sounds like Japanese pilots are trained such that Japanese pilot culture overrides Japanese national culture." I see an an insidious assumption implicit in that sentence. Do you spot it? Let me help you by changing the context a little bit. "Qantas has an excellent flight safety record. Sounds like Australian pilots are trained such that Australian pilot culture overrides Australian national culture." Those readers of this thread who're actually trying to understand the problems with "culturalist" explanations for professional performance should get my reasoning by now. For the others, I'm not going to waste anymore time going around in circles on this thread.
    - foobarbazqux 13y ago
      Australian national culture does not include deference of the kind seen in Japan and Korea. I do not understand the point of the substitution. What is the assumption you are referring to? As for snide remarks, the bit about the question mark was correcting a repeated and minor punctuation mistake, and I genuinely thought you might want to know about it. However, in the context of this thread it was a bit of a passive aggressive cheap shot, and I apologize. That said, you're still being overly aggressive and your incivility throughout most of this thread is against the guidelines.

chetanahuja 13y ago

Well you seem to be defending the "cultralism" hypothesis without actually committing to any sort of an explanation of the extreme differential among the Japanese and Korean airline performances. Again, note that the Japanese airlines are among the safest in the world. It's not just a marginal difference. The vague point you seem to be making is that the Japanese pilots are trained to "suspend" the culture somehow. Soo... it's just training then, isn't it ?

foobarbazqux 13y ago
I didn't read this before. Training to suspend the influence of culture makes sense, if that's what happens. That sounds like Japanese pilots are trained such that Japanese pilot culture overrides Japanese national culture. Best explanation I've heard for the differences in training. Off-topic, there's no space between the last word of a question and the question mark. Also, you're being overly aggressive in many of your replies about this topic.
- chetanahuja 13y ago
  I'm getting tired of this thread. In particular, I'll simply ignore personally directed snide remarks. I'll instead focus on the one sentence that actually addresses the topic at hand: "That sounds like Japanese pilots are trained such that Japanese pilot culture overrides Japanese national culture." I see an an insidious assumption implicit in that sentence. Do you spot it? Let me help you by changing the context a little bit. "Qantas has an excellent flight safety record. Sounds like Australian pilots are trained such that Australian pilot culture overrides Australian national culture." Those readers of this thread who're actually trying to understand the problems with "culturalist" explanations for professional performance should get my reasoning by now. For the others, I'm not going to waste anymore time going around in circles on this thread.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    Australian national culture does not include deference of the kind seen in Japan and Korea. I do not understand the point of the substitution. What is the assumption you are referring to? As for snide remarks, the bit about the question mark was correcting a repeated and minor punctuation mistake, and I genuinely thought you might want to know about it. However, in the context of this thread it was a bit of a passive aggressive cheap shot, and I apologize. That said, you're still being overly aggressive and your incivility throughout most of this thread is against the guidelines.