By Vikram Mansharamani
It’s
been almost eight years since Captain Chesley Sullenberger miraculously landed
US Airways Flight 1549 on the Hudson River. It began on a chilly day in January
2009 when his plane encountered a flock of geese upon departure from New York’s
LaGuardia Airport. Both engines lost thrust, putting 150 passengers and 5
crew members at serious risk. Roughly four minutes later, Sully ditched the
plane on the Hudson River. Every soul aboard survived.
As one who thinks
about navigating uncertainty, I was immediately struck by the decision prowess
of the pilot. I wanted to find out what led Sully to flourish amidst such
radical uncertainty and pressure. Sullenberger’s book, Highest Duty, and Sully, the new
Clint Eastwood film about his triumph, helped me understand why he was the
right person for the job.
Here are three things
I learned from Sully’s story.
Use checklists as tools, not
rules.
Checklists are an important tool in a pilot’s arsenal. And with good reason:
they help to reduce human error in aviation,
just as they do in medicine. Sully himself is a checklist advocate. As he wrote
in Highest Duty, his wife has to remind
him: “Sully, life is not a checklist!”
Sully and his
co-pilot Jeff Skiles made careful use of checklists when things began
deteriorating. But the situation was unprecedented, making strict adherence to
the checklist’s script a liability. As Sully wrote, “Not every situation can be
foreseen or anticipated. There isn’t a checklist for everything.”
In the movie, we see
investigators interrogating Sully and his co-pilot about the steps they took.
They have to explain why they did not follow the standard emergency protocol,
which, while useful in the abstract, was not appropriate for the situation at
hand. So while the standard protocols checklists codify are useful, they are
not rules that leaders must follow at all costs. As Sully eloquently
summarizes: “Compliance alone is not sufficient. Judgment…is paramount.”
“There isn’t a checklist for everything.”—Chesley Sullenberger
Keep advisors on tap, not on
top.
Soon after both engines fail, Sully and Skiles relay their status to an air
traffic controller who offers an emergency landing at LaGuardia. Sully responds
that the plane may not make it and might land on the Hudson. The pilot also
proposes New Jersey’s Teterboro Airport, where the controller quickly secures
him a runway. Throughout this conversation, Sully notes, the controller did not
try to steer him in a particular direction: his “choice of phrasing was helpful
to me. Rather than telling me what airport I had to aim for, he asked me what
airport I wanted. His words let me know that he understood that these hard
choices were mine to make, and it wasn’t going to help if he tried to dictate a
plan to me.”
Twenty-two seconds
after Sullenberger proposes Teterboro, he abandons the possible destination,
quickly concluding a landing on the Hudson is likely to save the most lives.
Even after Sully's decision, the controller keeps offering suggestions, unable
to stomach the thought of a water landing. Ditching a plane on water is a risky maneuver, one best
avoided if possible.
At this point,
Sullenberger tunes him out: “I knew that he had offered me all the assistance
that he could, but at that point, I had to focus on the task at hand. I
wouldn’t be answering him.” Too often, we let trusted advisors take the wheel,
thereby abdicating our responsibility as leaders. Sullenberger succeeds in part
because he knows how to leverage his advisor without ceding control.
Too often, we let our trusted advisors take the wheel
Question assumptions. The drama of Sully revolves around the National Transportation
Safety Board’s investigation of the incident. Initially, investigators believe
that the plane’s engine could have restarted and pilot error was to blame. And
computer simulations suggest that Sullenberger could have made it to LaGuardia
or Teterboro instead of landing on the water. To convince the NTSB that he made
the right decision, Sully arranges for human-operated simulations of these
scenarios to be streamed live at the hearings. When those don’t go his way, he
argues—convincingly—that neither the computer nor human simulations are using
realistic assumptions.
He asks how many
times the pilots in the simulator had practiced. The answer, which is met with
a great gasp: “17.” Sully and Skiles hadn’t practiced once. The lead
investigator then asks for new human simulations under more realistic
assumptions. This time, the pilots must wait 35 seconds after the bird strikes
before turning back to LaGuardia or Teterboro. Under these more realistic
conditions, they crash, vindicating Sully and Skiles.
Today, we are all too
ready to trust the apparent conclusions of computer simulations or controlled
social-scientific experiments without questioning how valid their application
is to the real world. While Sully may
have exaggerated the antagonism between the investigators and the
pilots, the film is a useful parable about the creeping propensity to trust
models over human testimony, despite the fact that the models themselves are
irreducibly human as well.
Models themselves are irreducibly human.
Sully is the
quintessential leader. He is respectful of procedure while acknowledging its
limits. He takes responsibility without being overconfident. And he tackles
moments of radical uncertainty with composure and appropriate judgment. We can
all learn from him.
Vikram Mansharamani is the President of Kelan
Advisors, LLC and the author of Boombustology: Spotting Financial Bubbles Before They Burst (Wiley, 2011). To learn
more about him or to subscribe to his free mailing list, visit his website. He can also be followed on
Twitter @mansharamani or by liking his Facebook page.
No comments:
Post a Comment