The main issue I had with the post was that he's claiming this to be the case purely on the notion that the copilot did not speak during the crash. That's severely reaching, and smells a lot like fitting facts to a predetermined conclusion rather than the other way around.
Can't find the link I originally saw that went into this in more detail, but the basic subject is covered here: http://blogs.wsj.com/middleseat/2008/12/04/malcolm-gladwell-...
More on the business side here: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/26/business/new-standards-mea...
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/518568-asiana-flight-cras...
Don't play the martyr. If you had posted that link as an entirely separate comment and suggested that it was a major factor in the crash, no one would have down voted you, I'm sure. But because of that first comment that was, IMO, a huge jump in both tone and topic from its parent, people probably perceived your subsequent comments as being irrational and motivated by emotion. It was nothing to do with what you were talking about, and everything to do with how you were talking about it.