More to add to the Rogue composite ID. (Profile to be outlined in a
Darker Shade of Rouge?)
In my observation (not only of pilots), the projected competence is
exaggerated. They are not as good as they get other people to believe
they are.
The projection of mastery of/in all situations is part of what
intimidates others - superiors and co-pilots alike. The other part is
a quick temper - and disproportionate emotional response to advice.
Men/women. One prime example from my 'gallery' is a female Judge who
heard a case in which her boy-friend appeared. The dishonesty/ethical
ambiguity displayed by rogues is an advanced form of denial.
Personality. 'John's' brother died in a nearly-identical crash - a
poorly-executed barrel roll at low level - ten years later. It was an
impromptu manoeuvre, in front of a crowd. His primary job was airline
pilot. Everyone who knew him had 'seen it coming'.
The personality angle weakens the argument that roguism is treatable,
and strengthens the 'get rid of them' school of thought. However,
career-threatening testing/profiling will not be popular.
Nor is it necessary. The greatest amount of rogue behaviour, in my
observation, is learned in developing as a pilot (doctor, lawyer).
Entry to flying/the professions is competitive. Advancement brings
rewards. Hubris follows. If something is learned-in, it can be
learned-out. Even inherited traits can be 'learned-over'.
Not an easy argument to run, for sure. However, if I knew that
profiling was coming (and it is), and that there was something I could
do about it - to be able to prove I had eliminated any latent roguism
in me - then I'd certainly do it.
As important is this: the materials/examples we provide learning
pilots so they don't pick up this nasty pathogen in their training. As
that's the area I'm currently working in, I'd like to hear from anyone
(David Freedman aside, I know he's doing it) involved in a similar
quest.
Regards to all
Doug