Some afterthoughts to my last - the Bader case study.
Aspects of Douglas Bader's style and behaviour certainly align with
criteria on the 'Rogue Assessment' checklist.
Here's one - 'they think they are better than they really are'. His
accident - crashing while attempting a low level slow roll - is a
striking example of skills not being capable of delivering the
intended result.
Mind you, we must take care not to judge historical figures by
contemporary standards and values. Bader achieved fame at a time of
great peril for Great Britain and the whole of the free world, a time
when heroes were a vital and honourable public necessity.
Another item on the checklist is 'uncommon stubborness'. Bader would
never have prevailed over his terrible injuries but for superhuman
strength of will. (James Thurber defined denial as 'minimisation of
the monstrous'.)
Not so admirable was his scheming (along with Leigh-Mallory, his Group
commander) to undermine 'Stuffy' Dowding and Keith Park at the very
time that pair were commanding the dangerous aerial operations that
became known as The Battle of Britain. Len Deighton's 'Fighter' tells
the appalling story of how, after Dowding and Park's superb success,
the campaign against them resulted in Dowding's being fired and Park
side-lined. Make a mark against the 'ethics' scale on your checklist.
(Bader's 'Big Wing' theory proved to be nonsense, as did his 'Rhubarb'
strikes into occupied France. See 'dogged adherence to a notion in the
face of overwhelming evidence of its absurdity', on the checklist.)
Again, Paul Brickhill's portrayal of Bader-as-hero ('Reach for the
Sky') was written in the post-war economic gloom that prevailed in
Britain for over a decade after the war - a time when people welcomed
things that took their minds off their present despair. (This is
winning???) Deighton's history, written thirty years later, is more
balanced.
Bader's case reminds of the fine line between blind stupidity and
splendid acts of heroic valour deserving of the highest honour and
reward. There is legitimate concern that testing to eliminate the
rogues will also filter out those who would be the very best. However,
the location of that fine line is definable - competence vs cognitive
collapse - in the face of life-threatening peril.
That's why I prefer to put testing forward as something that will be
of assistance to the pilot, and something they can do themselves.
Self-assessment is possible, as is self-directed training to enhance
resistance to (performance under) stress. Is it likely to catch on?
Probably not, but that's a case I am working up to put to Hugo before
long.
Sorry to go on about this, but I've just come back from an airshow.
All but one of the 'warbird' display pilots meticulously observed the
height limits. The one who did not - flying at 20 feet along the
runway - is the proprietor of a flying training outfit in the area. It
is the most popular choice of school for would-be pilots!
I met Douglas Bader. He was an irascible fellow. (Who wouldn't be, if
you'd lost your legs?) At an outdoor function, he could see a rain
shower approaching. 'Someone better get me an unbrella,' he gruffs,
'or my legs will rust up!'
Cheers
Doug