Don Talleur
At 08:56 AM 1/15/98 +0000, you wrote:
>
>Guy, Everyone,
>
>Back before the hair went white, I, for a few years, had a job as the
>'end-of-the-line' check instructor, the bloke who decided whether the
>next phase of some pilots' lives was to be in fast jets or not.
>('Forget the Corvette, kid, for you it's to be the Mack truck!' The
>role was sorta QA for the Government.)
>
>Late one Friday, having re-assigned two lads to a lower-status form of
>personal transport, I wrote up the necessary reports, and with nerves
>badly jangled from the ordeal (I just hate to upset people), I trudged
>despondently to the Officers' Mess for some (only medically-essential,
>mind you) restorative tonic.
>
>Where I am ambushed by the remaining fighter conversion course jocks,
>the colleagues of the pair so recently dispatched to oblivion. That
>the boys had been restoring their nerves for some hours soon became
>obvious. Emboldened by spirits, they got stuck into me. (Of course
>they should have been grovelling-deferent, the grubs! Any one of them
>could have been next on my list.)
>
>The two blokes I had just sent packing had, they tell me, been the
>best performers on their pilots' course, first off solo, tops in the
>leadership stakes, read Morse Code in their sleep, do navigation sums
>in their heads, describe fluid dynamics to their girl friends and get
>away with it, real stars, sword of honour, academic dux-of-course, all
>that sort of stuff. If they had failed to meet the grade, what chance
>for the humbler rest-of-us?
>
>But that wasn't all. It was me that did it, these blokes say! So
>intimidating, they assure me, is my presence in the back seat, with
>pen poised over knee pad, in their perfervid imaginings, noting their
>every error, that they could not perform so as to display the full
>level of natural talent. No-one could do it, not even Chuck Yeager,
>Bob Hoover, the pressure was so intense. It seems I'm some sort of
>ability-suppressing monster!
>
>The option to pull rank and tell them all to go sleep it off is put to
>one side as they seem happy to keep up the gin supply. But, I am an
>instructor, and must turn this into a learning experience.
>
>'Yes, pressure indeed,' I say, 'I know I impose it on you, and I do
>not like that. I also know that if I try hard with words, in the
>briefing, or in the aircraft, to reduce your anxiety, the chances are
>I'll only increase it. But, it only looks like a no-win situation to
>you. Turn it to your advantage. The apprehension I induce in you, as
>check instructor, will be as nothing compared to the fear that comes
>with being in the middle of a thunderstorm at midnight, or the
>bowel-loosening discovery that the other side is allowed to shoot
>back. If you show that you can withstand my puny assault on your peace
>of mind, then your Air Force will have confidence in your fortitude
>under real pressure, like in battle, and thus your career will
>prosper.' I do go on a bit, and when they stop buying drinks, go home.
>
>Ah, yes, we did talk that way. Forgive us, we were not fully grown up.
>
>But the point remains, check ride anxiety is real, for many people,
>and debilitating.
>
>And, yes, it is a poor indicator for pilot competence in emergencies,
>no doubt about it! You can be sure that 'check-ride-itis' is a
>powerful predictor of high - and probably disabling - levels of
>anxiety in an emergency. So folk who experience it should maybe find
>another occupation?
>
>Possibly. Maybe not, though.
>
>In my 'Wombat' paper (Neil has kindly posted it on the website) I
>point to the very serious obligations that impinge on the work most of
>us are doing. Like, if you know a pilot has such a problem, you either
>act in accordance with your public duty to disclose, in the cause of
>higher safety factors, or you join the 'liability club'.
>
>More, now that we know that the Wombat (or equivalent) test can show a
>propensity to not handle pressure confidently, then there is no
>alternative but to introduce testing. No airline can afford not to.
>
>Pilots need not see testing as career-threatening. If your innate
>cognitive resilience is low, then you can work it up just as you can
>your physical fitness. The key to doing that is motivation. That will
>come once you (a) know your 'score' and (b) know what to do by way of
>exercise to improve your rating.
>
>You don't even need to find a test machine and engage with it. My book
>(also referred to in the Wombat paper) will actually assist you to
>self-assess, in private. (Formal testing is recommended.) The book
>also points the way to a cognitive fitness exercise regime.
>
>To the pilots who experience test anxiety, their way out is clear.
>Assay (through self-assessment or formal test) their ;'state of mind',
>and, knowing that, work out of their systems the 'anxiety reflexes'.
>It can be done. This is no longer witch doctor stuff.
>
>Indeed, we all should do it. There's time between now and when someone
>does make it compulsory, time to put to good purpose, train, get fit.
>
>People who've adopted the code swear by it. Routinely practising tough
>cognitive fitness exercises dramatically improves self-confidence,
>which, in turn, does remove anxiety, either about facing a test, or
>handling a real emergency.
>
>It would, for example, be of great assistance to that captain whose
>approach is so shaky as to excite in the co-pilot's mind readiness to
>take control.
>
>My earnest plea is for the pilot community to come to grips with the
>arguments in the Wombat paper before an external agency forces it on
>us. If we do it, we stay ahead of the game, in control of our own
>destinies. That is, if you know you are fit, when the testing becomes
>mandatory (as it will), your confidence will mean that the test is a
>breeze. No test-itis!
>
>Heavy stuff, friends, I acknowledge. All the best with your own
>self-appraisal.
>
>Cheers
>
>Doug
>
>