Thanks for the opportunity to add to the 'testing' picture. Before I
do that, re your other posting, if the test Hauke did was the Defence
Mechanism Test (DMT), it very much fits into the category I am talking
about.
Indeed, the DMT experience is a useful benchmark. It scored people on
a scale of 1.0 to 9.0. A score of over 8.0 was regarded as 'high'. As
you point out, and I make plain in the more detailed treatment of
denial in pilots in my book, denial is a very useful, everyday, coping
device. It's only when it gets into the 'too high' category, that it
might be seen as problematic, in terms of a tendency to refuse to
accept unwelcome news and conclude appropriately (weather ahead
unsuitable, turn back). On the other hand, denial can be also be 'too
low'. Some people flinch at the slightest threat. People like that
tend not to choose careers as pilots. We do attract high denial types.
At the time I was involved in trials, 7.5 was regarded as 'about
right'. I must stress here that all of these numbers and vague
statements are meaningless, to-day. I am referring to experience long
since overtaken.
I undertook the DMT, and came out 'high', but not too much so. (I
think the psych. was being kind to me.) That was 20 years ago. As a
consequence of the experience, I have since entered into a lifestyle
routine of checking my ability to cope with high stress levels,
regularly, (again, the exercises I do are in the book) and working out
so as to preserve what I now call my 'cognitive fitness'. From this
(uncomfortable) exercising, I know that I will cope with the worst
emergency I can imagine - the engine out on take-off in a light twin.
In other words, as a professional pilot, I was pleased to have been
able to assess myself in this way, the DMT, and thus to have been in a
position to do something about what I had discovered.
I am convinced that the DMT 'works' and that it should be used in
pilot selection. However, I do not take the view that it can only be
seen as a means of excluding people from a career. I prefer the
positive approach. If (as is the case with me) a pilot tests 'high',
then there are things he or she can do about bringing that aspect of
their nature under control - in the cockpit, I am not advocating
massive re-orientation, just knowing oneself, how one will deal with
stress, and certainty as to how you will handle it. Again, it's all in
my book - the things you can do to achieve that responsible state.
Anyway, I suspect you can forget the DMT, as I do not believe it is
very accessible. But there are other tests. The one I know is WOMBAT,
now in Version 4.6. (Much enhanced from earlier versions.) The WOMBAT
is a computer-based test that does measure directly and objectively a
pilot's capacity for situational awareness. Although not flight-
oriented, its relevance to flying and control over the complex system
that is an aeroplane, is immediately apparent to the subject.
I've done the WOMBAT test, and feel very comfortable with the evidence
that it 'read' me accurately. (By the way, I am not selling these
things, just pushing flight safety measures.)
Richard Heybroek has properly reminded of the resistance levels to
testing proposals within the pilot community and that test validity
may still be a legitimate concern. I agree. We need to take great
care. What I say to pilots is this: Let's assume testing is coming,
but that you've got a few years' grace. Is it not a good idea to check
yourself out, and to adopt some form of 'cognitive exercise' program
to ensure you are in top shape when the test arrives?
We are not alone in this debate. A major international hull insurer is
presently considering the issue. My preference is for the aviation
community to come to grips with the effect of denial in the cockpit
rather than have outside forces impose measures on us.
In my book I precribe ways of self-assessing for denial, and exercises
enabling you to check out your denial responses and ways of securing
control over them. I find that the most strenuous objection to my
conceptual line comes from those who have not tried it - honest
self-appraisal and drawing conclusions from it. People who have joined
me in this lifestyle thing (they are not all pilots, folk from all
professions) can see the value it is to them. Despite the discomfort,
they keep on keeping on. I believe that getting pilots at the earliest
stages of their careers, to adopt such a program, is amongst the most
powerful safety-innoculations you can give them.
Cheers
Doug