I could not agree with you more. We should indeed be teaching pilots
to recognise and deal with risk.
How we do that is a legitimate topic for this group. The case study
method (and there should be both negative and positive) is commonly
employed in similar fields, such as management and leadership
training. Profiles of real or notional people are used. In the case of
pilots, how a person got to be a certain way is useful in teaching
pilots things to avoid, habits not to get, pathogens not to be
infected by.
For example, a defining charactersitic of the rogue (I don't mind the
term, though I agree with you that the language should not obscure the
message) is contempt for rules/values. The rule-enforcing function not
having performed too well in aviation, in this country, I see self-
regulation as the best (only?) solution - to imbue in trainees real
reverence for their own professional code of conduct. After all, the
forcefield of self-control is something we carry everywhere, way
beyond the reach of the regulator ('short arm of the law'?).
I am not as dubious as you seem to be about testing, though I reckon
we could arrive at the same destination. Testing shouldn't be too
controversial. At least three universities in Australia require
entrants to medical school to both meet academic standards and to
satisfy an assessing panel that they are the 'right sort of person to
be a doctor'. (Fourth generation scions of old medical families are
finding, to their horror, the door being closed in their face.)
The rights/liberties argument needs to be seen in perspective. They
vary, from profession to profession. Standards are highest when public
safety is at risk. Doctors need to be able to demonstrate certain
skills and behaviours to earn the right to practice, and so on.
Besides, many airlines are already using testing. The test I am
familiar with seeks. inter alia, to assess the pilot's ability to
perform under stress. Now there's something we can assist our trainees
with. There are exercises that strengthen 'cognitive muscles' - one's
resilience to extreme pressure. Those who have learned such routines,
and who regularly practise them, will do better in this test - and in
handling emergencies.
The fur will really start to fly when someone gets up one day and
says,'Tthis is such a good idea all pilots ought to be tested - for
their cognitive stamina - annually'. Why would that happen? Well, the
folk who insure the hulls might insist on it. So, too, might the
growing 'passengers rights' movement. Aaah! That's too crazy an idea,
let's drop it. But, I for one aim to be damn sure that if testing
comes along I'll pass it with ease. (I'm also convinced that makes me
a better, safer, pilot.)
Amongst the curiosities that define aviation is this: the 'primary
working relationship' is not with the client (patient, proprietor).
The passenger should be the client. Aviation's failure to attain
professional status is why lawyers (doctors, etc) can secure
professional indemnity insurance, pilots cannot. We ought to be
campaigning for professionalism.
As I said, Steve (nice to talk again), I think where we are heading is
the same - to give the coming generation of pilots the best chance of
being as good as they can be.
Cheers
Doug