{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
8/21/2014 11:33:00 AM
7
Israeli Air Force. Really tough program. Forms the best pilots. There's actually a test where a high ranking officer calls you to his office. He asks you to close the door, once you sit down, he asks you if you closed it. If you turn around to check, you get washed out of the program. If you immediately say yes sir, they keep you.
English
-
Stupid test. Yes, you want pilots that have quick minds, and pay attention to detail. But THAT is not how you---intelligently----go about assessing for that personality trait. Works though---if your primary goal is intimidate and kow your trainees.
-
They need assurance from pilots. Helps in the air.
-
Edited by kellygreen45: 8/21/2014 1:04:44 PMI understand. I also work in a high-risk, high-stress environment that is intolerant of error. I respect what it is that they are looking for, I just strenuously disagree with how they are going about trying to find it. Training people into a mindset where they encouraged to deny uncertainty is MUCH more dangerous than indecisiveness. You want a combat pilot to be certain...but you also want his situational awareness to be ACCUARATE. Uncertainty can get you killed. Inaccuracy gets OTHER people killed. That's how you get friendly-fire incidents. I'd much rather have the pilot who looks over his shoulder to double-check if the door is closed....than the one who insists that it is, and doesn't care whether or not that is a factually-accurate statement. Wost case scenario, the fist guy gets his ride blow out from under him, and is KIA. But the first guy is the kind of pilot who's liable to drop his ordnance on the wrong target....or drop them on his own guys.
-
[quote]or drop them on his own guys.[/quote] Jesus Christ, has that happened before?
-
I can't speak for the IAF, but there have been MANY such friendly-fire incidents in US combat aviation history. One ongoing incident during WWII was so bad the offending air unit got tagged with the nickname "The American Luftwaffe". Which is why I see it as dangerous to create a culture where certainty is valued more than accuracy where situational awareness is concerned.
-
Edited by Creatioux: 8/21/2014 8:55:05 PMAccuracy is always the most important. It would be ridiculous to be certain and not accurate. That military would fall apart.
-
Agreed...but human nature is that what you incentivize, you get more of. If the story you have told me is correct, they essentially create a situation where they SEVERELY punish uncertainty. By washing you out if you acknowledge that uncertainty, by turning around to check the door. ....NOT by whether or not your situational awareness is correct, or that you accurately followed instructions (to close it). That willingness to acknowledge uncertainty---and to QUESTION what you believe to be true----is what prevents friendly-fire situations. Because most are caused by either a failure to recognize the identity of the target you ar firing on...or an intelligence failure such that you are firing on a location where friendlies aren't supposed to be. YOU WANT a pilot who---if something doesn't look right---doesn't deny the problem. But you won't cultivate that kind of pilot if you---very loudly and very emphatically---announce that uncertainty will not be tolerated and will be severely punished. I work in a profession where lots of analogies are made to aviation...yet I always teach the people that I train that: "I Don't Know...is always an acceptable answer (to a question)." I may not be PLEASED with that answer if its to a question I feel that person should know the answer to.... ...but the person of limited knowledge and limitied abilities (who respects and honors those limitis) is FAR less dangerous than the person (of any level of knowledge and abiity) who refuse to acknowledge their limits. Which is why I cringed when you told me that story.
