Psychological Evaluation for Military Pilots?
Behzad Khamneian
I was hoping that some ex-military pilots could answer the
following question that I have. I assume that all pilot
candidates go through some type of psychological evaluation.
My question is how often are these procedures done, how long
each 'session' takes, and what the tests are like. I am merely
curious and would appreciate it if you could take a few minutes
and drop me a line or two... nothing fancy.
Thanks much.
-Behzad K.
COSMO12365
Urban Fredriksson
>I don't recall any special psych eval when I entered Naval Aviation.
When was this and where? I presume it was long ago and/or
in a primitive navy. Also, what were your duties going to
be?
--
Urban Fredriksson u...@icl.se
Pictures of my ferrets; Text and pictures of Swedish railways and aviation:
http://www.ki.icl.se/urf/urf.htm Recent addition: An ongoing ferret diary
Mark D. Conner
>: Urban Fredriksson (Urban_Fr...@icl.se) wrote:
>: >cosmo...@aol.com (COSMO12365) writes:
>
>: >I don't recall any special psych eval when I entered Naval Aviation.
>
>: When was this and where? I presume it was long ago and/or
>: in a primitive navy. Also, what were your duties going to
>: be?
>the Naval Academy, or while flying. I don't remember ever hearing about
>any such thing, either. I attended the Naval Academy from 7/77 until 5/81
>and entered flight school 1/82. Not exactly last week, but not back in the
>Dark Ages, either.
The original questioner may have been referring to an evaluation done
for crews of nuclear-capable aircraft. They require at least a
medical review/evaluation prior to Personnel Reliability Program
certification. I don't know if any of this involves a psych
evaluation, unless something "unusual" is found.
--
Mark D. Conner - N9XTN Opinions expressed here are
Dept. of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences not necessarily those of the
Purdue Univ., W. Lafayette IN 47907-1397 Government, DoD, Purdue, or
mco...@rain.atms.purdue.edu the author.
Urban Fredriksson
>I was never required to take any psych eval, either during my 4 years at
>the Naval Academy, or while flying.
How were you selected for the training then? Academic
results, luck or tea leaves? Was there no interview,
background check or similar?
I can understand that a large organisation can have
significant inertia and be slow to adapt new methods, but
don't you think the US Navy would be interested in
reducing accident rate due to "pilot error" to a virtual
zero and have methods to ensure that all candidates
accepted for pilot training graduate? Anything else would
be wasteful of money and human resources, it seems to me.
The Swedish air force has used psychological evaluations
in its selection process for 50 years, and one of the
latest developments, the Defence Mechanism Test, was known
and proved by the late 1970's.
--
Urban Fredriksson u...@icl.se To get rid of an enemy, make him a friend.
COSMO12365
>...don't you think the US Navy would be interested in reducing accident
rate due to "pilot error" to a virtual zero and have methods to ensure
that all candidates accepted for pilot training graduate?
First, aircrew error which results in a mishap has little or nothing to do
with someone's psych eval. Everyone out there, even YOU whoever is reading
this, has some psychological idiosyncracies (sp?), which does not
necessarily disqualify someone from flying. It can in fact be argued that
being a good pilot takes someone who may not always fit someone's absolute
model of "normal".
The aircrew errors that result in mishaps will continue as long as people
fly aircraft. With continual training these mishap rates can be reduced.
Simply trying to weed out people beforehand is just not productive. The
training is intense enough to weed out anyone unable to handle the
workload and the pressure.
Eric Scheie
David Kuechenmeister
Now on the other hand, there were several aptitude tests that supposedly
determined your aeronautical aptitude. The AQT-FAR tests are what I mean, if
anyone can remember what the letters stand for.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David R. Kuechenmeister |
Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Company |
Department 73-6M, Zone 0670 | PHONE : (404)494-5041
Marietta, Georgia 30063-0670 | FAX : (404)494-0447
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS Bowen
> >I was never required to take any psych eval, either during my 4 years at
> >the Naval Academy, or while flying.
>
> How were you selected for the training then? Academic
> results, luck or tea leaves? Was there no interview,
> background check or similar?
>
> I can understand that a large organisation can have
> significant inertia and be slow to adapt new methods, but
> don't you think the US Navy would be interested in
> reducing accident rate due to "pilot error" to a virtual
> zero and have methods to ensure that all candidates
> accepted for pilot training graduate? Anything else would
> be wasteful of money and human resources, it seems to me.
>
> The Swedish air force has used psychological evaluations
> in its selection process for 50 years, and one of the
> latest developments, the Defence Mechanism Test, was known
> and proved by the late 1970's.
> --
(used to be known as the AQT/FAR, but the name changed recently) that
tests flight aptitude academically. There are six sections to the test
which examine a variety of things.
People selected for flight training have already proven themselves
through their achievement of graduating from college and achieving, at a
minimum, respectable grades.
The true evaluation of whether or not a person has the aptitude to
fly is conducted in the ONLY legitimate place: in the cockpit and
simulator of an aircraft. Does the writer really believe that a
psychological test would give a better result than actual performance in
the aircraft? Naval flight school is a difficult, 2 yr process for jet
aviators... every flight, every simulator is graded... every performance
evaluated. Those who do not measure up (3 unsatisfactory flights) are
dismissed. All candidates for flying can't graduate: some problems
don't come out until the right situation reveals them-- in the
cockpit. Constant evaluation is conducted
even after receiving your wings--indeed, throughout your flying career.
Ed Rasimus
>I can understand that a large organisation can have
>significant inertia and be slow to adapt new methods, but
>don't you think the US Navy would be interested in
>reducing accident rate due to "pilot error" to a virtual
>zero and have methods to ensure that all candidates
>accepted for pilot training graduate?
Many US military aviators are unaware that each and every
time they visit their local flight surgeon they are being
evaluated "psychologically". The Air Force has used a battery
of tests for years to determine "aptitude" for flying training,
but the unfortunate fact of the matter is that no test has
shown significant correlation for pilot success.
To assume that a psychological evaluation would be able to
eliminate "pilot error" or reduce pilot training attrition
to zero is to demonstrate ignorance of what actually
occurs in military aviation.
>The Swedish air force has used psychological evaluations
>in its selection process for 50 years, and one of the
>latest developments, the Defence Mechanism Test, was known
>and proved by the late 1970's.
One should note, however, that the Swedish Air Force has
not engaged in hostilities for that fifty years. It is much
easier to be successful in a "flying club" than in combat
operations!!
Ed Rasimus
>
>Now on the other hand, there were several aptitude tests that supposedly
>determined your aeronautical aptitude. The AQT-FAR tests are what I mean, if
>anyone can remember what the letters stand for.
>
>--
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>David R. Kuechenmeister |
>Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Company |
I don't know if the Lockheed Burbank team working on the F-22 looked at it,
but I was at Northrop on F-23 in Training System Development. We spent a
lot of time looking at various pencil and paper instruments for predicting
pilot training as well as combat operations success. Unfortunately we found
none that had significant positive correlations.
Additionally, in 23 years of military tactical aviation I can offer the
empirical observation that success in military aviation cannot be predicted.
I've seen Rhodes scholars and Olympic athletes washout of flight school. I've
seen Milquetoasts and Shwartzeneggers turn into tigers and wimps in the
combat arena.
It would be nice if there were a test, but it just ain't so!
Rick Siem
>I don't know if the Lockheed Burbank team working on the F-22 looked at it,
>but I was at Northrop on F-23 in Training System Development. We spent a
>lot of time looking at various pencil and paper instruments for predicting
>pilot training as well as combat operations success. Unfortunately we found
>none that had significant positive correlations.
>
>Additionally, in 23 years of military tactical aviation I can offer the
>empirical observation that success in military aviation cannot be predicted.
>I've seen Rhodes scholars and Olympic athletes washout of flight school. I've
>seen Milquetoasts and Shwartzeneggers turn into tigers and wimps in the
>combat arena.
>
>It would be nice if there were a test, but it just ain't so!
This information is not accurate. Anyone wishing for USAF reports on
valid pilot aptitude tests may contact me by e-mail or write to me.
Rick Siem
AL/HRMA
7909 Lindbregh Dr.
Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5352
COSMO12365
there that can be used to determine whether or not someone will be able to
complete flight training other than actually getting in the cockpit and
doing it. I'd like to see how other countries conduct their selection
process. Also, I have to agree with a previous poster - come back and talk
to me when Sweden's pilots have been proven in actual combat.
And - I'll never believe that using some kind of test will reduce pilot
error mishaps to zero.
I guess I'm being a bit blunt here.
Eric Scheie
Urban Fredriksson
> People selected for flight training have already proven themselves
>through their achievement of graduating from college and achieving, at a
>minimum, respectable grades.
But they haven't proven they have what it takes to wage
succesful air combat.
> The true evaluation of whether or not a person has the aptitude to
>fly is conducted in the ONLY legitimate place: in the cockpit and
>simulator of an aircraft. Does the writer really believe that a
>psychological test would give a better result than actual performance in
>the aircraft?
No, I don't *believe* that; There are numbers to prove it.
Not everyone in the Swedish air force wanted to believe it
either, but thankfully the "traditionalists" were proven to
be wrong and had to give in.
For example, the Defence Mechanism Test was highly doubted
to have a predictive ability. But all the then current pilots
were graded (on a 1-4 scale), and some years later the
results were evaluated. Of those with the worst results,
none were still in the air force. They had either left it
or become fatalities. None of those with the best grade had
been involved in a "human factors" related accident. In the
face of this statistically significant evidence, what
reasons could there have been to not use the DMT in the
selection process? (It's interesting to note that those
with the worst grades not only had been involved in
accidents, they also hadn't survived them, showing that
their defence mechanisms had prevented them from seeing
the developing situation as it really was.)
Accident statistics for non-technical related reasons have
been reduced dramatically (this is only five years data,
but compare it with a random sample of fighter squadrons
from other places):
1989 90 91 92 93
Lost aircraft 3 4 3 2 3
Fatalities 2 3 0 1 1
Failed ejections 0 0 0 0 0
Succesful ejections 2 2 2 0 1
Of course improved training methods have their part in the
success too. One part of that is that emergency situation simulator
training consists of: cases where you do something to save
the aircraft, cases where the only thing you can do is to
eject immediately, non-survivable scenarios. From another
newsgroup I learned (if it was true) that the USAF
considers it "non-macho" to not "survive" a simulator
mission. Clearly that means pilots trained in that way are
not trained and psycologically prepered to recognize when they are close
to entering such a situation, and thus more likely to do
so. Or they must fly further from the limits, thus reducing
combat efficiency.
This is the approximate figures for the pilot selection
model from 1987:
Applicants 1400-1600
Paper and pencil tests 850-950
Practical coordination tests 400-450
Considering all data for decision
Medical examiniation 60-70
Approved 50-60
Basic flying training 40-42
Combat pilots after approx 40 months 35-38
In the late 1960's only 50% of those starting basic flying
training was approved to continue the training to become
combat pilots, in 1970-74 when new selection methods
started to the number was 67%, in 1974-80 it had risen to
95% due to improved improved education and from 1980 it
has been virtually 100%.
Nowadays, out of a class of 20-21 students, sometimes one does
not stay in the air force, but in the last few years, that's
almost always been because they wanted to leave.
It should be noted that the Swedish air force does not
have separate streams for transport and helicopter pilots,
everyone is trained to be a first class fast jet combat
pilot. Transports are flown by ex-fast jet pilots.
Of course this isn't acceptable in other cultures, who may
like to produce their combat pilots in other ways. I
understand that the Pakistani considers a high washout
ratio a proof of the quality of those remaining, for
example. Nor does it surprise me that the USA prefers to
spend a lot of unnecessary money instead of changing their
way of looking at things. If you have the money, you can do
it. We, like many other smaller countries have to use the
resources we have as well as possible.
>Naval flight school is a difficult, 2 yr process for jet
>aviators... every flight, every simulator is graded... every performance
>evaluated.
But not from a psychological standpoint? So it's only a
matter of learning to fly, not performing air combat?
> All candidates for flying can't graduate: some problems
>don't come out until the right situation reveals them-- in the
>cockpit.
Of course the problems don't come out if you don't know
what you are looking for. As I said, psychological profiles
have been used for 50 years, and they were of course not
very useful to begin with, but if you gather a lot of them,
and later data about the pilots, you learn what the
successful ones have in common.
--
Urban Fredriksson u...@icl.se
Is the order we put on our shoes genetically programmed?
Urban Fredriksson
>I've seen Rhodes scholars and Olympic athletes washout of flight school. I've
>seen Milquetoasts and Shwartzeneggers turn into tigers and wimps in the
>combat arena.
Did you investigate what experiences these people had had
before they were four years old? If not, was it because you
didn't think it mattered?
Ted
rather than put up the expense, and take the risk, of trying to
actually teach them to fly. However, read the stats, and find
out for yourself that over the years, the tests are becoming
better at selecting good potential pilots, as evidenced by the
decreasing on-course failure rate.
Just to prove the first point, do you want your taxes going to
pay for 10 or 15 dual hours, worth about $100.00 each, just to
find out someone CAN'T fly?
--
Disclaimer disclaimer disclaimer disclaimer disclaimer disclaimer
disclaimer disclaimer disclaimer disclaimer disclaimer disclaimer
disclaimer disclaimer disclaimer disclaimer disclaimer disclaimer
disclaimer I didn't do it, nobody saw me,you can't prove anything
COSMO12365
>But they haven't proven they have what it takes to wage successful air
combat.
Neither has the Swedish Air Force. (No disrespect intended).
(Flights are evaluated) >But not from a psychological standpoint? So it's
only a metter of learning to fly, not performing in combat?
Yes, while in flight school, it IS only a matter of learning to fly.
Later, people are trained to fly in a combat environment. That's what Top
Gun and Red Flag were designed for. In flight school the pressure is
extremely high, even though it's "just a matter of learning to fly". No
one goes out after only a few hours and goes dog fighting.
Eric Scheie
COSMO12365
Manfred Richtoffen (sp?) CRASHED on his first solo flight. If these tests
bring the accident rate due to aircrew error down to almost zero, would he
have been accepted into flight training?
You can't fight the plane until you can fly the plane.
Ask anyone in U.S. Naval Aviation and they will probably tell you that the
primary things that will get you through flight school are drive,
determination, and desire.
Eric Scheie
Ed Rasimus
>
>thu...@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus) writes:
>
>>I've seen Rhodes scholars and Olympic athletes washout of flight school. I've
>>seen Milquetoasts and Shwartzeneggers turn into tigers and wimps in the
>>combat arena.
>
>Did you investigate what experiences these people had had
>before they were four years old? If not, was it because you
>didn't think it mattered?
No I didn't investigate experiences prior to age four. And,
yes, that was because I didn't think it mattered.
Combat success can result from a number of factors, IMHO, chief
among them is training, and second is equippage. I reiterate that
no correlation could be discovered between pencil/paper tests
and combat efficiency in any test we evaluated at Northrop.
Extensive correlation could be made between highly trained pilots
and combat success (Fighter Weapon School grads, Top Gun grads,
and pilots exposed to programs such as Red Flag or USAF aggressor
training). Correlation also existed between combat success and
equippage (more Mig kills for Phantoms than Skyhawks--although
Thuds got more SEA kills than the type would indicate)
Bottom line remains, any conclusions drawn from Swedish tactical
forces experience must be tarnished by the fact that they are
a NEUTRAL nation with no recent combat experience. Flying clubs
ain't combat. As The Red Baron said, "...everything else is
rubbish."
COSMO12365
squadron I was in we used a small computer trainer to keep our ASW skills
sharp. The XO insisted that these be a part of the flight schedule as
well. The result was that when we went down to the range to fly against
mobile targets or live subs, we consistently performed well.
I have to disagree with psych tests being so worthwhile since I've just
been surprised too many times in Naval Aviation at who succeeds and who
doesn't.
Eric Scheie
Urban Fredriksson
>No I didn't investigate experiences prior to age four. And,
>yes, that was because I didn't think it mattered.
So there are a number of important factors you can have
missed, just because you dismissed them. Not good
methodology it seems.
> I reiterate that
>no correlation could be discovered between pencil/paper tests
>and combat efficiency in any test we evaluated at Northrop.
If I have given the impression I meant pencil/paper tests,
I apologize for beeing unclear.
>Bottom line remains, any conclusions drawn from Swedish tactical
>forces experience must be tarnished by the fact that they are
>a NEUTRAL nation with no recent combat experience.
The accident statistics were Swedish, but I hope I haven't
given you the impression that the air force decides what
constitutes good combat performance based on theoretical
studies only.
cosmo...@aol.com (COSMO12365) writes:
>Urban Fredriksson writes:
>>But they haven't proven they have what it takes to wage successful air
>combat.
>Neither has the Swedish Air Force. (No disrespect intended).
It's true that the last time SwAF jets went to combat, the
opposing air force stayed on the ground. But people on the
ground were shooting back, so the conflict said something
about the skill of the pilots, but mainly it proved that
our training philosophy for ground staff was superior.
>Yes, while in flight school, it IS only a matter of learning to fly.
>Later, people are trained to fly in a combat environment.
All of them? Isn't the American system to select who goes
on to fly fighters and transports after basic flying
training?
>That's what Top Gun and Red Flag were designed for.
Does everybody really go to Top Gun? Anyway, what these two
institutions signify to me, is that American aircrew don't
have the opportunity to train realistically during their
everyday work. Over here, conditions are better for doing
that.
>Here's one. How would any of these tests have evaluated the Red Baron?
I have never said they will identify all who could become
good air combat professionals. What they do is to select
those you're certain will become good. The Israelis does it
almost the same way, but they don't enforce an equally high
conformity to the norm.
>Manfred Richtoffen (sp?) CRASHED on his first solo flight. If these tests
>bring the accident rate due to aircrew error down to almost zero, would he
>have been accepted into flight training?
Thank you for a good example: Would a student in the US
forces who crashes on his or her first flight be allowed to
go on training, or would they be kicked out of school?
If he had the right set of properties (caution, courage,
aggressiveness, tactical ability and so on) he well might
have been accepted. But he would not have been allowed to fly solo
before he was good enough.
A system which kills or discards potentially good pilots because
they haven't gotten enough training does not seem efficient.
--
Urban Fredriksson u...@icl.se
Pictures of my ferrets; Text and pictures of Swedish railways and aviation:
http://www.ki.icl.se/urf/urf.htm Recent addition: Swedish railway pictures.
Rick Siem
>Combat success can result from a number of factors, IMHO, chief
>among them is training, and second is equippage. I reiterate that
>no correlation could be discovered between pencil/paper tests
>and combat efficiency in any test we evaluated at Northrop.
>
> [snip]
>Bottom line remains, any conclusions drawn from Swedish tactical
>forces experience must be tarnished by the fact that they are
>a NEUTRAL nation with no recent combat experience. Flying clubs
>ain't combat. As The Red Baron said, "...everything else is
>rubbish."
Let me clarify an earlier response. First of all, there is extensive
documentation of significant relationship between paper-and-pencil
aptitude tests and performance in initial pilot training. Note that
I am regarding aptitude factors as "psychological" and that a
statistically significant correlation in the personnel selection
domain is typically in the range of .2 to .4. All the services
(Army, Navy, Air Force) have programs of research that have produced
validated instruments -- both paper-and-pencil and computerized --
for pilot selection. Furthermore, FAA sponsored a meta-analytic report
that combines findings from several studies using quantitative techniques
to provide an overall estimation of the magnitude of aptitude-performance
relationships.
Secondly, Air Force researchers have recently completed a study comparing
aptitude test scores and Situational Awareness (SA) measures in Air Force
fighter pilots. The tests were significantly correlated with SA ratings,
although the largest predictor was number of fighter hours flown. This
research has been presented at several conferences and a paper is
forthcoming in the International Journal of Aviation Psychology written
by Carretta and Ree. (By the way, Northrop researchers validated some
of these tests against performance in an SA assessment device.)
Also, I agree that the Swedish experience does not necessarily
generalize to other countries. The Swedes have great confidence
in an instrument based on psychodynamic theory, the Defense Mechanism
Test (DMT), for screening pilots prone to make performance errors.
Unfortunately, from the reports that I have seen, researchers
outside of Northern Europe have failed to replicate the findings of the
Swedes in demonstrating a relationship between DMT scores and performance.
As to personality characteristics and combat effectiveness, I am sure
that (at least to each other) fighter pilots differ greatly in personality
characteristics. On the other hand, to an outsider they also share a
lot of traits, although I have not seen much empirical data to address
this issue. However, I have conducted research about fighter pilot's
assessments of traits they believe to be related to fighter
performance, and the results should not come as too much of a surprise;
fighter pilots gave high ratings to characteristics such as "disciplined,"
"confident," "decisive," and "dependable." It is hard to believe that
there are many effective fighter pilots in today's combat environment that
are undisciplined, lazy, lacking in self-confidence, etc. Besides,
what to a fighter pilot appears to be a wimp is probably to the rest
of us still an aggressively, self-confident individual!
These views represent my own and not necessarily those of the Air Force
or the DOD, of course.
COSMO12365
To my knowledge a large number, if not all, do. Those that go return to
their fleet squadrons to help train newer flight crews. Air combat
training flights are also flown routinely by those in fleet squadrons.
Training does not stop after flight school.
>Isn't the American system to select who goes on to fly flighters and
transports after basic flying training?
Yes. Once again, you can't fight 'em if you can't fly 'em.
>A system which kills or discards potentially good pilots because they
haven't gotten enough training does not seem efficient.
How about a system that discard potential pilots before they have ANY
training? Your statement seems to defeat your own argument here.
Eric Scheie
Urban Fredriksson
>>Isn't the American system to select who goes on to fly flighters and
>transports after basic flying training?
>Yes. Once again, you can't fight 'em if you can't fly 'em.
Which would mean that the American system doesn't try to
predict who would be good at what job before they start
training. Maybe OK if you need lots of transport pilots,
but if what you want is fighter pilots only, it wouldn't
work well.
>>A system which kills or discards potentially good pilots because they
>haven't gotten enough training does not seem efficient.
>How about a system that discard potential pilots before they have ANY
>training? Your statement seems to defeat your own argument here.
As long as you get the pilots you need, so what? The air
force isn't there for those who want to become pilots.
And if you don't believe preselection works, I'd like to
hear what alternate theory you have to explain why 95%+ of
those who start flying training in Sweden go on to become
fighter pilots, and of the 5%- who doesn't, most quits by
their own request?
We may have better teachers than others do, but that can't
be the whole answer, as many of the instructors are the
same persons as they were before the new selection
processes were put in force.
The standards are no different, and the people doing the
gradning are in many instances the same as before. Accident
rates are down, so that gives no reason to believe the
quality has been lowered and if you think combat efficiency
has gone down, you'll have to explain away the air forces
with recent successful combat expericence who use similar
psychological evaluations.
The training methods may have improved, since the students
no longer have to fly propeller aircraft for a single hour
even, but that was mainly an economic decision.
You could try to explain it with genetics or different
standards of education, but that couldn't explain the
improvement over as short a time.
--
Urban Fredriksson u...@icl.se
If you plan on reading just one book this week -- you read far too few books.
COSMO12365
time who will fly their nation's aircraft. I wonder if they would consider
doing the same with Olympic athletes, etc.? As a Naval Aviator and flight
instructor I've just been surprised too many times seeing who succeeds and
who fails in this business.
Sweden may be saving some money, but they may also be rejecting a number
of potentiallly excellent pilots.
Eric Scheie
Erik Svensson
cosmo...@aol.com (COSMO12365) writes:
>It'll be very tough to convince me that there is some kind of test out
>there that can be used to determine whether or not someone will be able to
>complete flight training other than actually getting in the cockpit and
>doing it.
That's already been proved. I don't expect you to believe
me, but perhaps you could ask those who use it? If you
don't I think it's because you don't want to believe it.
It was hard to convince the Swedish AF as well. The DM test is by now so
well proven that there's no opposition to it. I seem to remember the Israelis
using the DM test.
There is one thing about the DM test where I have to (maybe) agree with
some posters. It's a fact that 80% of the air-to-air kill are done by 20%
of you own pilots. So, the rest of your own pilots are just flying around
being targets for the enemys 20%. Obviously you want to increase your own
20%. And here's the problem. We don't know why some pilots are belong to
20% and some to the 80%. I remember seeing one israeli study that found that
the only common facts among the ace pilots were that they were all very well
adjusted to socity, they were all interested in history. So there is a real
possibility that the DM test in some way changes the 80/20 split but we don't
know.
>And - I'll never believe that using some kind of test will reduce pilot
>error mishaps to zero.
>I guess I'm being a bit blunt here.
No, just stupid. First I haven't seen Urban claim that pilot errors will
be reduced to zero. Secondly since you obviously don't know what the test
is designed to search for, how can you say anything about it?
The DM test look for pilots (or trainees rather) that will, in certain
situtations 'lock up' or freeze. That, as you might guess, is not a good thing.
cheers
--
Erik Svensson ATM Division
Stockholm, Sweden CelsiusTech AB
"Oh, come on. It can't be THAT bad."
-- Overheard at the entrance to Twice is Nice couloir, Jackson Hole, Wy
David Kuechenmeister
: No, just stupid. First I haven't seen Urban claim that pilot errors will
: be reduced to zero. Secondly since you obviously don't know what the test
: is designed to search for, how can you say anything about it?
: The DM test look for pilots (or trainees rather) that will, in certain
: situtations 'lock up' or freeze. That, as you might guess, is not a good thing.
I, for one, think that an infallible predictor of pilot performance would be
great. Do Urban or Erik have a citation in literature that would allow me to
do some background reading about the DM test?
Thanks,
Dave
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David R. Kuechenmeister |
Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Company |
Erik Svensson
There may be a test out somewhere that someone uses to determine ahead of
time who will fly their nation's aircraft. I wonder if they would consider
doing the same with Olympic athletes, etc.? As a Naval Aviator and flight
instructor I've just been surprised too many times seeing who succeeds and
who fails in this business.
You still seem unable to understand what the DM test tests for. It does NOT
test for wether the person can become a pilot. It test for the accident prone
one (tho' to a certain extent it tests for pilots as well.) If you'd care to
look at the numbers you'd see that not only has the succeed percentage from
flight school risen, the number of accidents has fallen after the introduction
of the DM test.
Not to denigrate your ability to spot talent but what says that the guys who
failed would have passed the DM test?
Sweden may be saving some money, but they may also be rejecting a number
of potentiallly excellent pilots.
We're not the only ones. Israel uses it as well, as I recall.
Erik Svensson
Erik Svensson writes:
>No, just stupid. First I haven't seen Urban claim that pilot errors will
be reduced to zero.
You're right! What he DID say was that mishaps due to pilot errors would
be reduced to zero. I disagree with that statement.
I can agree with you here. :-)
However, pilot induced mishaps are reduced, though not to zero.
BTW, how does the Swedish Air Force classify mishaps and how do they
claculate their mishap rate? We may both be looking at the word "mishap"
differently.
Frankly, I don't know. I do know that the number of lethal accidents has
lessened rather alot since the introduction of the DM test.
Also, since I don't know anything about this test, how about presenting
some of it here on the net. Questions, scenarios, how people are
evaluated, etc. I think it would be interesting.
I'll try. I no-longer work for National Defense Research Establishment (which
developed the test) here in Sweden and thus no longer have ready access to all
info, but I'll try.
Rick Siem
In article <urf.793259351@sw2001>, Urban_Fr...@icl.se
(Urban Fredriksson) says:
>For example, the Defence Mechanism Test was highly doubted
>to have a predictive ability. But all the then current pilots
>were graded (on a 1-4 scale), and some years later the
>results were evaluated. Of those with the worst results,
>none were still in the air force. They had either left it
>or become fatalities. None of those with the best grade had
>been involved in a "human factors" related accident. In the
>face of this statistically significant evidence, what
>reasons could there have been to not use the DMT in the
>selection proces?
>
>[snip]
>
>Of course this isn't acceptable in other cultures, who may
>like to produce their combat pilots in other ways. I
>understand that the Pakistani considers a high washout
>ratio a proof of the quality of those remaining, for
>example. Nor does it surprise me that the USA prefers to
>spend a lot of unnecessary money instead of changing their
>way of looking at things. If you have the money, you can do
>it. We, like many other smaller countries have to use the
>resources we have as well as possible.
There are some assumptions in your defense of the DMT (no pun intended)
that need to be addressed. First of all, you seem to assume the DMT is
cost-effective compared to present selection system used by the
American military. According to my best information, the DMT is
only valid when scored by a small number of highly trained test
administrators. The U.S. military, in contrast to many smaller
countries, uses decentralized selection procedures. Pilots come
from college ROTC programs, military academies, and officer
training/candidate schools. Applicants are accepted into pilot
training well before they ever show up at any centralized training
facility. How much would it cost to train DMT administrators and
send them around the country 12 months a year to test thousands of
applicants?
Secondly, you assume that a primary selection criterion for the
military is to identify pilots with a propensity to become involved
in accidents. This is not identical with selecting pilots to perform
effectively in combat. It is important not to confuse a process that
screens out pilots with a propensity to fail from a process that screens
in pilots with the aptitude and characteristics to train and
perform well.
******************************************************************************
Rick Siem Armstrong Lab Opinions expressed here are
si...@alhrm2.brooks.af.mil AL/HRMA mine and not necessarily
(210) 536-3956 7909 Lindbergh Dr those of the Air Force or
Brooks AFB, TX 78235 the Department of Defense.
******************************************************************************
Jacob M Mcguire
The thing is, how will the pilots do in wartime, which is, after
all, the real test.
----------------------------------------------------------
| If everyone _is_ actually out to get | Jake McGuire |
| you, is it still paranoia? | mcg...@cmu.edu |
----------------------------------------------------------
BatPress
> OK, so this test reduces the number of accidents in peacetime.
>The thing is, how will the pilots do in wartime, which is, after all,
the real test.
During the F-23 program at Northrop Grumman, but there was a study done by
the simulations and cockpit design group that looked at cockpit designs
and how they improved situation awareness. This work was done partly as a
result of a historical/technical paper that I wrote in the early 80s on
situation awareness and how it can effect and possibly predict success in
air combat.
As background for this paper, I used my experience as a charter member of
the elite Air Force Aggressor Squadron and over 10 years experience in
training Aggressor pilots and developing and participating in Red Flags
and tactics development tests at the Air Force Fighter Weapons School.
Over the years, I discovered that the pilots who succeeded in air-to-air,
regardless of the aircraft they were flying, were the ones who had the
best situation awareness during and after the engagements.
In the technical paper that was presented at the first symposium on
situation awareness at Nellis AFB, again in the early 80s, I traced the
histories of the greatest aces from Oswald Boelcke, the father of
formation flying, to Eric Hartmann, the leading ace of all time with 352
kills. Interestingly, I found that all these aces had one thing in
common: a great knack for situation awareness. In fact, Edward Sims in
his book *Fighter Tactics and Strategy 1914-1970* summarized Hartmann's
skills this way:
"What is different about Hartmann? What were the combat tactics he
followed in the air? What set him above all the fighter pilots of the
Second World War . . . .He was unquestionably a remarkable shot and
enjoyed excellent vision, and these assets, plus exceptional flying
ability, are obvious. His most singular talent might have been a unique
ability to size up a situation carefully and coolly in all its dimensions
before acting, thus avoiding mistakes.
He believes one of the most vital parts of every aerial encounter is
to see the enemy first and to decide how to begin the action or whether to
avoid combat. . . . Hartmann was very careful to size up his enemy and
aerial conditions and to wait for the right moment to attack, which was
usually possible on the Eastern Front. This, more than any other tactical
principle, perhaps more than his technique in the firing pass itself, is
the most overlooked differnce between Hartmann and the majority of fighter
pilots."
The study done by Northrop Grumman verified my premise and went one
step further. They actually developed a tool that could measure situation
awarness during and after aerial engagement in the air combat simulator.
They used this tool to measure how different cockpit designs affected
situation awareness. However, most interesting, was they found that there
was a direct correlation between situation awareness and success within
the engagements. Also, the consistently most successful pilots always
scored higher on the situation awareness scale regardless of cockpit
designs.
Rick Siem is right, you can predict success in wartime if you can
evaluate a pilot's capability to gain and maintain situation awareness.
This is also why the Air Force has decided to change its mind on JTIDS
terminals in fighter aircraft. The JTIDS is such a powerful tool to
provide situation awareness in the cockpit to most of the those pilots who
cannot visualize the situation in their mind.