Situational awareness questions

[Becky]

On other threads it seems we have established that pilots are often geeky, and that perhaps ADHD in a pilot is a good thing because it helps them multitask.

I seek further understanding.

In terms of focusing on one thing very well, is situational awareness one "thing?" Similarly, is multitasking one "thing," something you can focus on?

Geeky people often don't multitask well because their tendency is to focus on one thing. Yet many pilots are geeky, and piloting requires a lot of multitasking.

A geeky type person usually possesses a formidable intellect. Their knowledge, opinions and insights are highly valued. Often, though, they seem to miss things in daily life. As PIC, are they also likely to miss things?

Example ... in a group conversation, they'll express a well-thought-out response to the third or fourth topic back, as if the group conversation hadn't moved on.

Did they miss the intervening subjects entirely whilst cogitating on the earlier subject that caught their interest?

And if so, when such a highly intelligent yet geeky person is PIC, do they, in that capacity, actually change, and NOT miss things? Example ... being busy with flying tasks, locating traffic, charting course, etc., yet also noting all other relevant occurrences inside and outside the plane and hearing everything ATC is saying?

Are you different (some traits recede, others come forth) as PIC than you are in your daily non-flying life?

Example ... in daily life you misplace your keys a lot, often forget appointments, miss a turnoff when driving, don't notice when people are talking to you ... but as PIC you have a highly developed situational awareness?

For the record: I like geeky people, usually enjoy spending time with them, and usually admire their abilities and accomplishments. I use the term "geeky" in a complimentary way.

Thank you.

 

[Warrior]

I have been told that most dentists are "introverted geeks" and I fit that category.

Be careful with the ADHD, supposedly pilots aren't supposed to be able to fly if they are
ADHD. I think that you can get around that by staying out of psychiatrist offices and using checklists and various means to deal with the ADHD without medications.

Interesting thoughts about geeks and flying. I do think that pilots sometimes are on the geeky side, it does take something in the brain to pass the various tests to become one.

 

[John221us]

I won't defend the characterization that pilots tend to be ADHD. I am not sure this is true. I suppose that I would fit your description of geek in that I am technical and have the ability to hyper focus (to the point that I am not aware of other things going on around me). I am not in this mode all the time, though, only when I am working on a problem that requires deep concentration. I would say that many pilots do tend to be structured and rigid (a bit OCD maybe) in their ways. We follow checklists and procedures for most things, including emergencies. These are practiced, so that if an emergency happens, the correct procedure and action is used. Pilots don't typically fly by the seat of their pants, but rather fly methodically and use well practiced methods for handling issues.

 

[douglas393]

Much like Baskin Robbins pilots come in all flavors. I would be surprised if there is one perfect "recipe" for the best type to be a pilot. I tend to be geeky at times, but have a great ability to multitask. As for the ADHD issue, I tend to bore easily(which is often true for "ADHD types") and the constant need to be doing something while flying and the multitask environment of flying is what attracts me to flying.

I have an ability to put my concentration totally into the task at hand, and block out external unassociated distractions, yet be aware of everything happening about me, which is why I like to fly. While flying I concentrate on flying and I empty my mind of the "distractions of my life"(profession, business, family, etc). For me it is like taking a vacation, but better, because when I come back my desk has not disappeared under a mountain of paperwork, and charts.

 

[Captain]

I've often said a pilots job isn't so much to multitask as it is to prioritize.

I used to do a demonstration in ground school. I have the class select a student they all agreed was pretty sharp. I ask him if he knew the alphabet and ask him to demonstrate.

A B C D...

Okay, good. Can you count?

1, 2 , 3, 4,

Okay...how about both together? Like A1, B2, C3 etc?

Um, okay...A 1 B 2 ahh C 3 ...ummmD errrr 4 ahhhhE

That's not bad...how about if I ask you simple math while you do that? Nothing hard, just simple single digit addition. So the student would start:

A1, B2, C3, D4, E5 (me: what's 7 plus 4?)

Ahhhhhhhh. 11? Ummmmmmm E? No ahhhh

The point was made. Humans are terrible multitaskers. Rather than try to do what we are just bad at I suggest we simply try to be the best at figuring out not only what is important, but also WHEN its important.

I've never met a person who could actually do the exercise BTW.

 

[Ted]

There are a number of pilots who, on the ground, are complete klutzes and I wouldn't trust to operate a chainsaw or an automobile. Put them in an airplane, and they actually do an excellent job.

Basically, some people have a mindset that makes them a good pilot, even though it might also make them poorly functioning in other parts of their lives. Not a requirement, but I've certainly seen it before. There's a great deal of variability in personalities. More than anything, it seems that being responsible and able to think clearly when situations are tough are important traits.

 

[tinerj]

Humans are terrible multitaskers.

Absolutely not true!

Its easy to multitask if you use different parts of your brain for each task-- use the visual part to check the attitude indicator, the tactile part to feel how far the throttle is in or out, use the speech part to talk to ATC, and the auditory to listen to the sound of the engine.

Each section of the brain is independent of the other, so they each can be engaged while the other is busy, too.

 

[douglas393]

I've often said a pilots job isn't so much to multitask as it is to prioritize.

I used to do a demonstration in ground school. I have the class select a student they all agreed was pretty sharp. I ask him if he knew the alphabet and ask him to demonstrate.

A B C D...

Okay, good. Can you count?

1, 2 , 3, 4,

Okay...how about both together? Like A1, B2, C3 etc?

Um, okay...A 1 B 2 ahh C 3 ...ummmD errrr 4 ahhhhE

That's not bad...how about if I ask you simple math while you do that? Nothing hard, just simple single digit addition. So the student would start:

A1, B2, C3, D4, E5 (me: what's 7 plus 4?)

Ahhhhhhhh. 11? Ummmmmmm E? No ahhhh

The point was made. Humans are terrible multitaskers. Rather than try to do what we are just bad at I suggest we simply try to be the best at figuring out not only what is important, but also WHEN its important.

I've never met a person who could actually do the exercise BTW.

I sort of disagree with your thought demonstration. The ability to multitask is not something that can occur without training. So I agree if you have someone multitask a process that are "unfamiliar" with they do poorly. However, in reality human survival depended on and still depends on our ability to multitask. Unfortunately, at times the process is flawed and that is when disaster occurs. A simple example would be the an early human hunting in the grassy plains of Africa. He sees an antelope he want for dinner. While stalking the antelope, he needs to be watching the antelope he has chosen, watch out for hazards on the ground, watch out he does not get trampled by the rest of the antelopes, get his spear ready to be thrown, be careful he keeps clear of the lion eyeing an antelope as well, and keep his young son quiet so he does not scare the antelope or attract the lion.

We multitask all the time, it is a human trait. We just do not think it as such because it is so natural. It becomes difficult to do when the different components are new to our experience, but as they become part of our thinking process we become better at it.

Rather than try to do what we are just bad at I suggest we simply try to be the best at figuring out not only what is important, but also WHEN its important.

I would suggest just doing this is multitasking.

 

[Captain]

True. I almost made an aside in that post to point out we do, as pilots fly the plane while writing the ATIS down. Just flying the plane is watching various things and coordinating muscle movements to control the plane.

But I do see your point of how a brain can split 'normal / learned' tasks and new / unfamiliar tasks. I'm not a brain specialist. But its odd to me that VERY simple things like saying the alphabet, counting and doing since.please some math a 5 year old can do can't be done together by a pilot.

I still think being able to prioritize correctly what the important task at hand IS is a very valuable trait in any pilot. I see people screw it up with disastrous results.

 

[tinerj]

Let the test subject do three different type of tasks rather than the A1 B2 C3 ... math questions.

Let them count the numbers, write down the letters, and instead of giving them a math problem, put a slice of fruit (apple, pear, etc.) under their nose and ask what it is. Most people can keep those three different type of tasks going indefinitely. Multitasking is easy provide the person is wise enough to take advantage of the different regions of the brain.

 

[35 AoA]

I feel like the thread title here is a little at odds with the OP. Having "Situational Awareness" is not the end result of multitasking. Multitasking will allow you to get a bunch of tasks done simultaneously, but it doesn't mean that you have SA at the end of it all. I have seen guys, and have even been the guy at times, that is doing a lot of stuff at once with no SA whatsoever. You can do all the things in the world at once, but if you aren't filtering out the important things and building a picture of reality in your mind, then you aren't building your SA. Put in slightly different terms, I could simply listen to the radio and look outside and have requisite SA in a lot of flight regimes.....no crazy multitasking required.

 

[douglas393]

I feel like the thread title here is a little at odds with the OP. Having "Situational Awareness" is not the end result of multitasking. Multitasking will allow you to get a bunch of tasks done simultaneously, but it doesn't mean that you have SA at the end of it all. I have seen guys, and have even been the guy at times, that is doing a lot of stuff at once with no SA whatsoever. You can do all the things in the world at once, but if you aren't filtering out the important things and building a picture of reality in your mind, then you aren't building your SA. Put in slightly different terms, I could simply listen to the radio and look outside and have requisite SA in a lot of flight regimes.....no crazy multitasking required.

True, but as you point out in your last statement that situational awareness is the goal of multitasking. Sometimes that may mean what is outside the windshield and nothing more(not even need the radio), and sometimes that may mean a whole lot more multitasking(for example a complicated arrival in IMC to minimums, with low fuel, and a cranky passenger and another passenger who is having a heart attack to boot.

 

[35 AoA]

True, but as you point out in your last statement that situational awareness is the goal of multitasking. Sometimes that may mean what is outside the windshield and nothing more(not even need the radio), and sometimes that may mean a whole lot more multitasking(for example a complicated arrival in IMC to minimums, with low fuel, and a cranky passenger and another passenger who is having a heart attack to boot.

Absolutely. I guess my point in it's most concise form, is that the simple act of multitasking does not yield SA in of itself. You get SA from taking the important bits of info from all of your tasks, and putting them together in your mind to create your impression of reality. If that impression matches reality, then you have SA. If it doesn't, then you are simply doing a lot of busy work and not getting anything from it.

So in short, I'd say that a pilot who has the kind of experience to know what he/she needs to know and where to look, is going to have much higher situational awareness than someone who is able to do more tasks simultaneously but doesn't know what to make of them. If that makes any sense.....work smarter not harder I guess

 

[MAKG1]

I've never met a person who could actually do the exercise BTW.

Except maybe Rain Man.

 

[Captain]

Absolutely. I guess my point in it's most concise form, is that the simple act of multitasking does not yield SA in of itself. You get SA from taking the important bits of info from all of your tasks, and putting them together in your mind to create your impression of reality. If that impression matches reality, then you have SA. If it doesn't, then you are simply doing a lot of busy work and not getting anything from it.

So in short, I'd say that a pilot who has the kind of experience to know what he/she needs to know and where to look, is going to have much higher situational awareness than someone who is able to do more tasks simultaneously but doesn't know what to make of them. If that makes any sense.....work smarter not harder I guess

Which is exactly where my concept of prioritization comes in. I pilot who does a great job on the wrong task is just as bad as a pilot who doesn't do the right task.

Spending time reviewing an approach does no good before the ATIS is received and you know which approach you're going to do. Or, concentrating on the ATIS is silly when you're gliding 15 miles from the field at 800' with a dead engine. Extreme example, but your get the idea. There are tasks to perform and they need to be performed in sequence and at the right time. Things come up and need to be worked into the flow in the right priority given the time.at hand. A great pilot can sequence the tasks and knock the out in order. That's my point...

 

[douglas393]

Which is exactly where my concept of prioritization comes in. I pilot who does a great job on the wrong task is just as bad as a pilot who doesn't do the right task.

Spending time reviewing an approach does no good before the ATIS is received and you know which approach you're going to do. Or, concentrating on the ATIS is silly when you're gliding 15 miles from the field at 800' with a dead engine. Extreme example, but your get the idea. There are tasks to perform and they need to be performed in sequence and at the right time. Things come up and need to be worked into the flow in the right priority given the time.at hand. A great pilot can sequence the tasks and knock the out in order. That's my point...

It is called triage. Decide what is the most important task and take care of that and then repeat. It is both an inate and learned skill, but most importantly takes a degree of common sense. Unfortunately, most days common sense seems to be facing extinction.

 

[OkieFlyer]

This thread proves the geekiness part. Y'all think too much. Go fly

 

[Becky]

Overthinking is subjective and a whole topic unto itself!

I suppose that I would fit your description of geek in that I am technical and have the ability to hyper focus (to the point that I am not aware of other things going on around me). I am not in this mode all the time, though, only when I am working on a problem that requires deep concentration. I would say that many pilots do tend to be structured and rigid (a bit OCD maybe) in their ways. We follow checklists and procedures for most things, including emergencies. These are practiced, so that if an emergency happens, the correct procedure and action is used. Pilots don't typically fly by the seat of their pants, but rather fly methodically and use well practiced methods for handling issues.

That is all very close to what I was searching for ... and must begin to internalize.

Most of what I've picked up about SA and geekiness through the years could be wrong. I'm referring to the likes of Captain Kirk, the "cowboy" of space, who always "intuited" what the Klingon or Romulan captains were really up to. He drove that ship many times "from the hip," even when it was severely damaged and his instruments were worthless!!! While under attack! When the shields wouldn't work! He broke rules!

But he always had SPOCK (geek) to consult!

Now, when Spock had to take command of the ship, we (the audience) always grew a bit unsettled ... Spock is a geek! He can't "shoot from the hip" or "get the feel" of what is going on! It was always a relief when the Captain returned to the bridge, and to command.

This happens repeatedly in film and story. Picard had Data. Even Daniel Boone had Mingo, who had been to Harvard or Cambridge or somewhere, for heaven's sake, and injected wisdom and philosophy into the situation.

Upshot: In fiction, the SA-savvy expert in charge almost always has a geek backing him up! And TOGETHER they tackle and conquer all challenges! Separately ... gets a little iffy.

But that is all fiction, and perhaps reflects little to nothing about reality.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Upshot: In fiction, the SA-savvy expert in charge almost always has a geek backing him up! And TOGETHER they tackle and conquer all challenges! Separately ... gets a little iffy.

But that is all fiction, and perhaps reflects little to nothing about reality.

Except for Boone, in all those fictional cases the command decisions often had to be made without input from more senior people, yet the commander would eventually have to answer to those senior people. One real-world analog I'm aware of is submarine commander (particularly during WWII) where they were often out of touch but had to make important local decisions. My vague recollection from the books I had read on submarine warfare was that the U.S. navy deliberately chose those who did not have "cowboy" personality traits - they wanted captains who were analytical and emotionally low key. Basically "just get the job done" types. More Spock, Data, or Picard than Kirk.

On the other hand, here's an interesting article on "What Makes a Good CO?" from the Navy website:

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_27/co2.html

I think it is interesting that they believe both analytical and "intuitive" decision making abilities are important; that analytical is not sufficient.

"Situational awareness" was listed first in their elements of success:

1. Good COs can process a lot of data, prioritize important cues, and recognize patterns-they have good situational awareness.

• They can sift the valuable and pertinent cues from the chaff, and maintain their focus.
• They can then recognize patterns emerging from those important cues. This applies to concrete and abstract situations.
  • The arrival angle is getting lower; the noise-to-sound ratio is going up; I can hear him on the underwater telephone. This is a closing contact.
  • There is nobody giving clear orders, the officer of the deck and junior officer of the deck are not agreeing on contact solutions; the fire control technician of the watch keeps asking for more observations; and the sonar supervisor is reassigning trackers to all contacts. My control room party is not certain of the contact situation.
  • For the last six months, I have had to intervene personally during the execution of too many evolutions throughout the ship. My teams are not properly preparing themselves for the tasks at hand.
• The combination of prioritizing the cues and recognizing the patterns is situational awareness.

​

 

[OkieFlyer]

Overthinking is subjective and a whole topic unto itself!

That is all very close to what I was searching for ... and must begin to internalize.

Most of what I've picked up about SA and geekiness through the years could be wrong. I'm referring to the likes of Captain Kirk, the "cowboy" of space, who always "intuited" what the Klingon or Romulan captains were really up to. He drove that ship many times "from the hip," even when it was severely damaged and his instruments were worthless!!! While under attack! When the shields wouldn't work! He broke rules!

But he always had SPOCK (geek) to consult!

Now, when Spock had to take command of the ship, we (the audience) always grew a bit unsettled ... Spock is a geek! He can't "shoot from the hip" or "get the feel" of what is going on! It was always a relief when the Captain returned to the bridge, and to command.

This happens repeatedly in film and story. Picard had Data. Even Daniel Boone had Mingo, who had been to Harvard or Cambridge or somewhere, for heaven's sake, and injected wisdom and philosophy into the situation.

Upshot: In fiction, the SA-savvy expert in charge almost always has a geek backing him up! And TOGETHER they tackle and conquer all challenges! Separately ... gets a little iffy.

But that is all fiction, and perhaps reflects little to nothing about reality.

I think there's some reality in there. As a "cowboy" type person, I find I have to summon the inner geek some to get certain things done. It's the balance that needs to be struck, as with many other aspects of life. For me, its hard to get the geek out, because the gauges, monitors, GPSs, and VORs, flight planning, are not the fun part of flying. I, for the most part, get a lot more fun out of just winging things or, as you said, shooting from the hip. The feeling and the freedom of flight, the unique perspective from the sky, and going fast is what makes it so much fun. Unfortunately, in order to remain safe and on top of all the technical bits of piloting, the geek must be summoned. You can't just wing it and live very long, so the Captain Kirk in us needs the Vulcan to make a well rounded and safe pilot, and the Vulcan in us needs the Captain Kirk to let us look out the window and enjoy the view, and perhaps allow us a good ol' full power low pass over your buddy's house once in a while.

Whole life musta hava balance -Mr. Miyagi-

Live long and prosper my friends

 

[hindsight2020]

The only reason pilots today are characterized as geeky is the advent of microprocessors in the modern cockpit. Pilots of yesteryear exhibited an interest in the mechanical aspect of flying, coupled with the inherently less safe pursuit that was flying in the hayday.

This is why fighter pilots epitomized in Top Gun don't exist anymore. Viper/Hornet/Mudhen drivers have feelings and drive minivans these days. The job is the same, but it has more garmin buttons. Geeks gravitate to that. It's why young pilots can't pull any tail with the pilot jab anymore, it's outright embarassing these days, plus the word is out that pilots don't make jack. One might as well say one's a roughneck, that tends to drop female underwear these days (at least assuming she only wants to lay you, not marry you). It is also why so many recreational pilots stare at an instrument panel full of shining lights rather than look outside. Computers made flying more safe and automated from a statistical perspective, but it also changed the demographics of the people drawn to it. Flying wasn't always that way.

As to situational awareness, i always go back to what my old DO (XO for you aye aye types) said once to get us to re-hacked on CRM: "The thing about SA is..if you don't have it, you won't miss it. Questions?.. Go fly."

 

[SbestCFII]

Situational awareness, simply put, is an awareness of the big picture. Where am I on 3-D space in relation to my destination, whare am I going from here, and what am I going to do when I get there. Fortunately, situational awareness has been greatly simplified with the use of moving-map GPS units (panel or portable, certified or otherwise).

For the newer folks, situational awareness was being able to visualize yourself on the chart using data from radials, bearings and distance information. "Tasking," is simply performing maneuvers, procedures, etc.

 

[steingar]

In general, I think generalizations are generally not as general as the moniker "generalizations" might imply.

 

[MAKG1]

Situational awareness, simply put, is an awareness of the big picture. Where am I on 3-D space in relation to my destination, whare am I going from here, and what am I going to do when I get there. Fortunately, situational awareness has been greatly simplified with the use of moving-map GPS units (panel or portable, certified or otherwise).

For the newer folks, situational awareness was being able to visualize yourself on the chart using data from radials, bearings and distance information. "Tasking," is simply performing maneuvers, procedures, etc.

That's part of it.

Another part of situational awareness is cataloguing significant hazards, especially other nearby airplanes.

 

[35 AoA]

The only reason pilots today are characterized as geeky is the advent of microprocessors in the modern cockpit. Pilots of yesteryear exhibited an interest in the mechanical aspect of flying, coupled with the inherently less safe pursuit that was flying in the hayday.

This is why fighter pilots epitomized in Top Gun don't exist anymore. Viper/Hornet/Mudhen drivers have feelings and drive minivans these days. The job is the same, but it has more garmin buttons. Geeks gravitate to that. It's why young pilots can't pull any tail with the pilot jab anymore, it's outright embarassing these days, plus the word is out that pilots don't make jack. One might as well say one's a roughneck, that tends to drop female underwear these days (at least assuming she only wants to lay you, not marry you). It is also why so many recreational pilots stare at an instrument panel full of shining lights rather than look outside. Computers made flying more safe and automated from a statistical perspective, but it also changed the demographics of the people drawn to it. Flying wasn't always that way.

As to situational awareness, i always go back to what my old DO (XO for you aye aye types) said once to get us to re-hacked on CRM: "The thing about SA is..if you don't have it, you won't miss it. Questions?.. Go fly."

I'd honestly say the *modern day* the fighter pilot lifestyle is different than you think. Books, TV, and whatever else like to concentrate on the mega dorks who DO exist, but I'd venture a guess that they did in 1950 when we were flying off straight decks with props and guns only as well. Sure the party culture has been subdued by the career implications of an alcohol related incident (ie you are probably done), but it isn't a dungeons and dragons fest. It still takes a really thick skin, you still have to hold your booze on det, and most importantly, the same skills that got guys like Col Olds, and Capt Cunningham kills over NVN are required to be successful today. Radar, sensors, JHMCS are all nice, but they don't make the fighter pilot, and nobody worth anything relies on them for SA.

Okay, end thread jack......but this is a popular misconception that has been borne of a few best sellers and Discovery specials that just simply want to draw a conclusion that isn't there.

 

[Pi1otguy]

The point was made. Humans are terrible multitaskers. Rather than try to do what we are just bad at I suggest we simply try to be the best at figuring out not only what is important, but also WHEN its important.

I've never met a person who could actually do the exercise BTW.

Those excercises are biased for the reasons you stated. In you example letters could be various engine gauges and numbers fiddling w various radios. The math problem would be the Lear 45 popping out of the cloud below heading your way. We can drop the letters and number and start over.

Instead of calling it multitasking, lets call it rapid task switching. During rts, certain task just aren't as important all the time. The key is to recognize what is important and when.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

IMHO "situational awareness" is a process. And as a process it become useless once it is dropped. If your awareness flow drops you have to rebuild your world, and trying to catch up in a rapidly evolving scenario can often lead to sensory overload.
There have been times in my past flying that accurate situational awareness was literally a matter of life and death, and that is when CRM and endless hours of drill involving the entire aircrew worked to our advantage. High angle recoveries next to a cliff, holding position for a hoist off a boat in crappy weather, are examples of situations where single pilots would have a very difficult time executing the evolution if they were able to at all.
In typical single pilot GA flying I believe one must keep a constant "flow" of awareness for the entire flight. At least that is my goal. There is no doubt that the new generation of avionics makes it easier, as long as the operator gets quality instruction in the features of the system.......A process I'm in midstream of as I load a new Garmin toy into the old bus.

 

[Becky]

Interesting and thought-provoking responses. Because I literally cannot focus to the point of tuning out irrelevant external data, much less turn such an ability off an on at will, it's really hard for me to imagine how that must feel.

It seems like missing ANYTHING in the environment would be a problem, relevant or not ... because something irrelevant could quickly become relevant.

There are a number of pilots who, on the ground, are complete klutzes and I wouldn't trust to operate a chainsaw or an automobile. Put them in an airplane, and they actually do an excellent job. --Ted

That was one thing I was wondering about ... what's going on with that? The person who CHANGES from how they are in regular life to how they are as PIC. I might not fly with someone who had a bad driving record. Yet obviously some CFI's did ...

Regarding being able to do lots of things at one time, I'm still skeptical. A boatload of studies have been done about texting/cell phone use while driving, and all the ones I've read about conclude that humans can only FOCUS on one thing at a time. We can DO several things, but only focus on one thing at a time.

That's why I really like this concept:

Instead of calling it multitasking, lets call it rapid task switching. During rts, certain task just aren't as important all the time. The key is to recognize what is important and when. --fox mcloud

Yes! Rapid task switching describes reality better than multitasking.

For me ... the gauges, monitors, GPSs, and VORs, flight planning, are not the fun part of flying. I, for the most part, get a lot more fun out of just winging things or, as you said, shooting from the hip. The feeling and the freedom of flight, the unique perspective from the sky, and going fast is what makes it so much fun. Unfortunately, in order to remain safe and on top of all the technical bits of piloting, the geek must be summoned. --okieflyer

I am sort of shocked by that! But it makes perfect sense. The geek and the cowboy must work together.

When I get on a commercial flight, I tell myself that my pilot is the ideal combination of innate ability, intuition, training, and great SA. In short, Sully! This may not be true, of course. But when you LIVE with your pilot, as I do, you do tend to try and resolve certain characteristics you observe in daily life with their being PIC.

 

[Ted]

Interesting and thought-provoking responses. Because I literally cannot focus to the point of tuning out irrelevant external data, much less turn such an ability off an on at will, it's really hard for me to imagine how that must feel.

We do it all the time. For us, it's no big deal.

It seems like missing ANYTHING in the environment would be a problem, relevant or not ... because something irrelevant could quickly become relevant.

That can be true, and that's also part of the thought process. What can you dismiss as irrelevant, what should you keep an eye on, and what is something you need to pay attention to right now?

That was one thing I was wondering about ... what's going on with that? The person who CHANGES from how they are in regular life to how they are as PIC. I might not fly with someone who had a bad driving record. Yet obviously some CFI's did ...

Think of it like Rain Man, except without the autism. "I'm a very good pilot." There are some people who just get in their zone when put at the controls of an airplane, but are terrible behind the wheel, and not great at other areas within life. It's how some people are wired.

Regarding being able to do lots of things at one time, I'm still skeptical. A boatload of studies have been done about texting/cell phone use while driving, and all the ones I've read about conclude that humans can only FOCUS on one thing at a time. We can DO several things, but only focus on one thing at a time.

Call it what you want, but it ends up being some level of multitasking/dividing attention. Ends up amounting to the same thing really - juggling the balls.

When I get on a commercial flight, I tell myself that my pilot is the ideal combination of innate ability, intuition, training, and great SA. In short, Sully! This may not be true, of course. But when you LIVE with your pilot, as I do, you do tend to try and resolve certain characteristics you observe in daily life with their being PIC.

The pilots on the commercial flight are humans just like the rest of us. You might like them at a social gathering, or you might not. They have their faults and none of them are perfect. The real advantages they have are more experience (usually), more capable equipment certified to a higher standard, more recent experience since they fly more often, set procedures that they probably follow pretty well, and recurrent training every 6-12 months. Those are significant advantages, and I don't think anyone on here would say that private GA is as safe as commercial flying. It's not, and the statistics are pretty clear on that.

The analogy most people use is that GA is akin to riding a motorcycle safety wise. Note: many of us ride motorcycles, too. The big difference is that on a motorcycle, if you crash and die it's probably not your fault. A truck runs you over, a deer walks in front of you, etc. On the other hand if you die in GA, it is almost certainly the pilot's fault. Most of us like that aspect, because it means that we're less likely to die because of someone else's screw-up. I know that I can deal a lot better with the idea of dying because I screwed up than because someone else did.