3 ms·
Yes, this “pilots are trained professionals and therefore they can accurately identify a meaningful anomaly” does not match my experience of being a pilot or th
by minitoar 5y ago
Yes, this “pilots are trained professionals and therefore they can accurately identify a meaningful anomaly” does not match my experience of being a pilot or the training I received. It is drilled into you that your senses basically can’t be trusted. Your eyes and your brain will try to make sense of what you are seeing and feeling and that’s fine but it’s up to your higher brain to remember that those systems are often wrong. Your eyes will trick you and you have to use other context to actually know what you are seeing — information that is not always available.
- quesera 5y agoExactly. Pilots are highly trained, but they are not experts in everything (physics, atmospheric science). At the end of the day, everyone is fallible -- and even the experts are sometimes surprised. These reports can only be treated as best efforts to fit observed phenomena into an existing framework of (inherently limited) understanding. When the phenomenon is adequately oddball, you have to expect an increased level of misinterpretation. See also: doctors, scientists, infosec practitioners, ... Clearly, this is adequate justification for collection of additional data, but it's not enough to draw conclusions from.