3 ms·

Fun fact about the USAF: pilots are selected based on personnel's assessment of a cadet's probability of making general officer. Aptitude for flying and piloti

Fun fact about the USAF: pilots are selected based on personnel's assessment of a cadet's probability of making general officer. Aptitude for flying and piloting ability have nothing to do with the assessment, which occurs before pilot training. As a result, many Air Force pilots are awful pilots, but they are world class ass kisssers and social climbers.

bodhiandphysics 5y ago
Fun fact... this is completely false!
- tablespoon 5y ago
  Yeah, it doesn't pass the smell test. I wouldn't be surprised if both piloting skill and advancement potential were requirements, though. It's sort of like people who are both awesome software developers and good managers. Those qualities often do not overlap, but they do sometimes. If you can afford to be selective enough (which is rare), you can check both boxes for everyone you hire.
  - bodhiandphysics 5y ago
    That is in fact what the air foce does. It uses a numerical rating based on a) an exam of pilot related skills. B) a general knowledge exam c) number of hours piloting you already have
alarge 5y ago
I'll take a slightly more nuanced position than a peer poster and say this is "mostly wrong" and somewhat backwards. (I've been out of this area for a few years, so my perspective might be a little dated, but I doubt it has changed that much) Pilots aren't simply "selected". You have to get through multiple gates to become a pilot in the USAF. Most of those gates involve demonstrating some degree of devotion and/or skill at flying (for example, having a private pilot's license before competing for a pilot slot is a really good idea). Having said this, pilots for the most part either end up in combat roles (e.g., fighters, etc.) or in leadership roles (as in, you have a whole crew you for which you are responsible). Furthermore, pilots are officers and all officers are expected to be effective leaders. So sure, leadership qualities are one of the things you look for - because you look for them in all your officer candidates. Now, you may not agree with the personality traits identified as leadership traits. In general, it is true that the military tends to favor personality traits over management skills (the argument being that management skills can be learned, but some innate personality traits cannot). They judge that things like "likeability" and "ability to get others to trust and follow you" matter. And here comes the backwards part. General officers are selected for their perceived ability to understand the mission of the USAF and move it forwards. This requires leadership skills and so is biased towards those with those skills. But there is also a general belief that the people who have most directly been involved in executing that mission are the people who are best positioned to lead that mission. In this case, being a "rated" officer (this used to be pilot/navigator/missile launch officer, but now seems to include a couple of other designations) actually dramatically improves your chances to make O6+ (Colonel -> 4-star General). So it isn't that you are selected to be a pilot because they think you'd be a good General - they think you'd be a good General because you've been a pilot. A final note - while all officer candidates are selected based on leadership skills, there are other factors that are also considered. For example, if you are competing for a technical slot, having a STEM degree is generally a requirement. But traditionally, the rated slots didn't have any particular educational requirements (other than a 4-year university degree). As a result, pilot candidates generally just have two things in common: * Those personality traits * A demonstrated commitment to become a pilot Given this, I can see why the original comment was made. But to actually become a pilot, you have to demonstrate the ability to fly. The training is both rigorous and very expensive, and I'd seriously doubt they'd keep the system as is if it routinely produced "awful" pilots.

bodhiandphysics 5y ago

Fun fact... this is completely false!

tablespoon 5y ago
Yeah, it doesn't pass the smell test. I wouldn't be surprised if both piloting skill and advancement potential were requirements, though. It's sort of like people who are both awesome software developers and good managers. Those qualities often do not overlap, but they do sometimes. If you can afford to be selective enough (which is rare), you can check both boxes for everyone you hire.
- bodhiandphysics 5y ago
  That is in fact what the air foce does. It uses a numerical rating based on a) an exam of pilot related skills. B) a general knowledge exam c) number of hours piloting you already have

alarge 5y ago

I'll take a slightly more nuanced position than a peer poster and say this is "mostly wrong" and somewhat backwards. (I've been out of this area for a few years, so my perspective might be a little dated, but I doubt it has changed that much) Pilots aren't simply "selected". You have to get through multiple gates to become a pilot in the USAF. Most of those gates involve demonstrating some degree of devotion and/or skill at flying (for example, having a private pilot's license before competing for a pilot slot is a really good idea). Having said this, pilots for the most part either end up in combat roles (e.g., fighters, etc.) or in leadership roles (as in, you have a whole crew you for which you are responsible). Furthermore, pilots are officers and all officers are expected to be effective leaders. So sure, leadership qualities are one of the things you look for - because you look for them in all your officer candidates. Now, you may not agree with the personality traits identified as leadership traits. In general, it is true that the military tends to favor personality traits over management skills (the argument being that management skills can be learned, but some innate personality traits cannot). They judge that things like "likeability" and "ability to get others to trust and follow you" matter. And here comes the backwards part. General officers are selected for their perceived ability to understand the mission of the USAF and move it forwards. This requires leadership skills and so is biased towards those with those skills. But there is also a general belief that the people who have most directly been involved in executing that mission are the people who are best positioned to lead that mission. In this case, being a "rated" officer (this used to be pilot/navigator/missile launch officer, but now seems to include a couple of other designations) actually dramatically improves your chances to make O6+ (Colonel -> 4-star General). So it isn't that you are selected to be a pilot because they think you'd be a good General - they think you'd be a good General because you've been a pilot. A final note - while all officer candidates are selected based on leadership skills, there are other factors that are also considered. For example, if you are competing for a technical slot, having a STEM degree is generally a requirement. But traditionally, the rated slots didn't have any particular educational requirements (other than a 4-year university degree). As a result, pilot candidates generally just have two things in common: * Those personality traits * A demonstrated commitment to become a pilot Given this, I can see why the original comment was made. But to actually become a pilot, you have to demonstrate the ability to fly. The training is both rigorous and very expensive, and I'd seriously doubt they'd keep the system as is if it routinely produced "awful" pilots.