How intelligent/smart must you be to be a pilot??

[semperfido]

.....we don't get french benefits?

 

[cezzna]

After teaching many to fly i would agree that certain motor skills mixed with mental agility (intelligence?) greatly predict the success of a pilot. People who are good at learning to do other things in motion learn to fly well. I found that people who had athletic talent (good eye hand coordination) did much better also. If you gave me someone and I could ascertain their backround skill set, mix that with intelligence and I will have a good predictor of success. Someone who can work on their own car, play basketball, waterski, drive a stickshift car smoothly, learn how to operate a new cellphone without asking for help, will do well. Someone who can only drive an automatic, always goes to jiffy-lube, weighs 250 lbs because the only running they do is from airconditioning to airconditioning, has to read the manual on his new cellphone, will most likely fail.

 

[Gorilla]

Actually there was a program on the Military Chanel series Legends of Air power recently which documented the life of some USAF fighter pilot pack in the Vietnam era. He was the one who came up with the battle strategy adopted my the military and implemented so well in the two gulf wars. The guy had an IQ of 90 (ninety).

'Sled

I'm pretty sure you're referring to USAF pilot John Boyd. If so, Boyd's supposed IQ of 90 is a joke. He took the test as a very young man, and I'm sure approached it with a "Who gives a <bleep>" atttitude which was pretty typical for him. Boyd was one of the deepest thinkers ever to grace a cockpit. Google the term "OODA loop" for about 5,000 web sites devoted to this concept. Here's the first one:

http://www.mindsim.com/MindSim/Corporate/OODA.html


Great biography of John Boyd, a terrific read:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0316881465/102-6397559-2359346?v=glance&n=283155

Back to the topic - because there are so many "levels" of being a pilot, I don't think there is a simple answer. Does it require high intelligence to solo a C152? No. How about being a 4-ship mission commander on a combat sortie? Or piloting the Space Shuttle? I think these certainly require well above average intelligence. So there is certainly a range involved with this question.

 

[Headwind]

If you feel you're special because of your piloting skills remember that a monkey was put into space before John Glenn.
All kidding aside, some very intelligent people can't multi-task. To be a good pilot the ability to multi-task is more important than an above average IQ.

 

[enigma]

At one gate an airliner piloted by a genius and his genius FO awaits to depart for your home; just down the terminal, another airliner piloted by a moron and his moron FO awaits to depart to your home town. You hold a ticket home, and you can choose either airplane. Do you choose the genius or the moron?

Obviously, most normal persons can be trained to "fly" an airplane. I'm living proof that you don't have to be a genius to succeed as an airline Captain.

Luckily, the environment we operate in weeds out most of the morons before they get the chance to fail.

 

[NYCPilot]

Sometimes being smart seems average or normal until you've meet someone really stupid. If you think a certain way, you feel everyone should at least possess that minimal amount of common sense and intellect that you yourself do in most situations. Whats obvious to you may not be obvious to others. Most smart people think they're not all that smart and realize they have a lot to learn. Most people who think they're smart arent all that smart and think they know it all.

By the way, the average person thinks they're smarter than the average person.

 

[A Squared]

At one gate an airliner piloted by a genius and his genius FO awaits to depart for your home; just down the terminal, another airliner piloted by a moron and his moron FO awaits to depart to your home town. You hold a ticket home, and you can choose either airplane. Do you choose the genius or the moron?

well, I don't know, actually. Often true geniuses are fairly incompetent at real life things (human relations, driving, rational decision-making, things like that)

If it was a choice between a crew that was just slightly smarter then average or one that was just slightly dumber than average, it would be close, but I'd go with the smarter crew. If it was a choice between slightly dumber than average, and a crew with true extrordinary genius, I might opt for the slightly below average crew.

 

[VNugget]

Most smart people think they're not all that smart and realize they have a lot to learn. Most people who think they're smart arent all that smart and think they know it all.

Given that, I tried to analyze which one of the 2 I am, and ended up stuck in an infinite loop. GAAAH!

 

[PAPA FOX!]

imacdog, a college education does necessarily correlate to intelligence. Look at Bill Gates, no degree; look a David Neilman no degree. I have tested many college grads that score below non-grads on our entrance test. Will a college grad normally score above a non-degreed guy depends upon the guy.

Pilot YIP,


How do the pilots score on USA Jet's enterance test compared to the general population on average? I would assume a little higher but not a lot. Just a guess though.

 

[whaleroast]

I apparently passed the Wonderlik, so I must be smart.

 

[mar]

Here's my theory

I've been a CFI and a captain and ground school instructor, blah, blah, blah...

I've only met two people so far who have absolutely no business whatsoever in the cockpit of an airplane.

One, a student of mine (with a very rich father) who shelled out almost $10,000 and never got anywhere near close to first solo.

The other, an older gentleman, who claimed to have flown MiGs in the Soviet Air Force...who I assume was lying about his background the whole time.

The rest of us, with more or less work can succeed at being a pilot, but my personal theory is that the pilot with *average* intelligence makes the best pilot.

The dumb pilots are clueless because they don't pay attention and have no situational awareness.

The brilliant pilots are clueless because they over analyze every detail...and have no situational awareness.

The average pilot just seems to be dialed in and rolls with the punches, keeps the Big Picture in sight and never spills his coffee or loses his sense of humor.

That's the great pilot in my book.

 

[NYCPilot]

I think that makes a lot of sense Mar...

Ther are ceratin occupations, especially city jobs, that require tests. Scoring too high or too low usually excludes you from being considered for the position.

A lot of jobs require a happy middle in order to be challenged enough and not bored.

There's actually a concept from I/O psychology that states employees will be promoted to their level of incompetency. This basically means that people will meet their ceiling of ability where they aren't bored and can still be interested in their work since it still holds a sense of challenge.

Applied to flying, some may top off at the CFI level, maybe make it toa freight operation, FO at a regional or Capt, and be unable to move beyond that. Some make it as a FO at a major but are unable to ever make captain.

 

[leardawg]

One of the worst students I saw was actually a Neurosurgeon, but had trouble getting past the Private Pilot written. No kidding! (I think he couldn't concentrate or put the time required into the process) His solo cross countries usually turned into a debacle. His instructor earned quite a few premature gray hairs.

 

[A Squared]

I think that makes a lot of sense Mar...

Ther are ceratin occupations, especially city jobs, that require tests. Scoring too high or too low usually excludes you from being considered for the position.

true, I recall seing a bit on some news magazine program in which a guy was suing a city because his application to be a police officer was denied because he scored too high on an intelligence test. As I recall he had one or several advanced degrees in some unrelated field.

Applied to flying, some may top off at the CFI level, maybe make it to a freight operation, FO at a regional or Capt, and be unable to move beyond that. Some make it as a FO at a major but are unable to ever make captain.

Well, that statement inherently accepts the premise that flying for a major is more demanding of skills than flying freight, and that major airline pilots are unitversally more competent than freight pilots, a conceit which I don't accept. Surely you must not be familliar with the process by which one arrives at the majors (and I don't mean just the interview) if you beleive this is true.

 

[Lead Sled]

Go back and read some of the "Stupid Pilot" type threads on this website. Just how smart can some of us be?

Flying an airplane (any airplane) safely doesn't require any thing more than normal intelligence. It requires good judgement - a trait not connected with one's IQ.

'Sled

 

[FN FAL]

Never mind, I thought the thread was titled, "How intelligent/smart must you be to be a helicopter pilot?"

 

[NYCPilot]

Well, that statement inherently accepts the premise that flying for a major is more demanding of skills than flying freight, and that major airline pilots are unitversally more competent than freight pilots, a conceit which I don't accept. Surely you must not be familliar with the process by which one arrives at the majors (and I don't mean just the interview) if you beleive this is true.

I do mean to postulate that there is more involved in flying a large turbine aircraft than a light twin flying night freight. Many of these pilots eventually do move on to the left seat of an international carrier. But many do not. The abilities required to conduct this more advanced operation require a lot more memorization, training and functioning on a whole than does flight instructing or even light twin charter. You need to be much more adroit at what you're doing.

As on moves up the chain, the skill level invariably increases. The hurdles one must go through becomes harder, the hiring criteria and testing becomes more difficult as well. The inital skills and abilities you possess that get you a job flying smaller, entry-level operations will not get you hired at a major airline. If the experience you gain becomes inculcated into you, then you will advance eventually after obtaining any minimums hours required.

My point using that example was that the criteria and level of knowledge and ability to perform at these higher level positions require more of the applicant. Thus, those who are more competitive end up in these positions.

Many FO's fail to upgrade to captain and eventually sign a waiver that they'll never bid for the positon again with the company.

Undoubtedly, some pilots can't make the jump from one level of flying to the next. This is due to a so called level of incompetency. It doesnt mean your inept, it just means that you have topped out in your abilities to perform a job requiring a little more of everything. This can range from personal skills to being able to cope with larger systems found on the "heavys" and many more protocols that must be followed. Each human psyche is designed differently and so we can not all make it into the left seat of a 747. Period.
To become a CFI and instruct is one thing, and takes a lot of work, but to say EVERY CFI has equal chances of making it as a 747 captain is untrue.

One rises to through the ranks until they can not handle or perform at the next level to the degree required.

 

[Lead Sled]

Never mind, I thought the thread was titled, "How intelligent/smart must you be to be a helicopter pilot?"

That reminds me...

What is the difference between airplane pilots and helicopter pilots? Airplane pilots break ground and fly into the wind. Helicopter pilots break wind and fly into the ground.

'Sled

 

[Lead Sled]

I do mean to postulate that there is more involved in flying a large turbine aircraft than a light twin flying night freight...The abilities required to conduct this more advanced operation require a lot more memorization, training and functioning on a whole than does flight instructing or even light twin charter. You need to be much more adroit at what you're doing...As on moves up the chain, the skill level invariably increases...One rises to through the ranks until they can not handle or perform at the next level to the degree required.

Sorry NYCPilot, I don't agree with any of that. The most difficult and challenging flying any civilian pilot will do is fly freight/charter in a light twin. Once you are able to start the progression up the ladder it only gets easier. One of aviations best kept secrets is the bigger the airplane the easier it is to fly.

'Sled

 

[NYCPilot]

Sorry NYCPilot, I don't agree with any of that. The most difficult and challenging flying any civilian pilot will do is fly freight/charter in a light twin. Once you are able to start the progression up the ladder it only gets easier. One of aviations best kept secrets is the bigger the airplane the easier it is to fly.

'Sled

I agree that this is true. Freight is challenging and things do get easier in terms of operations as you ascend up the latter. BUT, not every pilot is QUALIFIED to be in that higher position. That is my point. They reach a point where they can't competently perform the duties of a pilot at a major airline.

Many CFI's may barely teach and fly that plane, let alone advance to a freight position, for instance.

There are pilots who washout in training a few times and end up leaving the profession.

Many FO's don't have what it takes to become captain and fail their upgrades.

To think that if you can attain a private pilot license equates to being capable of eventually flying a 747 is false.

 

[livin'thesim]

Average intelligence is all that is required.

In over a decade of training pilots for all levels of certificates, I have noticed that excess intelligence can get one mired down in the details at the expense of good airmanship.

The perfect pilot probably has slightly better than average intelligence, good motor skills, and the ability to think ahead, along with a giant truckload of common sense.

I'd rather have an ex-cop in the seat next to me than an ex-professor.
I think that flying requires an inherent 'sharpeness' that has little to do with intellectual processing power. Think of the absent-minded professor.

Think also about this. Remember the DC-8 that ran out of gas because the CA was to deeply engrossed in diagnosis to think about fuel? Word was that he was one of the sharpest DC-8 guys around at the time. What would a less harp guy do? He'd realize that the emergency checklist didn't solve the problem, so let's go land before we're out of gas. Not to disparage the CA of that flight, just to illustrate that too much knowledge (if relied upon to the exclusion of other things) is as dangerous as too little.

The myth of the eagle eyed, all knowing pilot with the reflexes of a cat is a fiction of hollywood.

 

[Lead Sled]

To think that if you can attain a private pilot license equates to being capable of eventually flying a 747 is false.

Every 747 captain that I know (and I know several of them) was a private pilot once. I don't mean to get hung up on this, but the "average" private pilot won't have too much challenge in becoming a commercial pilot. The "average" commercial pilot won't have too much challenge in getting his ATP. By the time he reaches that point in his career, the "average" pilot won't have much problem - given adequate training - in obtaining any type rating. My 747 buddies tell me that the biggest problem they had in transitioning into the airplane was learning how to taxi it. Sure, there will be those who fail to measure up, but they aren't the average pilot. They key to all of this is a step by step progression together with proper training. Could a 70 hour private pilot go directly into a 747? No, but the average charter jet captain probably could - given proper training.

'Sled

 

[pilotyip]

I was never a private pilot, my first certificate was a Comm MEL, Inst. Got it by taking a 40 question test.

 

[pilotyip]

wrong button

 

[mar]

What we've established so far...

...is this:

Dumb people can fly.

An average person can fly well.

But what makes the real difference between the bad pilot and the good pilot is *ATTITUDE*.

I've seen capable pilots fail because of how they approach the operation.

 

[NYCPilot]

I accept the fact that it doesnt take a rocket scientist to pilot a plane, but I believe that everyone "tops off" in thier occupational ability. My feeling is that aptitude is a sliding scale.

Those who have risen to the ranks of a heavy jet captain are many. If you've made it, then you had what it takes. But how many have started and not made it to this point. I think there comes a point in an aspiring pilots career when he feels like the next level has too much on the plate and can't perform competently. Thats all.

It may be that this theory of being promoted to one's level of incompetence may be applicable to other occupations. Many executives in the business and financial world are generally promoted upon their abilites to reach and perform competently at the next level. Eventually, they reach a point where they can't efffectively accomplish this and end up finishing out their career at their present tier.

Maybe in aviation there a greater range of whats acceptable. That there can be a large gap between a good pilot and a bad pilot. Both of who are employed doing the same exact thing. This holds true for doctors too, I suppose.

 

[ePilot22]

But what makes the real difference between the bad pilot and the good pilot is *ATTITUDE*.

Black or white would be nice. Attiutde, knowledge (regs., systems etc.), ability, interest, judgment and much more is needed to be a good pilot.

If it were just attitude, then we could select all the good pilots by their attitude and reject all the bad ones.

Just a thought though.

eP.

 

[Lead Sled]

[quote='Sled]Every 747 captain that I know (and I know several of them) was a private pilot once.[/quote]

I was never a private pilot, my first certificate was a Comm MEL, Inst. Got it by taking a 40 question test.

You're not a 747 captain and I don't know you. My statement is still intact.

'Sled

 

[Lead Sled]

I accept the fact that it doesnt take a rocket scientist to pilot a plane, but I believe that everyone "tops off" in thier occupational ability.

You're making a big assumption here. Are you saying that guys only make a career out of flying "little" planes (bizjets for example) because they're not good enough or have the ability to fly the big ones (airliners)?

'Sled

 

[mar]

Certainly true in airline management

It may be that this theory of being promoted to one's level of incompetence may be applicable to other occupations.

I totally agree with this point. I think it's a real phenomenon--even on an airline seniority list. There are some lifetime FOs out there.

But to tell you the truth I thought I hit my ceiling about three or four times.

I was so discouraged during my commercial pilot training I thought I'd never learn to perform a frickin' Lazy 8. And then, when I was marginally proficient I took my checkride with a 70 year old female examiner and she demonstrated the *most* perfect Lazy 8 I'd ever seen...even to this day.

On my commercial checkride this lady taught me how to *properly* perform the manuever.

So I pressed on.

And nearly busted my CFI (to date, my most challenging checkride).

And I pressed on.

Long story short, a lot of our limitations are self imposed and given enough blood, sweat and tears we can overcome *most* of them....

...not to sound too much like Reader's Digest or anything.
Good luck.