A potential career with all the automation & artificial intelligence coming out

[digits_]

Of course. Pilotless aircraft have already flown, so claiming it isn't possible or won't happen is silly.

https://edition.cnn.com/travel/cessna-c ... index.html

[Landingstrip]

What makes you think only a small minority has what it takes to be an airline pilot?

Because I spent years training hopeful future airline pilots... I was a flight instructor. I reckon you weren't.

I was. And I've returned to it after spending some time in the airlines. The claim that only a "small minority that has what it takes to be an airline pilot" is complete horseshit. In 30 years, I've worked with exactly 3 students who had no business being anywhere near an airplane. For everyone else, the difference between success and failure was tied entirely to the willingness (or lack thereof) to do the work. No special or rare qualities required. Sure, natural talent plays a role -- some people have to work harder than others. But ultimately, almost everyone can do it -- where by "almost", I mean north of 99% of anyone who can pass a medical.

Unless they're handicapped by shoddy instruction. I've spend a distressing amount of time helping people get past that...

If only a small minority of your students has what it takes to be an airline pilot, you must have been quite a shitty instructor

To contain the thread drift a little bit, The original topic was automation. Computers will absolutely take our jobs -- it's a question if when, not if. The "when" is probably later than we think, but sooner than we'd like. I'm old enough that it won't affect me. But I wouldn't want to be a 20 year old in flight school right now.

I never said a small minority of people have the talent to become a pilot did I? I said HAVE WHAT IT TAKES, that INCLUDES dedication. Having what it takes is encompassing. Your lack of reading comprehension is showing. Perseverance. Mindset. Great hand eye co-ordination. Courage. Eyesight. Situational awareness. At least average intelligence preferably higher. Decent math skills. Good attitude. Team work. Respect for safety. Work under high pressure. Work ethic. And on and on.

Perseverance and work ethic IS PART OF what it takes to become a pilot, or any other challenging career. How many people in the world are theoretically capable of being lawyers, doctors, CEOs but don't have the drive to become one? The dedication? The perseverance? I never said that wasn't a huge part of it. And while it may be theoretically possible for some, they might need 100+ flight hours before they had the skills on par to get their PPL, 300+ for CPL. And they might not be that good at it even after all that training. So whats possible also may not always be whats practical.

And to say less than 1 percent of people don't have the natural talent to be a pilot? And you're saying I'm complete horseshit??? Buddy far more than 1 percent of people are too afraid to even get into a small airplane let alone become airline pilots. Far more than 1 percent of people shouldn't even be driving cars let alone operating an airliner! You must be joking. You can think I'm delusional all you want, and right back at ya.

And the research supports what I'm saying. AOPA and all over the internet shows that 80 percent of students drop out before getting their PPL. Google it if you disagree. Thats just the PPL! Not all of those even get to an airline. I also think the whole "running out of money" while frequently true, is probably used just as frequently as an excuse for the whole process being too challenging. Most people don't like to admit the unfortunate real reason they gave up, they didn't have it or didn't have it in them.

[digits_]

I never said a small minority of people have the talent to become a pilot did I? I said HAVE WHAT IT TAKES, that INCLUDES dedication. Having what it takes is encompassing. Your lack of reading comprehension is showing. Perseverance. Mindset. Great hand eye co-ordination. Courage. Eyesight. Situational awareness. At least average intelligence preferably higher. Decent math skills. Good attitude. Team work. Respect for safety. Work under high pressure. Work ethic. And on and on.

Perseverance and work ethic IS PART OF what it takes to become a pilot, or any other challenging career. How many people in the world are theoretically capable of being lawyers, doctors, CEOs but don't have the drive to become one? The dedication? The perseverance? I never said that wasn't a huge part of it. And while it may be theoretically possible for some, they might need 100+ flight hours before they had the skills on par to get their PPL, 300+ for CPL. And they might not be that good at it even after all that training. So whats possible also may not always be whats practical.

Not wanting to work for below minimum wage in the middle of nowhere for a shady 703 ops doesn't mean that you don't have what it takes to be an airline pilot. If anything, being willing to accept those crappy jobs and occasionally unsafe conditions should works against you, as that is exactly the opposite personality you'd want for an airline pilot.

I'm sure a lot of pilot have what it takes to become an airline pilot. They just choose not to.

It might seem that this part of the discussion is off topic, but it's right at the core of the discussion. If you think you need special skills or a rare type of personality to operate an airliner, you'll lean more towards 'this is too complex to ever automate'.

If you think that flying an airliner isn't all that difficult, and it's something that most people could do, then you'll likely think that automation is much closer to become a reality.

[Landingstrip]

I never said a small minority of people have the talent to become a pilot did I? I said HAVE WHAT IT TAKES, that INCLUDES dedication. Having what it takes is encompassing. Your lack of reading comprehension is showing. Perseverance. Mindset. Great hand eye co-ordination. Courage. Eyesight. Situational awareness. At least average intelligence preferably higher. Decent math skills. Good attitude. Team work. Respect for safety. Work under high pressure. Work ethic. And on and on.

Perseverance and work ethic IS PART OF what it takes to become a pilot, or any other challenging career. How many people in the world are theoretically capable of being lawyers, doctors, CEOs but don't have the drive to become one? The dedication? The perseverance? I never said that wasn't a huge part of it. And while it may be theoretically possible for some, they might need 100+ flight hours before they had the skills on par to get their PPL, 300+ for CPL. And they might not be that good at it even after all that training. So whats possible also may not always be whats practical.

Not wanting to work for below minimum wage in the middle of nowhere for a shady 703 ops doesn't mean that you don't have what it takes to be an airline pilot. If anything, being willing to accept those crappy jobs and occasionally unsafe conditions should works against you, as that is exactly the opposite personality you'd want for an airline pilot.

I'm sure a lot of pilot have what it takes to become an airline pilot. They just choose not to.

It might seem that this part of the discussion is off topic, but it's right at the core of the discussion. If you think you need special skills or a rare type of personality to operate an airliner, you'll lean more towards 'this is too complex to ever automate'.

If you think that flying an airliner isn't all that difficult, and it's something that most people could do, then you'll likely think that automation is much closer to become a reality.

We're talking about people who've started their training already and fail out before getting their PPL, not people who are so sick of the industry and are already working there.

And yes there are some people that have what it takes and get some good career doing something else entirely. Again not what we're talking about.
The point is that statistically speaking 80 percent cant even get their PPL. And from that 20 percent not all would have what it takes to be an airline pilot. Those are real facts but thanks for blaming that reality somehow on me being a shit instructor when its universal.

The first smart thing I've heard you say digits. Yes an interesting point.
Usually the people think thats its easy are people who are ignorant on the subject and aren't professional pilots who think autopilot does everything, or Captains that have been flying the same plane for 10 plus years to where it becomes like breathing and forget when it was very challenging to do thier first type rating. From any perspective, the reality is pilots will truly earn their salt that maybe 1 or 2 times in their career where something enormously fucked up happens, and they might even have to break SOPs or regular thinking to bring it down safely. And even that AI is far off being able to do. Think outside the box entirely. Break conventional thinking or rules to save lives. Know when not to trust automation, and when to trust it. Airplanes have mechanical gremlins literally constantly. How practically will AI handle that?

[digits_]

And yes there are some people that have what it takes and get some good career doing something else entirely. Again not what we're talking about.
The point is that statistically speaking 80 percent cant even get their PPL. And from that 20 percent not all would have what it takes to be an airline pilot. Those are real facts but thanks for blaming that reality somehow on me being a shit instructor when its universal.

Even if we assume that statistic is true, you can't just interpret it as 'they can't even get their PPL'. That's just wrong. Some just don't like it, some might not like it enough to spend that much money on. Perhaps some realize that driving 2 hours to the airport takes up too much time after all and prefer other hobbies. That does not mean that they don't have what it takes.

Usually the people think thats its easy are people who are ignorant on the subject and aren't professional pilots who think autopilot does everything, or Captains that have been flying the same plane for 10 plus years to where it becomes like breathing and forget when it was very challenging to do thier first type rating. From any perspective, the reality is pilots will truly earn their salt that maybe 1 or 2 times in their career where something enormously fucked up happens, and they might even have to break SOPs or regular thinking to bring it down safely. And even that AI is far off being able to do. Think outside the box entirely. Break conventional thinking or rules to save lives. Know when not to trust automation, and when to trust it. Airplanes have mechanical gremlins literally constantly. How practically will AI handle that?

You have to balance that 'once in 20 years' event with the amount of times that human pilots screw up and crash perfectly serviceable aircraft in benign weather.

Why do you think you need perfect automated aircraft in order to replace imperfect pilots? As long as they are better than the current average human crew, we'll be coming out ahead. That's the uncomfortable truth.

And I can predict that when an automated aircraft does make a mistake, we'll all say 'a human pilot could have prevented that!'. And we'll all be right. But we'll all be quiet when the automated aircraft completes millions of flights where humans might have screwed up due to a variety of reasons.

[cjp]

I've watched more Tesla's ding and curb rash with the autopilot and summon feature than you can shake a stick at (I live near a Supercharger).

It'll be interesting watching the technology change - the big thing is it'll have to be two things:

- First cheaper than current wet offerings with better CASM.
- Then safer.

I could see companies using a subscription service for AI to fly the jets like the Tesla autopilot. Ooops, your credit card bounced, subscription cancelled.

[pitottubey]

What makes you think only a small minority has what it takes to be an airline pilot?

Because I spent years training hopeful future airline pilots... I was a flight instructor. I reckon you weren't.

I was. And I've returned to it after spending some time in the airlines. The claim that only a "small minority that has what it takes to be an airline pilot" is complete horseshit. In 30 years, I've worked with exactly 3 students who had no business being anywhere near an airplane. For everyone else, the difference between success and failure was tied entirely to the willingness (or lack thereof) to do the work. No special or rare qualities required. Sure, natural talent plays a role -- some people have to work harder than others. But ultimately, almost everyone can do it -- where by "almost", I mean north of 99% of anyone who can pass a medical.

Unless they're handicapped by shoddy instruction. I've spend a distressing amount of time helping people get past that...

If only a small minority of your students has what it takes to be an airline pilot, you must have been quite a shitty instructor

To contain the thread drift a little bit, The original topic was automation. Computers will absolutely take our jobs -- it's a question if when, not if. The "when" is probably later than we think, but sooner than we'd like. I'm old enough that it won't affect me. But I wouldn't want to be a 20 year old in flight school right now.

Buddy 1 percentile intelligence is 65 IQ, well below legal retardation. What are you thinking someone like that could fly an airliner? Have some pride in your profession, and get a reality check. A quick search online finds pilots to have an average IQ in the vicinity of 120, well above average. And intelligence is just one of the important immutable personal factors that makes a pilot candidate.

I would also add that any hopeful pilot candidate isn't likely to be representative of the average population, on some level they've (self) accessed they likely have the natural aptitude. So pretending the average student pilot is the same aptitude as the average person is a false assumption.

[digits_]

Because I spent years training hopeful future airline pilots... I was a flight instructor. I reckon you weren't.

I was. And I've returned to it after spending some time in the airlines. The claim that only a "small minority that has what it takes to be an airline pilot" is complete horseshit. In 30 years, I've worked with exactly 3 students who had no business being anywhere near an airplane. For everyone else, the difference between success and failure was tied entirely to the willingness (or lack thereof) to do the work. No special or rare qualities required. Sure, natural talent plays a role -- some people have to work harder than others. But ultimately, almost everyone can do it -- where by "almost", I mean north of 99% of anyone who can pass a medical.

Unless they're handicapped by shoddy instruction. I've spend a distressing amount of time helping people get past that...

If only a small minority of your students has what it takes to be an airline pilot, you must have been quite a shitty instructor

To contain the thread drift a little bit, The original topic was automation. Computers will absolutely take our jobs -- it's a question if when, not if. The "when" is probably later than we think, but sooner than we'd like. I'm old enough that it won't affect me. But I wouldn't want to be a 20 year old in flight school right now.

Buddy 1 percentile intelligence is 65 IQ, well below legal retardation. What are you thinking someone like that could fly an airliner? Have some pride in your profession, and get a reality check. A quick search online finds pilots to have an average IQ in the vicinity of 120, well above average. And intelligence is just one of the important immutable personal factors that makes a pilot candidate.

I would also add that any hopeful pilot candidate isn't likely to be representative of the average population, on some level they've (self) accessed they likely have the natural aptitude. So pretending the average student pilot is the same aptitude as the average person is a false assumption.

I would hope that people with an IQ of 120 would pick up on what he actually wrote, which was:

where by "almost", I mean north of 99% of anyone who can pass a medical.

If you can't read or write, you won't pass your medical.

"a quick check online" finds that fighter pilots have an average IQ of 119


If 120 would be the average IQ of the Canadian pilot population, there must be some Einsteins and Sheldon Coopers flying around that are extremely good at staying out of the spotlights!

[pitottubey]

I was. And I've returned to it after spending some time in the airlines. The claim that only a "small minority that has what it takes to be an airline pilot" is complete horseshit. In 30 years, I've worked with exactly 3 students who had no business being anywhere near an airplane. For everyone else, the difference between success and failure was tied entirely to the willingness (or lack thereof) to do the work. No special or rare qualities required. Sure, natural talent plays a role -- some people have to work harder than others. But ultimately, almost everyone can do it -- where by "almost", I mean north of 99% of anyone who can pass a medical.

Unless they're handicapped by shoddy instruction. I've spend a distressing amount of time helping people get past that...



To contain the thread drift a little bit, The original topic was automation. Computers will absolutely take our jobs -- it's a question if when, not if. The "when" is probably later than we think, but sooner than we'd like. I'm old enough that it won't affect me. But I wouldn't want to be a 20 year old in flight school right now.

Buddy 1 percentile intelligence is 65 IQ, well below legal retardation. What are you thinking someone like that could fly an airliner? Have some pride in your profession, and get a reality check. A quick search online finds pilots to have an average IQ in the vicinity of 120, well above average. And intelligence is just one of the important immutable personal factors that makes a pilot candidate.

I would also add that any hopeful pilot candidate isn't likely to be representative of the average population, on some level they've (self) accessed they likely have the natural aptitude. So pretending the average student pilot is the same aptitude as the average person is a false assumption.

I would hope that people with an IQ of 120 would pick up on what he actually wrote, which was:

where by "almost", I mean north of 99% of anyone who can pass a medical.

If you can't read or write, you won't pass your medical.

"a quick check online" finds that fighter pilots have an average IQ of 119


If 120 would be the average IQ of the Canadian pilot population, there must be some Einsteins and Sheldon Coopers flying around that are extremely good at staying out of the spotlights!

You can very much read and write and be legally mentally disabled. They frequently have the mental age of an 8 to 10 year old and will still be considered mentally disabled. Enough to fill out a form. Your point is invalid, you're really grasping at straws but nice try.

What would make you assume military pilots and airline pilots to have significantly different IQs? It's a very close comparison point. Yes it may be very slightly different, but the fact you're dismissing that fact altogether shows you just don't want to face the evidence.
Military pilots from Multi-engine transport type to fighter pilots all score very closely on average, around 120. The difference is small. About 2-3 IQ points. Flying a military transport aircraft is not at all dissimilar to flying a civilian airliner, in fact frequently they use the exact same planes we do. Like our CC-330 huskies.

"Small (Cohen, 1988), but statistically significant
differences were observed between the groups, with the mean IQs for fighter pilots 2 to 3 points (about .13 to .20
SDs) higher than for airlift/tanker pilots."

https://corescholar.libraries.wright.ed ... =isap_2013

120 is significantly above average, but not "sheldon cooper" or Einstein level. Genius starts around 140 IQ points.

Even more data for you to dismiss arrogantly:
The USA military has done extensive testing on IQ and proficiency and determined that anyone with less than about 83 IQ points is unintelligent to the point they are more of a liability for any role. Even infantry. They cant even use a rifle or march or use grenades safely. This is why the military does basic intelligence tests. 83 IQ is about 13nth percentile. Meaning 13 percent of the population can't even be employed in their most basic roles, let alone operate an aircraft. So again to say 99 percent of the population has the potential to be an airline pilot is nothing short of absolutely absurd.

Maybe not all pilots are as dumb as you? Have you considered that?

[digits_]

What would make you assume military pilots and airline pilots to have significantly different IQs?

Because the military have a much harder selection process. In the civilian world as long as you pay you can keep trying and hopefully improve. Generally, having the aptitude to pick something up quickly correlates to a higher IQ.

I also did a 'quick check online', just like you.

It's a very close comparison point. Yes it may be very slightly different, but the fact you're dismissing that fact altogether shows you just don't want to face the evidence.

USAF pilots: average IQ of 124 https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-spac ... 115099111/
There are more scientific papers out there that all seem to list something around the 120 mark, but you need to pay to access them https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... raft_flown

Airline pilots: there is no recent evidence. Doesn't seem like much research has been done lately. I have no doubt that in 1988 you needed to have an above average IQ to pass the training and job selection process (as you quoted). But nowadays? No. There's no need, and especially not in Canada. Nothing during training or during job interviews requires you to have a higher IQ.

120 is significantly above average, but not "sheldon cooper" or Einstein level. Genius starts around 140 IQ points.

I do hope you see the irony in me having to explain a joke about high IQ levels to someone who claims he belongs to a profession with an average IQ of 120? But here it goes... You claim the average IQ of an airline pilot is 120. I don't think I have met many pilots with an IQ at or above 120. In order to satisfy your premise, that would mean that to compensate for all the pilots that I have met where I doubt their IQ is above 120, there must be a group that has an extremely high IQ to compensate.

If I've met 10 pilots with an average IQ of 100, there would need to be two pilots with an IQ of 220 to get back up to an average of 120.

And again, that was a joke. I'm aware it's hard to judge someone's IQ. And it's not funny if you have to explain it.

Even more data for you to dismiss arrogantly:

I'm not the one claiming to belong to a profession where only a few have what it takes to succeed.

[pitottubey]

What would make you assume military pilots and airline pilots to have significantly different IQs?

Because the military have a much harder selection process. In the civilian world as long as you pay you can keep trying and hopefully improve. Generally, having the aptitude to pick something up quickly correlates to a higher IQ.

I also did a 'quick check online', just like you.

It's a very close comparison point. Yes it may be very slightly different, but the fact you're dismissing that fact altogether shows you just don't want to face the evidence.

USAF pilots: average IQ of 124 https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-spac ... 115099111/
There are more scientific papers out there that all seem to list something around the 120 mark, but you need to pay to access them https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... raft_flown

Airline pilots: there is no recent evidence. Doesn't seem like much research has been done lately. I have no doubt that in 1988 you needed to have an above average IQ to pass the training and job selection process (as you quoted). But nowadays? No. There's no need, and especially not in Canada. Nothing during training or during job interviews requires you to have a higher IQ.

120 is significantly above average, but not "sheldon cooper" or Einstein level. Genius starts around 140 IQ points.

I do hope you see the irony in me having to explain a joke about high IQ levels to someone who claims he belongs to a profession with an average IQ of 120? But here it goes... You claim the average IQ of an airline pilot is 120. I don't think I have met many pilots with an IQ at or above 120. In order to satisfy your premise, that would mean that to compensate for all the pilots that I have met where I doubt their IQ is above 120, there must be a group that has an extremely high IQ to compensate.

If I've met 10 pilots with an average IQ of 100, there would need to be two pilots with an IQ of 220 to get back up to an average of 120.

And again, that was a joke. I'm aware it's hard to judge someone's IQ. And it's not funny if you have to explain it.

Even more data for you to dismiss arrogantly:

I'm not the one claiming to belong to a profession where only a few have what it takes to succeed.

Arguing with you is so pointless. You have opinion after opinion disputing my figures or trying to discredit very close comparisons. I've given you stats and studies but you think what you want to think. You can keep thinking whatever you want pal, no one can make you think anything.

Btw I factually know of someone personally who was academically gifted (top 2 percentile) and genius level intellect. Was in the gifted program from grade 5 to 8. He has well over 140 IQ from multiple professional tests. And is an airline pilot. You don't have to agree with me, I know that myself for a fact. Im sure for every 100 IQ pilot there's one that's 140. Flying a plane is flying a plane, the military does have strict standards and so does TC's flight tests. Adiu.

[digits_]

Arguing with you is so pointless. You have opinion after opinion disputing my figures or trying to discredit very close comparisons. I've given you stats and studies but you think what you want to think. You can keep thinking whatever you want pal, no one can make you think anything.

Show me a study from the last 20 years that shows that the average airline pilot in North America, or globally, has an IQ of 115 or higher and I'll happily admit I'm wrong.

Btw I factually know of someone personally who was academically gifted (top 2 percentile) and genius level intellect. Was in the gifted program from grade 5 to 8. He has well over 140 IQ from multiple professional tests. And is an airline pilot. You don't have to agree with me, I know that myself for a fact.

I don't dispute that. That doesn't disprove anything what was written above. Of course there are pilots with high IQs, that doesn't mean the average is 120, or that it's required to have an IQ above [insert limit] here to have what it takes to become an airline pilot.

Im sure for every 100 IQ pilot there's one that's 140. Flying a plane is flying a plane, the military does have strict standards and so does TC's flight tests. Adiu.

That is statistically extremely unlikely. There's about (very roughly) 70 times as many people with an IQ of 100 than there are of an IQ with 140. That's another reason why talking about average IQs can be extremely misleading. If you're talking about a group with an average IQ of 120, that means that most would have an IQ of above 115, because there just aren't that many people with an IQ higher than 120 to compensate the ones with a lower IQ.

[Landingstrip]

Man some of you are really determined to prove that even the mentally retarded can be and are pilots eh? You people think so lowly of yourselves no wonder you're some of the lowest paid pilots in the world.

Digits what exactly is your position? You refute things while not ever really making many assertions of your own. "Of course there are pilots with high IQs, that doesn't mean the average is 120, or that it's required to have an IQ above [insert limit] here to have what it takes to become an airline pilot."

Do you not think airline pilots have above average intelligence? What would YOU say average intelligence for an airline pilot is? Give us a number. At what point would YOU say would be a minimum to be able to jump the hurdles of training and get hired by an airline. Someone brought up the US military requiring minimum 83 IQ for any grunt position, so where would you baseline minimum for an airline pilot? You shoot down a whole lot of ideas without coming up with any of your own. It's easy to dispute things that have limited data, why not instead of just bickering, you take a stance somewhere?

[Landingstrip]

Man some of you are really determined to prove that even the mentally retarded can be and are pilots eh? You people think so lowly of yourselves no wonder you're some of the lowest paid pilots in the world.

Digits what exactly is your position? You refute things while not ever really making many assertions of your own. "Of course there are pilots with high IQs, that doesn't mean the average is 120, or that it's required to have an IQ above [insert limit] here to have what it takes to become an airline pilot."

Do you not think airline pilots have above average intelligence? What would YOU say average intelligence for an airline pilot is? Give us a number. At what point would YOU say would be a minimum to be able to jump the hurdles of training and get hired by an airline. Someone brought up the US military requiring minimum 83 IQ for any grunt position, so where would you baseline minimum for an airline pilot? You shoot down a whole lot of ideas without coming up with any of your own. It's easy to dispute things that have limited data, why not instead of just bickering, you take a stance somewhere?

Also while others have quoted actual solid statistics and figures, sometimes with extrapolation, you haven't used any to back up what are only your anecdotes or opinions.

[digits_]

Do you not think airline pilots have above average intelligence? What would YOU say average intelligence for an airline pilot is? Give us a number. At what point would YOU say would be a minimum to be able to jump the hurdles of training and get hired by an airline. Someone brought up the US military requiring minimum 83 IQ for any grunt position, so where would you baseline minimum for an airline pilot? You shoot down a whole lot of ideas without coming up with any of your own. It's easy to dispute things that have limited data, why not instead of just bickering, you take a stance somewhere?

In North America, I think you'd need roughly 90+ to pass the tests and training.
In Europe, with the more theoretical part of things, perhaps 95+.

I'd estimate that would boil down to an average IQ of the pilot population of around 105 perhaps?
40 years ago there were quite a few countries that organized state exams to be allowed to be a pilot. The IQ then would logically have been significantly higher as literally only the top XX% of applicants, based on theoretical testing, could become a pilot.

But I don't have data for that, so I don't think that particular opinion holds much value.

I don't like people claiming you need to be some kind of super person to become an airline pilot. Your subsequent replies say that you didn't mean it that way, and that it's more about dedication. That's fair I suppose. I wouldn't have expressed it that way, because it results in a weird conclusion that for example the majority of the astronauts don't have what it takes to be an airline pilot. Which seems very weird and I think most people would judge that as an incorrect statement.

[Landingstrip]

Do you not think airline pilots have above average intelligence? What would YOU say average intelligence for an airline pilot is? Give us a number. At what point would YOU say would be a minimum to be able to jump the hurdles of training and get hired by an airline. Someone brought up the US military requiring minimum 83 IQ for any grunt position, so where would you baseline minimum for an airline pilot? You shoot down a whole lot of ideas without coming up with any of your own. It's easy to dispute things that have limited data, why not instead of just bickering, you take a stance somewhere?

In North America, I think you'd need roughly 90+ to pass the tests and training.
In Europe, with the more theoretical part of things, perhaps 95+.

I'd estimate that would boil down to an average IQ of the pilot population of around 105 perhaps?
40 years ago there were quite a few countries that organized state exams to be allowed to be a pilot. The IQ then would logically have been significantly higher as literally only the top XX% of applicants, based on theoretical testing, could become a pilot.

But I don't have data for that, so I don't think that particular opinion holds much value.

I don't like people claiming you need to be some kind of super person to become an airline pilot. Your subsequent replies say that you didn't mean it that way, and that it's more about dedication. That's fair I suppose. I wouldn't have expressed it that way, because it results in a weird conclusion that for example the majority of the astronauts don't have what it takes to be an airline pilot. Which seems very weird and I think most people would judge that as an incorrect statement.

I'm shocked you think the average intelligence and minimum intelligence needed are that low, but again like you said you have no evidence whatsoever to back that up.

I really must know, are you actually an airline pilot? What do you do for a living? No one ever said you need to be super human, or it's harder to become a pilot than an astronaut. Literally no one said that. This whole started because it was said that a small minority have what it takes to be an airline pilot, which again there's data that supports that. Only 20 percent of student pilots ever getting just even the PPL supports that statement. That's a small minority. From average person to airline pilot would be less than 20 percent.

[digits_]

I'm shocked you think the average intelligence and minimum intelligence needed are that low, but again like you said you have no evidence whatsoever to back that up.

But neither have you. The military has done IQ research, civilian operators have not. That's my point. The one research paper from 1988 is no longer applicable as both the job market and training market have changed significantly.

I really must know, are you actually an airline pilot?

I used to be.

No one ever said you need to be super human,

If only a small minority is able to achieve a goal, wouldn't it be a fair conclusion that you think that small minority is in some way special?

or it's harder to become a pilot than an astronaut. Literally no one said that. This whole started because it was said that a small minority have what it takes to be an airline pilot

I don't claim anyone said that. It's a logical conclusion from your interpretation of 'whatever it takes'.

There's 2 options I see. Either you use interpretation:
(A) which means that only a small minority of people have the capabilities (intelligence and skill) to become an airline pilot,
or
(B) only a small minority of people have the capabilities and the dedication and money to actually want to be an airline pilot and succeed.

Most of the posts here were using interpretation (A) trying to establish that the average/minimum required IQ level is to become an airline pilot.
You then clarified your statement that you meant interpretation (B) because dedication was an important factor.

If you subscribe to interpretation (B), that leads to the logical conclusion that whoever isn't an airline pilot, didn't have what it takes to become one. That includes astronauts. That's why I think interpretation (B) is not a good interpretation.

[Landingstrip]

I'm shocked you think the average intelligence and minimum intelligence needed are that low, but again like you said you have no evidence whatsoever to back that up.

But neither have you. The military has done IQ research, civilian operators have not. That's my point. The one research paper from 1988 is no longer applicable as both the job market and training market have changed significantly.

I really must know, are you actually an airline pilot?

I used to be.

No one ever said you need to be super human,

If only a small minority is able to achieve a goal, wouldn't it be a fair conclusion that you think that small minority is in some way special?

or it's harder to become a pilot than an astronaut. Literally no one said that. This whole started because it was said that a small minority have what it takes to be an airline pilot

I don't claim anyone said that. It's a logical conclusion from your interpretation of 'whatever it takes'.

There's 2 options I see. Either you use interpretation:
(A) which means that only a small minority of people have the capabilities (intelligence and skill) to become an airline pilot,
or
(B) only a small minority of people have the capabilities and the dedication and money to actually want to be an airline pilot and succeed.

Most of the posts here were using interpretation (A) trying to establish that the average/minimum required IQ level is to become an airline pilot.
You then clarified your statement that you meant interpretation (B) because dedication was an important factor.

If you subscribe to interpretation (B), that leads to the logical conclusion that whoever isn't an airline pilot, didn't have what it takes to become one. That includes astronauts. That's why I think interpretation (B) is not a good interpretation.

Yes its a fair conclusion to say you need a special skill set to be a pilot. I would agree with that. I think most would.

"I don't like people claiming you need to be some kind of super person to become an airline pilot. Your subsequent replies say that you didn't mean it that way, and that it's more about dedication. That's fair I suppose. I wouldn't have expressed it that way, because it results in a weird conclusion that for example the majority of the astronauts don't have what it takes to be an airline pilot."

Look at the shit you're making up. No one claimed you have to some kind of "super person". Somehow you think I said astronauts cant do what we do.

You really make absolutely no sense. Of the very very small minority that has what it takes to be an astronaut, yes theres a great chance they also have what it takes to be an airline pilot, those are not mutually exclusive. It's not one or the other and I never implied it was.

I feel like I'm talking with a crazy person, or with no logical reasoning. And you're putting words in peoples mouths. Really no one can get anywhere with you logically so I give up as well. Goodbye.

Let the record show all I was saying is that less than 20 percent of the average people can get from 0 to airline pilot. The statistics reflect this, not just me making shit up. Dedication, intelligence, attitude, and wherewithal to research the cost of said training and many other factors play into that. Usually it's a lack of dedication to the actual amount of sheer effort.

[digits_]

Let the record show all I was saying is that less than 20 percent of the average people can get from 0 to airline pilot. The statistics reflect this, not just me making shit up. Dedication, intelligence, attitude, and wherewithal to research the cost of said training and many other factors play into that. Usually it's a lack of dedication to the actual amount of sheer effort.

There is not a single statistic that would show this. How would you even test this?

What you're likely trying to say is that "less than 20 percent from the people starting flight training end up working as an airline pilot". And that is something entirely different.

It does not mean that the others can not get from 0 to airline pilot. Just that for whatever reason they don't. Perhaps those 80% are incapable of getting their, perhaps not. That is not a conclusion you can draw from that statistic.

[Landingstrip]

Let the record show all I was saying is that less than 20 percent of the average people can get from 0 to airline pilot. The statistics reflect this, not just me making shit up. Dedication, intelligence, attitude, and wherewithal to research the cost of said training and many other factors play into that. Usually it's a lack of dedication to the actual amount of sheer effort.

There is not a single statistic that would show this. How would you even test this?

What you're likely trying to say is that "less than 20 percent from the people starting flight training end up working as an airline pilot". And that is something entirely different.

It does not mean that the others can not get from 0 to airline pilot. Just that for whatever reason they don't. Perhaps those 80% are incapable of getting their, perhaps not. That is not a conclusion you can draw from that statistic.

Dude seriously just stfu. Drop it. I have my opinion you have yours. I extrapolate my conclusions from data, with certain estimations and biases too, and you do too. I don't even care anymore, move on. Agree to disagree, stop trying to continue this. Just drop it.

[digits_]

I'll add some emphasis here:

Let the record show all I was saying is that less than 20 percent of the average people can get from 0 to airline pilot. The statistics reflect this, not just me making shit up. Dedication, intelligence, attitude, and wherewithal to research the cost of said training and many other factors play into that. Usually it's a lack of dedication to the actual amount of sheer effort.

There is not a single statistic that would show this. How would you even test this?

What you're likely trying to say is that "less than 20 percent from the people starting flight training end up working as an airline pilot". And that is something entirely different.

It does not mean that the others can not get from 0 to airline pilot. Just that for whatever reason they don't. Perhaps those 80% are incapable of getting their, perhaps not. That is not a conclusion you can draw from that statistic.

Dude seriously just stfu. Drop it. I have my opinion you have yours. I extrapolate my conclusions from data, with certain estimations and biases too, and you do too. I don't even care anymore, move on. Agree to disagree, stop trying to continue this. Just drop it.

You're extrapolating data based on one data point. That's a great example of 'making shit up'.

[porcsord]

We get it. You're both well endowed.

[‘Bob’]

I've watched more Tesla's ding and curb rash with the autopilot and summon feature than you can shake a stick at (I live near a Supercharger).

It'll be interesting watching the technology change - the big thing is it'll have to be two things:

- First cheaper than current wet offerings with better CASM.
- Then safer.

I could see companies using a subscription service for AI to fly the jets like the Tesla autopilot. Ooops, your credit card bounced, subscription cancelled.

Not really comparable.

We’ve had planes auto landing since the 1960s. We’ve had planes following entire FMS flight plans in LNAV and VNAV since the 80s.

But we still don’t have auto rollout or auto taxi or auto takeoff. On the ground things are a lot more difficult. Runways and taxiways are far more controlled conditions than public roadways. Maybe if Cargojet had AI taxi it wouldn’t have suffered its first mishap..

[‘Bob’]

[quote=Landingstrip post_id=<a href="tel:1325667">1325667</a> time=<a href="tel:1732139920">1732139920</a> user_id=105552]
Let the record show all I was saying is that less than 20 percent of the average people can get from 0 to airline pilot. The statistics reflect this, not just me making shit up. Dedication, intelligence, attitude, and wherewithal to research the cost of said training and many other factors play into that. Usually it's a lack of dedication to the actual amount of sheer effort.
[/quote]

Intelligence has little if anything to do with it. You’ll find that wealth and nepotism are far greater factors. Poor unconnected people tend to not be airline pilots.

[cjp]

I've watched more Tesla's ding and curb rash with the autopilot and summon feature than you can shake a stick at (I live near a Supercharger).

It'll be interesting watching the technology change - the big thing is it'll have to be two things:

- First cheaper than current wet offerings with better CASM.
- Then safer.

I could see companies using a subscription service for AI to fly the jets like the Tesla autopilot. Ooops, your credit card bounced, subscription cancelled.

Not really comparable.

We’ve had planes auto landing since the 1960s. We’ve had planes following entire FMS flight plans in LNAV and VNAV since the 80s.

But we still don’t have auto rollout or auto taxi or auto takeoff. On the ground things are a lot more difficult. Runways and taxiways are far more controlled conditions than public roadways. Maybe if Cargojet had AI taxi it wouldn’t have suffered its first mishap..

Embraer has an auto-takeoff feature. Airbus is certifying a single pilot XLR. Boeing is...well Boeing.

I have no idea what occurred with CJT.

We are rapidly accelerating towards being redundant, that is until a first major event, or it becomes cheaper to keep 2 pilots upfront.