Pilots as superior observers

[Schuyler]

Last show there was some outrage over the idea that pilots are NOT better observers than anyone else. Your guest said, "It's just common sense." I'd like to address this 'common sense.' Pilots as a group do have certain advantages when it comes to observation.

1.) They have a good seat. The best view is from the cockpit, no question. It's the best seat in the house.

2.) Pilots, and especially commercial pilots, are fairly steady personalities. They are in good health, both mentally and physically. They are less likely to be delusional compared to the general population. They have good eyes.

3.) They are up there where the action is.

All these things are positive attributes that can make pilots 'better' observers. But that's where it ends. Pilots are not 'trained observers.' They are trained to fly airplanes and trained to handle emergencies. They do not take extensive classes on identifying different airplanes (unless you are military). They may be able to tell the difference between airplane models because of their interest in flying. In fact, the most extensive training a commercial receives is to NOT observe, and instead be capable of flying on instruments without reference to observation.

You can get a commercial pilots license without any special training in 'observation.' I cannot speak to the ATP certification (Air Transport License, the highest there is), but I can attest to the training up to commercial multi-engine aircraft. I am a licensed pilot.

I have no problem pointing out that pilots are in an advantageous position in terms of their position to see things most of us cannot, but let's not pretend they have special training in observation.

 

[Chuckleberryfinn]

4) They have far more experience observing objects in the air than any other group on the planet because they spend a lot of time flying. This makes them uniquely qualified to designate an object as anomalous.

 

[fitzbew88]

4) They have far more experience observing objects in the air than any other group on the planet because they spend a lot of time flying. This makes them uniquely qualified to designate an object as anomalous.

In my opinion, you've hit the nail on the head: they're accustomed to seeing other planes in a wide range of conditions and configurations. So, if they say: "It was not a plane" then the claim bears some scrutiny.

Unfortunately, pilots are quite capable of making perceptual mistakes like anybody else.

If I pilot has 50,000 hours flying heavy metal in and out of every big airport in the world, seeing an almost incalculable number of aircraft from any vantage point, and then suddenly one day sees something that makes him/her say: "WHUZZAT?" then we have to listen.

 

[BrandonD]

I have no problem pointing out that pilots are in an advantageous position in terms of their position to see things most of us cannot, but let's not pretend they have special training in observation.

Concerning this "special training in observation" point, let me ask you a question:

Take a construction worker and a wall street businessman. Which man do you think would be better able to recognize the different types of Caterpillar tractors?
Which man would be in a better position to recognize a tractor that wasn't made by any of the major tractor companies?

Clearly the construction worker is much more likely. Does this mean that he was "specially trained" in observing bulldozers? This special observational training is not needed. Someone who works in a particular field is simply going to be better equipped to observe and recognize things involved in that field.

 

[TClaeys]

Last show there was some outrage over the idea that pilots are NOT better observers than anyone else.

All these things are positive attributes that can make pilots 'better' observers. But that's where it ends. Pilots are not 'trained observers.'

You can get a commercial pilots license without any special training in 'observation.'

I have no problem pointing out that pilots are in an advantageous position in terms of their position to see things most of us cannot, but let's not pretend they have special training in observation.

Isn't the post about pilots being "better" observers?? You seem to make the leap from a statement that says "pilots are "better" observers" to mean "pilots are trained observers". I haven't listened to the show yet, but we should make the distinction between "better" and "trained".

Was there a point in the show where someone said they were "trained" observers?? or just "better"? Because although they are fallible, they are, in my estimation, better. And the post seems to indicate that someone said that pilots were just better, not trained.

 

[macavity]

For what it's worth, as a (low hours) holder of a private pilot's license I certainly don't feel much better trained/qualified/able as an "observer". Most of the time I'm lucky if I spot something before it's less than a couple of miles away and heading straight for me!

Seriously though, most people know what a plane/helicopter/hot-air balloon looks like and while the idea that pilots are better able to distinguish something weird from something mundane probably holds some water, I think it can get overplayed. The point about pilots not being *trained* observers is certainly valid though, any edge they might have is due to experience alone.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

4) They have far more experience observing objects in the air than any other group on the planet because they spend a lot of time flying. This makes them uniquely qualified to designate an object as anomalous.

Spot on! Pilots, at the very least, are able to delineate between what should be up there and what should not.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Last show there was some outrage over the idea that pilots are NOT better observers than anyone else.
All these things are positive attributes that can make pilots 'better' observers. But that's where it ends. Pilots are not 'trained observers.'

If a pilot says that he saw an Unidentified Flying Object whilst he was on the ground or in the air I would at least trust his/her judgement or opinion a little bit more than if Joe public said it.
The idea that only "trained observers" or scientists are the only credible witnesses of this phenomena is just absurd. Anyone who sees a UFO should be given the chance to provide credence to their experience. It all comes down to the character of the person involved.

 

[Koji K.]

Here's another one, maybe:

5.) Pilots have the most to lose by reporting UFO's/odd sightings.

The average passenger isn't risking much necessarily by telling people he saw something odd outside his window. But the pilot, of course, is risking his job.

 

[mike]

for me the key word is experience, they spend time "up there" .
and at the top of that list would be the big airliner pilots who spend lots of time "up there"
they also have instruments with them for measuring distance such as radar and air traffic control data and or IFF transponder data

if after a hundred times of coming into proximity with another plane and getting the distance data from either an onboard radar or ground control, that experience base would to my mind render them better able to judge distance, which in turn gives a reference point for judging size.

i would think the experience in terms of time spent up there, coupled with feedback from technological sources would make them excellent observers of any aerial phenomena

most notably in the area of distance/depth perception and therefore approximate size

 

[Apocalypto]

Semantics. Your post includes the terms "superior" and "better". Guess what? They refer to the same thing.

Pilots are superior and better observers of aerial objects than other people. There is no doubt about that. And they'd better be. Their job is to fly around in the sky. Superior observation skills are vital for pilots. It could mean the difference between life and death. Of constant importance to a pilot is the skill of identifying other craft sharing the space around them.

I'm not even sure why you'd want to bother with this argument. Both Michael Schirmer and James McGaha - along with other so-called "expert skeptics" - have been correctly discounted as fools when they try to debate this point. Although some of the points that they bring up deserve attention, this ain't one of them.

I'd really enjoy watching those bozos try this "pilots are not trained observers" bullshit in a debate with actual, professional pilots. What a laugh that would be.

 

[Schuyler]

You folks who are not pilots have interesting opinions, but since you've never been through pilot training and the process of getting a license, I can't put much credence in them. I think, if it's all the same to you, I won't let you behind the wheel of my airplane. You can ride with me if you want, but don't touch anything.

I would be the first to admit that pilots, on the whole, have a lot going for them. They may very well be, by virtue of their positions, better witnesses than the general population.

1. They are healthy. An Air Transport Pilot must have a full physical every six months.

2. Their vision has to be good (but it doesn't have to be perfect). Correctible to 20/20 and not color blind works.

3. Their hearing has to be good, too. The test for this is that he doctor or nurse stands 20 feet away while you face the wall. He says "One, two three" in a stage whisper, then you have to repeat it back to him. "You said "one, two three.""

4. They are not unusually crazy and pretty stable on the whole. That's not always true, of course. Once in awhile a pilot gets caught drunk, or sleeping on autopilot, or being a pedophile, but it's not often. One of the best trained pilots ever--John Lear, who says the Moon has an atmosphere and civilization and that Truman Bethurum and George Adamski were telling the absolute truth. Go figure.

5. A pilot has the best seat on the airplane, truly a remarkable panoramic view. At 35,000 feet a pilot is more likely to 'see something' than a passenger peering out of a small triple-paned porthole.

6. A pilot is more likely to know the difference between a 737 and an MD-20 on sight. And military-trained pilot may be able to tell the difference between a B-52 Model "E" and a B-52 Model "H" or instantly know the difference between a MiG-21 and a MiG-23. After all, their survival depends on knowing who their adversary is.

7. A pilot is less likely to file a UFO report because his job may be at stake, therefore when he does do so he ought to be taken more seriously.

But as for pilots being "trained observers," this is a convenient myth ASSUMED by non-pilots and used to bolster and enhance any UFO reports a pilot has made. The more ADVANCED a pilot's education, the more skilled he or she becomes in flying the airplane without looking outside at all (IFR).

The written tests are very heavy on the rules and regulations and other rote memorization. Look at any ground school textbook to see what the written test is all about. "Observation' is not a chapter in those books.

The flying tests are very heavy on what to do in an emergency (Stalls, engine loss, etc.), how to land in a cross-wind, etc. "Observation' consists of either observing the instrument panel with blinders on so you cannot see outside at all, or avoiding obstacles and finding the runway. There is no training on recogniziing distant objects or discerning between human occupied aircraft and strange flying objects.

If you are going to continue claiming pilots are 'better observers' based on my first few points above, then fine. No argument. But if you claim pilots have specialized training in 'observation' making them better, that is simply not true. And if you've never been through pilot training, you don't know.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I like it when Stanton Friedman points out how the skeptics have it both ways. They say people are crappy observers unless they can determine it's Venus etc. If they can convert it from ufo to IFO it's because people made good observations. They know it was this big and this time, and behaved this and that way etc. But when it doesn't fit their preconceived conclusions, they assume they made bad observations. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. But to say they were inaccurate without evidence, is just as much a belief as it would be to believe the ufos were piloted by ETs without any evidence.The skeptics are believers in the end. Or beginning? Meanwhile, I say, "I dunno" and consider it inconclusive.

radar visual sightings are nice.

 

[TClaeys]

You folks who are not pilots have interesting opinions, but since you've never been through pilot training and the process of getting a license, I can't put much credence in them. I think, if it's all the same to you, I won't let you behind the wheel of my airplane. You can ride with me if you want, but don't touch anything.

Ummmm, OK. It really wouldn't make any sense for someone with no training to fly a plane, so yes, by all means please don't let me or any other untrained person fly your plane.

If you are going to continue claiming pilots are 'better observers' based on my first few points above, then fine. No argument. But if you claim pilots have specialized training in 'observation' making them better, that is simply not true. And if you've never been through pilot training, you don't know.

Again, I don't know who is saying pilots are "TRAINED OBSERVERS" (But someone probably is right??)

But all in all we can say this and agree on this statement:

Pilots are better observers.

And this would make them better witnesses overall, disregarding the fools. And fools are everywhere.

 

[Chuckleberryfinn]

You folks who are not pilots have interesting opinions, but since you've never been through pilot training and the process of getting a license, I can't put much credence in them. I think, if it's all the same to you, I won't let you behind the wheel of my airplane. You can ride with me if you want, but don't touch anything.

I would be the first to admit that pilots, on the whole, have a lot going for them. They may very well be, by virtue of their positions, better witnesses than the general population.

1. They are healthy. An Air Transport Pilot must have a full physical every six months.

2. Their vision has to be good (but it doesn't have to be perfect). Correctible to 20/20 and not color blind works.

3. Their hearing has to be good, too. The test for this is that he doctor or nurse stands 20 feet away while you face the wall. He says "One, two three" in a stage whisper, then you have to repeat it back to him. "You said "one, two three.""

4. They are not unusually crazy and pretty stable on the whole. That's not always true, of course. Once in awhile a pilot gets caught drunk, or sleeping on autopilot, or being a pedophile, but it's not often. One of the best trained pilots ever--John Lear, who says the Moon has an atmosphere and civilization and that Truman Bethurum and George Adamski were telling the absolute truth. Go figure.

5. A pilot has the best seat on the airplane, truly a remarkable panoramic view. At 35,000 feet a pilot is more likely to 'see something' than a passenger peering out of a small triple-paned porthole.

6. A pilot is more likely to know the difference between a 737 and an MD-20 on sight. And military-trained pilot may be able to tell the difference between a B-52 Model "E" and a B-52 Model "H" or instantly know the difference between a MiG-21 and a MiG-23. After all, their survival depends on knowing who their adversary is.

7. A pilot is less likely to file a UFO report because his job may be at stake, therefore when he does do so he ought to be taken more seriously.

But as for pilots being "trained observers," this is a convenient myth ASSUMED by non-pilots and used to bolster and enhance any UFO reports a pilot has made. The more ADVANCED a pilot's education, the more skilled he or she becomes in flying the airplane without looking outside at all (IFR).

The written tests are very heavy on the rules and regulations and other rote memorization. Look at any ground school textbook to see what the written test is all about. "Observation' is not a chapter in those books.

The flying tests are very heavy on what to do in an emergency (Stalls, engine loss, etc.), how to land in a cross-wind, etc. "Observation' consists of either observing the instrument panel with blinders on so you cannot see outside at all, or avoiding obstacles and finding the runway. There is no training on recogniziing distant objects or discerning between human occupied aircraft and strange flying objects.

If you are going to continue claiming pilots are 'better observers' based on my first few points above, then fine. No argument. But if you claim pilots have specialized training in 'observation' making them better, that is simply not true. And if you've never been through pilot training, you don't know.

100% horse manure, this Wizard of OZ logic you're using. "I've got a diploma in flying planes and may therefore lay to rest any and all claims from you idiot non pilots. Everyone but me, shut up on this matter."

What I posted is a fact. I don't need a pilot's license to make that any clearer.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

It really doesn't matter about pilots, because in the end, mainstream science doesn't think eye witness testimony by humans matters.... Even though, science wouldn't exist without it...

No, I don't think eye witness testimony alone proves some other beings are visiting us, only opens the possibility. To say that all those people are lying or mistaken, is over standing grounds. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. Sit back, chill, and lets try and find out. Try saying, "maybe" or "i don't know, let's try and find out" etc. Those words are the back bone of science.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

In my experience. Pilots aren't GREAT observers per say, just usually not BAD ones. The curve is in their favor for not being poor observers, or interpreters. More so than say, none pilot. They do have to have certain qualifications. And are tested. Not in ufos, but in means of sight, sound mind, being able to handle stress etc. Last I check at least.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Again, I don't know who is saying pilots are "TRAINED OBSERVERS" (But someone probably is right??)

I have to agree.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

As Apocalypto said, it's just semantics.
A pilot's account of an event carries the same weight as anyone else. Just because the someone who sees the event occur isn't....."trained", "a superior" or "the best person in the universe who happens to be the expert in knowing what a UFO etc. looks like"......doesn't mean they didn't see a UFO/IFO/EFO/OFO/AFO.

 

[Schuyler]

My favorite pilot of all time with every rating imaginable: John Lear. How 'observant' is John Lear? When he looks at the Moon he 'sees' cities and objects. He says the Moon has an atmosphere and is inhabited by beings just like us who live on its surface just as we live on the surface of the Earth.

One of the greatest pilots of all time, acknowledged by everyone, is John Lear observant? Or is he delusional?