This is a really strong read, especially the point about not trying to outsmart the curriculum.
A lot of pilots create extra stress in training because they assume there has to be some hidden system or shortcut they are missing. But most of the time, the answer is exactly what you said: follow the lesson plan, chair fly, know the procedures before the sim, and show up prepared enough that your brain has room to actually learn.
The checkride failure section is important too. A failure matters, but the way a pilot owns it, explains it, and improves from it usually says far more than the failure itself.
“They wanted to know two things: did I take accountability for what went wrong, and what did I do to correct it?”
Great article, and the marks of a high-reliability industry really showed throughout your writing. My question, since it’s something I’m actively investigating in the field of healthcare: are individuals and leaders holding AI flight products (if any are currently in use) to the same standard?
That’s a great question. I’m seeing more and more AI tools show up in initial flight training and am researching how they can ensure accuracy.
The best version of this is a modified RAG system that directly references a section in the official training material. That way, AI is not just giving an answer, it’s showing you exactly where the answer came from.
Our industries both have zero tolerance for inaccurate responses from AI products.
This is a really strong read, especially the point about not trying to outsmart the curriculum.
A lot of pilots create extra stress in training because they assume there has to be some hidden system or shortcut they are missing. But most of the time, the answer is exactly what you said: follow the lesson plan, chair fly, know the procedures before the sim, and show up prepared enough that your brain has room to actually learn.
The checkride failure section is important too. A failure matters, but the way a pilot owns it, explains it, and improves from it usually says far more than the failure itself.
Thank you! Seemed appropriate given my failed attempt at optimizing a training curriculum that is already optimal.
“They wanted to know two things: did I take accountability for what went wrong, and what did I do to correct it?”
Great article, and the marks of a high-reliability industry really showed throughout your writing. My question, since it’s something I’m actively investigating in the field of healthcare: are individuals and leaders holding AI flight products (if any are currently in use) to the same standard?
That’s a great question. I’m seeing more and more AI tools show up in initial flight training and am researching how they can ensure accuracy.
The best version of this is a modified RAG system that directly references a section in the official training material. That way, AI is not just giving an answer, it’s showing you exactly where the answer came from.
Our industries both have zero tolerance for inaccurate responses from AI products.