Untitled

OK, folks, I'm a pilot and diver. I also do a bunch of other things. I've been studying my own psyche, and that of my companions for a long, long time. Here's what I've learned. Aerospace and Hydrospace are really very similar, as both require a combination of technology and skill. To make this even more interesting from a philosophical perspective, consider this: Both of these endeavors require a combination of TECHNICAL and HUMAN sophistication to enter a realm in which man survives only by careful application of BOTH. One without the other is useless. One can have the vehicle (aircraft, rebreather) sitting ready to go, and if one does not have the SKILL to manage that vehicle, the outcome of the (flight or dive) will be not be successful. But mere knowledge and human skill is useless without the supporting technology.

Consider this: In my work as a professional aviator I mainly work to teach already superbly trained pilots how to manage highly sophisticated jet aircraft under the worst possible conditions of weather and technical failures. These pilots come for recurrent training every six months and undergo 6 days of living hell, designed (by me) to keep them out of trouble if they ever encounter similar circumstances while flying the aircraft on the line. In conversations with these pilots, I have found that many (if not all) of them have interests outside of Flying, that generally include one or more of the following:

Diving, Motorcycling, Sky-Diving, Auto-Racing, Mountaineering, Skiing, Ham-Radio operation, Target-Shooting, Hunting, Golf, Computer-Programming, Sailing, Model-Rocketry, Machine-Shop Work, Photography, Archery, Fire-Fighting, First-Aid Squad Member, etc.

First, ask yourself this: "How many of these things do I do? And, even if I don't do them, how many of these things would I LIKE to do if I could? If you are reading this, it's probably true that you share traits with the group that I've studied. I BET you do (or would LIKE to do) more than one of the things on the list.

Think about this for a minute before reading on. Let's see if you can put the pieces together.

At first inspection you may see the element of danger, and (wrongly) begin to believe that it's all about risk-taking. But how do you then link such activities as Golf or Computer-Programming to the matrix? It's easy: These activities are NOT about risk. They are about "Managing a system requiring a combination of a technical system and human skill to go where one cannot be followed without a combination of both". What do I mean by this? Here's what is in the heart of the Explorer:

"When I drive my car, you cannot catch me, and when I am on my motorcycle, I am free. Try and follow me!"

"When I operate my Amateur Radio, I can talk across thousands of miles. Can you?"

"With my rifle, I can touch things a thousand feet away. Try it, and see if YOU can!"

Get it? EVERY one of these activities requires (to a greater or lesser degree) the management of BOTH a technical system (airplane, diving system, automobile, motorcycle, technical climbing equipment, radio, rifle, etc.) and the SKILL to use it to obtain the desired outcome. One without the other is worthless. Mere possession of the TOOL does not make the owner ABLE to go into the new realm where he desires to walk. We've all seen the diver who possess equipment far above the skill-level of the owner. Pilots know all about the "Polishers", who own a fancy airplane that they keep spotless, but are afraid to fly. In the Porsche Club I see immaculate cars that are quite capable of blistering speeds on the track, but that are kept as Concours cars and are trailered to club-meets and polished, but are never driven. Why? In almost every case the owner has the TECHNICAL SYSTEM needed to enter a new realm, but has not developed the HUMAN SKILL needed to match the technology. Interesting, huh?

Here's the REALLY interesting part: I have NEVER met a truly expert pilot that is not involved in at least one of the above listed avocational interests. Those guys who are not doing something else may be going through the motions of being a professional pilot, but I've never met a passionate, expert pilot who is not also good at managing some other area of combined technology and skill. In fact, a pilot who is not skilled in some other area raises some red flags regarding his suitability to act as a pilot under times of stress. Same with expert divers. You may get away with diving under perfect conditions, but when the chips are down, I'd like to have someone with demonstrated ability to manage technology with skill at my side, and not someone who has never practiced it before.

There is a definite continuum between the areas listed above in terms of risk-level. But it's NOT about risk. Risk is a part of the equation that comes as a byproduct to the desire to manage systems with higher and higher levels of sophistication. The bottom line is that as a system becomes more and more complex, it carries with it the advantage that it becomes more and more capable. That capability brings with it the ability go further and further away from those people that don't have the access to the technology or the skill to use it. BUT, as you go further and further away from "non-technical, non-skillset" activities, the potential for an unsafe outcome when EITHER the technical OR human system fails becomes higher. That's an outcome, not a goal. I mean, do you think that the Astronauts go into their field thinking "Hey, I want to take on a lot of RISK"? Or do you think that they are motivated by the desire to "Go where no man has gone before" and simply accept the risk (and manage the risk) as an inevitable outcome of this sort of activity? Nobody who is successful in these activities is a 'Risk Taker". We are "Risk Reducers" and "Risk Managers". It's the possibility for spilled blood that makes it interesting as a game, but spilled blood is not the result that we seek, is it?

So, Risk is an OUTCOME of our desire to walk where we cannot be followed. It's something to be understood and then MANAGED by the same combination of TECHNICAL and HUMAN ability that allows us to walk there at all. When I am asked if my flying or diving activities are "dangerous" my answer is that "They are as dangerous as I make them". My goal is to make them as safe as possible, but realize that in this game, the matrix of unknown events is impossible to predict and even if I am as close to perfection in both my TECHNICAL and HUMAN ability, there may be situations that are impossible to resolve.

"Into the woods I fell, with a tight harness, a bit of luck, and a prayer that my Daughter would not need to do without her Father. When the metal stopped moving the dice had been rolled and the game was on. The game? To live: Nothing more, and nothing less."

Dave Sutton

When things go wrong, they go wrong fast. I survived this crash. Two other men did not. It took me 6 months to learn to walk again, and I carry the scars to this day. I know the price paid for failure in worthy endeavors. Was this a failure of a technical system? You bet. The engine failed catastrophically. Was it a failure of a human system? ALL technical failures are the result of human-error, either in design, application, or maintenance. This was due to a maintenance error. Learn from it. Do you let anyone else maintain your life-support systems? If so, that's a big variable outside of your control. Guess who went and got his FAA Airframe and Powerplant Mechanic License after this little episode? Guess who NEVER allows anyone else to maintain his life-support equipment if he can possibly avoid doing so? That's the difference between thinking that the system is right, and knowing that it's right. Do you think, or do you know?

Ernest Hemingway made a statement that I love. He said "There are only three real sports. Motor-Racing, Mountaineering, and Bull-Fighting. The rest are only games". Think about it: What he meant is that the most interesting things that he found to enjoy required that the participant make REAL choices, upon which REAL outcomes relied. Not the outcome of an accountant or advertising executive, who when a mistake is made sees that numbers in a column (money) don't add up. No, Hemingway understood that REAL choices mean that your mistakes are paid for in flesh and bone. I believe that there are many worthy pastimes and that risk is an inevitable result of participation in some of these, but not a goal in itself. It's the game that's interesting, but never more so as when it might bite back.

"Risk is not the Game, my friend. But it's the Board upon which all real games are played. To deny it is foolhardy to the extreme. Ignore the following advice at your peril: It's far better to be GOOD than LUCKY." Dave Sutton

Closing thoughts: When you interface with people in your day to day life, ask yourself this: Has this person EVER made a choice, or developed a skill, upon which human life (their own) totally relied? Those decisions, those accomplished tasks that have REAL results are ever so satisfying for those who have taken the path where those decisions or skills are a daily requirement. Divers do this every time they dive, and pilots do this every time the fly. Think about it. Interesting, isn't it?

"Toll the bell, call up the ghosts, summon out the lifesavers and the pirates.

The shoals are there still, the winds howl loud, the rain beats down, the waves burst strong. Some night, in the chill darkness, someone will make a mistake: The sea will show him no mercy".

John T. Cunningham

So, Follow me if you can! Those technical/human activities without risk are interesting. Those with risk are fascinating. If you understand the lure of this, then you are an Explorer. If you do not understand without being told, you'll never understand at all.