How much of being a fighter pilot do you believe is genetic?
 

This is a honest question, there are various genetic qualities you need:

• Super-tasker - only 2.5% of world population are these (They are true multi taskers, not micro managers like most are). This can be improved on to an extent however, a super tasker's brain is wired differently and one cannot train to be a super tasker (naturals), at least not yet. Although there was a F-16 pilot who claimed he struggled with multitasking and had to work harder than most of this other colleagues.
• Psychomotor - this can be improved to an extent
• Your body structure - short and stubby, not a long neck will sustain high G's (Yes not all fighter pilots are short and stuby, I've met a F-35 test pilot who was quite tall and slim and yes you can make yourself bulk but a short heart to brain distance is advantageous)
• Spatial reasoning - slightly genetic, can be improved with training

Certainly I'm not taking anything away from fighter pilots and saying that there is no hard work involved in the career, but it seems there are many genetic gifts you must posses to even get to the training itself. I'm also not saying that fighter pilots are born, I still firmly believe they are made.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

Quantify,

You missed out: intelligent, handsome, witty and alcohol tolerant.

I suspect the thread starter is a wind-up merchant; if the question is serious then a good starting point would be to see how many fighter pilots are eldest of several children. If position in a family is poorly correlated, then it would imply that genetics are not dominant. (and, Jindabyne, from some of the things I have seen fighter pilots do, I'm not sure intelligent is the correct word)

Delusions of being well-endowed? Wrist big enough to wear an enormous watch?

I think I was a fighter pilot in a previous life. Once, when my instructor cut the power on downwind for 32 and told me to put it down, I cross-controlled, side-slipped, and put it down on 08 just by instinct, not what I had been taught!

Boy did he/we get a telling off on the RT from the CFI who saw it!

And I have always favoured the big watches, I am short and stubby, and have an ego to match the watch

Why would not being the first child effect genetic dependency? I also did read somewhere a very high percentage of fighter pilots are first born.

A short and stubby ego? That's a new one on me! :)

I'll tiptoe in gently and say that the same might apply to ATCOs. You can teach all the basics, SOPs, Rules etc, but it still requires what I would call brain that works happily in 4-dimensions to be able to implement all that. And other factors too. So, yes, I accept the premise of a degree of genetics.

As soon as I read " a honest question" I thought this bloke is an idiot.........


...........or A idiot.

You also missed 'Great Dancer'!

Short and stubby able to withstand high G loads..... hmmm your average pilot figure :p
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....68850c7e6e.jpg

https://theculturetrip.com/pacific/a...e-a-car-crash/

One thing you should never ask a guy or gal is "are you a pilot?" If they are they'll let you know. If they're not, don't embarrass them.

I thought "God's gift to women" was in there somewhere

Big ego, big ticker, small pricker.

Jindy - You've just listed the attributes of a Hercules navigator!

My ex-fighter pilot son is first born, 6'4" and reckoned he was the 'G King' when he was on Jaguars ( 1990-99 ) - big ego and I believe well-hung - I stopped checking when he overtook me at about 12 months old!

Don't know about genetics - when I had a go at a PPL just before taking my 8yr option I was absolutely useless. Perhaps my dearly beloved passed on the FP genes?

He's certainly " God's gift to women " - or so he keeps telling us!

As we used to say in Fighter Command:

big watch - big d..k - pay by cheque.

Please be more specific, uncircumcised, you have to be a complete prick.......... :p


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....5b9f9a753b.jpg

quantify,

The following link is to a thesis by norwegian testpilot "Timber" He was the first norwegian F-35 pilot and F-35 squadron commander. He made a thesis about the shift of skills required in the F-35 cockpit compared to 4th generation jets. Unfortunately most of the text is in norwegian, but the summery is in english. Maybe you can translate the text with google. To sum it up, future F-35 pilots will need better skills in areas like processing wast amount of information and skills like psychomotoric will not be as important as in existing platforms, as the plane is much easier to fly then earlier generations.

https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2436208/MA_Harlem_2016.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y

Even though it is in norwegian, you might be able to get some useful information by looking at his bibliography. I hope it points you in the right direction.
I hope it will answer some of your questions.

Last but not least, and will all the replies you have got until now from people who didn't tell you they are fighterpilots, this joke comes to mind:

Never ask a man if he is a fighter pilot. If he is, he'll let you know. If he isn't, don't embarrass him.....

You can always tell a fighter pilot, but you can't tell him much.

Orca #21 Love It!! You learn something every day.https://www.pprune.org/images/infopop/icons/icon6.gif

And there was I thinking that all that was required was to be hirsute, have prehensile toes and a fondness for bananas.https://www.pprune.org/images/icons/46.gif

Brian48nav #15

If you add "suave and urbane" you get the VC10 Nav rather than the "Duelling Banjos" Herc Nav.

Oh dear, Fighter pilot and Jaguar in the same sentence 😁

slight aside ...... the Met Man has to have very thick skin.

I believe it was widely acknowledged that the ability pecking order was, Harrier, Jaguar, Bucc then Phantom. So Brian is pretty on the money.

CG

Hack, rack, and zoom, not now a days as its all systems. So a good systems operator (like a good ATC)

Charliegolf Dangerous territory, in this forum, equating mud moving minijet pilots with REAL FIGHTER PILOTS. Watch your six.!

TT

Don't understand your comment.

CG has got it absolutely spot on.

BomberH
Did you never meet a WIWOL ( or BEagle ) who told you what a REAL FIGHTER PILOT was ? It did not involve mud moving, but did involve lots of hand movements in the bar,, while describing various combat manoeuvres.

When I went into CAF, they told me it is not your total height, but your buttocks to knee measurement. They put you into a frame and squeeze your butt and knee together. If they can squeeze (gently) down to 106.4 cm you pass, otherwise you become an ATCO or admin officer. They will not take in any pilots that could not meet the tightest specification. I was about 1 cm short of the limit, and I am only 1.65m tall (5'6" in old money). There was a short-arm inspection which I suppose I passed, but they did not tell me the specification in that area. After that I passed a gruelling week of aircrew selection at CFB Downsview Defence and Civil Medicine Institute, only to be injured in basic officer training and told I could not continue in the CAF. I went back into electronics and had to pay for all my flying after that!

BTW one of my intake made fun of another, who wanted to be a helicopter pilot, saying he would rather m**t**b*te than fly a helicopter. He ended up being a helicopter pilot, and rescued 44 men off a burning oil rig, 2 at a time. Not always the fighter pilots that have the b**ls!

TT,

Hand movements like in this video?

Uncertain what BEagle has to do with real Fighter Pilots.........

My QFI at BFT was a WIWOL - excellent chap.

Absolutely nothing against them - they were great in their time.

But life goes on.

I did a bit of Jaguar, but mostly Harrier, plus a bit of USN and USAF, both on exchange, obviously.

I mixed with some pretty good fighter pilots in my time - unsure of their genetics though, to go back to the thread.

But CG is clearly a perceptive and intelligent individual.

Bit harsh, BomberH? Admittedly I only achieved 619 hrs on fighters (Hunter and F-4), plus another 146 on the Hawk - which is NOT a fighter to my mind. 47 on the Bucc too...

Anyway, you can take the man out of the fighter, but not the fighter out of the man!

I was chatting to an ex-Luftwaffe F-104 mate yesterday - and it wasn't long before the hands were moving!

beat me to it .

To answer the OP:
None of it. Had plenty of students in training with quite a bit of talent, or even natural talent, who washed out due to two problems:
1. Inability to learn quickly
2. Failure to work hard.

Had a number of them surprise me by earning the chance to fly jets and succeeding when I wasn't sure if their talent level was up to it. (Good on 'em!)

Caveat: There are some fine potential fighter pilots who never got to fly due to anthropometric* limits (which has to do with "what part of your body will you leave behind you if you have to eject" and "can you reach that switch under 6 gs?")

*Thanks langley, oops!

You really don't mean anthropomorphic do you?

F-16GUY #33

Perfection!

Isn't being able to learn quickly an innate skill as well? Or do you mean more in the sense of being able to objectively look at one's own performance/instructor feedback and able to correct mistakes through determination? Also thank you for a good response.