John Boyd's Observe, Orientate, Decide, Act Loop explains how fighter pilots use all their senses to Observe what they, the elements, and their enemy are doing, Orient what is happening with what they believe about their selves and the enemy, Decide on a rapid transition in a fluid environment (re observe, re orient, re decide, react not always in that order but continuously,) Decide on an action, and Act. Staying fluid and making rapid transitions helps a pilot stay ahead of the airplane, the elements, and his enemy and win.

With the small trainer type airplanes most of us fly, we can get along pretty well without that much excitement. However, I think Boyd has happened on something that has been little considered in fatal accident investigations. When an enemy has gotten inside our OODA loop, we may come unglued or lose control of the situation. The Orientation of all pilots is toward control. Losing control causes extreme stress. As MTV stated somewhere Controlled Flight Into Terrain is not so bad as uncontrolled flight into terrain (stall and fall.) It is hard for a small trainer type airplane to kill a pilot if he stays in control until contact with terrain. I personally “came unglued” only once in my long flying career. That was when the controls did not work properly. The design of the airplane is to fly. Generally we can just release the controls and things will get better.

When we lose situational awareness, both an Observation and Orientation problem, we can look at instruments when our horizon is obscured or just look outside when we have been too glued to a map or device. But what if what we see, hear, smell, taste, and touch does not balance with what we believe we should see, hear, smell, taste, and touch? How can this happen?

What if we believe that airplanes will climb if we are at full power? What if we believe that altitude is safety and the lack thereof is danger? What if we now pull back on the stick and mush when we expect to go up? What if the fluid situation physically allows for clearance of the obstruction by one foot but not by two?

We train for takeoff and landing, turning, engine failure on takeoff, high density altitude problems, weather deterioration, getting lost, and many other situations. But we instructors also sometimes indoctrinate students to believe things that may not always work as trained and practiced. In these fluid situations, our Orientation is critical. We can see what is happening. We have hopefully trained for it. But we must also accept it. And we also need consider why we believe what we believe. The moral integrity to demand an answer and not just accept training and indoctrination without question is helpful. Sometimes new practices and different indoctrination come out of such questions. The solid bureaucracy is one that invites and considers questions rather than just doing damage control.

Our authorized and sanctioned training system relies heavily on compliance. In the ATC system, where the system has almost positive control, this is reasonable. At the uncontrolled airport and out in the sticks, where there is no outside control, compliance can be dangerous. The more fluid the situation, the greater the reliance on the individual pilot and his Orientation. In this more fluid world, would it not make sense to concentrate on Orientation more and compliance less?