[frobozz]

I'd also disagree with that same assertion with regard to lifeguards:

Drownings (and near-drownings prevented by a rescue) are pretty uncommon, too. It is precisely because of the rarity that one needs to be trained to spot the problem. If they happened all the time, then it would merely be a matter of the journeyman pointing one out to the apprentice when it happens. Instead, one has to rely on a combination of book study and roleplay.

This is even more the case in a pool situation (as described in the article). I was a lifeguard in a very busy pool for five years, in that time, I performed very few rescues, some of which would better be described as "assistances", only one would have been likely to turn into a drowning without a rescue.

I might add, good lifeguarding is not about watching for signs that someone might be drowning, it's about watching for signs that might precede trouble.

I'm no pilot, so I have no idea how many different things might go wrong on a plane, but I assume by the comparative duration and cost of training that it's a bit more complex than watching people swim. I'd be shocked if pilot training was strictly happy-path. I'd expect (as you state) that they would be assessed on their ability to interpret and react to things going wrong. Otherwise, what's the point of all the instrumentation?