If the problem is that it's difficult to learn to fly a fighter jet, and the documentation is not making it simple, the real problem is that the documentation is not fine. Simple as that.

As someone who has a recreational pilot license (sure, not jets, but still) you just reinforced the point of the previous comment rather than refute it for me.

Most pilot text books are absolutely horribly written, finding a good one takes significant effort. Reading just an ok book shines a light on how absolutely trash the majority of pilot text books are and that it is absolutely bad "documentation" that is partially to blame for it being difficult to learn.

I was trying to say, that some things are going to be hard for most people, because they're inherently a bit hard.

Just like inherent complexity in some software or business problems.

Maybe airplanes wasn't the best thing to compare with -- the comment below compares with C instead, maybe that's better. I never flew a plane.

When you frame it like that, the question then becomes "do you actually need the fighter jet?" and "why are all these people suggesting I use a fighter jet?"

That's pushing the analogy past where it breaks and missing the point. Take someone who has only ever written C-like code. Hand them a Scheme, maybe Racket. You expect them to initially have difficulty regardless of the quality of documentation. It's a different way of thinking about and doing things and there's a lot of it to deal with.