F***ing unbelievable!

[snydersnapshots]

I also understand what you mean about people who have a passion for flying vs the ones who just got into it because it was easy. Or it was a cool job. Gann talked about such people, I think it was in the chapter about Sloniger in "Flying Circus". I don't have the copy with me, but the passage starts out with "There are airmen, and there are pilots..." I'll look for it when I get home and edit this post.

Home from my trip now and I was able to find the quote. I think it pretty much sums up what we're talking about. Here it is:

"There are airmen and there are pilots: the first being part bird whose view from aloft is normal and comfortable, a creature whose brain and muscles frequently originate movements which suggest flight; and then there are pilots who regardless of their airborne time remain earth-loving bipeds forever. When these latter unfortunates, because of one urge or another, actually make an ascension, they neither anticipate nor relish the event and they drive their machines with the same graceless labor they inflict upon the family vehicle..." (Ernest K. Gann's Flying Circus, page 28. Date and publisher unavailable at the moment)

[snydersnapshots]

I am convinced that it is not one thing or the other. A good pilot (or better, airman) needs to have a number of skills. The good ones are those who have all of them.

Physics: If there is one absolute truth is aviation, that is "Airplanes fly on Physics". A pilot can break the laws of common sense, of the best practices, of the procedures and of the regulations. But there is one law that cannot be broken, no matter how hard you try, and that's the laws of Physics. I don't mean that pilots must be experts in rational mechanics or able to derive the Navier Stokes equations of the motion of the fluids. But they need to have a very good understanding of the physical CONCEPTS involved in flying, enough to tell not only what happens but why things happen, and to predict what will happen if...

Technical: Every plane flies on the same Physics, but each type has different ways of interfacing with that Physics. A pilot must have a good understanding of the airplane's systems, the source of power available to each of them, what controls or instruments are fed by each of them, and how to manage them. Again, it is not needed that the pilot knows the rated power of a generator or the size of a hydraulic pipe, but he needs to have a good understanding of how each system works and the interactions among them, with the pilots controls, and with the Physics of flight.

Stick and rudder: No matter how advanced the plane, a pilot must be ready to take manual control of the flight and make proper control inputs, both in normal and abnormal situations (like upsets, stalls, escape maneuvers, etc.). This of course includes paying attention to the vital flight parameters needed to perform those tasks effectively. It might sound obvious, but a pilot must be able to fly the plane, and do it right.

Managerial skills: Pilots must be able to manage the resources that are available to them, which includes the instruments, the controls, the automation, the other pilot, the cabin crew, the ATC, airline's operation/maintenance, and even the passengers. CRM is a thing that should be taught and practices starting from PPL, and it is not (at least it wasn't in my case). This managerial skills also includes leadership (even for a FO), risk assessment and management, and decision making.

Crisis management: This could be included in the managerial skills, but I put it separately because it is perfectly possible that a person is an excellent manger in a range of situation, fut falls apart in a highly stressing crisis. The ability to stay relatively calm during a daring emergency as to objectively assess the available information and make rational decisions is critical. And this is one aspect of the skills that is extremely hard to evaluate, as much for the airline as for oneself. How do I know how will I react in a life-or-death situation until I face one?

Person's way, manners, personality, self discipline: Among all the professions, pilots are pilots even when out of work. They need to take the rest periods with responsibility, so they are rested when they set foot in the cockpit. They are not free to do whatever they want with their free time (there are times when they can, but not when they have one day between two sectors). They cannot be addicts to alcohol or drugs. They also must have high standards in ethics and honesty, coupled with a personality strong enough as to say "no" if he is asked to do something that is illegal or that he deems unsafe, but humble enough to admit mistakes and able of self-criticism and permeable to external criticism, and make public his mistakes for the sake of the learning of others.

Of course, a pilot doesn't need to excel in all those skills, but should have at least a minimum acceptable level in each of them. And that's tough. Like being a Medical Doctor or a Doctor in Quantum Physics, being an airline pilot is not for everybody. Or shouldn't be. And probably there is a lot of persons out there who have "the right stuff" to be pilots but don't go that way because getting there is too expensive and the rewards are less and less everyday. It looks like being a pilot has lost its magic, or part of it.

Another thing that plays against this is that training doesn't seem to be focused on all those skills, but just in performing certain tasks within a pass/fail specification (Chendelle: the maneuver must be ended 180° off the entry heading +/- 10°, at the entry altitude +/- 100ft and the entry speed +/- 10 kts). Several things have been done towards this. Today most (if not all) airlines train in human factors, CRM and risks management. The FOQUA programs and the scenario based training are also for it. But evidently there is still a long way to go, at least in some airlines.

And all these skills should be taught starting from hour zero in the C-172, something that in my experience doesn't happen. And that's, not in a small part, because the instructors don't have the right stuff. Flight instructor, even an FBO one, should be a highly professional and well paid profession. But it isn't. It's hard to make a living out of instructing, so good instructors move to be good professional pilots. I've never ever reviewed the POH with an instructor (including the performance charts), never did a weight and balance, never had a good aerodynamics class (just comments along the flights). They've just gave me the material and told me to study it for the examination. Instructors have told me that the high-wing planes are more stable than the low wing planes because of the pendulum effect, that you must be aware with the loss of airspeed when turning downwind, or that the T tails don't fly so well with tailwinds. Just the other day, an instructor was telling me about a flight he had done in a 180HP Archer. Four adults, full fuel. I told him about the possibility of the plane being overweight (almost certainly), he answered that "You have to understand that flying here (very cold place) is different from the rest of Argentina, the air is more dense so the wing makes more lift and the engine produces more power". I was about to ask him if he took that from the POH or if he thought that the wing spar was also stiffer here, but I stopped short of that because this is the only place I have to fly here (an activity that I expect to resume some time this year).

Finally, aviation has lost its ability of making people fall in love with it. So there are less and less people starting the activity including, among them, less and less people with "the right stuff".

I am convinced that the vast majority of airline pilots have what it takes to be at least good enough for the job. But if commercial aviation is an activity that can't afford 1% of pilots that don't. Not if it wants to keep improving his excellent safety record. Because when an abnormal situation coincides with that 1%, people can die.

That, or we keep moving towards the pilot-less plane.

Gabriel--i know we've had some occasional disagreements in the past, and I've probably come out a little more strongly opinionated in my posts than necessary, either because of taking your comments out of context, or not completely reading the thread before. But as far as this post is concerned, I couldn't agree more. You have hit the nail on the head here.

[Leftseat86]

Home from my trip now and I was able to find the quote. I think it pretty much sums up what we're talking about. Here it is:

"There are airmen and there are pilots: the first being part bird whose view from aloft is normal and comfortable, a creature whose brain and muscles frequently originate movements which suggest flight; and then there are pilots who regardless of their airborne time remain earth-loving bipeds forever. When these latter unfortunates, because of one urge or another, actually make an ascension, they neither anticipate nor relish the event and they drive their machines with the same graceless labor they inflict upon the family vehicle..." (Ernest K. Gann's Flying Circus, page 28. Date and publisher unavailable at the moment)

Yeah, pretty much what I was saying in a nutshell, and with a fair amount more eloquence

[Black Ram]

"There are airmen and there are pilots: the first being part bird whose view from aloft is normal and comfortable, a creature whose brain and muscles frequently originate movements which suggest flight; and then there are pilots who regardless of their airborne time remain earth-loving bipeds forever. When these latter unfortunates, because of one urge or another, actually make an ascension, they neither anticipate nor relish the event and they drive their machines with the same graceless labor they inflict upon the family vehicle..."

And then there are "corporate baby" amateur yachtsmen, scared of the smell of ozone, and sleep-deprived captains who are just "not there" (in every sense of the prhase)...