Which Pilot is Better?

Which pilot is better?

  • The Airmail pilot of the Boeing 40

    Votes: 40 87.0%

  • The Airbus pilot of today

    Votes: 6 13.0%
  • Total voters
    46
Jay Honeck

Jay Honeck

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
11,571
Location
Ingleside, TX
Display Name
Jay Honeck
Home Airfield
KTFP - Ingleside, TX
Whom would you rate as the better pilot?

A pilot who flew one of these on the Airmail circuit in the 1920s:

800px-Boeing_40_Inst40c.jpg


Or...


A pilot who flies one of these today?

Airbus_007_550x367.jpg


Please explain your answer.
 
Each of these pilots would be equally unsuccessful if they swapped places.
 
Aviation is much safer today, in spite of the extremely rare incident that occurred recently.
 
John221us said:
Aviation is much safer today, in spite of the extremely rare incident that occurred recently.
Click to expand...

Statistically true, but perhaps not relevant to the question.

Which guy was the better PILOT?
 
Jay Honeck said:
Statistically true, but perhaps not relevant to the question.

Which guy was the better PILOT?
Click to expand...

Then I am confused. Are you referring to two specific pilots or to pilots in general who fly a modern aircraft vs a 1920's era pilot flying a vintage aircraft of the day. I assumed the later, since that is how the question seemed to be phrased.
 
Insufficient information.
 
Different sets of skills and knowledge Jay. Don't see the point or even fun in thinking about this.
 
John221us said:
Then I am confused. Are you referring to two specific pilots or to pilots in general who fly a modern aircraft vs a 1920's era pilot flying a vintage aircraft of the day. I assumed the later, since that is how the question seemed to be phrased.
Click to expand...

You are correct. Which guy, from which era, would you consider to be the better pilot?

Please explain your choice.
 
Bottom of the curve pilots can have long successful careers in an airbus. In 1920 bottom of the curve guys got blood on the mail.
 
You guys think there is no bottom of the jet pilot pool? Everybody is average, or better. Send in the clowns.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Bottom of the curve pilots can have long successful careers in an airbus. In 1920 bottom of the curve guys got blood on the mail.
Click to expand...
In 1920, even the top of the curve guys bloodied the mail.

Reading some of St Exupery's stuff, I realized that flying the mail was sort of like a full frontal attack on some fortified position. I mean, pilots were flying into clouds trying to figure out how to survive without instruments that hadn't been invented yet. IOTW, trying to do the impossible. Survival was more dependent on the weather than the pilot's skill. That's bravery of the soldier's kind; too often a nasty, brutish but necessary folly.

The guys who learned to spin it before spiraling it and were fortunate enough to have a high enough ceiling to recover from a maneuver that most pilots didn't know how to recover from were pretty darn good pilots I guess.

The Airbus guys who stalled into the ocean from 30k', not so much.

They are all good but lucky may be better.
 
A better pilot is one who fully understands his aircraft, the operating environment and the theories of flight associated such as aerodynamics, performance and weather.

The below average pilot is one who is enamored with his perceived capabilities and refuses to accept guidance from the more knowledgeable in the field.

Also, the better pilot understands his limitations as well as the aircraft limitations he operates. The below average pilot is just the opposite.

Type of aircraft is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Poorly worded question. Impossible to tell. Just because a guy flys an airliner with all the bells and whistles doesn't mean he has no experience with "stick and rudder" skills. Plenty of professional pilots fly basic non automated, non fly by wire aircraft in their spare time. Also have guys with extensive military flying prior to landing a Captain job. Look at Sulley. Guy flew F-4s and had plenty of glider experience. Today's Captain has a far better education on aviation matters as well.

A better question would be which type of flying is more dangerous. Obviously that would be air mail flying. That doesn't mean they're better just because of the danger in the early years of flying. Flying a simple aircraft like a Boeing 40 brings its own challenges on the controls. Learning to fly a modern aircraft with an AFM as thick as a phone book and all the training and evaluations involved brings a different set of challenges.

Look at it this way, due to the Wussafication of America we've employed technology to make flying a far safer endeavor than it used to be.
 
Last edited:
I'm not necessarily interested in truth here. I'm interested in perception amongst the pilots here.

I know which era's pilot I would rather fly with, but that wouldn't necessarily be the one most pilots pick. I'm curious to see how this shakes out.
 
Some of the factors that might be considered are education, prior aeronautical experience, pre-employment screening and selection, quality and realism of training, recurrent training requirements, SIC time and experience required, Initial Operating Experience and "new captain" limitations.

Which pilot would win?
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Insufficient information.
Click to expand...
Exactly what I was thinking. While some aircraft require a higher level of skill and some operations require a higher level of ADM, the aircraft flown by a pilot cannot by itself determine his "betterness". And even if that weren't true you'd have to present a fairly narrow definition of "better" to allow an intelligent response to the original question.
 
pilot vs system manager

'nuff said.
 
RotorAndWing said:
So on the modern aircraft you are saying pilot skills aren't needed?
Click to expand...

See this month's Barry Schiff column (in AOPA Pilot) on this very topic. It is of great concern to the FAA that airline pilots have lost vital stick and rudder skills.

But that still doesn't answer the question posed in the poll. Which era produced the better pilot?
 
Jay Honeck said:
See this month's Barry Schiff column (in AOPA Pilot) on this very topic. It is of great concern to the FAA that airline pilots have lost vital stick and rudder skills.
Click to expand...

So every six months when we go to the sim and they induce a problem which degrades the aircraft to a point of flying "raw data" hand flown approaches in weather to a miss, and then doing a low vis takeoff (150m) with a V1 cut and hand flying around the pattern to a OEI approach to minimums and a miss approach.

Then all of that hand flying take offs and landing in 25-30 knot crosswind on a contaminated (wet) runway, balked landing before touchdown, windshear evasion, TCAS RA maneuvers, etc must be a waste of time since we "obviously" have "lost" our stick and rudder skills. Seems to me there was a guy in an Airbus in NY that reverted to stick and rudder skills and was quite successful at an emergency landing. Go figure.


Jay Honeck said:
But that still doesn't answer the question posed in the poll. Which era produced the better pilot?
Click to expand...

What came first, the chicken or the egg? Same relevance.
 
The initial and recurrent training requirements today are much more rigorous. So, do you define "better" as having more stick and rudder skills (not as applicable in a 777) or as having more specific currency and training on operating the the aircraft they fly. If safety record is the metric, then modern pilots are clearly better. There may have been some in the 1920's, who took a similar approach to training and currency, but it wasn't required and therefore was the exception.
 
gismo said:
Seems they're still needed but occasionally wanting (e.g. Air France 447, Asiana 214).
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, there are occasions where there will always be a fail. The US has come a long way in aviation safety (air carrier) in reducing accidents, but on occasion one will fall through the cracks.

It's this inane notion that somehow when one flies an advance aircraft such as a FBW Airbus their previously acquired skills are now gone.
 
If I had to be a passenger on one or the other....

Airbus everytime and twice on Sunday.

That's the best answer I can give.
 
Alexb2000 said:
If I had to be a passenger on one or the other....

Airbus everytime and twice on Sunday.

That's the best answer I can give.
Click to expand...

I would agree 100%. But is that because the pilot is better, or is it because the aircraft and its associated systems are better?

Which leads us back to the question in the poll: Which era produced the better pilot?
 
Elrey Jeppesen comes to mind as one of the pioneers who took it seriously and made a great contribution to safety, but he would be the first to tell you that his generation simply didn't have the tools (or regulations that require it) to duplicate today's training and currency practices.

John221us said:
The initial and recurrent training requirements today are much more rigorous. So, do you define "better" as having more stick and rudder skills (not as applicable in a 777) or as having more specific currency and training on operating the the aircraft they fly. If safety record is the metric, then modern pilots are clearly better. There may have been some in the 1920's, who took a similar approach to training and currency, but it wasn't required and therefore was the exception.
Click to expand...
 
The modern Airbus pilot of today is the better pilot. More training, deeper skills, more complex aircraft, more challenging tasks. Some of it the modern pilots skills may be masked by better aircraft, better tools, and better information but it all produces better pilots by any definition.

The pilots of the 20s knew little and much of it was wrong. The planes were crude and required a great deal of self confidence along with quick reflexes and smarts to survive them. Weather involved too much guess work, instrument flying unknown but flying the mail called for mastery of both. A deadly situation and many died. We owe a lot to them.
 
Prior to stormscopes and other spherics equipment, the situation for SE pilots wasn't all that much better for S/E post-WWII GA pilots.
Bill Watson said:
The modern Airbus pilot of today is the better pilot. More training, deeper skills, more complex aircraft, more challenging tasks. Some of it the modern pilots skills may be masked by better aircraft, better tools, and better information but it all produces better pilots by any definition.

The pilots of the 20s knew little and much of it was wrong. The planes were crude and required a great deal of self confidence along with quick reflexes and smarts to survive them. Weather involved too much guess work, instrument flying unknown but flying the mail called for mastery of both. A deadly situation and many died. We owe a lot to them.
Click to expand...
 
John221us said:
The initial and recurrent training requirements today are much more rigorous. So, do you define "better" as having more stick and rudder skills (not as applicable in a 777) or as having more specific currency and training on operating the the aircraft they fly. If safety record is the metric, then modern pilots are clearly better. There may have been some in the 1920's, who took a similar approach to training and currency, but it wasn't required and therefore was the exception.
Click to expand...
I think that back then, especially flying airmail in singles, currency was usually not a problem because they flew often (duty period limitations were not what they are today).As for proficiency, every revenue flight provided rigorous training challenges. You learned quick, and stayed proficient, or you died on the job, basically.
The safety record was skewed more, I'd guess, by lack of timely, accurate weather information, and of course equipment limitations (including things like "improvisational" maintenance and poor or nonexistent charts) than by a lack of formalized recurrency training. No doubt those guys were very good at reading the sky, etc., but assuming they felt compelled to carry on when things didn't look very favorable, they were pretty much asking for it. Those "early birds" also needed very good basic nav skills, and the ability to deal with all manner of mechanical problems.

St. Ex was mentioned earlier: reading his accounts of flying the mail in overworked, primitive singles, in just about any weather, at night, over the Andes (!) suggests that all of those guys were completely insane. I'm not sure how any recurrency training we use today would have helped them much. Only the very best learners survived to retire... assuming they also had incredibly good luck. But he also talks about very strict adherence to the simple procedures they used; his own diligence and consistency helped keep him alive during those flights.
Nowadays we sometimes see commercial pilots choke when they are dealing with a nasty surprise outside the safety of a simulator, or confronting something never run by them in the sim. And sometimes we see them pull off some miracle that would make an old airmail pilot smile. Some pilots are just more diligent- and luckier- than others... that hasn't really changed.
I'm not dismissing the obvious benefits of systematic training, CRM, etc; just pointing out that in the end, it's not about that stuff any more than it is about good airplane-handling.

So the poll question is definitely an apples/oranges comparison... "better" pilot means "pilot with better judgement", if you ask me. Stick'n'rudder skills, extensive knowledge, and even modern recurrency training techniques do not outweigh good command capability.
 
Last edited:
rottydaddy said:
I think that back then, especially flying airmail in singles, currency was usually not a problem because they flew often (duty period limitations were not what they are today).As for proficiency, every revenue flight provided rigorous training challenges. You learned quick, and stayed proficient, or you died on the job, basically.
The safety record was skewed more, I'd guess, by lack of timely, accurate weather information, and of course equipment limitations (including things like "improvisational" maintenance and poor or nonexistent charts) than by a lack of formalized recurrency training. No doubt those guys were very good at reading the sky, etc., but assuming they felt compelled to carry on when things didn't look very favorable, they were pretty much asking for it. Those "early birds" also needed very good basic nav skills, and the ability to deal with all manner of mechanical problems.

St. Ex was mentioned earlier: reading his accounts of flying the mail in overworked, primitive singles, in just about any weather, at night, over the Andes (!) suggests that all of those guys were completely insane. I'm not sure how any recurrency training we use today would have helped them much. Only the very best learners survived to retire... assuming they also had incredibly good luck. But he also talks about very strict adherence to the simple procedures they used; his own diligence and consistency helped keep him alive during those flights.
Nowadays we sometimes see commercial pilots choke when they are dealing with a nasty surprise outside the safety of a simulator, or confronting something never run by them in the sim. And sometimes we see them pull off some miracle that would make an old airmail pilot smile. Some pilots are just more diligent- and luckier- than others... that hasn't really changed.
I'm not dismissing the obvious benefits of systematic training, CRM, etc; just pointing out that in the end, it's not about that stuff any more than it is about good airplane-handling.

So the poll question is definitely an apples/oranges comparison... "better" pilot means "pilot with better judgement", if you ask me. Stick'n'rudder skills, extensive knowledge, and even modern recurrency training techniques do not outweigh good command capability.
Click to expand...

Ok, so, you are saying the bad pilots were weeded out through a Darwinian process and therefore only the most skillful survived, therefore training wasn't necessary. Sorry, I don't buy it. Training matters and makes a big difference in their ability to handle emergencies. As pointed out above, access to sims and other training tools are a huge safety factor that wasn't even available back then. You can romanticize these pilots all you want, and they certainly were brave, but if you define better as being safer, then I will go with the modern pilots every time.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Bottom of the curve pilots can have long successful careers in an airbus. In 1920 bottom of the curve guys got blood on the mail.
Click to expand...
Bill Watson said:
In 1920, even the top of the curve guys bloodied the mail.
Reading some of St Exupery's stuff, I realized that flying the mail was sort of like a full frontal attack on some fortified position. I mean, pilots were flying into clouds trying to figure out how to survive without instruments that hadn't been invented yet. IOTW, trying to do the impossible.
Click to expand...
This.

The guys in the open cockpit biplanes, guys like Elrey Jeppesen, were the astronauts of their day.
They invented the basis of the systems in use to this day, and, as Bill said, did on the fly (no pun intended) with the cost of choosing wrong being their lives.

I have no doubt I could, if I chose, be a successful line pilot in a modern airliner. I am pretty certain I would be dead if put in the place of the early airmail pilots.
 
Jay Honeck said:
But is that because the pilot is better, or is it because the aircraft and its associated systems are better?
Click to expand...
Without doubt, the systems are better, and that makes air travel safer.
Better weather, standardized ATC, instrument, and approach procedures. Two pilot crews and CRM, all those things provide more margin for error, redundancy, and error correction in the system.

The old guys didn't have those things. It was completely up to them, period.
And they BUILT the foundation of much of the systems we rely upon today.
 
How can you compare? Different planes, different capabilities, different missions, different support networks, different challenges, different expectations, different standards. Was Columbus a better sailor than a captain of a modern day cruise liner? I do not think you could answer this question any better. They did and do the best they can(usually) with what they had or have.
 
PilotAlan said:
This.

The guys in the open cockpit biplanes, guys like Elrey Jeppesen, were the astronauts of their day.
They invented the basis of the systems in use to this day, and, as Bill said, did on the fly (no pun intended) with the cost of choosing wrong being their lives.

I have no doubt I could, if I chose, be a successful line pilot in a modern airliner. I am pretty certain I would be dead if put in the place of the early airmail pilots.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure I could survive either environment. Each has it's challenges to learn, but neither are insurmountable. I would imagine any competent pilot could manage either, it's just a matter of learning each.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top