Which Pilot is Better?

[Jay Honeck]

This is an interesting poll, on several levels, and the results thus far are fascinating. Here's why I devised it:

IMHO, there is a deep dichotomy in the piloting world. Many pilots laud the tailwheel endorsement, and the higher stick and rudder skills that come along with it. The thinking is that tailwheel experience makes one a better pilot, and I agree.

If we're looking for a 21st century parallel to the airmail pilots of yore, it would probably be the backwoods bush pilots in Alaska. These pilots represent the highest level of tailwheel pilot, with their superior stick and rudder skills -- just like the pilots of the 1920s.

On the flipside, many pilots laud the professionalism of the airline pilot, and the higher level of organizational, procedural, and safety skills that flying the line produces. These highly trained, highly regimented systems operators are what fly Airbuses today.

So which is the better pilot?

Airline flying is remarkably safe, as compared to even the 1950s. Jet engines have made the biggest difference -- they are exponentially more reliable than the piston engines of yore -- but we have also seen enhanced radar separation (thanks to the famous Grand Canyon airliner collision), computer control of systems, etc., that, taken as a whole, have resulted in the nearly flawless airline transport system we have today.

So...if safety is the mark of excellence, then obviously the airline pilot comes out on top in this poll...right?

I'm not sure. Where is the pilot in all this safety? Is the stellar airline safety record due to a superior SYSTEM, or a superior pilot?

Further, with drone technology taking over military flying, how much longer will the airline pilot be seen as superior? Or even necessary?

My opinion, FWIW, is clear. I believe the pilots of the 1920s -- and the Alaskan bush pilots -- were superior to the airline pilots of today. Further, for the type of flying I do, I would fly with any 5,000 hour, VFR-only, tailwheel bush pilot over any 5000-hour airline systems operator. What airline pilots do for a living, laudable though it may be, bears almost no resemblance to what I need to do to stay alive in my RV -- and that's what counts to me.

IMHO, the very BEST pilot would combine both skill sets, flying tailwheel aircraft in their off time, and A-340s during the week. Think Sully, and you've got the idea.

The results of the poll thus far seem to indicate that most pilots see the airmail pilots of yore as superior to the modern airline pilot. YMMV, but I agree.

 

[denverpilot]

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.

A long successful career like Captains Ho Le Fuk and We Tu Lo in the Boeing? ROFL.

 

[Bob Noel]

So on the modern aircraft you are saying pilot skills aren't needed?

yeah, that's exactly what I said




















not

 

[airdale]

Define "Better"

 

[RichNY]

A proficient glider pilot would be the best. Energy management.

 

[MAKG1]

A proficient glider pilot would be the best. Energy management.

A proficient jetpack flier....

This is truly silly. Are apples better than oranges?

You can't make a comparison without a basis. Well, you can, but it means absolutely nothing. Just what are these pilots supposed to be better at?

 

[ClimbnSink]

The airmail pilots are better. That said they are two different populations of people. Modern airline pilots are dorks, those inclined to be airmail pilots but born in modern times are out proximity flying wingsuits.

 

[Velocity173]

It seems we've defined "better" as either stick and rudder skills or pioneers paving the way for others. It seems there's a perception that since a Captain flys a modern airliner, that's all they know is pushing buttons. The systems on a modern airliner operate themselves and the pilots are nieve to their operation. Finally, there is no weeding out of pilots these days in regards to aviating capability.

First, just because something is dangerous or pioneering doesn't make a better pilot.

As I said above, just because they fly a modern airliner doesn't mean they don't posses stick and rudder skills. Plenty of these pilots came up flying small aircraft or demanding aircraft in the military. Yes, not every Captain has the experience of a Sulley or a "Hoot" Gibson but there are plenty with experience outside of their profession. I have a friend who flys Citations in the Army and required to undergo UAT in Extra 300s annually. I'm sure some companies have this requirement as well.

You know the problem with systems is? You have to know how they function and be prepared for EPs when they fail. As R&W said they do extensive training in this. I don't think some of you realize the depth of training into these procedures that they go. Can't speak for a 777 but I can tell you my UH-60 manual is 3 inches thick and has over 28 pages of EPs we had to have down cold. Constant training and evals just on system failures. With so many systems it's actually easier to do damage to the aircraft's engine or Trans than it is for a small SE aircraft.

Not sure what a typical airline has as far as a washout rate. I would think by the time a guy has found his way into the left seat of a modern airliner, he has gone through various milestones that others have failed in.

So, impossible to determine who is better. You could look at it this way. You could take a typical Captain and put them in a Boeing 40 and they'd probably have it down in a few hours. Take a Jepesson and a Lindbergh and put them in a 777 and it'll take them months not only to learn the aircraft but to learn all the other nonsense that's required to operate safely in the NAS.

 

[Dav8or]

To me it's an easy answer. The Airbus pilot is the better pilot. If you have the two pilots switch aircraft, the airbus pilot can easily fly the airmail pilot's plane and do what he did. That is, scud run and get from point to point by pilotage alone. Remember, Airbus pilots were trained how to do pilotage during the private pilot portion of their training just like we all were.

The airmail pilot on the other hand would be absolutely lost in the cockpit of the Airbus. His scud running and pilotage skills wouldn't get him all that far.

I know this is just a grumpy old man poll. It's a "These kids today, I'll tell ya..." sort of thing. It's a sweeping generalization that all Airbus pilots couldn't possibly survive an hour in the sky without a computer, a bunch of checklists and a thick flight manual to consult. It's also a rose tinted romantic dream of the airmail pilots in the '20s, that somehow they were all amazing airmen that would astound us with their super human stick and rudder skills, their nerves of steel and the weather and navigation skills of some great native American warrior. What a load of bull. Their training in contrast to the Airbus pilot amounted to- "Here kid, this is how you land and take off, you can get to where you're going with a compass and looking at stuff on the ground. Oh, and try to stay out of the clouds, they'll kill ya. Good luck! Hope you survive to your 100th mission!"

The Airbus pilot is the better pilot. End of story.

 

[Skylane81E]

Define "pilot"

 

[wabower]

And you'll hire your 40-year country doc for your robotic surgery.

This is an interesting poll, on several levels, and the results thus far are fascinating. Here's why I devised it:

IMHO, there is a deep dichotomy in the piloting world. Many pilots laud the tailwheel endorsement, and the higher stick and rudder skills that come along with it. The thinking is that tailwheel experience makes one a better pilot, and I agree.

If we're looking for a 21st century parallel to the airmail pilots of yore, it would probably be the backwoods bush pilots in Alaska. These pilots represent the highest level of tailwheel pilot, with their superior stick and rudder skills -- just like the pilots of the 1920s.

On the flipside, many pilots laud the professionalism of the airline pilot, and the higher level of organizational, procedural, and safety skills that flying the line produces. These highly trained, highly regimented systems operators are what fly Airbuses today.

So which is the better pilot?

Airline flying is remarkably safe, as compared to even the 1950s. Jet engines have made the biggest difference -- they are exponentially more reliable than the piston engines of yore -- but we have also seen enhanced radar separation (thanks to the famous Grand Canyon airliner collision), computer control of systems, etc., that, taken as a whole, have resulted in the nearly flawless airline transport system we have today.

So...if safety is the mark of excellence, then obviously the airline pilot comes out on top in this poll...right?

I'm not sure. Where is the pilot in all this safety? Is the stellar airline safety record due to a superior SYSTEM, or a superior pilot?

Further, with drone technology taking over military flying, how much longer will the airline pilot be seen as superior? Or even necessary?

My opinion, FWIW, is clear. I believe the pilots of the 1920s -- and the Alaskan bush pilots -- were superior to the airline pilots of today. Further, for the type of flying I do, I would fly with any 5,000 hour, VFR-only, tailwheel bush pilot over any 5000-hour airline systems operator. What airline pilots do for a living, laudable though it may be, bears almost no resemblance to what I need to do to stay alive in my RV -- and that's what counts to me.

IMHO, the very BEST pilot would combine both skill sets, flying tailwheel aircraft in their off time, and A-340s during the week. Think Sully, and you've got the idea.

The results of the poll thus far seem to indicate that most pilots see the airmail pilots of yore as superior to the modern airline pilot. YMMV, but I agree.

 

[Jay Honeck]

For every example of a stellar airline pilot like Sully, there is an Air France or Asiana pilot who can't figure out what to do when the stick shakes.

Two data points: I have met airline pilots who looked at me as if I were crazy when I asked them what they flew personally, as if they were accountants who wouldn't dream of number crunching on the weekend. I also recently met a freshly retired airline pilot who just purchased an RV-8A, and was asking me how to land it well. He hasn't flown "little planes" in years.

All airline pilots start with little planes, which means they all have the opportunity to become as good as the airmail pilots. My guess is that flying airlines removes the need, which reduces the incentive, to maintain sharp stick and rudder skills.

Which makes the airmail pilots "better" -- by necessity.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

All airline pilots start with little planes, which means they all have the opportunity to become as good as the airmail pilots. My guess is that flying airlines removes the need, which reduces the incentive, to maintain sharp stick and rudder skills.

I fly 135 and own an airplane. Quite frankly, I've got very little desire to go fly my own plane. You fly 6 days a week for a living, and tell me on your only full day off you want to go fly.

 

[Alexb2000]

For every example of a stellar airline pilot like Sully, there is an Air France or Asiana pilot who can't figure out what to do when the stick shakes.

Two data points: I have met airline pilots who looked at me as if I were crazy when I asked them what they flew personally, as if they were accountants who wouldn't dream of number crunching on the weekend. I also recently met a freshly retired airline pilot who just purchased an RV-8A, and was asking me how to land it well. He hasn't flown "little planes" in years.

All airline pilots start with little planes, which means they all have the opportunity to become as good as the airmail pilots. My guess is that flying airlines removes the need, which reduces the incentive, to maintain sharp stick and rudder skills.

Which makes the airmail pilots "better" -- by necessity.

By this logic inn keepers from past times were superior to today's technology dependent inn keeper. They had no telephones, reservations system, Internet booking, vacuums, etc. YET they stayed in business and provided a great product that endured for years and in some cases became the marque brands of today.

I also stayed in a Motel 6 recently and it sucked, so further to my point.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Modern airline pilots are dorks,

 

[Greg Bockelman]

For every example of a stellar airline pilot like Sully, there is an Air France or Asiana pilot who can't figure out what to do when the stick shakes.

Wow, you paint with an awfully broad brush, Jay.

 

[gismo]

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.

I'd say we're in non-violent agreement.

 

[gismo]

Stick & Rudder vs Fly By Wire

Both my Baron and Porterfield are "Fly by Wire" aircraft. The wheel or stick is connected to the control surfaces by wire rope.

 

[gismo]

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.

Chances are those two curves have rather different bottoms.

 

[John Baker]

I picked the stick and rudder guy over the computer geek simply because for the computer geek to even be sitting in the left seat, he must live by a rule book, and therefore, must be a bureaucrat. I have an incredible dislike for bureaucrats, so my choice was easy for me.

I also like the romantic notion of the carefree, devil may care era of the mail pilots, guys who made their own rules, and in many cases, their own charts. They judged the weather by simply looking at it.

-John

 

[gismo]

For every example of a stellar airline pilot like Sully, there is an Air France or Asiana pilot who can't figure out what to do when the stick shakes.

I suspect but do not profess to know with certainty that your scales are a bit out of balance on this one. No doubt that there are some "pilots" crewing airliners that aren't up to the task skill wise but (at least at US based airlines) the initial and recurrent training keeps their numbers pretty small while the number of truly "excellent" airline pilots is very high IME.

Two data points: I have met airline pilots who looked at me as if I were crazy when I asked them what they flew personally, as if they were accountants who wouldn't dream of number crunching on the weekend. I also recently met a freshly retired airline pilot who just purchased an RV-8A, and was asking me how to land it well. He hasn't flown "little planes" in years.

I don't see that example making your point. Other than the issue of him asking a low time pilot who recently joined the ranks of RV ownership for advice (OTOH, perhaps he felt you'd have some good input being in the transition phase yourself). It seems to me he was exercising good judgement by realizing that his thousands of hours in the left seat of jumbo jet doesn't make him qualified to just jump in and fly an RV without help. The real truth here IMO is that the "stick and rudder skills" used on a daily basis in a large jet don't translate well to flying an RV. The principles are similar but the details are radically different. All flying skills atrophy over time if they're not exercised. I'd bet that if either Sully or Yeager spent most of their flying career in a big jet, after 30 years of flying nothing but airliners both would have serious deficiencies WRT handling an RV or any other small airplane. For the same reason, even though I have spent many hours in the cockpit of various "small" airplanes I fully expect that I'd have trouble making a good landing in a 787 without some guidance and I'd be way underqualified to deal with a real emergency, things that even the "bottom" 787 pilots are likely quite capable of.

All airline pilots start with little planes, which means they all have the opportunity to become as good as the airmail pilots. My guess is that flying airlines removes the need, which reduces the incentive, to maintain sharp stick and rudder skills.

Sorry, but that dog just don't hunt. Plenty of airline pilots spent very little time in "small airplanes" and for even more the time they did have there was limited to little more than a few thousand trips around the pattern and flights in a nearby practice area trying to keep the person in the left seat from killing both of them. To become an excellent early airmail pilot required about as much in the way of other skills as captain 747 needs to fly that ship. While my experience is fairly broad, there's no way I could consider myself capable of flying an airmail route in the conditions they dealt with and with the equipment they used any more than I'd think I could jump in a jumbo jet and make a safe flight from Dallas to LA.

Which makes the airmail pilots "better" -- by necessity.

Not really. That makes airmail pilots better at being an airmail pilot just like your recent and future experience is and will be making you a better recreational RV-6 pilot. I have flown a few RVs and while I like to think I can manage to get one off and back onto a runway without undue risk, you are probably a "better" RV-6 pilot right now than I am. But I'll bet your airplane against mine that I'm "better" at flying an approach to mins in a Baron in IMC than you are. Which of us is the "better pilot"? The answer depends on what we're flying vs what we've learned to fly and have flown recently.

Finally, since at one point I think you mentioned that you intended this comparison to be between professional pilots of different aviation "eras", I'd propose that the answer in most general terms is that today's professional ATP flying for a US carrier is on the average much better qualified for that role than the average airmail pilot (the original ATPs in a literal sense) was for their job simply because a lot more effort has gone into initial and recurrent training for the former than the latter.

 

[douglas393]

And you'll hire your 40-year country doc for your robotic surgery.

Sometimes advances in medicine are steps backwards. Ask most of the country docs that are surgeons and do robotic surgery what they really think about it, and the honest ones will tell you its a gimmick to get patients into the office or hospital, and in reality all it accomplishes is increased operative time, and increased operative complexity, and no discernible improvement in outcomes, and some suggestion of worse outcomes that the minimally invasive scopic procedures or the traditional open procedures that it replaces. The technology which has been around for years is still in the stages of a procedure looking for indications. Read about medical lasers and what they were supposed to do when they were introduced in the 80's and see what they really have done in medicine, and I think it will be analogous to robotic surgery today, and what the future of robotic surgery will be. Hopefully, I am wrong.

 

[Ted]

Sometimes you have to just work with what you've got.

Sometimes you have insufficient information, and need to understand that you cannot come to a correct conclusion. This is one of those times.

 

[Velocity173]

Once again, dangerous does'nt mean "better." if they were actually better pilots you'd think they would have coped with the danger and not had such a high accident record. Their accident record was horrible in the early years.

 

[jesse]

I can tell you which one has a hell of a lot better chance of getting hundreds of people safely from A to B in nearly any weather.

 

[silver-eagle]

I took the stick and rudder guy of the 1920's because he's flying closer to the ground than the airbus pilots. They have the advantage of 90 years of aviation improvements but the guy in the 1920's has the adventure. How many of his misadventures were scary trips into the clouds surviving simply because there weren't others to crash into.

 

[j1b3h0]

Better at what? Texting while they drive? Ever watch some of the videos of airliners landing in a strong crosswind? Seems very few of them land on the centerline with the airplane well aligned...and track straight on the roll out. The goggled aviator wouldn't have gotten away without hands an feet the way the current guys and gals do. Only partially their fault, I suppose, since training strongly discourages anything without automation. If I turn the auto-throttles off, I sometimes get a look from the Captain as if I groped his wife. If it isn't blatantly obvious, I'm old school, and I think there is mounting evidence that suggests maybe flying sans-automation (even in airliners) should be done daily. I'm fortunate that most of the pilots with whom I work are very talented - in the airplanes we fly. But I sometimes get the feeling that if the Boeing flown by them was a Stearman, many wouldn't last twice around the patch.

 

[Jay Honeck]

I fly 135 and own an airplane. Quite frankly, I've got very little desire to go fly my own plane. You fly 6 days a week for a living, and tell me on your only full day off you want to go fly.

Oh, I fully understand. It's a major reason I would never want to fly for a living -- that would ruin everything!

 

[j1b3h0]

To me it's an easy answer. The Airbus pilot is the better pilot. If you have the two pilots switch aircraft, the airbus pilot can easily fly the airmail pilot's plane and do what he did. That is, scud run and get from point to point by pilotage alone. Remember, Airbus pilots were trained how to do pilotage during the private pilot portion of their training just like we all were.

The airmail pilot on the other hand would be absolutely lost in the cockpit of the Airbus. His scud running and pilotage skills wouldn't get him all that far.

I know this is just a grumpy old man poll. It's a "These kids today, I'll tell ya..." sort of thing. It's a sweeping generalization that all Airbus pilots couldn't possibly survive an hour in the sky without a computer, a bunch of checklists and a thick flight manual to consult. It's also a rose tinted romantic dream of the airmail pilots in the '20s, that somehow they were all amazing airmen that would astound us with their super human stick and rudder skills, their nerves of steel and the weather and navigation skills of some great native American warrior. What a load of bull. Their training in contrast to the Airbus pilot amounted to- "Here kid, this is how you land and take off, you can get to where you're going with a compass and looking at stuff on the ground. Oh, and try to stay out of the clouds, they'll kill ya. Good luck! Hope you survive to your 100th mission!"

The Airbus pilot is the better pilot. End of story.

I respectfully disagree. And you might also if you ever fly an airplane that really requires a pilot aboard.

 

[Jay Honeck]

I have flown a few RVs and while I like to think I can manage to get one off and back onto a runway without undue risk, you are probably a "better" RV-6 pilot right now than I am.

Probably not -- I've never flown an RV-6.

But I agree with much of the rest of your post.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Once again, dangerous does'nt mean "better." if they were actually better pilots you'd think they would have coped with the danger and not had such a high accident record. Their accident record was horrible in the early years.

They weren't called the Suicide Squad for nothing.

The story of Jack Knight flying into my old home 'drome, Iowa City, Iowa, in a blizzard, thus saving the faltering airmail experiment from oblivion, is harrowing beyond description.

Knight went on to a long, distinguished airline career. Truly the Best of the best.

 

[wabower]

I know which guy my recently-retired urologist friend selected for his prostate surgery. Other than that, whatever you say is good by me.

Sometimes advances in medicine are steps backwards. Ask most of the country docs that are surgeons and do robotic surgery what they really think about it, and the honest ones will tell you its a gimmick to get patients into the office or hospital, and in reality all it accomplishes is increased operative time, and increased operative complexity, and no discernible improvement in outcomes, and some suggestion of worse outcomes that the minimally invasive scopic procedures or the traditional open procedures that it replaces. The technology which has been around for years is still in the stages of a procedure looking for indications. Read about medical lasers and what they were supposed to do when they were introduced in the 80's and see what they really have done in medicine, and I think it will be analogous to robotic surgery today, and what the future of robotic surgery will be. Hopefully, I am wrong.

 

[Dav8or]

I also like the romantic notion of the carefree, devil may care era of the mail pilots, guys who made their own rules, and in many cases, their own charts. They judged the weather by simply looking at it.

-John

...and they romantically set into the weather... and died.

When I book a ticket on a flying bus, I want a bureaucrat, not a risk taking dare devil. In America, it has been a proven way to get people from point A to point B with greater reliability and safety than any other system man has devised, except the elevator. Back when the airlines had real stick and rudder cowboy pilots calling the shots, the record was much, much worse.

 

[RotorAndWing]

For every example of a stellar airline pilot like Sully, there is an Air France or Asiana pilot who can't figure out what to do when the stick shakes.

Two data points: I have met airline pilots who looked at me as if I were crazy when I asked them what they flew personally, as if they were accountants who wouldn't dream of number crunching on the weekend.

Why do you believe if someone flies professionally they are somehow obligated to have a GA hobby?? While there are many airline pilots that do participate in GA there are many that have boats, play golf, motorbike, etc, etc.

I also recently met a freshly retired airline pilot who just purchased an RV-8A, and was asking me how to land it well. He hasn't flown "little planes" in years.

So? Again, what's your point?

A transport jet lands differently than a single engine small airplane. Since you feel you are superior in your skills in the RV8 after 50 hours could we put you in the cockpit of a B737 or A320 and watch you "grease it on"?

All airline pilots start with little planes, which means they all have the opportunity to become as good as the airmail pilots. My guess is that flying airlines removes the need, which reduces the incentive, to maintain sharp stick and rudder skills.

Which makes the airmail pilots "better" -- by necessity.

Again,

The statement My guess is that flying airlines removes the need, which reduces the incentive, to maintain sharp stick and rudder skills is inane and just down right silly.

So define for us your definition of "sharp stick and rudder skills" and exactly which of these skills are missing from a professional pilot.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Knight went on to a long, distinguished airline career. Truly the Best of the best.

But you just said in another post:

My guess is that flying airlines removes the need, which reduces the incentive, to maintain sharp stick and rudder skills.

So by your assumption his skills quickly deteriorated while flying for the airlines, correct?

 

[RotorAndWing]

I respectfully disagree. And you might also if you ever fly an airplane that really requires a pilot aboard.

An Airbus doesn't really require a pilot onboard? Really?

 

[Dav8or]

I took the stick and rudder guy of the 1920's because he's flying closer to the ground than the airbus pilots. They have the advantage of 90 years of aviation improvements but the guy in the 1920's has the adventure. How many of his misadventures were scary trips into the clouds surviving simply because there weren't others to crash into.

This makes no sense to me. They're better pilots because they put themselves in life threatening situations and then survived by chance?? Closer to the ground = better pilot? I think all you romanticizers of the good ol' days are forgetting how many of these guys died in the process.

 

[Dav8or]

Better at what? Texting while they drive? Ever watch some of the videos of airliners landing in a strong crosswind?

Ever watch the videos of the airmail pilots landing in a strong crosswind? Oh, that's right, nobody really knows how the hell they landed. There aren't videos to critique. I know how the airline pilots that have flown me all over the world have landed, safely on the runway. Every time. Seriously, this bashing of airline pilots is really, really ignorant and stupid.

 

[Dav8or]

I respectfully disagree. And you might also if you ever fly an airplane that really requires a pilot aboard.

Oh gawd... here comes that tail wheel crap again. If all airline pilots were required to have the 10 hours of dual instruction and get their tail wheel endorsement, would you then feel better about them? This would be a joyful walk in the park compared to the training they actually have to get.

It would be interesting to know and maybe some our airline folks here could comment, but there are many airline pilots with tail wheel time. Is their performance in the simulator and in real world airline flying really any better than those without this experience?

 

[Dav8or]

They weren't called the Suicide Squad for nothing.

The story of Jack Knight flying into my old home 'drome, Iowa City, Iowa, in a blizzard, thus saving the faltering airmail experiment from oblivion, is harrowing beyond description.

Knight went on to a long, distinguished airline career. Truly the Best of the best.

Or the luckiest of the lucky.