User avatar
ECAMerror
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 2:32 am

Re: Flying the Plane, versus systems management flying

Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:05 pm

Starlionblue wrote:
ECAMerror wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:

All fine and well as long as you leave that ego behind when you go to the airlines. My cousin thought he was better than civilian pilots and treated them as such. Like I said, he didn't make it through training and the airline sent him on his way.


Why do you take it as arrogance instead of accomplished fact? The arrogance factor is usually seen on the civilian side of the fence. People who have done a lot aren't usually arrogant. Would you call Chuck Yeager and Neill Armstrong arrogant? Would you call Sully arrogant?


Having read quite a bit both by and about the three you mention, my takes on their arrogance with regards to flying and perceived ability:
- Chuck Yeager - Arrogant. His autobiography is one long series of stories about how good a pilot he is and how others were often wrong.
- Neil Armstrong - Not arrogant. A truly humble man; hard working and quietly confident in his very high abilities. Coincidentally, Armstrong features in a story in Yeager's biography where Yeager is anything but complimentary. It reads as both petty and smacking of jealousy.
- Sully - Maybe arrogant, sometimes. An accomplished pilot to be sure, but I wouldn't call him humble. There are hints of arrogance in his media comments, often implying things about the perceived poor training of non-Western pilots, and the perceived shortcomings of non-Western flight control architectures.


My point is that these guys are being judged by the most superficial of characterizations. "Arrogance" might as well be "he is the meanest" or some other nebulous, useless metric. Elementary school kids use these types of words to describe each other. I bet you that, despite your extensive research, different people will have different opinions of each of these three men. You'ld be surprised how many uncritically thinking people formed their notions of arrogance from movies like "Sully", "The Right Stuff", and "First Man". Do we really have a grounded basis for claiming anyone is arrogant, or is that simply what people say when they aren't in the know?

Each of these men has substantial accomplishments in their background and no one can claim they are arrogant with the things they have done. Let me say the following as an ex-USAF test pilot and current legacy airline senior management/evaluator pilot... I don't care if people act, what you would say is, "arrogant". What I care about is whether they have an attitude of always wanting to learn or not. People don't ever wash out of any training program because of arrogance. That is not something you can put on the paperwork. People wash out because of procedural deficiencies or weak knowledge. For the most part, the military guys are already well aware they don't know everything, which is why they are very strongly motivated to self study. Their fundamental education has many elements that no civil pilot can ever get exposure to. Remember that each of the 3 guys I mentioned previously were all military guys. Sure, there are always guys from the military that slack but they are not representative of the system they came from.

The bigger issue is the pipeline of civilian pilots. There are excellent formal education university programs out there, and then there's everything else. You simply have no idea what you're getting, or not getting in the civilian world. It's a pretty safe bet most have never done actual stalls or spins in a jet, which is why the FAA is now requiring high altitude training. Again, this is something all military guys have been doing for decades because the military "system" throws A LOT of money at each pilot, whereas airlines do virtually nothing. All military guys do these things in real life, in real airplanes, in addition to substantially more simulator training than any civil airline training program. I'm giving checkrides in a Level D sim today and I can't help thinking that our simulator stall training is the bare minimum forced by the FAA. Many of these things are perishable skills and in the civilian world, doing it once a year just isn't enough. Every pilot should have a way to rehearse these things in a fairly representative simulator on a monthly basis (e.g. XBox360 based home flight simulator -- yes, that hardware is good enough to equal Level D aircraft emulation, except for motion). You'ld be surprised how many pilots screw up go-arounds in real life. The real issue is not arrogance, the real issue is the low amount of training all pilots get to be proficient on every single flight. At an airline, you go to recurrent training once a year. Emergencies can happen all year and a number of factors are involved that make a pilot's performance less than what they do at yearly sim training. For example, even though the FAA is in total denial about it, a pilot commuting in for 8 hrs to do a redeye is in no way at his best for that flight. Guys like Sully did the right thing (not following the QRH) because his military education and experience, as a system, formed a thinking problem solver rather than a reactionary checklist robot. As a fighter guy, he undoubtedly practiced and educated himself on High Key/Low Key engine loss patterns so that he knew energy management inside-out. Again, civil pilots don't practice these things. There is so much that goes into Sully's decision making that no one has ever talked about. As a result, praises to Sully are mostly vacuous in nature and limited to the ultimate result -- they all lived. What is never talked about is all the specific details of his education that led him to do what he did. The same is for Chuck Yeager and Neil Armstrong.
 
747Whale
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:41 pm

Re: Flying the Plane, versus systems management flying

Thu Mar 28, 2019 7:17 pm

By and large, I've seen far more problems in the industry by with military pilots, and a great deal of it is attached to arrogance; often a sense that they know things they really don't. Much of it seems rooted in the sense that their limited experience (military) has shown them the world and that the way they were trained is the right way. I've worked for several operators, each owned by ex-military, who won't ever hire another military pilot again.

The generalizations in these discussions tend to get polar; people are people regardless of their background and there's nothing inherently advantageous about a civil background. Or military.

Arrogance in the cockpit is a very dangerous trait. I recently saw a captain downgraded for his arrogance and his treatment of those around him, given that arrogance. He's a first officer now.

Sully's decision was a correct act in real time. It was no superhero event; he made a ditching with a dual flame-out, and has said as much. Strip the event of all the celebration and is was a crew making a choice and a commitment in the face of a fairly serious emergency; the outcome was well. It could just as easily have not been. The crew did their jobs well, focused, and everyone lived. It's good enough.

The notion that "civil pilots don't practice these things" is an example of military arrogance.

It's always entertaining to hear the military aviator say "it's a shame you don't get the education and training that I got." Especially the 1,200 hour hotshots who think they're on top of the world. I used to hear that from a retired continental captain, regularly, when he flew with a fractional, many years ago. Former military, retired airline, that tired dogma was as useless then as it is now. Arrogance.

No use for it at all.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19314
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Flying the Plane, versus systems management flying

Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:47 pm

ECAMerror wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:
ECAMerror wrote:

Why do you take it as arrogance instead of accomplished fact? The arrogance factor is usually seen on the civilian side of the fence. People who have done a lot aren't usually arrogant. Would you call Chuck Yeager and Neill Armstrong arrogant? Would you call Sully arrogant?


Having read quite a bit both by and about the three you mention, my takes on their arrogance with regards to flying and perceived ability:
- Chuck Yeager - Arrogant. His autobiography is one long series of stories about how good a pilot he is and how others were often wrong.
- Neil Armstrong - Not arrogant. A truly humble man; hard working and quietly confident in his very high abilities. Coincidentally, Armstrong features in a story in Yeager's biography where Yeager is anything but complimentary. It reads as both petty and smacking of jealousy.
- Sully - Maybe arrogant, sometimes. An accomplished pilot to be sure, but I wouldn't call him humble. There are hints of arrogance in his media comments, often implying things about the perceived poor training of non-Western pilots, and the perceived shortcomings of non-Western flight control architectures.


My point is that these guys are being judged by the most superficial of characterizations. "Arrogance" might as well be "he is the meanest" or some other nebulous, useless metric. Elementary school kids use these types of words to describe each other. I bet you that, despite your extensive research, different people will have different opinions of each of these three men. You'ld be surprised how many uncritically thinking people formed their notions of arrogance from movies like "Sully", "The Right Stuff", and "First Man". Do we really have a grounded basis for claiming anyone is arrogant, or is that simply what people say when they aren't in the know?

Each of these men has substantial accomplishments in their background and no one can claim they are arrogant with the things they have done. Let me say the following as an ex-USAF test pilot and current legacy airline senior management/evaluator pilot... I don't care if people act, what you would say is, "arrogant". What I care about is whether they have an attitude of always wanting to learn or not. People don't ever wash out of any training program because of arrogance. That is not something you can put on the paperwork. People wash out because of procedural deficiencies or weak knowledge. For the most part, the military guys are already well aware they don't know everything, which is why they are very strongly motivated to self study. Their fundamental education has many elements that no civil pilot can ever get exposure to. Remember that each of the 3 guys I mentioned previously were all military guys. Sure, there are always guys from the military that slack but they are not representative of the system they came from.

The bigger issue is the pipeline of civilian pilots. There are excellent formal education university programs out there, and then there's everything else. You simply have no idea what you're getting, or not getting in the civilian world. It's a pretty safe bet most have never done actual stalls or spins in a jet, which is why the FAA is now requiring high altitude training. Again, this is something all military guys have been doing for decades because the military "system" throws A LOT of money at each pilot, whereas airlines do virtually nothing. All military guys do these things in real life, in real airplanes, in addition to substantially more simulator training than any civil airline training program. I'm giving checkrides in a Level D sim today and I can't help thinking that our simulator stall training is the bare minimum forced by the FAA. Many of these things are perishable skills and in the civilian world, doing it once a year just isn't enough. Every pilot should have a way to rehearse these things in a fairly representative simulator on a monthly basis (e.g. XBox360 based home flight simulator -- yes, that hardware is good enough to equal Level D aircraft emulation, except for motion). You'ld be surprised how many pilots screw up go-arounds in real life. The real issue is not arrogance, the real issue is the low amount of training all pilots get to be proficient on every single flight. At an airline, you go to recurrent training once a year. Emergencies can happen all year and a number of factors are involved that make a pilot's performance less than what they do at yearly sim training. For example, even though the FAA is in total denial about it, a pilot commuting in for 8 hrs to do a redeye is in no way at his best for that flight. Guys like Sully did the right thing (not following the QRH) because his military education and experience, as a system, formed a thinking problem solver rather than a reactionary checklist robot. As a fighter guy, he undoubtedly practiced and educated himself on High Key/Low Key engine loss patterns so that he knew energy management inside-out. Again, civil pilots don't practice these things. There is so much that goes into Sully's decision making that no one has ever talked about. As a result, praises to Sully are mostly vacuous in nature and limited to the ultimate result -- they all lived. What is never talked about is all the specific details of his education that led him to do what he did. The same is for Chuck Yeager and Neil Armstrong.


Arrogant has a very clear definition.

arrogant
/ˈarəɡ(ə)nt/
adjective
having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.


Being mean is not the same as being arrogant. You can be an accomplished test pilot and still be arrogant. People certainly do wash out of training programs because they are arrogant, thinking they are better than they are. And it does come out in reports. Procedural deficiencies and weakness in knowledge are not the only criteria by which we are judged. CRM is a big one, and arrogance certainly stands out there. In my airline training class, one guy washed out, mostly because of his arrogant attitude. Another guy who thought he was god's gift to aviation is still with us, but he had some rather rocky moments in the first few months.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
ECAMerror
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 2:32 am

Re: Flying the Plane, versus systems management flying

Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:59 pm

Starlionblue wrote:
ECAMerror wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:

Having read quite a bit both by and about the three you mention, my takes on their arrogance with regards to flying and perceived ability:
- Chuck Yeager - Arrogant. His autobiography is one long series of stories about how good a pilot he is and how others were often wrong.
- Neil Armstrong - Not arrogant. A truly humble man; hard working and quietly confident in his very high abilities. Coincidentally, Armstrong features in a story in Yeager's biography where Yeager is anything but complimentary. It reads as both petty and smacking of jealousy.
- Sully - Maybe arrogant, sometimes. An accomplished pilot to be sure, but I wouldn't call him humble. There are hints of arrogance in his media comments, often implying things about the perceived poor training of non-Western pilots, and the perceived shortcomings of non-Western flight control architectures.


My point is that these guys are being judged by the most superficial of characterizations. "Arrogance" might as well be "he is the meanest" or some other nebulous, useless metric. Elementary school kids use these types of words to describe each other. I bet you that, despite your extensive research, different people will have different opinions of each of these three men. You'ld be surprised how many uncritically thinking people formed their notions of arrogance from movies like "Sully", "The Right Stuff", and "First Man". Do we really have a grounded basis for claiming anyone is arrogant, or is that simply what people say when they aren't in the know?

Each of these men has substantial accomplishments in their background and no one can claim they are arrogant with the things they have done. Let me say the following as an ex-USAF test pilot and current legacy airline senior management/evaluator pilot... I don't care if people act, what you would say is, "arrogant". What I care about is whether they have an attitude of always wanting to learn or not. People don't ever wash out of any training program because of arrogance. That is not something you can put on the paperwork. People wash out because of procedural deficiencies or weak knowledge. For the most part, the military guys are already well aware they don't know everything, which is why they are very strongly motivated to self study. Their fundamental education has many elements that no civil pilot can ever get exposure to. Remember that each of the 3 guys I mentioned previously were all military guys. Sure, there are always guys from the military that slack but they are not representative of the system they came from.

The bigger issue is the pipeline of civilian pilots. There are excellent formal education university programs out there, and then there's everything else. You simply have no idea what you're getting, or not getting in the civilian world. It's a pretty safe bet most have never done actual stalls or spins in a jet, which is why the FAA is now requiring high altitude training. Again, this is something all military guys have been doing for decades because the military "system" throws A LOT of money at each pilot, whereas airlines do virtually nothing. All military guys do these things in real life, in real airplanes, in addition to substantially more simulator training than any civil airline training program. I'm giving checkrides in a Level D sim today and I can't help thinking that our simulator stall training is the bare minimum forced by the FAA. Many of these things are perishable skills and in the civilian world, doing it once a year just isn't enough. Every pilot should have a way to rehearse these things in a fairly representative simulator on a monthly basis (e.g. XBox360 based home flight simulator -- yes, that hardware is good enough to equal Level D aircraft emulation, except for motion). You'ld be surprised how many pilots screw up go-arounds in real life. The real issue is not arrogance, the real issue is the low amount of training all pilots get to be proficient on every single flight. At an airline, you go to recurrent training once a year. Emergencies can happen all year and a number of factors are involved that make a pilot's performance less than what they do at yearly sim training. For example, even though the FAA is in total denial about it, a pilot commuting in for 8 hrs to do a redeye is in no way at his best for that flight. Guys like Sully did the right thing (not following the QRH) because his military education and experience, as a system, formed a thinking problem solver rather than a reactionary checklist robot. As a fighter guy, he undoubtedly practiced and educated himself on High Key/Low Key engine loss patterns so that he knew energy management inside-out. Again, civil pilots don't practice these things. There is so much that goes into Sully's decision making that no one has ever talked about. As a result, praises to Sully are mostly vacuous in nature and limited to the ultimate result -- they all lived. What is never talked about is all the specific details of his education that led him to do what he did. The same is for Chuck Yeager and Neil Armstrong.


Arrogant has a very clear definition.

arrogant
/ˈarəɡ(ə)nt/
adjective
having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.


Being mean is not the same as being arrogant. You can be an accomplished test pilot and still be arrogant. People certainly do wash out of training programs because they are arrogant, thinking they are better than they are. And it does come out in reports. Procedural deficiencies and weakness in knowledge are not the only criteria by which we are judged. CRM is a big one, and arrogance certainly stands out there. In my airline training class, one guy washed out, mostly because of his arrogant attitude. Another guy who thought he was god's gift to aviation is still with us, but he had some rather rocky moments in the first few months.


I guess you missed the part where I mentioned that civil guys do not, by ordinary measure, get the experiences that military guys get. That is flat fact. The typical pipeline of flying Cessnas, to a Learjet, to an RJ, to a 737 just isn't equivalent to the military training programs and the type of flying that is unique to military. Sorry but that is flat fact. You can try to attach emotional terms like "arrogance" to your argument but it doesn't change the facts. You can make this about one's impressions of one's abilities but that is not what I am saying. Like I said, I don't care if someone is labeled arrogant. I care about what they accomplish. There are plenty of people who misjudge all the time. Sometimes people call someone arrogant out of jealousy. That's why the arrogance factor is just completely useless to measure anyone by. It's purely superficial.
 
User avatar
ECAMerror
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 2:32 am

Re: Flying the Plane, versus systems management flying

Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:01 pm

747Whale wrote:
The notion that "civil pilots don't practice these things" is an example of military arrogance.


Well, do they?

Can you make a non-emotional argument?
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19314
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Flying the Plane, versus systems management flying

Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:33 pm

ECAMerror wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:
ECAMerror wrote:

My point is that these guys are being judged by the most superficial of characterizations. "Arrogance" might as well be "he is the meanest" or some other nebulous, useless metric. Elementary school kids use these types of words to describe each other. I bet you that, despite your extensive research, different people will have different opinions of each of these three men. You'ld be surprised how many uncritically thinking people formed their notions of arrogance from movies like "Sully", "The Right Stuff", and "First Man". Do we really have a grounded basis for claiming anyone is arrogant, or is that simply what people say when they aren't in the know?

Each of these men has substantial accomplishments in their background and no one can claim they are arrogant with the things they have done. Let me say the following as an ex-USAF test pilot and current legacy airline senior management/evaluator pilot... I don't care if people act, what you would say is, "arrogant". What I care about is whether they have an attitude of always wanting to learn or not. People don't ever wash out of any training program because of arrogance. That is not something you can put on the paperwork. People wash out because of procedural deficiencies or weak knowledge. For the most part, the military guys are already well aware they don't know everything, which is why they are very strongly motivated to self study. Their fundamental education has many elements that no civil pilot can ever get exposure to. Remember that each of the 3 guys I mentioned previously were all military guys. Sure, there are always guys from the military that slack but they are not representative of the system they came from.

The bigger issue is the pipeline of civilian pilots. There are excellent formal education university programs out there, and then there's everything else. You simply have no idea what you're getting, or not getting in the civilian world. It's a pretty safe bet most have never done actual stalls or spins in a jet, which is why the FAA is now requiring high altitude training. Again, this is something all military guys have been doing for decades because the military "system" throws A LOT of money at each pilot, whereas airlines do virtually nothing. All military guys do these things in real life, in real airplanes, in addition to substantially more simulator training than any civil airline training program. I'm giving checkrides in a Level D sim today and I can't help thinking that our simulator stall training is the bare minimum forced by the FAA. Many of these things are perishable skills and in the civilian world, doing it once a year just isn't enough. Every pilot should have a way to rehearse these things in a fairly representative simulator on a monthly basis (e.g. XBox360 based home flight simulator -- yes, that hardware is good enough to equal Level D aircraft emulation, except for motion). You'ld be surprised how many pilots screw up go-arounds in real life. The real issue is not arrogance, the real issue is the low amount of training all pilots get to be proficient on every single flight. At an airline, you go to recurrent training once a year. Emergencies can happen all year and a number of factors are involved that make a pilot's performance less than what they do at yearly sim training. For example, even though the FAA is in total denial about it, a pilot commuting in for 8 hrs to do a redeye is in no way at his best for that flight. Guys like Sully did the right thing (not following the QRH) because his military education and experience, as a system, formed a thinking problem solver rather than a reactionary checklist robot. As a fighter guy, he undoubtedly practiced and educated himself on High Key/Low Key engine loss patterns so that he knew energy management inside-out. Again, civil pilots don't practice these things. There is so much that goes into Sully's decision making that no one has ever talked about. As a result, praises to Sully are mostly vacuous in nature and limited to the ultimate result -- they all lived. What is never talked about is all the specific details of his education that led him to do what he did. The same is for Chuck Yeager and Neil Armstrong.


Arrogant has a very clear definition.

arrogant
/ˈarəɡ(ə)nt/
adjective
having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.


Being mean is not the same as being arrogant. You can be an accomplished test pilot and still be arrogant. People certainly do wash out of training programs because they are arrogant, thinking they are better than they are. And it does come out in reports. Procedural deficiencies and weakness in knowledge are not the only criteria by which we are judged. CRM is a big one, and arrogance certainly stands out there. In my airline training class, one guy washed out, mostly because of his arrogant attitude. Another guy who thought he was god's gift to aviation is still with us, but he had some rather rocky moments in the first few months.


I guess you missed the part where I mentioned that civil guys do not, by ordinary measure, get the experiences that military guys get. That is flat fact. The typical pipeline of flying Cessnas, to a Learjet, to an RJ, to a 737 just isn't equivalent to the military training programs and the type of flying that is unique to military. Sorry but that is flat fact. You can try to attach emotional terms like "arrogance" to your argument but it doesn't change the facts. You can make this about one's impressions of one's abilities but that is not what I am saying. Like I said, I don't care if someone is labeled arrogant. I care about what they accomplish. There are plenty of people who misjudge all the time. Sometimes people call someone arrogant out of jealousy. That's why the arrogance factor is just completely useless to measure anyone by. It's purely superficial.


As I said above, arrogance is not an "emotional term". It has a clear definition. And it is not a good trait in a pilot. It stands in the way of learning, of good CRM, and thus of good results.

Whether former military pilots have a more desirable set of skills than civilian trained? Personally, I don't think so. IMHO they enter the industry with a an overlapping but somewhat different skillset, but after 5-10 years the differences have mostly disappeared.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
747Whale
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:41 pm

Re: Flying the Plane, versus systems management flying

Fri Mar 29, 2019 3:06 am

ECAMerror wrote:
747Whale wrote:
The notion that "civil pilots don't practice these things" is an example of military arrogance.


Well, do they?

Can you make a non-emotional argument?


I was doing formation flights under powerlines as a commercial pilot when I was eighteen. How about you?
 
WIederling
Posts: 8472
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Flying the Plane, versus systems management flying

Fri Mar 29, 2019 8:05 am

ECAMerror wrote:
My point is that these guys are being judged by the most superficial of characterizations. "Arrogance" might as well be "he is the meanest" or some other nebulous, useless metric.


_Projection of Arrogance_ is a method to deflect external influence. ( or just plain insecurity )
Talking down on people "you are too dumb to understand what I know" goes in the same direction.

Really and securely competent people are very rarely arrogant.

Arrogance and talking down is more linked to the semi competents. Those that have filled a vertical knowledge slot
but have difficulty accessing the left and right of the wider knowledge base. They are not intellectually nimble.

Another thing.
My usual method to talk with customers and associated people is rewording/reformulating things ( ideas, concepts, solutions ) that I want understood and "worked on" until the "bite" is taken. This works rather well.

On occasion you hit on people that appear to not get ahead independent of any path you take to "make yourself understood".
Took me a while to understand that those persons do not intend to understand anything presented but have their own underhanded agenda ( be that workplace strife or whatever.)
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
ECAMerror
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 2:32 am

Re: Flying the Plane, versus systems management flying

Fri Mar 29, 2019 3:01 pm

Starlionblue wrote:
ECAMerror wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:

Arrogant has a very clear definition.

arrogant
/ˈarəɡ(ə)nt/
adjective
having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.


Being mean is not the same as being arrogant. You can be an accomplished test pilot and still be arrogant. People certainly do wash out of training programs because they are arrogant, thinking they are better than they are. And it does come out in reports. Procedural deficiencies and weakness in knowledge are not the only criteria by which we are judged. CRM is a big one, and arrogance certainly stands out there. In my airline training class, one guy washed out, mostly because of his arrogant attitude. Another guy who thought he was god's gift to aviation is still with us, but he had some rather rocky moments in the first few months.


I guess you missed the part where I mentioned that civil guys do not, by ordinary measure, get the experiences that military guys get. That is flat fact. The typical pipeline of flying Cessnas, to a Learjet, to an RJ, to a 737 just isn't equivalent to the military training programs and the type of flying that is unique to military. Sorry but that is flat fact. You can try to attach emotional terms like "arrogance" to your argument but it doesn't change the facts. You can make this about one's impressions of one's abilities but that is not what I am saying. Like I said, I don't care if someone is labeled arrogant. I care about what they accomplish. There are plenty of people who misjudge all the time. Sometimes people call someone arrogant out of jealousy. That's why the arrogance factor is just completely useless to measure anyone by. It's purely superficial.


As I said above, arrogance is not an "emotional term". It has a clear definition. And it is not a good trait in a pilot. It stands in the way of learning, of good CRM, and thus of good results.

Whether former military pilots have a more desirable set of skills than civilian trained? Personally, I don't think so. IMHO they enter the industry with a an overlapping but somewhat different skillset, but after 5-10 years the differences have mostly disappeared.


Of course "arrogance" is an emotional term. Can you measure it? Can you quantify it? Can you grade someone on it? If you have ever written reports on students in a military or FAA Part 121 flight program, you would know that you cannot write "arrogant" in any paperwork because it is nothing more than a personal attack based on perception. Arrogance is more a term used by people who think TopGun is real life.
 
User avatar
ECAMerror
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 2:32 am

Re: Flying the Plane, versus systems management flying

Fri Mar 29, 2019 3:07 pm

747Whale wrote:
ECAMerror wrote:
747Whale wrote:
The notion that "civil pilots don't practice these things" is an example of military arrogance.


Well, do they?

Can you make a non-emotional argument?


I was doing formation flights under powerlines as a commercial pilot when I was eighteen. How about you?


Under power lines? Very professional! Each time you cut a power line, remember that you may be cutting off grandma's medical devices or a hospital's electricity.

About me..? Well... I first calculated differential equations and did computational fluid dynamics simulations to study airflow around airfoils to check for unique flow characteristics when departing controlled flight. We then practiced the maneuver in a simulator. Then we strapped on parachutes, put a recovery chute on the airplane, then went to a desert with a big runway to do it in real life, making sure no one was in harm's way.
 
747Whale
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:41 pm

Re: Flying the Plane, versus systems management flying

Fri Mar 29, 2019 3:10 pm

ECAMerror wrote:
Under power lines? Very professional! Each time you cut a power line, remember that you may be cutting off grandma's medical devices or a hospital's electricity.


Good god you're arrogant.

I never cut a powerline, thanks.

I did act as a professional aerial applicator before most enter college. It's always good to receive you judgement, however, and a healthy dose of traditional military arrogance.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19314
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Flying the Plane, versus systems management flying

Fri Mar 29, 2019 11:48 pm

ECAMerror wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:
ECAMerror wrote:

I guess you missed the part where I mentioned that civil guys do not, by ordinary measure, get the experiences that military guys get. That is flat fact. The typical pipeline of flying Cessnas, to a Learjet, to an RJ, to a 737 just isn't equivalent to the military training programs and the type of flying that is unique to military. Sorry but that is flat fact. You can try to attach emotional terms like "arrogance" to your argument but it doesn't change the facts. You can make this about one's impressions of one's abilities but that is not what I am saying. Like I said, I don't care if someone is labeled arrogant. I care about what they accomplish. There are plenty of people who misjudge all the time. Sometimes people call someone arrogant out of jealousy. That's why the arrogance factor is just completely useless to measure anyone by. It's purely superficial.


As I said above, arrogance is not an "emotional term". It has a clear definition. And it is not a good trait in a pilot. It stands in the way of learning, of good CRM, and thus of good results.

Whether former military pilots have a more desirable set of skills than civilian trained? Personally, I don't think so. IMHO they enter the industry with a an overlapping but somewhat different skillset, but after 5-10 years the differences have mostly disappeared.


Of course "arrogance" is an emotional term. Can you measure it? Can you quantify it? Can you grade someone on it? If you have ever written reports on students in a military or FAA Part 121 flight program, you would know that you cannot write "arrogant" in any paperwork because it is nothing more than a personal attack based on perception. Arrogance is more a term used by people who think TopGun is real life.


I've read plenty of reports with words like "positive", "enthusiastic" and "keen" so I don't understand why you would not be allowed to write "arrogant" in a report if it was relevant. The attitude of the person being checked is a relevant parameter.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
ECAMerror
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 2:32 am

Re: Flying the Plane, versus systems management flying

Mon Apr 22, 2019 2:26 am

Starlionblue wrote:
ECAMerror wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:

As I said above, arrogance is not an "emotional term". It has a clear definition. And it is not a good trait in a pilot. It stands in the way of learning, of good CRM, and thus of good results.

Whether former military pilots have a more desirable set of skills than civilian trained? Personally, I don't think so. IMHO they enter the industry with a an overlapping but somewhat different skillset, but after 5-10 years the differences have mostly disappeared.


Of course "arrogance" is an emotional term. Can you measure it? Can you quantify it? Can you grade someone on it? If you have ever written reports on students in a military or FAA Part 121 flight program, you would know that you cannot write "arrogant" in any paperwork because it is nothing more than a personal attack based on perception. Arrogance is more a term used by people who think TopGun is real life.


I've read plenty of reports with words like "positive", "enthusiastic" and "keen" so I don't understand why you would not be allowed to write "arrogant" in a report if it was relevant. The attitude of the person being checked is a relevant parameter.


Because it's legal slander. Arrogant is not a precise word. It's an accusation. What is arrogant to some, is humble to others. Some employers like arrogance while others see it as toxic masculinity, or some other fraudulent characterization. When you write gradesheets, you use absolute criteria such as "failed to recognize 25 knot crosswind resulting in exceeding localizer 1/2 scale deflection in accordance with practical test standards". Saying "was too arrogant to admit to his mistake" just doesn't make for a good legal argument.
 
User avatar
ECAMerror
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 2:32 am

Re: Flying the Plane, versus systems management flying

Mon Apr 22, 2019 2:29 am

747Whale wrote:
ECAMerror wrote:
Under power lines? Very professional! Each time you cut a power line, remember that you may be cutting off grandma's medical devices or a hospital's electricity.


Good god you're arrogant.

I never cut a powerline, thanks.

I did act as a professional aerial applicator before most enter college. It's always good to receive you judgement, however, and a healthy dose of traditional military arrogance.


Who is arrogant for flying under powerlines? What a horrible attitude to have taking chances with your life and possibly others'. You don't belong anywhere near an aircraft or any job that requires you to be responsible for anyone. You're no better than a 10 year old kid showing off to another.
 
sierrakilo44
Posts: 192
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:38 am

Re: Flying the Plane, versus systems management flying

Mon Apr 22, 2019 6:36 am

I'm a bit late to this discussion but I think the problem is a US-centric view of the airline world. No one commenting here has had much experience with those trained in a variety of civilian ab initio programs (I have).

ECAMerror wrote:
Each of these men has substantial accomplishments in their background and no one can claim they are arrogant with the things they have done. Let me say the following as an ex-USAF test pilot and current legacy airline senior management/evaluator pilot... I don't care if people act, what you would say is, "arrogant". What I care about is whether they have an attitude of always wanting to learn or not. People don't ever wash out of any training program because of arrogance. That is not something you can put on the paperwork. People wash out because of procedural deficiencies or weak knowledge.


In Euro style ab-initio programs I have known pilots who did not graduate the course because of poor human factors skills (teamwork, communication etc). Whist they passed all their practical and theory tests to the required standards it became apparent to the airline management, their instructors and their coursemates that they didn't have the personality or attitudes required of a multicrew airline pilot. Most on an ab-initio programs who have deficiencies in these areas are told about it and given multiple opportunities to correct them (and most do), however some could not change and therefore were told they would not be getting a job with said airline after the course. So they still graduated with a frozen ATPL and instrument rating however did not gain employment. This is something that traditional American style flight training at a normal flying school wouldn't be able to achieve due to a lack of continuous oversight from an airline.

ECAMerror wrote:
For the most part, the military guys are already well aware they don't know everything, which is why they are very strongly motivated to self study. Their fundamental education has many elements that no civil pilot can ever get exposure to..


Are you sure? Civilian pilots in ab initio programs have theoretical study regimes that last up to 3 years. JAA ATPL testing makes a mockery of the FAA standards. Plus the theory the military pilots are studying is geared towards military operations, a lot of which is not applicable to civilian flying. Every piece of theory a civilian trainee studies will be relevant to their civilian career.

ECAMerror wrote:
The bigger issue is the pipeline of civilian pilots. There are excellent formal education university programs out there, and then there's everything else. You simply have no idea what you're getting, or not getting in the civilian world.
.


You will if you again train them via a monitored ab initio program, which is what most non-US airlines do. How do I know that any military pilot doesn't have poor teamwork or leadership skills? It is hard to pick up in an hour long interview and may not be fully seen until years after gaining employment with the airline. Easy to see if you are continuously monitoring them on a 18-30 month ab-initio course.

ECAMerror wrote:
Guys like Sully did the right thing (not following the QRH) because his military education and experience, as a system, formed a thinking problem solver rather than a reactionary checklist robot.
.


Oh nonsense! My counterpoint - BA 38 double engine failure into Heathrow. Two pilots, both ab-initio trained with no military experience, successfully got the B777 over the fence because the Captain though outside the box and retracted flaps up one stage, which wasn't in any manual. According to your logic as a civilian trained pilot he should have panicked and froze.

ECAMerror wrote:
As a fighter guy, he undoubtedly practiced and educated himself on High Key/Low Key engine loss patterns so that he knew energy management inside-out. Again, civil pilots don't practice these things.
.


Air Transat 236. SAS 751. BA 9. TACA 110. KLM 867. All of these airliners required gliding to landing with precise energy management control. Air Transat required gliding to a postage stamp airport in the middle of the ocean. All of these airlines operate or employ ab initio pilots. Civilians can't do what Sully did? Nonsense.

I think the problem is most people (especially ex military pilots) believe all civilian training is just flying again and again to get your Commercial licence, no matter how long it takes or how incompetent you are, in a Cessna 150 down at the local county airport. If you aren't really good you just keep spending money until you pass, therefore you "buy" your licence.

Proper well maintained ab-initio programs are nothing of the sort. Most have aptitude and psychological testing that rules out even more candidates than military pilot selection. They are specifically geared towards training and culture for airline operations, not general aviation. Trainees are monitored and testing at regular intervals and will not make it through if they do not meet the airline's standards. Once they have completed the basic flying training the operational line training at the airline can exceed even the most stringent US based airline.
 
rotation18L
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2001 11:30 am

Re: Flying the Plane, versus systems management flying

Sun Apr 28, 2019 11:33 pm

I'm not a pilot but have studied enough aviation manuals and such that it seems this NY Times article is a bit irresponsible. They make it sound like some commercial pilots have never flown in IMC, know anything about handling stalls, or don't know much enough about flight characteristics to know how to keep the aircraft aloft with a stick and rudder. Aren't those basic cockpit skills? That's like saying a teacher who relies too heavily on a computer program to teach his/her students didn't know what to do when the software crashed. Why not take out a piece of paper and pen? Or the surgeon who relies too heavily on robotics for performing prostatectomies doesn't know what to do when the robot's battery fails. Doesn't surgery or education 101 skills automatically kick in, in those cases? Am I missing something? I did read that some insurance carriers restrict IFR training at some flight schools, but that seems counterintuitive to me; how can airlines generate revenue if they hire pilots who graduated from flight schools with no IFR training and have to ground them (and the flight) whenever the sound of thunder appears? :shock:

I mean, are they trying to state that commercial pilots are beginning to rely so much on systems that they can't handle taking a stick (or yoke, as the case may be) and rudder when called upon, esp after having hundreds of hours under their belt? (I read the MCAS doesn't have an override, and so I can somewhat understand that in those cases, there's not much that can be manually done if the system malfunctions and thus the required re-work on the system is needed). Doesn't one become a pilot because he/she loves doing the manual basics and not because they want to become an aviation systems expert? Correct me if I"m wrong on that. But that seems to me to be similar to a situation where a pilot who flies for work on a systems-heavy aircraft also loves to fly gliders on the weekends but is disappointed because there's no autopilot and other complex systems in the glider and isn't sure how to get and keep it in the air.

Again, I may be missing something here, so correct me it I'm drawing uninformed conclusions or have a perspective that's making this all too simple. :D
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19314
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Flying the Plane, versus systems management flying

Mon Apr 29, 2019 2:43 am

While manual handling is still there, it definitely atrophies a bit if you don't use it. Your typical airliner pilot is nowhere near as proficient as a fighter pilot, or a cropduster. Lack of practice matters.

As long as you are proficient enough for the job, that is fine. And as mentioned, manual handling is only one of several essential skills.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3352
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Flying the Plane, versus systems management flying

Mon Apr 29, 2019 3:35 am

It might be noted, facing a serious emergency, the ET crew engaged the autopilot less than a minute from lift-off. I’d bet that’s standard practice at a lot of airlines.

Doesn't one become a pilot because he/she loves doing the manual basics and not because they want to become an aviation systems expert?


There are slathers of pilots who fly because it pays well, has lots of prestige and care only a bit about the intricacies of the craft. Today’s electronics, systems reliability covers a lot of weaknesses, not only in the crews. Statically, an airline pilot will never shutdown an engine, how ready will the at random pilot be at V1?

Gf
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19314
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Flying the Plane, versus systems management flying

Mon Apr 29, 2019 3:47 am

Maximum automation is often encouraged in emergencies. Gives you more mental bandwidth to deal with the problem.

That being said, if the flight path was erratic probably a good idea to stabilise it before engaging the AP.


GalaxyFlyer wrote:
It might be noted, facing a serious emergency, the ET crew engaged the autopilot less than a minute from lift-off. I’d bet that’s standard practice at a lot of airlines.

Doesn't one become a pilot because he/she loves doing the manual basics and not because they want to become an aviation systems expert?


There are slathers of pilots who fly because it pays well, has lots of prestige and care only a bit about the intricacies of the craft. Today’s electronics, systems reliability covers a lot of weaknesses, not only in the crews. Statically, an airline pilot will never shutdown an engine, how ready will the at random pilot be at V1?

Gf


Very true about pilot character. Pilots range from passionate enthusiasts to people who don't care if they practice law or fly an aircraft.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3352
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Flying the Plane, versus systems management flying

Mon Apr 29, 2019 3:57 am

Starlionblue wrote:
Maximum automation is often encouraged in emergencies. Gives you more mental bandwidth to deal with the problem.

That being said, if the flight path was erratic probably a good idea to stabilise it before engaging the AP.


GalaxyFlyer wrote:
It might be noted, facing a serious emergency, the ET crew engaged the autopilot less than a minute from lift-off. I’d bet that’s standard practice at a lot of airlines.

Doesn't one become a pilot because he/she loves doing the manual basics and not because they want to become an aviation systems expert?


There are slathers of pilots who fly because it pays well, has lots of prestige and care only a bit about the intricacies of the craft. Today’s electronics, systems reliability covers a lot of weaknesses, not only in the crews. Statically, an airline pilot will never shutdown an engine, how ready will the at random pilot be at V1?

Gf


Very true about pilot character. Pilots range from passionate enthusiasts to people who don't care if they practice law or fly an aircraft.


I’d very agree about using the autopilot to increase pilot bandwidth, but lifting off with a stall shaker going probably needs hands-on. Referencing the F/E discussion, one thing the engineer did was bring bandwidth—2 pilots could work the flying, engineer works the problem OR, if it required two to work the problem or make decisions, the Cappy and Eng could leave the flying to the Co-star.

OTOH, I left Zhu Hai, short, busy flight to HKG, new co-pilot and he was new to the Far East, A/P engaged soon after flap retraction. He appreciated the extra bandwidth.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 3417
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: Flying the Plane, versus systems management flying

Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:45 pm

I think I see the problem right now, "ex-USAF test pilot and current legacy airline senior management/evaluator pilot..." What does that position have to do with this thread?
 
Passedv1
Posts: 636
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:40 am

Re: Flying the Plane, versus systems management flying

Fri May 10, 2019 6:31 am

VSMUT wrote:
WIederling wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
no airline would pair a fresh 200 hour FO with a recently released captain. It would be the experienced line training captains for the first long time who fly with the low-timers.


Sure they would...and they do. The rule is 75 hours...one pilot must have 75 hours. That's it.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 3417
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: Flying the Plane, versus systems management flying

Fri May 10, 2019 2:29 pm

Passedv1 wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
WIederling wrote:


Sure they would...and they do. The rule is 75 hours...one pilot must have 75 hours. That's it.



For the life of me I cannot find this post that has been quoted? I certainly agree the many low time crews are paired during initial introduction of a new piece of equipment. Not familiar with the 75 hour rule, but it does sound reasonable.
 
Passedv1
Posts: 636
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:40 am

Re: Flying the Plane, versus systems management flying

Mon May 13, 2019 10:21 pm

BravoOne wrote:
Passedv1 wrote:
VSMUT wrote:


Sure they would...and they do. The rule is 75 hours...one pilot must have 75 hours. That's it.



For the life of me I cannot find this post that has been quoted? I certainly agree the many low time crews are paired during initial introduction of a new piece of equipment. Not familiar with the 75 hour rule, but it does sound reasonable.


14CFR121.438(b)...

"No person may conduct operations under this part unless, for that type airplane, either the pilot in command or the second in command has at least 75 hours of line operating flight time, either as pilot in command or second in command."
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3812
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Flying the Plane, versus systems management flying

Mon May 13, 2019 10:57 pm

I see what you're saying, But years ago I had to yearly go to United's Denver flight training Center DENTK to requalify for my High power run
training,
where I would see pilots leave the simulator in a full on Sweat! Every now and then you would see simulators in some Odd angle where the techs would be resetting them back to full motion. So some poor pilot got put through the wringer. So? I don't think just turning off the computers and flying an airplane around will do much more than the Sadistic simulator instructors at DENTK can do to you. And they all, Pilots and Instructors appeared to enjoy it!! Strange!
 
BravoOne
Posts: 3417
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: Flying the Plane, versus systems management flying

Mon May 13, 2019 11:30 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
I see what you're saying, But years ago I had to yearly go to United's Denver flight training Center DENTK to requalify for my High power run
training,
where I would see pilots leave the simulator in a full on Sweat! Every now and then you would see simulators in some Odd angle where the techs would be resetting them back to full motion. So some poor pilot got put through the wringer. So? I don't think just turning off the computers and flying an airplane around will do much more than the Sadistic simulator instructors at DENTK can do to you. And they all, Pilots and Instructors appeared to enjoy it!! Strange!



The motions you witness while watching a simulator off the jacks is not always indicative of what the flight crew is experiencing in the cab. Usually much more benign on the inside than the outside.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 3417
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: Flying the Plane, versus systems management flying

Mon May 13, 2019 11:32 pm

Passedv1 wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
Passedv1 wrote:

Sure they would...and they do. The rule is 75 hours...one pilot must have 75 hours. That's it.



For the life of me I cannot find this post that has been quoted? I certainly agree the many low time crews are paired during initial introduction of a new piece of equipment. Not familiar with the 75 hour rule, but it does sound reasonable.


14CFR121.438(b)...

"No person may conduct operations under this part unless, for that type airplane, either the pilot in command or the second in command has at least 75 hours of line operating flight time, either as pilot in command or second in command."



Thanks for the reply and reference. Not sure how this is covered during the introduction of a new fleet to the line?
 
chimborazo
Posts: 231
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 7:51 pm

Re: Flying the Plane, versus systems management flying

Tue May 14, 2019 3:44 am

I remember reading in Brian Moynahan’s excellent Airport International (which fired my interest in aviation about 32 years ago when I was 9) that airline pilot selection had a set of tests to determine candidates personality. One was playing basketball IIRC: they were looking for the team players and not the ones who stood out with individual excellence. Early CRM being shown there I guess.

I’ve worked with a lot of ex-military folks... one an ex helicopter pilot, the rest former soldiers. In my experience thinking outside the box for ex-military personnel is not a noticeable character trait. Quite the opposite.
 
Passedv1
Posts: 636
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:40 am

Re: Flying the Plane, versus systems management flying

Tue May 14, 2019 3:50 am

BravoOne wrote:
Passedv1 wrote:
BravoOne wrote:


For the life of me I cannot find this post that has been quoted? I certainly agree the many low time crews are paired during initial introduction of a new piece of equipment. Not familiar with the 75 hour rule, but it does sound reasonable.


14CFR121.438(b)...

"No person may conduct operations under this part unless, for that type airplane, either the pilot in command or the second in command has at least 75 hours of line operating flight time, either as pilot in command or second in command."



Thanks for the reply and reference. Not sure how this is covered during the introduction of a new fleet to the line?


Didn't finish the quote because it didn't seem pertinant but since you asked it continues...

"upon application by the certificate holder, authorize deviations from the requirements of this paragraph (b) by an appropriate amendment to the operations specifications in any of the following circumstances:

(1) A newly certificated certificate holder does not employ any pilots who meet the minimum requirements of this paragraph.

(2) An existing certificate holder adds to its fleet a type airplane not before proven for use in its operations.

(3) An existing certificate holder establishes a new domicile to which it assigns pilots who will be required to become qualified on the airplanes operated from that domicile."
 
BravoOne
Posts: 3417
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: Flying the Plane, versus systems management flying

Tue May 14, 2019 1:57 pm

Passedv1 wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
Passedv1 wrote:

14CFR121.438(b)...

"No person may conduct operations under this part unless, for that type airplane, either the pilot in command or the second in command has at least 75 hours of line operating flight time, either as pilot in command or second in command."



Thanks for the reply and reference. Not sure how this is covered during the introduction of a new fleet to the line?


Didn't finish the quote because it didn't seem pertinant but since you asked it continues...

"upon application by the certificate holder, authorize deviations from the requirements of this paragraph (b) by an appropriate amendment to the operations specifications in any of the following circumstances:

(1) A newly certificated certificate holder does not employ any pilots who meet the minimum requirements of this paragraph.

(2) An existing certificate holder adds to its fleet a type airplane not before proven for use in its operations.

(3) An existing certificate holder establishes a new domicile to which it assigns pilots who will be required to become qualified on the airplanes operated from that domicile."



Thanks again!
 
sierrakilo44
Posts: 192
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:38 am

Re: Flying the Plane, versus systems management flying

Thu May 16, 2019 11:36 pm

chimborazo wrote:
I remember reading in Brian Moynahan’s excellent Airport International (which fired my interest in aviation about 32 years ago when I was 9) that airline pilot selection had a set of tests to determine candidates personality. One was playing basketball IIRC: they were looking for the team players and not the ones who stood out with individual excellence. Early CRM being shown there I guess.

I’ve worked with a lot of ex-military folks... one an ex helicopter pilot, the rest former soldiers. In my experience thinking outside the box for ex-military personnel is not a noticeable character trait. Quite the opposite.


In a multicrew crew flight deck teamwork is the key attribute. You can’t be an effective team player if you don’t respect the other members of your team. Have a look at some of the comments posted by ex-military pilots on this thread degrading the training and experiences of their civilian trained counterparts. Does anyone believe this lack of respect is going to lead to optimal team performance?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Avgeek21, markmh and 20 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos