or do they understand planes like I understand a car: basic knowledge of its workings, and enough knowledge to operate and maintain it, but no real idea how everything works?
I suppose it depends on what kind of plane you’re talking about. It’s more or less impossible for one person to understand how every system on a jetliner works, because you’re talking about over a million parts.
On the other hand, I bet lots of pilots know how to repair most of the stuff on a small prop craft.
I think most pilots have a decent systems knowledge–how they’re powered and how different failures manifest themselves and affect other systems and equipment.
But not a lot, if any, engineering-level understanding. If you can’t affect it or do anything about it, there’s no reason to know it.
What kind of ‘engineer’. They come in many varieties and flavors. The aerodynamic ones are quite tasty.
Pilots of big metal know their stuff about airflow. I’ll betcha.
Not unless they have an engineering degree and were somehow involved in designing the plane. Modern aircraft are incredibly complex systems.
Yep. Mechanics and/or engineering of the aircraft are their own separate and entire disciplines, with (different) specialized training. Now, I’d imagine the pilots get some basic training about the mechanisms. After all, they sometimes do a walkaround to inspect the plane, so they need to know how to spot something out of kilter), and I also recall hearing of co-pilots disassembling instrument panels or access doors to try a manual work around during an in-flight system failure, so they have some familiarity with at least the things that they might reasonably be able to access and fix/jerry-rig in flight.
More like something in between the two. We need to know more about an airplane than about a car, but most of us aren’t engineers.
Yes, we do, starting in our first ground school and lessons in the airplane. The more complex the airplane the more we need to study.
Actually, there is always supposed to be a walk-around prior to flight.
True.
I’d guess that the people flying smaller “General Aviation” planes like Cessnas and Pipers have a deeper understanding of their airplane’s workings if for no other reason that if they’re at an airport without an FBO, and they’re having problems, they either need to sort it out on their own or get on the phone and wait for a mechanic to get out there and fix it. Will they be able to strip an engine and replace a bearing? No. But they should be able to tighten whatever’s loose and possibly be able to “McGyver” something to get home. Nothing too elaborate - just stuff like using a coathanger to replace a lost cotter pin, or a band-aid to insulate a chafed wire.
Airline pilots, OTOH, generally have a small army of support staff at any airport they fly to, and there’s probably going to be several certified mechanics available, so they don’t have much practical daily need to have a deep understanding of the systems other than to be able to eyeball something on walk-around and note that something’s leaking, bent or otherwise just doesn’t look right.
General Aviation pilots get some rudimentary training on systems and aerodynamics. We learn about lift, gravity, thrust, and drag; how lift is generated; and movement and effects of control surfaces, for example. This ‘book-learning’ is taught and demonstrated on a practical level in flight. Everyone learns about the Otto cycle, which a lot of car drivers might not be able to describe. Aircraft (piston) engines have more controls than car engines. In a car, you basically have the accelerator pedal. My '66 MGB has a choke knob. Airplanes have at least the throttle and mixture controls, as well as the magneto switches. Depending on the aircraft you might also have a propeller pitch control and cowl flaps. Pilots are expected to know how they work and how to use them. A pilot should be able to sketch the fuel system of the aircraft he flies. Some knowledge of the electrical system and which circuit breakers you need to pull in an emergency, the Pitot-static system and what can go wrong with it, and other systems are required.
Aircraft have weight-and-balance data that must be considered before each flight. In practice, a lot of pilots just check to make sure they’re not overgross; but he is responsible for ensuring not only that he’s within weight limits, but also that the weight is distributed in such a way that it falls within the weight-and-balance envelope. This might include calculations with the fuel carried at take-off and the fuel remaining at landing, and/or, in the case of helicopters, lateral as well as longitudinal CG.
Weather has to be considered. In addition to ‘Can I see the runway?’ or ‘Is there a T-storm en route?’ the pilot must check the density altitude and know how that affects such things as runway length required and climb performance.
In short, there are many things a pilot must know to safely operate an aircraft that a car driver doesn’t really need to know to operate his car. But ‘deep’ understanding depends on your definition of ‘deep’. Engineering-level? Not needed.
Since the OP mentions maintenance, there are some things a pilot/owner is allowed to do and other things he is not. I can squirt grease into a rotor hub, but I’m not at all sure I’d be allowed to tighten a nut and put safety wire on it.
My brother flies 737s for a big American passenger airline. He and I met up in DC and stopped at the Air and Space museum. They had these cut open displays of jet engines, and he gave me a very interesting lecture on the specifics of the different designs of jet engines, and how all the different components work. He is generally intellectually curious and one of the most detail-oriented people I know, so he may not be the best example. OTOH, all of his pilot buddies seem pretty detail-oriented, too, so maybe this is part of the job.
I guess my point is that even though they aren’t engineers, they know a lot of shit. I do know that before they can fly on a plane they’ve never flown before, they have to do a gillion hours of training and study. FWIW, his degree was in Aeronautical Engineering, which may be typical for all I know.
A pilot’s licence does not authorise you to carry out any repairs or maintenance, outside of a short list of permitted items such as changing the spark plugs, topping up the oil, etc.
However, as Broomstick says, pilots have a much better understanding (or should have) of their aircraft than a driver typically has of his or her car. This is not for the purpose of carrying out repairs off-base, but for the purpose of increasing the chances of acting correctly in the event of some systems failure or unforeseen event. This includes being able to recognise and correctly diagnose the problem without delay.
Some examples: recognising the symptoms of carburettor icing and applying the carb heat before it’s too late. Knowing that you can react (expensively) to a vacuum system blockage by smashing the glass front of one of the instruments (e.g. the VSI). Recognising whether the engine is over-primed or under-primed, whether it is running rough because the mixture is too lean, because of icing or because of coking, etc., and what to do in each of these situations.
I claim to have a working system-level knowledge and understanding of every system of the Cessna 172, including engine, controls and instruments. I certainly would not make the same claim about my car.
Something else just occurred to me, though. The thread title seems to imply that engineers know everything about how an airplane works, but this may not be true either. A friend of mine did a Summer math project (for Boeing, I think) where the entire problem had to do with optimizing the shape of a part of an airplane wing. It seems that very few people, if anyone, knows everything about everything about something so complex as a 737.
Chuck Yeager freely admits that he wasn’t the brightest bulb when it came to academics but he was one of the best “stick and rudder” pilots around. He almost failed several academic flight classes but he was saved by various people including some of his best friends who were gifted engineers as well as one General who overrode the school to save his career. He went on to break the sound barrier and then fly the hottest supersonic aircraft around. You don’t have to know all of the theory if you have the right intuitive feel for the aircraft.
IME: Just about anyone who flies does it because of a love of flying (there’s no money in it, not anymore, those days are long gone). I have almost never come across a pilot who has no more interest in his airplane than most people do in their car. If you love something, you naturally will want to know more about it. Pilots in general not only do know their aircraft in some depth, and have to for their licenses or their jobs, they want to anyway.
Fighter pilots, at least in my experience, have reasonably detailed knowledge about their airplanes. Maybe not enough to replace engines or perform other major repairs, but considerably more than most drivers would know about cars. Granted, the guys I flew with were the best of the best…all graduates of Test Pilot School or Fighter Weapons School, with more training than most, but many of them are engineers. The Air Force encourages officers to obtain graduate degrees as they advance in rank, and many choose engineering as their field of study.
Or most GA pilots know about their Bugsmashers.
I thought the point of learning the theory was to beat the “intuitive feel” out of pilots.
I recall reading of a number of crashes where the pilot ignored instruments and went with their gut. Unfortunately for all concerned the instruments were right and the pilot’s gut was wrong. Knowing scads of theory is important where seat-of-your-pants just will not suffice.
Particularly with a jet full of passengers. Maybe you need a gut-instinct test pilot when they are trying to test the limits of the plane and there is no book written yet on what to do or not do for that particular plane.
When a company buys a plane, their pilots receive training based on a manual that comes with the plane. It covers the overall shape, size and seating/cargo configurations, onboard safety systems, overall diagrams of fuel, hydraulic, electrical, heating/AC systems, cockpit layout, communications, fire suppression, lights/navigation, etc. The sections in the binder are divided up by Air Transport Association (ATA) chapters. The manufacturer prepares these manuals.
They do not go into fine detail of components, but rather give a description of what they are, where they are located, what they do and why. This is a separate manual from the Airplane Flight Manual, which covers the plane’s flight characteristics, weights, limitations, etc.
This looks to be one for the CRJ-700.
Damnit Jim, they’re pilots, not engineers!
A small, but still significant percentage of pilots don’t/didnt know the right answer to the plane on a treadmill question.
Also, a similar fraction love to talk about the dreaded down wind turn.
Being a “good” pilot does not always equal knowing exactly how things work.