Well, the pilot the Mythbusters hired to debunk the plane-on-a-conveyor-belt myth sure didn’t.
Ha-ha-ha - no, actually they don’t as a general rule. There are some exceptions, but in general their understanding is only that necessary to make the machine work. As mentioned, a pilot’s license permits only a very number of items to be repaired by the pilot.
Um… look, I appreciate that you think we’re all so clever, but really, we’re not. Nor are we allowed to be. The days of using coathangers and bandaids are long gone. Now, IF it were truly a matter of life or death to get that airplane off the ground you could claim an exception under the emergency rules but I’d hate to be the one on the hot seat trying to justify that. Even if you’re just replacing the oil (and I’ve helped do a few oil changes on GA planes, from ultralights to Cessnas to Pipers to my buddy’s Mooney) you have to use approved bits and pieces, including approved safety wire and cotter pins. Band-aid on a chafed wire? Better remember to remove it before you have someone official spot it. That sort of thing is strictly forbidden. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, just that the penalities for getting caught are steep enough to discourage folks from doing it.
If you have a mechanical problem and it’s not on the Approved List, or you don’t have Approved Parts, your choices are as follows:
-
Call a mechanic. If you’re lucky there will be one on or near the field. If not, you wait - for however long it takes.
-
Jury-rig something then call the local FSDO and beg and plead for a ferry permit which will permit you to fly that contraption to the nearest place where REAL repairs can be made. I will also note that only essential crew are permitted aboard such a flight - if you were carrying passengers they will have to find an alternative means to get home.
Even if it’s a matter of just tightening something loose - some bolts and other items must be tightened a very specific amount, no more and no less, lest something break or jam. This is why homebuilders - who are permitted to do any work they wish on the airplanes they build - frequently use the services of licensed airplane and powerplant mechanics. The smart ones know their limitations and when they should seek help from someone who knows more than they do.
I’d say airline pilots probably, on average, know more details about the mechanical parts of their airplanes than GA pilots do, support staff or no. At least that’s been my experience. I think it’s due in part to the complexity of their aircraft, they need more knowledge in order to diagnose problem and troubleshoot.
I’d agree with this. When I was flying single piston engine aircraft, I knew the basics of the aerodynamics, I had a basic understanding of the engine and its limitations, and a basic understanding of the fuel system. I knew very little about the electrics partly due to poor understanding from the instructors and a lack of interest from me. I’d still think I knew more about it than your average person knows about their car though. Now on my current aircraft (Dash 8), I pretty much know how the systems work but I don’t necessarily know how each component of a system works. I know how the electrical system as a whole works, but I don’t know how a DC generator works for example.
The type of knowledge that is absolutely necessary for any pilot flying a complex aeroplane is knowing what every switch in the cockpit does and how it affects other systems. Also you need to know the main failures of each system and how that might affect other systems. This sort of knowledge will be enough to get you through any checks and to cope with most abnormal situations. The pilot who spends a bit more time on a deeper understanding of the systems will be more likely to correctly respond to unusual failures that they haven’t been trained for.
If you’ll allow me to bore you with an example, I know that if the number two engine fails I will have lost the number two hydraulics, two of the four electrical sources, and half of the air supply for pressurisation, de-icing, and airconditioning.
I also know the number two hydraulic system runs the landing gear, the outboard roll spoilers, the nose wheel steering, the emergency brake, and the upper rudder actuator. But all is not lost, I also know that the number one hydraulic system can power the number two system provided the number two system has fluid (which it does in this case), and I know that the number one hydraulics will automatically power the number two system if this engine failure happens just after take-off, so I’ll be able to raise the landing gear which is very important, and I’ll have all of the other hydraulic reliant systems available such as the nose wheel steering for steering on the ground after landing.
On to the electrics, I know that I don’t have the number two DC generator or the number two AC generator, that’s half of my electrical supply gone. However the number one electrical system will automatically tie to the number two side so I will still have all electrical services operating.
Finally, I know that the bleed air from the number one engine is sufficient to operate all systems that use the bleed air, so I’ll still have pressurisation, de-ice, and air conditioning.
The end result of all this knowledge is that if I lose engine number two, I will have no additional failures, everything else on the aeroplane will still operate. You could make an argument that the previous sentence is ALL I needed to know about losing an engine, but it’s not enough to know there will be no further failures, you need to know how the systems work to ensure redundancy.
It’s worth noting that any one engineer will probably specialize on a particular part of aircraft maintenance. There’s not much point talking about flaps to an avionics guy. So the pilot will have a broad understanding of the entire aeroplane, while the engineer will have a deeper understanding of just part of the aeroplane.
Yes, in our operation there are generally three walk-arounds. If we are at a maintenance base, the engineers will do the daily inspection which is a detailed walk-around. Then when it’s time to go flying, the “pilot not flying” (PNF) who could be the captain or co-pilot depending on whose leg it is, does another walk-around and checks the maintenance paper work while the “pilot flying” (PF) does the flight planning. Then after both pilots have done their cockpit preparation and the crew has briefed the flight, the captain does a final walk around to check that all chocks, pins, bungs, etc are removed, and all hatches and doors are closed. If we are away from a maintenance base then the PNF’s walk-around doubles as the daily inspection.
There’s not really much you can check on a walk-around of a Dash 8, the aeroplane is too big to be able to waggle ailerons and check for slop in the flap runners and so on. We can just make sure everything looks right, there’s enough fluid where there should be fluid and there’s no fluid where there shouldn’t be fluid.
I do not know about the big iron, but in smaller craft, knowing the engineering side and following the ‘book’ to the letter with no natural ability will not guaranty smooth landings as often as some one with some natural stick & rudder genes. I am a lead foot so I had to practice more than some of my contraries but I can do quite well now and better than some with better knowledge and more time just because I have the a better inate ability.
An artist can draw a beautiful picture, no matter how long I try and practice, go to school, I would never be better than low average. I do not have that talent. Same goes for flying, there is nothing that will make all pilots the have the quality at hand flying their aircraft.
You’re talking about a different type of “intuitive feel”. Some people have a natural feel for flying, they will always be good at physically flying an aeroplane, add that to some discipline, knowledge, and leadership skills and you have a great pilot.
I think you’re talking about times when flying on instruments you can sometimes get the “leans” which is where your body starts telling you lies about what the aeroplane is doing. In this situation all pilots need to follow what their instruments are telling them rather than what their body is, but the pilot with better feel for the aeroplane will still be flying more smoothly and more accurately than the ham-fisted pilot, they will just be doing it with reference to the instruments rather than their inner ear.
Speaking as a (non-aeronautical) Engineer, I will say that pilots I have spoken with and met seem to have an excellent understanding of the mechanics and science of flight. An aeronautical engineer may know more fine or intricate details, but really, you don’t need that to fly a plane safely.
^ That.
While you do need more knowledge to safely fly and airplane than you need to safely operate a car you certainly don’t need extensive engineering knowledge. Modern training programs and materials seem to do a pretty good job of imparting that knowledge (based on a steadily improving safety record at all levels of aviation) and many pilots will, through their own curiously learn more than the minimum. That may make us appear to have unusual levels of knowledge, but only because most people don’t really have a good idea of what actually goes into becoming a pilot or flying an aircraft. However, my mechanical knowledge is largely strictly limited to what I learned in flight school about airplanes and from my homebuilding friends. I may be able to change the oil in a Cessna or Mooney but I haven’t a clue how I would go about it on my car. I can operate a Piper Archer with retractable landing gear and in-flight adjustable prop and troubleshoot electrical faults on the thing, but my landlord finds it absolutely hysterical that I have trouble starting a simple gas-powered lawnmower (I’m getting better at that, really). I once got a Piper Warrior with a dead electrical system hand-propped and flew that sucker back to base (while accounting for legalities of the situation) with nothing more than airspeed and altitude indicators working on the instrument panel but we won’t discuss the details of the last time I had to call my husband for help with the car, suffice to say the problem was one of those “D’oh! I’m an idiot!” things he fixed in about 2 seconds with that long-suffering rolling of the eyes I’ve come to know so well over the years. I’m proof that it’s good training that makes a good pilot and not some mysterious “natural talent” at work. I don’t deny that there a LOT of people for whom the whole flying thing comes easier than it does to me, but these days there’s an effort to bring everyone up to the level of “naturals” through education.
Maybe if I had had as much education about the car I drive as about the airplanes I’ve flown I’d be much more the car mechanic, but they didn’t require it for a driver’s license whereas it’s mandatory for a pilot’s license. Not that learning to fly didn’t affect my driving - it did. I am far better at anticipating problems on the road, and I’m also better at noticing car problems when they’re small because flying taught me to much more attuned to how the machines I use perform. Those are quite useful skills, but neither are what I’d call “engineering”, more “paying better attention.”