do engineers make good pilots?

[GeorgeC]

For those among us with scientific/engineering tendencies, how do you balance the analytical vs. the intuitive aspects of flying?

 

[EdFred]

By having other hobbies I'm good at that require motor skills.

 

[dmccormack]

do engineers make good pilots?

No. They should remain locked in cubicles with slide rules grafted to an appendage and a white board within reach. They are a hazard to themselves as well as the sky.

 

[Sac Arrow]

For those among us with scientific/engineering tendencies, how do you balance the analytical vs. the intuitive aspects of flying?

You speak as though the two are mutually exclusive. I don't think one precludes the other. I for example can engineer, fly and womanize, all at the same time!

 

[Trapper John]

For those among us with scientific/engineering tendencies, how do you balance the analytical vs. the intuitive aspects of flying?

Do engineers make good pilots? I don't think they make any better pilots than anyone else. There might be a little advantage in picking up trig-based things in training but that's about it, IMO.

I don't really think about balancing the two, I just do it.

 

[steingar]

Half the pilots I know are engineers. One advantage those of us in scientific disciplines have over the rest of you schlubs is that we are trained to view the world through instruments, thus it comes fairly easily when training for instrument flight (or so I'm told by my instrument-rated colleagues, not having the rating myself due to my perpetually financially challenged condition).

 

[jtheune]

Actually the best engineers I know are incredible intuitive as well as analytical. The ability to make the jump from a few facts to a new answer and the ability to back up that jump with facts is what make a great engineer.

 

[Pilawt]

One of my more challenging students was an aeronautical engineer at McDonnell Douglas across the field. He was indeed trying to "fly the book" instead of the airplane. After I had him read Stick and Rudder he improved dramatically and was able to start really communicating with the airplane.

 

[Jim Logajan]

For those among us with scientific/engineering tendencies, how do you balance the analytical vs. the intuitive aspects of flying?

To avoid being categorized as having any scientific or engineering tendencies, I've taken up trying to post humorous messages to web forums. Now I can't balance anything.

 

[Clark1961]

Speaking as an engineer, I'd say that an engineer might make a good pilot just like a farmer or housewife might make a good pilot.

The engineer will have an advantage on computational matters because of prior training (hey, statics is statics). So what, it has little to do with monkey skills of tugging on the yoke and pushing on the pedals. For the real issue of ADM, an experienced engineer may have a slight advantage from dealing with multiple possilbe outcomes and safety factors. I suspect other professions/career choices/lifestyles also have valuable lessons as part of their cultures which are equal to engineering discipline.

 

[bbchien]

I refer you to this excellent charicature: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOtoujYOWw0&feature=fvst

 

[brcase]

I have trained a few engineers and they are some of my favorite students to train in that they naturally want to know how things work. As a result they tend to learn way more than the minimum requirements, making my job much easier. It might help that I tend to speak the same language in that I have worked around engineers for most of my working career.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

 

[Gary]

I refer you to this excellent charicature: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOtoujYOWw0&feature=fvst

I'd not seen that before, excellent!! The knack - love it.

Gary

 

[jasc15]

Being an engineer hasn't really given me any advantage my flying. I find most of my difficulty is in the kinesthetic realm of learning, and engineering doesn't help there. As for the math, it does help. Any math involved is fairly rudimentary; I can figure wind correction angles fairly easily, and finding the crosswind component during final approach after getting wind info is pretty easy. I remember trying to convince my CFI that the crosswind component of a 30 degree wind is half its speed, while he thought it would have to be 45 degrees.

 

[N801BH]

Speaking as an engineer, I'd say that an engineer might make a good pilot just like a farmer or housewife might make a good pilot.

The engineer will have an advantage on computational matters because of prior training (hey, statics is statics). So what, it has little to do with monkey skills of tugging on the yoke and pushing on the pedals. For the real issue of ADM, an experienced engineer may have a slight advantage from dealing with multiple possilbe outcomes and safety factors. I suspect other professions/career choices/lifestyles also have valuable lessons as part of their cultures which are equal to engineering discipline.

You mean like doctors and lawyers and a smoking hole with a Bonanza buried in it ?

 

[BillTIZ]

Do pilots make good engineers?

Maybe we should ask the USAF Test Pilot School.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Probably like any other segment of the population....some do and some don't.

 

[mantakos]

In my own experience, as one so afflicted, I'll note that a lot of time was consumed in "I can do as taught only once I know _why_" whereas a normal human might be more inclined toward "I can do as taught". It isn't clear that knowing _why_ was helpful to actually flying the damn plane.
-harry

 

[COFlyBoy]

Do pilots make good engineers?

I think I was a pilot and an engineer in utero.

 

[Lance F]

I vote yes

 

[jasc15]

In my own experience, as one so afflicted, I'll note that a lot of time was consumed in "I can do as taught only once I know _why_" whereas a normal human might be more inclined toward "I can do as taught". It isn't clear that knowing _why_ was helpful to actually flying the damn plane.
-harry

This is exactly the case for me. It permeates pretty much everything I try to do, and can often be a hindrance. But it's just my nature.

 

[ebacon]

I have to fight the urge to blow a whistle prior to crossing the runway threshold. :wink2:

Seriously though, I did find that engineering helped reduce the cockpit workload. That left more bandwidth available to learn radio phrasing, pilotage, instrument scan, etc.

 

[pilot_dude]

I refer you to this excellent charicature: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOtoujYOWw0&feature=fvst

I had forgotten about that. Thanks for the share and chuckle.

 

[pilot_dude]

It has it's pros and cons as others have pointed out. For me, the "why" was sometimes the overwhelming thought process which actually slowed the learning process from time to time but resulted, IMHO, a thorough understanding.

 

[GeorgeC]

It has it's pros and cons as others have pointed out. For me, the "why" was sometimes the overwhelming thought process which actually slowed the learning process from time to time but resulted, IMHO, a thorough understanding.

This is sort of what I was getting at. While any sufficiently large subpopulation will obviously contain both good and bad pilots, I was wondering to what extent the need to understand the "whys" can get in the way of the "hows", and how to mitigate that.

For example, I spent an afternoon with a coworker (on a whiteboard, naturally) trying to work backwards from glideslope angles and airspeeds to figure out the legs of the traffic pattern. At the end of the day, we agreed that the math was bunk and that we "just did it" when flying. Nonetheless, I wasn't satisfied until I had arrived at that conclusion on my own.

 

[PittsDriver]

In my own experience, as one so afflicted, I'll note that a lot of time was consumed in "I can do as taught only once I know _why_" whereas a normal human might be more inclined toward "I can do as taught". It isn't clear that knowing _why_ was helpful to actually flying the damn plane.
-harry

Which is why women are the best pilots and for the record, they're pretty easy to teach to drive a stick. Once you stop boring them with all that useless theory and just tell them what to do, they're fine.

 

[Everskyward]

Non-engineer here.

Based on the number of engineers who have answered and based on observation all the way back to when I was learning to fly I would say that the number of people who are in technical fields such as engineering far outweigh the rest of the population of pilots. Either that or those are the people who like to discuss it the most.

I don't think it makes that much of a difference whether someone is an engineer or not. The "whys" that are important to being a pilot are not so complex that a non-technical person can't understand them. In any case the more important characteristics as I see them are good judgment and situational awareness as well as the kinesthetic skills that someone else mentioned. I've sometimes wondered if over-analyzing things gets in the way of actually performing the skill but that's never been a problem for me.

The one thing I will say is that it's sometimes better to have an instructor/student combination who can relate to each other. It would drive me nuts to spend an afternoon on a whiteboard going over glideslope angles and speeds. Just follow it!

I must be a typical woman based on the post above this one.

PS: Your rate of descent for a 3 degree glide slope should be GS x 5. (100 kt GS x 5 = 500 fpm). Someone else can explain why that works mathematically.

 

[Trapper John]

I've sometimes wondered if over-analyzing things gets in the way of actually performing the skill but that's never been a problem for me.

Try asking an engineer how to put an elephant in a refrigerator. Then ask a kindergartner, who will give you the correct answer: Open the door, put the elephant in then close the door.

 

[jasc15]

PS: Your rate of descent for a 3 degree glide slope should be GS x 5. (100 kt GS x 5 = 500 fpm). Someone else can explain why that works mathematically.

Kind of convenient and coincidental that it works.

100 KTS = 10,127fpm

arcsin(500/10127) = 2.8°

So it's almost 3 degrees.

 

[Everskyward]

Kind of convenient and coincidental that it works.

100 KTS = 10,127fpm

arcsin(500/10127) = 2.8°

So it's almost 3 degrees.

I knew someone here would rise to the challenge!

I also had no idea why that rule of thumb works and I've been using it for a long time!

 

[pmanton]

Back in the 50's my mentor was an aeronautical engineer who was responsible for the machining of the spar on the Connie. He mentored me in aviation, photography and growing up, he and his wife would double date with me when I was still a snot nosed teen. He was was an outstanding engineer, pilot And human being, I miss Bob McLellan to this day.

Paul
N1431A
2AZ1

 

[MadseasoN]

At least half of the pilots I've met at my flying club are engineers. Strange. Quite of few of the ride motorcycles too, as do I.

 

[skidoo]

I became a pilot before I became an engineer. Understanding the pilot stuff made it easier to study engineering.

 

[zaitcev]

One thing I think we may be missing is that we ought to consider brilliant, good, and mediocre engineers separately. They abilities differ significantly, so it makes little sense to lump them together.

 

[jesse]

PS: Your rate of descent for a 3 degree glide slope should be GS x 5. (100 kt GS x 5 = 500 fpm). Someone else can explain why that works mathematically.

Even easier is to just to cut ground speed in half and add a zero.

100 / 2 = 50. 50 add a zero = 500

 

[Everskyward]

Even easier is to just to cut ground speed in half and add a zero.

100 / 2 = 50. 50 add a zero = 500

True! But multiplication was always easier for me than division.

Actually, I never thought about it that way, but you're right it would be easier.

 

[N801BH]

True! But multiplication was always easier for me than division.

Actually, I never thought about it that way, but you're right it would be easier.

So....... How many kids do you have ??


jus kiddin ma'am

 

[Everskyward]

So....... How many kids do you have ??

If you divide by the number of kids I have you get an undefined number...

I'm sure someone can explain that mathematically too.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

You speak as though the two are mutually exclusive. I don't think one precludes the other. I for example can engineer, fly and womanize, all at the same time!

One of my more challenging students was an aeronautical engineer at McDonnell Douglas across the field. He was indeed trying to "fly the book" instead of the airplane. After I had him read Stick and Rudder he improved dramatically and was able to start really communicating with the airplane.

I start with the book, and when the plane doesn't match the book, I try to figure out why.

Okay, so not really "the book" but whatever information I can gather. I credit reading, considering, and understanding the mechanics behind other students' troubles on the AOPA board before I could afford to fly with getting my Private in 42.6 hours. Also, thinking about the physics behind landing is what led to my developing a technique to get decent landings before I could really do it the way everyone else said to do it. (I was not good at detecting butt-sink.)

I refer you to this excellent charicature: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOtoujYOWw0&feature=fvst

Haha, that was the first thing I thought of when I started reading this thread! Thanks for posting, Bruce.

In my own experience, as one so afflicted, I'll note that a lot of time was consumed in "I can do as taught only once I know _why_" whereas a normal human might be more inclined toward "I can do as taught". It isn't clear that knowing _why_ was helpful to actually flying the damn plane.

Personally, I feel that "why" is the biggest thing that helps me improve as a pilot. If the plane does something unexpected and I don't know why, how am I going to know when/where it may happen again? I don't necessarily thing about "why why why" all along during a flight, but after a flight I review things in my head and think about the whys until the next time I fly. You may notice I'm constantly either asking for, or giving out, whys here on the board.

Of course, for instructors not used to dealing with us why-mongers, I can be a pain in the ass. But I can't understand people who hear "just do this" and blindly accept it. If someone tells you to "just do that" instead, how do you choose which technique is better?

This is sort of what I was getting at. While any sufficiently large subpopulation will obviously contain both good and bad pilots, I was wondering to what extent the need to understand the "whys" can get in the way of the "hows", and how to mitigate that.

For example, I spent an afternoon with a coworker (on a whiteboard, naturally) trying to work backwards from glideslope angles and airspeeds to figure out the legs of the traffic pattern. At the end of the day, we agreed that the math was bunk and that we "just did it" when flying. Nonetheless, I wasn't satisfied until I had arrived at that conclusion on my own.

Nothing wrong with doing that, assuming you have the time to "waste." (I don't think it's a waste.) You may not know all the answers at this point, but being inquisitive is what improving as a pilot is all about. Try to spend your time in the plane flying, but do spend time after each flight revisiting anything that didn't feel right or make sense to you in the air. In the end, you'll have an excellent understanding of what's going on, and you can merge that with your senses and actions in the plane.

 

[rainsux]

Mechanical engineers are uniformly great pilots. Nary a dud in the population.
Chemical engineers, not so much. I think it's the fumes! <g>

If it is green & doesn't move, it is botany.
If it's green & squirms, it is biology.
If it stinks, it is chemistry.
If it doesn't work, it is physics - or software.
If it works, but no one knows why, it is engineering.