3 ms·

I'm a software engineer and recently got my pilot's license, and the training for the pilot's license increased my (already-high) respect for the aviation profe

I'm a software engineer and recently got my pilot's license, and the training for the pilot's license increased my (already-high) respect for the aviation profession. All pilots learn to fly basic airplanes and have to do everything by hand (often on paper, but an iPad is allowed) to show they know the basics. The result is that by the time you work up to more advanced planes you have climbed the ladder of abstraction and know what underpins the automation. The other piece of the picture is that pilots acknowledge that their skills are perishable, and they have to commit to ongoing training. This would be analogous to writing code by hand and getting a licensed engineer to sign off on your currency periodically even if you use LLMs for work.

altmanaltman 4mo ago
But I mean flying a cessna vrs something that has fly-by-wire like Airbus jets, its not really about understanding abstractions or anything, since the plane is basically a fundamentally different machine no? Basic principles of gravity and physic apply sure, but the flying experience is 100% different and not like a levelling up thing right? Like i would not trust someone with a Cessna pilot license to fly the airbus i am on.
- thrownthatway 4mo ago
  I’ve flown a couple single engine aircraft. I put it this way: Commercial aviation pilots don’t really fly the plane as such. It’s more like a 1:1 real-time flight sim. They’re sort of up there having a LARP. They’re flying in a similar sense that a DJ creates music.
- WalterBright 4mo ago
  A Cessna has very different aerodynamic issues than a jetliner. Multi-engine also has its own issues (such as if one engine dies, the airplane tries to turn around it). Setting a Cessna down on the runway is fairly strait forward. A jetliner, on the other hand, is quite complex to land.
  - VBprogrammer 4mo ago
    I don't know if you can claim one is more straightforward. Sure a Cessna flies slower and has relatively simple aerodynamics. However, you could also be operating it out of a 400m sloping grass strip with a mountain off one end. An A320 might be flying 3 times faster but is generally flying between relatively flat, straight runaways several miles long with approaches typically flown on a stable instrument approach from several nautical miles away. It's control laws mean flying straight or maintaining a particular bank is as simple as letting go of the control stick. If anything the stick and rudder skills in normal circumstances are much less involved. Systems management, obviously the autopilot, but also environmental, hydraulic, navigation an the operational concerns are obviously vastly more complex.
    - defrost 4mo ago
      > you could also be operating it out of a 400m sloping grass strip with a mountain off one end. Why? Not as a regular thing I hope, that's about 90m short of "tight". If you're intent on proselytizing PNG at least get a PAC STOL ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAC_P-750_XSTOL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAC_P-750_XSTOL )
      - VBprogrammer 4mo ago
        Not if the Cessna is a King Katmai 182...that would have room to spare.
        defrost 4mo ago
        Interesting, I didn't know that Cessna had a STOL conversion kit, nor that people I know locally (second hand) had done a few - they still look under performant compared to the PAC STOL family and have to wonder if they can handle short strips at high altitudes in thin air fully loaded. PAC STOL's were driven by demands for work horse grunt power at NZ / PNG altitudes. (eg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_MO5Wfomks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_MO5Wfomks )
  - raverbashing 4mo ago
- OneMorePerson 4mo ago
  I'm not a pilot (someone correct me if I'm wrong) and I respect how hard it is to make split second high stakes decisions, however from my read the pilots had to ignore tons of basic sensors (including their own bodies). According to the crash report they were at a 35 degree upward tilt, which is super severe, and they thought they wouldn't crash because they had successfully recovered from a "low altitude warning" (which doesn't makes sense). Point being it reads like following the sensors but ignoring what you can actually feel is happening, which is back to fundamentals. I don't think people are saying a Cessna translates to flying an Airbus, more that NOT knowing the basics or forgetting them translates to dangerous gaps when flying the Airbus.
  - wolvoleo 4mo ago
    Well, they were in IFR. It was dark and they probably couldn't see the horizon. The senses can play tricks on the body when you have no frame of reference. This phenomenon is trained for of course but it is hard to avoid. However what I do think they should have realised is that whatever they were doing (pulling up) did not work and maybe they should stop for a moment and think about their assumptions. It's in fact hard to understand what situation the plane could be in for a hard constant pull up to be the right answer. The only thing I can think of is a loss of vertical stabiliser trim, a bit akin to what happened to that Alaska airlines crash off the coast of LA. Or a sudden extreme shift of cargo forward. But then that assumption could be checked. But the mind can also get into a state of panic that makes such reasoning very difficult. That also is being trained for. But it is still very hard to overcome.

altmanaltman 4mo ago

But I mean flying a cessna vrs something that has fly-by-wire like Airbus jets, its not really about understanding abstractions or anything, since the plane is basically a fundamentally different machine no? Basic principles of gravity and physic apply sure, but the flying experience is 100% different and not like a levelling up thing right? Like i would not trust someone with a Cessna pilot license to fly the airbus i am on.

thrownthatway 4mo ago
I’ve flown a couple single engine aircraft. I put it this way: Commercial aviation pilots don’t really fly the plane as such. It’s more like a 1:1 real-time flight sim. They’re sort of up there having a LARP. They’re flying in a similar sense that a DJ creates music.
WalterBright 4mo ago
A Cessna has very different aerodynamic issues than a jetliner. Multi-engine also has its own issues (such as if one engine dies, the airplane tries to turn around it). Setting a Cessna down on the runway is fairly strait forward. A jetliner, on the other hand, is quite complex to land.
- VBprogrammer 4mo ago
  I don't know if you can claim one is more straightforward. Sure a Cessna flies slower and has relatively simple aerodynamics. However, you could also be operating it out of a 400m sloping grass strip with a mountain off one end. An A320 might be flying 3 times faster but is generally flying between relatively flat, straight runaways several miles long with approaches typically flown on a stable instrument approach from several nautical miles away. It's control laws mean flying straight or maintaining a particular bank is as simple as letting go of the control stick. If anything the stick and rudder skills in normal circumstances are much less involved. Systems management, obviously the autopilot, but also environmental, hydraulic, navigation an the operational concerns are obviously vastly more complex.
  - defrost 4mo ago
    > you could also be operating it out of a 400m sloping grass strip with a mountain off one end. Why? Not as a regular thing I hope, that's about 90m short of "tight". If you're intent on proselytizing PNG at least get a PAC STOL ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAC_P-750_XSTOL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAC_P-750_XSTOL )
    - VBprogrammer 4mo ago
      Not if the Cessna is a King Katmai 182...that would have room to spare.
      - defrost 4mo ago
        Interesting, I didn't know that Cessna had a STOL conversion kit, nor that people I know locally (second hand) had done a few - they still look under performant compared to the PAC STOL family and have to wonder if they can handle short strips at high altitudes in thin air fully loaded. PAC STOL's were driven by demands for work horse grunt power at NZ / PNG altitudes. (eg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_MO5Wfomks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_MO5Wfomks )
- raverbashing 4mo ago
OneMorePerson 4mo ago
I'm not a pilot (someone correct me if I'm wrong) and I respect how hard it is to make split second high stakes decisions, however from my read the pilots had to ignore tons of basic sensors (including their own bodies). According to the crash report they were at a 35 degree upward tilt, which is super severe, and they thought they wouldn't crash because they had successfully recovered from a "low altitude warning" (which doesn't makes sense). Point being it reads like following the sensors but ignoring what you can actually feel is happening, which is back to fundamentals. I don't think people are saying a Cessna translates to flying an Airbus, more that NOT knowing the basics or forgetting them translates to dangerous gaps when flying the Airbus.
- wolvoleo 4mo ago
  Well, they were in IFR. It was dark and they probably couldn't see the horizon. The senses can play tricks on the body when you have no frame of reference. This phenomenon is trained for of course but it is hard to avoid. However what I do think they should have realised is that whatever they were doing (pulling up) did not work and maybe they should stop for a moment and think about their assumptions. It's in fact hard to understand what situation the plane could be in for a hard constant pull up to be the right answer. The only thing I can think of is a loss of vertical stabiliser trim, a bit akin to what happened to that Alaska airlines crash off the coast of LA. Or a sudden extreme shift of cargo forward. But then that assumption could be checked. But the mind can also get into a state of panic that makes such reasoning very difficult. That also is being trained for. But it is still very hard to overcome.