Why Good Flying Looks Boring

Low-Gain Control and Stable IFR Flying

Precise. Meticulous. Calculated. Disciplined.

These are all phrases and words used to describe neurosurgeons. These are among many of the talents for which they are highly regarded and which enable them to perform the most delicate operations bearing the highest consequence with some of the smallest almost imperceptible movements. Each stroke of the scalpel deals millimeter accurate separation of tissue fibers. Every application of pressure to the surgical instruments carefully considered and appropriately applied. Each move is anticipated, calculated, and required.

Albeit with broader margins, a highly skilled pilot operates under similar principles. Like a surgeon, the most obvious control movements are not always the most important. A pilot who looks busy, applying large control inputs and wrestling the aircraft into obedience does not necessarily represent an application of measured or required inputs.

Control actions anticipated and appropriately applied promote stability of the aircraft platform reducing the opportunity for a feedback loop developing where aggressive and unnecessarily large control actions are applied. Some pilots recognize this type of control philosophy promotes instability leading to a higher pilot workload, large performance variations and reduced mental capacity to monitor, plan and assess.

In aviation, we often refer to this type of flying as “over-controlling” and it results from something we will now refer to as a “high-gain” motor control.

What “Gain” Means in Flying

The term gain comes from control theory in engineering and applied mathematics and refers to how strongly a system responds to an error. This, in simple terms, is just the relationship between a deviation and the amplitude of the force applied in correcting it.

In a flying context, we might use it to describe a pilot’s control input, how quickly it is applied and whether it is proportional to the required input.

Gain can be either low or high and is described below:

Low-Gain

Small, timely anticipatory or reactive control inputs.

High-Gain

Unnecessarily large, reactive, corrective control inputs.

Low-Gain Flying

Low-gain pilots tend to anticipate deviations early, apply minimal and proportional inputs, allowing the aircraft to respond. They accept small temporary performance deviations in favour of keeping the aircraft stable and settled promoting large-picture trend monitoring and corrections. This type of flying has been demonstrated by many skilled pilots through history who have a sound understanding of aircraft control.

Rowland White in his book Into the Black wrote of Joe Engle who was an American Astronaut, aeronautical engineer and commander of two Space Shuttle missions:

“Engle was a low-gain pilot. Like Charles Lindbergh or Chuck Yeagar, he barely moved the stick, anticipating the need to do so and making small, necessary corrections in plenty of time. His inputs were smooth and progressive, never snatching at the controls.” Rowland White, Into the Black

This description aligns closely with what many experienced pilots today would recognise as experienced aircraft handling. The aircraft feels stable. There is no over controlling. The pilot is not chasing the aeroplane — they are guiding it. Many pilots choose to compliment this method with a light grip often using index finger and thumb to manipulate the controls allowing the fine sense of the fingertips to provide feedback to the pilot.

High-Gain Flying

In contrast, high-gain pilots respond aggressively to a deviation from the desired flight path often late with large corrections, almost as if they are wrestling the aircraft into submission. The response is often a highly amplified version of the required control response. The aircraft responds but because the input was excessive, another correction is required and a feedback loop begins.

“So what?” I hear some saying. It’s just two different styles of control. Yes, it is two different control methods, however the impact of a high-gain control philosophy can be dangerous and result in high pilot workload and instability of the aircraft that I have seen degrade safety margins, particularly at high-stress phases of flight.

An Illusion of Precision

Undoubtedly, high-gain pilots are not trying to be rough. On the contrary, they are usually conscientious, motivated, and keen to “stay on profile” and “fly accurately.” The problem is not the intent; it is understanding what target performance is required and where the pilot’s focus must be to smoothly and effectively achieve and maintain those targets.

High gain-pilots use performance deviations as the primary tool to inform errors and dictate control inputs. Vertical speed, heading, track, airspeed, altitude – each performance deviation is noticed and used to make immediate, aggressive and often excessive corrections.

The cockpit becomes busy, the instrument scan becomes sporadic with many performance indications requiring corrections and just when one has been made, it must be corrected for again. With pitch and bank constantly being adjusted rather than held, the vicious cycle seems never to end. The pilot feels task saturated and very rarely ahead of the aircraft.

How Do High-Gain Control Habits Develop?

Although high-gain flying can be a natural tendency for some, it often emerges under high-stress situations, where the pilot focuses on controlling concrete performance indicators to “make the numbers right.” This type of behaviour is especially common in pilots with significant home simulator experience. More importantly, for many pilots, high-gain control habits are not inherent at all but developed and reinforced in the way in which they are trained.

This often happens subtly as a student is told by their instructor to “watch the descent rate” rather than hold a specific attitude. A student is told to “watch your tracking” rather than a reminder to focus on holding a consistent attitude or wings level to maintain constant heading. As a result, a student’s attention is not primarily on maintaining a consistent attitude and a stable aircraft platform, where trends predictably develop and can be corrected for. Instead, nothing is stable, because the attitude is constantly changing from over-controlling and the resultant deviations are almost impossible to trend or correct. Instructors, often with the best intentions, focus on performance deviations rather than the root cause. Over time, a student absorbs the lesson that “Any performance deviation is bad, any deviation must be fixed right now.”

This type of mindset produces pilots who are uncomfortable with small deviations and impatient of delay in rectifying them. Control inputs become frequent, larger and reactive. Minor inputs begin to feel insignificant if the deviation in performance isn’t corrected quickly. In reality, the performance deviation is being rectified, but the focus is now rightly on a corrected attitude and the evidence of that will soon be seen in the resultant performance indicators such as tracking or glidepath.

The unfortunate part of training that promotes high-gain inputs is that this type of student is often praised for “being on top of it.”

IFR and High-Gain Performance Flying

High-gain flying becomes particularly apparent and dangerous in flying Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) where performance flying and the resultant high-gain control manipulation reveals a pilot’s deeply-established habits.

IFR flying undoubtedly demands precision, but it will punish poor technique. High demand phases of flight demand stability to avoid exceeding tolerances. These phases of flight reward anticipation and punish late, overly reactive control inputs. When a pilot shifts focus from attitude primarily towards chasing performance numbers, high-gain flying results.

Instead of thinking “This pitch and power combination produces the outcome I want,” the pilot now thinks “I need this speed, this heading and this rate of descent – I will move the controls aggressively to correct” Pitch excursions become larger, lateral control becomes less precise, the instrument scan becomes random instead of disciplined, and the attitude indicator loses its rightful place as a primary reference.

How Do You Know if You’re a High-Gain Pilot

Many pilots don’t know that they are high-gain pilots and even when they do become aware through instruction, on check or training flights or when reviewing a video of themselves flying, the habit is so strongly ingrained it is difficult to fix.

Being a high-gain pilot is the result of a philosophy about aircraft control. Aircraft are flown using attitude to inform control inputs. Think back to your first flying lessons. You set power, looked outside and observed the wings level and the position of the horizon in relation to the instrument panel. You then noted a consistent altitude, heading and speed were the result. Every stable flight condition has a corresponding pitch and bank and power setting. When the attitude is set and held, specific performance follows naturally. Other instruments exist to confirm, not command.  

Whilst of course there may be exceptions depending on type of aircraft and specific weather situations, generally control inputs should be small, deliberate, and followed by patience. Precise attitude control leads to stable aircraft performance where trends can be assessed and appropriately maintained and corrected. Perhaps most importantly, low-gain pilots accept that small, temporary deviations are normal. They do not chase perfection in performance instead prioritising stability and mean performance accuracy.

As counterintuitive as it sounds, good flying often feels boring. The controls are often still. The aircraft is stable and settled. The pilot has time and mental capacity available for planning and threat management — not just keeping the numbers right. And the numbers are right more often because the premise of control was setting the correct attitude that resulted in the right numbers. The old saying “less is more” never rings truer.

It’s not Passive

Low-gain flying is not passive. It is not lazy or disengaged. It’s a sign of understanding that deviations are normal within certain bounds, and that a big picture image is more important than a small and rapidly changing performance snapshot.

When pilots stop chasing numbers and start commanding attitudes, flying becomes smoother, more predictable and far less fatiguing, not to mention safer – particularly under the demanding requirements of IFR environments.

If this article has caused you to reflect on how much you move the controls, that’s a good thing. These habits are learned and they can be unlearned.

What are your thoughts?