Reading a book, I came across an expression I really can't parse.

For some developers, the invocation of the word plan is cause for alarm. Endless meetings with pointy-haired bosses creating reams of printed Microsoft Project plans that nobody understands or uses are a valid cause for alarm. So, techies often overcompensate in our rebellion against perceived overplanning by constantly flying by the seat of our pants.

I understand what he's saying with that last sentence—that sometimes developers go too far in avoiding planning—but can't make head nor tail of how he puts it. Can anyone explain the logic (if any) behind this phrase?

  • What's with all the computer-related questions lately? – Fattie Jul 2 '11 at 21:42
  • 2
    The context whence the question arose may be computer-related, but the question itself certainly is not. – Jonik Aug 17 '11 at 3:49
  • 2
    (Or alternatively: Stack Exchange, sadly, still largely revolves around software developers and their hobbies.) – Jonik Aug 17 '11 at 3:49

The meaning and origin is covered in this article on The Phrase Finder. An extract:


Decide a course of action as you go along, using your own initiative and perceptions rather than a pre-determined plan or mechanical aids.


This is early aviation parlance. Aircraft initially had few navigation aids and flying was accomplished by means of the pilot's judgment.

This Sydney Morning Herald article also says that before advanced instruments, pilots would have use the feel and slide of the seat to tell how the plane was moving.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    Thanks! Couldn't decide which of the top answers to accept, so I chose the most upvoted one. Also, I posted a small additional point that helped me understand the phrase. – Jonik Aug 17 '11 at 4:14

Flying by the seat of one's pants was originally a literal (or nearly-literal) phrase, meaning to use all of one's senses -- including lateral and vertical "G forces" transmitted to your derriere through the seat -- to control an aircraft in flight. Early flight "instrumentation" consisted largely of a magnetic compass (which is only useful when flying straight and level) and a length of string (really!) to tell you the direction of airflow relative to the plane.

While the phrase may have been used in a pejorative sense in your example, it isn't always the case. Improvising everything in life probably isn't a good idea, but instruments (metrics) lie, and blindly following procedures can exacerbate a problem that situational awareness and instincts developed through experience could have nipped in the bud.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    Especially ironic, you can't tell purely from feeling the G force if you are flying level or in a banked turn. Until the invention of the gyroscope artificial horizon it was very dangerous to fly without a visible horizon – mgb Jul 3 '11 at 3:57
  • 1
    In one of the WWII bombers, (I think it was the Halifax), the co-pilot's seat was not precisely level. This could cause pilots to go off course, and the training programmme had a full session on counteracting "bottom effect". – Tim Lymington Aug 17 '11 at 9:48
  • Much better than accepted answer. +1 – n00dles Jul 18 '17 at 12:42

It means the same as "play it by ear" or "wing it" - to improvise plans and procedures as necessary.

| improve this answer | |

The other answers perfectly explain the meaning and where the phrase stems from.

In addition, one thing that personally helped me understand the logic—or how the phrase can make any sense—was this definition of "seat" in the NOAD (emphasis mine):

2 a person's buttocks.
the part of a garment that covers the buttocks.

You see, I had thought "seat" can only mean a chair or such! (Probably related to the fact I'm a 2nd language speaker.)

Incidentally, NOAD's "seat" entry also gives this definition for "by the seat of one's pants":

(informal) by instinct rather than logic or knowledge.

| improve this answer | |

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.