"C J Campbell" wrote
You hear this bit of wisdom a lot, but I am beginning to question it. I will
grant that there may be some value in upset recovery training.

That's probably the least valuable aspect of aerobatic training. The
real value is that the the aerobatically trained pilot will generally
see the upset coming a mile away and never allow it to happen in the
first place. Aerobatics demands that you learn to fly entirely
without instruments, because in aerobatic attitudes none of them are
reliable. It demands that you learn to feel the airplane, instead of
just flying the numbers. The first time you feel the bite of the
stall at 100+ mph (in an airplane that stalls at 60) and with the nose
60 degrees below the horizon, you will understand.

I doubt there
is a lot to be learned from a tailwheel endorsement that will improve your
'stick and rudder skills.'

That's absolutely true - assuming they are solid to begin with. If
you are already able to land at your chosen point and at your chosen
speed/attitude, with the airplane aligned with the runway regardless
of wind, then a tailwheel endorsement will not do much for you. It is
possible to learn these things without flying a taildragger, but my
observations indicate that they are often not being learned. Look in
the POH for the airplane you fly, and find out the ground roll. If a
field twice that long seems awfully short to you, you can definitely
benefit from some tailwheel training.

In fact, I am beginning to wonder whether anyone
can give a realistic appraisal of what 'stick and rudder skills' even are.

If you don't know, then you are absolutely not ready to be teaching
others to fly. In fact, I have often said that nobody should be
allowed to get a CFI ticket until he has demonstrated a loop, spin,
and roll solo in an appropriate aircraft.

If by 'stick and rudder skills' you mean the ability to maintain altitude,
airspeed, heading, and coordinated flight, then I would say that the
instrument rating probably is the most valuable in enhancing these skills.

I don't think anyone seriously believes this is what stick and rudder
is about. When you can make a pretty landing in 15G25 direct cross,
that's stick and rudder skill. When you can land on target and at the
proper airspeed with both altimeter and ASI covered, that's stick and
rudder skill. And as an instructor, if a student puts you into an
inadvertent spin and you feel the need to grab the controls or yell
rather than calmly talking him through the recovery, you DON'T have
stick and rudder skills.

I have not seen people who do aerobatics training show a lot of improvement
in such basic skills as ground reference maneuvers or commercial maneuvers.

Commercial maneuvers are not basic skills. They are pointless
exercises that you do to prepare for a rating and never use again.
They are also not aerobatic.

Ground reference maneuvers are TRAINING maneuvers. They are also done
to prepare for a rating and never again, and are of no earthly use to
someone who can do aerobatics.

What I have seen is that too many of them *think* they are better when in
fact they are not.

Or maybe you simply lack the perception to see where the differences
are. I see that a lot among those who start instructing too early and
never really develop experience. That's why I recommend that any
potential instructor accumulate 500-1000 hours of his own time - not
dual given and not dual received and not trainign for ratings, but
actual real world flying experience. Those who have don't find it
difficult to see where the aerobatically trained pilot is better.

Perhaps there is a lot of bad aerobatics training going
on out there and I am seeing the result of it. Whatever. For now I regard
aerobatics and tailwheel training as diversions that use time and money that
could be better spent in improving the basic skills you were supposed to be
learning in the first place.

I think this is about the worst advice from a flight instructor that I
have ever heard.

Michael