On 18 May 2004 07:20:58 -0700, (Dan
Thomas) wrote:

We run three 172s, a 182RG and a Citabria, and that Citabria is
the most popular airplane among both students and instructors. It's
worth as many dollars as any of the 172s, but the insurance costs no
more than a 172. The students that start in it are more competent when
they finish the PPL than those who do it all in a 172, and that's in
all areas except basic instrument flying, since it has a rather basic
panel. The student has to maintain control of an unruly airplane and
has to be able to read a map, use a wet compass and and a watch. No
fancy radios to do all the work for him, no self-landing gear. And the
student spends no more time learning all this than he does in the 172.
He goes on to the 172 and 182 with sharp flying skills and is a much
better pilot in the end.
We just bought another Citabria, and they can't wait until it's
ready to go.
As far as another poster's rant about EAA types: As with any group
of people, you have the black sheep that seem bent on giving the rest
a bad name. We could paint all private pilots with the same brush, as
this poster did with the homebuilders, since there are enough weekend
warriors that will tangle with thunderstorms and winds and unairworthy
airplanes, and who will buzz friend's houses and ultimately kill
themselves and a couple of friends. But that wouldn't be fair, would
it? You only hear about the few brainless EAAers, not the thousands of
earnest guys/gals building and flying airplanes that are light-years
ahead of anything Wichita sells.

IMHO one of the best responses in this thread, so far. As a low-time
VFR pilot, I tend to avoid commenting much on "flying" issues. As
someone who has been repeatedly painted with the "all mechanics are
idiot parts-changers" brush, I am truly tickled ****e-less by some of
the former world-famous flight instructor's responses.

After spending many years riding along with freight dogs (having
somebody to talk to helps keep 'em awake/alive) and manipulating the
controls-opposed to "flying", I was handed the opportunity to get my
PPL.

Honestly, after living at the airport and seeing more
airline-by-gosh-bound right-seat-indentured-servant instructors than I
can recall, I wasn't too keen on the idea. Of this group, I was only
exposed to one that behaved anything like a professional instructor.
After working next door to professional pilots with a median
experience greater than a random-picked half-dozen ABGBRSISIs
combined, the idea of learning to fly from an "instructor" that is
basically going through the motions while building hours didn't have a
lot of appeal.

I received my initial primary flight instruction in a classic
conventional gear no-flap no-gyro "unruly airplane" with no electrical
system, mechanical heel brakes, and a 65 hp Continental that preferred
to run on three cylinders while occasionally spitting oil on the
windshield. My primary instructor was a kid that had spent six of the
last eight years hauling checks (the other two years were spent
relief/missionary flying in Africa).

I was quickly forced to learn coordinated turns, how to fly with my
head outside of the cockpit (nuthin much to look at inside), the power
of a properly performed slip, spin recovery, proper airspeed/attitude
management to the basic power-off minimal-energy spot landing, and
that brakes don't really need to be used for anything but taxiing. I
also became quite proficient at precautionary/engine out landings.

There is absolutely positively no physical/mechanical reason that
these things cannot be taught/learned in a modern tricycle gear
trainer, but there is also no way that a "classic" airplane can be
flown properly and safely without learning them.

Possessing advanced and detailed systems knowledge of virtually every
common single-engine GA aircraft, combined with the solid foundation
in basic flying skills made transitioning to other aircraft stone
simple. The first time I ever flew a Bonanza (K35 fitted with a
*******-ized TW Smith engine and a BAC constant-speed propeller), I
felt it was the "easiest" flying/landing single in the world. Seven
years and a couple dozen aircraft models of varying brands later, I
still pretty much feel the same way.

CJ doesn't seem to want to admit it, but I've been exposed to about
the same percentage of pilots lacking what he would consider to be
essential basic VFR piloting skills as certificated mechanics that
lack what I would consider to be essential basic troubleshooting
skills.

That doesn't mean that he can't properly teach someone how to fly in a
tri-gear plane any more than it means that I can't properly maintain
it.

Although he feels that conventional gear aircraft experience is
unnecessay (FWIW I tend to agree), it does not mean that it has no
inherent value in learning to fly.

I don't feel that navigation needs to be performed with a sextant and
a chronometer, but I also feel that the hand-held GPS is a pile on the
ass that is basic map-based VFR navigation.

YMMV;

TC