[Rant Warning] Tailwheel Training

EDR wrote:

It's about time the Feds require that all students must spend the first
20 hours of their training in taildraggers. It's the only way they are
going to learn propper control input on landings.

You can't seriously believe that doing this is going to *reduce* the amount of time
trainers spend in the maintenance shop.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
You can't seriously believe that doing this is going to *reduce* the
amount of time
trainers spend in the maintenance shop.

yup, rudder control learnt in a Cub will do no good to anyone who pulls the
throttle on a 182 over the numbers

HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com

In article , G.R. Patterson III
wrote:

EDR wrote:

It's about time the Feds require that all students must spend the first
20 hours of their training in taildraggers. It's the only way they are
going to learn propper control input on landings.

You can't seriously believe that doing this is going to *reduce* the amount
of time
trainers spend in the maintenance shop.

No, I want to weed out the lame instructors!!!

EDR wrote
No, I want to weed out the lame instructors!!!

Then the real solution is to require that in order to instruct, you
have to make 10 solo takeoffs and landings in a tailwheel airplane.
BTW, I favor such a requirement. It's not a hardship to anyone who
has any business instructing.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
EDR wrote
No, I want to weed out the lame instructors!!!

Then the real solution is to require that in order to instruct, you
have to make 10 solo takeoffs and landings in a tailwheel airplane.
BTW, I favor such a requirement. It's not a hardship to anyone who
has any business instructing.

And it will provide...what?

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
EDR wrote
No, I want to weed out the lame instructors!!!

Then the real solution is to require that in order to instruct, you
have to make 10 solo takeoffs and landings in a tailwheel airplane.
BTW, I favor such a requirement. It's not a hardship to anyone who
has any business instructing.

Baloney.

By the time instructors met all the additional requirements that you want to
impose on them the cost of becoming an instructor would triple at the least.
They would be no safer nor would they be better pilots in any measurable
sense. The accident rate would not be improved.

Apparently you have some strange idea that good instruction consists of
developing a macho, anti-authority attitude just waiting to get you or
somebody else killed.

I am beginning to believe that you have no business whatsoever near an
airplane.

In article , C J Campbell
wrote:

I am beginning to believe that you have no business whatsoever near an
airplane.

I am having difficulty discerning whether C J is really indignint about
this issue, or he is just baiting us for more so that others may learn.

Let's look at another aspect...
The taildragger (regardless of make/model) requires that the pilot
raise the nose to land (only slightly for wheel landings).
There are tricycle gear aircraft out there with big engines up front
(PA28-235/6, C182, etc) and under light loading conditions (front two
seats occupied, full fuel) the cg is towards the front of the envelope.
If the pilot doesn't learn to get the nose up on landing, the nose gear
and firewall are going to get damaged.
Normally, with no flaps, the nose will come up as the aircraft is
slowed for landing. Now add flaps and the pitch attitude is lowered
(flatter) and the pilot is lulled into the false belief that the nose
is sufficiently high to land on the mains.
Now you have a wheelbarrowing condition, which if the pilot lands too
fast, doesn't flair soon enough or flairs too high will lead to loss of
control and/or damage.
It's about proper piloting technique, it has nothing to do with ego.
(Although, the theory that it makes women's boobs bigger has marketing
potential. ;-))

"EDR" wrote in message
...
In article , C J Campbell
wrote:

I am beginning to believe that you have no business whatsoever near an
airplane.

I am having difficulty discerning whether C J is really indignint about
this issue, or he is just baiting us for more so that others may learn.

Let's look at another aspect...
The taildragger (regardless of make/model) requires that the pilot
raise the nose to land (only slightly for wheel landings).

Yes, and so does a tricycle gear. Ever heard of ground loops and nose-overs?
I suppose those never happened when everyone learned in tail-draggers.

It's about proper piloting technique, it has nothing to do with ego.

So what equipment is used has noting to do with it, it's how it's taught? So
what's all the blather about requiring tail-dragger instruction?


(Although, the theory that it makes women's boobs bigger has marketing
potential. ;-))

I think the "ego" problem here is someone inserted their foot in their mouth
and is now trying to justify himself.

In article , Tom Sixkiller
wrote:

Let's look at another aspect...
The taildragger (regardless of make/model) requires that the pilot
raise the nose to land (only slightly for wheel landings).

Yes, and so does a tricycle gear. Ever heard of ground loops and nose-overs?
I suppose those never happened when everyone learned in tail-draggers.

If you ground loop or nose over a tric, you've really screwed up. You
can ground loop or nose over either one, the taildragger does a better
job of teaching you how not to get in that situation (it the stick/yoke
isn't in you gut, you are heading for a problem).

It's about proper piloting technique, it has nothing to do with ego.

So what equipment is used has noting to do with it, it's how it's taught? So
what's all the blather about requiring tail-dragger instruction?

Again, the taildragger is a better teacher. If you don't do it right
every time, it will bite you.

(Although, the theory that it makes women's boobs bigger has marketing
potential. ;-))

I think the "ego" problem here is someone inserted their foot in their mouth
and is now trying to justify himself.

Why was the wheel moved from the back to the front?
It is more stable and forgiving, and because of those qualities it
allows for more mistakes.

EDR wrote:

There are tricycle gear aircraft out there with big engines up front
(PA28-235/6, C182, etc) and under light loading conditions (front two
seats occupied, full fuel) the cg is towards the front of the envelope.
If the pilot doesn't learn to get the nose up on landing, the nose gear
and firewall are going to get damaged.

Then someone who buys such an aircraft should learn to keep the nose up in that
plane. That's nowhere near enough justification for requiring training in
conventional gear for anyone.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.