[Rant Warning] Tailwheel Training

In article , G.R. Patterson III
wrote:

EDR wrote:
The difference is, I learned to fly from the graybeards who taught me
not to make the mistakes they did.

In other words, you learned from some of the people C.J. is talking about.

Yea, you could probably say that.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message ...

Apparently there are a few pilots on this
forum who want a bigger propeller in order to compensate for something else.

OK CJ.... but tell us this: How many taildragger hours do you have?
How about glider? Aerobatic? Formation?

IMHO, learning any of those skills will make you a better, safer, and
more confident pilot. They all demand quality piloting skills and
provide immediate, get-your-attention feedback when you make any
mistakes.

Anybody with a pulse can learn to land a 172 safely while making some
pretty gross mistakes on the airmanship-front. (And I know, because
I've done that, too. :-)

-Dave Russell
8KCAB

In my limited experience dealing with those who earned their certificates
long before I was even born, I do tend to agree somewhat with CJ's
comments. I have done several flight reviews with such individuals, and
it was not a pleasant experience. The ground review is dominated by them
telling me war stories and never really answering my questions. I try to
be polite and listen to the stories, but my questions go unanswered. It
is a very frustrating experience for me. I had one guy who flew the
entire time with his feet on the floor. However, some of the greatest
pilots I have met are also from the same generation, so I would not
generalize this observation. It is however safe to say that on average we
are training better pilots today than we did several decades ago.




"C J Campbell" wrote in
:


"OtisWinslow" wrote in message
news

"EDR" wrote in message
...
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.

If these CFIs can't train people to properly fly a nose dragger, why
would there be any reason to believe they'd do any better in
a tail dragger. There'd just be more wrecks. I think whoever is
training these people needs a little recurrent training themselves.

There are some people who seem to think that modern flight instructors
do not know how to fly or that they are generally all incompetent. It
is a variant of the old "the next generation is going to hell in a
handbasket" attitude.

The fact is that when these old codgers learned to fly the instructors
really were generally incompetent. They let people solo after an hour
and a half of instruction, there were no standards, and nobody cared
about airspace, radio procedures, or aircraft systems. The accident
rate in those days was five times higher than what it is now. The FAA
was threatening to shut down GA for good.

Now these old-timers go in for their flight reviews and find that they
don't understand the things they should have learned when they first
got into an airplane. They don't know airspace, can't hold heading or
altitude, and their landings can best be described as controlled
crashes. Their judgment is terrible; they will take off into
thunderstorms and fly broken airplanes. Many of them are completely
incapable of landing on a paved runway. They don't like being
criticized by people who could be their own grandchildren and they
don't think 'the kids' have anything to teach them. Most of all, they
don't want to face the truth -- they are incompetent pilots and always
have been.

So they like to say that instructors who don't fly tailwheels or do
loops or who don't do much instruction are better instructors. They
blame the instructors for the fact that they themselves can't fly and
will never learn. EDR's rant is very typical of these people.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


EDR wrote:

The difference is, I learned to fly from the graybeards who taught me
not to make the mistakes they did.

In other words, you learned from some of the people C.J. is talking about.

The ones CJ says don't know how to fly. Funny, I learn more from the grey
beards in five minutes than several hours with the airline wannabes. Many
of the grey beards have flown anything and everything and learned from all
of them. The wannabes and other CFIs with 500 or even 5,000 of the same
hour in a 152/172 have very little to offer.


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

"C J Campbell" wrote in message It is not your tailwheel background that
lets you do that. It is your experience, pure and simple.

I see your point. However, I've also seen many new-hire first officers who
never learned good rudder control during landing. In a C-172, poor rudder
control is of little consequence. In a larger plane were they are seated far
forward of the wingspar (C.G.), poor rudder control manifests itself as
prematurely worn landing gear parts. Taildragger training emphasizes rudder
control. I'd much rather have them hone their rudder control on 2 tires
instead of 4 tires.

D.

In article , C J Campbell wrote:
Then there never in the entire history of aviation been CFIs that know how
to teach the basics. Tailwheel aircraft have always had a higher accident
rate than tricycle gear aircraft and they always will. There is absolutely
no reason to learn to fly a tailwheel aircraft unless you plan on owning one
or have some other special need, such as bush piloting or you are a CFI who
wants to instruct in them.

Please keep telling your students this - it will hopefully become a good
meme that will lower the demand for tailwheel planes, therefore making
the purchase price for those of us who like them less due to the laws of
supply and demand :-)

Speaking for myself, I did my first ~300 hrs in nosedraggers, then did a
tailwheel checkout so I could fly the club's 170. It really did improve
my landings because it forces you to (a) always land perfectly straight
and (b) always in the correct attitude. It's easy to get sloppy or out
of practice when flying something that essentially lands itself like a
C172.

Additionally, the C170 has much better over-the-nose visibility than a
C172 or a Warrior *on the ground* in the 3-point attitude. In flight,
the view is spectacular.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

All that extra ego I gained had to go somewhere ;-).

Deb

--
1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
Jasper, Ga. (JZP)

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Henry and Debbie McFarland wrote:

Well...flying a taildragger didn't make me more of a man, thank God, but
it
did make my boobs bigger.

Details please! Yet another argument I can use to encourage Elisabeth to
take flight
training. Not that she needs any improvement in that area, but I've met
few women who
didn't *think* they needed improvement there.

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

"C J Campbell" wrote in
:


"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om...
"C J Campbell" wrote in
message
...
There is absolutely
no reason to learn to fly a tailwheel aircraft unless you plan on
owning
one
or have some other special need, such as bush piloting or you are a
CFI
who
wants to instruct in them.

My tailwheel background certainly makes me a much better Mooney
pilot. It certainly makes me a better CFI. I'm able to let students
take the 172 further towards the weeds with confidence that I can
control it. Non-tailwheel CFIs have to jump in there right away and
the students takes 3 times longer to learn foot work.

It is not your tailwheel background that lets you do that. It is your
experience, pure and simple.

It is awfully hard for a student to run off into the weeds on a 150'
wide runway. I just let them go where they want. They learn pretty
quick.



I tend to agree with CJ on this. I am a tailwheel instructor now, but I
was not always one. Because I kept hearing comments like 'you are not a
real pilot until you have flown a tailwheel', I took the challenge to
transition to a 1946 Luscomb 8A. I did not find anything particularly
difficult about it, probably because I was already using the correct
techniques in the tricycle gear airplanes. The limited view over the nose
was the most difficult thing I had to get over. We even landed in 15 knot
cross winds.

Andrew Sarangan wrote in message .158...
In my limited experience dealing with those who earned their certificates
long before I was even born, I do tend to agree somewhat with CJ's
comments. I have done several flight reviews with such individuals, and
it was not a pleasant experience. The ground review is dominated by them
telling me war stories and never really answering my questions. I try to
be polite and listen to the stories, but my questions go unanswered. It
is a very frustrating experience for me. I had one guy who flew the
entire time with his feet on the floor. However, some of the greatest
pilots I have met are also from the same generation, so I would not
generalize this observation. It is however safe to say that on average we
are training better pilots today than we did several decades ago.

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.

Dan

"Dan Thomas" wrote in message
om...


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.

Huh? Once in the air a plane is a plane. Maybe yours isn't rigged right.