[Rant Warning] Tailwheel Training

"Rocky" wrote in message
om...
I kind of take it personal
when someone makes a blanket statement that us old gray haired guys
are incompetent and full of crap.
Ol Shy & Bashful 21,000+ and still going - CFI/IRAM Gold Seal

Speaking as a gray haired guy, all I can say is that the accident statistics
speak for themselves. Back when everybody learned in tailwheel aircraft the
accident rate was much higher. The accident rate for even tailwheel aircraft
has gone down considerably with better instruction. In 1946 the GA accident
rate was 77.83 per 100,000 hours of flight. In 1982 the GA accident rate was
10.9 per 100,000 hours. By 2001 it had dropped to 5.96. Fatal accidents show
a similar trend downward.

I don't buy the idea that flight instruction is worse now than it used to
be, plain and simple. The accident rate says that flight instruction now is
better. Anyone who says it isn't is full of it. I also stand by my assertion
that the worst complainers are old guys who were poorly trained in the first
place, have not kept current, and who themselves are a menace to aviation.

Are all old guys like that? Of course not. But neither are all the flight
instructors incompetent simply because they have not flown tailwheel
aircraft, flown loops or rolls, have 22,000 hours, or have shot down five
enemy aircraft. I know one guy on this forum who probably thinks that you
should not be flight instructing, simply because you have more hours
instructing than you do flying other missions. Apparently that idiot thinks
the best instructors are those that don't instruct.

Neither do I buy the idea that flying a bunch of different types makes you a
better instructor. All instructors fly many different types, but if you look
at their logs you will see that the preponderance of hours has always been
in two or three types. That has always been true of flight instructors and
always will be. It is a complete mischaracterization to suggest that flight
instructors working their way into the airlines are 'wannabes' who are not
real pilots. I know many such flight instructors and respect them deeply.
I'll bet they have time in more types than some of the people who say that
those instructors' experience is limited only to 172s. Airlines don't hire
pilots who have flown only Skyhawks.

I will put it plain. EDR's post was way off base. It was offensive. It was
stupid. It contained a bunch of flat-out generalizations and old wives tales
that at best are only slightly dangerous and at worst evidence of serious
hatred. EDR owes an apology to flight instructors.

In article , C J Campbell
wrote:

I will put it plain. EDR's post was way off base. It was offensive. It was
stupid. It contained a bunch of flat-out generalizations and old wives tales
that at best are only slightly dangerous and at worst evidence of serious
hatred. EDR owes an apology to flight instructors.

No, I don't.
I found out yesterday that the one 182 that was damaged badly, was
flown by the owner.
I also spoke with one of the instructors who has flown with him.
That checkout instructor told me point blank that the 182 was too much
airplane for that pilot and that he has been trying everything he can
think of to get the pilot's crosswind landings to be what they should.

Well... why did he sign him off if he didn't think the guy could handle
the airplane?
Probably because a) the airplane is on leaseback to the club, and b)
the guy owns the airplane. (Did I mention the owner is a lawyer?)
This is an old time instructor, too. But there is obviously a conflict
of interest.

Again, I go back to the original instructor and the examiner. Why was
this student allowed to take PPL flight test if he could not handle the
airplane to the PPL standards?

As others have posted, the 172 is a forgiving aircraft and allows a
poorly trained student to slip through the system.

In article ,
EDR wrote:



As others have posted, the 172 is a forgiving aircraft and allows a
poorly trained student to slip through the system.

The airplane doesn't allow anthing to happen. The system allows poorly
trained pilots - taildragger and well as nosedragger - to slip through
the system.

And about the "super" taildragger pilots. I used to fly a tricycle gear
airplane that had virtually everyone who flew it wimpering in
frustration just trying to get it to the runway for takeoff. It made a
tailwheel airplane seem easy.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

In article , Dale wrote:
And about the "super" taildragger pilots. I used to fly a tricycle gear
airplane that had virtually everyone who flew it wimpering in
frustration just trying to get it to the runway for takeoff. It made a
tailwheel airplane seem easy.

I'm intrigued...what was it and what made it so difficult to taxi?

The only nosewheel plane I've found tricky to taxi was the Nangchang
CJ6, and that's because it had vastly different systems to anything
I'd flown. The brakes were pneumatic. The nosewheel was castoring.
The over-the-nose visibility on the ground wasn't very good. To steer,
you pushed the rudder pedal to the floor in the direction you wanted
to steer, then used the stick-mounted handbrake to dab the brake,
and the braking would be applied to the wheel on the inside of the
turn. The brakes were more or less digital (either on or off, very
little inbetween) It just took getting used to after taxiing with hydraulic
toe brakes and a steerable nosewheel (or tailwheel for that matter).

--
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"

In article ,
Dylan Smith wrote:

I'm intrigued...what was it and what made it so difficult to taxi?

B-24. It has a castoring nosewheel that wants to turn with the
slightest provacation, expander-tube brakes (slow to react), and a CG
very close to the main gear...get rough on the brakes and you could
bounce the nose off the ground.


The expander tube brakes work off of an open hydraulic system...there is
a slight delay when you press the brake pedal until you get some braking
action..just enough delay that until you get used to them you think "I
need more brake" and mash the pedal a little farther. About then you
find out you now have way to much brake, the nose dives and she lurches
to whichever side you've applied brake to..repeat until your eyes water.
G The airplane can make you look like a spastic idiot in a very short
time...but once you get the hang of it there is a great deal of
satisfaction in being able to smoothly taxi and park her. We used to
joke that if you had the skills to get it to the runway you could
probably fly it. G

By contrast the B-17 was very easy to taxi...she was however a wee bit
more challenging to land in a crosswind than the B-24.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

On Tue, 18 May 2004 19:12:44 -0800, Dale wrote:

once you get the hang of it there is a great deal of
satisfaction in being able to smoothly taxi and park her.

I think you have just hit upon the factor that makes taildragger
pilots so pleased with themselves.

I reckon I spent a thousand dollars just learning how to taxi the Cub.
But once I'd soloed in the sucker, no other airplane seemed genuine to
me. I even got a recreational rather than a private cert so I wouldn't
have to transition to the 172.

Since then I've flown the Husky, Great Lakes, and Super Cub, not to
mention the occasional Colt and 172, and still the only smoke that
satisfies is the J-3 Piper Cub. It's the Lucky Strike of light
aircraft.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

"EDR" wrote in message
...

As others have posted, the 172 is a forgiving aircraft and allows a
poorly trained student to slip through the system.

Damn, your eyes are brown.

In article , C J Campbell
wrote:

"EDR" wrote in message
...

As others have posted, the 172 is a forgiving aircraft and allows a
poorly trained student to slip through the system.

Damn, your eyes are brown.

Nope... blue like the sky!

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

I will put it plain. EDR's post was way off base. It was offensive. It
was
stupid. It contained a bunch of flat-out generalizations and old wives
tales
that at best are only slightly dangerous and at worst evidence of
serious
hatred. EDR owes an apology to flight instructors.

No, I don't.
I found out yesterday that the one 182 that was damaged badly, was
flown by the owner.
I also spoke with one of the instructors who has flown with him.
That checkout instructor told me point blank that the 182 was too much
airplane for that pilot and that he has been trying everything he can
think of to get the pilot's crosswind landings to be what they should.

Well... why did he sign him off if he didn't think the guy could handle
the airplane?
Probably because a) the airplane is on leaseback to the club, and b)
the guy owns the airplane. (Did I mention the owner is a lawyer?)
This is an old time instructor, too. But there is obviously a conflict
of interest.

Again, I go back to the original instructor and the examiner. Why was
this student allowed to take PPL flight test if he could not handle the
airplane to the PPL standards?

As others have posted, the 172 is a forgiving aircraft and allows a
poorly trained student to slip through the system.

And on this instance you generalize about all instructors and techniques?
Tailwheel training?