[Rant Warning] Tailwheel Training

bad technique gets handed down from certificate mill
instructor to the next certificate mill instructor

There's another possible culprit...flying is so expensive that lots of
people simply don't want to spend the money to learn to fly well.

I also suspect that Part 141 instruction lends itself to turning out
pilots with marginal stick and rudder skills.

Greg Esres wrote in message . ..
bad technique gets handed down from certificate mill
instructor to the next certificate mill instructor

There's another possible culprit...flying is so expensive that lots of
people simply don't want to spend the money to learn to fly well.

I also suspect that Part 141 instruction lends itself to turning out
pilots with marginal stick and rudder skills.

I've noticed that "conversion training" into an RV-6 has drastically
improved both my aircraft handling and my situational awareness
(especially in the pattern). It no longer feels like I'm flying
around in a little bubble with the airplane about half a step in front
of me, like it used to in the 150's. The RV is much less forgiving
than the Cessna was, and really makes you be careful.

On Tue, 18 May 2004 15:49:51 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote:

In article , C J Campbell wrote:
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...

I'm sure it's always been the case that there's been a body of flight
instructors who can't teach (as well as students who aren't interested
in learning).

The main problem with dodgy flight instruction, as far as I can tell,
isn't that most students aren't taught in tailwheel planes but there's a
high number of "certificate mill" instructors who don't have much real
experience either of teaching or of flying. Because of this, old wives'
tales get propagated (the best one I've heard recently is "Never slip
the aircraft after you've had an engine failure as you'll lose airspeed
and might stall", and one I have recorded on video was "You let your
student solo on grass!? Isn't that dangerous?" from one CFI to another -
both CFIs, I might mention, were in their 30s). Not only do OWTs get
propagated simply because the instructor doesn't have the experience to
know better, but bad technique gets handed down from certificate mill
instructor to the next certificate mill instructor - such as thinking
that there's nothing wrong with a fast flat landing or touching down in
a slight crab instead of having the wheels moving in the direction of
travel over the ground.


This one is a little scary:

"Never slip
the aircraft after you've had an engine failure as you'll lose airspeed
and might stall",

....But this one made my day!!!

"You let your
student solo on grass!? Isn't that dangerous?"

If you really have that on video - make a backup and keep it forever.

Thanks,
z

"C J Campbell" wrote in message ...
"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.


Wow
That is quite an indictment towards us old gray haired guys. My
original instructor has a 6 digit license and still flies. He has
probably forgotten more than I'll know about aviation and much of what
he taught me is still valid.
During a recent flight review, the CFI wanted to pay me for the ride
after I showed him so many things that are not in the book or required
of new pilots.
I've made more mistakes than most but mainly because I got out there
in the tough world of ag and bush flying. The mistakes I made allows
me to teach new or lesser experienced pilots how to avoid those same
mistakes. They are free to learn their own! The regulations, radio
procedures, new avionics, additional restrictions on where and when we
can fly are all part of advancing technology. The flying is still the
same even when the aircraft are different. Many of the techniques that
are used in a J3 Cub are just as applicable to a slick turboprop or
jet.
As for the tail wheel discussions, I learned in tailwheel aircraft in
the 50's and now have someplace in the neighborhood of 8000 hours in
them with lots of it doing takeoff and landings. I've done a lot of
instructing in them as well and there is no doubt that the pilots who
learn to control tailwheel aircraft are much better with takeoffs and
landings than those who only fly trikes. It even shows in helicopters,
and yes I have a lot of time in them too. 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

"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.

The Air Force and Navy, both of whom ostensibly know something about flying,
do all their training in tricycle gear aircraft. Yet they arguably turn out
some of the best pilots in the world.

I have given initial pilot training in Cessna 172s to four Air Force Academy
graduates so far. All of them have been assigned to F-16s. Apparently the
Air Force is happy with my work.

I will tell you one thing about old pilots: I have never flown with a pilot
who had more than 15,000 hours who did not scare me to death. The last one,
a guy who had 17,000 hours and more than 7,000 hour in type (a twin), could
not hold altitude within 200 feet and had no idea how to set up an
instrument approach. He knew it, too.

There comes a time when a pilot goes from 'experienced' to 'washed up.'

In article , C J Campbell
wrote:

The Air Force and Navy, both of whom ostensibly know something about flying,
do all their training in tricycle gear aircraft. Yet they arguably turn out
some of the best pilots in the world.

I think their sylabus and standards are little tougher and higher than
that found in the FAA PTS and the way most civilian flight instructors
actually teach.

How many wannabe students do the military weed out in the interview
process, even before the training starts, followed by the washouts that
do meet the standards once training begins.

The civilians pay their money and get through it.
Some take more time, some less. Some are given multiple opportunities
to pass the test. The military decides when to cut its losses and not
spend more money on a losing proposition.

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

The Air Force and Navy, both of whom ostensibly know something about
flying,
do all their training in tricycle gear aircraft. Yet they arguably turn
out
some of the best pilots in the world.

I think their sylabus and standards are little tougher and higher than
that found in the FAA PTS and the way most civilian flight instructors
actually teach.

Then you think wrong. The Air Force guys use the same Cessna Pilot Center
syllabus and PTS standards as the rest of our students.


How many wannabe students do the military weed out in the interview
process, even before the training starts, followed by the washouts that
do meet the standards once training begins.

I have not had one wash out yet. In fact, none of our instructors have had
one wash out.

EDR wrote

I think their sylabus and standards are little tougher and higher than
that found in the FAA PTS and the way most civilian flight instructors
actually teach.

A "little tougher"? HA! With less than 100 hours in my logbook, the
final test in the T-28 formation flying course in addition to the
routine stuff, consisted of the check pilot (in his own T-28) leading
four student flown T-28s through a five plane, echelon right barrel
roll. I was unlucky enough to be number five. With 115 hours in the
book, I planted that thing on the deck of the USS Antietam in the Gulf
just off Pensacola.

How many wannabe students do the military weed out in the interview
process, even before the training starts, followed by the washouts
that do meet the standards once training begins.

The Cessna 172 course that CJ talks about is simply a "weed-em-out"
before they get to flight training program that the AF uses.

The civilians pay their money and get through it.
Some take more time, some less. Some are given multiple opportunities
to pass the test. The military decides when to cut its losses and not
spend more money on a losing proposition.

All true! All that it takes for a civilian to obtain a pilot
certificate is money and time. I once refused to "check-out" a new
Private Pilot in a C-172. He had simply "worn-down" his instructor and
examiner. I then called the examiner and "chewed-out" his butt.

Bob Moore