[Rant Warning] Tailwheel Training

In article ,
wrote:

That reminds me, went to a Waco fly-in at an airfield somewhere south
of Dayton Ohio back around '91 or 2.

(KHAO) Hamilton, Ohio

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.

Well CJ, here's one 69 year old pilot that thinks that you're full
of ****! I logged my 20,000th hour about 12 years ago and I spent
this past Friday out teaching spins to a Private Pilot who wanted
some advanced instruction. As a bonus, I threw in a few "to-the-
stops" flap 40 slips in his C-172.


Yup...you scared him to death.

Right on! I guess the required placard that prohibits full flap slips doesn't
mean anything. Just what we need; Someone teaching students that it's "OK" to
do prohibited or unauthorized maneuvers. Dosen't matter if "he" can get away
with it. Reminds me of the guy who posted some time back about the instructor
who looped his Cessna during a lesson. If anyone ever did that while giving a
lesson to my wife I'd rat him out to the FAA at the least and wouldn't want to
consider the worst.

Jim

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message ...
"Bob Moore" wrote in message
. 6...
"C J Campbell" wrote

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.

Well CJ, here's one 69 year old pilot that thinks that you're full
of ****! I logged my 20,000th hour about 12 years ago and I spent
this past Friday out teaching spins to a Private Pilot who wanted
some advanced instruction. As a bonus, I threw in a few "to-the-
stops" flap 40 slips in his C-172.


Yup...you scared him to death.

What's wrong with full-slipping a 172 with 40 flap? We do that, and
the airplane won't drop nearly as radically as a Citabria. The 172's
rudder is mostly cosmetic, I think.

Dan

(JFLEISC) wrote

Right on! I guess the required placard that prohibits full flap slips
doesn't mean anything. Just what we need; Someone teaching students
that it's "OK" to do prohibited or unauthorized maneuvers. Dosen't
matter if "he" can get away with it. Reminds me of the guy who posted
some time back about the instructor who looped his Cessna during a
lesson. If anyone ever did that while giving a lesson to my wife I'd
rat him out to the FAA at the least and wouldn't want to consider the
worst.

Come down off your high horse sonny. No where in the airplane is there
a placard that states "prohibited" about anything. Doesn't say anything
about "unauthorized" either. I don't have the POH here in front of me
at the time, but as I recall it does say something about slips and flaps
during landing, but at 4,000' AGL, we wern't anywhere near landing.

I repost this excerpt from a book written by William Thompson, Manager of
Flight Test and Aerodynamics at the Cessna Aircraft Company. I take it
that you didn't read the entire paragraph posted earlier in another thread.

"For this reason a caution note was placed in most of the owner's manuals
under "Landings" reading "Slips should be avoided with flap settings
greater than 30° due to a downward pitch encountered under certain
combinations of airspeed, side-slip angle, and center of gravity loadings".

Bob Moore

JFLEISC wrote:
Right on! I guess the required placard that prohibits full flap slips doesn't
mean anything. Just what we need; Someone teaching students that it's "OK" to
do prohibited or unauthorized maneuvers. Dosen't matter if "he" can get away
with it. Reminds me of the guy who posted some time back about the instructor
who looped his Cessna during a lesson. If anyone ever did that while giving a
lesson to my wife I'd rat him out to the FAA at the least and wouldn't want to
consider the worst.

Jim

Jim,

methinks that it is you that is full of (sh)it...

There is no prohibition against slipping most 172 models with full
flaps. Only certain models mention it in the manual. It is not
a required placard.

MikeM

How can you get in trouble in a tripacer? I find it almost TOO forgiving.

mike regish

"Dan Thomas" wrote in message
om...
"Newps" wrote in message
...
"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.

Oh, man. Have you never flown a Champ or Cub or some other older
design that had lots of adverse yaw, and that might flick over into a
spin if you skidded it around the base-to-final turn? One that
required some serious attention in most maneuvers if you were going to
gain any proficiency in it at all? Even if it's rigged perfectly?
These older designs make the pilot aware of his need for precision,
and once he learns it his flying of all other aircraft improves
enormously. In 12 years here I've seen these taildraggers cure a lot
of sloppiness. We've used them to demonstrate the skidding-turn spin,
thereby showing the student what eventually awaits him if he gets
stupid at low altitude. Some guys get their PPL in a 172 or Warrior
and then go buy an old 140 or Champ or Tri-Pacer and get into trouble
almost immediately.
We also use the Citabria for emergency maneuvers training (basic
aerobatics) to show the control inputs required to get an airplane
upright again if control is lost in extreme turbulence or wake
turbulence. Try THAT in a 172.
A plane is not a plane. That idea has killed way to many
uninitated folks.

Dan

No where in the airplane is there
a placard that states "prohibited" about anything. Doesn't say anything
about "unauthorized" either. I don't have the POH here in front of me
at the time, but as I recall it does say something about slips and flaps
during landing, but at 4,000' AGL, we wern't anywhere near landing.



I have our '61 C-172 POH in front of me and it lists 'authorized' operations.
I guess if it's not on the list "my" interpretation would be "unauthorized". It
also goes on to state 'No acrobatic manuvers are approved except those listed
below'. Loops wasn't one of them. I guess it was "my" interpretation that if it
wasn't 'approved' it was "prohibited". As for the prohibited 40 slip placard,
it was an AD, I believe, and my A&P put it (the label, placard, whatever you
want to call it) on the flap handle. I argued about it and he showed me the AD
number (please don't make me dig that one up) and instructions.

In article ,
Bob Moore wrote:


Come down off your high horse sonny. No where in the airplane is there
a placard that states "prohibited" about anything. Doesn't say anything
about "unauthorized" either. I don't have the POH here in front of me
at the time, but as I recall it does say something about slips and flaps
during landing, but at 4,000' AGL, we wern't anywhere near landing.


Depends on which year 172it is. I was looking at Info Manuals a while
back concerning the slips with flaps stuff and found 2 years (66 and 67
I think it was) that do Prohibit slips with flaps. The year prior and
the years after do not prohibit slips -- which is odd since there are no
big changes to the airframe (the extended dorsal came along in '73).

--
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 ,
(JFLEISC) wrote:


I have our '61 C-172 POH in front of me and it lists 'authorized'
operations.
I guess if it's not on the list "my" interpretation would be "unauthorized".
It
also goes on to state 'No acrobatic manuvers are approved except those listed
below'. Loops wasn't one of them. I guess it was "my" interpretation that if
it
wasn't 'approved' it was "prohibited". As for the prohibited 40 slip placard,
it was an AD, I believe, and my A&P put it (the label, placard, whatever you
want to call it) on the flap handle. I argued about it and he showed me the
AD
number (please don't make me dig that one up) and instructions.

So does it actually say in your Owners Manual that slips with flaps are
prohibited? In my reply to Bob Moore you'll see that I've found that
different years have different procedures slips with flaps...curious
about your '61 model.

I've never seen slips mentioned as an authorized operation on any of the
airplanes I've flown and certainly wouldn't consider them prohibited
simply because they weren't mentioned. The airplane is licensed in the
normal category which allows "any maneuvers incidental to normal
flying"...slips certainly aren't abnormal for light aircraft.

--
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 Wed, 19 May 2004 22:27:00 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:

Personally, I think the manufacturer probably has a better idea of how the
airplane should be flown than a bunch of Usenet know-it-alls. You pitch for
airspeed, not for position of the yoke. If you can't control your airspeed,
you have serious problems.

Dude, have been reading your stuff for quite awhile here in the
groups, always enjoyed it. Am really having a tuff time figuring out
just what is going on inside yer head on this one.

WTF are you trying to say here? I expect "the manufacturer" to provide
me with basic operating limitations, and I'll follow them to the
letter. Flap "speeds", gear extend/retract "speeds", never exceed
"speeds", operating weight/moment/envelope limitations, etc. I expect
the Feds to set operating limitations, how I can fly, where I can fly,
even when I can fly, I'll follow them also.

Other than that, I'll fly the damn thing in whatever manner I choose
as PIC. Is Cessna/Piper/Beech going to tell me how to deal with the
infinite combinations of day-to-day
TO/climb/cruise/descend/approach/land flight conditions? Heck no, they
are going to shoot for the average and hope for the best.

Screw the average. For that matter, screw any pilot that is happy with
being "average".

I've never flown two "identical" make/ model aircraft that reacted in
exactly the same manner to control inputs, and I've never been lucky
enuff to fly on two days where the temperature/humidity/winds were the
same.

I really couldn't care less whether or not a CFI feels a "standard
stabilized approach" profile is the only one acceptable. If I feel
like doing one, I will, if I don't I won't.

"Pitch for airspeed"-real original. "If you can't control your
airspeed, you have serious problems" No ****? My all-time favorite is
"all you really need to fly is oil pressure". Doh! Forgot about the
glider rating-that one won't work. Know-it-all? I don't know squat,
and am not afraid to prove it!

You have just convinced me that flying taildraggers not only does not make
you a better pilot, it makes you worse to the point of being destructive.
The Cessna 172 was not meant to be landed like a tailwheel aircraft.
Attempts to do that are both dangerous and wasteful.

You have apparently been trying really, really hard to convince me
that you are incapable of thinking anywhere outside of the lines of
your own personal experience. What exactly is "dangerous and
wasteful" about setting up a Cessna 172 for a full-stall spot landing
at an altitude of 4-6 inches AGL and an infinitesimal rate of descent
if local conditions will permit it, and the PIC can perform it? What
part of this is going to put the tail tie-down into the pavement? At
this point, who really cares what the "airspeed" is?

Not only that, I am increasingly disturbed by tailwheel pilots' obsession
with landing as the only measure of the quality of a pilot. It really tells
me something -- like, they don't know how to do anything else. I hope you
will excuse me now. It is obvious that I have disturbed a bunch of religious
fanatics.

Last time I checked, most GA pilots tend to bend things after running
out gas, or at some point in the sequence of events involved in
ceasing to fly. Not that there is a limit to the inventive ways they
can make the media think that the sky is falling.

Do you instruct pilots in airplanes, at airports? Do the BFR deal?
You mean to tell me that you've never been exposed to an
obsessed/possessed pilot before? With some it's airspeed, some
stalling-and-dying, strictly overhead mid-field pattern guys, only
carrier-landing gals, always looking at the instruments, never looking
at the instruments, hog the freq or ignore the comms, some are afraid
of the pavement, some are not afraid of anything.

Never met one without an ego.

Why do you think it would be any different here?

puzzled, not ****ed-off;

TC