[Rant Warning] Tailwheel Training

In article , C J Campbell
wrote:

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.

And I am only 49 and learned got my PPL in 1980!
I'm such a crumudgeon!
The difference is, I learned to fly from the graybeards who taught me
not to make the mistakes they did.

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

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.

And I am only 49 and learned got my PPL in 1980!
I'm such a crumudgeon!
The difference is, I learned to fly from the graybeards who taught me
not to make the mistakes they did.

I am older than you, so mind your manners, Sonny! :-)

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.

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

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.

"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.

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.

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.

On 18 May 2004 07:20:58 -0700, (Dan
Thomas) wrote:

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.

IMHO one of the best responses in this thread, so far. As a low-time
VFR pilot, I tend to avoid commenting much on "flying" issues. As
someone who has been repeatedly painted with the "all mechanics are
idiot parts-changers" brush, I am truly tickled ****e-less by some of
the former world-famous flight instructor's responses.

After spending many years riding along with freight dogs (having
somebody to talk to helps keep 'em awake/alive) and manipulating the
controls-opposed to "flying", I was handed the opportunity to get my
PPL.

Honestly, after living at the airport and seeing more
airline-by-gosh-bound right-seat-indentured-servant instructors than I
can recall, I wasn't too keen on the idea. Of this group, I was only
exposed to one that behaved anything like a professional instructor.
After working next door to professional pilots with a median
experience greater than a random-picked half-dozen ABGBRSISIs
combined, the idea of learning to fly from an "instructor" that is
basically going through the motions while building hours didn't have a
lot of appeal.

I received my initial primary flight instruction in a classic
conventional gear no-flap no-gyro "unruly airplane" with no electrical
system, mechanical heel brakes, and a 65 hp Continental that preferred
to run on three cylinders while occasionally spitting oil on the
windshield. My primary instructor was a kid that had spent six of the
last eight years hauling checks (the other two years were spent
relief/missionary flying in Africa).

I was quickly forced to learn coordinated turns, how to fly with my
head outside of the cockpit (nuthin much to look at inside), the power
of a properly performed slip, spin recovery, proper airspeed/attitude
management to the basic power-off minimal-energy spot landing, and
that brakes don't really need to be used for anything but taxiing. I
also became quite proficient at precautionary/engine out landings.

There is absolutely positively no physical/mechanical reason that
these things cannot be taught/learned in a modern tricycle gear
trainer, but there is also no way that a "classic" airplane can be
flown properly and safely without learning them.

Possessing advanced and detailed systems knowledge of virtually every
common single-engine GA aircraft, combined with the solid foundation
in basic flying skills made transitioning to other aircraft stone
simple. The first time I ever flew a Bonanza (K35 fitted with a
*******-ized TW Smith engine and a BAC constant-speed propeller), I
felt it was the "easiest" flying/landing single in the world. Seven
years and a couple dozen aircraft models of varying brands later, I
still pretty much feel the same way.

CJ doesn't seem to want to admit it, but I've been exposed to about
the same percentage of pilots lacking what he would consider to be
essential basic VFR piloting skills as certificated mechanics that
lack what I would consider to be essential basic troubleshooting
skills.

That doesn't mean that he can't properly teach someone how to fly in a
tri-gear plane any more than it means that I can't properly maintain
it.

Although he feels that conventional gear aircraft experience is
unnecessay (FWIW I tend to agree), it does not mean that it has no
inherent value in learning to fly.

I don't feel that navigation needs to be performed with a sextant and
a chronometer, but I also feel that the hand-held GPS is a pile on the
ass that is basic map-based VFR navigation.

YMMV;

TC

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.

--
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"