[Rant Warning] Tailwheel Training

"Henry and Debbie McFarland" wrote in message
link.net...
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 your rant is typical of the instructor we all fear.... Of the fifteen
or
so CFI's I have flown with for various checkouts, the best were those who
were proficient in ALL types of aircraft, including tailwheel.


And my point is that it is no more fair to say that all the modern
instructors are incompetent than it is to say that all the old pilots are
incompetent. I myself am an older pilot, a gray haired old geezer (if I
actually had any hair).

My other point is that it does not take tailwheel training to learn to land
an airplane. It is something you should be taught no matter what airplane
you fly. Blaming instructors just because they have no tailwheel training is
way off the mark.

The funniest thing, though, is that the guy who took me most severely to
task about tailwheel training has no rudder pedals at all on his airplane!
(And a beautiful airplane it is, too!)

And I won't even make mention of the fact that the guy who had his head down
in the cockpit trying to read his map when he ran into another airplane near
Tenino on Sunday was flying a tailwheel airplane. That is just a cheap shot,
so I won't mention it. Nope, not me. :-)

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"

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.

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.

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.


Amen to that!

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"