[Rant Warning] Tailwheel Training

EDR wrote in message ...
I just came from my flying club's office where I scheduled a plane for
tomorrow (Sunday).
Both of the club's 182 are down for inspections and maintenance after
hard landings. Two weeks ago, the club's Katana went down for the same
reason. Three airplanes in two weeks!!!
What are flight instructors allowing to pass for landings before
signing students off for solo and PPL's for checkouts!!!
If they are not holding the nosewheel off, they are going to break it
off or bend the firewall!!!
This is where tailwheel training comes in.
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.


The insurance for a tailwheel vs. similar nosewheel is amost as much
more as a retract vs. fixed gear. That should tell you something about
the rate of low time pilots putting tailwheels in the maintenance
shop.

-Robert, CFI (tailwheel and Mooney owner)

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om...

The insurance for a tailwheel vs. similar nosewheel is amost as much
more as a retract vs. fixed gear. That should tell you something about
the rate of low time pilots putting tailwheels in the maintenance
shop.

It never ceases to amaze me the stupid things seemingly sesnible people to.
Especially you EAA types. Three of these morons, all in their 60's and zero
TW time, each decided to build a tail wheel plane. The first contestant
decided to build an experimental version of a Piper Vagabond. He
groundlooped on his high speed taxi test, three times. He ground loops on
takeoff, on landing, ****, just getting in the damn thing. He has
groundlooped at least a dozen times. Got so damn funny somebody took a
screw gun and and screwed a set of training wheels off their kids bike onto
the wingtips. Somehow he has managed to only scrape the wing and not really
bend anything important. Second guy actually built a good performing
airplane. He built an experimental version of a PA-18. Took him exactly
two flights to end up on his nose. Minor damage to the prop and a new
spinner and he was good to go. Third moron, with thousands of hours in Navy
fighters and bombers and quite a few in a Mooney, decided to build a Kitfox.
This guy puts a full gyro panel in a Kitfox. Oh yeah he also put in an air
horn. You heard me, an airhorn, just like a semi. Two batteries and a
cargo pod later he is 50 pounds overgross with full tanks and just him in
the plane. 65 HP Rotax. With no wind he needs 2400 feet to get this crate
off the ground. Won't leave the ground until it gets to 50 MPH IAS. Max
cruise turns out to be 70 MPH IAS. Climbs at 300 fpm if he is lucky, needds
full forward stick just to stay airborne. Has a set of amphibs that were
supposed to be mounted. Never got the chance. Last Sunday he lost his
engine and landed with a 25 knot tailwind. Totally destroyed. He walked
away. He broke his back but he walked away. I look at these EAA guys and
it's clear the absolute worst thing that can happen is they actually finish
their plane.

In article , Robert M.
Gary wrote:

EDR wrote in message
...
I just came from my flying club's office where I scheduled a plane for
tomorrow (Sunday).
Both of the club's 182 are down for inspections and maintenance after
hard landings. Two weeks ago, the club's Katana went down for the same
reason. Three airplanes in two weeks!!!
What are flight instructors allowing to pass for landings before
signing students off for solo and PPL's for checkouts!!!
If they are not holding the nosewheel off, they are going to break it
off or bend the firewall!!!
This is where tailwheel training comes in.
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.


The insurance for a tailwheel vs. similar nosewheel is amost as much
more as a retract vs. fixed gear. That should tell you something about
the rate of low time pilots putting tailwheels in the maintenance
shop.

What you are saying reinforces my comments about poor quality
instructing. If instructors were doing their job properly and
correctly, these types of accidents would occur so frequently.
Next, one has to wonder about the DE's that are signing students off on
the PPL flight test!

EDR wrote in message
...
I just came from my flying club's office where I scheduled a plane for
tomorrow (Sunday).
Both of the club's 182 are down for inspections and maintenance after
hard landings. Two weeks ago, the club's Katana went down for the same
reason. Three airplanes in two weeks!!!
What are flight instructors allowing to pass for landings before
signing students off for solo and PPL's for checkouts!!!
If they are not holding the nosewheel off, they are going to break it
off or bend the firewall!!!
This is where tailwheel training comes in.
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.

In article , Robert M.
Gary wrote:
The insurance for a tailwheel vs. similar nosewheel is amost as much
more as a retract vs. fixed gear. That should tell you something about
the rate of low time pilots putting tailwheels in the maintenance
shop.

What you are saying reinforces my comments about poor quality
instructing. If instructors were doing their job properly and
correctly, these types of accidents would not occur so frequently.
Next, one has to wonder about the DE's that are signing students off on
the PPL flight test!

"Newps" wrote in message
...

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om...

The insurance for a tailwheel vs. similar nosewheel is amost as much
more as a retract vs. fixed gear. That should tell you something about
the rate of low time pilots putting tailwheels in the maintenance
shop.

Mostly because there are so few CFIs that know how to teach the basics.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
. com...

"Newps" wrote in message
...

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om...

The insurance for a tailwheel vs. similar nosewheel is amost as much
more as a retract vs. fixed gear. That should tell you something about
the rate of low time pilots putting tailwheels in the maintenance
shop.

Mostly because there are so few CFIs that know how to teach the basics.

Then there never in the entire history of aviation been CFIs that know how
to teach the basics. Tailwheel aircraft have always had a higher accident
rate than tricycle gear aircraft and they always will. There is absolutely
no reason to learn to fly a tailwheel aircraft unless you plan on owning one
or have some other special need, such as bush piloting or you are a CFI who
wants to instruct in them.

Tailwheel aircraft are obsolete. The only reason some people still build
them is to satisfy a bunch of macho technophobes who run around spreading
the myth that 'real' pilots fly tailwheel aircraft. If you are so insecure
that you need to do that then it is useless to point out that tailwheel
aircraft will make you no more of a man than any other airplane will.

The only reason tailwheel aircraft lasted as long as they did was because
the puny engines of the day needed to swing a bigger propeller than a
tricycle airplane can handle. Apparently there are a few pilots on this
forum who want a bigger propeller in order to compensate for something else.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
. com...

"Newps" wrote in message
...

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om...

The insurance for a tailwheel vs. similar nosewheel is amost as much
more as a retract vs. fixed gear. That should tell you something
about
the rate of low time pilots putting tailwheels in the maintenance
shop.

Mostly because there are so few CFIs that know how to teach the basics.

Then there never in the entire history of aviation been CFIs that know how
to teach the basics. Tailwheel aircraft have always had a higher accident
rate than tricycle gear aircraft and they always will. There is absolutely
no reason to learn to fly a tailwheel aircraft unless you plan on owning
one
or have some other special need, such as bush piloting or you are a CFI
who
wants to instruct in them.

Tailwheel aircraft are obsolete. The only reason some people still build
them is to satisfy a bunch of macho technophobes who run around spreading
the myth that 'real' pilots fly tailwheel aircraft. If you are so insecure
that you need to do that then it is useless to point out that tailwheel
aircraft will make you no more of a man than any other airplane will.

The only reason tailwheel aircraft lasted as long as they did was because
the puny engines of the day needed to swing a bigger propeller than a
tricycle airplane can handle. Apparently there are a few pilots on this
forum who want a bigger propeller in order to compensate for something
else.

Basics are basics. Doesn't matter where the small wheel is.

"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.

"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.

If you are so insecure
that you need to do that then it is useless to point out that tailwheel
aircraft will make you no more of a man than any other airplane will.

Well...flying a taildragger didn't make me more of a man, thank God, but it
did make my boobs bigger.

That comment and the rest in this particular post is based on ignorance.
Folks fly tailwheel airplanes because they are just plain fun! Anyway, it's
hard to swagger away from a C-172.

Deb
--
1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
Jasper, Ga. (JZP)