tailwheel rating

[Clintonb]

so im thinking of doing some spin training plus get to fly a tailwheel plane and better my skills with the flight controls. but been pondering whether to spend a little bit extra and just bust out few days it takes to get a tail wheel rating .. was hoping to get some input on what you guys recon, worth getting it? will it benefit later on or just be something thats printed on my license and just ends up looking good being on my license than help me at all. so just go and do few hours spin training or add on top of that the tailwheel rating...
look for to hearing what you guys got to say

[XLC]

The rating is paperwork. The experience though is valuable. First of all your focus on the landings will improve. If on top of that you train in a plane that has more aileron drag you will become more pro-active with the rudder too. If after the first couple of hours you fly a C172 for example you will suddenly realise how comfortable and forgiving a plane it is. Overall a great experience, for me anyway. (There are several threads on this topic, read some of these)

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'd say it has significant value. Firstly, flying a taildragger - or more accurately flying take-offs and landings in a taildragger will develop and improve your handling skills to a large extent. Secondly, many of the most fun aeroplanes available to a PPL (to name just two, the SuperCub and the Chipmunk) are taildgraggers. Third, to anybody who cares to look it says that you are somebody with a passion for flying, rather than just somebody who likes being seen in an aeroplane.

Go for it.

G

[Dan the weegie]

Genghis basically said it, it also gives you the opportunity to sneer at Pilots with no tailwheel experience and talk about their "training wheel" :D (all in jest of course)

The reality is though that tailwheel teaches you some valuable handling but also it gives you some valuable experience in go-around decision making, one of the things you learn quite rapidly is that it's much harder to recover a rubbish approach and as such you are more comfortable with the concept of going around being a smart decision. There's a very common thought amongst inexperienced pilots that every approach is followed by a landing, no matter how crappy the approach is. You simply cannot afford to have this attitude in a tailwheel aircraft :).

[osmosis]

To Clintonb and any other pilot wanting to spread their wings a little: DO IT! You will soon realise what rudder pedals are REALLY for and will never look back.

Thank us later.

[Pilot DAR]

Yes, go take the tail wheel training! For all the reasons mentioned....

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

It'll teach you to land properly (unless of course you already can!). Tailwheel aeroplanes will not tolerate sloppy technique when landing. Trikes will.

[Ds3]

I have every intention of getting a tail wheel rating once I've got my PPL for all the reasons above! How else will I get to fly the Pitts?! :cool:

[Jim59]

There's a very common thought amongst inexperienced pilots that every approach is followed by a landing, no matter how crappy the approach is.


Some misguided glider pilots think that as well :-)

[Genghis the Engineer]

Every approach, to be fair, is eventually followed by the aeroplane being stationary on the ground. The shape and location of that stationary aeroplane is the matter in question.

G

[joelgarabedian]

Go for it Clintonb! I loved every minute of my tailwheel differences training (done in a Super Decathlon), and really felt my handling skills improving.

I still fly the Super Decathlon regularly (in addition to tricycle types), and nothing brings a bigger smile to my face than managing a really good landing in the Super Decathlon :ok:

[Jim59]

I learnt to fly on a taildragger. Why is differences training not required to convert to nosewheel?

[hatzflyer]

yeah its well wicked innit

[Mark 1]

I learnt to fly on a taildragger. Why is differences training not required to convert to nosewheel?

The NPPL requires differences training to go from tailwheel to tricycle

[stiknruda]

Ds3

It will change your life!

Stik


Aerobatic Display Team | Wildcat Aerobatics (http://www.wildcataerobatics.com)

[Ds3]

Stik have sent you a PM :cool:

[Mark1234]

I learnt to fly on a taildragger. Why is differences training not required to convert to nose wheel?

Even more illogically (to me at least), despite doing my skills test on a tailwheel, I (apparently) had to have a 'differences' sticker to fly tailwheel..

Either way, to the OP, in case you didn't get the message already: DO IT :ok:

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I learnt to fly on a taildragger. Why is differences training not required to convert to nosewheel?

Because if you can fly tailwheel, nosewheel is easy. The converse does not apply.

[Dan the weegie]

Mark1234 It's a JAR-OPS (or Jar FCL) requirement that you have a sticker, how you get that sticker is up to the instructor to satisfy himself that you're competent to fly a tailwheel aircraft, it's hardly a big deal :)

Mark 1, that's completely incorrect

The list of differences that require training as per LASORS 2010 is as follows.

VP prop,
retractable undercarriage
Turbo/Supercharged Engines
Cabin Pressurisation
Tail-Wheel
EFIS
Single Lever Power Control.

There's absolutely no need for differences training (which would necessitate a sticker in your logbook) on a nose-wheel aircraft. Although it would have been prudent for your flying club/syndicate to insist on some instructor time before flying an unfamiliar type.

Incidentally anyone that doesn't have a sticker should get one :)

[1.3VStall]

Dan,

I have been flying taildraggers for years (on an old CAA valid for life PPL). I have never had a "sticker". Should I get one?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Wot 1.3 said. Plus, from when I part-owned a yak52 many years ago, retract, VP, supercharged.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I think that a sticker (or entry and signature) is always prudent, even if not strictly required, since it can avoid complications if somebody asks difficult questions in the future.

Subverting the conversation a bit, I wonder from the list:

VP prop,
retractable undercarriage
Turbo/Supercharged Engines
Cabin Pressurisation
Tail-Wheel
EFIS
Single Lever Power Control.
What's the maximum number of those you can manage to require on a single aeroplane?

My personal record is I think only 4 on one aeroplane (VP prop, retract, turbo and EFIS) on a G1000 equipped Turbo-Arrow, but there must be aeroplanes that require more of them at once?

Any advance on my four?

G

[RodgerF]

If you were flying aircraft which would now require differences training before the advent of JAR, your have 'grandfather' rights so do not need the sticker.

[mad_jock]

The sticker thing is a pile of bollocks and there are huge numbers out there that don't have them for aircraft that they have flown for years.

There are a load out there that say you have grandfather rights that as long as you have some time in your log book from pre JAR you are able to fly them.

I got someone to sign off stickers for VP prop,pressurisation,retractable and EFIS. Just in case but then again I have never flown a SEP with any of the above.

I don't think it matters just now but come EASA things might change. I can just see some french inspector wanting to see your differences training and the sticker is at home in your first log book.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I got someone to sign off stickers for VP prop,pressurisation,retractable and EFIS. Just in case but then again I have never flown a SEP with any of the above.

I've never flown anything pressurised as pilot, but am told by those who have flown both piston and jet aircraft with pressurisation that the pressurisation of a piston engined aeroplane is so different from turbine aircraft that you'd be wise to get that bit of training done from scratch anyhow if you do.

G

[Unusual Attitude]

I did look into the grandfather rights recently, cant remember the exact date but you have to have logged the time on type prior to some point in 2001. Fortunately for me means I have grandfather rights for tailwheel.....

Didnt get a 'sticker' for VP or Retractable?!?!, just a sign off in my logbook during my CPL though it was several years ago....

Tailwheel is a hoot, you'll love it !! (though sometimes not so much in a hot ship with a gusty crosswind!) :\

[mad_jock]

It depends Genghis.

If you did your pressurisation on a fancy commercial where basically you stick in your landing altitude and it sorts the rest out I would say thats correct.

But if you learn't your trade on an old heap which has a manual differential setup with variable cabin climb rates and variable flows its slightly different. Every system is different and although learning what knobs do what takes a few mins. Its more the fact that you have it in your work cycle to constantly monitor the sod that has any effect on the safety of using it. You can laugh but even in my TP I work on a 10 min cycle and its.

Top panel for the electrics, down through the engine instruments, across to check the nav boxes and then down to the hydraulics and then the pressurisation. I have lost count how many times I have picked up stuff doing this, usually a good time before it will fire off the CAP panel.

[Mark 1]

Mark 1, that's completely incorrect

Maybe you need to check Sch.7 of the ANO

SSEA class rating
(1) Subject to paragraph (2) and to the conditions of the licence in which it is included, a
SSEA class rating entitles the holder to act as pilot in command of any SSEA with a
maximum take off weight authorised of not more than 2000kg excluding any such
aeroplane which is a SLMG or a microlight aeroplane.
(2) (a) If the current certificate of revalidation for the rating is endorsed "single seat only"
the holder is only entitled to act as pilot in command of a single seat SSEA.
(b) (i) If the aeroplane:
(aa) is fitted with a tricycle undercarriage;;
(bb) is fitted with a tailwheel;
(cc) is fitted with a supercharger or turbo-charger;
(dd) is fitted with a variable pitch propeller;
(ee) is fitted with retractable landing gear;
(ff) is fitted with a cabin pressurisation system; or
(gg) has a maximum continuous cruising speed in excess of 140 knots
indicated airspeed,
before exercising the privileges of the rating, the holder must complete
appropriate differences training.
(ii) The differences training must be given by a flight instructor entitled to
instruct on the aeroplane on which the training is being given, recorded in
the holder's personal flying logbook and endorsed and signed by the
instructor conducting the training.

[Dan the weegie]

Well there you go, something stupid in the ANO.
I'm pretty sure all of the Flying Examiners I've met didn't even know that was a requirement.

That said, what I mentioned already stands, it's sensible to take an instructional flight on a new aircraft type which would account for "appropriate differences training". Just make sure you get your logbook signed :)/stickered.

It's still completely wrong even if it is in the ANO.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I confess that I hadn't spotted the 140 kias differences requirement before either.

G

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I guess that as was 'signed off' as OK by the checkout instructor on the Chippy (back in 1979) and the Yak (some years later) I'm covered.

[Mark 1]

I never had any stickers to put in log books.
As has been said, grandfather rights pertain for SEP differences (presumably SSEA too, but don't quote me on it). So any pre-JAR experience would remove the specific requirement for an instructor sign-off.

In the absence of specific guidelines, I usually put an entry of "type training for ..... and differences training for .... completed satisfactorily" with signature and number in the log book.

On occasion, I would send someone solo on grass with tailwheel, before completing the training on hard runways and wheel landings etc. To be solo, did they needed the sign-off or was it the same as instructor supervised solo for a student. Generally I signed off at that stage, but carried on with the tailwheel check-out afterwards.

[BillieBob]

I don't understand this obsession with stickers. This is just another piece of UK CAA bolleaux introduced by someone who doesn't understand the requirements (which includes just about anyone in L&TS these days). All that is required by JAR-FCL is that the instructor carrying out the differences training signs the logbook, not some scruffy piece of sticky paper.

[MIKECR]

I dont know why people are getting so worked up about the sticker thing. Its just a simple little thing that can be stuck on the relevant page(ratings or whatever) in someones logbook that shows what the nature of the differences training was and the date it was completed. A quick reference guide if you like. Saves having to trawl through pages of logbook entries to find the relevant training flights and Instructor endorsement. I always use them if I carry out differences training with someone.

[kaz3g]

I take trike pilots for a run in my 0-320 powered Auster and they soon learn that the rudder is more than a foot rest.

They also learn that they have to fly the aeroplane all the time when it's bumpy lest they also test their skills at recovery from unusual attitides.

And they come to realise that a good approach is essential when they lose sight of the runway in front of them while still travelling at 40+ knots some feet in the air above it.

kaz3g

[Clintonb]

Thanks to everyone for the great response beginning next year i will hope to do my tailwheel endorsement. just one more question anyone know of a good and well priced flight school in Florida that does training in a tail dragger??? and any specific aircraft that i should look for to do the training in or it doesn't really matter what type of aircraft it is, of course as long as it is a tailwheel.
Thanks again for all the great info, hope you all had a Merry Christmas and have a Happy New Year.
Safe flying

[n5296s]

So if you don't have any stickers (nor grandfather rights), you can't fly anything that has either a nosewheel or a tailwheel. Me-263 anyone? I guess a tail SKID would be OK?

[BroomstickPilot]

Hi Clintonb,

These days there is a certain amount of very poor tailwheel training on the market, so be careful whom you go to. For preference, go to a high hours career instructor. All too commonly, club instructors don't teach the wheeler landing technique and some don't even teach crosswind landing at all, which is SCANDALOUS.

Remember also that some tail-draggers are easier than others to taxi or land. The Tiger Moth and the Cub are easy, however the Auster for example was a bugger.

In a tricycle, you more or less drive to the runway hold and only really start flying once you have lined up for takeoff. Once landed and off the runway, you more or less drive back to the apron.

In a tail dragger you are flying the aeroplane from the moment you release the brakes to commence taxiing to the runway to the moment you shut the engine down after parking on the apron. While taxiing, you have to weave from side to side to see round the nose and know which way to hold the control column to avoid one wing lifting.

I did my PPL on tailwheel aircraft, (or conventional undercarriage as we called it in those days) in 1960 on Austers, when we were nearly all taildragger pilots. I was taught by a guy who had flown heavy, multi-engine tail draggers through much of WWII, and he taught both three point and wheeler (aka roller) landings and both crabbing and wing-down approaches. I suggest you regard these as a bosic requirement. In particular, I was taught to use wheeler landings always whenever landing cross wind.

When I returned to taildraggers in 2005, after a break of many years, I was taught only the wing-down approach and to use a two point, one wing down method of cross wind landing (which, incidentally I had never seen before). I soon found that this was adequate only for light to moderate cross winds. Using this technique in a wind that had grown probably a bit too strong while I was airborne, I had my first and only ever ground-loop.

I also strongly recommend that before training you first read 'The Compleat Taildragger Pilot' by H. S. Plourde and then you will know what you need and whether you are getting your money's worth.

Above all, go ahead and do it; it will sharpen up your flying skills.

Good luck!

BroomstickPilot.

[foxmoth]

Every approach, to be fair, is eventually followed by the aeroplane being stationary on the ground. The shape and location of that stationary aeroplane is the matter in question.

G

Ghengis, you should know better! A crappy approach should be followed by a GA instead of an arrival (there are those of course with the experience to convert a poor approach to a good landing - these are normally experienced instructors), but NO approach should end with the aircraft in anything other than a fly able aircraft.

As far as:-
These days there is a certain amount of very poor tailwheel training on the market, so be careful whom you go to. For preference, go to a high hours career instructor. All too commonly, club instructors don't teach the wheeler landing technique and some don't even teach crosswind landing at all, which is SCANDALOUS.

Remember also that some tail-draggers are easier than others to taxi or land. The Tiger Moth and the Cub are easy, however the Auster for example was a bugger.
I certainly agree with the first bit, never had a problem landing an Auster though (and I have flown a few in my time), never was a great fan of them though.:ok:

[Genghis the Engineer]

Foxmoth, I said eventually, not immediately. Of-course a crappy approach should be followed by a GA, but the aeroplane will still have to stop on the ground some time.

G

[Piper.Classique]

Tugging with the Super Cub polishes your landings nicely. I remember one fine day at Lasham logging seven hours in G-ATRG. And, yes, I would have rather done seven hours in a glider! :D

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

One of the vital skills of the tailwheel pilot is the ability to collect the aeroplane off a bad bounce, never mind a cr@p approach, and land it. This must be second nature; if you do nothing, the subsequent coming to earth, or if you are lucky, certainly the one after that, will seriously damage the aeroplane.

The inbuilt auto-response to add power, get the tail up/nose down (not too far), then re-land (or go around if there is insufficient runway) must be there.

I remember one check out pilot in the Chippy back in '70s would deliberatley bang it on nose-low, whereupon it would bounce, nose now heading skyward as the airspeed dribbled back... "You have control", he'd shout.

[Pilot DAR]

The inbuilt auto-response to add power, get the tail up/nose down (not too far), then re-land (or go around if there is insufficient runway) must be there.

Yes! I was suddenly reminded of this when a mighty hand appeared from the right, and pushed the power levers way up, after I bounced a landing in the DC-3. The "fight" (to land) instinct suddenly must turn to "flee", when the training pilot tells you you're going around! I had been too fixated on completing the landing.

Since then, I've not been ashamed to go around the odd time, when I bounced a taildragger.

[foxmoth]

Tugging with the Super Cub polishes your landings nicely. I remember one fine day at Lasham logging seven hours in G-ATRG. And, yes, I would have rather done seven hours in a glider!

It's not the hours, it's the landings, how many in the 7 hours? Did 14 dH82a trial lessons in one day, that certainly polishes them - did another day, 7 t/l in the Moth in 30kts+ of wind, another one that really polishes them!

[Genghis the Engineer]

I did look into the grandfather rights recently, cant remember the exact date but you have to have logged the time on type prior to some point in 2001. Fortunately for me means I have grandfather rights for tailwheel.....

Although good airmanship might suggest that if you've not flown an aircraft class for over a decade, a little quality time with an instructor might be sensible, and if you're doing that, you may as well ask them to sign your logbook.

G

[MIKECR]

The guidance material in lasors actually states that if you havent flown the applicable type/variant within the SEP class for 2 years then refresher training with an instructor is recommended. Its not mandatory of course, but 2 years is the recommended gap.

[Piper.Classique]

It's not the hours, it's the landings, how many in the 7 hours? Did 14 dH82a trial lessons in one day, that certainly polishes them - did another day, 7 t/l in the Moth in 30kts+ of wind, another one that really polishes them! Well, it was tugging.........
So a minimum of 42 if a tow takes ten minutes, but that's a pretty slow turnaround, usually seven to nine to the hour if the ground operation is fairly good and the glider pilots pull off not too high.

[500 above]

Foxmoth only 18? Is that because Mr. Black couldn't find anymore punters! Those were great days.

[GeeWhizz]

Chaps, found this amazing piece of work on a Google 'tailwheel' search:

In praise of airplane tail-draggers and grass-roots flying (http://www.happylanding.com/articles/12%20in%20praise%20of%20tail-draggers.htm)

It's Canadian, but very funny and some elements of the narrative are important.

Enjoy!

[FlyingLapinou]

Thanks, GeeWhizz, I enjoyed that (I can't have been the only one, surely?), and some of the other articles on that website :)

This one (http://www.happylanding.com/articles/23%20how%20to%20look%20stupid%20without%20even%20flying.htm) made me chuckle, too.

[rusty sparrow]

In praise of airplane tail-draggers and grass-roots flying is one of the best tailwheel articles I've read - thanks for posting. Lot of good, practical advice plus humour.

[kaz3g]

Do the TW endorsement -- it will improve your stick and rudder skills no end.

But do the spin training. too. It may just save your life.

I have a J5D Auster with a 160hp 0-320 that gets along at 100 kn TAS. The demonstrated x-wind max is 9 kn.

It keeps me very honest :-)

kaz