Tailwheel Training.
Thread Starter
Tailwheel Training.
Does anyone know where, in the North of England, (Lancs, Yorks, N.Lincs) I can rent a simple tailwheel aircraft to do some Tailwheel Conversions?
As more and more of the older aircraft, such as Piper Cubs, move onto a PtF, rather than a CofA, they become unavailable to rent, and, short of buying a PtF aircraft, (or a share in one) Tailwheel Conversions are becoming practically impossible.
This situation isn't going to get any better as older types move to a PtF, and, unless the hire of PtF aircraft is allowed for this purpose, tailwheel flying will surely become a thing of the past.
MJ
Ps. Simple aerobatic aircraft are going the same way, too!
As more and more of the older aircraft, such as Piper Cubs, move onto a PtF, rather than a CofA, they become unavailable to rent, and, short of buying a PtF aircraft, (or a share in one) Tailwheel Conversions are becoming practically impossible.
This situation isn't going to get any better as older types move to a PtF, and, unless the hire of PtF aircraft is allowed for this purpose, tailwheel flying will surely become a thing of the past.
MJ
Ps. Simple aerobatic aircraft are going the same way, too!
Last edited by Mach Jump; 7th Jan 2016 at 23:25.
I've asked the same question in the past - and failed to get a useful answer.
The vaunted future ANO changes and the ability for somebody to buy a 1/20th share in an aeroplane and train on it will open up things like Luscombes and J3s and may present a solution, but right at the moment, I don't think that the aeroplanes are out there.
G
The vaunted future ANO changes and the ability for somebody to buy a 1/20th share in an aeroplane and train on it will open up things like Luscombes and J3s and may present a solution, but right at the moment, I don't think that the aeroplanes are out there.
G
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 534
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The vaunted future ANO changes...
ifitaint...
Thread Starter
Thanks Genghis, and Ifitaint.
It's fine if the student has a share in, or owns his own 2 seat tailwheel aircraft.
The problem arises when this is not the case. For instance, if he has a share in, or owns a single seat tailwheel, he cannot do Differences Training in that.
Also, if he wants to do Differences Training so that he can fly tailwheels whenever the opportunity arises, but does not own an aircraft, or share, he is in the same boat.
In both these cases, the pilots need to be able to hire an aircraft in which to do the Differences Training.
Unfortunately, almost all the older tailwheel aircraft have now transfered to the LAA Permit to Fly, leaving mainly the more modern and complex(expensive) tailwheels still on a CofA.
MJ
It's fine if the student has a share in, or owns his own 2 seat tailwheel aircraft.
The problem arises when this is not the case. For instance, if he has a share in, or owns a single seat tailwheel, he cannot do Differences Training in that.
Also, if he wants to do Differences Training so that he can fly tailwheels whenever the opportunity arises, but does not own an aircraft, or share, he is in the same boat.
In both these cases, the pilots need to be able to hire an aircraft in which to do the Differences Training.
Unfortunately, almost all the older tailwheel aircraft have now transfered to the LAA Permit to Fly, leaving mainly the more modern and complex(expensive) tailwheels still on a CofA.
MJ
What there is scope for however now is, for example, for a school or instructor to buy a suitable aeroplane - let's say a Luscombe Silvaire on an LAA permit, then to sell 9 1/20th shares in it.
That aeroplane is still under the control of the owner/instructor/school, but with portions of control and ownership ceeded to the nine smaller shareholders. Those shareholders can do their tailwheel training in the aeroplane, then either keep flying it, or sell their shares on, or back to the majority owner.
Which is, broadly, how microlight schools often functioned for years until type-approved microlight hiring became legal, thus making this approach much less worth the bother.
G
That aeroplane is still under the control of the owner/instructor/school, but with portions of control and ownership ceeded to the nine smaller shareholders. Those shareholders can do their tailwheel training in the aeroplane, then either keep flying it, or sell their shares on, or back to the majority owner.
Which is, broadly, how microlight schools often functioned for years until type-approved microlight hiring became legal, thus making this approach much less worth the bother.
G
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: York
Age: 53
Posts: 797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mach Jump
I simply don't think you will find one - The regulations have killed it.
The flying school at Breighton used to have access to a chipmunk at 100 pounds an hour dry.
Unfortunately the owner got sick of six thousand pound annuals and replacement batteries costing 900 quid. Although the engine had only done 600 hours it was getting close to running out of years and with a quote of 24 thousand pounds to rebuild a gypsy the owner decided to move it to a permit. The aircraft has no doubt gone up in value because of this as well.
Perhaps the most annoying thing about this is the owner does no maintenance on it himself and is still maintained by the same maintenance company but its now costing him a lot less. But the end result is it can no longer be used for training.
The school did look at getting a Tecnam P96 taildragger but unfortunately this aircraft can't be used for instruction in the UK.
I think the only hope lies with the ANO review next year. If that allows flying schools to buy and then use permit aircraft even if its not for ab initio training then there may be hope. If not I think the industry will continue to spiral downwards.
I simply don't think you will find one - The regulations have killed it.
The flying school at Breighton used to have access to a chipmunk at 100 pounds an hour dry.
Unfortunately the owner got sick of six thousand pound annuals and replacement batteries costing 900 quid. Although the engine had only done 600 hours it was getting close to running out of years and with a quote of 24 thousand pounds to rebuild a gypsy the owner decided to move it to a permit. The aircraft has no doubt gone up in value because of this as well.
Perhaps the most annoying thing about this is the owner does no maintenance on it himself and is still maintained by the same maintenance company but its now costing him a lot less. But the end result is it can no longer be used for training.
The school did look at getting a Tecnam P96 taildragger but unfortunately this aircraft can't be used for instruction in the UK.
I think the only hope lies with the ANO review next year. If that allows flying schools to buy and then use permit aircraft even if its not for ab initio training then there may be hope. If not I think the industry will continue to spiral downwards.
Last edited by Mickey Kaye; 26th Jan 2016 at 07:19.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Soon you will need government permission to breathe.
The time has come to ignore their senseless rules and just fly what you want to as long as you are competent on it.
How did aviation get from the place where all basic training airplanes were tail wheel airplanes to where it is today?
The time has come to ignore their senseless rules and just fly what you want to as long as you are competent on it.
How did aviation get from the place where all basic training airplanes were tail wheel airplanes to where it is today?
