Taught one to be 'in charge' as well. Isn't that what Captaincy is all about?
I very much agree. As a pilot, you will fly different aircraft, and with different people aboard with you. A competent instructor will climb in with you, and within minutes of the onset of each phase of flight, figure out where your skills need work. Fly with different instructors.
To this day (35 years later) I cannot understand how so many pilots are 'OK' with the appalling handling of spam cans.
Thread drift warning...
I do not accept this somewhat elitist statement. EVERY airplane is a compromise in some or many ways. The biggest compromise commonly seen being toward simplicity and low cost. To this day (38 years later), I have flown 81 different types of aircraft. From this I have learned that every one lacked something the others had. Some lacked more, others lacked less. I have flown two types which were pretty well all round not very nice to fly, but they were both excellent rough runway cargo haulers, and that was what they were designed for - one being the giant spam can DC-3.
There are some truly delightful, well harmonized aircraft out there - the RV-4 comes to mind. Beautiful to fly, but you can't carry anything bigger than a lunch bag in it.
Both of my planes are massive compromises, and certainly not the nicest planes to fly, but each, in it's own way, does the job well. One is the second most prolific GA aircraft ever, and is cheap and easy to maintain and repair (if ever needed, but never had to). No vices, and when I stick a mainwheel in the mud, or snow, I can lift it out by the wing all by myself. The other is a total misery on the runway, and fairly poor in the air - just not nice to fly. It really keeps my flying skills sharp. But when you feel the keel kiss the water perfectly, and you bump the mainwheels safely up to a previously unvisited rocky shoreline, the plane has just done exactly what it was designed to do well, its compromise worked.
I've never flown a Chipmunk, though would jump at the opportunity. I'm sure that it's a delight compared to the Tiger Moth, which I know well - a compromise to get pilots well trained in that era.
So I'm OK with the appalling handling of some aircraft, the appalling performance of others, the incredible cost of some, and the hidden dark corners of others (kinda reminds me of dating). Because at the end of it, I learn which compromises I'm willing to make, and I can choose what I want. I have recently finished 75 hours of flight testing, development, and training on a Cessna 182 amphibian, whose final cost exceeded $900,000, and costs $700+ an hour to operate in its homeland. A truly magnificent plane - which I simply could never afford myself. But, for the last six years, I've compromised, and flown my amphibian, whose value is less than 10% of that 182, to many of the same places (and I've worried a lot less about scratching it on a rock!).
Pilots of the world if you're in the air, you're safe, and within your budget, be proud of of what you're flying! I've been the proud owner of a C 150 for 27 years.....
Rant over.....