Why has flight training gone assbackwards? [Archive]

OhNoCB

5th Mar 2014, 23:16

OK.

My local club had C172s and other different aircraft. They now have mostly C172s with one or two other aircraft. The reason is this.

Firstly, bear in mind that this is a local club producing primarily middle aged PPLs, not a commercial school.

So the club can present these options.

Would you like to train in Aircraft A, a 4 seater which has a decent range of modern equipment, cruises at a good speed and is comfortable enough to travel around the UK/Ireland in?

Would you like to train in Aircraft B which is more traditional, a lot of people think it is a better training aircraft. It is pretty slow and is only a two seater, it has very basic equipment two. Whenever you have your licence, we can then teach you (conversion or whatever you'd locally call it) to fly the other modern one, we can also teach you how the avionics work in it too.

Most PPLs (of this kind) have the same sort of flying in mind, and it nearly always includes taking family and friends on jaunts around the country. Why would they want to learn in something that will not be fully applicable to what they want to do.

It makes me think of someone who wants to learn to drive to get back and forward to work etc being taught to ride a motorbike first, because there is more to think about and should give you better road sense and appreciation for conditions etc, but it isn't something most people would want to use as a daily commuter.

Chuck Ellsworth

5th Mar 2014, 23:31

Most PPLs (of this kind) have the same sort of flying in mind, and it nearly always includes taking family and friends on jaunts around the country.

Before they can take anyone anywhere they must first get a pilots license.

Why would they want to learn in something that will not be fully applicable to what they want to do.

That is easy to answer.

The idea is to first learn the basics then move gradually on to more advanced handling skills.

Therefore it should stand to reason that learning the basics on a basic trainer would be the best choice, and it will be less expensive paying fot the basic trainer until one learns to fly properly.

Big Pistons Forever

5th Mar 2014, 23:38

"Learning to fly properly" and learning to fly on a C 172 is not mutually exclusive......

Chuck Ellsworth

5th Mar 2014, 23:57

"Learning to fly properly" and learning to fly on a C 172 is not mutually exclusive......

That is basically true, however learning to fly a Cub will instill hands and feet coordination taking off and landing that will be more beneficial than learning on the 172....or have I got this all wrong?

From the learning factors is it not understood that teaching it right the first time is best?

Or to put it another way.

You have ten students, five you take to solo in a 172 and the other five you take to solo in a 172.

Immediately after their first solo you have them switch airplanes with no further training and go solo again.

How would that work out?

Big Pistons Forever

6th Mar 2014, 00:01

You have ten students, five you take to solo in a 172 and the other five you take to solo in a 172.

Immediately after their first solo you have them switch airplanes with no further training and go solo again.

How would that work out?

Umm fine ;)

xrayalpha

6th Mar 2014, 00:46

So, Chuck, you are saying (or meant to say):

if you learn to fly on a Cub, you will be able to fly a 172. But if you learnt to fly on a 172 you won't stand a chance in a Cub.

Well...............

That's a good reason to learn in a 172! It is easier!

It's the same reason you learn to drive in a simple small front-wheel drive car rather than an Audi Quatro, a Landrover or a rear-wheel drive.

(We have another saying over here: if you learn to fly from our - really crap, bumpy, lumpy, short, uneven, wet, boggy, narrow, curved... airfield - then you can fly from any airfield!)

Some people see that as a unique selling point. I see it as: "we operate from a crap site"!

A final word: as an instructor, side-by-side instruction adds an extra help to student/instructor interaction. You can see their face much more clearly, to start with! And I have a couple of thousand hours teaching in a tandem seater.

Tarq57

6th Mar 2014, 01:00

...

It makes me think of someone who wants to learn to drive to get back and forward to work etc being taught to ride a motorbike first, because there is more to think about and should give you better road sense and appreciation for conditions etc, but it isn't something most people would want to use as a daily commuter.
Actually, I quite like that idea.

Should eliminate a lot of the inattentiveness and [insert other bad driving behaviours here] from our roads.
I suspect this is world-wide, but here in NZ we have some shockers.

Chuck Ellsworth

6th Mar 2014, 01:09

That's a good reason to learn in a 172! It is easier!

I guess I'm just biased in my opinions about teaching flying, and of course it is because I am a product of the environment I learned to fly in.

All we had were tail wheel airplanes in the training fleet at the school I learned to fly at.

The airport had paved runways and a control tower and at times was very busy.

We received our PPL's in thirty hours, so it could not have been that difficult to learn on tail wheel airplanes.

Why does it take twice as many hours for people to get their licenses today in " easier " to fly airplanes? Is it because everyone is so much richer today and money does not matter

When I hired pilots I looked for the most skilled, not the ones that were satisfied with flying the easy stuff...

....but like I said I am probably biased in how I see aviation. :) :) :)

OhNoCB

6th Mar 2014, 01:12

Tarq, it probably would be a good idea in principle!

That is basically true, however learning to fly a Cub will instill hands and feet coordination taking off and landing that will be more beneficial than learning on the 172....or have I got this all wrong?

I know it's always better to have additional skills etc, but I would argue that it isn't more beneficial (or marginally so) for someone who intends to do no more than fly a C172 on good weather days.

There are many many things in life which people could go to do and it would grant them extra skills that may be applicable in unique and uncommon situations, but you can't do everything so you do what is efficient and makes sense.

Gertrude the Wombat

6th Mar 2014, 01:27

Why does it take twice as many hours for people to get their licenses today in " easier " to fly airplanes?
(1) How long did those 30 hour PPLs take? Were they spread over two years of weekends with many weather cancellations as a modern UK PPL typically is?

(2) How much in the way of modern kit, airspace, radio, law, etc, had to be picked up after completion of the 30 hour PPL? (Just for fun, let's see if we can keep GPS out of this one, eh?)

When I hired pilots I looked for the most skilled
Sure. But most PPLs are not looking to be hired to fly.

When I hire programmers I look for people who have written assembler, even if just a few lines at college - then they have some clue as to what a computer actually is. But I don't try to insist that people learning to program as a hobby bother with assembler if they don't want to.

Big Pistons Forever

6th Mar 2014, 01:49

So, Chuck, you are saying (or meant to say):

if you learn to fly on a Cub, you will be able to fly a 172. But if you learnt to fly on a 172 you won't stand a chance in a Cub.

.

I would not send a brand new PPL who had only been flying a Super Cub solo on a C 172 without any additional training for the same reason I would not send a pilot who had only ever flown a C 172 solo in a Super Cub; there is an unacceptable risk that they will bend the aircraft.

The Super Cub guy will probably need less training to make the conversion but it won't be zero hours. The Super Cub pilot will be used to sitting in the centre of the aircraft with a low cowl. He will take a bit of time to get used to the very different sight picture you get sitting on the left side and with a high cowl. He will also be used to a stick in his right hand and the throttle in his left the reverse of a C 172. For these reason and the fact that a c 172 has much heavier controls than a Super Cub sending a new pilot out with no preparation is IMO unprofessional.

If the intent of your question is "how can we improve the quality of flight instruction" than I can think of many things that will achieve the aim that don't require a wholesale change over of training aircraft.....

BTW I have trained PPL's on tailwheel aircraft. Were they better pilots than the ones trained on tricycle gear airplanes ? Overall I don't think so because being a good pilot is more than just keeping the aircraft straight on takeoff and landing, although that is of course an important skill.

However if I had a choice I would do all the training on tail draggers because they are generally cooler airplanes and more fun to fly. However the economics of the flying training game makes this impossible.

Chuck Ellsworth

6th Mar 2014, 01:57

(1) How long did those 30 hour PPLs take? Were they spread over two years of weekends with many weather cancellations as a modern UK PPL typically is?

No to finish in thirty hours you can not spread it over that long a time frame, I started my PPL in June and finished it in January.

(2) How much in the way of modern kit, airspace, radio, law, etc, had to be picked up after completion of the 30 hour PPL?

Well our radios were VHF transceivers with whistle stop tuning which were a bit more difficult to operate than to days modern radios.

Our airspace was a lot less complex for sure, the airways were aural radio range airways, combined with the ADF.

Some of the larger airports had ILS and in the mid fifties the VOR airway system started to arrive.

Airlaw and airspace structure is not part of the airplane handling lessons so they really do not change how long it takes to learn to fly the airplane for a PPL...they just mean more ground school.

Sure. But most PPLs are not looking to be hired to fly.

Granted.....however in the context of getting a PPL, my position is learning on a tail wheel airplane makes for better airplane handling skills, and if taught by good flight instructors it does not really take any longer than learning to fly a nose wheel airplane.

The end result can be the same whether you are a PPL or an ATPL if you do not clearly understand the basics......remember that Airbus that a crew flew in a deep stall all the way from cruise altitude into the South Atlantic?

However the economics of the flying training game makes this impossible.

Impossible?

Light tail wheel trainers such as the Cubs are more expensive than 172's to buy and operate?

I would not send a brand new PPL who had only been flying a Super Cub solo on a C 172 without any additional training for the same reason I would not send a pilot who had only ever flown a C 172 solo in a Super Cub; there is an unacceptable risk that they will bend the aircraft.

Nor would I, my question was to compare which of the students would have the less problem actually handling the airplanes.

Here is my original comment at the start of this thread.

Its time to get a good conversation going again.

Soooo...

.....I see a Canadian flight school has put its Super Cub up for sale because of lack of use.

I don't think they are selling it because of it being to costly to operate.

My personal opinion is it is because the instructors do not want to train on it....I am wondering why if it is part of the training fleet. :ok:

Desert185

6th Mar 2014, 02:57

A guy I know belongs to a flying club with a fleet of airplanes. The only taildragger is a Stearman...and no one wants to fly it, so they're going to sell it. :ugh:

Times have changed.

Big Pistons Forever

6th Mar 2014, 03:13

I don't think they are selling it because of it being to costly to operate.

My personal opinion is it is because the instructors do not want to train on it

I am curious as to why do you think that ?

Piper.Classique

6th Mar 2014, 03:52

O.k., now that thosee of us on CET are waking up, here are my two cents worth.
It doesn't matter what aircraft you use for flight training.
What matters is the quality of the instructor and the willingness to learn and commitment of the student.
The Super Cub is a brilliant aircraft which will do pretty well anything, but it is a long way from being an ideal trainer. The C172 is easy to fly, has a fairish load carrying capacity, and is pretty bland.

I learned to fly on a C150 because that is what was available. I had no problem converting to the Rollason Condor, then Chipmunk, then Cub. I think the longest conversion was to the Wilga, which took nearly two hours. That was probably because the instructor spoke no english and I speak no polish :O

The Cub has character. So does my 1975 MGB. The C172 is boring. Doesn't matter. Anyone can learn to fly it, but it still takes skill to fly it well. The instructor can see the student, can reach all the controls including the trimmer, flaps, and magnetos without contortions. It can live outside if it has to, it spins nicely when asked to, and is fast enough for a reasonable cross country. The cabin heat warms all the cabin, and doesn't just roast the pilot's right leg.

The Cub is fun. I go touring in it. I do eventually get there. I can just about fly it from the back seat, and if my legs were 10cm longer I could probably do so without too much back pain. I can only spin it solo, it has to live in a hangar. I can tow gliders with it, use it for taking photographs, fly out of muddy fields, fly backwards in any brisk wind, get airborne in thirty metres by flap jumping it. Tyres and brake spares cost significant money. The instrument panel is tiny. If you want to install navaids you need the expensive small instruments. I will know when I am too old to fly it because I won't be able to climb in. It has two seats. Not ideal for people wanting to go on a family holiday, but it has enough luggage space for the camping gear.

None of which is much use in 2014 in a training aircraft. Properly taught, the conversion either way shouldn't be a problem for any willing pilot. We ARE teaching fully held off landings in nosedraggers, aren't we? So we can teach three pointers by telling students to er, land fully held off. Now we just have to teach wheel landings and job done. The rest of the flight between takeoff and landing is the same whichever end has the little wheel. Tandem seating makes steep turns easier.

People who really want to learn to fly in a Cub will still do so. I couldn't afford to when I was a student pilot, the extra travelling cost would have killed that idea. I just wanted to fly, anything would do. But I had an excellent career instructor. I now have a Cub. Oh, and our club uses DR 400 Robins, which are nicer to fly than the C172 but have to live in a hangar. That's OK in France where the hangarage is cheap.

Fortunately for our students, they have a choice where and what they learn to fly. As instructors, our job is to teach them well in whatever is available, not to impose our preferences on them. The students need to co-operate by flying regularly, studying, and turning up on time.

My two cents worth ends here.

Andy_P

6th Mar 2014, 04:19

As a business owner, where do I buy a super cub? I just checked the piper website, but I cant find one for sale? C172 is still for sale though... Even if you go second hand, I just checked a few websites, lots of C172's, not a lot of super cubs.

As an older PPL student who has a fear of flying, had you put me into a super cub, I would have probably done a couple of lessons and pulled the pin.

Am I going to be a better or worse pilot than someone my age who as learned in a supercub? Maybe, but I am never going to fly one, and the more I check around aero clubs the main aircraft I see for hire a c172, tecnam, PA28 and in australia you often see the jabiru also. So for me, I like the highwing aircraft for various reasons, and a c172 is probably what I will eventually buy. And in the meantime its certainly what I will be hiring. I will probably never fly another aircraft.

On a side note, now that cessna have bumped up the price on the 172, I wonder how many schools will start looking at the PA-28

Johnm

6th Mar 2014, 06:18

What is it about flying??? Would you learn to drive on a Ford Model T? :ugh:

Pace

6th Mar 2014, 06:24

As a business owner, where do I buy a super cub?

Buy a Husky instead far better aeroplane and a modern SuperCub

Pace

mad_jock

6th Mar 2014, 07:49

Would you learn to drive on a Ford Model T?

Not a Model T it would be equivalent of a tiger moth.

But a clapped out ford fiesta 1.1 or 950 is fair game.

Same with lorry's I got my HGV in a Bedford 4 tonner with 4 gears and you only used three of them as first was the crawler gear.

BroomstickPilot

6th Mar 2014, 07:50

Hi Chuck.

In the UK this whole situation came about by accident. This is how it happened to the best of my recollection. I learned to fly in 1960. At that time the standard aircraft types in UK flying clubs were the Tiger Moth and the Auster. The Tigers were WWII government surplus and most of the Austers were civilianised versions of Army artillery spotters built early post-war usually about 1947. A few Chipmunks were beginning to be sold off to the clubs by the military, but where available these cost twice as much to hire. All these aircraft had to be FLOWN.

We flew non-radio in much simpler airspace than today but you had to be able to navigate because if you got really lost you had to land out. Communication on the ground was by Aldis lamp and in the air you really did look at the signals area before landing at a strange aerodrome. Instruction was very RAF influenced; (most instructors were ex-military). For example normal landing approaches then were all glide approaches and you had to learn both three point and wheeler landings. You also had to learn actual spin recovery; not just spin avoidance. You had to learn to swing a prop because the Austers and Tigers had no self-starters.

After getting my PPL I gave up flying temporarily while I finished college. I figured that after qualifying I would have a much higher salary and would be able to afford much more flying.

Apparently, during my absence, there was some kind of crisis apparently to do with the deterioration of the casein glues used to construct wood framed aircraft. They all had either to be completely stripped and rebuilt or else scrapped, (which is probably why there are so few of them around now). Most clubs scrapped their fleets and re-equipped. However there were no new aircraft then available from de Havilland, Miles or Auster. Companies on mainland Europe were still only just recovering from the war, so the only other sources were the two 'big daddies' in the States.

When I came back to flying a mere two years later all the Tigers and Austers had gone and been replaced by Piper Pa 22 Colts, Pa28 Cherokees and Cessna 150s. (I don't remember seeing any C172s but a few French Rallyes appeared after a year or so). The cost of hire had trebled or quadrupled (I forget which). I did a limited amount of flying just to keep my licence valid. But now powered approaches were the norm. Spinning was out.

I went from club to club looking for a better deal. One place I went to was a 'Cessna flight centre'. There you learned your theory from recorded lessons played on some sort of early video player. I picked up a brochure and was horrified. The whole thing had been written in language that suggested that flying an aeroplane was no different from driving a car. To give some idea of the sort of language used, it went something like this. 'When you're flying along if you want to turn left, why- you just turn the wheel - just like a car'.

It seems that at that time the American light aircraft industry was trying to persuade affluent American families (who already had one or more family cars) to buy a family aeroplane. So aircraft cabins had to be as much like a family saloon as possible and the handling demands of the aircraft had to be 'dumbed down' so as to make it more likely that 'Daddy' would be able to fly it without killing everybody or making a fool of himself.

It should be pointed out also that these aircraft were designed to fly in American conditions, (i.e. cheap fuel and long flying legs). So these aircraft were heavy on fuel and had control yokes rather than columns so that they would be more comfortable flying a leg of perhaps 500 nm. (In the UK we rarely fly even 100nm in a single leg). The cost of aircraft purchase and spares was swingeing having regard to the very poor dollar/pound conversion rate post war. Fewer young people began to present themselves for training. Private flying in the UK became the province of the affluent middle aged man who needed a new bird-puller or an alternative passtime to golf.

This meant that for the next 40 years British clubs were now largely equipped with un-spinnable and in some cases unstallable (Rallye) aircraft. Ex-military instructors were gradually replaced by civilian trained instructors who had learned on Pipers and Cessnas, so the whole question of whether spinning or even side-slipping needed to be taught became moot points.

In some ways, learning to fly has become much harder. Learning to handle radio while flying adds a great deal to the difficulty and you have to fly in complex airspace here in the South of England especially. I personally believe that a really good basic training aircraft should not have a landing approach speed much above 60kts: just about all the present types in use far exceed this and this adds to the difficulty.

But overall I don't think it can be denied that the requirements for aircraft handling have been lessened. This probably doesn't matter during an ordinary uneventful flight. It only matters when things start going badly wrong and your hard flying skills are the difference between driving home and being stretchered to hospital or the mortuary.

Well those are my thoughts.

BP.

Pace

6th Mar 2014, 08:17

I tend to agree that handing has deteriorated badly in our liability society where pilots are taught to drive aeroplanes rather than fly them!

Too many students are not taught to land properly carrying a fear of operating near the ground and a lack of confidence in handling wind shear and crosswinds!
You can almost sense their crossed finger approach to landing hoping all will turn out ok rather than being in control!

The same with the modern principal of recovery at incipient leaving many pilots scared of the big bad bogey man that lies beyond if they get it wrong!

Technology has advanced with leaps and bounds and many are too reliant on button pushing and autopilots rather than strong handling ability!
All well until things go wrong and we see spates of needless accidents where pilots fail to recover and if they are lucky pull a chute!

Even the FAA are looking more at handling after the airline crash where the pilot failed to recognise what was happening and used incorrect recovery techniques

Spinning should be brought back but with aerobatic qualified instructors in aerobatic capable aircraft! I see this as vital not just because the pilots will be more confident with what lies beyond but so they can fully appreciate the difference between spirals and spins and quickly identify and rectify either

Pace

Shaggy Sheep Driver

6th Mar 2014, 08:17

I learned to fly in the late '70s, on the by then ubiquitous C150s. Instructors were a mixture of ex-mil, and a few younger guys headed for the airlines. The ex-mil guys were highly experienced (one flew Wappities pre WW2 and had a lifetime of all types, another was Spitfire and V bomber). These guys inculcated 'airmanship', but I have to say a couple of the younger guys were very good as well (they themselves had been taught by the ex-mills).

I hated the C150. It was stodgy and unresponsive. Nothing like I'd expected an aeroplane to be (I'd come from gliding, and even the old Ka4 gliders had better roll response). A bunch of us were learning together, and we all qualified at around 35 to 40 hours. A wise CFI noted our less than impressed attitude towards the club fleet (C150s and 172s) and tried to persuade the committee to buy a Chipmunk he knew of. They refused, so he organised a group (40 members originally! You could do that back then). The Chippy cost £8K so that was £200 each. Even back then that was cheap!

Wow! Here was an aeroplane that did what I'd expected! I was in love! Still am, 35 years later.

I'm pretty sure that if only nosewheel spam cans had been avaialable I'd have been one of those who get a PPL, do few hours local in a hired aeroplane, then give up flying. And I wouldn't have been the only one. Why would one want to carry on paying to fly something that's basically less fun than many cars? Or any motorbike?

The great thing about tailwheel aeroplanes and training is that they TEACH YOU TO LAND! Sure, a good instructor can teach someone to land properly in a C152, but we humans are lazy, and nosewheel aeroplanes allow sloppy technique, so sloppy technique becomes commonplace. Stand by the threshold of any GA field and watch the spam cans arrive; how many are far too fast? How many don't properly hold off? How many touch down on mains and nosewheel together then stand on the brakes?

Most, I'd say.

But I think what taught me most about how aeroplanes fly and why they sometimes don't, was becoming passable at aeros. In a taildragger of course!

PTR 175

6th Mar 2014, 08:58

I suspect it may have something to do with Weight and Balance. Not knowing about Piper Cubs super or otherwise, I cannot comment on that particular case.
However, you put two slightly porky people in a 150/152 and a safe fuel load it will be close to or overweight, depending on the airframe.Iignoring the fact thait it will be rather snug in there. Add a damp grass strip to increase the take off distance. It all becomes rather interesting and insurance companies begin to take notice when aircraft go through the fence at the end of the strip.

Whereas a 172 or a PA28 will be well within W and B and can cope with a couple of pie eating aviators.

My instructor, bless him, was a bit on the large boned size had problems flying certain aircraft because the W and B shifted too far back and he began to loose elevator authority. He could never fit into a cub, so problem solved.

Johnm

6th Mar 2014, 10:07

Sorry, but for me an aeroplane is a car with wings to go places.

I fly most trips airways with autopilot on and will fly a coupled approach to minima in the clag then either go around and divert or switch off the autopilot and land, sometimes in stonking cross winds.

Flying the RNAV LPV to 600 AMSL (300ft AGL) at Alderney with 20 to 30kt cross wind is not unusual.

My aeroplane is designed with benign handling, spins are not permitted and if stalled it just flies like a brick with VSI needle on the stop wings level.

I have tried aerobatics once and hated it like poison and if I'd had to do spinning in my training I wouldn't now be a pilot.

Shaggy Sheep Driver

6th Mar 2014, 10:29

cockney steve

6th Mar 2014, 10:37

young woman with low hours, would be sent to pick up an aircraft she'd never flown before...Spitfire, Hurricane, Halifax, Whitley.....she'd scan the "pilot's notes"....fire-up and away.....most survived!.....but of course, wartime introduces pragmatism and cost-effectiveness.
No, I don't have a pilot's license....but I am pretty confident that I could reach a reasonable level of competence in under 20 hours!
taildragger for fun and satisfaction, -spamcan to "pass the test".

PA28181

6th Mar 2014, 11:04

but I am pretty confident that I could reach a reasonable level of competence in under 20 hours!

I thought that before I had sat in a light acrft. I thought I was going to be a natural. How wrong can you be? I drove home from the airfield many times after ballsing up a simple exercise and was convinced I wouldn't make a pilot. However, that was 36 years ago and 2500 hours of flying around in Light Aircraft since and now glad I stuck with it.

Pace

6th Mar 2014, 11:08

I can remember when I learnt to fly in the 80s my instructor spent half the landing exercises teaching me not to land. We would cruise down the runway a few feet up getting used to being near the ground! He would ask me than to let the tyres touch and then lift it off again adding a little power!
Strong crosswind day. A cheeky glimmer in his eye and let's go and have fun!
Stalls fully developed and proactive to kicking it into a spin!
He made you abuse the aircraft to your hearts content till you knew exactly what could happen!
What has happened now ?

Pace

Johnm

6th Mar 2014, 11:12

So is it that people have stopped learning to fly 'for fun' but now only do it 'for transport'? Or to get a job in aviation transport?

If that's the case, I wonder why?

Flying costs higher due more expensive fuel?

Less disposable income among the young due struggling to get on housing ladder?

Flying less fun due increased security, general nannying, less 'freedom' (can't go many places non radio today, and many new pilots seem to regard the radio as a primary - THE primary in some cases - flight control).

Or are we just less 'fun oriented' as a society?

Not sure about this. I enjoy my flying as I enjoy driving long distances to go places. I see no fun in driving long distances in a Morris Minor any more than I see any point in flying a cub to Turweston for a hamburger.

On the other hand some people go to Morris Minor owners club rallies and some people fly cubs to Turweston for a hamburger and enjoy it hugely which is fine by me!

dont overfil

6th Mar 2014, 12:38

but I am pretty confident that I could reach a reasonable level of competence in under 20 hours!
Sorry Steve but that is a pretty bold statement. Did you really mean competent or did you mean survive?:hmm:

D.O.

Desert185

6th Mar 2014, 13:29

Chuck Ellsworth

6th Mar 2014, 14:16

Buy a Husky instead far better aeroplane and a modern SuperCub

In my neck of the woods a Husky is a designer airplane flown by city dwellers. The working airplanes are Super Cubs. You can outline the merits of both, and on paper the Husky might win, but the bush guys prefer the Cub.

For the last few years most of my flying has been in a Husky, the first year on wheels and since then on amphibious floats.

The Husky and the Super Cub are quite similar except the Husky has more balanced and more effective control response.

Great conversation now that all the gang in Europe are awake.....

.....my favorite tail wheel airplane is the DC3 which most of my off airport experience was gained on. :ok::ok:

Pace

6th Mar 2014, 16:09

If I ever got the country house and field the Husky would be my choice! Pull it out of a Barn one sunny morning and off for a flight back in time for breakfast ; )
Chuck never flown one but was told that in a flight test the pilot pulled the nose up to stall it ! Abused the situation by kicking in rudder and further by giving it full power!
The aircraft just shrugged its shoulders and climbed away !
Any truth to that ?

Pace

Chuck Ellsworth

6th Mar 2014, 17:07

Chuck never flown one but was told that in a flight test the pilot pulled the nose up to stall it ! Abused the situation by kicking in rudder and further by giving it full power!
The aircraft just shrugged its shoulders and climbed away !
Any truth to that ?

Pace

Before we bought the Husky I went to the dealer and test flew it to decide if we would buy it rather than a Super Cub.

I don't recall trying that exact maneuver but I do remember putting it through a lot of non aerobatic maneuvers to find out if it handled better than a Super Cub.

It did.

We bought one.

BroomstickPilot

6th Mar 2014, 19:07

Hi Chuck,

When I saw a Husky for the first time my first thought was 'that looks like a big Auster'! The tail fin and tailplane especially looked very Auster-ish.

Bearing in mind that the Auster was originally an American Taylorcraft built under licence in the UK and fitted with a Brit engine, I find myself wondering whether the design of the Husky is in any way related to the design of the Taylorcraft.

I know that the final design work on the Husky was carried out by Christen, but did they originate the design from scratch or did they acquire it in an incomplete form from some other source related to Taylorcraft?

Do you happen to know anything about this?

Regards,

BP.

foxmoth

6th Mar 2014, 19:31

Not sure about this. I enjoy my flying as I enjoy driving long distances to go places.

Not sure you enjoy FLYING, more enjoy traveling by air, and there is a difference!
To me the change has come about due to economics with older fabric aircraft being more expensive to maintain, any true FLYING enthusiast would rather learn in something like a Moth or Chippie, but these cost way more PH than a modern aircraft! Just wish we could fill the gap between microlight training and PPL training, then we could look at training on aircraft like the RV which would bring back training on aircraft that handle properly!

Crash one

6th Mar 2014, 19:40

Johnm

6th Mar 2014, 19:42

By this measure I hate flying and make no apology for it either!

Mach Jump

6th Mar 2014, 20:00

.....she'd scan the "pilot's notes"....fire-up and away.....most survived

Yes, most. But I think you will find that the casualty rate was much closer to that for Service pilots than you may think. :ooh:

MJ:ok:

thing

6th Mar 2014, 20:21

I'm in the camp that thinks taildragger flight training would produce better stick & rudder skills than the nose wheel version. However trying to convince modern thinking "what's the point?" People who just want to fly the latest plastic fantastic piece of glass crap while impressing their friends is a waste of bandwidth.

I'm of the camp that thinks everyone should go solo on a glider before they start their PPL training. Why do you veer to the extremes of 'it's either a taildragger or it's a glass piece of plastic crap'? I don't see the 40 odd year old 172 I fly as plastic and it certainly doesn't have anything remotely glass looking in the cockpit.

It's the apparent fear of the tailwheel that surprises me.

Why do you assume people fear tailwheels? I've flown tailwheel aircraft before, can't see what the fuss is. You use a different set of skills that's all. It's not rocket science.

Armchairflyer

6th Mar 2014, 20:38

My taildragger experience is admittedly even more limited than my general flying experience, although I found it instructive and quite joyful and would like a trial flight in an old open-cockpit taildragger, too (already for remotely emulating the experience of flying WWI airplanes like in Rise of Flight :8).

However, I wholeheartedly reject the notion that the difference between flying/training in an (old) taildragger and flying/training in a (modern) trike amounts to the difference between good and crap flying/training, or that one has to fly taildraggers/do aeros/like stalls and spins to be(come) a good pilot.

And on a more general and personal note, while I admire great stick & rudder skills and aspire to develop decent ones myself, I find this (implied) "us real pilots vs. them pathetic aircraft operators" undertone which so often seems to go with the subject of airplane handling quite tedious
(but that may be just me as a newbie and explicit non-skygod).

thing

6th Mar 2014, 21:05

And on a more general and personal note, while I admire great stick & rudder skills and aspire to develop decent ones myself, I feel this (implied) "us real pilots vs. them pathetic aircraft operators" undertone which so often seems to go with the subject of airplane handling quite tedious

Well it's not going to go away. Sad thing is, there aren't that many of us from a sport/pastime point of view nationally and we still argue about crap like tailwheels v trikes. Be a lot better if we all just enjoyed flying whatever it is we choose to fly and let others do the same.

Piper.Classique

6th Mar 2014, 21:06

Foop. It's all about the instructor, not the aircraft. That said, if I could afford the fuel I would love a Yak 12 for bimbling with three friends. Looks like a Cub on steroids, and has a round engine.

Johnm

6th Mar 2014, 21:20

Quote:
.....she'd scan the "pilot's notes"....fire-up and away.....most survived
Yes, most. But I think you will find that the casualty rate was much closer to that for Service pilots than you may think.

MJ

I regularly fly one of these remarkable ladies to events such as project propellor.

thing

6th Mar 2014, 21:32

John did you go to the last one at Coningsby?

Crash one

6th Mar 2014, 21:56

Thing.

I don't think I said "it's either a taildragger or a glass piece of plastic crap. I was trying to make a point that a number of modern pilots are not interested in tailwheel aircraft because they sometimes appear to me to be a little afraid of the perceived difficulty in handling. And these pilots would rather get airborne with all the bells & whistles than bother to learn something different.

I too believe that going solo on gliders first is a good idea. I did it myself, they teach you how to fly accurately, spins, full stalls etc and that does generate confidence and understanding of the bogey man/there be dragons there, problem.

As for the 172, nothing wrong with that, nothing wrong with 152 either, or PA28 etc, it is the pilot training that is at fault. How many buggered nose wheels are there on those a/c compared to ground looped, noseovered taildraggers?

I've watched PA28 drivers take 3 attempts to land on 620 metres grass & nearly run out of space, I watch 172/152s being wheelbarrowed on regularly. I don't see many taildraggers being landed badly.

I never found the tail dragging bit much of a fuss either. And I don't consider myself anything special by flying one.

The original question here was about training on tailwheel, or lack of. Not about what people should be allowed to fly.

Chuck.
Now see what a can of worms you've opened, great fun isn't it?

thing

6th Mar 2014, 22:28

Now see what a can of worms you've opened, great fun isn't it?

Well yeah, it is.:)

I take your point about broken nosewheels, the AAIB reports must contain broken nosewheels more than other type of accident. Which surely shows that trikes are harder to fly than tailwheels...:)

Joking aside if you sit at any grass strip watching the world go idley by then there's no doubt that the odd taildragger you see will be plonked down on average better than your average trike. I'm an old glider bore and take great pride in my landings. They aren't always what I want them to be but to me they are the skillful part of hand flying; you can usually see if a pilot has a good set of hands by the way they land. If I can nail a good landing in the right place at the right speed then I go home a happy man. It seems that a lot of flyers just appear to throw them at the ground without any empathy for the machine. Still, I'm not exactly a three thousand hour man so my opinion doesn't really count for much.

Chuck Ellsworth

6th Mar 2014, 22:40

I take your point about broken nosewheels, the AAIB reports must contain broken nosewheels more than other type of accident. Which surely shows that trikes are harder to fly than tailwheels...

Things have not changed much since I last flew in your country I see.

I also used to be fascinated by the number of ham handed pilots the system churned out.

Reading the different comments here really gives one some things to think about....from poorly trained pilots who semi crash land until they are successful in busting the nose wheel off to pilots who don't like to fly unless the auto pilot is doing the flying......makes one wonder what would happen some day when the weather is really bad and the auto pilot fails?????:( :( :(

Crash one

6th Mar 2014, 23:07

Thing.

Well that post could have been written by me. I too am of the same mind if I nail the landing. I've flown gliders in the past up to bronze & silver height before trying power, 250hrs total, 150 on type. So no expert either.

I spent last Saturday trying to get the circuits as tight as possible after no flying since November in this crap weather.

Chuck
Semi crash land is right, reminds me of the Navy watching Scimitars & Buccaneers on Ark Royal, except they kept the bloody nose up and the tail hook down. And the gear was designed for it.

thing

6th Mar 2014, 23:18

I've seen the results of a beaut, v. expensive retractable, the sort of a/c any of us would like to own, shortish grass strip, landed about half way down with too much energy.

What would you or I do? Go around I hope would be the correct and sane answer.

Nope, hit the anchors and laughably thought he could stop before the boundary fence and ditch. The mind boggles.

Chuck Ellsworth

6th Mar 2014, 23:29

One has to wonder how an endeavor like learning to fly has been allowed to be dumb ed down to such a low level of proficiency?

Could it be the Darwin factor at work?

If mediocrity is going to be accepted in operating any machinery one would think that flying an airplane would be the last thing people would accept mediocrity in......then again when I think of the level of incompetence in those who regulate and license pilots I think I know the answer. :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ok:

thing

6th Mar 2014, 23:36

You only have to drive on the road to see mediocrity in action Chuck. People are operators of machinery these days, they have no empathy with the machine they are operating and wish for none. It's just an extension of their living room. But when it bites I would like to think I would have a chance of surviving, I fear it would not be so for a lot of people.

Chuck Ellsworth

6th Mar 2014, 23:44

Can they get going fast enough on the M25 these days to get killed or is it still the worlds biggest parking lot?

Crash one

6th Mar 2014, 23:55

There is one on YouTube somewhere where he touches down eventually just short of the numbers, wrong set of numbers, & ends up on the beach. A twin by the way so presumably experienced? Must have been trained in UK!Bed time this side of the pond Chuck. G-night.M25 Fire Service training ground!!

tecman

7th Mar 2014, 05:49

I enjoy a good dose of nostalgia and love flying classic taildraggers and - to be honest - nearly anything else in the GA world. Maybe it's a function of my location on the planet but I'm surprised that few posters have mentioned training in the VLA/LSA environment. Many of the aeroplanes available are actually much more interesting to fly than the standard (increasingly clapped-out) traditional GA offerings and, despite the naysayers, we now have professional flying schools offering both GA and Recreational Aviation Australia training, often by the same instructors.

It's true that the originally-mooted cost benefits of this type of flying/training have not all been realized but the cost reduction that has been achieved, and the associated fun factor, are definitely contributing to the continuing viability of private aviation.

And you even have the option of some nice taildraggers, if that's the way you want to train (see, e.g. Tecnam.com - P92 Tail Dragger (http://www.tecnam.com/Adv-Ultralight/P92-Tail-Dragger.aspx)).

This type of training won't work for everyone in all circumstances but there's no need for excessive hand-wringing, in my view.

Johnm

7th Mar 2014, 07:09

John did you go to the last one at Coningsby?

Yes I did, great day out!

On the original topic, it's not the aeroplane that matters, it's the training and the willingness to read the POH and do what it says. It's also about making sure you never stop learning and planning for every flight.

I can hand fly an aircraft in solid IMC quite happily, but mostly it's hard work so I use the autopilot. I can land a PA 28 in a short field because I read the POH.

Mostly, as I say above, the aircraft is irrelevant from a training point of view it's the instruction and the attitude of the instructed that matters. In some respects it's also the syllabus. I did an IR in Europe and it did wonders for my currency, but I had to learn about practical IFR flying separately from the course which taught me almost nothing useful in that respect.

Andy_P

7th Mar 2014, 07:25

Just thinking, re the car arguement. I own a 1948 holden, I also have a 2013 nissan navara. The old holden is a prick to drive, has a crash box (no syncro in first) and bump steers really well. The navara is great, easy to drive, auto gearbox, power steering, aircon.... Am I better driver in the holden? no, because there is too many distractions.. Am I better driver in the new car, no, to many distractions too. I think its a poor argument when related to aircraft. BUT, I have to agree in some sorts with the difference in skill sets between old an new, When I was a kid, we could take the cars out in the bush, race them around, learn how they handle and learn how to correct errors. Kids learning to drive these days don't get that opportunity. They dont get the opportunity to learn how to recover a car when they screw up.

Looking from the other side of the fence, the training is more strict for learner drivers now, they cant go out and muck up like we did, but there is less deaths as a result now (statistically, it becomes a numbers game). I am too new into aviation to make a comparison, but is aviation similar now? Is there less accidents now, or more?

BroomstickPilot

7th Mar 2014, 07:26

Hi Guys,

Poor training (by underpaid 'hours builders' who really want an airline job,) poor skill standards, poor pilot currency, aged training aircraft that originated in a very different country far away and in a by-gone age and both government and the general public alike utterly uninterested in, and ignorant about, flying. (It would be different if Olympic medals could be won for flying).

The ultimate elephant in the room, however, is cost, aided and abetted by our poor climate that makes continuity in training virtually impossible and over zealous, needlessly expensive, micro-regulation by government; (thanks Europe!).

A friend of mine summed the British flying scene up in one sentence. 'Too many flying establishments chasing too few people with too little money' and that just about sums it up.

The clubs use ancient American aircraft because new ones would cost more than they could afford. People try to get their licences in the minimum number of hours. On qualifying, most can only barely afford an amount of flying annually to maintain a minimum standard of currency.

It always was like this, but in recent years it has become worse. And I can't see it improving.

BP.

Pace

7th Mar 2014, 07:46

Broomstick

i would agree with you! An aircraft is a means of transport like any other and has to have a purpose. A dozen times around the local area after achieving a PPL and taking up family and friends and the holes appear both in practicality and cost.
You are then faced with the fact that to practically use an aircraft you need more! Better aircraft better ratings and that equals higher costs and commitments.
Time saving over a Car train etc? Unless you fly long distance? mission reliability? It is an expensive past time which most cannot justify. The wealthier ones maybe!

But this thread was on the training :ok:

Pace

worrab

7th Mar 2014, 07:53

There is one on YouTube somewhere where he touches down eventually just short of the numbers, wrong set of numbers, & ends up on the beach.
This one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_Vh0oJro3A

tecman

7th Mar 2014, 08:42

BP, I can't help with your weather (sorry). But somewhere in your very interesting synopsis must come the question of expectation management. It's an unfortunate fact that people nowadays want everything, and want it instantly. That's no doubt why we in a large part of the western world live in 5x3 McMansions, drowning in debt.

I can't help but think that having the freedom to fly, more or less as we want, is a very special thing, regardless of whether we do it in a Cub or a Cirrus. To reference my earlier post, the kids I see training in the LSAs are reveling in the simple joy of flying. I don't think we spend enough time promoting the flying experience, and we do students an injustice by demanding that very decent small aircraft be loaded with the most powerful engine and latest avionics.

If you equip some of the better LSA trainers with an 80 hp (looxury) engine, and strip the panel back to the basics, there are still some excellent training opportunities at very reasonable rates, at least in my part of the world. Not for everyone, I recognize, but a great way to get more people in the air, and more hours under their belts.

Shaggy Sheep Driver

7th Mar 2014, 08:54

i would agree with you! An aircraft is a means of transport like any other and has to have a purpose. A dozen times around the local area after achieving a PPL and taking up family and friends and the holes appear both in practicality and cost.

I have to disagree with this. A light aircraft can be a means of transport, but most aren't because of wx limitations of pilots and aircraft; the tiny percentage that are fully wx compliant (Full IFR, de-iced, preferably multi engine with good engine-out performance, IR pilot, suitably equiped airfield) are vastly out weighed by the 'fun, fair wx' machines, at least in UK. It's possible of course to use a light aircraft in UK which doesn't meet these criterea for transport, but not with any serious degree of reliability and safety.

A cub out of a farmer's field. A Pitts or a Stampe for some aeros. A Chippy for the pure joy of flight (and some gentle aeros!). There's a lifetime of flying fun to be had there, and not an ILS or hired-plane-round-the-local-area in sight!

Pace

7th Mar 2014, 09:32

SSD

I think we are all different in what we want or expect from aviation. Ok one person may have the Cub in a Barn and get a lot of pleasure tinkering with it and taking it up on a sunny morning! They may get involved in an annual fly away.
I have no disagreement with that! Infact in my own situation You can almost go full circle and hanker after your beginnings so the Cub becomes an attractive proposition.
My own motivation was different leading me through Multi engine pistons with a 97% mission accomplishment rate to business jets which I have flown over a large area of the world and have been very privalaged in doing so.
But that goal means being paid to fly as the machinery is too expensive to do it any other way.
But I cannot do this forever( getting older ) and a Cirrus for touring and getting back to basics or a Husky in a field appeals :ok:

Pace

Shaggy Sheep Driver

7th Mar 2014, 09:52

Indeed, Pace. I'm not in any way decrying the few who can use light aircraft for serious transport - what I'm saying is that in UK at least they are a few and not really representative of mainstream GA; it's very expensive and requires commitment to achieve it and constant use to stay sharp. Such a pilot is pretty much a self-employed self-financing airline pilot, with a day job as well!

Most GA folk don't or can't do this. The trick is, find your niche, whatever it is, and try to avoid the hired-172-for-the-plough-around-the-local-patch syndrome. That way lies giving up flying for most PPLs!

To bring this back to Chuck's original point, most of the nicest aeroplanes to fly, the ones that offer the basic PPL the most bangs per buck, are tailwheel and handle well. But the current flying school scene doesn't offer a taste of that like it used to. So we lose a loads of PPLs who go away bored of the school hack to the £150 cup of coffee (probably more like £250 these days)!

Pace

7th Mar 2014, 10:31

SSD

The guy who has the Cub in a Barn all his flying life and is happy with that probably has the same wife all his life too while some of us Hanker and get involved with all the wrong ones. Maybe you get to the point that you think the guy with the same wife for 50 years has it right :E

Pace

cockney steve

7th Mar 2014, 11:33

Sorry, folks, most of my previous ramble had somehow got wiped before I hit send, without proof reading first....so a recap.

An aquaintance decided to take up flying...I introduced him to a friend who had abandoned PPL training about 30 hours in (parents dying etc.)
R, gets his PPL, imc, night......a 152....needs to take growing family sometimes so a 172 (both earn their keep by renting to the local training org.)....cpl and instructor follow, along with an Aeronca Chief as a fun toy...by this time P had his PPL as well and i had the privelidge of going on a good few jollies in all 3 aircraft.

having considerable motorbike,car, sailing and aeromodelling experiences,Ifound the Armstrong-starting,limited -panel Aeronca to be far more satisfying than the spamcans.
R suggested I should take official training and stated categorically that he thought the syllabus was a huge con for a lot of studes.
Those with aptitude and background knowledge have a head start...they are capable of combining several "exercises" into one lesson...the next lesson onward, they practise it .
As with motoring, there are those with no ability, knowledge, intuition or empathy for the subject -matter....this is where the training syllabus is aimed....Anyone who gets the idea "I want to do that"..can be "programmed" to jump through the hoops inthe right order and will drive or fly by rote, with little real appreciation for what's going on with his conveyance or it's environment.
A previous partner would blithly keep her foot on the throttle, despite the distant lights turning toamber.....heavy, last minute braking.....the concept of analysing traffic-flow 2 or 3 cars ahead, was an alien concept,

BUT she had the income, passed the test and became another revenue-stream for the gov.t. keeping the motor trade, refineries, ministry test bods and road tax admin all in jobs.

IF the test regime became too onerous, the country would grind to a halt.......GA almost got to this point....ability to pay is far more important than Piloting aptitude......I didn't want to join the military,under any circumstances and life evolved in a way that precluded me from taking upthis expensive hobby.....so, UK GA revolves around selling the dream to those who can afford it....I must have been wellover 40 before i'd even heard of the PFA !...now, of course, with t' internet...

So,in summary...spamcans are the cheapest, easiest, most stable way to get the largest percentage of entrants through the test....those with true enthusiasm will explore the more challenging options.
Very few have the "inside knowledge" to find out it's possible to learn on something other than a Cof A spamcan at a "proper" establishment at a "proper" Airport. IMHO the system is designed to keep the status quo...(although the recent relaxation of licenced airfield requirement is a step forward, it's negated by the new pile of EASA FTO registration requirements.

dobbin1

7th Mar 2014, 12:18

I teach on DA20 Katanas and in a PA28. I also teach Tailwheel in a SuperCub and aeros in a T67.

It is possible to teach ab initio in a SuperCub, but in my opinion, not a good idea. It is surely much better for the instructor to be able to reach all the controls (especially the mixture knob!), tune the radio, read the instruments and see where the student is looking or what he is actually doing with his hands and feet. Side by side is a far superior format for teaching. It will also take some students much longer to get to solo standard in a tail dragger. For some, the frustration would be too much and they would give up.

Instructing on tailwheel aircraft would probably produce students who pass their test with higher levels of handling skill, but there would be fewer of them.

Desert185

7th Mar 2014, 12:53

Johnm

On the original topic, it's not the aeroplane that matters, it's the training and the willingness to read the POH and do what it says. It's also about making sure you never stop learning and planning for every flight.

Agreed. I learned in 150's. Instrument in a 172, and transitioned to taildraggers when the school where I was instructing bought a Citabria. CFII in a PA-28. I managed to successfully transition to corporate jets, airline jets, a civil C-130 and then a wide (wider) body jet. For the past 15 years or so, I have been enjoying going back to my roots flying a taildragger in the mountains and I had the opportunity, post-retirement, to fly a survey Twin Otter for a few years. My current hobby job is back in the jets. Those 150/152's and good instruction did me justice.

The aircraft type(s) didn't really seem to matter for me. I will say that when I was with Civil Air Patrol (in keeping with my personal policy to fly anything offered) I had the opportunity to checkout in a brand new, Garmin1000 C-182...and didn't like it. Actually left me cold, and I'm a hard-core iPad guy now. My CAP favorites were the Beaver, 185 and steam gauge 206 (in that order). My passion is really taildraggers.

I had some really good instructors and a few bad ones in the early days. Learned from them both. Good instruction works regardless of where the tailwheel location is, and variety of experience is a big contributor. Eat when its offered, sleep when you can and fly whatever comes along.

Pace

7th Mar 2014, 13:24

The nicest aircraft which I flew was when I was involved with a certain MSFS company who were making a Sia Marchetti SF 260.
I flew it to add to the flight dynamics for RealAir Simulations.
Personal aircraft ??? that did it for me :ok: That was a dream machine

Pace

Chuck Ellsworth

7th Mar 2014, 16:30

I see I have found a subject that evokes a wide variety of opinion, which was exactly my intent.

So ::

Here is another of my opinions on this subject.

We would have a better level of airplane handling skills across the board if we structured flying training like the education system is structured.

To get a PPL you must first go to kindergarten before you enter grade school.

Kindergarten would be held in a farmers grass field and the school room would be a Cub, once the student mastered the Cub to solo they would then enter grade school....a regular flight training school where they would then be taught by rote and introduced to all the ancillary tasks such as radios, flight and engine instrument interpretation, weather and on and on until they either realized they were being screwed or they go broke.

:eek::eek:.

For my dream machines I want the following.

A 450 HP Stearman and a Grumman Widgeon.

Piper.Classique

7th Mar 2014, 18:12

The guy who has the Cub in a Barn all his flying life and is happy with that probably has the same wife all his life too while some of us Hanker and get involved with all the wrong ones. Maybe you get to the point that you think the guy with the same wife for 50 years has it right

Could be right there, Pace.
My Cub is in a hangar and I've only had (still got) one husband. But I don't do club flyouts because I'm not keen on other people deciding where I go. So I go touring with or without husband. Just takes a bit longer, and sometimes I have to wait for the weather. I've had the husband for thirty years and the Cub a bit less. Suits me.

Pace

7th Mar 2014, 19:11

:{Piper Classique

Have always read your posts with interest but never clicked you were a girl ; )
If you ever have to make a choice between the Cub and the husband and choose the Cub then you can join the rest of us commitment phobes and pick all the wrong ones .) but have a great time in the process ! Je regret rien :{

Pace

Johnm

7th Mar 2014, 19:40

Shaggy Sheep Driver

7th Mar 2014, 19:50

Tailwheel aeroplanes aren't 'hard to fly'. They simply require to be flown (in particular, landed) correctly.

BroomstickPilot

7th Mar 2014, 19:59

Hi Chuck,

I started flying in pretty much the way you suggest. I commenced flying gliders as a teenager in the late 50s. I learned on the Slingsby T21 and then converted onto the Kirby Prefect (winch launching only) and only then got the opportunity (i.e. some money) to learn power.

Gliding was where I learned my basic airmanship and handling skills. It gave me extra confidence later when learning to fly the Auster. It also taught me that a forced landing in a light aircraft is nothing to worry about as long as you have a decent field to put it down in and get your approach right first time.

Some years after getting my (power) PPL I went back to gliding for a couple of seasons (aero-towed Schleicher K7s and K13s). From that I learned a certain sensitivity to how air masses behave that I am sure pilots with power-only experience just don't have.

I'd like to see all pilots able to commence very young on gliders and then move up via some simple powered aircraft, like the Austers and Tiger Moths of yesteryear.

I firmly believe that the ideal basic (powered) training aeroplane on which one first learns should be non-radio, have well balanced handling, have a simple instrument panel, should NOT be vice-less and should have a landing approach speed of not much more than 60 kts maximum. I am convinced that very many student pilots today have extra hours added onto their training purely because they are flying aeroplanes are far too fast in the circuit and don't allow them sufficient time to think and are much too fast on the landing approach.

After the simple aircraft, they could then progress onto faster aircraft with multiple rows of knobs levers and dials.

Well that's my two penn'th.

BP.

Pace

7th Mar 2014, 20:02

John

Whatever did they do when there were no 172s and all were tail draggers?
Reminds me of the joke about the tandem Bi Plane trainer!
The grey haired instructor was known for playing a joke on his students!
Just before sending them solo he unscrewed his stick and showing absolute confidence threw it over the side into the field below! Meaning the student had to land !
One student also a prankster caught onto what would happen to him and unseen slipped a spare stick into the cockpit with him!
As expected the instructor unscrewed his stick and threw it over the side!
The student unscrewed his stick too and threw it over the side exclaiming that he was just following the instructors example !
He just had time to here the instructor shout bail out and disappear over the side with his parachute :ok:

Those must have been the days when men were men and pilots were pilots and they smoked capstan full strength then they built the 172 :{

Pace

Maoraigh1

7th Mar 2014, 20:32

I soloed on gliders, as a teen, then did a 30 hour PPL on no-radio Jackeroos (Tiger Moth convertion) at age 23, at Thruxton. After letting my license lapse, due to expence. I re-did it on C152s at age 46, at Inverness.
The airspace in the Thruxton area has changed since 1964.
Although almost all my flying since January 1990 is wood-and-fabric taildragger (Jodel DR1050), I doubt if any taildragger would be an economic trainer at Inverness. The tarmac runways and wind strengths would rule it out.
And the more stable aircraft are much less affected by turbulence.
A school must provide students with as little weather downtime as possible.

I like the C150/152, but don't like the 172. However my few hours on the C172 include the highest winds and the worst weather I have continued my flight through, without thinking of diverting. The high wing gives it a sideways vision advantage in heavy rain over the Pa28 (which is a very stable aircraft).

Fly-by-Wife

7th Mar 2014, 21:18

Chuck, are you Richard Bach in disguise, by any chance? ! ;)

...if we structured flying training like the education system is structured.

Kindergarten would be held in a farmers grass field and the school room would be a Cub, once the student mastered the Cub to solo they would then enter grade school....

Your sentiments are so redolent of Bach's, as expressed in a short story "School for Perfection" published in "A Gift of Wings".

Reading that book as a teenager contributed a lot to my lifelong interest in aviation.

FBW

Gertrude the Wombat

7th Mar 2014, 21:25

a number of modern pilots are not interested in tailwheel aircraft because they sometimes appear to me to be a little afraid of the perceived difficulty in handling
It's not "afraid", it's "why would I bother to spend scare money and flying time on something that's reputed to be more difficult, and is then going to be smaller and slower and without sufficient gizmos for effortless navigation?"

Anyway, all this silly squabbling about which end the wheel should be - real aeroplanes don't have wheels.

Chuck Ellsworth

7th Mar 2014, 21:37

Chuck, are you Richard Bach in disguise, by any chance? !

No but we have a lot in common, his story of Jonathan Livingston Seagull was awesome, just awesome.

Have you read any the books that Ernest Gann wrote?

He was my favorite airplane story writer and I was fortunate enough to have gotten to know him personally, the last time we talked together was in his hangar in Friday Harbor where he kept his Wing Derringer and he was showing me the new strike finder he had installed in it, it was not long after that he passed away at home in Friday Harbor.

dash6

7th Mar 2014, 21:43

Pace. Re your reply to P C, don't assume.;)

IFMU

7th Mar 2014, 21:52

It is possible to teach ab initio in a SuperCub, but in my opinion, not a good idea.
I think the only bad thing about a super cub for ab initio is it has too much power. The student's first airplane should be a dog, or a glider. The PA12 was good for me.
Bryan

Chuck Ellsworth

7th Mar 2014, 21:53

To get a PPL you must first go to kindergarten before you enter grade school.

Kindergarten would be held in a farmers grass field and the school room would be a Cub, once the student mastered the Cub to solo they would then enter grade school....a regular flight training school where they would then be taught by rote and introduced to all the ancillary tasks such as radios, flight and engine instrument interpretation, weather and on and on until they either realized they were being screwed or they go broke.

Johnm:

In all fairness to you I agree we can agree to disagree.....

So please allow me to comment on your opinions. :O

This is almost precisely the wrong way round. Start with a PA 28 or a 172 or some other half way sensible but cheap aeroplane which is easy to fly.

The Cub is easy to fly.

As soon as the pupil can land reliably send them solo and then teach radio, GPS and all the other bits that make travelling in a light aeroplane practical.

Radio and GPS can be taught without any airplane being needed, period.

Thereafter you can do advanced things like flying old aeroplanes that are hard to fly and aerobatics and so forth.

Obviously your vision of what an advanced airplane is and my understanding of an advanced airplane are diametrically different.

I learned to fly on tail wheel airplanes in 1953, they were basic trainers and they produced competent pilots in the same general time frame today's pilots are trained in modern basic nose wheel airplanes.

To me advanced airplanes were the ones I finished my career on which were modern glass cockpit airliners.

Shaggy Sheep Driver

7th Mar 2014, 22:54

It was Richard Bach's 'A Gift of Wings' that inspired me to get my licence. Wasn't too impressed by 'Johnathan', though.

Mach Jump

7th Mar 2014, 23:25

It takes a special kind of imagination to understand JLS Chuck. ;) Always nice to see!

MJ:ok:

The500man

8th Mar 2014, 13:46

I think life is getting too complicated so people prefer things to be simple and easily accessible. The driving comparison was spot on. Modern cars can be thrown into corners, you can stamp on the brakes and you don't even need to know how to check oil levels or how to change a tyre. Aviation is decades behind but it is surely progressing in the same direction with computer assisted handling (oh God you may stall) and automatics so you can relax and maybe take a much needed nap after all the stresses of everyday life.

Personally I don't much like the Cub. It flies nicely but, it's too small, hard to get in and out of, has lots of things to bang your head on and has heel brakes that anyone of reasonable human proportions can barely use. It's also slow, and has tandem seating with only one instrument panel. I can see why it's not the average pilots first choice of rental.

Somebody above mentioned that they usually see tail-dragger pilots landing nicely whereas tricycle pilots tend to find "other ways" of landing. If this is evident of a tricycle trained pilot flying in a tricycle aircraft than it is surely something that proper flight instruction on a tricycle aircraft should be able to fix. So in summary it's all the flight instructors fault! Wouldn't a higher barrier to entry for flight instruction be a better solution to assbackwardsness than using an old ass... erm errr aeroplane? :)

Shaggy Sheep Driver

8th Mar 2014, 14:17

Somebody above mentioned that they usually see tail-dragger pilots landing nicely whereas tricycle pilots tend to find "other ways" of landing. If this is evident of a tricycle trained pilot flying in a tricycle aircraft than it is surely something that proper flight instruction on a tricycle aircraft should be able to fix. So in summary it's all the flight instructors fault! Wouldn't a higher barrier to entry for flight instruction be a better solution to assbackwardsness than using an old ass... erm errr aeroplane?

500, you're missing something. I already made the point that a good instructor can teach correct landing technique in a nose wheel aeroplane. The problem is, nose wheel aeroplanes will (to some extent) tolerate very poor landing technique, the like of which is all too commonly seen at GA fields, because pilots (humans!) are lazy. One day, the nose leg gives up the unequal struggle (check out the huge number of noseleg collapses in AAIB accident reports each month. These incidents rarely cause injury, but they are very expensive to fix - shock loaded engine etc - and add greatly to our insurance premiums).

Tailwheel aeroplanes will not tolerate sloppy landing technique. So tail wheel pilots tend to land correctly.

Armchairflyer

8th Mar 2014, 18:00

Tailwheel aeroplanes will not tolerate sloppy landing technique. So tail wheel pilots tend to land correctly.That's one outcome scenario. Another would be that tailwheel aeroplanes are simply more likely to be damaged in cases where pilots (humans!) momentarily perform under par.

BTW, given that this is apparently such a "stick & rudder" topic, I am almost astonished that no one has so far mentioned the fact that according to the well-known book of the same name, it's the taildragger landing gear which is assbackwards :E

The500man

8th Mar 2014, 18:59

The problem is, nose wheel aeroplanes will (to some extent) tolerate very poor landing technique, the like of which is all too commonly seen at GA fields, because pilots (humans!) are lazy.

So the simple solution is that we should all fly the most difficult aircraft we can find so we can constantly (hopefully) demonstrate our superior skills? Or aircraft manuafacturers could make the nose wheel more robust to account for the lazy b:mad:d flying it! The second option would be more in keeping with current trends.

Shaggy Sheep Driver

8th Mar 2014, 19:28

aircraft manuafacturers could make the nose wheel more robust to account for the lazy bd flying it! The second option would be more in keeping with current trends.

I suppose you could follow that route. And cover all the hills with bouncy air bags in case an errant pilot should hit one... etc.... etc.... :E

Crash one

8th Mar 2014, 20:48

"Nose wheel aircraft will tolerate sloppy landing techniques" ? Only up to the point where the front wheel gives up.

Tailwheel aircraft can take more abuse on rough ground than nose wheels. So should be safer to train on once the basic difference in CofG has been grasped.

What is wrong with being trained to a slightly better standard than the barest minimum?

Chuck Ellsworth

8th Mar 2014, 20:54

What is wrong with being trained to a slightly better standard than the barest minimum?

My guess is a lot of pilots are satisfied with mediocrity because anything higher is just to difficult for them.

Crash one

8th Mar 2014, 22:08

Trouble is most of them don't see it as mediocre, they have spent loads of cash and expect to be called Captain. They carry a flight bag the size of a portacabin , to hire a 172 for an hour. How on earth do they need any more training??

thing

8th Mar 2014, 23:44

My guess is a lot of pilots are satisfied with mediocrity because anything higher is just to difficult for them. You could level that at most activities though, driving being one of them. There's an element of being good enough to do something with reasonable safety and wanting to be better at something for the sake of being better at it. Personally I like to be good at what I do. It probably makes me no safer than the guy who flies once a month to the same local bacon butty place but we really have no right to criticise that. The same guy may get great pleasure from it and be as safe as houses.

It's the same as a guy who makes a table. One guy bolts four 4x4 pieces of fence post to a slab of pine. He has a table and it will stand for a hundred years. It wouldn't be the table that I would make and you or I may criticise the shoddy nature of it and lack of finesse but his would still function as a table. Same with pilots. How good do you have to be? I'm only driven to be better at something because that's my personality type I suppose. If I can put an a/c within 50' of where I want it to be I'll want to put it within 25' next time. It's not really making me any safer because I'm never going to land on a spit of gravel in the Canadian tundra, it's just my desire to be good at something. Other people are different, good enough does for them.

abgd

9th Mar 2014, 00:46

Speaking for myself and probably a fair few other people, I get about 1 day a month when, if the weather is good, I can go flying. I can afford about 2 hours. The weather isn't always good. I often don't go out for a few months. I hope things get easier in the future - I have plans for a Luciole (taildragger) - but in the meanwhile it's nice to fly something that is reasonably forgiving and doesn't require hundreds of hours a year in order to remain acceptably safe.

Shaggy Sheep Driver

9th Mar 2014, 10:03

I have plans for a Luciole (taildragger)

Well, I hope it flies better than the WW1 Luciole. Was it in 'Gift of Wings' where the film pilot flying the replica WW1 Luciole said of it "it's a very fine Luciole, but it will never be an aeroplane". ;)

abgd

11th Mar 2014, 06:20

Colomban Luciole - same stable as the cricri. I hope it flies better too!

Chuck Ellsworth

11th Mar 2014, 16:09

Colomban Luciole - same stable as the cricri. I hope it flies better too!

There is a problem with how the Cri-Cri fly's?

abgd

11th Mar 2014, 16:27

Compared to the WW1 Luciole... Not that I've ever flown either that one or the Cri-Cri.

Shaggy Sheep Driver

11th Mar 2014, 17:27

Some confusion has arisen; AFAIK the Cri Cri flies just fine, and the WW1 Luciole didn't. Not that I've flown either.:E

cockney steve

11th Mar 2014, 19:49

When one is taught to drive, there are a lot of things to be co-ordinated.

Perhaps the hardest, is clutch control,combined with the throttle and slipping off the parking -brake, to ensure a smooth pull away....
We don't have studes with a crash-gearbox, no power-steering and a leather cone-clutch, do we?
Once the fundamentals of tap-dancing with the feet are coordinated with turning the wheel and shifting gear,then stuff like manually-cancelled indicators and the "vintage" mechanicals can be introduced.

It's generally acknowledged the Spamcans have vice-free, benign handling....very forgiving,easy to manipulate....point it down the runway, balls to the wall and she'll fly when she's ready:).....
None of this "tail-lift, vicious swing to catch" gyroscopic-precession lark,
No craning your head round the cowling to see what's up front while the tail's down, routine.....yes, it's good fun, but send a "green" pilot solo,too early and there's a real chance of it getting damaged,if not on the way to liftoff, then possibly in an arrival that isn't up to snuff.

So, Chuck, I favour the start with a spamcan, until the trainee is comfortable with the basic control skills, Then,is the time to introduce something more challenging!...but, as I said before,It's about keeping the industry lubricated with cash and thus the CAA wallahs in a job!

yup, cynical old barsted, aint I:}

Chuck Ellsworth

11th Mar 2014, 22:53

So, Chuck, I favour the start with a spamcan, until the trainee is comfortable with the basic control skills, Then,is the time to introduce something more challenging!...but, as I said before,It's about keeping the industry lubricated with cash and thus the CAA wallahs in a job!

Here is an interesting observation based on my recall of flight training.

I started training pilots in the mid fifties mostly on tail wheel airplanes, the last time I used my flight instructors rating to train PPL's was in 1965 and about half of the training that last year was in a tail wheel airplane.

I can only recall one accident during all those years involving a PPL student and that was a ground loop in a Luscombe by a PPL student doing solo circuits. ( Not my student..)

So.....taking into account that time span covers having observed thousands and thousands of accident free training hours and only one loss of control accident how does that compare to the number of busted nose wheels one can find in the AAIB reports?

thing

11th Mar 2014, 23:21

Tail wheel aircraft don't have nose wheels?...:)

Chuck Ellsworth

11th Mar 2014, 23:51

Maybe the new more modern airplanes are easier to fly but the training is of a lower quality? :(

Silvaire1

12th Mar 2014, 01:25

I can only recall one accident during all those years involving a PPL student and that was a ground loop in a Luscombe by a PPL student doing solo circuits.

I've seen a Luscombe that hasn't been ground looped (note singular tense). I've also seen a lot of damaged Luscombe wings hanging on hangar walls ready to be repaired some day. They made them with detachable tip spars knowing what could, and in fact did, happen.

I think people land poorly because they don't perceive there is a penalty for doing so. With a tail wheel aircraft like the Luscombe the primary student (that was me) becomes aware that every landing must be the best his primary skills allow, or he may very likely end up with a wing on the wall. Fear is a great motivator. Whether you think that is beneficial to training depends on your view of fear as a learning tool. Much like discipline in schools actually.

Chuck Ellsworth

12th Mar 2014, 01:56

The Luscombe is no more difficult to take off or land than the Cssna 140 it's closest kind of trainer.

In the air the Luscombe is superior to the Cessna 140 in control response....there could be a problem for students switching from the Cessna 140 to the Luscombe with the braking system though.

The best tail wheel basic trainer I ever taught on was the Fleet Canuck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_Canuck

Part way down this article is a picture of CF-EBE on floats.

I did my first solo on EBE on wheels at Toronto Island on August 13 1953.

Silvaire1

12th Mar 2014, 04:26

I'd agree that in terms of control (specifically) the Luscombe is better than the Cessna copy. But I think the difference would be inconsequential to a student - either one would demand their full attention.

Pace

12th Mar 2014, 09:35

I don't think this is really to do with tail wheel or tricycle! You could learn in either!
You mention learning to drive a car ? A good example and one close to my heart as in my 20s I was a racing driver in formula ford, formula 3 and clubmans!
Loss of sponsor and a pregnant girlfriend who I married forced me out of racing and I took up flying!
Hence why I argue handling so much in both car driving and flying!
Yes you can teach someone to drive a car but handling a car is a totally different matter!
I would make skid pan training part of learning to drive!
Most drivers with their shiny new licences do not have a clue about handling a car so fingers crossed that they do not get into a situation where the car under steers straight into a brick wall!
With the right teaching and a reasonably competent student they could be taught to fly a tail dragger or a tricycle or for that matter learn on a complex aircraft like a retractable twin ( yes some have done that in the past ) or a Spitfire :ok:
It used to be legal to do a PPL on. Twin! Our modern training is a result of our liability mummy state society!

Pace

cockney steve

12th Mar 2014, 13:42

Maybe the new more modern airplanes are easier to fly but the training is of a lower quality?

You got it!.....today's litigious society and the refusal to take responsibility for one's own actions are the drivers.

@Pace..... Dead right! I progressed from a 98cc James, (2-speed, hand gear change) through to the latest BSA Unit-construction A65 (650cc)
pulling a Watsonian Avon single-seater and boasting an Avonaire-Deluxe full fairing.

On winter snow, it was great fun. we used to park either side of the works drive....bat up the drive, slap everything on,tweak the bars, big broudside skida rapid dab/release of front brake, to bounce front suspension and release,so the remaining energy from the rebound would see me trickle backwards into my parking- spot...very satisfying , that,
Similarly, when a Reliant followed, then a car and a Company car (at 22 years old) I had difficulty explaining 2 sets of tyres in under 10,000 miles, to the MD, but I sure knew how to handle motor vehicles!

Big Pistons Forever

12th Mar 2014, 15:38

Maybe the new more modern airplanes are easier to fly but the training is of a lower quality? :(

The fatal accident rate for GA in Canada and the USA was 4 times higher (expressed as accidents per 100,000 hrs flown) in the 1950's as it is now. So if the instructors in the old days were so great why is that ?

Pace

12th Mar 2014, 15:56

BPF
I would like to see those statistics :ok:
Hang on I was taught by old style instructors early 80s not 50s
No we did not have GPS then the greatest contributor to flight safety

Pace

Chuck Ellsworth

12th Mar 2014, 16:12

BPF
I would like to see those statistics.

So would I pace, statistics can be what ever one needs to prove a point.

My statistics are based on my own personal involvement in flight training having been a flight instructor from the 1950's to the present.

I have been through all this before and it is a no win, I give my thoughts based on actually having lived and worked through that time frame and the same people basically call me a liar based on their " statistics ".

Armchairflyer

12th Mar 2014, 21:09

Maybe these are the statistics BPF was referring to:
https://www.aopa.org/About-AOPA/Statistical-Reference-Guide/General-Aviation-Safety-Record-Current-and-Historic.aspx#gaaccidents

And even though statistics may be misused (and with no intention of disparaging anyone's individual experiences or doubting the truth of same), "the plural of anecdote is not data".

Chuck Ellsworth

12th Mar 2014, 21:35

Maybe these are the statistics BPF was referring to:
https://www.aopa.org/About-AOPA/Stat...px#gaaccidents

I have no idea what statistics he is referring to but those statistics seem to be number of fatal accidents......

.......many, many factors come into what the causes of fatal accidents are.

Maybe my experiences are unique and I lived in a bubble during by flying career and my observance of the flying abilities of all the pilots that I gave flight instruction to is flawed because I come from an era when we were trained by sub standard flight instructors, hell yeh that is my problem.. teaching myopia.

Also when I owned a flight school it was just my bad luck to have had an unusually large number of less than stellar instructors working for me.

Armchairflyer

12th Mar 2014, 22:12

Erm, yes, that's what BPF was referring to ...The fatal accident rate for GA in Canada and the USA was 4 times higher (expressed as accidents per 100,000 hrs flown) in the 1950's as it is now.Actually, for the (apparently purely US-based) statistics given in the link, taking the averages of 1950-1959 and 2000-2009 gives a fatal accident rate per 100,000 hours flown which is "merely" 3.25 times higher in the 50s than in the latter period.

That doesn't necessarily contradict your experience or even the brief conjecture that "maybe (...) training is of a lower quality (nowadays)", especially referring to airplane handling (e.g., taildragger vs. trike), as landing accidents (whether groundloops or bent nosegears) rarely result in fatalities or even serious injuries AFAIK.

My personal view on this would rather be that the emphasis on airplane handling may partly miss the point as far as safety is concerned. Sloppy handling and imperfect landings may not be nice to watch, but they rarely kill or injure people. Bad decisions or exploring the envelope too enthusiastically do (same goes for driving ;)). And to my knowledge the old adage that "Truly superior pilots are those who use their superior judgment to avoid those situations where they might have to use their superior skills" was not invented by badly trained and ham-fisted children of the magenta line.

Chuck Ellsworth

12th Mar 2014, 22:42

O.K. gang, I am becoming a victim of my own circular arguments that are detrimental to any real value here.

I will now bow out of my own thread and leave it up to the rest of you to hash it out.

In closing it would seem to be reasonable to expect that technology in aircraft design and flying aids would bring down the fatal accident rate.

Looking back on my own exposure to airplanes the modern jets are far superior to the DC3 era, therefore one would expect a lower accident rate.

Conversely the industry still relies on a high number of new low time pilots as instructors and it is unlikely the curve of competence would go upwards as time goes by, because they can not really teach something they don't know.

Pace

12th Mar 2014, 22:54

Armchairflyer

I was born in the 50s and took up flying in the early 80s. Where can you draw the conclusion that higher accidents statistics were due to inferior instructing in the 50s compared to now?

Back in the 50s the navigation equipment was non existent compared to nowadays. Pilots did not have the abundance of situational displays and all the other gubbins available today including all the internet weather etc available nowadays, flight planning programmes and all the other pilot aids available on the net !

Now we even have chuted aircraft where the pilot is told to pull the chute for anything and everything which might challenge him including totally stupid stuff like frozen pitot tube, radio failure, simple stall off incorrect use of the autopilot, failure to fly a basic missed approach. I suppose those chute pulls were all down to the superior instructing nowadays?

Give me a break when we have threads started here by pilots scared to stall on their own because they are worried it might go wrong and then they will be in zones they have never experienced with modern instructing?

What a load of bull! Those statistics have NOTHING to do with superior instructing nowadays.

I have lost seven friends since I started flying! When I think back to some of the **** stuff I have flown in, The homemade approached to ridiculously low levels, the Icing, failures, thunderstorm encounters etc etc etc. I wonder how I am still here!
Does that make me a brilliant pilot NO a lucky one maybe! But one thing I am sure of some of the old instructors taught me things which have served me well and got me out of numerous scrapes.

Pace

Armchairflyer

12th Mar 2014, 23:14

Pace,

where did I draw the conclusion that higher accidents statistics were due to inferior instructing in the 50s compared to now? I just researched a source that BPF (possibly) referred to to make a point that instructing in the 50s may not have been that superior compared to now. Don't shoot the messenger ;)

Chuck Ellsworth

12th Mar 2014, 23:39

Oh dear God I just can't resist staying in this discussion.

Soooo....

Armchairflyer in the fifties our training to get the CPL included the requirement to demonstrate recoveries from unusual attitudes on limited panel instruments....Airspeed....Altimiter and Turn and Bank only.

The recovery was performed using three stage amber as our vision limiting device....the " Hood " that pilots wear today was not in use......

A " hood " is a very poor vision limiting device compared to two stage amber to practice flying by reference to instruments only..

......so if we could demonstrate that level of proficiency in the fifties how do you think today's CPL students would do using three stage amber on a limited panel for unusual attitude recovery?

Even more important, how many of today's flight instructors teaching new CPL students would be able to teach that exercise using the same equipment?.....the answer to that question may help us to decide if the old school school instructors were inferior to today's instructors.

Big Pistons Forever

13th Mar 2014, 01:48

I learned to fly in the early 1970's. At that time there were still lots of flight schools with tail draggers and more importantly there were still many active X military instructors most of whom had been Military QFI's. They were the product of a huge Air Force training system and a system that had most pilots only served a short service commission and then went to civvy street.

These guys trained most of the instructors and even though most working instructors started as low time CPL's with instructor ratings they were mentored by men of great experience and ability. There were still lots of tail draggers in commercial use in the bush and in ag flying, so tail wheel time was an advantage to CPL's looking for work

Today that cohort of tax payer paid for exceptional air force training is almost totally absent as air forces have greatly reduced their throughput and pilots stay in for much longer, so getting good instructor rating instruction and getting on the job mentoring from a professional is much more difficult. Tailwheels are almost extinct in commercial aviation jobs and hefty insurance surcharges for tail wheel aircraft make it difficult to use them at flying schools and they are perceived to have little advantage for budding CPL's.

Advocating a return to the "good old days" of trail draggers and experienced instructors is IMO a totally impractical fantasy.

In any case I don't think it is necessary as I see plenty of keen young instructors with a great attitude and pretty good hands and feet. So it would seem to me if one was truly interested in improving flight training today there we should be advocating for things that are actually implementable.

I would also suggest that if you want young instructors to actually listen to you continually crapping on them with blanket statements that imply they are universally incompetent is not an effective strategy.

So to start the discussion here is 4 ideas to make instructing better

1) The POH gives a range of airspeeds to fly on final. Use the lowest speed given for every configuration. There seem to me far to many flight schools that mandate excessively high approach speeds which IMO is largely responsible for the busted nosewheel accidents.

2) Place more emphasis on learning aircraft systems and how an airplane works. Low/no knowledge results in airplanes operated by mindlessly following the checklist without understanding what is happening. Runup checks are a particularly egregious example of this.

3) Checklist are a safety of flight tool and not an instructional tool. Most flight schools are needlessly long and complicated. If misusing a particular control, guage,device will not result in an immediate reduction in flight safety than it should not be on the checklist. Also they are called "checklists" not "do-lists" for a reason. Most checks should be done as a flow and then when appropriate "checked" with the checklist.

4) GPS is a huge safety enabler. Flight schools need to stop pretending it doesn't exist and instead educate pilots on how to use it appropriately.

Crash one

13th Mar 2014, 02:00

Chuck/BPF how about the two of you go to a Flight school far far away, and ask for ab-initio instruction. Tell them you have never flown before, and see what you get. Just an idea.

Big Pistons Forever

13th Mar 2014, 02:37

My current PPL student goes for his flight test next Wednesday. I frankly don't care what instruction was like in the past, I prefer to make a difference one student at a time right now.

I have said my piece and don't think I have much more to offer to this thread.

Chuck Ellsworth

13th Mar 2014, 02:48

Crash one, I started this thread wondering why a flight school would sell its Super Cub, they already own it and it is insured and part of their training fleet.

Like all discussions this one has gone around and around with lots of different ideas.

I have let my medical expire for the last year because it was the only way I could get out of having to fly for someone else, I am toying with the idea of renewing my medical.

If I do renew my medical and decide to do some part time training doing it in a flight school would not be where I would choose to do it for several reasons.

The biggest reason is I have not done any training in the flight school sector of aviation since 1965 and I have no desire to renew my flight instructors rating for many reasons.....and one of the biggest reasons is I can not see any reason to work for the low pay to be made in a flight school.

However I could go back to offering flight training focused on skills upgrading to licensed pilots and for sure that can pay very well, when I was last in the advanced flight training business my hourly rate was about five to ten times the hourly rate a flight school pays.

So no thanks I'll pass on going to a flight school just to see how they operate. :ok:

Shaggy Sheep Driver

13th Mar 2014, 09:27

There seem to me far to many flight schools that mandate excessively high approach speeds which IMO is largely responsible for the busted nosewheel accidents.

I think the reason the nosewheel breaks is because the landing is not properly held off. Too high an approach speed might lead to not properly holding off, but will not in itself break the nosewheel. However, too high an approach speed correctly held off will result in l o n g float just above the runway as the speed bleeds off. That's why some folk plonk it on 3-point and stand on the brakes.... bye bye nose leg, eventually.

Desert185

13th Mar 2014, 14:17

BPF:

1, 2, 3 and 4 in post 124, above...:ok:

Pace

13th Mar 2014, 15:10

1) The POH gives a range of airspeeds to fly on final. Use the lowest speed given for every configuration. There seem to me far to many flight schools that mandate excessively high approach speeds which IMO is largely responsible for the busted nosewheel accidents.

This one I cannot agree with :{ A pilot should be taught the correct use of power and drag and have the confidence to change speeds down the approach! changing speeds does not mean an unstable approach.

This is again an example of the move away from a handling pilot to a driver and has those pilots too scared and with little ability to use techniques to slow down to a correct VREF speed for landing.

When a pilot moves into busier airports he may be required to fly high speed on the approach or reduce to minimum speed. We are not talking about experienced pilots but any who fly into larger airports.

That inability to control speeds will probably reflect in landings too where again the pilot needs confidence in handling the aircraft in crosswinds and near the ground as it all frankly comes back to a lack of handling skills.

Many appear to cross their fingers and become passengers to the landing hoping it all turns out ok? rather than flying the aircraft to touchdown and in control to full stop.

Its the lack of handling and landing ability not higher speeds on approach which causes broken nose wheels.
I have flown with some who are not even new pilots who tense on the landing and almost seem surprised and relieved when it touches down ok.

Another I right seated in a twin got into the famous Seneca porpoise and sat there rigid at the controls as the bucking got worse praying for the bucks to stop yet not realising that only his inputs (or rather eventually mine) could rectify that situation!!

Incipient recovery has had a number of threads started where the pilots are not confident in stalling on their own for fear of getting it wrong and ending up in unknown territory (i.e. spins)

Even the FAA are now looking at adding more handling in the syllabus after a spate of accidents and even one Airline crash where handling has not been up to standard.
This is probably the area which has got weaker in modern flight training and was stronger in the past

Pace

Chuck Ellsworth

13th Mar 2014, 16:47

Its the lack of handling and landing ability not higher speeds on approach which causes broken nose wheels.

Exactly, and that is because the training industry has allowed the training to be dumbed down to a " Paint by numbers " teaching process rather than teaching the students to be artists.

I have flown with some who are not even new pilots who tense on the landing and almost seem surprised and relieved when it touches down ok.

We were at the airport a few days ago sitting in front of the hangar in the sun talking and watching airplanes and it was interesting to watch so many approach in a nose high attitude and no flare at all, they just set up a fixed nose high attitude and wait and pray for runway contact hopefully while there is still runway below them.

Incipient recovery has had a number of threads started where the pilots are not confident in stalling on their own for fear of getting it wrong and ending up in unknown territory (i.e. spins)

Even the FAA are now looking at adding more handling in the syllabus after a spate of accidents and even one Airline crash where handling has not been up to standard.
This is probably the area which has got weaker in modern flight training and was stronger in the past

Bang on Pace......seems the idea is to teach to the lowest common denominator that will churn out airplane drivers.

Big Pistons Forever

13th Mar 2014, 17:18

So gents I am seeing lots of generalities about "bad instructors", how about some specific practical ideas on how to make flying training better.

I sure don't have a monopoly on "good ideas" and over the years have incorporated some of the ideas I have seen on this and other forums into my own practice as an instructor.

Pace

13th Mar 2014, 17:28

" Paint by numbers " teaching process rather than teaching the students to be artists.

That Phrase about sums up what I feel about flying! It is an art! something from the soul and something creative and not a paint by numbers exercise! Well Said Chuck

Pace

Chuck Ellsworth

13th Mar 2014, 17:29

So gents I am seeing lots of generalities about "bad instructors", how about some specific practical ideas on how to make flying training better.

Excellent idea.

And the best place for such a thread would be the flight instructors forum.

Big Pistons Forever

13th Mar 2014, 17:36

Excellent idea.

And the best place for such a thread would be the flight instructors forum.

Says the guy who posted a thread with the title "Why has flight training gone assbackwards ?" in the Private Flying forum :p ;)

Chuck Ellsworth

13th Mar 2014, 17:49

Quote:
" Paint by numbers " teaching process rather than teaching the students to be artists.

That Phrase about sums up what I feel about flying! It is an art! something from the soul and something creative and not a paint by numbers exercise! Well Said

Pace

Thank you Pace, some posters here try and insinuate that I am anti instructor.

Nothing could be further from the truth because in my opinion the highest aspiration one can strive for in aviation is to be a top quality flight instructor.

Given the nature of the training industry in aviation one can not rise to that level within the structure that we have in the flight training industry, and even if one could somehow teach in a manner that does not fit the structure of the flight school you would have to be like mother Theresa and devote your life to poverty.

When I finally let my instructors rating lapse I found a way to still teach and was able to be properly compensated for my efforts.

For instance when I was in the water bombing business for ten years I was the training pilot / check pilot for a company that had nine heavy water bombers....when I was not actually in the field fire bombing I could teach and earn a good living at the same time.

Another little thought I would like to put out there.

When I post these thoughts / opinions I have enough self worth to use my real name and I do so to try and give more credibility to what I say.....in other words I am not in the least worried about anyone digging into my background as a pilot to find something to discredit my opinions.

How about that . :) :ok: :)

Pace

13th Mar 2014, 17:54

BPF

You don't get the hits in the flight instructors forum :ok: Its a bit off-putting when you wait a week for a response :E

i am not an instructor! OK yes I have trained pilots up for SICs on Citations but thats it so would be kicked out of that forum :{
I Learn a lot from many here and that includes Chuck as well as BPF

Pace

Shaggy Sheep Driver

13th Mar 2014, 17:57

I see the AAIB report is out on the PA38 crash at Cranfield. Seems the instructor mishandled the aeroplane following a partial engine failure on take off, leading to a stall / spin departure. He did get a radio call in, though!

The student on this flight is the brother of someone I know. He suffered serious and significantly life-changing injuries in the crash.

A couple of years ago someone I knew suffered engine failure on take off in another PA38. He too got on the horn but failed to keep flying the aeroplane. He died.

Whatever happened to:

1) Aviate

2) Navigate

3) Communicate

In that order?

The500man

13th Mar 2014, 18:50

1) Communicate

This comes first because you need permission for everything these days.

2) Navigate

This comes second because it directly links into 1 and probably includes a moving map integrated with the radio.

3) Aviate

This comes last because everybody knows how stable aircraft are designed to be these days and you've probably got an auto-pilot. Also no need to look outside because the transponder is on making you feel nice and safe and guess what? It's probably integrated with the moving map and radio!

I jest of course ;)

Armchairflyer

13th Mar 2014, 19:16

Maybe it's just newbie nitpicking, but having read the last few posts I get the impression that they refer to two different aspects of flying/instructing:

maybe unglamorous but potentially live-saving skills like partial panel UA recovery (am I the only one not to know what two- and three stage amber means? :O), systems knowledge (including GPS), flying the airplane first in case of an emergency, recognizing and correcting spiral dives vs. spins
(the last one wasn't explicitly mentioned here, but got frequently cited by Pace in previous threads IIRC)
the fine art of minimum-speed greasers, three point landings etc., basically just about how smooth and well-controlled the aircraft (which should apparently present a "challenge" in this respect) settles back on the earth.

Certainly, both ingredients of a competent pilot, but I wonder whether they should really indiscriminately be put in the same basket, and if the latter doesn't sometimes attract disproportionate attention compared to the former, especially when talking about the "good old times".

Piper.Classique

13th Mar 2014, 19:20

Given the nature of the training industry in aviation one can not rise to that level within the structure that we have in the flight training industry, and even if one could somehow teach in a manner that does not fit the structure of the flight school you would have to be like mother Theresa and devote your life to poverty.

I instruct. In a CLUB. not a school. It doesn't cost me, I am paid expenses. Normal procedure in France, part time instructors doing it to pay back the instruction they had from volunteer instructors. No vow of poverty needed.

Crash one

13th Mar 2014, 19:48

All these cliches about aviate ,navigate, communicate, or superior pilots----superior skills, old bold pilots etc are no use to man or beast, they just make instructors feel superior. What is needed is genuine devotion to the job/vocation of teaching , not a mindless attitude of "when is my job application for the airline going to be accepted."

Early in training I once asked an instructor for 15mins to myself to crawl about the floor to actually see the brake pedals, figure out how they worked relative to the rudder, where the fuel tap was & how it worked etc. I got about 30seconds before he was champing at the bit with "come on let's go". So off we went again fumbling around blindly trying to feel for things. I did a total of 29 hours of navigation exercises over country that I had flown gliders over for years, walked dogs over for even more years, camped in numerous times. I never yet got lost, I was never purposely gotten lost by any instructor in order to find myself.

I once applied some power to climb a few feet to clear a ridge by a better margin (glider pilot thinking) & put us barely into a wisp of mist, I could see through it, I could see the far side valley. The instructor literally ripped the yoke out of my hand, slammed it forward & returned to what I considered too close to the granite. I then watched him write on his notepad "Climbed straight into cloud!!!" With a triumphant flourish. He knew I had flown gliders. Yet I was made to feel like some stupid dumbassed numpty. At that point I decided to give in, go through the mill, get spat out the other side with a licence and then buy an aircraft with a tailwheel and get someone I had respect for to teach me to fly it. Or at least the tailwheel bit.
It was beaten out of me to use the rudder, "stop pissing about with it". Touch & go's "get the bloody nose wheel down before you power up", I was once griped at severely for not actually touching down, in spite of being constantly told to "get it down" up to the far end numbers, probably cost them £2 for a touch & go!

Most instructors do know what they are doing, but at the age of 66 when I finally started to fly power with the intention of finishing the course, I wish they would recognise that we may be rookie pilots but we are not rookie people, when they head out to sea at 3000ft "pull the power off & lose some height" and the glider pilot expresses the feeling of nervousness, pay attention, he isn't scared he just wouldn't do that in a glider!

What does piss them off is a PFL close to an into wind hill and the thing starts to climb, provided they will let you get close enough to it without screaming.
Excuse my ramblings, just my own experiences.

Chuck Ellsworth

13th Mar 2014, 21:03

Excuse my ramblings, just my own experiences.

Relating your experiences with flight training is not rambling, it is educational for those who may be experiencing the same kind of frustration and they might be convinced to find another teacher.

cockney steve

13th Mar 2014, 22:05

Early in training I once asked an instructor for 15mins to myself to crawl about the floor to actually see the brake pedals, figure out how they worked relative to the rudder, where the fuel tap was & how it worked etc. I got about 30seconds before he was champing at the bit with "come on let's go".
At which point, I would have been saying..." and just who is paying for this lesson?"....If he didn't revise his attitude, well there are lots more instructors!

We talk round and round it, but the fact is, in the UK, It's so damned expensive, the stude wants his/her license in the quickest possible time.

When I learned to drive, the instructor advised, "I will teach you how to drive,.....If you just want to pass the test, go to BSM"
(the major national "sausage-machine" driving school chain, at that time)
As a keen motor-enthusiast, I had experience on solo, sidecar and three-wheeler, at that time. Awareness and anticipation have made up for my poor reaction-times...I haven't been killed yet!

Andy_P

13th Mar 2014, 22:49

Incipient recovery has had a number of threads started where the pilots are not confident in stalling on their own for fear of getting it wrong and ending up in unknown territory (i.e. spins)

Ok, I am first to put my hand up here and say I was scared. 60deg Banked turns also scared me. Well the instructors must have done something right, because I am yet to do an area solo (not far off) and I am eager to get up and have a go at it myself now. I am completely confident that if I did enter a spin, that I could recover from it. Not bad going considering 10-15 years ago I would not set foot in any aircraft.

This thread kinda pisses me off a bit. Its a "the old way is better" and you here it in every aspect of life. I hear in my job, I hear in in my other sports, here it everywhere. The simple fact it we are far more educated these days, and I see this as a positive. It reflects in statistics.

You may think you are a great pilot just because you learned seat of the pants flying in a tail dragger, but that does not mean anything. To me a great pilot is one that keeps me alive, and that is all that matters.

So you got thrown in the deep end when you learned. That is stupid. As you said recently in an article Chuck, how many people died learning crop dusting? Once again, absolutely mind numbingly stupid. What a senseless waste of life? Now, you learn to fly a plane safely first, then you go off and learn the finer aspects of flying. Its a gradual safe introduction that minimises risk to both student and instructor. That is a sensible way to teach. Sure, a 172 is pretty tame, but if you want to go learn tail draggers or aerobatics, then you can. It makes no sense to start off learning the most complex stuff. Learn to fly first, then progress. Much safer that way.

I hear the argument about technology all the time, its what I do for a living. The old GPS argument is great. I learned to read chart and use a nautical almanac and sextant for offshore sailing, so it must be better. I used to go hiking and I used a map and compass so it must be better. Fact is, I can safely say that I learned the old way and in my opinion the new way is way is so much better (and safer). I remember when GPS was first introduced, it was pretty hit and miss. Now, technology is so much more robust and reliable, so why not adopt it and make the most of it. I can put my hand up here and say I still have trust issues with GPS, but my rational thought process enables me to overcome this. The real issue here is people get set in their ways, they are afraid to move out of their comfort zone and learn. This is the real problem. This is what makes bad sailors, and I would suggest it also makes bad pilots.

Ongoing learning is the key. Teaching people to think critically is vital. If we maintained the mentality that we should do everything the old way, then we would still be flying with wright brothers (in fact, we would not be flying at all).

Crash one

13th Mar 2014, 22:52

Thank you Chuck, I didn't want to sound like some know all trying to tell instructors what I knew about flying which was bugger all!

However here's a couple more: The syllabus, maybe it was an oversight but I was sent solo, after 14 hrs, after a few hours, 4 I think, of solo consolidation I, perfectly innocently asked if I could perhaps stall the thing, just to see the characteristics of the 152. This caused some kerfuffle in the instructors little room while I was asked to wait!! Exercise 10 A & B followed.

I don't recall much instruction regarding weight & balance, something on the lines of "we've flown together before so let's go". Having to figure it out for the GFT wasn't easy!!

My QXC solo was done in, I suppose, scud running conditions. A rain squall at 2 miles beyond take off, I advised departure that they should expect to get rained on in 5 mins so get the G&T indoors. 20mins later I had a race to the first turn point with a big black cloud, managed that, turned 160 deg and ran ahead of it to first landing, waited a while till it passed then followed it to second landing, then ran for home before the next one came too close. I enjoyed it but only because I'd done similar in snow with gliders.

I only did one diversion, once again over familiar home ground, 10 miles to home base! I did no short field take offs or landings, nor any ops from grass till after I bought my own aircraft & based it on 600metres grass farm strip.

I also never did anything in the way of practice PAN, which I think is a no no in US but is encouraged by D&D in UK for their exercise as well as students.

After the required solo time & QXC I was then abandoned & left to arrange the GFT with the examiner at another airfield by myself. Other students said the same. Maybe that is standard practice?

Is any of this standard practice or was I just unlucky? This was all 8 yrs ago so may well have changed.

My licence is just a NPPL, which doesn't allow me to add any IR etc but I know a very good ex instructor (lapsed ticket) who had me doing enough blind flying to find home base well enough if required. The aircraft isn't instrument rated but it does have a half decent panel.

Big Pistons Forever

13th Mar 2014, 23:19

Crash One.

Flying Instruction is a 2 way street. It takes an instructor who is ready to teach and a student who is ready to learn. What I get out of your post is that neither was present.

Personally I tell all my students that all they are committing to is the first 5 hours. At that point we sit and evaluate if this is going to work. On numerous occasions over the years the answer has been no. It doesn't matter why but if it is not working for what ever reason than I have absolutely no problem with setting them up with someone else.

This procedure has served me well and I recommend it to both students and instructors. Life is too short for students to put up with bad instructors, or instructors to put up with students with a bad attitude.

Shaggy Sheep Driver

Aviate-Navigate-Communicate is a meaningless platitude unless the "How" is addressed. It is like saying "Be A Better PIlot", sounds nice but it is not very helpful advice.

Lets take for example the tragic Tomahawk EFATO accident. In this case the engine failed but the climb attitude was maintained until the airplane stalled and spun.

So how do you train for the "aviate" part for this scenario. Well what I do is require all my ab initio students do a takeoff brief before every takeoff. The first thing on the brief is "wheel forward establish gliding attitude". While they are verbalizing this I get them to physically push the control wheel forward. My hope is that this will become an automatic reaction that will save their life in the event of an EFATO.

Pace

I think you missed my point regarding the approach speed. At the moment the landing flare starts there is only one "right" speed. Any slower and there will not be enough energy for a full flare and the risk of a heavy touchdown. Any faster and there will be excessive float. You are correct than the approach can be flown at any speed but an approach flown at various speeds requires the judgement skills to manage the approach so the airplane is at the right speed at the start of the flare. This judgement requires experience. Since we are discussing ab initio instruction this experience will by definition not be there.

In any case if the student or new PPL can't fly an approach at a constant selected airspeed on a stable flight path than trying to teach them to do an approach with varying airspeeds is an exercise in futility.

The problem as I see it is that many students and new PPL's can fly a good stable approach at a constant selected airspeed, except the speed they are told to use is too fast, making it much harder to get a good landing.

I am not in the least worried about anyone digging into my background as a pilot to find something to discredit my opinions.

Seems a bit paranoid.......

Fly-by-Wife

14th Mar 2014, 00:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck Ellsworth

I am not in the least worried about anyone digging into my background as a pilot to find something to discredit my opinions.

Seems a bit paranoid.......

On the contrary, it seems to be the very antithesis of paranoid.

FBW

Chuck Ellsworth

14th Mar 2014, 00:44

On the contrary, it seems to be the very antithesis of paranoid.

FBW

FBW, to you and I and most people who read this forum logic dictates that if I were paranoid about my reputation in aviation the last thing I would do would be use my real name.

However there is a long history between myself and BPF.

The big problem with attempting to defend ones self from anonymous posters is the very fact you are arguing with someone in the shadows who obviously feels the need for anonymity, for what ever reason....:confused:

Before this thread really goes south, the direction it is headed, I am finished commenting any further, thanks to all of you who kept this thread on a civil level.

Chuck Ellsworth

Crash one

14th Mar 2014, 01:17

BPF

I'm sorry but I disagree with not willing to learn, I most definitely was willing to learn, but some, not all, of the instructors I had were not very sympathetic to anyone who may have had some form of flight experience prior to the event. They came across as, "you are a student, you therefore know nothing and I will teach you". This is not always the case and generalising like that pisses people off. I am not a know all asshole unwilling to listen but I'm afraid I can recognise waffle & bull**** when I hear it. I've been flying very irregularly since 1956, I'm not stupid, I take a great interest in trying to improve my capabilities. I have tried very hard not to be a smart ass in everything I do, and just for the record, I pretty much expected your response by the way you seem to defend the instructor in many of your posts. I hate being misunderstood.

Edit: as for real names versus anonymity.

Trevor Harvey

Ex Royal Navy crash & rescue, glider pilot, 7 years with a power licence, 6 years owning a very benign taildragger, retired machine tool designer and looking to learn all I can with whatever time I have left at 74 yr old.

Not much by some standards but what the hell!!

Big Pistons Forever

14th Mar 2014, 01:41

Crash 1

I of course do not know you or observed the instruction you received. All I have to go by is your posts which described an extremely dysfunctional instructional process. My experience has been when things are that bad the problem is not totally one sided. By that I mean both parties are contributing to the problem.

Students have to take ownership of their training. That means researching schools, making an effort to establish a good rapport with their instructor and if for what ever reason they feel that things are not going right to communicate their issues to their instructor and if necessary the chief flight instructor. A change of instructors or an insistence that all instruction will be with the one instructor that works for you may be required.

Are there bad instructors out there ? Absolutely ! Could Flying training be better, of course but presuming incompetence, and venality as the norm for todays instructor cadre, which seems the subtext to many posts does not seem to be a very useful way to improve the situation. If that makes me an apologist for instructors, then I guess you are correct.

Shaggy Sheep Driver

14th Mar 2014, 09:09

Aviate-Navigate-Communicate is a meaningless platitude unless the "How" is addressed. It is like saying "Be A Better PIlot", sounds nice but it is not very helpful advice.

Lets take for example the tragic Tomahawk EFATO accident. In this case the engine failed but the climb attitude was maintained until the airplane stalled and spun.

So how do you train for the "aviate" part for this scenario. Well what I do is require all my ab initio students do a takeoff brief before every takeoff. The first thing on the brief is "wheel forward establish gliding attitude". While they are verbalizing this I get them to physically push the control wheel forward. My hope is that this will become an automatic reaction that will save their life in the event of an EFATO.

All of that is true. In both cases I cited the pilot allowed the speed to decay and the AoA to increase. They did not GET THE NOSE DOWN! Naturally, in each case the aeroplane stalled and spun.

Yet both those pilots got out a radio call, the one who died did so as the aeroplane was slowing and its AoA increasing (it isn't clear whether this was the case in Cranfield accident). That shows that not only did those pilots not do the intuitive thing and take care of AoA, they diverted attention to getting on the horn to talk to someone! Why? First... FLY THE AEROPLANE!

When it happened to me (ironically off that same runway the pilot died from) in the Chippy the first thing I did was to get the bleeding nose down - quite sharply. And I didn't have to think about it... many, many PFLs had made it instinctive! Only when the aeroplane was stable in (slow, slightly descending) flight did I get on the horn to warn everyone else to get out of the way as I was landing IMMEDIATLY off a very short final from a very low circuit (I coundn't hear the radio even though using a headset because of the cachophony from the mis-firing engine, so just put out repeated transmissions).

Aviate (get the AoA under control), navigate (pick your field), if there's time, communicate (warn other traffic what you are doing).

foxmoth

14th Mar 2014, 09:11

Crash 1,
I would love to know where you learnt so people can know to avoid it!
I can understand the instructor not giving time before a flight to crawl around the aircraft if they had a full book - they either cut your lesson short, so instead of getting an hour (50 mins airborne), you only get 45 (35) minutes which which does make the flying time less effective, or they are running into the next students time - what I WOULD have done though is suggested a time when you COULD come in and do this. Without a full book, there is NO excuse!
I am amazed you had not covered stalling properly prior to Solo - solo is exercise 14, and when I was taught maths 10 comes a few numbers before this!
The other examples you give also sound a little a though you were dealing with an instructor who was not very good and probably low experience to book!

Pace

14th Mar 2014, 09:24

SSD

But this is the point some instructor somewhere signed that guy off who failed to push the nose over and there are two many PPLs like that.
I am treating myself to a few hours in a Cirrus this year as I think its a great plane but reading the Cirrus chute pull accidents I was frankly horrified.
Chute pull for blocked pitot ??? :ugh:
Chute pull for stall off VS on autopilot :ugh:
Chute pull for radio failure :ugh:
Chute pull for failure to fly ILS and loss of control on miss :ugh:
Chute pull for failed nav display :ugh:

So many other loss of control pulls which should never have happened to a well taught competent pilot.

This is not a dig at instructors but a dig at the training syllabus which needs to put far more into handling and not playing with fancy displays.
There should be an advanced handling segment of the PPL taking 5 hrs chop 5 hrs out of the PPL to make way for it. not hard to find 5 hrs of less priority stuff in there.
If that is too hard have a five hours advanced handling rating to tack on the PPL

Pace

foxmoth

14th Mar 2014, 09:51

This is not a dig at instructors but a dig at the training syllabus which needs to put far more into handling and not playing with fancy displays

It does not matter what the syllabus is - a decent instructor should be making sure his student is competent. Having said that, I think there are many pilots that might be competent when they get their licence, but it might be a few years down the line that they buy a Cirrus and many pilots do not keep up to speed with the basics, so it may be nothing to do with the basic teaching!

Pace

14th Mar 2014, 11:20

FOXMOTH :ok:

There is some truth in that! As another thought I wonder how much we become victims of technology, autopilots and such which we come to rely on forgetting our basic flying skills.
How often do pilot get lost in the displays and systems relying on pressing the autopilot button on and sitting there as PAX for the flight.

How often do SEP pilots practice PFLs or stalls or even steep turns.

Its the same with twin pilots! How often do they practice engine out scenarios? often not at all!

Maybe years back the pilot did not have all this technology and had to be more of a hands on thinking and creative pilot?

I can remember when I thought Decca was amazing as well as being able to artificially place a VOR on track :ok:

Now we have pictorial terrain displays all on a screen knowing where we are to within a metre. We even have a button to press to level the wings for us! but flying some of these machines is unreal a bit like flying a home simulator rather than an aircraft? Hence basic handling gets lost somewhere in the mix? Until its suddenly needed but lacking.

Hence Chucks comments of flying should be an Art but has in many cases become a book of painting by numbers was very thought provoking.
Equally BPFs comments on broken nose wheels due to excess speed on approach would reinforce that flying by numbers has crept into the training world as well. Sorry BPF :E maybe show your students how to fly a faster approach and still be on the numbers for landing? Show them how to use power and drag in all its guises not just gear and flaps :E

Pace

maxred

14th Mar 2014, 11:42

Before this thread really goes south, the direction it is headed, I am finished commenting any further, thanks to all of you who kept this thread on a civil level.Chuck Ellsworth

Shame that it has to end this way:ouch:

but it might be a few years down the line that they buy a Cirrus and many pilots do not keep up to speed with the basics, so it may be nothing to do with the basic teaching!

Exactly why recurrent training, and training on type, is essential.

Hence Chucks comments of flying should be an Art but has in many cases become a book of painting by numbers was very thought provoking.

And in my view it still is an art. By that I mean, a process of self improvement, a pride in doing things well. An understanding that when you make an error, you try and learn from it. It appears to me, as life changes, the golden years of aviation created an aura, a can do attitude, a pioneer spirit. This has waned into the past.

As technology enhances, then this scenario is replaced by, rightly, advances in aviation technology. With that, the training syllabus, must also change. But it is transition period, and the training organisations must also change, not only in the kit that is used, but in the instructors visions. One thing is clear though, flight is about basics, and if these are not taught, and taught well, then I doubt the accident rates will ever fall.

thing

14th Mar 2014, 15:53

As a 250 hour sprog I can't lend any weight of experience as I haven't got much but one thing I've noted is that that some pilots who have many more hours than me, and who you think 'I'm going to learn something here' are appalling flyers. I've been glad to get out of an aircraft piloted by one multi thousand hour pilot, basic airmanship and flying skills totally gone to pot.

The other thing I might add after reading Shaggy's post is that I wonder how many glider pilots who fly powered have a problem with getting the nose immediately down after an EFATO. As a silent flyer you expect the cable to break on take off, because it often does. I would say the reaction time between cable break and stuffing the stick forward would be around half a second, I see no reason why it shouldn't be the same after an EFATO. People are lulled into thinking that 'Well, aero engines hardly ever fail', which is why we still see people getting hurt or killed in EFATO scenarios. Personally I expect the fan to stop during every take off, which is why I won't take off on some runways because the chances of making a safe landing are pretty non existent. Probably just a throwback to when I expected the cable to break.

Pace

14th Mar 2014, 16:07

Thing

Gliding is an excellent introduction to powered flying as in still air you have only one energy source to tap into so are not clouded by a second energy source in the form of an engine.
Having mastered the airframe energy source through the column (another throttle )you are then well equipped to add the engine energy source.

I totally agree with you :ok:

Pace

Shaggy Sheep Driver

14th Mar 2014, 16:09

Well, I did fly gliders (from a winch site) before getting a PPL in the late'70s. Maybe cable break practice contributes, but really I think if you have lots of practice EFATOs in a powered aircraft that should make it instinctive. And instinctive it has to be - there isn't time to sit and work it out when it happens.

Perhaps flying an aeroplane with an ancient design of engine helps as well (Gipsy Major) as these are more prone to occasional rough running and misfire than later designs such as Lycomings. When this happens, one automatically eases the nose down a tad in the climb to compensate for any power loss.

Crash one

14th Mar 2014, 16:26

Most of the instructors I had were perfectly good. All of them are long since gone to fly the big shiny things, instructors have changed several times over since my experiences, and I am not familiar with the current setup. Which makes it difficult and probably unfair to use my experiences as a yard stick.

I actually enjoyed learning to fly there, the incidents I mentioned were isolated just added a bit of amusement. Apart from the cloud incident which pissed me off a bit.

Having mentioned the down bits, there were enough good instructors who would organise evening lectures on navigation, met, etc which generated a sense of belonging to something worthwhile.

I had an idea which I've never found the time to build was a three dimension model of airspace. Taking several quarter million charts, or even one if you like. Mounted on a sheet of plywood with the airspace built up with translucent bits of plastic. The 3D heights would have to be exaggerated or 2000 feet amounts to .096 inches/2.5 millimetres! At least this would let the student see how airspace looks & how to slide round or under it. For the de- luxe version build high ground from styrofoam as well. Any use?

Another good instructor I had would announce "There is a PA 28 just taken off & he's heading this way, don't let him see you, & get on his tail & stay there." Stick & rudder skill required while looking & positioning. Much argument afterwards as to whether we shot him down or not.

So 3D models of the Ruhr dams & dog fighting practice, would that help?

Pace

14th Mar 2014, 16:34

Crash One

We already have that in digital terrain displays which will show you valleys between hills and even warn you that you are getting to close to the terrain by turning amber then red with warnings.

All great stuff as a safety addition to your flying skills but not to cover up a lack of those skills. It is when those wonderful pilot aids go wrong that you are left with basic skills. If you are lacking in those basic skills or not current in those basic skills you are in deep trouble!

Pace

Crash one

14th Mar 2014, 16:57

Pace

I was actually thinking of the situation 8 years ago, the raw student who was not yet familiar with all the high tech stuff, and an actual solid lump of model terrain that you could touch and poke at.
I never intended such an 8 X 4foot sheet of ply to be used in the cockpit!

Eventually I'm sure technology will give us the Star Trek Holodeck and we will be able to learn with virtual everything.

No doubt it is possible to fly through these valleys purely head down but when the batt goes pop and the virtual landscape goes a dark shade of black, what then?

It certainly isn't what the training regime should be doing until the basics are there.

CaptainChairborne

14th Mar 2014, 20:55

This thread kinda pisses me off a bit. Its a "the old way is better" and you here it in every aspect of life. I hear in my job, I hear in in my other sports, here it everywhere. The simple fact it we are far more educated these days, and I see this as a positive. It reflects in statistics.

You may think you are a great pilot just because you learned seat of the pants flying in a tail dragger, but that does not mean anything. To me a great pilot is one that keeps me alive, and that is all that matters.

So you got thrown in the deep end when you learned. That is stupid. As you said recently in an article Chuck, how many people died learning crop dusting? Once again, absolutely mind numbingly stupid. What a senseless waste of life? Now, you learn to fly a plane safely first, then you go off and learn the finer aspects of flying. Its a gradual safe introduction that minimises risk to both student and instructor. That is a sensible way to teach. Sure, a 172 is pretty tame, but if you want to go learn tail draggers or aerobatics, then you can. It makes no sense to start off learning the most complex stuff. Learn to fly first, then progress. Much safer that way.

I hear the argument about technology all the time, its what I do for a living. The old GPS argument is great. I learned to read chart and use a nautical almanac and sextant for offshore sailing, so it must be better. I used to go hiking and I used a map and compass so it must be better. Fact is, I can safely say that I learned the old way and in my opinion the new way is way is so much better (and safer). I remember when GPS was first introduced, it was pretty hit and miss. Now, technology is so much more robust and reliable, so why not adopt it and make the most of it. I can put my hand up here and say I still have trust issues with GPS, but my rational thought process enables me to overcome this. The real issue here is people get set in their ways, they are afraid to move out of their comfort zone and learn. This is the real problem. This is what makes bad sailors, and I would suggest it also makes bad pilots.

Ongoing learning is the key. Teaching people to think critically is vital. If we maintained the mentality that we should do everything the old way, then we would still be flying with wright brothers (in fact, we would not be flying at all).

That is the most sensible thing on this thread so far

My guess is a lot of pilots are satisfied with mediocrity because anything higher is just to difficult for them.

Get a kick out of being a skygod with that one Chuck? Sorry to break the bad news but half the pilots in the world are below average!!! Disgraceful!

Fact is, most flyers are weekend hobbyists and are never going to ever get to the standard you think, from your giddy height, is the minimum. However passionate and committed to flying they are. Do you really want to limit flying to a tiny limited elite?

Oh, and BTW, I think some of Richard Bach's writings (e.g. Illusions) and attitudes are misanthropic and disgraceful

Chuck Ellsworth

14th Mar 2014, 21:47

I have a question for Andy_P:

Sure, a 172 is pretty tame, but if you want to go learn tail draggers or aerobatics, then you can. It makes no sense to start off learning the most complex stuff. Learn to fly first, then progress. Much safer that way.

Reading your critique of how I learned to fly I have a question that you may be able to answer.

When I learned to fly the Cessna 172 had not yet been designed or built, all we had for training airplanes were tail wheel airplanes.......see the problem I had?

However it would appear that my training was not all tht substandard throughout my career because I have flown over thirty thousand hours.. .all accident free.

Silvaire1

14th Mar 2014, 22:11

And in my view it still is an art. By that I mean, a process of self improvement, a pride in doing things well. An understanding that when you make an error, you try and learn from it. It appears to me, as life changes, the golden years of aviation created an aura, a can do attitude, a pioneer spirit. This has waned into the past.

During the post-war period of interest many societies have attempted to make everything in society a paint-by-numbers 'program' versus a creative, personal journey with outcome depending on performance.

I'm very happy to go against the tide in that regard and profit from it. Some are not, even in aviation.

Chuck Ellsworth

14th Mar 2014, 22:41

Originally Posted by Chuck_Ellsworth::

My guess is a lot of pilots are satisfied with mediocrity because anything higher is just to difficult for them.

The above statement I made was maybe a little to simplistic, however as Silvaire1 said below the new age attitude of teaching in schools that everyone is a winner and no one should feel left out regardless of how much or how little effort they put into the game they should all get first prize....we wouldn't want anyone feeling inferior or left out would we?

During the post-war period of interest many societies have attempted to make everything in society a paint-by-numbers 'program' versus a creative, personal journey with outcome depending on performance.

Striving to be the best one can will pay off in the end....especially in flying where mistakes can be fatal.

I do not look at myself as this guy suggested.

Get a kick out of being a skygod with that one Chuck?

Quite to the contrary, I like to think of myself as a retired professional pilot who can now live quite comfortably on the money I made being a professional pilot rather than having just been content with mediocrity. :ok:

maxred

14th Mar 2014, 22:45

I'm very happy to go against the tide in that regard and profit from it. Some are not, even in aviation.

And the tragedy and total irony in it all, is that they don't even see it.

Shaggy Sheep Driver

14th Mar 2014, 23:49

Fact is, most flyers are weekend hobbyists and are never going to ever get to the standard you think,

So wrong! Decrying 'weekend hobbyists' as doomed to be carp aeroplane drivers would get you lynched by some of the guys I flew with.

It's about attitude! And striving TO GET IT RIGHT!

Big Pistons Forever

15th Mar 2014, 00:14

The above statement I made was maybe a little to simplistic, however as Silvaire1 said below the new age attitude of teaching in schools that everyone is a winner and no one should feel left out regardless of how much or how little effort they put into the game they should all get first prize....we wouldn't want anyone feeling inferior or left out would we?

What a load of crap. There is plenty of good instruction out there. To paint all instructions and instructors with your insulting and demeaning comments says more about you than it does about the state of instructing today.

I find it rather sad that rather than sharing your experience by providing practical tips and advice to readers like I and others have, all I see is the same old tired instructor bashing rants.

Chuck Ellsworth

15th Mar 2014, 00:38

Sigh, :ugh::ugh:

Big Pistons Forever you need to maybe take a break from trying to disassemble every post I make into it being flight instructor bashing.

I was responding to Silvaire1's comment below.

During the post-war period of interest many societies have attempted to make everything in society a paint-by-numbers 'program' versus a creative, personal journey with outcome depending on performance.

I was referring to education in society in general in their early days in school, my comment had nothing to do with flight instructors.

You really should try and let go of our past BPF, it is not healthy to dwell on the past to the point you misinterpret everything I post.

And for sure I do not want Pprune to turn into another AVcanada between us.

O.K. ?

Andy_P

15th Mar 2014, 00:58

Reading your critique of how I learned to fly I have a question that you may be able to answer.

When I learned to fly the Cessna 172 had not yet been designed or built, all we had for training airplanes were tail wheel airplanes.......see the problem I had?

However it would appear that my training was not all tht substandard throughout my career because I have flown over thirty thousand hours.. .all accident free.

Chuck, not saying you are a bad pilot. The fact that you have done one of the most dangerous forms of commercial flying and survived suggests to me the exact opposite.

What I was trying to say, is that now we have the tools and techniques to make flight training so much safer, and we would be nuts to move away from this. Sure, I agree that there is probably some idiots out there training people, but we get that in every profession. However the rules and regs make it harder for them to survive these days. No doubt, there was some people teaching flying in your day that should not have been there?

Chuck Ellsworth

15th Mar 2014, 01:10

Hi again Andy_P ::

A keyboard on the internet is often a piss poor means of communication as we do not have the one on one body language as part of the communication interaction.

So..... let me have another go at this.

What I was trying to say, is that now we have the tools and techniques to make flight training so much safer, and we would be nuts to move away from this.

Andy if you go back to my opening post in this thread I was only trying to find out why a school would sell a Super Cub, rather than use it as a basic trainer......the Super Cub is a very basic trainer and in no way is it complex nor difficult to fly...period.

It does however teach good hands and feet co-ordination during take off and landing compared to say a Cessna 150 /172.

No doubt, there was some people teaching flying in your day that should not have been there?

Yes, of course there was, however the industry was far smaller in those days and they were usually weeded out by their employers.

Big Pistons Forever

15th Mar 2014, 01:26

To all the readers of this thread

I am probably a bit over sensitive to what I perceive as instructor bashing so I apologize for the thread hijack :O

I will step aside to avoid any further thread creep.

Piper.Classique

15th Mar 2014, 08:18

Quote:
Fact is, most flyers are weekend hobbyists and are never going to ever get to the standard you think

Quote:

So wrong! Decrying 'weekend hobbyists' as doomed to be carp aeroplane drivers would get you lynched by some of the guys I flew with.

It's about attitude! And striving TO GET IT RIGHT!

Thank you, SSD. From a Club instructor who is presently doing a renewal. Part time does NOT mean incompetent. I'm comfortably retired, too. Spending my weekend away from home for the benefit of my students.

Pace

15th Mar 2014, 09:23

To all the readers of this thread
I am probably a bit over sensitive to what I perceive as instructor bashing so I apologize for the thread hijack
I will step aside to avoid any further thread creep.

BPF

I do not think anyone has actually be critical of instructors. They operate within a framework set by up till now by the CAA/JAA and also operate with the technology available to day.

In the past that technology was not available and i would not be surprised if the accident statistics were higher back then as there were not the pilot aids or situational awareness displays and terrain mapping as well as engine management and auto wing levellers available now.

I am sure back then practically pilots HAD to be more creative, more hands on and more instinctive in their flying than nowadays.

Society has also changed and we have without doubt become more of a mummy state with liability claims for anything and everything which IMO has changed instructing to more the paint by numbers rather than flying being a creative art! With the extra risks that may in small ways involved.

BPF your comments on fast approaches being the cause of broken nose wheels which I totally disagree with is IMO indicative of the paint by numbers regime not a criticism of the modern instructors but a change caused by the mummy state mentality

But that is not to do with the instructors as individuals but only the guidance and structures they have to work in! Maybe a swing to paint by numbers rather than the art of flying.

Pace

Desert185

15th Mar 2014, 14:50

Some general thoughts...

Bad instructors, bad students and bad pilots exist within society just as frequently as there are bad drivers and inept/bad people in general.

I once belonged to an organization who had a fleet of general aviation airplanes and tended to micromanage safety with regulation upon regulation. We had flight instructors and pilots from all walks of life. Not many were professional pilots or professional CFI's. One CFI was a retired dentist who had some strange ideas about how to operate an airplane. His credibility was very high among the pilots with minimal experience and/or ability.

I'm not sure a student can properly recognize a good instructor when they see one. If one doesn't know right from wrong, how can the instructor be properly evaluated without constantly seeking the truth and applying the knowledge to the babble that exists? Kind of like the evening news and politics, which is how bad politicians (I know that is redundant) get elected again and again. :ugh: := :yuk:

Chuck Ellsworth

15th Mar 2014, 15:18

I see you guys liked my " Paint by numbers " analogy. :)

When we get to a point where there is a general consensus that flight training over all has been watered down to the point it is inferior to what it should and can be blaming flight instructors across the board is not the answer.

The cause lies with the regulator who's responsibility it is to ensure a high quality of service from the flight training industry.

It is that simple.

If the regulators would quit " Word Salading " with more and more restructuring of regulations and rules that address the symptoms of the problem rather that fix the underlying disease general aviation would be healthier.

Inertia is the real problem.......bureaucrats stuck in a intellectual vacuum.

Crash one

15th Mar 2014, 16:24

Shaggy Sheep Driver

15th Mar 2014, 17:21

Has anyone actually pulled a Cirrus 'chute just because of radio failure?

Crash one

15th Mar 2014, 17:28

Shaggy sheep.

Check post 154 page 8 from Pace.
I've never read the reports myself, they would probably make me depressed.

Chuck Ellsworth

18th Mar 2014, 15:37

Going back to my first post here I found this comment on another forum about this school selling it's Super Cub.

The comments about a lack of tailwheel instructors rings true. At the time they had 27 instructors on the roster and only 3 of them would instruct on the Super Cub. The rest referred to it as the "kite." The 3 anointed ones were more experienced and I had some difficulty booking instructor time because of their other duties. Once I finished the checkout, I went back to my gliding club and that's when the real education began - towing gliders.

Why would they refer to it as " The Kite " ?

CaptainChairborne

18th Mar 2014, 21:42

The situation can only get worse. As the old school guys who actually know things, drop off the radar, and are replaced by kindergarten teachers of "Paint by numbers". How can that be reversed? There is eventually no one who remembers what flying is supposed to be, we will be required, by ElfinSafety, to fit guards over rotating props, jet exhausts will have to be cooled down to room temp within the aircraft, etc. there is no end to what progressive regulation could do as they become more and more ignorant.

... but in fact the situation is the exact opposite. As tired, complacent old farts and their dodgy aircraft drop out of the pool of GA we see higher standards of safety and airmanship. The number of accidents reduces, pilots are trained in airspace that contains much more crowded CAS than previously, there are many more people flying off tight, rough strips rather than big, safe tarmac runways, with better situational awareness and all-round skills.

As for the education system 'dumbing down', you should wish to be so switched-on and smart as teenagers these days. They don't know the difference between 'your' and 'you're' but they understand how the corporate world tries to manipulate and exploit them, how to collect and analyse data, and when they are being lied to. Not like the older generations of propaganda fodder

Things aren't what they used to be - thank God!

The world is much bigger and more complicated, and much more fun!

Chuck Ellsworth

18th Mar 2014, 21:51

. but in fact the situation is the exact opposite. As tired, complacent old farts and their dodgy aircraft drop out of the pool of GA we see higher standards of safety and airmanship.

Lets see if I read this correct CaptainChairborne.

Would I be a tired, complacent old fart in your opinion.

And as such I would not have as high standards of safety and airmanship as the new age switched on generation?

Armchairflyer

18th Mar 2014, 22:31

No disrespect intended, but doesn't the "flight training is going down the drain on all counts because no one wants to fly taildraggers anymore" lament become a bit tiring?

Chuck Ellsworth

18th Mar 2014, 23:04

No disrespect intended, but doesn't the "flight training is going down the drain on all counts because no one wants to fly taildraggers anymore" lament become a bit tiring?

You are missing my point entirely.

What I find rather difficult to understand is why one can hold a flight instructors rating but are limited to flying only nose wheel airplanes.

Sort of like driving instructors who can't figure out how to drive a car with manual shift gears and a clutch?

I don't know about you but I sure would not want to be a flight instructor and have a client want me to teach them how to fly their new RV8, because I was not competent enough to fly a tail wheel airplane.

flyinkiwi

18th Mar 2014, 23:35

IMO the problem with this watering down of flight training standards is cost vs outcomes. It doesn't matter what you are flying. So many times corners are cut because instructors have half an eye on the Hobbs and want to ensure their students are getting value for their money. Aviation safety's price tag is more than just dollars and cents because far too many people have paid in blood.

Tail dragger flying is alive and well in my neck of the woods, but since I fly strictly for fun, I cannot see myself getting a tail dragger rating because it just gets added to my list of planes I need to keep current in. I could go up in the clubs 180 but it costs almost as much as our Twin Comanche does to fly.

Armchairflyer

18th Mar 2014, 23:44

What I find rather difficult to understand is why one can hold a flight instructors rating but are limited to flying only nose wheel airplanes.In that case, why limit the requirements to taildraggers? How can one hold a flight instructors rating being limited to single-engine airplanes? To powered airplanes? Without an unlimited aerobatics rating? Without having gone solo in a helicopter? Without having made a carrier landing?

Maybe because one can be a perfectly competent instructor for most settings without these experiences/endorsements, too? And if after my PPL SEP I want to learn taildragger, I get a taildragger instructor. If I want to learn gliding, I get a gliding instructor. If I want to learn ME, I get a ME instructor. If I want to learn aerobatics, I get an aerobatics instructor. If I want to learn flying helicopters, I get a helicopter instructor. Not so sure about the carrier landing though, but since I'd probably gonna be broke long before, that's just as well :p.

Piper.Classique

19th Mar 2014, 07:25

Maybe because one can be a perfectly competent instructor for most settings without these experiences/endorsements, too? And if after my PPL SEP I want to learn taildragger, I get a taildragger instructor. If I want to learn gliding, I get a gliding instructor. If I want to learn ME, I get a ME instructor. If I want to learn aerobatics, I get an aerobatics instructor. If I want to learn flying helicopters, I get a helicopter instructor. Not so sure about the carrier landing though, but since I'd probably gonna be broke long before, that's just as well :p. Well said! With the proviso that the instructor is competent in their specialised domain, of course. I was taught to fly on a nosedragger. No problem converting to conventional gear, because I was properly taught.

Oh, and Captain Chairborne, my cub is old but definitely not dodgy, thank you.

So many times corners are cut because instructors have half an eye on the Hobbs and want to ensure their students are getting value for their money. Aviation safety's price tag is more than just dollars and cents because far too many people have paid in blood. Thank you for reminding us. Sometimes we try too hard to help, and achieve the opposite result to that intended.

Pace

19th Mar 2014, 08:57

I do think the emphasis on quality of instructors of old or new is wrong.
There were excellent old time instructors and bad ones there are excellent modern instructors and bad ones.

For me this argument is about the training where I think there was far more hand flying emphasis in the past and less today.

Pilots of the past had to be more creative as they did not have the mass of pilot aids available today and somehow flying skills appear to have been lost with too much reliance on aids (while they work)

I would like to see much more basic handling and flying skills rather than the way it is now which is very much avoidance and fly by numbers.

Its not the instructors but the framework they work in which has deteriorated

Pace

Shaggy Sheep Driver

19th Mar 2014, 09:41

I'm not sure about that, Pace. I have limited knowledge of today's instructors but what I've seen doesn't impress. Example:

For my biennial check I usually engage a guy I've known for decades who's at much at home doing aeros in a Yak or flying an ILS in a twin. We'd do some aeros revision and some instrument work in the Chipmunk. One year I forgot and needed the biennial ride ASAP. The only availability was club instructor in a PA38. So I decided that as the PA38 is not the most interesting handling aeroplanes, we'd do an hour with me 'under the hood'.

All was going well until I noticed something was wrong. "I've got climb (full!) power set, climb attitude trimmed, ball is in the middle, but we're not climbing" I said. The instructor had no ideas why that might be. So I peeped out from under the hood. The wind was pretty strong, and we were in the lee of a very large hill. Once I'd taken us clear of that, normality returned.

I don't think any of the guys I did my PPL with back in the 70s would not have known about lee-side sink.