X/winds and tail wheel airplanes.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Hmmm, Getting taught how to do both 3 point and wheel landings as part of your initial tailwheel conversion.

This debate seems more like a solution in search of a problem. Personally I don't see the issue in the real world. Everyone I know who does tailwheel checkouts teaches both.

[S-Works]

The fact is tailwheel training aircraft are not easy to find. We generally train on owners aircraft. You tailor the training to the aircraft. You don't try to teach inappropriate techniques in order to achieve some sort of sense of completeness.

[Above The Clouds]

Mach Jump
A tailwheel conversion isn't complete unless you teach people both techniques, and most types on which people do tailwheel training are happy being wheeled, or three pointed, but we have to accept that there are some types that are not. In my view, you cannot complete the required training in those types, and you have to do the alternative landing technique in another type.

If you only learn to fly one type that requires one landing technique, why would your training not be complete until you have learn't a technique that is irrelevant to your aircraft type ?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

It's like all aspects of flying. The more skills you have in your 'bag', the more complete pilot you are and the less likely you are to face a situation where your 'bag' is devoid of the required skill.

That's why I advocate aerobatics for all pilots so they'll have a bag full of handling skills, even if they only ever fly an A330 where even in that aeroplane it might be needed . And of course things like recovery from unusual attitudes, and stall and spin recovery, are second nature to the aeros pilot who does it by 'feel' rather than by numbers.

Being competent at 3-point and wheel landings makes you more of a 'complete' pilot than the wheel-only or 3-point only pilot.

Every tailwheel aeroplane I've flown (and there've been a few!) is capable of either technique. But if I ever get to fly a Dragon Rapide I'll no doubt be instructed never to attempt to 3-point it because of its tip-stall tendencies. The fact that I can do either only adds to my skills 'bag'. That's got to be good!

[Crash one]

If you only learn to fly one type that requires one landing technique, why would your training not be complete until you have learn't a technique that is irrelevant to your aircraft type ? Quote:

There is only one way to land a tricycle aircraft, mains first. Taildraggers are different,they can be landed two ways, so I agree with Chuck, until you can land the thing either way it is not complete. You could land a trike flap less or full flaps, slight difference there? Do you stop learning once you can get it down with full flaps?

[3 Point]

In addition, the tailwheel differences training qualifies you to fly all taildraggers, not just one type. A Tailwheel differences course therefore has to be non type specific and cover all relevant techniques. I generally use several aircraft types to teach "tailwheel differences" so that the student goes away with a broad appreciation of the required techniques.

Problem is of course that the regulator never specified any syllabus or even learning objectives for this training so any old FI can just do whatever he likes! Not a great situation!

Happy landings

3 Point (and Wheelers!!)

[The500man]

Ratings should stop you flying types that require training you have not had, but there should be no problem getting instruction appropriate to your aircraft. I think it is fine to learn only the technique you need for the aircraft you want to fly and I think it should be up to the pilot to understand their own limitations if training was provided in this way and for them to seek further training for other aircraft if the need arises. Otherwise we would need ratings for individual aircraft.

Gaining a rating on an aircraft you aren't going to fly for the sake of ticking boxes seems unnecessary to me. Inexperienced pilots are not generally brave enough to go fly something new without specific instruction or a briefing from someone that knows that aircraft first and I think this may be one of the cases where pilots in reality are more sensible than the legislators.

[Mach Jump]

If you only learn to fly one type that requires one landing technique, why would your training not be complete until you have learn't a technique that is irrelevant to your aircraft type ?

The point is, this is not a type conversion, it's a generic tailwheel conversion.


MJ

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Every tailwheel aeroplane I've flown (and there've been a few!) is capable of either technique.

Same here, someday I should sit down and see if I can remember all the different ones I flew over the years.

Just off the top of my memory I can think of a few that were more demanding that most.

Pitts:

Powell Racer:

Grumman Turbo Goose:

Grumman Widgeon:

Republic Sea Bee:

That is all I can think of right now.

I can not think of any that could not be landed either way, although some were far easier to wheel on than three point.

[S-Works]

I guess not everyone is a Skygod and can land every type using either method?

I have already outlined 2 aircraft that can't be landed either way, one requires a three pointer and the other one does not permit a three pointer. Out of the many types I have flown over the years I could produce a longer list if I was actually bothered.

But as as I have already said, teach them to fly the aircraft they are in, tailor the training for that aircraft. If they move to another type that requires a different technique then teach them that. it might be a 'generic' tailwheel sign off but pilots are generally smart enough to know they will need further differences if moving to a different type and if there is one thing for certain the reality of tailwheel flying is there is no such thing as 'generic'.....

[Above The Clouds]

bose-x

That was the point I was trying to get across in my earlier post, so if I only fly the P-51 that requires a wheeler landing why would the training not be complete if I don't fly over tailwheel aircraft.

Should I wish to fly another tailwheel type then of course have the appropriate training and techniques taught.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

But as as I have already said, teach them to fly the aircraft they are in, tailor the training for that aircraft. If they move to another type that requires a different technique then teach them that.

I have not seen anyone here having any problem with this concept, as long as the instructor clearly outlines the limitations there can not be any problem as long as the trainee does not try something they are not competent in.

it might be a 'generic' tailwheel sign off but pilots are generally smart enough to know they will need further differences if moving to a different type

I fail to understand how a check out in an airplane that is specific to that airplane using only one method of landing ( three point or wheel landing. ) can be considered " generic " unless my understanding of generic is flawed.

and if there is one thing for certain the reality of tailwheel flying is there is no such thing as 'generic'.....

Tailwheel airplanes with some rare exceptions can be landed in two methods and if the student has not been taught both methods said student has not been given the proper training to be given a tail wheel endorsement such as the FAA requires.

[S-Works]

Tailwheel airplanes with some rare exceptions can be landed in two methods and if the student has not been taught both methods said student has not been given the proper training to be given a tail wheel endorsement such as the FAA requires.

As you are in Canada and I am in the UK and not teaching for FAA ratings its possibly a moot point.

I stand by my earlier comments with regard to EASA requirements. We can't really argue apples and oranges.....

[Chuck Ellsworth]

As you are in Canada and I am in the UK and not teaching for FAA ratings its possibly a moot point.

Bose-x airplanes fly under the same laws of aerodynamics and physics regardless of what regulatory area they happen to be in, my comments and opinions are formed around how airplanes fly and not where.

I stand by my earlier comments with regard to EASA requirements. We can't really argue apples and oranges.....

I can understand you maybe not being ecstatic with EASA however for whatever reason EASA seems to have the power to regulate a lot of changes....thankfully I quit flying before I had to be to concerned with their new rules.

My Terrier A61 is almost possible to wheel on as it's so tail heavy. It needs to 3 pointed to land properly. Wheeling it just leaves you bouncing down the runway and weather cocking back and forth.

Is the elevator effective enough to lift the tail wheel off the ground during the take off or does it fly off from the three point attitude?

[S-Works]

Is the elevator effective enough to lift the tail wheel off the ground during the take off or does it fly off from the three point attitude?

It requires full forward stick and then it pretty much three points off the ground. To get it slow enough to attempt a wheeler without bouncing down the runway the tail just slams down usually meaning a tail first landing and the resulting kangaroo down the runway. We teach them to touch the mains a fraction before the tail to smooth this out, so I suppose they are getting the wheeler you want....

The Dornier manual advises against doing a three point landing and with several thousand landings in it I understand perfectly why!! We use fly beta on approach and transition to full ground beta on touch down, this requires foreword yoke against beta in order to stop the tail smashing down and ripping the mounts.

At the end of the day it is horses for courses, if I am teaching in an aircraft that is happy in all landing configurations then we cover everything. If it is an aircraft that has strong reasons for using only one method then I think it better we achieve mastery of that method rather than risking damage to the aircraft or undermining the students confidence. If they want to cover alternate methods then we can arrange to do this in an aircraft better suited to the job.

You have to remember that most people in the UK are doing tailwheel training in order to fly a particular aircraft and its that aircraft they want to be taught to fly. Tailoring the training to cover the specific aircraft is much better teaching in my opinion rather than just trying to bludgeon them into learning things that are not relevant for the type?

I am probably done on the discussion now as we are unlikely to agree and while I am not going to try and convince you my way is correct, I get the very distinct feeling that you want to argue the point until I agree with you.......

[Echo Romeo]

I own a Beagle A61 Terrier 2, I was taught only to 3 point it.

The tail end is indeed very heavy, I am no weakling but can barely lift it! which, given the Terrier isn't much bigger than a Cub, I found surprising.

However as time went by I heard various accounts from several people, some claiming the Terrier couldn't be wheeled on, others it could, so I decided to try it for myself. On the first occasion there was little, to no crosswind and I chose an 800mt grass strip with a good surface.

To my amazement I had no difficulty at all, I flew a normal approach but a few knots faster, and maybe a tad flatter, I maintained 1400rpm, then having rounded out gently nudged the wheels onto the deck, they touched just as the stall warner sounded, I then closed the throttle and progressively fed in forward stick. After a few more goes I was able to keep the tail up almost down to walking pace, which was very satisfying.

Currently I wouldn't attempt a wheeler on any runway shorter than 600mt as it does consume a lot more runway than 3 pointing, though it is now my preferred method on hard runways. As for wheeler landing my Terrier in a crosswind, I haven't, yet!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

To my amazement I had no difficulty at all, I flew a normal approach but a few knots faster, and maybe a tad flatter, I maintained 1400rpm, then having rounded out gently nudged the wheels onto the deck,

Have you tried doing a power off approach and landing from say 100 feet at the normal approach speed, rather than a flat power assisted approach and flare when doing a wheel landing?

That will use up a lot less runway.

[Desert185]

This discission highlights the fallacy of a goverment mandated tailwheel endorsement (their fix for failures). I checked out in a tailwheel aircraft before the endorsement was required and was grandfathered as a tailwheel pilot by the FAA. I had no instructor, BTW. That was the late '60's. By government opinion, I should have created an incident or accident by now. Sorry to prove you wrong, bureaucrats.

Pre or post endorsement, one is still (usually) going to get some kind of transition training mandated by whomever owns the aircraft, whether insisted upon by the insurance company or otherwise. I know when I flew the Beaver, I had quite an extensive checkout by the organization who owned them. Would having a tailwheel endorsement (that was never checked, BTW) or not have made a difference in blessing my capabilities to fly that type? I think not. Actually having an endorsement in a specific type to fly taildraggers in general by some governmental body does nothing to really endorse you to be a qualified tailwheel pilot, regardless of type...at least not in my book.

I learned a long time ago that one does not loan his wife, underwear, motorcycle or airplane (particularly a taildragger), and maybe anything with an internal combustion engine, in general, to anyone, including well meaning friends. Its just a bad idea. That's my policy. I do, somewhat hypocritically, accept loans by others if necessary, of some of the above (excluding wives), as I trust myself more than others. So far, the trust is well placed.

Blessings of good karma to all who are in pursuit of good techniques and reputations of dependability...tailwheel or otherwise.

[gasax]

I used to own a Terrier 2 and did a couple of hundred hours in it. Yep the tail is awfully heavy, only aircraft I have cricked my back lifting!

But it will wheel on. I usually three pointed it and it was just 'easier'. But with care it would wheel and roll pretty straight if that was how you started!

The Terrier is not an aircraft that requires great finesse, from memory it requires large amounts of power to change any parameter.

In that it s a little unusual. Lots of older aircraft are a 'bit unusual' but the real requirement is for a pilot to understand that and apply the right technique. This summer I hope to fly an antique with limited pitch authority, it has to be landed with some power, or it has insufficient pitch authority. Knowing this there are no real problems, just have to keep your brain in front of the aircraft and understand how to fly it!

[Desert185]

Sounds like a candidate for VG's on the horizontal.