Why has flight training gone assbackwards?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would you learn to drive on a Ford Model T?
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.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How it all happened
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Last edited by Shaggy Sheep Driver; 6th Mar 2014 at 08:32.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: N London
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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".
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".
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but I am pretty confident that I could reach a reasonable level of competence in under 20 hours!
Last edited by PA28181; 6th Mar 2014 at 12:43.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
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!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 18nm NE grice 28ft up
Posts: 1,129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but I am pretty confident that I could reach a reasonable level of competence in under 20 hours!
D.O.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Western USA
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buy a Husky instead far better aeroplane and a modern SuperCub
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
The aircraft just shrugged its shoulders and climbed away !
Any truth to that ?
Pace
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.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Husky history
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure about this. I enjoy my flying as I enjoy driving long distances to go places.
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!