Why has flight training gone assbackwards?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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?
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 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.
Last edited by Silvaire1; 12th Mar 2014 at 01:36.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
It used to be legal to do a PPL on. Twin! Our modern training is a result of our liability mummy state society!
Pace
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
It used to be legal to do a PPL on. Twin! Our modern training is a result of our liability mummy state society!
Pace
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe the new more modern airplanes are easier to fly but the training is of a lower quality?
@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!
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 ?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BPF
I would like to see those statistics
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
I would like to see those statistics
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BPF
I would like to see those statistics.
I would like to see those statistics.
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 ".
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vienna
Age: 50
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe these are the statistics BPF was referring to:
https://www.aopa.org/About-AOPA/Stat...px#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".
https://www.aopa.org/About-AOPA/Stat...px#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".
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe these are the statistics BPF was referring to:
https://www.aopa.org/About-AOPA/Stat...px#gaaccidents
https://www.aopa.org/About-AOPA/Stat...px#gaaccidents
.......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.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vienna
Age: 50
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Erm, yes, that's what BPF was referring to ...
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.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.