I have tailwheel check out.

Look I've said my piece above and I'm not going to change the way I feel...maybe when I've got several thousand hours on tailwheels but for now I will consider tailwheel aircraft harder to land than nosegear aircraft.

I believe the problem of tailwheel insurance in the USA is due in good part to the ever-increasing demise of good, old-school instructors and their ever-twitchier insurance companies. That's what an American, old-school intructor friend told me. There's (allegedly) a proportion of the flying public there that can afford aeroplanes they assume are easy to fly, get a nominal checkout from an hour-building instructor whose experience is severely limited on said aeroplanes, scuttle off to play on the many hard runways over there and....the insurance companies got fed up. Premiums yonder are now well-beyond affordability, especially for the small flight school.
I certainly wouldn't want this unsupported story to reflect on the quality of all hour-building intructors, anywhere, but that's how it was explained to me, when I was lamenting the dearth of rentable taildraggers and it seems credible.

I was taught by said old-school, after getting basics in gliders. I couldn't agree more about the three point landings seen so often: those poor nose-wheels deserve so much better. Tailwheel aeroplanes can be interesting on the ground, but I hope I concentrate just as much in a spamcan. It aint all over until the fat lady's singing, back in the hangar.

Um, at the risk of getting my head bitten off (and by SSD of all people - most unlike you), I can see where Contacttower is coming from here.

For example: Groundlooping is an accident mode that is just not considered for nosewheel aircraft, and therefore is an additional risk when dragging your tail.

Other risks are (generally) the same - except nosewheel collapse of course, but that's 99% due to not flaring - a trend which will hurt your bird whatever end the third wheel happens to be.

Contacttower expressed an honest opinion, and defended it more than once reasonably and with grace. I'm more than a little disappointed at the undeserved Prooning he received for it. :=

Thanks DaveW, I really appreciate it when someone backs me up on PPRuNe.

Dangerous was the wrong word for me to use, perhaps just 'risky' or 'hazardous' would have been more appropriate.

To paraphrase 'The Battle of Britain' film.. "Clearly, you don't know me". :E:E:E

I can't let your coment pass, DaveW. CT stated, more than once:

"Tailwheel aeroplanes are more dangerous than nosewheel aeroplanes"

That is plain bunkum and simply inflates the myth that taildarggers are for superheros only. More than one tailwheel experienced Prooner responded similarly to CT's post..

If I see such bunkum stated, I will challenge it. If the perpetrator continues to peddle the rubbish message, I will come on stronger until either he shuts up or I get bored or I am shown to be wrong by someone pointing out that I've missed something (not unknown :) ).

I'm still waiting....

I've clearly made a complete mess of what I'm trying to say here; I don't think taildraggers are for superheros only at all- hell if I can fly one then anyone can.

But SSD please at least grant me that in the US insurance costs for taildraggers are higher than for their nosewheel alternative which is a direct result of more landing accidents happening involving tailwheel aircraft.

Oh and by the way I don't appreciate being accused of lying about my flying experience or having it implied that I'm a rubbish pilot.

True, but I do know, and respect, your Proone & Flyer personae, hence the surprise. :8

Did he, though? Contacttower is clearly more than capable of answering for himself, and has generally referred to "risk" rather than "danger", but to save some cut and paste effort:

At this point I bow out - my work here is done. :)

Ct, you're welcome.

Hi

I am a student PPL, dont wanna be any more than a PPL but would like an IMC so that flying becomes a more reliable means of transport for business use.

So do folk really consider flying IMC in SEP to be hazardous, does anybody have or know where stats might be found for this.

Some of the earlier posts stated that IMC at night is considered particularly hazardous in SEP aircraft. So do folks geneally think this is slightly more risky than normal or the GA equivalent of russian roulette ?

This isn't a wind up, I just dont want to invest in a qualification if the received wisdom is that I'd have to be crazy to use it :confused:.

Thanks

BB

Well, as someone called our cheerfully to us as we walked out onto the tarmac last time, "remember, if the engine stops you die".

But the engine doesn't know it's night time, and it's not going to stop during the day[#], so why should it stop at night?

I've got an IMCR lesson booked for 4pm tomorrow.

[#] Well, probably not, particularly if you're flying with an organisation whose last engine failure (if indeed they've ever had one at all) was so many decades ago that none of the old-timers can remember it ever happening. If the wing falls off you die even in VMC in the daytime - but that's not very likely either.

IMC risks
 

bigbloke,

Here's the received wisdom regarding SEP IMC:

When flying a single-engined a/c, the biggest risk in the cruise is engine failure, 'cos you're going to be on the ground in between 1-2 minutes. If you're VMC during the day and at a reasonable height, then you have a chance of choosing a reasonable landing site, such that you survive. If you're flying IMC, then the inference is that you're at the same height that you would fly VMC if the weather was better, therefore if you have engine failure you're going to glide in cloud to a lower height before you can see to land, reducing your choice of landing site.

Now, at night even if you can see the stars, moon, lit roads etc, then you still can't see a suitable landing site - there's the old saw about a forced landing at night, when close to the ground 'turn on the landing light. If you don't like what you see, turn it off again'. Again, the received wisdom is that if IMC, you're making the situation just that much worse.

Personally, I think that flying SEP at night doesn't FEEL any more risky than during the day, though I'm more careful about weather minima, I don't like being IMC at night, in fact I've always avoided it. What I do, though, is carefully plan the flight to make full use of radio nav-aids and GPS rather than just bimlbe about, as one tends to do during the day. Frequent FREDA checks are also a risk-mitigator. There's no night VFR in the UK, just IFR, in other words, remain 1,000' above any object within 5NM of track, except when landing and taking off.

The IMC rating isn't about blasting off in rotten weather. It's about learning properly the limitations of flying SEP in marginal wx and how to avoid situations beyond your and the a/c's capabilities. In extremis, it's also a get-you-home service if the wx does turn worse than the forecast.

So, yes, PPL SEP can be a useful business tool, provided you always have Plan 'B'. The IMC rating will make you a 'safer' pilot, in my view. Go for it!

Cheers,
TheOddOne

Quite frankly I find the whole concept of formal "Risk Assessment" a pointless exercise in most scenarios. Most of the time we make decisions based on the information available, judgement calls if you like. i:e will the cloudbase at my destination be OK for VFR or should I file IFR? is the aircraft/avionics reliable? will it be dark by my approach time? Am I going to encounter ice?

These decisions all need to be taken in the context of the aircraft, the pilot and the planned route.

Avoiding disaster is all about having some spare capacity, a reserve to dip into if things go bad, one of those reserves being alternative courses of action. Once the reserves get frayed then problems can happen.

Some examples of this:

I flew to work in my R44 this morning knowing that I may have to fly home at night (my finish time is outside my control). Although I am night qualified and current any of you who have flown a helicopter at night will know that it is very different to fixed wing in terms of the inherent instability that helicopters have and that night helicopter flying is far more risky than day. However, having kept an eye on the weather and knowing we would have a clear night with a full moon strong enough to cast shadows, plus having all the significant power cables on the route self-programmed in my GPS database I was prepared to take this extra risk. This resulted in a beautiful flight back across Cornwall just after dusk and no disorientation due to the significant "celestial illumination".

I regularly fly night SEIFR provided we have the equation of current pilot, capable aircraft/avionics and right routing/time - no sweat. However I would not push the boundaries at night in the UK for the simple reason that there are very few available alternatives should the destination suddenly become unavailable. Better to go early the next morning.

A friend of mine is debating whether he will be able to get his Eclipse 500 into a 760m tarmac strip (when the minimum landing roll demonstrated by the test pilot is 700m). Personally I would demand a far greater reserve unless of course the wind was strong and right down the runway. Even so, if it was my Eclipse, scraping the paintwork (or worse) would really make me feel bad.

(Close) Formation flying without proper training can also be very risky. The degree of skill required to hold a close formation is not to be underestimated and losing discipline in close formation can have sudden and rapid consequences.

We all need to retain a healthy respect for our limitations and stay within them.

"I wear my yellow streak like an overcoat, it keeps me safe and warm"

SB

Not so fast, DaveW.... You're not getting away with that.

Yes, he said:
I rest my case.
I'm now reminded why I don't come on here often. Heck, it's hard work pointing out the bleedin obvious.:bored:

Posts like this always have the meaning to assure the original poster that what he is doing will not kill him.

It doesn't work like that, since most accidents are pilot related you must understand that you have control of your life, be educated and well trained, it will keep you alive.

Having a bloke telling you that statisticly it's very unlikely that you will kill yourself is not a correct perception, it's all about training and pilot proficiency, the rest is bar talk.

SSD, I said I didn't want an arguement, but you know what, I've changed my mind.

Despite the fact that I admitted that 'dangerous' was the wrong word to use and also that it was strictly in relative terms and by no means meant to imply that taildraggers were 'dangerous' in absolute terms (if danger in the absolute can ever exist) you seem to insist on picking apart what I said earlier and also what DaveW said in my defence. You then tried to tell me that I clearly didn't know what I was talking about and you implied that I was a bad pilot.

I wouldn't have done this originally (because like I said at the start I'm not a risk averse pilot at all and my absolute perception of risk when flying taildraggers is low compared to night IMC for example) but I think I'll be contacting the NTSB and the AAIB to get some real stats about taildragger accidents.

The IMC rating isn't about blasting off in rotten weather. It's about learning properly the limitations of flying SEP in marginal wx and how to avoid situations beyond your and the a/c's capabilities. In extremis, it's also a get-you-home service if the wx does turn worse than the forecast.
Oh no not that one again !!

The IMCR is a perfectly good privilege which is every bit as good as the full IR, within the rather limited legal privileges for IFR (UK only, no Class A, 1800m+ vis for departure/arrival).

Ultimately, it all depends on how well equipped the plane is and how current you are. Loads of IR holders only just manage to keep their IR renewed with the annual check; are they good current pilots? Of course not.

:yuk:

(I'm guessing that you have an IMCR then). :ugh:

Interesting debate going on amoung the tailwheelers.

Are they inherently more dangerous to land - yes, no, maybe.

I made the observation that because they are capable of getting into short and often more difficult farm strips, some of which are poorly prepared and most of which are unmanaged perhaps some of the ground accidents are caused by those pilots who push the boundaries - in doing so on farm strips of this type there is no margin for error.

Does that account for a perception that they are more accident prone?

Fuji

I haven't got the numbers, but if the stats show that more taildraggers have accidents per X hours than nosewheel a/c, then it isnt a perception.

In the same way that if the stats show that C150/2 (for sake of argument) has more nosegear collapses than C172, then that is not a perception either.

However, it is wise to remember that correlation does not prove cause and effect, so direct comparisons are difficult, as usage will impact the stats, so a/c types used heavily for training/low hour pilots might suffer more nosegear problems from being thumped down.

However, we might agree that taildraggers are more challenging to pilots with lower hours on type, but are less risk when operating out of rough strips?

In conclusion, a risk event is contextual so an experienced tailwheel pilot would carry far less risk than me, as I have never flown a taildragger.

Interesting debate though, since perception of risk is usually a stronger driver than stats, for any people.

I have no TW experience but surely there is no doubt that more skill is required especially for a given value of crosswind.

Whether this translates to a greater risk would depend on whether the training apparatus addresses the additional training requirement adequately.

One could have the same debate with a transition from a basic Warrior to an airways equipped TB20. In that case, I am certain that adequate training is not available within the PPL sausage machine.

"I stand to be corrected on this one but actually in the case of GA flying is more dangerous than driving. On average someone dies in a GA accident in the US everyday!"
you can sit down
in the UK about 10 people die on the roads every day so your assumption is incorrect.
In the USA its two and a half times as bad on the road compared to the UK.
http://www.driveandstayalive.com/inf...03.htm#table-2
Aviation accident rates per 100,000 hrs flown is about 2.5
http://www.bts.gov/publications/tran...ble_03_11.html
But I found this
US accidents at 40-year low; UK figures
First Posted: Fri 16 Mar 2007
The US NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) revealed this week that the number of aviation accidents in the USA in 2006 were the lowest in the 40 years that it has been keeping records
The board says that there were 1,515 GA accidents in 2006. 303 of them were fatal, and there were 698 fatalities.
The drop in numbers is partly due to a fall in hours flown, which the NTSB estimates was last year at its lowest since the early 90s (2006: 22.8 million flight hours; 1994 (for instance): 22.2 million flight hours).
The 2006 figure was 1.32 fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours, 6.64 accidents per 100,000 flight hours.
See the NTSB statistic site for details.
So its all getting safer:)
enough of all this I'm off flying
T2

Search the AAIB database for "Ground Loop" is interesting and tricycles turn up in the results. However, the results for "landing", "grass strip", "farm strip", "prop strike" all seem pretty much configuration agnostic.

Myth Busted?

:E

CT - a B747 is more difficult and more challenging to fly than a PA28. Is it therefore a more dangerous aeroplane than the PA28? :rolleyes:

SSD

Lies, Dam Lies and Statistics:

tunalic2 I don't know how the different methods of collecting data compare but the article that Chili Monster posted does disagree with what you assert:

Conclusion

Choosing "mile to mile" as the more appropriate comparison for differing modes of transportation (and overlooking that small planes often takeoff and land at the same airport, without ever really "going anywhere"), let's review the fatality rates:

• driving: 1.32 fatal accidents and 1.47 fatalities per 100 million miles
• airlines: .05 fatal accidents and 1.57 fatalities per 100 million miles
• GA: 7.46 fatal accidents and 13.1 fatalities per 100 million miles

I'm going to stick by that.

Of course not. But that has a lot to do with the much greater reliability of jet engines, superior training, standardisation of procedures and the strength and redundancy built into the 747 compared to your average GA aircraft. The 'danger' comparison of the two has little to do with how hard they are to fly in the case of 747 vs. PA28.

The reason your statement is not relevant to this discussion is this:

When I said 'taildraggers are more dangerous than nosewheel aircraft' and 'my perception of risk increases slightly when I go flying in the Super Cub' I was drawing a direct comparsion between a GA type with a nosewheel and a GA with a tailwheel. Apart from the landing/take off they are the same; in the air they are both just as likely to have an engine failure, both have solid handling and are both as likely to be involved in a loss of control in VMC or any other accident that happens after take off/before landing.

The 747 however because it has many more engines, better system reliability and all the rest is inherently a safer plane.

Returning to the tailwheel vs. nosewheel I stick by what I said earlier:

Tailwheel aircraft are more likely to be involved in a take off/landing accident than a nosegear aircraft.

Who else is going to disagree with me? (Bearing in mind that I have the opinion of the US aircraft insurance industry on my side).

Edit:

As a little comparison:

When I did my FAA Sea Plane rating I was told that an amphibian was more than three times as likely to be involved in a landing gear related accident than a land based plane, reason being that the gear system is usually more complex and also that one has to remember to have the gear up for water and down for land. Does that make floatplanes dangerous? No. Does it make them more dangerous than a land plane (if we treat them as the same in the air)? Well yes I suppose it does.

The stats prove several things:

a) PPLs who do not continue training are the most likely to come a cropper
b) PPLs who continue beyone PPL level by adding further training (Aero's, IR, CPL etc..) are less likely to come a cropper
c) EF's in SEPs don't kill an awful lot of people
d) IFR at night is no more dangerous than VFR at night, but may be safer depending on where you are flying (i.e. proper IFR, not mickeymouse IFR)
e) IFR is safer than VFR (else all 777's would fly VFR)
f) Pilots of Twins, although less likely to be involved in an accident are more likely to be killed if they do.
g) MOST accidents are pilot error (75%+), or are contributed to be pilot error.

So the conclusion is: Keep training, add new ratings every few years, and be the best you can and don't take silly risks (while aero's is completely safe, what kills people is the bloke who thinks "oh I'll just do a low fly past and do a roll for my wife and kids".....)

By the way, the NTSB publish their stats so anyone can read them....

Amen to that. :)

So inferring from englishal's conclusions, the pilots most likely to have an accident are;

Qualified vanilla PPLs, flying VFR - and they're probably not going to die during a forced landing.

And you're much safer off under IFR - so quite possibly IMC, and also safer flying SEP & having done aeros.

So ideally we would keep the IMC and make it a worldwide qualification, and also bring back aeros & spinning to the PPL syallbus.

Or have I got it totally backwards? :}

Facts and opinion about how dangerous flying is...
 

Airline pilot here... one more year to go then will retire... I fly since age 15, and have logged about 22,000 hrs.
xxx
Who are experts in death statistics...? -
The experts are life insurance companies... Some years ago, I took a life insurance with my wife and kids as beneficiairies. I expected to pay an extra for premiums because I was a pilot... It was not the case. The fact was that I could fly as pilot with a commercial airline, and pay no higher premiums. But I would have had to pay extra if flying privately, or flying military aircraft... or had a motorcycle...!
xxx
The most dangerous lightplanes to fly: underpowered light twin engines... one example: the PA-23 Apache (2 x 160 hp) which is unable to maintain flight if one engine fails at maximum certificated weight. With an extra engine, twice as likely to have... an engine failure.
xxx
Taildraggers more dangerous - no - I dont think so... I learned to fly in a Piper L-4 (Cub) and got my PPL in such airplane at 17 of age. My son started to fly at age 13 with me, in a L-21C Super Cub, and he also got his PPL in that type of aircraft. As a knowledgeable pilot, I recommended to him to learn to fly in a taildragger first. A Super Cub will get you "out of troubles" much easier than any of the modern flying machines. You probably can land just about anywhere. And, if you landed there, you will be able to takeoff from that small piece of real estate. Not many planes can do that...
xxx
A 747 is more difficult to fly than a PA-28...?
I do not think so.
Of all the planes I have flown, I consider that the 747 to be the easiest plane to fly, extremely stable, and after 18 years flying it, never had any hard landing... Hand flying an ILS in a 747...? Put it on the localizer and glide slope, and it will stay there... With a PA-28, I bet you must fight all the way down the ILS from FAF to your touchdown.
xxx
:)
Happy contrails

BelArgUSA- you're clearly a much more experienced pilot than me and as someone who learnt on tailwheels you probably don't see any difference between the two in terms of the likelihood of a landing accident- but in the modern GA enviroment, considering that most taildraggers are flown by people who (like me) started on nosewheels and have the majority of their hours on nosewheels I can't help thinking that a tailwheel aircraft is more likely to be involved in a landing accident than a nosewheel aircraft.

I'm not sure I see the point of this thread. Is the poster trying to absolve him/herself of any worry/responsibility because others say his flying is "safe?"

I would say attitude and training are the biggest variables in calculating the risk. Seemingly straightforward tasks and can be made very dangerous if you don't consider the eventualities and honestly assess your skill and experience. On the other hand you see plenty of "higher risk" flying activities accomplished safely because of the high standard of planning, decision making and training involved.

I'd say the most dangerous types of flying are those you're complacent enough to label as safe.

I think (Fuji correct me if I'm wrong) its just for interest mainly. One is never going to say anything is "safe" in absolute terms. Danger/safety is just relative in reality.

I think the thread is showing that CT is lacking confidence in his TW ability, so feels safer in his NW aeroplane.

CT - I suggest you find a good TW instructor (not suggesting your previous one was not good) and get some more instruction. Then go fly your Super Cub in the circuit for as long as it takes for you to feel comfortable with it.

Then fly it some more. And some more. It's a great aeroplane and very safe. :)

SSD

Contactower -
xxx
Anyone "learning to fly" and asking me "which plane to learn to fly first", I would answer "a taildragger" in any case. I believe the best airplanes would be DH-82 Tiger Moth, or Stampe SV-4 with an open cockpit... The Cubs and equivalent (Auster AOP6 class) are second best trainers.
xxx
I realize 90% of the people now learn to fly in tricycle gear airplanes... and the transition from that type to taildragger requires most pilots some hours of dual instruction... I remember, having my taildragger PPL, getting qualified to fly a tri-gear C-150 required me to get... 45 minutes dual and 3 landings...
xxx
A comparison (about learning to drive cars) -
Would you learn to drive first, with automatic transmission, or would you first learn to drive a car with a clutch and 4 or 5 speeds... same philosophy. How about an old MGA and learn to double clutch down to the first gear which was not synchronized...?
xxx
All the best :)
Happy contrails

Contact Tower,
You seem a bit beleaguered, I don't wish to add to the onslaught, just some additional thoughts following a cursory investigation. I completely understand your rational but, surely the crux of Fuji's original post and this debate is to identify something more conclusive. Now if you wrote "Is more likely to widen the eyes a little more than usual" I might tentatively agree with you :) But I don't see anything to suggest tailwheel aircraft have more accidents during takeoff/landing.

I don't see any practical relevance to takeoff anyway, a tailwheel is only really unstable during deceleration - usually a small window of time at a relatively low speed a few seconds after landing. An aborted take-off is a distinct candidate for problems, but looking at the AAIB I find only one t/w in the 8 results and that was a turboprop that the pilot thought related to his abrupt use of reverse pitch.

Nobody can deny that a tailwheel requires a different technique and can more unforgiving in certain specific circumstances, but that lesser forgiveness does not, in my view, translate to danger or risk. Those are separate propositions that require more parameters that don't seem to be born out by some cursory searches of the AAIB.

Also, don't believe that tricycle gear aircraft are forgiving, they are not. There are numerous AAIB reports where "safety aeroplanes" have ground loops, overran, stalled, undershot, damaged the gear (particularly the nose) and struck props. These events seem to be just as likely regardless of the configuration, except that when searching the AAIB for "propeller struck", 4 out of 16 aircraft returned were t/w.

Interesting stuff :8

I really regret not learning in a tailwheel because I certainly prefer flying them to nosegear aircraft.

To be honest I do feel slightly safer in the PA28 than in the Super Cub...but that is completely different from lacking confidence. I little bit of fear and respect is a good thing...it keeps you alert and it stops you getting complacent. Perception has a lot to do with it.

I really don't feel I need to- I'm completely happy with my skills, I just recognise that as a pilot who learnt on nosewheel aircraft and who has the majority of my hours on nosewheel aircraft I am probably more likely to have a landing accident in the Cub than in the PA28. We aren't all as experienced as SSD!

Due to torque, gyro and weather cock it is harder to maintain directional control on take off in a taildragger than in a nosewheel aircraft. That is what I was taught.

I'm going to spend some time on the AAIB website and try and find out exactly what the stats say on this. Until then I'll try and shut up because I must be sounding like a dog who won't let go of a bone.

To SSD and all those who disagreed with me:

Please, please don't get me wrong; I don't believe that taildraggers are 'dangerous' at all and I love the Super Cub...its a great plane and I will continue to fly it with confidence. I just think planes have become more idiot proof over the years.

I'm really sorry Fuji about this, the discussion is probably not what you envisaged at all.

I just think planes have become more idiot proof over the years.

And therein lies the answer to this long discussion.

By making airplanes more idiot proof you open the door to having more idiots with pilot licenses.

I would like to make one more comment and that has to do with amphibious aircraft.

The reason there are a lot of landing accidents are due to poor training and lack of proper pre landing checks by the pilots...the aircraft are safe if operated with the gear in the correct position for landing.

Now I'll fasten my seat belt and wait for another onslaught of comments like I got commenting about judging height during forced landings.

Correct.

.. .. .. and a very interesting debate about perception, evidence (of which there has not been a lot yet) and explanation.


Actually I think it is very interesting. I suspect many pilots think tail wheel aircraft are more "dangerous". In fact I agree because my perception is they will try and get into short grass strips - sometimes they are just too short and they come to grief. Maybe I am wrong?

Having bitten CT's head off earlier, but ever so gently (although I didn't put the thumb up as I thought it wasn't necessary but some sort of smiley-thingy proabably was, with hindsight), I've kept fairly quiet but followed the thread with interest.

CT admits his choice of words wasn't as well chosen as ppruners allow. In a pub, we'd have thrashed that bit out over the first pint and moved on.

What most of us seem to agree on now is that for those whose training is in tricycle geared aircraft, conventional gear seems to convey anything from another useful addition in the private pilot repertoire to a part of the aviation chart marked Here Be Dragons. Well, there are dragons all over the chart. Gotchas abound, in any aircraft, with any rating, in any weather.

I repeat: people make accidents. With decent training, from those decently experienced on type, we can reduce risk. If we accept we know less than we thought we did, try to take nothing for granted and still have fun, it's a risk worth taking.

And I don't think statistics prove a damned thing, either way.
:ok::ok::ok:

Rotory, now there be dragons :}

G-EMMA

You've nailed it there. It's either Freakonomics or the Undercover Economist, I forget which, but in one of those books exactly that statistical analysis is done.

And the answer is predictable - in terms of hours doing the activity, flying is more risky than driving, because people spend less time flying than virtually any other activity. Even passenger flying on a big jet is more risky than driving. I'm not sure how the probabilities are skewed for private pilots but I'll dig out the books tonight and have a look.

I often think 'I could die whilst doing this', or, 'get it right or there's a risk you'll be dead'. I actually think it helps focus on getting things right, as I'm convinced even as a stude that everything I've been taught is for a reason and therefore doing it reduces the likelihood of death or serious injury.

I secretly think the risk is one of the reasons I do it... Interestingly, every non pilot I've spoken to thinks it's more risky than it is...

Stick & Rudder makes a case for tailwheels being more difficult to fly than tricycles. Whether or not that converts into risk or any difficulty is netted out by the additional training required is up to your individual perception of risk.