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