I'm in the camp that thinks taildragger flight training would produce better stick & rudder skills than the nose wheel version. However trying to convince modern thinking "what's the point?" People who just want to fly the latest plastic fantastic piece of glass crap while impressing their friends is a waste of bandwidth.

As said, if airliners ever go back to DC3 days things might change.
First thing I did after licence was tailwheel differences, then bought one.


It's the apparent fear of the tailwheel that surprises me.

By this measure I hate flying and make no apology for it either!

Cockney Steve
 

Yes, most. But I think you will find that the casualty rate was much closer to that for Service pilots than you may think. :ooh:

MJ:ok:

I'm of the camp that thinks everyone should go solo on a glider before they start their PPL training. Why do you veer to the extremes of 'it's either a taildragger or it's a glass piece of plastic crap'? I don't see the 40 odd year old 172 I fly as plastic and it certainly doesn't have anything remotely glass looking in the cockpit.

Why do you assume people fear tailwheels? I've flown tailwheel aircraft before, can't see what the fuss is. You use a different set of skills that's all. It's not rocket science.

My taildragger experience is admittedly even more limited than my general flying experience, although I found it instructive and quite joyful and would like a trial flight in an old open-cockpit taildragger, too (already for remotely emulating the experience of flying WWI airplanes like in Rise of Flight :8).

However, I wholeheartedly reject the notion that the difference between flying/training in an (old) taildragger and flying/training in a (modern) trike amounts to the difference between good and crap flying/training, or that one has to fly taildraggers/do aeros/like stalls and spins to be(come) a good pilot.

And on a more general and personal note, while I admire great stick & rudder skills and aspire to develop decent ones myself, I find this (implied) "us real pilots vs. them pathetic aircraft operators" undertone which so often seems to go with the subject of airplane handling quite tedious
(but that may be just me as a newbie and explicit non-skygod).

Well it's not going to go away. Sad thing is, there aren't that many of us from a sport/pastime point of view nationally and we still argue about crap like tailwheels v trikes. Be a lot better if we all just enjoyed flying whatever it is we choose to fly and let others do the same.

Foop. It's all about the instructor, not the aircraft. That said, if I could afford the fuel I would love a Yak 12 for bimbling with three friends. Looks like a Cub on steroids, and has a round engine.

I regularly fly one of these remarkable ladies to events such as project propellor.

John did you go to the last one at Coningsby?

Thing.


I don't think I said "it's either a taildragger or a glass piece of plastic crap. I was trying to make a point that a number of modern pilots are not interested in tailwheel aircraft because they sometimes appear to me to be a little afraid of the perceived difficulty in handling. And these pilots would rather get airborne with all the bells & whistles than bother to learn something different.


I too believe that going solo on gliders first is a good idea. I did it myself, they teach you how to fly accurately, spins, full stalls etc and that does generate confidence and understanding of the bogey man/there be dragons there, problem.


As for the 172, nothing wrong with that, nothing wrong with 152 either, or PA28 etc, it is the pilot training that is at fault. How many buggered nose wheels are there on those a/c compared to ground looped, noseovered taildraggers?


I've watched PA28 drivers take 3 attempts to land on 620 metres grass & nearly run out of space, I watch 172/152s being wheelbarrowed on regularly. I don't see many taildraggers being landed badly.


I never found the tail dragging bit much of a fuss either. And I don't consider myself anything special by flying one.


The original question here was about training on tailwheel, or lack of. Not about what people should be allowed to fly.


Chuck.
Now see what a can of worms you've opened, great fun isn't it?

Well yeah, it is.:)

I take your point about broken nosewheels, the AAIB reports must contain broken nosewheels more than other type of accident. Which surely shows that trikes are harder to fly than tailwheels...:)

Joking aside if you sit at any grass strip watching the world go idley by then there's no doubt that the odd taildragger you see will be plonked down on average better than your average trike. I'm an old glider bore and take great pride in my landings. They aren't always what I want them to be but to me they are the skillful part of hand flying; you can usually see if a pilot has a good set of hands by the way they land. If I can nail a good landing in the right place at the right speed then I go home a happy man. It seems that a lot of flyers just appear to throw them at the ground without any empathy for the machine. Still, I'm not exactly a three thousand hour man so my opinion doesn't really count for much.

Things have not changed much since I last flew in your country I see.

I also used to be fascinated by the number of ham handed pilots the system churned out.

Reading the different comments here really gives one some things to think about....from poorly trained pilots who semi crash land until they are successful in busting the nose wheel off to pilots who don't like to fly unless the auto pilot is doing the flying......makes one wonder what would happen some day when the weather is really bad and the auto pilot fails?????:( :( :(

Thing.

Well that post could have been written by me. I too am of the same mind if I nail the landing. I've flown gliders in the past up to bronze & silver height before trying power, 250hrs total, 150 on type. So no expert either.

I spent last Saturday trying to get the circuits as tight as possible after no flying since November in this crap weather.

Chuck
Semi crash land is right, reminds me of the Navy watching Scimitars & Buccaneers on Ark Royal, except they kept the bloody nose up and the tail hook down. And the gear was designed for it.

I've seen the results of a beaut, v. expensive retractable, the sort of a/c any of us would like to own, shortish grass strip, landed about half way down with too much energy.

What would you or I do? Go around I hope would be the correct and sane answer.

Nope, hit the anchors and laughably thought he could stop before the boundary fence and ditch. The mind boggles.

One has to wonder how an endeavor like learning to fly has been allowed to be dumb ed down to such a low level of proficiency?

Could it be the Darwin factor at work?

If mediocrity is going to be accepted in operating any machinery one would think that flying an airplane would be the last thing people would accept mediocrity in......then again when I think of the level of incompetence in those who regulate and license pilots I think I know the answer. :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ok:

You only have to drive on the road to see mediocrity in action Chuck. People are operators of machinery these days, they have no empathy with the machine they are operating and wish for none. It's just an extension of their living room. But when it bites I would like to think I would have a chance of surviving, I fear it would not be so for a lot of people.

Can they get going fast enough on the M25 these days to get killed or is it still the worlds biggest parking lot?

There is one on YouTube somewhere where he touches down eventually just short of the numbers, wrong set of numbers, & ends up on the beach. A twin by the way so presumably experienced? Must have been trained in UK!Bed time this side of the pond Chuck. G-night.M25 Fire Service training ground!!

I enjoy a good dose of nostalgia and love flying classic taildraggers and - to be honest - nearly anything else in the GA world. Maybe it's a function of my location on the planet but I'm surprised that few posters have mentioned training in the VLA/LSA environment. Many of the aeroplanes available are actually much more interesting to fly than the standard (increasingly clapped-out) traditional GA offerings and, despite the naysayers, we now have professional flying schools offering both GA and Recreational Aviation Australia training, often by the same instructors.

It's true that the originally-mooted cost benefits of this type of flying/training have not all been realized but the cost reduction that has been achieved, and the associated fun factor, are definitely contributing to the continuing viability of private aviation.

And you even have the option of some nice taildraggers, if that's the way you want to train (see, e.g. Tecnam.com - P92 Tail Dragger).

This type of training won't work for everyone in all circumstances but there's no need for excessive hand-wringing, in my view.

Yes I did, great day out!

On the original topic, it's not the aeroplane that matters, it's the training and the willingness to read the POH and do what it says. It's also about making sure you never stop learning and planning for every flight.

I can hand fly an aircraft in solid IMC quite happily, but mostly it's hard work so I use the autopilot. I can land a PA 28 in a short field because I read the POH.

Mostly, as I say above, the aircraft is irrelevant from a training point of view it's the instruction and the attitude of the instructed that matters. In some respects it's also the syllabus. I did an IR in Europe and it did wonders for my currency, but I had to learn about practical IFR flying separately from the course which taught me almost nothing useful in that respect.

Just thinking, re the car arguement. I own a 1948 holden, I also have a 2013 nissan navara. The old holden is a prick to drive, has a crash box (no syncro in first) and bump steers really well. The navara is great, easy to drive, auto gearbox, power steering, aircon.... Am I better driver in the holden? no, because there is too many distractions.. Am I better driver in the new car, no, to many distractions too. I think its a poor argument when related to aircraft. BUT, I have to agree in some sorts with the difference in skill sets between old an new, When I was a kid, we could take the cars out in the bush, race them around, learn how they handle and learn how to correct errors. Kids learning to drive these days don't get that opportunity. They dont get the opportunity to learn how to recover a car when they screw up.

Looking from the other side of the fence, the training is more strict for learner drivers now, they cant go out and muck up like we did, but there is less deaths as a result now (statistically, it becomes a numbers game). I am too new into aviation to make a comparison, but is aviation similar now? Is there less accidents now, or more?

The Elephant in the Room
 

Hi Guys,

Poor training (by underpaid 'hours builders' who really want an airline job,) poor skill standards, poor pilot currency, aged training aircraft that originated in a very different country far away and in a by-gone age and both government and the general public alike utterly uninterested in, and ignorant about, flying. (It would be different if Olympic medals could be won for flying).

The ultimate elephant in the room, however, is cost, aided and abetted by our poor climate that makes continuity in training virtually impossible and over zealous, needlessly expensive, micro-regulation by government; (thanks Europe!).

A friend of mine summed the British flying scene up in one sentence. 'Too many flying establishments chasing too few people with too little money' and that just about sums it up.

The clubs use ancient American aircraft because new ones would cost more than they could afford. People try to get their licences in the minimum number of hours. On qualifying, most can only barely afford an amount of flying annually to maintain a minimum standard of currency.

It always was like this, but in recent years it has become worse. And I can't see it improving.

BP.

Broomstick

i would agree with you! An aircraft is a means of transport like any other and has to have a purpose. A dozen times around the local area after achieving a PPL and taking up family and friends and the holes appear both in practicality and cost.
You are then faced with the fact that to practically use an aircraft you need more! Better aircraft better ratings and that equals higher costs and commitments.
Time saving over a Car train etc? Unless you fly long distance? mission reliability? It is an expensive past time which most cannot justify. The wealthier ones maybe!

But this thread was on the training :ok:

Pace

This one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_Vh0oJro3A

BP, I can't help with your weather (sorry). But somewhere in your very interesting synopsis must come the question of expectation management. It's an unfortunate fact that people nowadays want everything, and want it instantly. That's no doubt why we in a large part of the western world live in 5x3 McMansions, drowning in debt.

I can't help but think that having the freedom to fly, more or less as we want, is a very special thing, regardless of whether we do it in a Cub or a Cirrus. To reference my earlier post, the kids I see training in the LSAs are reveling in the simple joy of flying. I don't think we spend enough time promoting the flying experience, and we do students an injustice by demanding that very decent small aircraft be loaded with the most powerful engine and latest avionics.

If you equip some of the better LSA trainers with an 80 hp (looxury) engine, and strip the panel back to the basics, there are still some excellent training opportunities at very reasonable rates, at least in my part of the world. Not for everyone, I recognize, but a great way to get more people in the air, and more hours under their belts.

I have to disagree with this. A light aircraft can be a means of transport, but most aren't because of wx limitations of pilots and aircraft; the tiny percentage that are fully wx compliant (Full IFR, de-iced, preferably multi engine with good engine-out performance, IR pilot, suitably equiped airfield) are vastly out weighed by the 'fun, fair wx' machines, at least in UK. It's possible of course to use a light aircraft in UK which doesn't meet these criterea for transport, but not with any serious degree of reliability and safety.

A cub out of a farmer's field. A Pitts or a Stampe for some aeros. A Chippy for the pure joy of flight (and some gentle aeros!). There's a lifetime of flying fun to be had there, and not an ILS or hired-plane-round-the-local-area in sight!

SSD

I think we are all different in what we want or expect from aviation. Ok one person may have the Cub in a Barn and get a lot of pleasure tinkering with it and taking it up on a sunny morning! They may get involved in an annual fly away.
I have no disagreement with that! Infact in my own situation You can almost go full circle and hanker after your beginnings so the Cub becomes an attractive proposition.
My own motivation was different leading me through Multi engine pistons with a 97% mission accomplishment rate to business jets which I have flown over a large area of the world and have been very privalaged in doing so.
But that goal means being paid to fly as the machinery is too expensive to do it any other way.
But I cannot do this forever( getting older ) and a Cirrus for touring and getting back to basics or a Husky in a field appeals :ok:

Pace

Indeed, Pace. I'm not in any way decrying the few who can use light aircraft for serious transport - what I'm saying is that in UK at least they are a few and not really representative of mainstream GA; it's very expensive and requires commitment to achieve it and constant use to stay sharp. Such a pilot is pretty much a self-employed self-financing airline pilot, with a day job as well!

Most GA folk don't or can't do this. The trick is, find your niche, whatever it is, and try to avoid the hired-172-for-the-plough-around-the-local-patch syndrome. That way lies giving up flying for most PPLs!

To bring this back to Chuck's original point, most of the nicest aeroplanes to fly, the ones that offer the basic PPL the most bangs per buck, are tailwheel and handle well. But the current flying school scene doesn't offer a taste of that like it used to. So we lose a loads of PPLs who go away bored of the school hack to the £150 cup of coffee (probably more like £250 these days)!

SSD

The guy who has the Cub in a Barn all his flying life and is happy with that probably has the same wife all his life too while some of us Hanker and get involved with all the wrong ones. Maybe you get to the point that you think the guy with the same wife for 50 years has it right :E

Pace

Sorry, folks, most of my previous ramble had somehow got wiped before I hit send, without proof reading first....so a recap.

An aquaintance decided to take up flying...I introduced him to a friend who had abandoned PPL training about 30 hours in (parents dying etc.)
R, gets his PPL, imc, night......a 152....needs to take growing family sometimes so a 172 (both earn their keep by renting to the local training org.)....cpl and instructor follow, along with an Aeronca Chief as a fun toy...by this time P had his PPL as well and i had the privelidge of going on a good few jollies in all 3 aircraft.

having considerable motorbike,car, sailing and aeromodelling experiences,Ifound the Armstrong-starting,limited -panel Aeronca to be far more satisfying than the spamcans.
R suggested I should take official training and stated categorically that he thought the syllabus was a huge con for a lot of studes.
Those with aptitude and background knowledge have a head start...they are capable of combining several "exercises" into one lesson...the next lesson onward, they practise it .
As with motoring, there are those with no ability, knowledge, intuition or empathy for the subject -matter....this is where the training syllabus is aimed....Anyone who gets the idea "I want to do that"..can be "programmed" to jump through the hoops inthe right order and will drive or fly by rote, with little real appreciation for what's going on with his conveyance or it's environment.
A previous partner would blithly keep her foot on the throttle, despite the distant lights turning toamber.....heavy, last minute braking.....the concept of analysing traffic-flow 2 or 3 cars ahead, was an alien concept,

BUT she had the income, passed the test and became another revenue-stream for the gov.t. keeping the motor trade, refineries, ministry test bods and road tax admin all in jobs.

IF the test regime became too onerous, the country would grind to a halt.......GA almost got to this point....ability to pay is far more important than Piloting aptitude......I didn't want to join the military,under any circumstances and life evolved in a way that precluded me from taking upthis expensive hobby.....so, UK GA revolves around selling the dream to those who can afford it....I must have been wellover 40 before i'd even heard of the PFA !...now, of course, with t' internet...

So,in summary...spamcans are the cheapest, easiest, most stable way to get the largest percentage of entrants through the test....those with true enthusiasm will explore the more challenging options.
Very few have the "inside knowledge" to find out it's possible to learn on something other than a Cof A spamcan at a "proper" establishment at a "proper" Airport. IMHO the system is designed to keep the status quo...(although the recent relaxation of licenced airfield requirement is a step forward, it's negated by the new pile of EASA FTO registration requirements.

I teach on DA20 Katanas and in a PA28. I also teach Tailwheel in a SuperCub and aeros in a T67.

It is possible to teach ab initio in a SuperCub, but in my opinion, not a good idea. It is surely much better for the instructor to be able to reach all the controls (especially the mixture knob!), tune the radio, read the instruments and see where the student is looking or what he is actually doing with his hands and feet. Side by side is a far superior format for teaching. It will also take some students much longer to get to solo standard in a tail dragger. For some, the frustration would be too much and they would give up.

Instructing on tailwheel aircraft would probably produce students who pass their test with higher levels of handling skill, but there would be fewer of them.

Johnm

Agreed. I learned in 150's. Instrument in a 172, and transitioned to taildraggers when the school where I was instructing bought a Citabria. CFII in a PA-28. I managed to successfully transition to corporate jets, airline jets, a civil C-130 and then a wide (wider) body jet. For the past 15 years or so, I have been enjoying going back to my roots flying a taildragger in the mountains and I had the opportunity, post-retirement, to fly a survey Twin Otter for a few years. My current hobby job is back in the jets. Those 150/152's and good instruction did me justice.

The aircraft type(s) didn't really seem to matter for me. I will say that when I was with Civil Air Patrol (in keeping with my personal policy to fly anything offered) I had the opportunity to checkout in a brand new, Garmin1000 C-182...and didn't like it. Actually left me cold, and I'm a hard-core iPad guy now. My CAP favorites were the Beaver, 185 and steam gauge 206 (in that order). My passion is really taildraggers.

I had some really good instructors and a few bad ones in the early days. Learned from them both. Good instruction works regardless of where the tailwheel location is, and variety of experience is a big contributor. Eat when its offered, sleep when you can and fly whatever comes along.

The nicest aircraft which I flew was when I was involved with a certain MSFS company who were making a Sia Marchetti SF 260.
I flew it to add to the flight dynamics for RealAir Simulations.
Personal aircraft ??? that did it for me :ok: That was a dream machine

Pace

I see I have found a subject that evokes a wide variety of opinion, which was exactly my intent.

So ::

Here is another of my opinions on this subject.

We would have a better level of airplane handling skills across the board if we structured flying training like the education system is structured.

To get a PPL you must first go to kindergarten before you enter grade school.

Kindergarten would be held in a farmers grass field and the school room would be a Cub, once the student mastered the Cub to solo they would then enter grade school....a regular flight training school where they would then be taught by rote and introduced to all the ancillary tasks such as radios, flight and engine instrument interpretation, weather and on and on until they either realized they were being screwed or they go broke.

:eek::eek:.

For my dream machines I want the following.

A 450 HP Stearman and a Grumman Widgeon.

Could be right there, Pace.
My Cub is in a hangar and I've only had (still got) one husband. But I don't do club flyouts because I'm not keen on other people deciding where I go. So I go touring with or without husband. Just takes a bit longer, and sometimes I have to wait for the weather. I've had the husband for thirty years and the Cub a bit less. Suits me.

:{Piper Classique

Have always read your posts with interest but never clicked you were a girl ; )
If you ever have to make a choice between the Cub and the husband and choose the Cub then you can join the rest of us commitment phobes and pick all the wrong ones .) but have a great time in the process ! Je regret rien :{

Pace

This is almost precisely the wrong way round. Start with a PA 28 or a 172 or some other half way sensible but cheap aeroplane which is easy to fly. As soon as the pupil can land reliably send them solo and then teach radio, GPS and all the other bits that make travelling in a light aeroplane practical.

Thereafter you can do advanced things like flying old aeroplanes that are hard to fly and aerobatics and so forth.

Tailwheel aeroplanes aren't 'hard to fly'. They simply require to be flown (in particular, landed) correctly.

How I started
 

Hi Chuck,

I started flying in pretty much the way you suggest. I commenced flying gliders as a teenager in the late 50s. I learned on the Slingsby T21 and then converted onto the Kirby Prefect (winch launching only) and only then got the opportunity (i.e. some money) to learn power.

Gliding was where I learned my basic airmanship and handling skills. It gave me extra confidence later when learning to fly the Auster. It also taught me that a forced landing in a light aircraft is nothing to worry about as long as you have a decent field to put it down in and get your approach right first time.

Some years after getting my (power) PPL I went back to gliding for a couple of seasons (aero-towed Schleicher K7s and K13s). From that I learned a certain sensitivity to how air masses behave that I am sure pilots with power-only experience just don't have.

I'd like to see all pilots able to commence very young on gliders and then move up via some simple powered aircraft, like the Austers and Tiger Moths of yesteryear.

I firmly believe that the ideal basic (powered) training aeroplane on which one first learns should be non-radio, have well balanced handling, have a simple instrument panel, should NOT be vice-less and should have a landing approach speed of not much more than 60 kts maximum. I am convinced that very many student pilots today have extra hours added onto their training purely because they are flying aeroplanes are far too fast in the circuit and don't allow them sufficient time to think and are much too fast on the landing approach.

After the simple aircraft, they could then progress onto faster aircraft with multiple rows of knobs levers and dials.

Well that's my two penn'th.

BP.

John

Whatever did they do when there were no 172s and all were tail draggers?
Reminds me of the joke about the tandem Bi Plane trainer!
The grey haired instructor was known for playing a joke on his students!
Just before sending them solo he unscrewed his stick and showing absolute confidence threw it over the side into the field below! Meaning the student had to land !
One student also a prankster caught onto what would happen to him and unseen slipped a spare stick into the cockpit with him!
As expected the instructor unscrewed his stick and threw it over the side!
The student unscrewed his stick too and threw it over the side exclaiming that he was just following the instructors example !
He just had time to here the instructor shout bail out and disappear over the side with his parachute :ok:

Those must have been the days when men were men and pilots were pilots and they smoked capstan full strength then they built the 172 :{

Pace