I soloed on gliders, as a teen, then did a 30 hour PPL on no-radio Jackeroos (Tiger Moth convertion) at age 23, at Thruxton. After letting my license lapse, due to expence. I re-did it on C152s at age 46, at Inverness.
The airspace in the Thruxton area has changed since 1964.
Although almost all my flying since January 1990 is wood-and-fabric taildragger (Jodel DR1050), I doubt if any taildragger would be an economic trainer at Inverness. The tarmac runways and wind strengths would rule it out.
And the more stable aircraft are much less affected by turbulence.
A school must provide students with as little weather downtime as possible.

I like the C150/152, but don't like the 172. However my few hours on the C172 include the highest winds and the worst weather I have continued my flight through, without thinking of diverting. The high wing gives it a sideways vision advantage in heavy rain over the Pa28 (which is a very stable aircraft).

Chuck, are you Richard Bach in disguise, by any chance? ! ;)

Your sentiments are so redolent of Bach's, as expressed in a short story "School for Perfection" published in "A Gift of Wings".

Reading that book as a teenager contributed a lot to my lifelong interest in aviation.

FBW

It's not "afraid", it's "why would I bother to spend scare money and flying time on something that's reputed to be more difficult, and is then going to be smaller and slower and without sufficient gizmos for effortless navigation?"

Anyway, all this silly squabbling about which end the wheel should be - real aeroplanes don't have wheels.

No but we have a lot in common, his story of Jonathan Livingston Seagull was awesome, just awesome.

Have you read any the books that Ernest Gann wrote?

He was my favorite airplane story writer and I was fortunate enough to have gotten to know him personally, the last time we talked together was in his hangar in Friday Harbor where he kept his Wing Derringer and he was showing me the new strike finder he had installed in it, it was not long after that he passed away at home in Friday Harbor.

Pace. Re your reply to P C, don't assume.;)

I think the only bad thing about a super cub for ab initio is it has too much power. The student's first airplane should be a dog, or a glider. The PA12 was good for me.
Bryan

Johnm:

In all fairness to you I agree we can agree to disagree.....

So please allow me to comment on your opinions. :O

The Cub is easy to fly.

Radio and GPS can be taught without any airplane being needed, period.

Obviously your vision of what an advanced airplane is and my understanding of an advanced airplane are diametrically different.

I learned to fly on tail wheel airplanes in 1953, they were basic trainers and they produced competent pilots in the same general time frame today's pilots are trained in modern basic nose wheel airplanes.

To me advanced airplanes were the ones I finished my career on which were modern glass cockpit airliners.

It was Richard Bach's 'A Gift of Wings' that inspired me to get my licence. Wasn't too impressed by 'Johnathan', though.

Chuck
 

It takes a special kind of imagination to understand JLS Chuck. ;) Always nice to see!


MJ:ok:

I think life is getting too complicated so people prefer things to be simple and easily accessible. The driving comparison was spot on. Modern cars can be thrown into corners, you can stamp on the brakes and you don't even need to know how to check oil levels or how to change a tyre. Aviation is decades behind but it is surely progressing in the same direction with computer assisted handling (oh God you may stall) and automatics so you can relax and maybe take a much needed nap after all the stresses of everyday life.

Personally I don't much like the Cub. It flies nicely but, it's too small, hard to get in and out of, has lots of things to bang your head on and has heel brakes that anyone of reasonable human proportions can barely use. It's also slow, and has tandem seating with only one instrument panel. I can see why it's not the average pilots first choice of rental.

Somebody above mentioned that they usually see tail-dragger pilots landing nicely whereas tricycle pilots tend to find "other ways" of landing. If this is evident of a tricycle trained pilot flying in a tricycle aircraft than it is surely something that proper flight instruction on a tricycle aircraft should be able to fix. So in summary it's all the flight instructors fault! Wouldn't a higher barrier to entry for flight instruction be a better solution to assbackwardsness than using an old ass... erm errr aeroplane? :)

500, you're missing something. I already made the point that a good instructor can teach correct landing technique in a nose wheel aeroplane. The problem is, nose wheel aeroplanes will (to some extent) tolerate very poor landing technique, the like of which is all too commonly seen at GA fields, because pilots (humans!) are lazy. One day, the nose leg gives up the unequal struggle (check out the huge number of noseleg collapses in AAIB accident reports each month. These incidents rarely cause injury, but they are very expensive to fix - shock loaded engine etc - and add greatly to our insurance premiums).

Tailwheel aeroplanes will not tolerate sloppy landing technique. So tail wheel pilots tend to land correctly.

That's one outcome scenario. Another would be that tailwheel aeroplanes are simply more likely to be damaged in cases where pilots (humans!) momentarily perform under par.

BTW, given that this is apparently such a "stick & rudder" topic, I am almost astonished that no one has so far mentioned the fact that according to the well-known book of the same name, it's the taildragger landing gear which is assbackwards :E

So the simple solution is that we should all fly the most difficult aircraft we can find so we can constantly (hopefully) demonstrate our superior skills? Or aircraft manuafacturers could make the nose wheel more robust to account for the lazy b:mad:d flying it! The second option would be more in keeping with current trends.

I suppose you could follow that route. And cover all the hills with bouncy air bags in case an errant pilot should hit one... etc.... etc.... :E

"Nose wheel aircraft will tolerate sloppy landing techniques" ? Only up to the point where the front wheel gives up.

Tailwheel aircraft can take more abuse on rough ground than nose wheels. So should be safer to train on once the basic difference in CofG has been grasped.


What is wrong with being trained to a slightly better standard than the barest minimum?

My guess is a lot of pilots are satisfied with mediocrity because anything higher is just to difficult for them.

Trouble is most of them don't see it as mediocre, they have spent loads of cash and expect to be called Captain. They carry a flight bag the size of a portacabin , to hire a 172 for an hour. How on earth do they need any more training??

You could level that at most activities though, driving being one of them. There's an element of being good enough to do something with reasonable safety and wanting to be better at something for the sake of being better at it. Personally I like to be good at what I do. It probably makes me no safer than the guy who flies once a month to the same local bacon butty place but we really have no right to criticise that. The same guy may get great pleasure from it and be as safe as houses.

It's the same as a guy who makes a table. One guy bolts four 4x4 pieces of fence post to a slab of pine. He has a table and it will stand for a hundred years. It wouldn't be the table that I would make and you or I may criticise the shoddy nature of it and lack of finesse but his would still function as a table. Same with pilots. How good do you have to be? I'm only driven to be better at something because that's my personality type I suppose. If I can put an a/c within 50' of where I want it to be I'll want to put it within 25' next time. It's not really making me any safer because I'm never going to land on a spit of gravel in the Canadian tundra, it's just my desire to be good at something. Other people are different, good enough does for them.

Speaking for myself and probably a fair few other people, I get about 1 day a month when, if the weather is good, I can go flying. I can afford about 2 hours. The weather isn't always good. I often don't go out for a few months. I hope things get easier in the future - I have plans for a Luciole (taildragger) - but in the meanwhile it's nice to fly something that is reasonably forgiving and doesn't require hundreds of hours a year in order to remain acceptably safe.

Well, I hope it flies better than the WW1 Luciole. Was it in 'Gift of Wings' where the film pilot flying the replica WW1 Luciole said of it "it's a very fine Luciole, but it will never be an aeroplane". ;)

Colomban Luciole - same stable as the cricri. I hope it flies better too!

There is a problem with how the Cri-Cri fly's?

Compared to the WW1 Luciole... Not that I've ever flown either that one or the Cri-Cri.

Some confusion has arisen; AFAIK the Cri Cri flies just fine, and the WW1 Luciole didn't. Not that I've flown either.:E

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:}

Here is an interesting observation based on my recall of flight training.

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?

Tail wheel aircraft don't have nose wheels?...:)

Maybe the new more modern airplanes are easier to fly but the training is of a lower quality? :(

I've seen a Luscombe that hasn't been ground looped (note singular tense). I've also seen a lot of damaged Luscombe wings hanging on hangar walls ready to be repaired some day. They made them with detachable tip spars knowing what could, and in fact did, happen.

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.

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.

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.

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 :ok:
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 got it!.....today's litigious society and the refusal to take responsibility for one's own actions are the drivers.

@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 ?

BPF
I would like to see those statistics :ok:
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

So would I pace, statistics can be what ever one needs to prove a point.

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 ".

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".

I have no idea what statistics he is referring to but those statistics seem to be number of fatal accidents......

.......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.

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.

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.