Why has flight training gone assbackwards?
 

Its time to get a good conversation going again.

Soooo...

.....I see a Canadian flight school has put its Super Cub up for sale because of lack of use.

I find it depressing to see how flight training has been watered down to the point that the schools are content to spoon feed their new students with almost idiot proof airplanes such as a Cessna 172 rather than teach them the basics of flying, at least up to solo in airplanes that will instill good hands and feet flying in something like the Super Cub.

And I do not accept the B.S. that the students want a 172.... because the schools should decide which machine will produce the best product.

Last time I looked the A380 is still controlled by Elevator, Ailerons, and a rudder...so it cant be because they are aiming at producing better airline pilots.

O.K. gang have at me I have a real thick skin...so don't hold back. :) :ok: :)

How much did they charge for the Super Cub vs the C 172 ?

Maybe when a tailwheel conversion becomes available/popular for the A380, the mighty Cub will again reign supreme as a trainer.

I don't know, there is no price for the Cub on their web site.

However I can not see the Cub being more expensive to operate.

Brilliant response. :ugh:

OK.

My local club had C172s and other different aircraft. They now have mostly C172s with one or two other aircraft. The reason is this.

Firstly, bear in mind that this is a local club producing primarily middle aged PPLs, not a commercial school.

So the club can present these options.

Would you like to train in Aircraft A, a 4 seater which has a decent range of modern equipment, cruises at a good speed and is comfortable enough to travel around the UK/Ireland in?

Would you like to train in Aircraft B which is more traditional, a lot of people think it is a better training aircraft. It is pretty slow and is only a two seater, it has very basic equipment two. Whenever you have your licence, we can then teach you (conversion or whatever you'd locally call it) to fly the other modern one, we can also teach you how the avionics work in it too.

Most PPLs (of this kind) have the same sort of flying in mind, and it nearly always includes taking family and friends on jaunts around the country. Why would they want to learn in something that will not be fully applicable to what they want to do.

It makes me think of someone who wants to learn to drive to get back and forward to work etc being taught to ride a motorbike first, because there is more to think about and should give you better road sense and appreciation for conditions etc, but it isn't something most people would want to use as a daily commuter.

Before they can take anyone anywhere they must first get a pilots license.

That is easy to answer.

The idea is to first learn the basics then move gradually on to more advanced handling skills.

Therefore it should stand to reason that learning the basics on a basic trainer would be the best choice, and it will be less expensive paying fot the basic trainer until one learns to fly properly.

"Learning to fly properly" and learning to fly on a C 172 is not mutually exclusive......

That is basically true, however learning to fly a Cub will instill hands and feet coordination taking off and landing that will be more beneficial than learning on the 172....or have I got this all wrong?

From the learning factors is it not understood that teaching it right the first time is best?

Or to put it another way.

You have ten students, five you take to solo in a 172 and the other five you take to solo in a 172.

Immediately after their first solo you have them switch airplanes with no further training and go solo again.

How would that work out?

Umm fine ;)

So, Chuck, you are saying (or meant to say):

if you learn to fly on a Cub, you will be able to fly a 172. But if you learnt to fly on a 172 you won't stand a chance in a Cub.

Well...............

That's a good reason to learn in a 172! It is easier!

It's the same reason you learn to drive in a simple small front-wheel drive car rather than an Audi Quatro, a Landrover or a rear-wheel drive.

(We have another saying over here: if you learn to fly from our - really crap, bumpy, lumpy, short, uneven, wet, boggy, narrow, curved... airfield - then you can fly from any airfield!)

Some people see that as a unique selling point. I see it as: "we operate from a crap site"!

A final word: as an instructor, side-by-side instruction adds an extra help to student/instructor interaction. You can see their face much more clearly, to start with! And I have a couple of thousand hours teaching in a tandem seater.

Actually, I quite like that idea.

Should eliminate a lot of the inattentiveness and [insert other bad driving behaviours here] from our roads.
I suspect this is world-wide, but here in NZ we have some shockers.

I guess I'm just biased in my opinions about teaching flying, and of course it is because I am a product of the environment I learned to fly in.

All we had were tail wheel airplanes in the training fleet at the school I learned to fly at.

The airport had paved runways and a control tower and at times was very busy.

We received our PPL's in thirty hours, so it could not have been that difficult to learn on tail wheel airplanes.

Why does it take twice as many hours for people to get their licenses today in " easier " to fly airplanes? Is it because everyone is so much richer today and money does not matter

When I hired pilots I looked for the most skilled, not the ones that were satisfied with flying the easy stuff...

....but like I said I am probably biased in how I see aviation. :) :) :)

Tarq, it probably would be a good idea in principle!

I know it's always better to have additional skills etc, but I would argue that it isn't more beneficial (or marginally so) for someone who intends to do no more than fly a C172 on good weather days.

There are many many things in life which people could go to do and it would grant them extra skills that may be applicable in unique and uncommon situations, but you can't do everything so you do what is efficient and makes sense.

(1) How long did those 30 hour PPLs take? Were they spread over two years of weekends with many weather cancellations as a modern UK PPL typically is?

(2) How much in the way of modern kit, airspace, radio, law, etc, had to be picked up after completion of the 30 hour PPL? (Just for fun, let's see if we can keep GPS out of this one, eh?)

Sure. But most PPLs are not looking to be hired to fly.

When I hire programmers I look for people who have written assembler, even if just a few lines at college - then they have some clue as to what a computer actually is. But I don't try to insist that people learning to program as a hobby bother with assembler if they don't want to.

I would not send a brand new PPL who had only been flying a Super Cub solo on a C 172 without any additional training for the same reason I would not send a pilot who had only ever flown a C 172 solo in a Super Cub; there is an unacceptable risk that they will bend the aircraft.

The Super Cub guy will probably need less training to make the conversion but it won't be zero hours. The Super Cub pilot will be used to sitting in the centre of the aircraft with a low cowl. He will take a bit of time to get used to the very different sight picture you get sitting on the left side and with a high cowl. He will also be used to a stick in his right hand and the throttle in his left the reverse of a C 172. For these reason and the fact that a c 172 has much heavier controls than a Super Cub sending a new pilot out with no preparation is IMO unprofessional.

If the intent of your question is "how can we improve the quality of flight instruction" than I can think of many things that will achieve the aim that don't require a wholesale change over of training aircraft.....

BTW I have trained PPL's on tailwheel aircraft. Were they better pilots than the ones trained on tricycle gear airplanes ? Overall I don't think so because being a good pilot is more than just keeping the aircraft straight on takeoff and landing, although that is of course an important skill.

However if I had a choice I would do all the training on tail draggers because they are generally cooler airplanes and more fun to fly. However the economics of the flying training game makes this impossible.

No to finish in thirty hours you can not spread it over that long a time frame, I started my PPL in June and finished it in January.

Well our radios were VHF transceivers with whistle stop tuning which were a bit more difficult to operate than to days modern radios.

Our airspace was a lot less complex for sure, the airways were aural radio range airways, combined with the ADF.

Some of the larger airports had ILS and in the mid fifties the VOR airway system started to arrive.

Airlaw and airspace structure is not part of the airplane handling lessons so they really do not change how long it takes to learn to fly the airplane for a PPL...they just mean more ground school.

Granted.....however in the context of getting a PPL, my position is learning on a tail wheel airplane makes for better airplane handling skills, and if taught by good flight instructors it does not really take any longer than learning to fly a nose wheel airplane.

The end result can be the same whether you are a PPL or an ATPL if you do not clearly understand the basics......remember that Airbus that a crew flew in a deep stall all the way from cruise altitude into the South Atlantic?

Impossible?

Light tail wheel trainers such as the Cubs are more expensive than 172's to buy and operate?

Nor would I, my question was to compare which of the students would have the less problem actually handling the airplanes.

Here is my original comment at the start of this thread.

I don't think they are selling it because of it being to costly to operate.

My personal opinion is it is because the instructors do not want to train on it....I am wondering why if it is part of the training fleet. :ok:

A guy I know belongs to a flying club with a fleet of airplanes. The only taildragger is a Stearman...and no one wants to fly it, so they're going to sell it. :ugh:

Times have changed.

I am curious as to why do you think that ?

O.k., now that thosee of us on CET are waking up, here are my two cents worth.
It doesn't matter what aircraft you use for flight training.
What matters is the quality of the instructor and the willingness to learn and commitment of the student.
The Super Cub is a brilliant aircraft which will do pretty well anything, but it is a long way from being an ideal trainer. The C172 is easy to fly, has a fairish load carrying capacity, and is pretty bland.

I learned to fly on a C150 because that is what was available. I had no problem converting to the Rollason Condor, then Chipmunk, then Cub. I think the longest conversion was to the Wilga, which took nearly two hours. That was probably because the instructor spoke no english and I speak no polish :O

The Cub has character. So does my 1975 MGB. The C172 is boring. Doesn't matter. Anyone can learn to fly it, but it still takes skill to fly it well. The instructor can see the student, can reach all the controls including the trimmer, flaps, and magnetos without contortions. It can live outside if it has to, it spins nicely when asked to, and is fast enough for a reasonable cross country. The cabin heat warms all the cabin, and doesn't just roast the pilot's right leg.

The Cub is fun. I go touring in it. I do eventually get there. I can just about fly it from the back seat, and if my legs were 10cm longer I could probably do so without too much back pain. I can only spin it solo, it has to live in a hangar. I can tow gliders with it, use it for taking photographs, fly out of muddy fields, fly backwards in any brisk wind, get airborne in thirty metres by flap jumping it. Tyres and brake spares cost significant money. The instrument panel is tiny. If you want to install navaids you need the expensive small instruments. I will know when I am too old to fly it because I won't be able to climb in. It has two seats. Not ideal for people wanting to go on a family holiday, but it has enough luggage space for the camping gear.

None of which is much use in 2014 in a training aircraft. Properly taught, the conversion either way shouldn't be a problem for any willing pilot. We ARE teaching fully held off landings in nosedraggers, aren't we? So we can teach three pointers by telling students to er, land fully held off. Now we just have to teach wheel landings and job done. The rest of the flight between takeoff and landing is the same whichever end has the little wheel. Tandem seating makes steep turns easier.

People who really want to learn to fly in a Cub will still do so. I couldn't afford to when I was a student pilot, the extra travelling cost would have killed that idea. I just wanted to fly, anything would do. But I had an excellent career instructor. I now have a Cub. Oh, and our club uses DR 400 Robins, which are nicer to fly than the C172 but have to live in a hangar. That's OK in France where the hangarage is cheap.

Fortunately for our students, they have a choice where and what they learn to fly. As instructors, our job is to teach them well in whatever is available, not to impose our preferences on them. The students need to co-operate by flying regularly, studying, and turning up on time.

My two cents worth ends here.

As a business owner, where do I buy a super cub? I just checked the piper website, but I cant find one for sale? C172 is still for sale though... Even if you go second hand, I just checked a few websites, lots of C172's, not a lot of super cubs.

As an older PPL student who has a fear of flying, had you put me into a super cub, I would have probably done a couple of lessons and pulled the pin.

Am I going to be a better or worse pilot than someone my age who as learned in a supercub? Maybe, but I am never going to fly one, and the more I check around aero clubs the main aircraft I see for hire a c172, tecnam, PA28 and in australia you often see the jabiru also. So for me, I like the highwing aircraft for various reasons, and a c172 is probably what I will eventually buy. And in the meantime its certainly what I will be hiring. I will probably never fly another aircraft.

On a side note, now that cessna have bumped up the price on the 172, I wonder how many schools will start looking at the PA-28