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

What is it about flying??? Would you learn to drive on a Ford Model T? :ugh:

Buy a Husky instead far better aeroplane and a modern SuperCub

Pace

Not a Model T it would be equivalent of a tiger moth.

But a clapped out ford fiesta 1.1 or 950 is fair game.

Same with lorry's I got my HGV in a Bedford 4 tonner with 4 gears and you only used three of them as first was the crawler gear.

How it all happened
 

Hi Chuck.

In the UK this whole situation came about by accident. This is how it happened to the best of my recollection. I learned to fly in 1960. At that time the standard aircraft types in UK flying clubs were the Tiger Moth and the Auster. The Tigers were WWII government surplus and most of the Austers were civilianised versions of Army artillery spotters built early post-war usually about 1947. A few Chipmunks were beginning to be sold off to the clubs by the military, but where available these cost twice as much to hire. All these aircraft had to be FLOWN.

We flew non-radio in much simpler airspace than today but you had to be able to navigate because if you got really lost you had to land out. Communication on the ground was by Aldis lamp and in the air you really did look at the signals area before landing at a strange aerodrome. Instruction was very RAF influenced; (most instructors were ex-military). For example normal landing approaches then were all glide approaches and you had to learn both three point and wheeler landings. You also had to learn actual spin recovery; not just spin avoidance. You had to learn to swing a prop because the Austers and Tigers had no self-starters.

After getting my PPL I gave up flying temporarily while I finished college. I figured that after qualifying I would have a much higher salary and would be able to afford much more flying.

Apparently, during my absence, there was some kind of crisis apparently to do with the deterioration of the casein glues used to construct wood framed aircraft. They all had either to be completely stripped and rebuilt or else scrapped, (which is probably why there are so few of them around now). Most clubs scrapped their fleets and re-equipped. However there were no new aircraft then available from de Havilland, Miles or Auster. Companies on mainland Europe were still only just recovering from the war, so the only other sources were the two 'big daddies' in the States.

When I came back to flying a mere two years later all the Tigers and Austers had gone and been replaced by Piper Pa 22 Colts, Pa28 Cherokees and Cessna 150s. (I don't remember seeing any C172s but a few French Rallyes appeared after a year or so). The cost of hire had trebled or quadrupled (I forget which). I did a limited amount of flying just to keep my licence valid. But now powered approaches were the norm. Spinning was out.

I went from club to club looking for a better deal. One place I went to was a 'Cessna flight centre'. There you learned your theory from recorded lessons played on some sort of early video player. I picked up a brochure and was horrified. The whole thing had been written in language that suggested that flying an aeroplane was no different from driving a car. To give some idea of the sort of language used, it went something like this. 'When you're flying along if you want to turn left, why- you just turn the wheel - just like a car'.

It seems that at that time the American light aircraft industry was trying to persuade affluent American families (who already had one or more family cars) to buy a family aeroplane. So aircraft cabins had to be as much like a family saloon as possible and the handling demands of the aircraft had to be 'dumbed down' so as to make it more likely that 'Daddy' would be able to fly it without killing everybody or making a fool of himself.

It should be pointed out also that these aircraft were designed to fly in American conditions, (i.e. cheap fuel and long flying legs). So these aircraft were heavy on fuel and had control yokes rather than columns so that they would be more comfortable flying a leg of perhaps 500 nm. (In the UK we rarely fly even 100nm in a single leg). The cost of aircraft purchase and spares was swingeing having regard to the very poor dollar/pound conversion rate post war. Fewer young people began to present themselves for training. Private flying in the UK became the province of the affluent middle aged man who needed a new bird-puller or an alternative passtime to golf.

This meant that for the next 40 years British clubs were now largely equipped with un-spinnable and in some cases unstallable (Rallye) aircraft. Ex-military instructors were gradually replaced by civilian trained instructors who had learned on Pipers and Cessnas, so the whole question of whether spinning or even side-slipping needed to be taught became moot points.

In some ways, learning to fly has become much harder. Learning to handle radio while flying adds a great deal to the difficulty and you have to fly in complex airspace here in the South of England especially. I personally believe that a really good basic training aircraft should not have a landing approach speed much above 60kts: just about all the present types in use far exceed this and this adds to the difficulty.

But overall I don't think it can be denied that the requirements for aircraft handling have been lessened. This probably doesn't matter during an ordinary uneventful flight. It only matters when things start going badly wrong and your hard flying skills are the difference between driving home and being stretchered to hospital or the mortuary.

Well those are my thoughts.

BP.

I tend to agree that handing has deteriorated badly in our liability society where pilots are taught to drive aeroplanes rather than fly them!

Too many students are not taught to land properly carrying a fear of operating near the ground and a lack of confidence in handling wind shear and crosswinds!
You can almost sense their crossed finger approach to landing hoping all will turn out ok rather than being in control!

The same with the modern principal of recovery at incipient leaving many pilots scared of the big bad bogey man that lies beyond if they get it wrong!

Technology has advanced with leaps and bounds and many are too reliant on button pushing and autopilots rather than strong handling ability!
All well until things go wrong and we see spates of needless accidents where pilots fail to recover and if they are lucky pull a chute!

Even the FAA are looking more at handling after the airline crash where the pilot failed to recognise what was happening and used incorrect recovery techniques

Spinning should be brought back but with aerobatic qualified instructors in aerobatic capable aircraft! I see this as vital not just because the pilots will be more confident with what lies beyond but so they can fully appreciate the difference between spirals and spins and quickly identify and rectify either

Pace

I learned to fly in the late '70s, on the by then ubiquitous C150s. Instructors were a mixture of ex-mil, and a few younger guys headed for the airlines. The ex-mil guys were highly experienced (one flew Wappities pre WW2 and had a lifetime of all types, another was Spitfire and V bomber). These guys inculcated 'airmanship', but I have to say a couple of the younger guys were very good as well (they themselves had been taught by the ex-mills).

I hated the C150. It was stodgy and unresponsive. Nothing like I'd expected an aeroplane to be (I'd come from gliding, and even the old Ka4 gliders had better roll response). A bunch of us were learning together, and we all qualified at around 35 to 40 hours. A wise CFI noted our less than impressed attitude towards the club fleet (C150s and 172s) and tried to persuade the committee to buy a Chipmunk he knew of. They refused, so he organised a group (40 members originally! You could do that back then). The Chippy cost £8K so that was £200 each. Even back then that was cheap!

Wow! Here was an aeroplane that did what I'd expected! I was in love! Still am, 35 years later.

I'm pretty sure that if only nosewheel spam cans had been avaialable I'd have been one of those who get a PPL, do few hours local in a hired aeroplane, then give up flying. And I wouldn't have been the only one. Why would one want to carry on paying to fly something that's basically less fun than many cars? Or any motorbike?

The great thing about tailwheel aeroplanes and training is that they TEACH YOU TO LAND! Sure, a good instructor can teach someone to land properly in a C152, but we humans are lazy, and nosewheel aeroplanes allow sloppy technique, so sloppy technique becomes commonplace. Stand by the threshold of any GA field and watch the spam cans arrive; how many are far too fast? How many don't properly hold off? How many touch down on mains and nosewheel together then stand on the brakes?

Most, I'd say.

But I think what taught me most about how aeroplanes fly and why they sometimes don't, was becoming passable at aeros. In a taildragger of course!

I suspect it may have something to do with Weight and Balance. Not knowing about Piper Cubs super or otherwise, I cannot comment on that particular case.
However, you put two slightly porky people in a 150/152 and a safe fuel load it will be close to or overweight, depending on the airframe.Iignoring the fact thait it will be rather snug in there. Add a damp grass strip to increase the take off distance. It all becomes rather interesting and insurance companies begin to take notice when aircraft go through the fence at the end of the strip.

Whereas a 172 or a PA28 will be well within W and B and can cope with a couple of pie eating aviators.

My instructor, bless him, was a bit on the large boned size had problems flying certain aircraft because the W and B shifted too far back and he began to loose elevator authority. He could never fit into a cub, so problem solved.

Sorry, but for me an aeroplane is a car with wings to go places.

I fly most trips airways with autopilot on and will fly a coupled approach to minima in the clag then either go around and divert or switch off the autopilot and land, sometimes in stonking cross winds.

Flying the RNAV LPV to 600 AMSL (300ft AGL) at Alderney with 20 to 30kt cross wind is not unusual.

My aeroplane is designed with benign handling, spins are not permitted and if stalled it just flies like a brick with VSI needle on the stop wings level.

I have tried aerobatics once and hated it like poison and if I'd had to do spinning in my training I wouldn't now be a pilot.

So is it that people have stopped learning to fly 'for fun' but now only do it 'for transport'? Or to get a job in aviation transport?

If that's the case, I wonder why?

Flying costs higher due more expensive fuel?

Less disposable income among the young due struggling to get on housing ladder?

Flying less fun due increased security, general nannying, less 'freedom' (can't go many places non radio today, and many new pilots seem to regard the radio as a primary - THE primary in some cases - flight control).

Or are we just less 'fun oriented' as a society?

young woman with low hours, would be sent to pick up an aircraft she'd never flown before...Spitfire, Hurricane, Halifax, Whitley.....she'd scan the "pilot's notes"....fire-up and away.....most survived!.....but of course, wartime introduces pragmatism and cost-effectiveness.
No, I don't have a pilot's license....but I am pretty confident that I could reach a reasonable level of competence in under 20 hours!
taildragger for fun and satisfaction, -spamcan to "pass the test".

I thought that before I had sat in a light acrft. I thought I was going to be a natural. How wrong can you be? I drove home from the airfield many times after ballsing up a simple exercise and was convinced I wouldn't make a pilot. However, that was 36 years ago and 2500 hours of flying around in Light Aircraft since and now glad I stuck with it.

I can remember when I learnt to fly in the 80s my instructor spent half the landing exercises teaching me not to land. We would cruise down the runway a few feet up getting used to being near the ground! He would ask me than to let the tyres touch and then lift it off again adding a little power!
Strong crosswind day. A cheeky glimmer in his eye and let's go and have fun!
Stalls fully developed and proactive to kicking it into a spin!
He made you abuse the aircraft to your hearts content till you knew exactly what could happen!
What has happened now ?

Pace

Not sure about this. I enjoy my flying as I enjoy driving long distances to go places. I see no fun in driving long distances in a Morris Minor any more than I see any point in flying a cub to Turweston for a hamburger.

On the other hand some people go to Morris Minor owners club rallies and some people fly cubs to Turweston for a hamburger and enjoy it hugely which is fine by me!

Sorry Steve but that is a pretty bold statement. Did you really mean competent or did you mean survive?:hmm:

D.O.

In my neck of the woods a Husky is a designer airplane flown by city dwellers. The working airplanes are Super Cubs. You can outline the merits of both, and on paper the Husky might win, but the bush guys prefer the Cub.

For the last few years most of my flying has been in a Husky, the first year on wheels and since then on amphibious floats.

The Husky and the Super Cub are quite similar except the Husky has more balanced and more effective control response.

Great conversation now that all the gang in Europe are awake.....

.....my favorite tail wheel airplane is the DC3 which most of my off airport experience was gained on. :ok::ok:

If I ever got the country house and field the Husky would be my choice! Pull it out of a Barn one sunny morning and off for a flight back in time for breakfast ; )
Chuck never flown one but was told that in a flight test the pilot pulled the nose up to stall it ! Abused the situation by kicking in rudder and further by giving it full power!
The aircraft just shrugged its shoulders and climbed away !
Any truth to that ?

Pace

Before we bought the Husky I went to the dealer and test flew it to decide if we would buy it rather than a Super Cub.

I don't recall trying that exact maneuver but I do remember putting it through a lot of non aerobatic maneuvers to find out if it handled better than a Super Cub.

It did.

We bought one.

Husky history
 

Hi Chuck,

When I saw a Husky for the first time my first thought was 'that looks like a big Auster'! The tail fin and tailplane especially looked very Auster-ish.

Bearing in mind that the Auster was originally an American Taylorcraft built under licence in the UK and fitted with a Brit engine, I find myself wondering whether the design of the Husky is in any way related to the design of the Taylorcraft.

I know that the final design work on the Husky was carried out by Christen, but did they originate the design from scratch or did they acquire it in an incomplete form from some other source related to Taylorcraft?

Do you happen to know anything about this?

Regards,

BP.

Not sure you enjoy FLYING, more enjoy traveling by air, and there is a difference!
To me the change has come about due to economics with older fabric aircraft being more expensive to maintain, any true FLYING enthusiast would rather learn in something like a Moth or Chippie, but these cost way more PH than a modern aircraft! Just wish we could fill the gap between microlight training and PPL training, then we could look at training on aircraft like the RV which would bring back training on aircraft that handle properly!