If you don't own one or at least know someone who does, where can a guy go to get dual on a Stearman?

Closer to you than you think.

Shiny Side Up wrote: Closer to you than you think.

Huh. I will question you about this sometime.

Maybe I should see if I can still fly a 172 without it bursting into flames and hitting a bridge on floats near Ottawa rowing club phone cameras, before looking into Stearman flying. Also sounds pricey.

Pop n Fresh wrote:

Colonel Sanders wrote:

don't tell us about Sammy

What a funny coincidence, that someone that
learned to fly "old man airplanes", flew his first
airshow in a Stearman in California, at age 17.

The nice old planes are also kind of rare, exceedingly so in the flight training world. If you don't own one or at least know someone who does, where can a guy go to get dual on a Stearman or a Cub these days?

You have to look around, but they are out there:

3-Point Aviator

Spectrum Airways

The nice old planes are also kind of rare, exceedingly so in the flight training world.

The customer is king. If students were standing at the counter of every FTU requesting training in a simple taildragger, the FTU's would be adding them to their fleets (then scratching their heads as to where to find instructors!). A Tiger Moth I flew a few times a few years back recently sold for less than an older 172. I understand that a Tiger Moth was a pretty good basic trainer...

Students, you SHOULD learn your basic flying skills on a basic airplane. Any plane with a wheel at the front, and more than needle, ball, airspeed, altimeter, and tach is more than you need for the first 25 hours of flight training. Computers and simulators are far worse. As long as students ask to train in aircraft, whose panels look like what they see on their FS computer screen in the evening, that's what they'll get - and then they'll wonder why they really are not that great at actually handling a plane.

I applaud those who study advanced navigation, radio work, and IFR - as long as they do that after basic flight training in a basic plane, not during!

PilotDAR wrote:The customer is king. If students were standing at the counter of every FTU requesting training in a simple taildragger, the FTU's would be adding them to their fleets (then scratching their heads as to where to find instructors!). A Tiger Moth I flew a few times a few years back recently sold for less than an older 172. I understand that a Tiger Moth was a pretty good basic trainer...

I'm determined to do my PPL in a tailwheel when it's time. Should I tell all the FTU's I've ruled them out for not offering tailwheel ab initio?

Should I tell all the FTU's I've ruled them out for not offering tailwheel ab initio?

Sure! That said, only one student asserting that preference will not cause a swing in the industry, but everything starts somewhere! And, once the FTU has the plane, they have to find the competent instructor too. Not so easy! To some degree it will depend upon the choices you have available. BUT, learning with a competent instructor in a light taildragger will make you a much better pilot earlier in your learning, and the lessons will stick with you better. Later, you'll be more able to go from one type to the next with a minimal transition time and cost. There'll be more advanced systems to learn, but that is low cost ground study for the most part.

PilotDAR wrote:

Should I tell all the FTU's I've ruled them out for not offering tailwheel ab initio?

Sure! That said, only one student asserting that preference will not cause a swing in the industry, but everything starts somewhere! And, once the FTU has the plane, they have to find the competent instructor too. Not so easy! To some degree it will depend upon the choices you have available.

I'll willing to learn anywhere in Canada. Still not a lot of options that I see at the moment!

BUT, learning with a competent instructor in a light taildragger will make you a much better pilot earlier in your learning, and the lessons will stick with you better. Later, you'll be more able to go from one type to the next with a minimal transition time and cost. There'll be more advanced systems to learn, but that is low cost ground study for the most part.

And that's one of the reasons why I'm insisting on tailwheel ab initio.

Well there are schools out there that have tailwheel aircraft if you look for them. PSMA in Three Hills and Wayne Winters in Calgary for example. You probably won't be able to get a PPL at either of those schools, but I'm sure there are others out there.

I admire your desire to learn ab initio
on tailwheel. It will make you a much
better pilot, compared to your peers
with similar flight time.

It can be difficult (but it is possible) to
find tailwheel ab initio training. I know
Harv's Air in MB has a couple of Citabrias.

Unfortunately, there is not much interest
any more in basic stick & rudder skills. As
a result of this, very few instructors are able
to fly a tailwheel aircraft, let alone instruct
on one.

This makes me very sad. This drives .
nuts, as well as a friend of mine, who used
to be pilot #1 at AC, and cannot understand
why a class 1 instructor can't fly tailwheel.
He think's it's bizarre, to the point of insane.

Anyways. If you put the effort into learning
to fly tailwheel ab initio, you will never have
a problem with crosswind landings, for the
rest of your life. That is a pretty impressive
gift, that you can only give to yourself.



Photo taken by a student of mine, flying wing
on me, who learned to fly on tailwheel. Fern
Villeneuve says he is miles ahead of anyone
else his age. You probably have never heard
of Fern, and that's ok.

It is beyond beliefe that TC would even issue a flight instructors rating to any pilot who is incapable of flying a basic training aircraft like for instance a Cub.

How can they progress from a class 4 to a class 3 to a class 2 and finally a class 1 and they still can not teach on a simple basic conventional gear airplane?

Colonel Sanders wrote:I admire your desire to learn ab initio
on tailwheel. It will make you a much
better pilot, compared to your peers
with similar flight time.

It can be difficult (but it is possible) to
find tailwheel ab initio training. I know
Harv's Air in MB has a couple of Citabrias.

I hear rumours there's an instructor in Smith Falls who does, too...

Unfortunately, there is not much interest
any more in basic stick & rudder skills. As
a result of this, very few instructors are able
to fly a tailwheel aircraft, let alone instruct
on one.

This makes me very sad. This drives .
nuts, as well as a friend of mine, who used
to be pilot #1 at AC, and cannot understand
why a class 1 instructor can't fly tailwheel.
He think's it's bizarre, to the point of insane.

Anyways. If you put the effort into learning
to fly tailwheel ab initio, you will never have
a problem with crosswind landings, for the
rest of your life. That is a pretty impressive
gift, that you can only give to yourself.

It makes me sad as well. I like to know my machines. I know the limits of my car because I test them. I had a real life moose test at 80+ km/h a few winters ago, with no anti-lock brakes, no traction or stability control, and no contact, because I instinctively knew how hard to brake and how hard I could corner with my winter tires on my front-heavy econo hatchback in the road conditions. A more pleasing rush is cruising down winding mountainous highways on my road bike at over 70 km/h, where a tiny rock can make a wheel bounce six inches out on a corner. I want the same level of instinctive familiarity with a flying machine, too.

It seems odd to me that a high level instructor wouldn't have the skills to fly tailwheel. It's almost like a formula 1 driver who couldn't drive stick. Sure, paddle shifters are faster, but there's more connection with a manual, feeling the clutch catch and slip when the wheels are at the cusp of their gripping ability, rev-matching on a down-shift, etc., that leads to a better understanding and feel of the power train that every advanced driver knows.

I want the skills to fly into any airport, not just the ones with a mile of cement. Maybe aerobatics, too, if I get adventurous.

A more pleasing rush is cruising down winding mountainous highways on my road bike at over 70 km/h, where a tiny rock can make a wheel bounce six inches out on a corner.

Personally, the best "rushes" I get flying, occur when I gently and precisely place the aircraft exactly where I intend, and it works perfectly. I nearly always intend to place the aircraft precisely in the middle of the available place, with margins for safety all the way around me. I try not to use those margins (though I came close with fuel the other week), their existence is the evidence of my precision. That's what gives me a rush.

If I have flown so as to be at the far edge of on of those margins, or worse, failed to recognize that I should have put a margin there in the first place, that gives me the opposite feeling of a rush - pit of the stomach kinda stuff.

I'm old, I have been flying planes since 1976, I have never bent one in flight, but gosh have I come close a few times. Coming close was never worth any rush I could have got from what I was doing with the plane. So now I fly like a very adventurous grandfather - trying to get the very most out of my planes so as to be precisely in the middle of the safest place the plane could be at that moment. It is so satisfying to mow my home runway, and see that my wheel tracks never stray more than a foot either side from each other, for either of my planes - that still leaves six more feet to go on either side - and I get a rush from that!

And by the way, a computer simulator is useless for developing those skills, other than perhaps being in the middle of the airway or the approach path.

It seems odd to me that a high level instructor wouldn't have the skills to fly tailwheel

Believe it or not, that is almost always the
case. It is extremely rare to find a class 2/1
instructor that can fly tailwheel, let alone
teach it.

You have to look at some history to understand why.

For decades now, basic stick & rudder skills have
been viewed as antiquated. Pilots were "systems
managers" and there was no end in sight to cockpit
automation. Airbus talked about single pilot.

Then some not-so-funny things happened:

AF 447
Colgan 3407
Asiana 214

Airliners were crashing and people were dying
because airline pilots can't fly any more. They
had never acquired the basic stick & rudder
skills to fly an airplane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueJeC2pxxbM


All of a sudden, those of us out in the wilderness,
that had been preaching basic stick & rudder skills
in the bad decades, didn't look like Ted Kaczynski
any more. Maybe there was actually something
to be learned from an old-fashioned tube & fabric
taildragger - with NO GLASS PANEL!!! Maybe
aerobatics and radial engines weren't totally
useless museum stuff, after all.

However, the damage has been done. Stick &
rudder skills have been bred out of the pilot population.

Today's instructors were taught to fly by the previous
generation of instructors, who couldn't fly tailwheel,
couldn't land in a crosswind, couldn't land on one main.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US9je8STwjo


The way to solve this problem is by improving the
quality of the instructors, one at a time. I had a nice
kid come to me, flunked his class 4 instructor flight
test. Examiner couldn't stand that he couldn't keep
the ball centered. The only time it was centered was
when it was passing through. How he got his PPL and
CPL mystifies me. This also reflects extremely poorly
upon his instructors, esp his class 1. Regardless, I
took him up in the unforgiving and politically incorrect
Maule, and then a lesson in the 172, and he was good
to go - passed his test. His feet had "woken up". I
didn't shove butter up his @ss or blow sunshine and
lollipops at him, but gosh, he sure got better in a hurry
because he was motivated, and he did what I told him to.

Anyways, this lack of fundamental piloting skills is a huge
embarrassment to us in Canada. I get crapped on a lot
because I point it out - which hurts people's feelings - and
I try to do something about it.

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

Following is how students of today's instructors (and
future airline pilots) fly tailwheel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vfy5SRKx ... page#t=139

Oh. My. God. As far as I can tell, he hates that Maule.
He has no idea what adverse yaw is. He has no idea
what the rudder pedals are for. Because his instructor
doesn't either.

The FAA is not happy with this. After this latest spate
of accidents, they went bananas and insisted that everyone
up front in part 121 must have an ATP, which includes
1500 real hours in an aircraft, and a whole bunch of new
requirements, which are now in effect (Aug 1st).

The FAA is going exactly opposite to the rest of the world
in this respect. Everywhere else, people are trying to
get kids with 200TT into the right seats of Boeings. This
is not working terribly well in the Orient.

Colonel Sanders wrote:

It seems odd to me that a high level instructor wouldn't have the skills to fly tailwheel

Believe it or not, that is almost always the
case. It is extremely rare to find a class 2/1
instructor that can fly tailwheel, let alone
teach it.

You have to look at some history to understand why.

The thing to remember is that the classes of instructor aren't indicative of the skill level of airplanes. Class 2 is basically saying one has the understanding to be a CFI, Class 1 is saying that one can teach other instructors. Neither rating confers any other skill, just like it doesn't mean you're a multi instructor, a float instructor or an IFR instructor. It would probably be more accurate to say that - like a driver's license (at least in Alberta) - one is a Class 3,2 and 1 instructor, just like I hold a Class 5 and 6 driver's license.

While we probably should be like south of the border and have a specific endorsment for tailwheel, I think we also don't want to solve the problem with more government and more regulation.

Personally, I think the instructor rating should be of a slightly different format when it comes to the 3, 2, and 1, since It might fix some small issues if people could avoid doing what needs to be done for a 2 - some people just aren't suited to be CFIs, the position of which has way more to do with paper knowledge than flying skill, we might have more people who want to teach instructors who are suited to that get into it. But that's just a thought on my part.

PilotDAR wrote:

A more pleasing rush is cruising down winding mountainous highways on my road bike at over 70 km/h, where a tiny rock can make a wheel bounce six inches out on a corner.

Personally, the best "rushes" I get flying, occur when I gently and precisely place the aircraft exactly where I intend, and it works perfectly. I nearly always intend to place the aircraft precisely in the middle of the available place, with margins for safety all the way around me. I try not to use those margins (though I came close with fuel the other week), their existence is the evidence of my precision. That's what gives me a rush.

If I have flown so as to be at the far edge of on of those margins, or worse, failed to recognize that I should have put a margin there in the first place, that gives me the opposite feeling of a rush - pit of the stomach kinda stuff.

I'm old, I have been flying planes since 1976, I have never bent one in flight, but gosh have I come close a few times. Coming close was never worth any rush I could have got from what I was doing with the plane. So now I fly like a very adventurous grandfather - trying to get the very most out of my planes so as to be precisely in the middle of the safest place the plane could be at that moment. It is so satisfying to mow my home runway, and see that my wheel tracks never stray more than a foot either side from each other, for either of my planes - that still leaves six more feet to go on either side - and I get a rush from that!

And by the way, a computer simulator is useless for developing those skills, other than perhaps being in the middle of the airway or the approach path.

I like your philosophy of precision, not boundaries. That's what I was trying to express myself: having the skills to rescue poor situations, but not making a habit of getting into poor situations. That would include being good at leaning out an engine.

I haven't spent any time using a computer simulator. I've looked at them, but I realize they'll never teach me to fly by the seat of my pants, which is what I really want.

Colonel Sanders wrote:Anyways, this lack of fundamental piloting skills is a huge
embarrassment to us in Canada. I get crapped on a lot
because I point it out - which hurts people's feelings - and
I try to do something about it.

Feelings are irrelevant when people could get hurt or die. I would want any future instructor of mine to insist I did things correctly above all else, and correctly from a reality standpoint, not PC dogma.

It's making me think I should learn how to fly well, then teach the same. I can't be the only one who wants to master the basics before moving on to gizmos (I do like gizmos).

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

Following is how students of today's instructors (and
future airline pilots) fly tailwheel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vfy5SRKx ... page#t=139

Oh. My. God. As far as I can tell, he hates that Maule.
He has no idea what adverse yaw is. He has no idea
what the rudder pedals are for. Because his instructor
doesn't either.

That was painful to watch.

The FAA is not happy with this. After this latest spate
of accidents, they went bananas and insisted that everyone
up front in part 121 must have an ATP, which includes
1500 real hours in an aircraft, and a whole bunch of new
requirements, which are now in effect (Aug 1st).

The FAA is going exactly opposite to the rest of the world
in this respect. Everywhere else, people are trying to
get kids with 200TT into the right seats of Boeings. This
is not working terribly well in the Orient.

I think the FAA is doing the right thing. It takes at least a thousand hours of practice to get competent at anything in life. It's a universal truth, regardless of if it's woodworking, playing an instrument, programming, learning a language, or, dare I say, piloting a plane.

Shiny Side Up wrote: The thing to remember is that the classes of instructor aren't indicative of the skill level of airplanes. Class 2 is basically saying one has the understanding to be a CFI, Class 1 is saying that one can teach other instructors. Neither rating confers any other skill, just like it doesn't mean you're a multi instructor, a float instructor or an IFR instructor. It would probably be more accurate to say that - like a driver's license (at least in Alberta) - one is a Class 3,2 and 1 instructor, just like I hold a Class 5 and 6 driver's license.

While we probably should be like south of the border and have a specific endorsment for tailwheel, I think we also don't want to solve the problem with more government and more regulation.

After seeing the number of tailwheel accidents from pilots who can't fly, I understand why it's an endorsement. I also agree that more government is generally not a solution, as regulation usually creates more problems than it solves.

In the USA, the FAA requires a logbook endorsement
from a CFI if a pilot wishes to fly tailwheel, or retractable
gear, etc. This is not a rating on a licence - just a one
time entry in the pilot logbook.

NB I am not required to have these endorsements,
even though I hold FAA COMM and ATP certificates,
because I logged PIC on these aircraft before the
FARs were enacted and hence I am grandfathered.

Anyways, we have no such requirements in Canada.
You want to jump into a Pitts or a Bonanza right
after you get your PPL signed off, fill your boots.

But, wait. You probably want insurance, right?
In Canada, the insurance companies are the
gatekeepers in this respect. I know a guy, bought
a Mooney, had to get FIFTY hours of dual
on it, to get insurance, which is far beyond anything
the FAA requires.

Same thing for tailwheel.

So, don't be fooled into thinking that extra training
isn't required in Canada, to fly something sporty.

Forcing people to get training (we do it indirectly in
Canada) isn't the problem.

Competent instruction is. What instructor at your
field is competent to check you out in a Pitts, or
a Luscombe, or Stearman, or Harvard, or Bonanza,
or Comanche, or Mooney?

How about a twin Comanche? Apache? Aztec?
C310? Baron? C421? Beech 18? Twin Bonanza?

That's the problem.

A local guy, bought a Skybolt. Insurance wanted
an instructor with time on type. How many instructors
at your airport have time on type on a Skybolt?
Or a Great Lakes? Or a Hatz? Or a Waco? What
model of Waco? How about a Piaggio Royal Gull?

Incredibly, most pilots have no interest whatsoever
in learning to fly the plethora of certified and homebuilt
types out there, which mystifies me.

All they want to fly are plastic airplanes, with a nosewheel
and a glass panel. Is that really flying? Why not save
your money and just stay in your basement and play
with Microsoft flight sim?

I should add that a plastic airplane with a tailwheel is a
horse of an entirely different colour:

Incredibly, most pilots have no interest whatsoever
in learning to fly the plethora of ... ...homebuilt
types out there, which mystifies me.

In the case of homebuilts I can understand... Some are works of art, some are freaking scary interpretive things that will try to kill you. Builders are wierd sometimes what they think helps make them "safe" and what are acceptable "issues".

In the case of homebuilts I can understand

Point taken. I do a lot of first flights and training
on homebuilts, and there is a lot more than just
piloting involved.

To fly homebuilts, you had better be pretty mechanically
inclined and knowledgeable, which rules out most pilots.

For example, I did a first flight on a homebuilt about
a year ago. I noticed that some castellated nuts on
some control linkages did not have cotter pins. I asked
that they be installed before flight.

This was after two inspections by the MD-RA delegate,
which IMHO are worthless.

Remember what happened to Jimmy at Reno.

Another homebuilt, just imported. Again, MD-RA
inspections and paper signed off. I asked the new
owners to have my buddy, who has built 20 of the
type (RV) to take a look at it before I flew it.

Sure enough, the rudder was an unserviceable
mess. Rivets were not squeezed and it had been
damaged. Lest you think that I am too fussy, a
friend of mine (Andrew Philips) is quite dead now,
when his rudder came to pieces in flight on his
RV-7A.

I spent all day Saturday, getting the charging
system working on another homebuilt, so he
could do his first flight.

Most instructors aren't up for this, and that's
ok. But homebuilders really, really need
competent flight instruction. Their safety
record is really horrible, esp for the first
few flights.

Contrast this with a 1000TT instructor I
knew, that was too frightened to instruct
on a Cherokee. All his time was on 172.
He's flying a King Air out west now, not
too far from you. He's not up for the
homebuilt world.

Same thing applies to the warbird and
ex-military stuff that is right out of heavy
maintenance, and/or has not flown in a
long time.

Paper is nice, but you had better know your
systems and be very mechanically and
electrically and hydraulically inclined if you
want to live to see dinner.

However, I'm pretty stupid compared
to most people here, I am told. The
self-proclaimed experts here should have
no problem doing this kind of experimental
and production test flying.