How to improve flight training.

[C.W.E.]

Let me toss this out there...if we really want pilots with good hands and feet - and the MAX issue is demonstrating that in spades - how about making an aerobatic endorsement mandatory, particularly if it is on a tail dragger? Hit two birds with one stone - better hands and feet from a tail dragger and aerobatics.

That would be fantastic and the rewards would off set the cost...rewards being safer pilots.

[Squaretail]

I believe that a good instructor is a good instructor regardless of what machine they are teaching on

I cannot share that opinion. An instructor who is competent on one/some types, could be an ineffective instructor on other types! Would a good instructor in a 152/172/182 also be a good person to train a pilot in a 185 (wheels/wheel skis/amphibian)? The 185 flies about the same, but handling it near and on the ground will be rather different than a 172 in any case. Yes, they might train the basics of handling in flight well in many types, but as I state, no one pilot can be good in everything!

I would postulate that one of the qualities a good instructor should have is knowing what the limitation are of what they should be teaching on.

[photofly]

I find it interesting that there are so many pilots who feel it that something as basic as learning to fly a tail wheel airplane is not beneficial to improving flying skills.

You are obfuscating the difference between:

• Learning to fly a taildragger, and
• Learning to fly in a taildragger.

Everyone accepts the proposition that learning to fly a taildragger is beneficial to improving flying skills. LIkewise, everyone accepts that learning to fly a glider, a gyrocopter, and a floatplane are also beneficial to improving flying skills.

Some people have however rejected the proposition that requiring pilots to learn to fly in a taildragger is the best way to improve flying skills.

[jakeandelwood]

Let me toss this out there...if we really want pilots with good hands and feet - and the MAX issue is demonstrating that in spades - how about making an aerobatic endorsement mandatory, particularly if it is on a tail dragger? Hit two birds with one stone - better hands and feet from a tail dragger and aerobatics.

In addition to the better hands and feet aspect, learning aerobatics enhances upset recovery skills as well as being a confidence builder. The training done in the simulators is too artificial - put somebody upside down in a real aircraft and that is where the true learning really occurs.

I hate acrobatics, I don't like being in a plane while they are being done and I will never do them in any plane I'm flying, it just freaks me out, does that make me a crappy pilot because I refuse to learn that spectrum of flying? This tail dragger flying making you a better pilot is ridiculous, maybe all the different licences should be combined into one. Flying schools could have trainers with both gear config, some gliders, hot air balloons, gyros, and regular helicopters, hell, throw in a blimp while we're at it, you must be proficient in all of them before you solo. We could drive up the cost of flight training so much we'll never have to worry about a pilot surplus again.

[telex]

Let me toss this out there...if we really want pilots with good hands and feet - and the MAX issue is demonstrating that in spades - how about making an aerobatic endorsement mandatory, particularly if it is on a tail dragger? Hit two birds with one stone - better hands and feet from a tail dragger and aerobatics.

In addition to the better hands and feet aspect, learning aerobatics enhances upset recovery skills as well as being a confidence builder. The training done in the simulators is too artificial - put somebody upside down in a real aircraft and that is where the true learning really occurs.

I hate acrobatics, I don't like being in a plane while they are being done and I will never do them in any plane I'm flying, it just freaks me out, does that make me a crappy pilot because I refuse to learn that spectrum of flying? This tail dragger flying making you a better pilot is ridiculous, maybe all the different licences should be combined into one. Flying schools could have trainers with both gear config, some gliders, hot air balloons, gyros, and regular helicopters, hell, throw in a blimp while we're at it, you must be proficient in all of them before you solo. We could drive up the cost of flight training so much we'll never have to worry about a pilot surplus again.

Heretic! How dare you cast aspersions towards the Holy Alter of the Tailwheel!

If you wish redemption (pilot excellence) you must accept the holy way of the Tailwheel!

It is the only path to ease and precision brother!

[complexintentions]

Let me toss this out there...if we really want pilots with good hands and feet - and the MAX issue is demonstrating that in spades - how about making an aerobatic endorsement mandatory, particularly if it is on a tail dragger? Hit two birds with one stone - better hands and feet from a tail dragger and aerobatics.

In addition to the better hands and feet aspect, learning aerobatics enhances upset recovery skills as well as being a confidence builder. The training done in the simulators is too artificial - put somebody upside down in a real aircraft and that is where the true learning really occurs.

But is the Max issue really about hands and feet, or lack of critical thinking, decision making, troubleshooting and analysis? (Yes, yes, Boeing is complicit in this process as well.)

I tend to go with the latter. No amount of fancy footwork will save you if you've got the thrust set at TOGA heading towards the ground. I get that the concept of making superior decisions so that one doesn't need superior skills doesn't appeal to the romantic notion of saving the day with a wingover into a reversal.

Not trying to hijack the thread, but I think it's relevant to point out that in most modern accidents handling ability was a far smaller factor than the cerebral component. Perhaps flight training should focus on that - teaching aspiring aviators how to THINK. Arguing about which machine it's on is a bit...irrelevant.

I should mention, I say this as someone who enjoys flinging aircraft around and did an aerobatics component in my flight training. But apart from always trying to maintain solid base hand flying skills, it's never really been relevant to my day job.

The biggest factor towards making me a better pilot has been the gift of flying with skilled, experienced mentors along the way who taught me to never stop thinking, analyzing, and questioning.

[switchflicker]

Well here's how I think the flight training improvement plan should go
BEFORE even considering the holy tail wheel training,which of course is the grand finale of the most exceptional pilot training in the whole world, the student should be able to demonstrate the flawless use of DOS, dial telephone, (no, make that the crank party line phone) and of course the range approach. This will ensure that the applicant will have the basics needed to use Windows, touch tone or speak into telephone and the NDB approach. Then and only then should they even dream of STARTING the holy tail wheel training.
After the holy tail wheel training is complete to the Holy Tail Wheel Ultimate Instructors Standard, the student should be issued with the authority to prepare him or her self for some nose dragger checkout and of course all the modern inconveniences of the day.
That's what I think

[J31]

Of course strapping on a Pitts Special will make you a better pilot! Of course flying a taildragger will make you a better pilot! Of course flying a floatplane will make you a better pilot!

Some would say you have not lived as a pilot unless you have flown sailplanes.

Of course flying a King Air will make you a better pilot! Of course flying a Learjet will make you a better pilot! Of course flying a B777 will make you a better pilot! Of course flying Concord will make you a better pilot! Helicopters require their own skill set.

Flying an AN2 will put hair on your chest! Figure of speech for the ladies!

Some, but not all training and experience will make you a better pilot on the next type, but aerobatics in a Pitts will not help you with a iced over pitot tube at night in a Airbus.

The key is good training and experience on type of aircraft that you fly.

The most transferable skill is decision making.

[C.W.E.]

The most transferable skill is decision making.

That is true.

Would my over half a century of flying for a living accident/ incident and regulation violations free be an indicator that maybe I know something about decision making...and making the correct decisions.

Just one more comment and I will be finished with this subject.

The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no.

Remember when I used to post that comment?

[trey kule]

Thank you for making that your last post on the subject.

It isnt going to happen. The musings of old guys because they stated, without basis, that the pilots of old were better. The accident stats do not back them up at all, despite their cherry picking this or that accident to confirm their bias.

Because a pilot has or has not good feet and skills does not follow directly from what type of aircraft configuration they were trained on. That again is a factoid tail wheel training advocates like to toss out. Simply without any basis other than some Anecdotal stories

The truth, in my opinion, is that with good instruction, pilots can be taught good skills on tricycle aircraft.... The problem is specifically the forgiving nature of trainer aircraft to poor piloting technique. It has evolved, unfortunately to the point where a large number of instructors don’t have the skills.....and thus the students are getting less.
The focus here should not be about aircraft configuration, but instructional techniques. I think we have to take a step back from some of the “modern” learning techniques like prioritizing motivation, and student self evaluation.
Sometimes pilots/ students need to be told they are not doing it well and need to buck up.
From my experience with CPLs most know how to fly they are just to lazy to constantly and consistently fly their A game. Good enough is perfect for them. Until good enough isn’t one day. Those that really did not learn the skills catch on quick.

My rant for the day.

Now lets see if CWE will keep his word about not posting again on the subject..

[5x5]

I believe that a good instructor is a good instructor regardless of what machine they are teaching on

I cannot share that opinion. An instructor who is competent on one/some types, could be an ineffective instructor on other types! Would a good instructor in a 152/172/182 also be a good person to train a pilot in a 185 (wheels/wheel skis/amphibian)? The 185 flies about the same, but handling it near and on the ground will be rather different than a 172 in any case. Yes, they might train the basics of handling in flight well in many types, but as I state, no one pilot can be good in everything!

I never said that any instructor is good in everything. Obviously, with no previous experience in a certain type any Instructor will not immediately be good with it. However, if they have good instructing skills - clear communication, proper explanation technique from simple to complex information, appropriate pacing, etc etc - then with time on a 185 they will still be a good instructor. A poor instructor in a 152/172/182 would not become a good instructor due to time on the 185.

[5x5]

Here's a question - if you were designing the world's first airplane with today's infrastructure of predominantly paved runways so that prop clearance and roughness of the operating surface wan't a primary concern, would you build in dynamic instability that would manifest itself almost solely in the critical phases of transitioning from the air to the ground and the ground to the air? And by design make landing the most likely time (followed by take-off) at which loss of control would occur?

The guys at Eviation seem to think it’s a good idea:

What’s weirder is their concept drawings all showed tricycle gear.

I think it's likely that the tailwheel config was chosen to protect the tail prop on takeoff and in the flare. With nose wheel config it would be pretty easy to inadvertently get a prop strike on the back.

[lownslow]

I think it's likely that the tailwheel config was chosen to protect the tail prop on takeoff and in the flare. With nose wheel config it would be pretty easy to inadvertently get a prop strike on the back.

I think the battery pack is housed in the nose and ended up being bigger than they expected so they had to eliminate the nose wheel. If they cared about prop strikes there would be some sort of protection for the wing tip props. Maybe they will be restricted to Seneca-level crosswinds... or those circular runways in the click bait articles a couple years ago.

[jakeandelwood]

I think it's likely that the tailwheel config was chosen to protect the tail prop on takeoff and in the flare. With nose wheel config it would be pretty easy to inadvertently get a prop strike on the back.

I think the battery pack is housed in the nose and ended up being bigger than they expected so they had to eliminate the nose wheel. If they cared about prop strikes there would be some sort of protection for the wing tip props. Maybe they will be restricted to Seneca-level crosswinds... or those circular runways in the click bait articles a couple years ago.

The Dornier 335 had some of the tail sticking down to assumingly
protect the rear prop on rotation. I saw a video of one taking off, looks like they had to be very carefull when rotating. What a cool plane though, the specs on it are unbelievable.

d335-52.jpg (108.94 KiB) Viewed 959 times

[L39Guy]

I hate acrobatics, I don't like being in a plane while they are being done and I will never do them in any plane I'm flying, it just freaks me out, does that make me a crappy pilot because I refuse to learn that spectrum of flying? This tail dragger flying making you a better pilot is ridiculous, maybe all the different licences should be combined into one. Flying schools could have trainers with both gear config, some gliders, hot air balloons, gyros, and regular helicopters, hell, throw in a blimp while we're at it, you must be proficient in all of them before you solo. We could drive up the cost of flight training so much we'll never have to worry about a pilot surplus again.

If you hate aerobatics, you'll really hate doing an unexpected upset recovery. At least with aerobatics you know what is coming, not so with an upset.

[L39Guy]

But is the Max issue really about hands and feet, or lack of critical thinking, decision making, troubleshooting and analysis? (Yes, yes, Boeing is complicit in this process as well.)

I tend to go with the latter. No amount of fancy footwork will save you if you've got the thrust set at TOGA heading towards the ground. I get that the concept of making superior decisions so that one doesn't need superior skills doesn't appeal to the romantic notion of saving the day with a wingover into a reversal.

Not trying to hijack the thread, but I think it's relevant to point out that in most modern accidents handling ability was a far smaller factor than the cerebral component. Perhaps flight training should focus on that - teaching aspiring aviators how to THINK. Arguing about which machine it's on is a bit...irrelevant.

I should mention, I say this as someone who enjoys flinging aircraft around and did an aerobatics component in my flight training. But apart from always trying to maintain solid base hand flying skills, it's never really been relevant to my day job.

The biggest factor towards making me a better pilot has been the gift of flying with skilled, experienced mentors along the way who taught me to never stop thinking, analyzing, and questioning.

By hands and feet, I mean basic flying skills not necessarily the mechanics of pushing on a rudder, etc. These basic flying skills include mundane things like, er, pulling back on the throttle to control one's airspeed rather than leaving it at take-off power, leveling off and accelerating to Vne. Or trimming the aircraft using the electric manual trim on the yoke. I have written extensively on other threads about the "children of the magenta line" issue and the lack of flying and thinking skills out there.

Aerobatics teaches one to fly an aircraft closer to the edge of its performance envelope, hopefully one never gets there in regular flying but if you do, like an upset, you'll be better prepared than someone who hasn't been upside down before.

[digits_]

Aerobatics teaches one to fly an aircraft closer to the edge of its performance envelope, hopefully one never gets there in regular flying but if you do, like an upset, you'll be better prepared than someone who hasn't been upside down before.

I love aerobatics, and I recommend people fly aerobatics, but the above is false IMO.

Doing spins or hammerheads in a pitts will help you virtually nothing if your boeing computer decides to go haywire and you end upside down. Those planes are so vastly difference that your ability to handle one will not transfer over to the other.

It might help situational awareness a bit, and preventing you from entering an undesired state, but if it does happen, you're on your own.

There is a big difference training for planned manouevres and the possibile things that could go wrong in one versus dealing with an unexpected stall/spin/technical problem where you have no idea what the hell happened.

By hands and feet, I mean basic flying skills not necessarily the mechanics of pushing on a rudder, etc. These basic flying skills include mundane things like, er, pulling back on the throttle to control one's airspeed rather than leaving it at take-off power, leveling off and accelerating to Vne. Or trimming the aircraft using the electric manual trim on the yoke. I have written extensively on other threads about the "children of the magenta line" issue and the lack of flying and thinking skills out there.

If you want to discuss the (in)actions in the boeing MCAS crash, then do that in the appropriate topic, because as you will read, your "obvious" solution might not be the best solution. http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... 8&t=132504

[jakeandelwood]

I hate acrobatics, I don't like being in a plane while they are being done and I will never do them in any plane I'm flying, it just freaks me out, does that make me a crappy pilot because I refuse to learn that spectrum of flying? This tail dragger flying making you a better pilot is ridiculous, maybe all the different licences should be combined into one. Flying schools could have trainers with both gear config, some gliders, hot air balloons, gyros, and regular helicopters, hell, throw in a blimp while we're at it, you must be proficient in all of them before you solo. We could drive up the cost of flight training so much we'll never have to worry about a pilot surplus again.

If you hate aerobatics, you'll really hate doing an unexpected upset recovery. At least with aerobatics you know what is coming, not so with an upset.

Yes I would hate that. I didn't enjoy spin training and unusual attitudes as well but I was able to get thru it, hating that stuff is a good motivator to never get into those situations in the 1st place I guess

[Squaretail]

I find it interesting that there are so many pilots who feel it that something as basic as learning to fly a tail wheel airplane is not beneficial to improving flying skills.

You are obfuscating the difference between:

• Learning to fly a taildragger, and
• Learning to fly in a taildragger.

Everyone accepts the proposition that learning to fly a taildragger is beneficial to improving flying skills. LIkewise, everyone accepts that learning to fly a glider, a gyrocopter, and a floatplane are also beneficial to improving flying skills.

Some people have however rejected the proposition that requiring pilots to learn to fly in a taildragger is the best way to improve flying skills.

I think you hit the nail on the head. I however fear that the wisdom of your words will be loud enough to interdict the probability of this suggestion being raised again or repeatedly.

[B208]

quote=photofly post_id=1081798 time=1560876056 user_id=33762]

Here's another question:
You have two pilots with the say 100 hours each.
One was trained on tricycle gear until solo the other was trained on and only flew tail wheel airplnes.
You owned a Cessna 172.
Which pilot would you feel less stress letting them fly your Cessna 172 without a check out?

Tailwheel guy.

You'd pick the pilot with zero tricycle time, over the pilot with experience of both landing gear configurations?
[/quote]

Yes. If someone can maintain directional control in a tail dragger during T/O and landing they need no instruction about how to maintain directional control in a 172. My only instruction to the guy would be not to attempt a wheel landing In the interests of fairness; provided I had some other indication of competence (a record of time, word of mouth reference) I'd be pretty OK letting someone take a 172 without a check out. Those aircraft are pretty much idiot proof.

[B208]

Let me toss this out there...if we really want pilots with good hands and feet - and the MAX issue is demonstrating that in spades - how about making an aerobatic endorsement mandatory, particularly if it is on a tail dragger? Hit two birds with one stone - better hands and feet from a tail dragger and aerobatics.

In addition to the better hands and feet aspect, learning aerobatics enhances upset recovery skills as well as being a confidence builder. The training done in the simulators is too artificial - put somebody upside down in a real aircraft and that is where the true learning really occurs.

I hate acrobatics, I don't like being in a plane while they are being done and I will never do them in any plane I'm flying, it just freaks me out, does that make me a crappy pilot because I refuse to learn that spectrum of flying? This tail dragger flying making you a better pilot is ridiculous, maybe all the different licences should be combined into one. Flying schools could have trainers with both gear config, some gliders, hot air balloons, gyros, and regular helicopters, hell, throw in a blimp while we're at it, you must be proficient in all of them before you solo. We could drive up the cost of flight training so much we'll never have to worry about a pilot surplus again.

Heretic! How dare you cast aspersions towards the Holy Alter of the Tailwheel!

If you wish redemption (pilot excellence) you must accept the holy way of the Tailwheel!

It is the only path to ease and precision brother!

In terms of hands and feet and just general aircraft handling, if you can fly tailwheel, then you are a good pilot. Pilots without good hands and feet or handling skills are simply unable to get tailwheel aircraft on or off the ground. Does this mean that a lack of tail wheel flying makes you a bad pilot? No, not at all.
Does tail wheel training improve your hands and feet? Undoubtedly. Does a lack of tail wheel flying mean you are a bad pilot? No, it just means that you are not as good of a pilot as you could be.

[PilotDAR]

It's not so much what you are flying, but that you fly different aircraft types to help you understand that it should be your goal to refine your techniques, and raise your own personal standards of flying. The first part of that will be realizing that your standards can be raised. Yeah, awesome! You can get a 172 back on to a large runway in one piece, well done, you're a pilot! You've accomplished about the first 25 steps of a thousand toward being an experienced pilot. How experienced? That's up to you...

Yesterday, I watched with appreciative awe as a turbine Otter was landed with ease into a pond I later Google Earth measured to be 600 feet long. He eased it into the dock with flawless grace, and zero wasted motion. Maybe he's also a tailwheel pilot, maybe not, I don't care, he is an admirable pilot. He has learned precision, and raised his personal standards far in excess of what he was taught in flying school.

If the 172 trained pilot is entering piloting with those 25 steps accomplished at some level of precision, the tailwheel pilot probably enters piloting with 27 steps accomplished, and some to a higher standard of precision (or they've gone sideways off a runway at some point). If a pilot chooses to not pursue flying taildragger, or aerobatics, or floats or whatever, there's nothing bad about that. But, if the pilot is never exposed to the merits of such alternate/additional training, they may have have missed seeing the need to raise their personal standards of precision, and that's a loss.

We pilots must constantly re-evaluate our skills, and precision of piloting in the role we fly. One good way to do this, is to also fly something else....

[Arcticmonkey]

If I wanted to improve flight training the type of aircraft would be the absolute last on my list.

[jakeandelwood]

If I wanted to improve flight training the type of aircraft would be the absolute last on my list.

That pretty much sums it up.