Your airplanes are crap/great!

[Shiny Side Up]

Been a bit of a strange week, lots of people been visiting by and I have to say that I really wish I could put the two groups together to talk to one another.

Your airplanes are crap!

We run older airplanes here. Most people are pretty happy with them, that's why they keep renting them. As always with airplanes you can always wish for more. I just read an article by an instructor in a magazine whose firm opinion was that to fly with anything less than a pair of 430s was uncivilized. Anyhow, it always seems like people come in waves. The latest wave has been of potential commercial students, whom I'm not confident that we got any takers. Your airplanes are old! You don't have glass?! How is that possible? How is that safe? I can't possibly train on this machine. I particularly love when people who have no flying experience take time out of their lives to tell me at length how it should work. Slight aside, I also politely bore through a long tirade on how any design with strutted wings was clearly inferior and why they should all be eliminated from general aviation. Why is anyone still flying these horribly inefficient machines? Smile and nod. Thanks for the enlightenment.

Your airplanes are great!

The second group of pilots, which again have oddly come in a wave, are working pilots. Most at that mid point in their careers flying piston twins, some just moving into a turbine position. "You guys got nice planes" one remarked. I commented that they were a little worse for wear, but they were all in good running shape. "You should see the piece of crap I fly then" they said. Another reminised on how he missed his old trainer's reliability. "Not a week goes by that we don't have some sort of new snag". One even expressed regret that he had trained on a new airplane with glass. "You should see the POS GPS we got, no moving map, just a shitty monochrome trackbar, I haven't seen a decent radio since I was instructing."

Like I said, I really wish I could put the two groups together to have a chat, the first group I think is really in for a shock some day.

[Beefitarian]

"Your airplanes are too old for me. I have to go now my Mom's waiting for me in the car..."

They probably don't have a rediculas sense of entitlement.

[Air Monkey]

Those crappy airplanes are the ones you want to learn in. Listening to the wind whistle through all the cracks and holes will give you a better "feel" for the airplane.

[slam525i]

As an entirely recreational pilot, I don't even understand why training should be done (or allowed!) in glass cockpits.

With analogue instruments, you can actually understand how they work and the physics of the airplane and it all makes sense. With glass, the wind rushing into the pitot tube and the gyro spinning behind the attitude indicator just becomes pixels on a screen with no tangible attachment to reality. If i wanted to chase numbers on a screen, I'd play a flight-simulator on my PC.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting "work" airplanes shouldn't be equipped with all that, but I think the old trainer spam-cans are just fine the way they are as long as they're mechanically sound.

But what do I know... it's only last year that I started renting an airplane with two radios!

[iflyforpie]

Usually training aircraft are flown in circles (either small ones like circuits or big ones like 300NM cross countries) so being faster isn't necessarily better. I remember when I did my 150NM I took a 'sprightly' 172SP.. I wound up having to do another cross country trip because it was too fast and I was short on total cross country time!

The thing is, students get wrapped up in these type of things and visions of flying big tin. Why do you think most modern trainers have yokes instead of sticks? Why did they put laminar-flow wings on Cherokees and (nearly disastrously) on Cardinals? Why do we see all kinds of 'big plane' things like T-tails, all moving stabilizers or stabilators, glass cockpits, throttle quadrants, winglets, supercritical wings (!), and the like on humble trainers?

Because that is what sells!

The thing is too, the new planes have to be flown much more in order to make them profitable. That means they are thrashed. That 172SP I flew had a chronic nosewheel shimmy and a starter that was temperamental because of the high number of students that flew it and didn't know how to hot start it. It was a two year old plane!! I've got a 1976 M and it is in much better shape even though it doesn't have a full King stack (this was 2001) or a swoopy paint job.

[down north]

The fact is that you will most likely not see glass until far into your career. Especially not for your first job out of flight school...

It will be interesting to see how one might progress from completing ALL training in aircraft such as G1000 C172's & light twins. Then move on to aircraft such as a King Air 100/200 or Twin Otter where the most advanced instrument might be a traditional HSI (only on the captains side) and old King radios.

[ScudRunner]

I learned on a Fleet Canuck it had a ASI, Turn and Bank, VSI , ALT, Radio, and a Compass. When I hopped in a Cherokee to start instrument training I thought wow this thing is awesome it has a DG no more timing my turns!!! Sweet.

[akoch]

I went through training recently and I admit - I simply could not bring myself to train on an old airplane. One flight was enough not to want to ever do it again (Cessna 152).

If I did not come across (accidentally) a much nice and newer airplane for training, I am pretty sure it would have never happened.

[akoch]

Actually here is my own question: what is the reason most schools in Canada (it is different in other parts of the world from what i saw) insist in training in the ancient Cessnas?

Is this because it is cheap for the school? Is this because nothing else is available? Is this because his and hers grandpa grandpa learnt to fly in one? Or is this really the absolutely best aircraft for the student (i.e. safe, represent what he/she will fly 10-20 years from now, pleasant to teach in)? Or all of it at the same time? I never figured out.

[photofly]

Cheap(ish) to buy and insure, simple to maintain, easy to fly, robust against hard landings and other early-pilot errors, plenty of people qualified and knowlegeable to fix them, and they fly "just like an airplane".

[Colonel Sanders]

I simply could not bring myself to train on an old airplane

You chose to train on a poorly-maintained airplane. The calendar age
of an airplane is irrelevant, with proper maintenance.

Case in point: I would rather fly a superbly-maintained, "old" P-51
than a "new" Katana.

Everyone here is always looking for the cheapest training, and
quite often they find it. So did you, apparently. However, the
cheapest is not always the best.

[akoch]

I simply could not bring myself to train on an old airplane

You chose to train on a poorly-maintained airplane. The calendar age
of an airplane is irrelevant, with proper maintenance.

Case in point: I would rather fly a superbly-maintained, "old" P-51
than a "new" Katana.

Everyone here is always looking for the cheapest training, and
quite often they find it. So did you, apparently. However, the
cheapest is not always the best.

I am trying to understand but I admit I'm confused, not sure what you meant. Anything in particular in regards to the aircraft of one of the local schools here, or something else?

The cost of the training is not (was not the factor). While everyone would like to get a good deal for the service, we all put value on different things? Flying an old and not updated design I would not list as "good value". I understand there is a number of people who think similarly, otherwise the topic starter would not have come up with the original post.

I am one of those who things the calendar age does make a difference, not only for the aircraft reliability, but for its design/flying qualities, technology progress. Admittedly I'm not the one who thinks that the P-51 flies "better" than a modern fighter.

[PieInTheSky]

I like the older planes with all their quirks and character I flew the older Cessnas when I did my PPL in Ontario and stuck with them when I came to Moncton, despite mostly everyone else opting for the newer Cessnas or the Diamonds. One radio, a little draft coming through the crack in the door, wondering how that Loran-C still sitting in it actually works, actually having to use a chart if you get a little lost…all good times!

[Shiny Side Up]

I am one of those who things the calendar age does make a difference, not only for the aircraft reliability, but for its design/flying qualities, technology progress.

My question would be under what expertise do you make that assertion? The thing is that technologically in all the qualities that matter, piston powered airplanes pretty much reached thier peak in design somewhere around the mid fifites. They've tried every permutation, they've been boiled down to the designs you see today. The basic Cessna and and Cherokee designs are what you will get in the marginal difference that high and low wing gets you made from aluminum. Anything "new" is not going to be groundbreaking - again in the categories that matter. A new Da-20 is by not even a tiny fraction more reliable than a 70's Cessna. Not in its engine, not in its airframe. It is not safer by any fraction than it older counterpart, not in its flight characteristics, or in its crashability. Very unlike Cars of the same vintages - to which many new pilots make the mistake of comparrison. All that matters with airplanes is how well maintained they are when it comes to the most common models you'll find. The point the Colonel was trying to make is that a well maintained old plane is of far more value than a poorly maintained new one. Arguably even a brand new Cirrus is considerably less safe than an old Cessna, so in some cases your faith in "new" may be sorely misplaced.


Now with that said, I understand that there is a market out there for people who feel the need to have new stuff. I'm not quibbling about that, but the group of people I'm talking about in group one shouldn't be those people - they're people looking into a career that doesn't pay well after all. If they don't think older (calendar age) machines are fit to fly for training, what are they going to do when they apply for their first job? "Oh, sorry I don't want to fly the old King Air, I'll come work for you when you buy a new one." Not sure where people are comming from to develop this dream, though then I haven't played the latest Microsoft flight sim.

[akoch]

Not sure, but are all students you get aim to be career pilots? I'd think a comparable or larger market is the folks who want to do it just for fun. They come in larger quantities, at least I met a larger number of those personally. But you will not attract them with the old equipment, sorry - they will not even listen. Trust me on this one. They seem to crave for the Vans RVs, Lancairs, Diamonds, Cirruses, Corvallises etc etc

A side note - Cirrus is indeed a less safer plane than an old Cessna, not my imho just published statistics.

Some of the newer planes (including the Diamonds you mentioned) have better safety record than the old planes like Pipers or Cessnas. Again, not my imho just the NTSB stats and insurance company rates. Aside from safety those are more visually appealing and seem to have better/more responsive handling. I suppose you have an equal number of hours in each to be of such a strong opinion?

A guy like me has no expertise to make real statements about which airplane is better. But there is common sense, where the real engineers developing the airplanes have access to the computer assisted design, more modern materials, more years of experience/statistics, more modern electronics. If you still insist that it amounts for nothing, I will agree that everyone entitles for his own opinion, but I would not go along. Again, looks like I'm not alone. Saying that it is silly and I lack expertise is unlikely to address the initial issue - those customers will keep walking away.

I did not think I suggested that the model is to provide excellent maintenance to the old airplane, and poor one to the newer one. The assumption is that they are maintained equally well.

And the last disclaimer - I do not pretend to have any real answer to the original question. I simply put out a personal opinion and personal experience outlining the selection process of someone has gone through training recently and had no prior aviation experience. Whether or not it is representative - you judge.

[akoch]

I do not see how an aircraft like this does not exceed a 150/152 in every way except not being 50 years old. Otherwise it is a direct comparison, with very different outcome: efficiency, speed, climb rate, roll rate, short field performance, useful load, modern engine, range, safety, appeal. Does it make it a poorer trainer? Only the initial acquisition cost since it is brand new. And there is a plethora of attractive aircraft on the market today, admittedly still not enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipistrel_Virus

Nothing wrong with the older airplanes for those who don't mind them. What is likely to work is having two/three alternatives so that you don't miss out on the folks who want something else. I'd be curious to see what would be the A/C utilization rate if you had a modern clean DA20 or something along the row of older 152s. Something tells me it would not be sitting idle. And you could have some quality fun time convincing the customers that they will be better pilots flying the older stuff because there is still plenty of the old stuff flying

[Shiny Side Up]

Not sure, but are all students you get aim to be career pilots? I'd think a comparable or larger market is the folks who want to do it just for fun.

To clarify, I serve both types. With that said, the larger market currently we serve is recreational pilot, whom have a wide range of desires. In my experience on the whole, the customers who want for newer aircraft to train on is a relatively smaller portion of the group. The prime seller for flight training is, and probably will always be, cost, seconded by convinience. My point to my OP was that of the groups of people we get as customers, the ones concerned with the newness of the aircraft is most often the group to whom it should matter the least.

Some of the newer planes (including the Diamonds you mentioned) have better safety record than the old planes like Pipers or Cessnas. Again, not my imho just the NTSB stats and insurance company rates. Aside from safety those are more visually appealing and seem to have better/more responsive handling. I suppose you have an equal number of hours in each to be of such a strong opinion?

The point is that those new planes don't have an appreciably higher safety record to matter when it comes to one's consideration. Other factors besides the airplane's design have also affected those airplane's safety record. While I don't have an equal time in the different types, I do have way too much time in single engine piston trainers to make a reasonable assessment, in everything made from aluminum, plastic or good ol' steel tubing.

A guy like me has no expertise to make real statements about which airplane is better. But there is common sense, where the real engineers developing the airplanes have access to the computer assisted design, more modern materials, more years of experience/statistics, more modern electronics. If you still insist that it amounts for nothing,

I didn't say that all that stuff ammounts to nothing, but it doesn't really count to where its needed. Does it really matter to a student pilot that his new airplane has a top speed of 5 more knots greater than the old plane? He might be duped into thinking so by some slick marketing. Does it matter what it looks like aesthetically? You don't need to learn how to drive on a BMW after all, you can quite reasonably learn on an Escort. So where does it help you? How many flight training accidents happen in this country per year? Do you really think its the newness of the airplane that affects whether you are going to be one of the statistics? The point is that in the flight training enviornment, it doesn't matter. If you want to pay more for a new airplane, that's up to you, but its not going to get you better training.

On the last bit is where I would often give people caution. Your instructor matters far more than the paintjob on your airplane.

Saying that it is silly and I lack expertise is unlikely to address the initial issue - those customers will keep walking away.

I'm well aware that you can't serve all of the customers all of the time. So far the market we've targetted keeps us busy and in the black. Incidentally, one of my competitors who had brand new airplanes, just closed up shop. But then what do I know.

I do not see how an aircraft like this does not exceed a 150/152 in every way except not being 50 years old. Otherwise it is a direct comparison, with very different outcome: efficiency, speed, climb rate, roll rate, short field performance, useful load, modern engine, range, safety, appeal. Does it make it a poorer trainer? Only the initial acquisition cost since it is brand new. And there is a plethora of attractive aircraft on the market today, admittedly still not enough.

But how much does it exceed the ol'150/152? Do any of those margins really make a difference on how well you will learn how to fly? Incidentally you do know that in the eyes of TC you could only use that thing to get an ultralight pilot permit right?

What is likely to work is having two/three alternatives so that you don't miss out on the folks who want something else. I'd be curious to see what would be the A/C utilization rate if you had a modern clean DA20 or something along the row of older 152s.

If you had a mixed fleet you would get poor utilization of both and it would up your operations costs compounding your problems. Since both aircraft we are assuming to be of the same quality of maintenance, your cheaper unit (the 152) is going to outsell the DA-20 by a large margin. With the exception that I could field a half a dozen 152s and have money for spares for the purchase price of a single new Diamond.

[Colonel Sanders]

You're probably going to think I'm insane but ...

One of the most important things a primary trainer
needs is lots of adverse yaw!

I hate trainers which have had all the adverse yaw
designed out of them, because it teaches pilots that
they can leave their feet flat on the floor, which is
horrible for primacy.

That's not good for slow flight, stall/spin recovery,
or crosswind landings.

High wing/low wing/paint scheme/interior/brand/what's-
in-the-panel are all completely unimportant, compared to
a patient, knowledgeable instructor, as Shiny said.


Again you're going to think I'm insane, but I read
all the WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam War flying
novels I can get my hands on. All the lessons and
mistakes in light aircraft have already been learned
(and forgotten) and made. When was the last time
you read a truly original light aircraft accident report?

I learned a neat trick as to how to easily start a cold
radial engine by reading a biography of a long-dead
WWI pilot!

[Dagwood]

Does the local driving school have a Corvette? Probably not. It's not economical, maintenance and parts are expensive, and you can learn driving on a POS honda just fine. If a school had 2 cars, one $40/hour, and one $100/hour... which one would you chose?

The extra performance isn't really needed when you're just starting to learn either.

[Deltawidget]

to each their own.

The real aviators out there (not the ones doing it for show) know that each aircraft has its own personality and quirks and you learn to appreciate and respect them.

Having a garmin is such a waste of money unless you're nasty soup getting tossed around and want to hit the autopilot to help things out. If you want to sit behind a G1000, you might as well play flight simulator and call it a day.

When it's VFR out, all these fancy avionics do is divert your attention away from all the amazing scenery going by. Not to mention that NORDO guy coming straight at you...

I'd probably trade in the Warrior for a J3 Cub, except I've heard fabric aircraft don't do well outside and I cant afford the $800/mo hangar fee at YTZ.

[akoch]

ah, I think we now got to the bottom of it.

To swing the argument their way Shiny keep stressing that the newer aircraft needs to receive poorer maintenance, and have higher hourly rate to the student. However, the starting point is/was that the maintenance is equally good, and the wet hourly rate is the same. This has been my experience checking out all the schools in the area, and also the picture is identical in the states.

Now, I think it is clear that the Pipistrel Virus example was used to illustrate the distance aircraft design has travelled since 50 years ago. Not to suggest that under the TC rules it is an ultralight aircraft not suitable for PPL/CPL training. Rules and regulations do not make the engineering gap between these and the 152s any smaller.

Now, again, to put it in perspective we are talking about taking training on cheap affordable aircraft in both cases. Cessna new back than was comparable cost wise to these newer airframes. Make this straight, we are not comparing training in a brand new Lexus LS460 vs the brand new Chevy Aveco. This is where you try to drive the ball to. What we are comparing is a 15k Honda Civic vs a 30-year old Chevy (whatever was a comparable vehicle back then). With added metal fatigue in the mix.

Given your example with the BMW etc - given the same rent cost, why would I not train in the BMW? But I think you deceive yourself with that example.

The underlying nature of the debate is that as any aviation professional (with many years of experience, this is the key point - you have been around these aircraft and trust them) you see these Cessnas as a tool that works well for the task. Valid point, and you are right. But you goal is not to attract the experienced 10,000+ hours pilots for pilot training. You are looking to get new to the aviation industry in, are you not? They are not seeing the training aircraft as a simple tool to learn. They are looking to have fun, enjoy the ride, feel that the are leaving their dream. Hence the disconnect, and it will just continue to keep coming up. Because you are not addressing the issue, you try to prove that you are right.

Man, I should stop this

BTW, I know a lot of schools that failed even having the cheap old aircraft, just as well. Since you are in business as well, I'm sure you understand the real reasons even if you don't admit. I bet the newer aircraft hardly had any reason to their failure as a business.

[akoch]

to each their own.

The real aviators out there ....

ah, again - that's the key difference - I'm not a "real aviator" nor do I have any desire to be one. I want to enjoy it and have fun. So how do you expect me to bridge the gap I don't want to bridge? And this seems to be say ~50% of the public looking for training?

[SuperchargedRS]

If you enjoy operating a newer aircraft, good for you.

However you will pay more, because the plane costs more and this is (after all) a business.

Personally I like to look outside and feel the airplane, I do this for a living and love my job!

Operating or managing a plane is OK, but I want to FLY the plane, IMHO my 46' taildragger does a hell of a better job of that then a glass paneled SR20, where you can get away with flying flat footed while you watch for traffic on your G1000.

Again if you like the newer stuff knock yourself out, just realize allot of the pros and the oldtimers will never understand what you see in those planes,

[akoch]

Sure thing. That's why I pointed out - who is the target audience of the school? The pros and old-timers, or newcomers to the aviation?

[iflyforpie]

The age or type of the aircraft is a very minimal factor when teaching someone to fly, or having them enjoy the experience of flight.

Any aircraft can teach you if you have a good instructor and are willing to learn.

The Cessnas people complain about that don't have any adverse yaw.... sure they do. Just roll at any airspeed into a bank and then roll out of it with your feet on the floor. The nose going sideways is adverse yaw. Somebody said that old planes you can't fly with your feet on the floor. Of course you can. You aren't going to fall out of the sky. You can't takeoff or land with your feet on the floor, but again, that is any aircraft. Just the severity of the condition is different.

If you want to get a students feet working, do opposite 45s on a heading. The biggest pussycat of an aircraft will require a good rudder dance to keep that peak or range road on the nose. Sure, a tricycle gear aircraft won't protest as you land crookedly... but it will protest. I don't like the feeling and neither should any other pilot.


As far as new vs used: reliability is such a minor factor as to be almost negligible. Old aircraft have thrown everything they can at us. The dangers of new aircraft have yet to be discovered. Remember the fatal spin characteristics of the Grumman trainers back in the 1970s? No flight school aircraft stay new for long and everything that wears out is replaced every few years (engines, brakes, tires, windows, etc).

I don't know anything about the Virus aircraft, but at my field we have several similar aircraft called Flight Designs CTs. They are great little planes and for their small size they offer lots of room, 130 knots cruise, great visibility and a modern design.

The first year I was here one lost an engine and wound up breaking its tail off after completing a forced approach to a golf course. New does not mean more reliable.

Cessna's have long provided the most value for training compared to other aircraft. I can get a whole fleet of 152s for the price of a single new DA20, I can leave it outside without worrying too much, and have more luck fitting people of different sizes into it.


The biggest safety factors aren't mechanical but operational. Having enough fuel, having good enough weather, and having the proper training. With the above any aircraft can be safe and any aircraft can be a good teacher.