Hours to PPL

[Colonel]

Around 25 years ago, us old guys were amused to watch
the FAA to add this to their regulations:

[quote](i) [b]Additional training required for operating tailwheel airplanes[/b].

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (i)(2) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a tailwheel airplane unless that person has received and logged flight training from an authorized instructor in a tailwheel airplane and received an endorsement in the person's logbook from an authorized instructor who found the person proficient in the operation of a tailwheel airplane. The flight training must include at least the following maneuvers and procedures:

(i) Normal and crosswind takeoffs and landings;

(ii) Wheel landings (unless the manufacturer has recommended against such landings); and

(iii) Go-around procedures.

(2) The training and endorsement required by paragraph (i)(1) of this section is not required if the person logged pilot-in-command time in a tailwheel airplane before April 15, 1991.[/quote]

Us old guys were grandfathered by (2).

If you poke around the interwebs, many places
in the US offer training for the tailwheel endorsement
most of them aimed at PPL's.

5 hours dual if you're an ok stick, 10 hours if you're
a little weak in that department and need a little
remedial training.

As Chuck suggests, a hot stick like a class 1
instructor should come in, under 5 hours.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

[quote]Moot point again, since no one is interested.[/quote]


For sure few are interested.


Now back to the subject.


We are worlds apart on the subject of flight training Shiny but going back to the start of this thread which was " Hours to PPL "


When I got my PPL there were only tail wheel airplanes available for training at the school where I learned to fly.


Fleet Canuck's.....Cessna 140's.....and a Cessna 170.


there were no nose wheel Cessna's made then.


The time to get the PPL was 30 hours, I and many more got the license in the minimum time.


Therefore it stands to reason that flying the tail wheel airplanes can not possibly be that difficult to do.


But in today's world there are many class one flight instructors who can not teach on them, therefore it is my opinion the class one designation is really not much to admire.


Remember I am only giving my personal opinion.

[Colonel]

[quote]that part of the "pilot" skill set is an ability to convert and adapt to any aircraft,
but that's been rare in the population since the beginning.[/quote]

I would maintain that it has completely disappeared
to the point that it is considered careless and reckless
to check yourself out today.  A prudent pilot takes a
type conversion course involving weeks of ground
school, sim / dual flight training.

Do recall, back in the day, that every RCAF pilot's
first flight in a Sabre was solo.  No two-seat versions.

Inconceivable today.

Before there were two-seat Pitts, there were only
single-seat Pitts.  First flight is solo.  No dual.

The NRC chief test pilot tells me the Hurricane can
be a handful.  My ICAS ACE tells me the same
thing about the Bf109 - it does not like crosswinds
and pavement.

A good friend of mine, used to be a four bar, took
up serious flying - a DH Hornet Moth with a swivelling
tailwheel on pavement with a crosswind.  I told him
to not fly it again until he installed a locking tailwheel.
Awesome stick.  Union hated him.

Those were real pilots.  Today's pilots have very little
ability in that regard.  They will only fly a very few
types in their careers.

[quote]The class system of instructing is irrelevant to actual ability[/quote]

I think you're making my point about TC's instructor
qualfication system being a complete train wreck.

Paper-pushing penguins.  Just like TC.

Stick and rudder ability has been bred out of the
pilot population.  We have generation after generation
of instructors that don't know how to use the rudder
pedals, teaching students that don't have a clue how
to use the rudder pedals, and they go on to be the
next generation of instructors that don't teach their
students about stick & rudder skills because [b]you can't
teach what you don't know[/b].

How many of today's flight instructors could do this?

[youtube][/youtube]

Warning: Kyle Franklin is from one of the [b]BAD AVIATION
FAMILIES[/b] that Good Canadians love to hate.

[DeflectionShot]

[quote]When I got my PPL there were only tail wheel airplanes available for training at the school where I learned to fly. Fleet Canuck's.....Cessna 140's.....and a Cessna 170. there were no nose wheel Cessna's made then. The time to get the PPL was 30 hours, I and many more got the license in the minimum time.[/quote]

Yes but how comparable is that to today's situation? I used to have a copy of Sandy Macdonald's From the Ground Up circa 1970 and it was about half of the size of the current edition. The air space restrictions alone probably account for a significant expansion of training times.

But did flight schools produce better pilots in the early 50s? I don't know.

The numbers say no. In 1952 the GA accident rate was 4.8 per 100,000 hours in the US (I'm assuming the Canadian rate was similar). It's been about 1.2 per 100,000 hours during the past 20 years according to Richard Collins, an era dominated by tricycle gear spam cans. Pilots could certainly fly tail wheel aircraft 70 years ago -- and they died in record numbers doing it.

[Colonel]

Things have changed in aviation since I started in
the 1960's.  Off the top of my head:

headsets
headsets with boom mikes and PTT and ANR
intercoms
digital avionics
LORAN
GPS
massive databases
huge color moving map displays
affordable autopilots
instant weather information available anywhere (internet)
cell phone clearances

There are simply too many differences to list.

Just weather briefings.  We used to actually go into
FSS buildings and look at wx charts on the walls
and get briefings in person.  Stop laughing.

I have no idea how you could possibly account for
all the massive changes in aviation over the decades
and arrive at a true comparison of pilots, on a purely
statistical basis.  Very slippery.

All I know is that today's pilots suck at stick & rudder,
at least compared to my father's generation of pilots.
Those guys could [i]fly[/i].  I will admit to a high mortality
rate (eg -104 pilots) but I'm not sure that's really changed
much today.

Most of my friends are dead.

[Colonel]

Gotta tell you a unicorn story.

Four bar, retires from AC.  Decides to start
really flying.  Gets a Bonanza and flies it single
pilot, no autopilot, IFR in cloud all over North
America.

70 years old and he's my fucking hero.  Try
hand-flying a slippery bitch like that in cloud.

None other than Saint Fucking Dicky Collins a
few years back, really disappointed me.  Flying
his 210 in cloud one day (he was mister fucking
IFR for decades, for AOPA and FLYING magazine)
and his auto-pilot dies.  Declares an emergency
with ATC to change altitude into the clear.

What a fucking disappointment.  Then, he sells
his 210 but to avoid the possibility of him getting
sued for improper maintenance by a future owner,
has the airplane destroyed.

Fuck.  It's only a 210, but does the man have no soul?

Anyways.  Back to my 70 year old unicorn that
retires from AC and decides to start flying, after
wasting all those decades in crowd killers.

He comes to me and says he wants to get his instructor
rating.  Fucking unicorn.  I thought we would start
at class 4, but it turns out he has an expired class 2
instructor rating from no shit 1972.

Transport wails and cries and pisses and moans,
but after I threaten to involve the Minister, put
his expired class 2 on his ATP, so he can write
the written and do the flight test to get his class
2 back.  See, there is no limit as to how long an
instructor rating can be expired.  Look for an
upcoming change in the Gazette.  Not the first
time the cocksuckers have changed the rules
on me.

Back to the unicorn.  After a shitload of effort -
everything has changed - he gets his class 2
back and he's CFI at a school around Montreal
somewhere, I think.  Don't want to out him,
you can probably figure out who he is if you
fly in La Belle Province.  He's an amazing
piano player, if you can ever get him drunk
enough to play.

If I didn't kick TC in the balls, he wouldn't be
CFI, helping the kids with his knowledge.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

[quote]Yes but how comparable is that to today's situation? I used to have a copy of Sandy Macdonald's From the Ground Up circa 1970 and it was about half of the size of the current edition.[/quote]


Yes.


But have the basic subjects of aerodynamics and meteorology changed that much since then?


For sure the rules and regulations have, since the CAR's have been introduced there are so many rules and subsections no one can really understand them.


Is the training better today?


That is a subjective question and answer issue.


But here is a fairly objective look at the training differences looking strictly at hands and feet skills of a pilot trained in the fifties compared to today.


Take two PPL's from each era and two different airplanes.


Pilot trained on cessna 140 in the fifties and give him/her a Cessna 150 they never saw before and say here is the POH, read it and fly it.




Pilot trained today in a Cessna 150 and give him/her a Cessna 140they never saw before and say here is the POH read it and fly it.


Which pilot will have no trouble flying the strange airplane?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

[quote]Not the first time the cocksuckers have changed the rules on me.[/quote]


Andy, I hate to disagree with you but you are giving them praise they do not deserve.


A cocksucker is useful.