Luscombe or Fleet Canuck
-
David MacRay
- Posts: 1259
- Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 3:00 pm
I don't know how he left his marks on you but everyone else left him behind at AvCanada.
-
Chuck Ellsworth
This is the only forum where I can express my opinion without having my posts removed, and I truly believe in really professional top quality instruction,
It is my opinion that when subjects like this come up I need to tell it like it is.
And the Fleet Canuck is a basic flying training machine that is certified with brakes on the left side only, how about the Piper Pacer it only has brakes on the left side and is a perfect trainer.
So...in my opinion if you are not comfortable teaching in any certified training airplane you should not be teaching period.
THESE ARE BASIC CERTIFIED LIGHT AIRPLANES FOR CHRIST SAKE.
It is my opinion that when subjects like this come up I need to tell it like it is.
And the Fleet Canuck is a basic flying training machine that is certified with brakes on the left side only, how about the Piper Pacer it only has brakes on the left side and is a perfect trainer.
So...in my opinion if you are not comfortable teaching in any certified training airplane you should not be teaching period.
THESE ARE BASIC CERTIFIED LIGHT AIRPLANES FOR CHRIST SAKE.
-
David MacRay
- Posts: 1259
- Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 3:00 pm
It's fine to hold that opinion. Why rag on one guy about it?
Even though I cut out some parts of this post, complained the author was being harsh and later made a claim it is improving. This seems to be fairly accurate.
Even though I cut out some parts of this post, complained the author was being harsh and later made a claim it is improving. This seems to be fairly accurate.
Maybe you're right and most instructors for the last 4 decades are like that chief instructor that thought the Cub was too scary to fly in, and shouldn't be teaching. I dounbt it's going to change much.Not sure how much GA flying you've been doing
lately, but finding a tailwheel instructor these
days can be very difficult.
... but it
would seem to me that there is an epidemic of bad /
non-existent tailwheel instruction these days.
-
Chuck Ellsworth
Why rag on one guy about it?
Well for one thing I would like to see flight training go back to teaching people to fly before I die, instead of turning out pilots who are barley able to get an airplane up in the air and back down again without wrecking it.
That one guy is now part of TC, see the connection?
Well for one thing I would like to see flight training go back to teaching people to fly before I die, instead of turning out pilots who are barley able to get an airplane up in the air and back down again without wrecking it.
That one guy is now part of TC, see the connection?
-
Goose
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2016 8:47 pm
Chuck Ellsworth wrote:
This is the only forum where I can express my opinion without having my posts removed, and I truly believe in really professional top quality instruction,
It is my opinion that when subjects like this come up I need to tell it like it is.
And the Fleet Canuck is a basic flying training machine that is certified with brakes on the left side only, how about the Piper Pacer it only has brakes on the left side and is a perfect trainer.
So...in my opinion if you are not comfortable teaching in any certified training airplane you should not be teaching period.
THESE ARE BASIC CERTIFIED LIGHT AIRPLANES FOR CHRIST SAKE.
I do tend to agree with everything you have said in this thread (and others) but this is a bit ridiculous. I understand you have over half a century of experience in many different types but I think there are many excellent instructors around who wouldn't instruct in any light certified airplane. After thousands of hours of Fleet Canuck instruction would you teach a 0 hour pilot on a twotter without ever having flown one?
I think familiarity has to count for something when it comes to instructing..
-
Chuck Ellsworth
Of course I would not teach someone to fly a Twin Otter if I had never flown one or any other aircraft that I had never flown until I got comfortable with it.
Lets have a better look at my position regarding flight training and flight instructors.
There are thousands of general aviation tail wheel airplanes all over the country, therefore if a flight instructor can not teach on one because he / she has never flown one the simple answer is get a proper check out on them and teaching on them is no more difficult than any other airplane.
Is it not a little strange that there are so many class one instructors in Canada who are unable to fly and teach on basic light tail wheel airplanes?
I can maybe understand a class four or even a class three for not knowing how to fly these basic airplanes but I sure can't imagine TC giving them class two's and class ones when they can not teach on a large percentage of light single airplanes in my opinion it is just plain sad.
For sure it is not the lack of tail wheel airplanes avaliable.
I do not blame the individual instructors, I blame the flight training industry.
Lets have a better look at my position regarding flight training and flight instructors.
There are thousands of general aviation tail wheel airplanes all over the country, therefore if a flight instructor can not teach on one because he / she has never flown one the simple answer is get a proper check out on them and teaching on them is no more difficult than any other airplane.
Is it not a little strange that there are so many class one instructors in Canada who are unable to fly and teach on basic light tail wheel airplanes?
I can maybe understand a class four or even a class three for not knowing how to fly these basic airplanes but I sure can't imagine TC giving them class two's and class ones when they can not teach on a large percentage of light single airplanes in my opinion it is just plain sad.
For sure it is not the lack of tail wheel airplanes avaliable.
I do not blame the individual instructors, I blame the flight training industry.
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
In the past, I have gotten stuck instructing on aircraft
I had never flown before, because
1) no one else would give dual on it, not even the guys
with the brown leather jackets and the Ray-Bans, and
2) I figured I was less likely to wreck it than the guy
getting the dual from me
Given that I never damaged an aircraft in 40+ years
of flying - unlike a TC Inspector - perhaps I had a clue.
There are plenty of really weird homebuilt and
warbird/antique types - let alone certified aircraft! -
that people simply don't know how to fly any more.
If you learn about the systems ahead of time, I
have never encountered an aircraft type that I
couldn't teach myself the correct flight control
inputs as I went along.
My idea of a fun day is a solo self-checkout in
an exotic type, and teaching myself surface
aerobatics in it during the first flight, and
putting it on my card.
But, I'm not a very good stick compared to a
TC Inspector or an airline pilot.
TC Inspectors and airline pilots think they are
the Gods Of Aviation, but do remember that
Bob Hoover half-rolled a YAK on takeoff during
his first solo flight in it.
Bob Hoover has more skill and knowledge in his
baby finger, than all of the Inspectors. That's
why they all hate him so.
Rob Holland reminds me so much of Bob Hoover.
In retrospect, it doesn't surprise me that Arlo
Speer tried to arrange for his death.
I had never flown before, because
1) no one else would give dual on it, not even the guys
with the brown leather jackets and the Ray-Bans, and
2) I figured I was less likely to wreck it than the guy
getting the dual from me
Given that I never damaged an aircraft in 40+ years
of flying - unlike a TC Inspector - perhaps I had a clue.
There are plenty of really weird homebuilt and
warbird/antique types - let alone certified aircraft! -
that people simply don't know how to fly any more.
If you learn about the systems ahead of time, I
have never encountered an aircraft type that I
couldn't teach myself the correct flight control
inputs as I went along.
My idea of a fun day is a solo self-checkout in
an exotic type, and teaching myself surface
aerobatics in it during the first flight, and
putting it on my card.
But, I'm not a very good stick compared to a
TC Inspector or an airline pilot.
TC Inspectors and airline pilots think they are
the Gods Of Aviation, but do remember that
Bob Hoover half-rolled a YAK on takeoff during
his first solo flight in it.
Bob Hoover has more skill and knowledge in his
baby finger, than all of the Inspectors. That's
why they all hate him so.
Rob Holland reminds me so much of Bob Hoover.
In retrospect, it doesn't surprise me that Arlo
Speer tried to arrange for his death.
-
Chuck Ellsworth
Colonel you and I are able to fly most anything by looking at it, sitting in it, getting used to the layout, reading the flight manual if there is one and making sure the fuckin controls respond in the correct manner to control input, but we are high time pilots who fly anything.
We do not expect the average flight instructor to be able to do that, however not being able to fly anything more difficult than a nose wheel light airplane is hard to understand.
Last time I looked a light single tail wheel airplane was known as " conventional gear " or have they changed that also.
We do not expect the average flight instructor to be able to do that, however not being able to fly anything more difficult than a nose wheel light airplane is hard to understand.
Last time I looked a light single tail wheel airplane was known as " conventional gear " or have they changed that also.
-
David MacRay
- Posts: 1259
- Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 3:00 pm
[quote author=Chuck Ellsworth link=topic=4469.msg11847#msg11847 date=1476239549]
Why rag on one guy about it?
Well for one thing I would like to see flight training go back to teaching people to fly before I die, instead of turning out pilots who are barley able to get an airplane up in the air and back down again without wrecking it.
That one guy is now part of TC, see the connection?
[/quote]
No, I don't see the connection, you said transport was flawed back when you ran your school. I believed that and a fear of conventional gear started a long time ago. Ever since tricycle gear appeared there have been pilots that never flew anything else. It was the reason it took over as the most typical configuration.
If you are hoping for conventional gear to be a skill a mere half the licensed pilots acquire, I can't imagine that happening again. I agree it's a good idea but the industry has moved on.
There are people starting out afraid of the mighty 172s at most places because they are old and don't have glass panels. Face it Chuck it's getting even sillier. Why stress about it?
Why rag on one guy about it?
Well for one thing I would like to see flight training go back to teaching people to fly before I die, instead of turning out pilots who are barley able to get an airplane up in the air and back down again without wrecking it.
That one guy is now part of TC, see the connection?
[/quote]
No, I don't see the connection, you said transport was flawed back when you ran your school. I believed that and a fear of conventional gear started a long time ago. Ever since tricycle gear appeared there have been pilots that never flew anything else. It was the reason it took over as the most typical configuration.
If you are hoping for conventional gear to be a skill a mere half the licensed pilots acquire, I can't imagine that happening again. I agree it's a good idea but the industry has moved on.
There are people starting out afraid of the mighty 172s at most places because they are old and don't have glass panels. Face it Chuck it's getting even sillier. Why stress about it?
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
[quote]not being able to fly anything more difficult than a nose wheel light airplane is hard to understand.[/quote]
The amazing thing is that a class one instructor
may have only flown one docile (eg 172) type in
their entire pilot career.
This is tragic beyond belief.
Any airplane has a wing that pushes air down, and
and engine(s) that pushes air back. While the
former is obligatory for a heavier-than-air craft,
the latter is optional (see gliders).
If one spends a little time learning the systems,
generally pushing air down and pushing air back
does not pose that much of an intellectual challenge.
While I know that today's generation of children
consider Chuck and I reckless, do recall that RCAF
pilot's first flight in a Sabre was solo. Single seat.
I would dearly love to check myself out in the -104
and the -21. Single seat models, of course.
The amazing thing is that a class one instructor
may have only flown one docile (eg 172) type in
their entire pilot career.
This is tragic beyond belief.
Any airplane has a wing that pushes air down, and
and engine(s) that pushes air back. While the
former is obligatory for a heavier-than-air craft,
the latter is optional (see gliders).
If one spends a little time learning the systems,
generally pushing air down and pushing air back
does not pose that much of an intellectual challenge.
While I know that today's generation of children
consider Chuck and I reckless, do recall that RCAF
pilot's first flight in a Sabre was solo. Single seat.
I would dearly love to check myself out in the -104
and the -21. Single seat models, of course.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
