ppl training on tailwheel

Henning said:
Yep, the problem is us...
Click to expand...
...the testing system.
It may seem like the instructors who find the "easiest way to get acceptable results", which they do, but they are only following what they are told and believe works, like any human being starting out in any profession.

They teach to whatever the DPE requires.

I have yet to find a DPE who will fail a student on any landing because he/she did not "Touch down...with no drift, and with the airplane's longitudinal axis aligned with and over the runway centerline".

This is a requirement on every landing described in all the PTSes, but I know it is not done.

If a tricycle is landed consistently "with no drift, aligned and over the centerline", tricycle pilots would have to learn good rudder control as well as aileron, elevator, and throttle inputs just like a tailwheel.

The tricycle just made it easier to make a landing with a slight drift or slight mis-alignment, and students, instructors, and Examiners everywhere slowly began to "accept" these below standard landings, and now, the drills we old t/w pilots know about, such as fast-taxi practice, are viewed as "dangerous".

It has become dangerous because the skill is lost.

Like spins.

Fast Taxi (and spins) were a standard initial part of the Old Army Pilot Training Program at Ft. Rucker in Bird Dogs back then when. We didn't have accidents. Not in taxiing practice.

Every landing roll slows to a "fast taxi", and this is the area where rudder control becomes less responsive, so the time spent feeling the rudder pressure and guaging the response is very very valuable.

We didn't just do fast taxi only at first, we mixed it in with flying lessons, stalls spins 60 degree steep turns, etc., but when doing concentrated landings, slow flight down the runway and fast taxi are excellent teaching tools. Proven by Army Aviation statistics. And most all the old guys like me, if that means anything.
 
nosehair said:
Every landing roll slows to a "fast taxi", and this is the area where rudder control becomes less responsive, so the time spent feeling the rudder pressure and guaging the response is very very valuable.

We didn't just do fast taxi only at first, we mixed it in with flying lessons, stalls spins 60 degree steep turns, etc., but when doing concentrated landings, slow flight down the runway and fast taxi are excellent teaching tools. Proven by Army Aviation statistics. And most all the old guys like me, if that means anything.
Click to expand...
Now that I can totally see...

Ryan
 
wabower said:
Any argument about aviation training that starts with "this isn't the safest way to do it" is DOA. Compared to safety, nothing else matters.
Click to expand...
Funny thing about safety, though: We send our students out in the world. There may have been some unfavorable statistics about high speed taxiing - I haven't seen the data, but the real question is how well our students do out on their own. I mean, one could argue that since stall/spin fatalities are also (statistically) hazardous that we should never stall or spin. I train PILOTS. I care enough about their (future) safety that I am willing to take measures to make them see clearly that they can lose control on the runway - and how to prevent it. And while I don't believe in intentionally frightening a student, when they're ready, we'll do a couple spins. My method is to pay the safety forward. Students I had 30 years ago thank me today for it.
 
There's no validity in the attempted comparison of high-speed taxi to stall-spin. Both accident situations are pilot-induced, but only one is intentional. There will never be a high-speed taxi accident unless the pilot decides to taxi at high speed. It serves no operational purpose, is not required by any PTS or other exam, and any accidents that result from it are only because the pilot intentionally decides to do it. Teaching a pilot high-speed taxi, especially in the early part of the training, isn't an exercise in confidence-building; it's a needless exercise in hot-dogging.

If you have any questions about this, simply submit your syllabus to the FAA for approval. Before you do, however, please provide the opportunity for some side bets as to how it turns out. ;)



One is a situation that
j1b3h0 said:
Funny thing about safety, though: We send our students out in the world. There may have been some unfavorable statistics about high speed taxiing - I haven't seen the data, but the real question is how well our students do out on their own. I mean, one could argue that since stall/spin fatalities are also (statistically) hazardous that we should never stall or spin. I train PILOTS. I care enough about their (future) safety that I am willing to take measures to make them see clearly that they can lose control on the runway - and how to prevent it. And while I don't believe in intentionally frightening a student, when they're ready, we'll do a couple spins. My method is to pay the safety forward. Students I had 30 years ago thank me today for it.
Click to expand...
 
Flying a conventional gear plane has been blown out of proportion in my opinion. A lot of places there is no such thing as a "tailwheel" endorsement. Transport Canada did a study between schools that taught initial training on tail draggers and trikes. They found there was no difference in the time it took to become licenced pilots.

You have to have the basic skills down pat regardless of your landing gear configuration. I would have to agree with Henning in regards to dumbing down the training.
 
wabower said:
Teaching a pilot high-speed taxi, especially in the early part of the training, isn't an exercise in confidence-building; it's a needless exercise in hot-dogging.

If you have any questions about this, simply submit your syllabus to the FAA for approval. Before you do, however, please provide the opportunity for some side bets as to how it turns out.
Click to expand...

Transport Canada, at least, demands aborted takeoffs as part of the syllabus. What's that, if it isn't a fast taxi? I used to take the taildragger to about 30 knots and close the throttle, give it to the student, and tell him to keep it straight. After he was able to do that, we'd do more and I would induce a swerve that he had to fix. Never once did we have any danger; I was always ready to save it well before it got dangerous. And the student learned all about using lots of rudder in time to fix it and to use all the controls just as if it was in the air, which is partially true. Lift is being generated, just not enough to lift the airplane. All the controls apply. Too many students figure the flight is over once the airplane is on the ground, or that flight hasn't started if it hasn't left the ground yet.

The ordinary landing rolls are not nearly enough to teach this stuff. They don't happen often enough and are too brief. And many intructors do touch-and-goes, which doesn't do anything for teaching crosswind control. The wind vector increases as the airplane slows, and that's also when the control effectiveness disappears. So that's where many accidents happen: when the airplane has slowed to a "safe" speed and the pilot relaxes.

Dan
 
You're right, there's essentially no difference in flying one configuration vs the other. It's the takeoffs, landing and ground handling that are much different and require differences training.

Back in the day, most of the trainers were draggers and we all learned in them. No endorsement was needed, because most of the pilots were already trained. As trikes became the trainers of choice, the FAA painfully learned that the differences were significant and implemented the TWE as an attempt to close the gap in accident rates from trike-trained pilots attempting to fly draggers.

The time required to learn isn't all that great, so Canada's study is probably valid from that standpoint. That's not the issue with respect to the US regulation, however, so the statistics you quoted are somewhat irrelevant to this discussion.

AEROBAT said:
Flying a conventional gear plane has been blown out of proportion in my opinion. A lot of places there is no such thing as a "tailwheel" endorsement. Transport Canada did a study between schools that taught initial training on tail draggers and trikes. They found there was no difference in the time it took to become licenced pilots.

You have to have the basic skills down pat regardless of your landing gear configuration. I would have to agree with Henning in regards to dumbing down the training.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
There's no validity in the attempted comparison of high-speed taxi to stall-spin. Both accident situations are pilot-induced, but only one is intentional. There will never be a high-speed taxi accident unless the pilot decides to taxi at high speed. It serves no operational purpose, is not required by any PTS or other exam, and any accidents that result from it are only because the pilot intentionally decides to do it. Teaching a pilot high-speed taxi, especially in the early part of the training, isn't an exercise in confidence-building; it's a needless exercise in hot-dogging.

If you have any questions about this, simply submit your syllabus to the FAA for approval. Before you do, however, please provide the opportunity for some side bets as to how it turns out. ;)

I beg to differ, Sir. Seldom is a takeoff or landing done without some 'high speed taxiing'. Nobody groundloops on purpose and nobody spends the rest of their life in a stall/spin on purpose. Seems to me a good reason to ensure my students are well trained to avoid them both. The true value of an education is what you remember after you forgot what you learned...it's practiced reflexes in a tricky taildragger that will save the day in a gusty crosswind. And while the FAA certainly has an important job to do, they're mostly nosedragger folks concerned with the generations of pilots who never really learned to fly. The FAA's Flying handbook has a pathetic 6 pages on flying tail wheel aircraft, go figure.
Click to expand...
 
Dan Thomas said:
The ordinary landing rolls are not nearly enough to teach this stuff. They don't happen often enough and are too brief. And many intructors do touch-and-goes, which doesn't do anything for teaching crosswind control. The wind vector increases as the airplane slows, and that's also when the control effectiveness disappears. So that's where many accidents happen: when the airplane has slowed to a "safe" speed and the pilot relaxes.

Dan
Click to expand...
Just about all of my student landings are full stops or full stop and goes, unless there is a reason we need to do a touch-n-go like an aircraft right behind us. I would also suspect that students loosing control as the aircraft slows in a crosswind are mainly doing wheel landings...

Ryan
 
wabower said:
Any argument about aviation training that starts with "this isn't the safest way to do it" is DOA. Compared to safety, nothing else matters.
Click to expand...

But it is about greater safety. Anything not taught in training is something not known in service. Plain and simple.

If you go head over to a big old SAC base runway, most people have one within 1/2hr even in a slow plane and you have a hell of a lot of room to play with before you're taking out lights. If you're instructor can't save it, they shouldn't be an instructor.

The "FAA Way" which every day falls further into line with "Everybody's way" has failed us. We now have wholly incompetent flight crews including captains flying airliners into oceans in full stall with the power at idle because they couldn't figure out that the stall system was turning off even when fully stalled.

When we make training safer, we make flying as passengers more dangerous because the way we make it safer is by dumbing down the training.
 
Are you drunk or just trying to divert the discussion away from that idiotic position about teaching high-speed taxi to beginner tail-dragger pilots?

That "greater safety" argument is even more idiotic, if that's possible. The obvious question is why it needs to be taught. Other than the ego-driven opinion of some anti-authority wing-nut CFI (or in your case non-CFI) who tries to defend such show-boating with platitudes and high-horse rhetoric, there's absolutely nothing to be gained from needless exposure to artificial high-risk events that only happen because the instructor forced them to happen.

If you want to rant about the poor taildragger training currently being afforded to Air France pilots, Illl concede that I don't spend much time in Paris and probably can't add much to the discussion.

PS: My initial training was at Pete field in COS, finished PPL at Clinton-Sherman AFB, taught primarily at NAS Olathe (KIXD) for 20 years. I think I have a pretty good idea about operating from big military fields. FWIW, students learn a lot more about what they really need to know when operating from short narrow grass strips.
Henning said:
But it is about greater safety. Anything not taught in training is something not known in service. Plain and simple.

If you go head over to a big old SAC base runway, most people have one within 1/2hr even in a slow plane and you have a hell of a lot of room to play with before you're taking out lights. If you're instructor can't save it, they shouldn't be an instructor.

The "FAA Way" which every day falls further into line with "Everybody's way" has failed us. We now have wholly incompetent flight crews including captains flying airliners into oceans in full stall with the power at idle because they couldn't figure out that the stall system was turning off even when fully stalled.

When we make training safer, we make flying as passengers more dangerous because the way we make it safer is by dumbing down the training.
Click to expand...
 
AEROBAT said:
Flying a conventional gear plane has been blown out of proportion in my opinion. A lot of places there is no such thing as a "tailwheel" endorsement. Transport Canada did a study between schools that taught initial training on tail draggers and trikes. They found there was no difference in the time it took to become licenced pilots.

You have to have the basic skills down pat regardless of your landing gear configuration. I would have to agree with Henning in regards to dumbing down the training.
Click to expand...

But the pilot trained in the tailwheel can get in the tricycle and fly it with no instruction whatsoever. The guy trained in the tricycle will need a further 5-10hrs minimum to fly the tailwheel. Kinda like learning to drive a stick vs. an automatic.
 
So for those who feel that high speed taxiing is so dangerous, do you have any actual data or accident reports to support that?

I personally have not seen any NTSB reports on a high speed taxi accident. I have seen plenty involving loss of diretional control on takeoff and landing with a CFI onboard in a tailwheel.
 
wabower said:
High-speed ground ops have a proven record relative to safety. It's not good. That's why the conditions for aborting takeoffs drop from an entire page of possible reasons to just three -- engine fire, failure or loss of diectional control--above ~80 knots on larger airplanes.

If a student friend told me his t/w instructor started with high- speed taxi stuff, I would forbid him/her from having any future contact with the moron. [/B]
Click to expand...


my instructor put me on high speed taxi because after i landed, i have trouble on rudder control, he had myself to control the throttle, lift the tail up, keep the airplane align to center line, drop the tail, just like landing and jab on those rudders even more as speed slows down to maintain on center line. i did like 3 of those high speed taxi and then back to do some patterns.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Just about all of my student landings are full stops or full stop and goes, unless there is a reason we need to do a touch-n-go like an aircraft right behind us. I would also suspect that students loosing control as the aircraft slows in a crosswind are mainly doing wheel landings...

Ryan
Click to expand...


That I doubt. Many runway loss-of-control (RLOC) accidents happen in trikes, too; they're not specific to taildraggers at all. The pilot thinks the flight is over and does not use all the controls appropriately. He neutralizes the ailerons after touchdown, for example, and as the airplane slows the wind vector increases and the upwind wing rises. Things get decidedly unhappy at that point; the downwind wing drags and turns the airplane off the runway and probably noses over. Or he fails to keep adequate rudder in as the vector increases and the airplane weathercocks and runs off the upwind side of the runway. I have seen both in my time here and have had the opportunity of spending months repairing such airplanes, trikes and taildraggers both. It comes down to good teaching and being teachable.

Wheel landings are not dangerous if they're taught properly. I much prefer them in a crosswind, from my 1200-pound Jodel up to the 185. I hear that the DC-3 drivers prefer them, too.

callthewind_wind_figure2.gif

Use the crosswind component chart to see the vector change as the airplane slows (or as it initially accelerates on takeoff). A 90-degree crosswind is a big deal when slow but at higher forward speeds its angle is manageable; yet too many think that low groundspeed is safe!

Dan
 
Last edited:
Taildraggers are "flying" at any speed. I'd prefer to have a little more than a little less.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Wheel landings are not dangerous if they're taught properly. I much prefer them in a crosswind, from my 1200-pound Jodel up to the 185. I hear that the DC-3 drivers prefer them, too.

callthewind_wind_figure2.gif
Click to expand...

This is some text I saved regarding a C-46 & crosswind landings. I figure it's close enough to the DC-3. It's all about wheel landings in a crosswind.

http://yarchive.net/air/taildrag_land.html
 
Wheel landing vs. 3 point, now there's a debate. Depends on the airplane a little bit - but depends on the pilot a lot. When the wind pipes up, do what you're good at. Some airplanes are almost never 3 pointed, DC-3 and twin Beech for example. Sure, it can be done, but it's very entertaining if it doesn't go just right. The C-46 is better, but still, no one wants to get sideways in 52,000 lb. taildragger with expander-tube brakes.

The fact is, if the wind is blowing hard enough for you to worry about which kind of landing, it might be better to find another runway - even if it's a taxiway more into the wind. A skilled pilot can land a Citabria in a 30kt direct crosswind. In a Stearman, it would be less than half that.
 
jesse said:
That isn't always the case.
Click to expand...

Example One guy learns in a C140 the other in a C150. The 140 driver can get in the 150 and fly it with no additional instruction. Not so the other way around.
One guy learns in a Piper Pacer and the other in a Tripacer. Same thing the Pacer driver will have no trouble at all with the Tripacer. don
 
yakdriver said:
Example One guy learns in a C140 the other in a C150. The 140 driver can get in the 150 and fly it with no additional instruction. Not so the other way around.
One guy learns in a Piper Pacer and the other in a Tripacer. Same thing the Pacer driver will have no trouble at all with the Tripacer. don
Click to expand...

You've provided good examples of like/like airplanes, but when a tandem taildragger student transisions to a 172, the learning curve is steep, what with stick/yoke throttle trim and sight picture so different.
 
j1b3h0 said:
You've provided good examples of like/like airplanes, but when a tandem taildragger student transisions to a 172, the learning curve is steep, what with stick/yoke throttle trim and sight picture so different.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. I learned in a Champ, but started the night/hood work in a 150 not long after solo. It was different, but I was comfortable and competent to solo in less than an hour. And what you're talking about has nothing to do with landing gear configuration, but other differences that pilots may need to adjust to.
 
j1b3h0 said:
You've provided good examples of like/like airplanes, but when a tandem taildragger student transisions to a 172, the learning curve is steep, what with stick/yoke throttle trim and sight picture so different.
Click to expand...

From - Cessna 120, about 55 hours logged

To: PA-28-151 - 1:10 dual. "PA-28-151 check out OK"...

:dunno:
 
wabower said:
Teaching a pilot high-speed taxi, especially in the early part of the training, isn't an exercise in confidence-building; it's a needless exercise in hot-dogging.
Click to expand...
OK,..so you have probably seen instructors hot-dogging with this exercise, so I understand your position.

Hot-Dogging, with any student, is way out of line, and is not what I am talking about. As I posted, it was a standard Army exercise, and was always under the watchful eye of a Flight Commander who made sure no hot-dogging occurred on his watch.

Think about it: as each landing roll slows thru the 'high speed taxi range', and the flight controls, especially the rudder, losses significant response, that is where most landing roll accidents occur. Just running off the runway, or maybe even scraping a wing tip, but they are not ones that are reported, so statistics don't tell all.

But practicing a high speed taxi can elongate this 'transition' period after touchdown, when you have pretty good rudder control, and slowing until you can safely use brakes.

Using a bit of throttle during the landing roll-out can really give you a lot more rudder authority, and I'm sure you know that, so the intentional long high speed taxi can give the student more rudder/aileron & throttle/elevator coordination than 10 trips around the pattern.

You don't need to get fancy with the skipping over on one wheel then another, just straight down the centerline: Elongated take-off and landing rolls; transitioning into slow flight over the runway, as appropriate.
 
j1b3h0 said:
You've provided good examples of like/like airplanes, but when a tandem taildragger student transisions to a 172, the learning curve is steep, what with stick/yoke throttle trim and sight picture so different.
Click to expand...

Might take the tailwheel guy about an hour at the most. But I'm betting 10hrs for the 172 driver to fly say a Citabria.
 
nosehair said:
OK,..so you have probably seen instructors hot-dogging with this exercise, so I understand your position.

Hot-Dogging, with any student, is way out of line, and is not what I am talking about. As I posted, it was a standard Army exercise, and was always under the watchful eye of a Flight Commander who made sure no hot-dogging occurred on his watch.

Think about it: as each landing roll slows thru the 'high speed taxi range', and the flight controls, especially the rudder, losses significant response, that is where most landing roll accidents occur. Just running off the runway, or maybe even scraping a wing tip, but they are not ones that are reported, so statistics don't tell all.

But practicing a high speed taxi can elongate this 'transition' period after touchdown, when you have pretty good rudder control, and slowing until you can safely use brakes.

Using a bit of throttle during the landing roll-out can really give you a lot more rudder authority, and I'm sure you know that, so the intentional long high speed taxi can give the student more rudder/aileron & throttle/elevator coordination than 10 trips around the pattern.

You don't need to get fancy with the skipping over on one wheel then another, just straight down the centerline: Elongated take-off and landing rolls; transitioning into slow flight over the runway, as appropriate.
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
yakdriver said:
Might take the tailwheel guy about an hour at the most. But I'm betting 10hrs for the 172 driver to fly say a Citabria.
Click to expand...

I had 152,172,172RG,182 and PA 28 161 & 200R time to total about 55 some hours, didn't have 60 yet and it took me 1.<3 To get my tailwheel endorsement in a Citabria and I felt comfortable in it.
 
I learned several things:

The most significant was the statements from both pilots and instructors that when the loss of directional control ("LODC") occurred, "things happened so fast I/we simply didn't have time to react" prior to the ground loop or departure from the runway.

A surprising number of ground loops and LODC's occurred during take-off roll. The language in the reports was not specific, but seems to indicate that at least some occurred when the pilots tried to raise the tail prematurely and exascerbated the left-turning tendancy caused by gyroscopic precession of the prop disk.

Numerous taxi accidents were reported. A high percentage were attributable to high-speed ops. Some mentioned failure to properly position flight controls as a contributing factor.

A high percentage of LODC's occurred after a bounced landing. The airplane originally touched down (vigorously) on the runway, but in a way that was not conducive to executing a normal landing. During the ensuing maneuvers, the pilot was unable to continue flying or successfully wrestle the airplane back to the runway.

None of the accidents listed low-speed taxi as a contributing factor.

It's also obvious from the other posts on this thread that there's nothing a tailwheel pilot needs to learn that can't be taught during the normal course of instruction without a specific session on high-speed taxi, especially in the early instructional periods. All of the legitimate exercises discussed here were for specific reasons related to student issues that may not occur with all students.





BellyUpFish said:
Yes? No?

What does it tell you?

Are there lots of high speed taxi accidents? I've never looked at data either way, so I don't know.

From what I can tell you don't have "PP ASEL" in your signature, so feel free to pretend the comment wasn't pointed squarely at you.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
so, whatelse advice you guys for me on landing, flare, touch down, rolling til exit taxi way, I will have more pattern works to do this week
 
dmccormack said:
Don't flare. Transition from descent to level 1" above the runway surface.
Click to expand...

Exactly what Dan just said...read my description earlier before we got side-tracked on the high speed taxi debate...since you have been having trouble flaring too high, let ground effect work for you.

I know you are early in you PPL training, but have you done much slow flight yet? If not, ask your CFI to spend some time doing that before you go back to doing pattern work. Getting comfortable controlling the airplane in slow flight will really help you as you transition from the approach to setting it down on the runway.
 
wabower said:
I learned several things:

The most significant was the statements from both pilots and instructors that when the loss of directional control ("LODC") occurred, "things happened so fast I/we simply didn't have time to react" prior to the ground loop or departure from the runway.

A surprising number of ground loops and LODC's occurred during take-off roll. The language in the reports was not specific, but seems to indicate that at least some occurred when the pilots tried to raise the tail prematurely and exascerbated the left-turning tendancy caused by gyroscopic precession of the prop disk.

Numerous taxi accidents were reported. A high percentage were attributable to high-speed ops. Some mentioned failure to properly position flight controls as a contributing factor.

A high percentage of LODC's occurred after a bounced landing. The airplane originally touched down (vigorously) on the runway, but in a way that was not conducive to executing a normal landing. During the ensuing maneuvers, the pilot was unable to continue flying or successfully wrestle the airplane back to the runway.

None of the accidents listed low-speed taxi as a contributing factor.

It's also obvious from the other posts on this thread that there's nothing a tailwheel pilot needs to learn that can't be taught during the normal course of instruction without a specific session on high-speed taxi, especially in the early instructional periods. All of the legitimate exercises discussed here were for specific reasons related to student issues that may not occur with all students.
Click to expand...

What I try to instill with my tailwheel students is that it's not enough for them to be able to just takeoff and land the airplane: They have to learn to fix their mistakes.

One interpretation of the statistics you cite is that those pilots were unable to do so.
 
j1b3h0 said:
What I try to instill with my tailwheel students is that it's not enough for them to be able to just takeoff and land the airplane: They have to learn to fix their mistakes.

One interpretation of the statistics you cite is that those pilots were unable to do so.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Can't fix what you don't learn to fix. And there's too much else happening in the landing; the student is trying to get the flare and touchdown just right, and immediately after that he has to switch to keeping it straight. It's a lot for the newbie, and taxi training can get the straight bit fixed first so that he can pay attention to his touchdown without worrying about whether he can keep it from groundlooping afterward.

Dan
 
Fearless Tower said:
Exactly what Dan just said...read my description earlier before we got side-tracked on the high speed taxi debate...since you have been having trouble flaring too high, let ground effect work for you.

I know you are early in you PPL training, but have you done much slow flight yet? If not, ask your CFI to spend some time doing that before you go back to doing pattern work. Getting comfortable controlling the airplane in slow flight will really help you as you transition from the approach to setting it down on the runway.
Click to expand...



go back to last 4 weeks of my training, since the last week of september, i only did slow flights, stalls, steep turns, spins reconize/falling leaf stalls, onces, which was last week. but my instructor said i am doing really good on those even though i didn't practice those for 20days, however i need to work on landings more, then i did about 25 total landings in this recent 3 weeks, weather conditions was no wind, slight quarter tail wind(towered airport), 10knots head winds, and 15-20 quarter head/crosswinds. it's just that everytime i am doing patterns, none of the days have same weather conditions then previous days, that's why i got frustrated on landings.
well, let's see how will i do tomorrow.
 
Where's the logic in that argument? Aren't all accidents the result of something happening that the pilot either doesn't know how to fix or simply fails to do so at the time?

There's no proof that the pilots in the accident reports didn't know how to fix the problems they encountered, we only know that they didn't do so when the accident occurred.

I'd guess that all the pilots who run out of fuel have been trained in fuel management know how to fix the problem (either carry more or land sooner) but the knowledge doesn't seem to matter at crunch time.

Nor do we know how many operations were conducted successfully under similar circumstances, or if the number of accidents is a meaningful percentage of the total operations, yada yada yada. Trying to impute any particular cause is nothing more than speculation.

j1b3h0 said:
What I try to instill with my tailwheel students is that it's not enough for them to be able to just takeoff and land the airplane: They have to learn to fix their mistakes.

One interpretation of the statistics you cite is that those pilots were unable to do so.
Click to expand...
 
Hey, wait a minute, Wayne -

First, you denounce exersizes involving high-speed taxiing because the statistical evidence involving said manuevers are hazardous. You then say the statistics can't be really interpreted. Can't have it both ways.
 
j1b3h0 said:
Hey, wait a minute, Wayne -

First, you denounce exersizes involving high-speed taxiing because the statistical evidence involving said manuevers are hazardous. You then say the statistics can't be really interpreted. Can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

Every takeoff and every landing involves a high-speed taxi. I can't see that practicing high-speed taxi with the instructor is any more dangerous than taking off or landing. Can any one tell me what makes the taxi so much more dangerous?

We've had taxiing accidents here, but they involved dumb stuff: Taxiing too fast downwind (good way to groundloop a taildragger) or taxiing too fast on an icy runway in a crosswind. Downwind or slippery are certainly not conditions in which a sane pilot would be doing a proper high-speed taxi run. Controllability is really compromised in such cases.

Dan
 
Last edited:
I'm beginning to think that I should consider incorporating more taxiing time into the training I give, but the bigger thing I see is that doing things the RIGHT way - law of primacy invoked here - with the instructor demonstrating first, gives the student the "feel" of what "right" is, and then, and only then, do you let them work towards correcting the "bad" situations - which always come soon enough anyway. For example, after we do airwork, I always demo a few landings, and then we go on to landing practice next. I want them to work on maintaining directional control close to the ground and straight down the runway at first, then work on touching down, and then gradually giving them complete control of the rudder on the landing. Of course we then go on to harder situations and crosswinds.

Ryan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top