MBDiagMan
Final Approach
I have about 800 hours tailwheel and about 1200 tailwheel landings. In my way of thinking, my landing number indicates my tailwheel proficiency much more than my tailwheel hours…… but that’s just me.
What comes to mind, when someone mentions flying lawn chair tailwheel!Flying lawn chair tailwheel? I have 230 hours in one, taught me more about rudder use than anything I've flown. Just because its small, doesn't make it easy.
I had a friend in college who designed an auto gyro canoe.Couple of kayaks and some ratchet straps....my mind is a raging torrent, filled with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives! I'll be qualified for the Grumman Goose in no time!
I'd sell the 172B and replace it with a comparable tailwheel model, or even something less expensive that still suits your needs. The fear of tailwheels is unfounded IMHO, and I always wonder what the difference is between a fifty hour TW pilot and a 500 hour one actually is.
In reality, hours shouldn't matter. Number of landings would be a better metric. I guess one of the concerns relates to the first solo and next few flights in an aircraft that only has one seat, but that should also relate to landings, not logged time.
oooooooh, I am imaging Jet Cri-Cri and an Amphibious float, sort of a cross between the Jet Cri-Cri and a Grumman DuckCouple of kayaks and some ratchet straps....my mind is a raging torrent, filled with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives! I'll be qualified for the Grumman Goose in no time!
Oh, the hopper won't care.Trading the 172 for a 188 would be rad, but the Mrs would get tired of riding in the hopper. A bit smelly too.
Well in the ag world you get the flight time and the cycles. The 500 hours is not unreasonable nor is it negotiable in most cases. Insurance companies drive the requirements and the actuarial data supports the requirements.I get that, but should that world of experience have the perceived value it has for operations like towing and and cropdusting?
Shouldn't the number of landings be the parameter used for proficiency? You can fly a TW aircraft for two hours and get one landing, or fly the same aircraft practicing landings and log a dozen or more in the same time. For those pilots like the OP I feel like a lot of money is wasted building "hours" instead of proficiency.
At our local glider operation I was one of three tow pilots sharing duties in an operation doing 1500 to 1800 tows per year. This year one tow pilot had to withdraw for medical reasons then I developed brain cancer (permanently grounded). There aren't that many 500 hour TW pilots hanging around to fill the void, which is devastating to an operation like ours.
I have a lot of sympathy for the OP having to meet a standard that doesn't make complete sense to me.
Agreed. I always found taildragger landings to be more challenging after having flown a long cross country, so 500 hours with 100 landings would indicate a high level of proficiency in my mind.Well in the ag world you get the flight time and the cycles. The 500 hours is not unreasonable nor is it negotiable in most cases. Insurance companies drive the requirements and the actuarial data supports the requirements.
At least that’s the opinion I’ve developed after working as an ag pilot and owning an aircraft for ag.
Obviously five hundred hours of intense pattern work is better than the same hours on long cross country flights but the five hundred hours is still beneficial regardless of how it’s obtained.