JohnBurke

Be careful taking checkrides for which you're not prepared. There should be no problem taking a checkride otherwise.

Flight time is only worth the effort one puts into it. Two people fly the same airplane under the same conditions for one hour. One comes away with an hour of flight time. The other comes away with an hour of experience. The two are not the same.

Flying seaplanes, gliders, even conventional gear aircraft, can be a rich, rewarding experience from which one can glean a great deal, but none make a pilot a good pilot. Stick and rudder skills are not wasted. Stick and rudder experience may be wasted, if someone simply views it as logbook time and gains little from it. It comes down to the pilot, rather than the aircraft.

Nobody will be impressed by any of the above, or particularly care. There are always variations on a theme. When I was new in one large airplane, a captain asked what I'd flown last. I didn't cite my resume, just told him the last airplane. His response? "What gives you the right to be among us, professionals?" Arrogance. In another case, a captain asked the same question. His response? "Well, at least we know you can fly."

Neither captain was correct in their assumption. Yes, I can fly, but having a solid background in various types of flying does not automatically make it so. More recently a pilot with whom I'd flown said something similar, "at least we know you can fly." When I asked what he meant, he said "just based on the fact that you're still alive." That may be true, to some degree, because a lot of that flying doesn't tolerate bad behavior and mistakes or bad flying does get penalized in rapid and severe ways...but I'm not big on assumptions, and I don't believe people are products of their environment. People are products that they choose to be, of the experiences from which they choose learn. Whether such learning will impress anyone else is probably the last reason to choose to do those activities.

2StgTurbine

Most people run out of things to do while trying to build time for their commercial checkride. A seaplane rating and tailwheel endorsement are a very productive way to build 10 of those hours.

You have been saying that for years. If you are afraid of checkrides, then you are in the wrong industry. If you passed your private pilot and instrument checkrides, then you should know how to effectively prepare for checkrides. If you fail a seaplane checkride odds are you would have also failed your upcoming commercial or multi engine checkride.

Personally, I would rather be working with another pilot who took every opportunity to learn something new in their flight training versus the kind of pilot who went out of their way to avoid "unnecessary" checkrides.

2StgTurbine

As JB said, if your goal is to get to 1,500 hours without pushing yourself, odds are you won't make it in professional aviation. Your goal is to get to 1,500 hours with the most amount of experience and skill possible. You don't get that experience and skill by taking the fewest number of checkrides and flying a 172 in the pattern for 99% of the time.

JamesNoBrakes

Taildragger is fun and challenging and if you have the opportunity, it's cool.

But I'll say that it doesn't necessarily make one a better pilot. If your instructor was real good about making sure you land on the centerline and aligned every single time, in every condition, it's not going to be very beneficial. If you just "got by" during training, then a tailwheel can wrap you up real fast and get you into trouble taxiing, taking off or landing. Part of what makes it fun is you have to "reverse" what you normally do during landing, but that's not part of the rudder control part and it doesn't make you better, it's just a different skill. That's where my learning curve was, and once you got it, it's kind of "over" IMO. Rudder is just to keep the plane straight, like always, you have to possibly use it a little more, but if your instructor beat this into your head already, it's not a huge deal.

JohnBurke

Land a tricycle gear airplane: flare.

Land a conventional gear airplane three-point: flare.

Not really a radical difference there.

JamesNoBrakes

But where's the fun in that?

rickair7777

I'm not afraid of checkrides. I fly for a legacy and have the usual ratings, and the usual transport type rating collection.

Me too, in the land of rainbows and unicorns.

But the system we live in will automatically penalize you (and by automatic I mean that literally, with no human review) for having a checkride failure, and those can happen to the best pilots, especially in GA where the checking environment is the real (unpredictable) world, and examiners may be more "variable" than in 121.

I just want noobs to understand the potential career risk vs. career benefit... as far as actually getting the job they want.

Entry-level GA checkrides are also easy to forgive... but further along in your career you really don't want any recent ones, they expect you to know what you're doing at that point.

The problem with our career is that it's hard to evaluate people... a white collar guy can generate more resume bullet points, accomplishments, and accolades in one year than a line pilot will acquire over his whole career. If he hits a speedbump, he can get a new job, hustle, hit some balls out of the park, and in a few years it's all ancient history.

Pilots can't be measured on their daily job performance (unless you want a national database for reliability, on-time performance, and stable approaches). So when you apply for a job you get graded on a very few data points spread out over years or decades. Each of those data points takes on an exaggerated significance, especially things from the distant past which *should* be mostly irrelevant years later... but the computer and HR ladies still count it, because they have nothing else to count.

deus ex machina

Incorrect.

JohnBurke

Do tell. Do tell.

Where's the fun in correctly performing a full stall three point landing in a conventional gear airplane?

That IS the point.

Wheel landings are easy.

usmc-sgt

Do it. If for nothing else, pattern work in a tail dragger is fun. I have many hours in conventional gear planes and every landing is still interesting and different. Try that in a 172....