Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Flight Schools and Training (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/flight-schools-training/)
-   -   Benefit to getting some time in a taildragger (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/flight-schools-training/119844-benefit-getting-some-time-taildragger.html)

JayMahon 02-07-2019 09:12 AM

Benefit to getting some time in a taildragger
 
I've got the opportunity to log some hours on the cheep flying a tail dragger. It'd get me the endorsement in my logbook and some old timers swear by the improved capacity of pilots who have spent time in these. Mostly the rudder control.

I'll pitch the question to the experience of this forum... taildraggers... worth it or pass?

deus ex machina 02-07-2019 09:14 AM


Originally Posted by JayMahon (Post 2759060)
I've got the opportunity to log some hours on the cheep flying a tail dragger. It'd get me the endorsement in my logbook and some old timers swear by the improved capacity of pilots who have spent time in these. Mostly the rudder control.

I'll pitch the question to the experience of this forum... taildraggers... worth it or pass?

Worth it... it makes you a real pilot... it's get old watching social media videos of x-w landings and everyone praising the crappy landing...

JohnBurke 02-07-2019 09:45 AM

Conventional gear will or will not make you a good pilot: that is, it will, and it will not.

What it won't do is instill judgement or common sense, both of which are necessary regardless of what undercarriage rests beneath. A conventional gear airplane matters during taxi and briefly during a transition on landing...otherwise it really makes no difference.

You used the word "cheap," which is the rating of quality. Avoid cheap airplanes. Fly inexpensive ones all you can. There's a big difference.

Flying conventional gear isn't a superhuman feat. It can prove a bit less forgiving of poor technique or error, but there's far too much legend and lore flying about and too little truth. Tricycle gear tends to permit laziness, whereas conventional gear requires you to stay with the airplane throughout the landing and ground operation, instead of leaving the cockpit for a sailboat in the Bahamas, the moment the mains touch down.

A taildragger has no tailwheel; it has a skid. Conventional gear uses a tailwheel.

https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/t...eel-plane.html

JayMahon 02-07-2019 09:54 AM

Any thoughts as to if you think the tailwheel endorsement will be a plus on the resume/interview process?

JohnBurke 02-07-2019 09:56 AM

None, whatsoever. Nobody will ever ask, unless you're applying for a job that flies conventional gear.

It can prove to be an ice breaker when your interview begins with a logbook review, and your logbook has a picture of a unique airplane that you've flown.

A conventional gear endorsement really has no place on your resume, unless you're applying for a conventional gear job, in which case you're expected to know what you're doing, and the endorsement is a formality that you should already have.

I don't have a conventional gear endorsement. Nobody has ever asked if I have one. Or cared.

An endorsement is not a rating.

JayMahon 02-07-2019 09:59 AM


Originally Posted by JohnBurke (Post 2759114)
None, whatsoever. Nobody will ever ask, unless you're applying for a job that flies conventional gear.

It can prove to be an ice breaker when your interview begins with a logbook review, and your logbook has a picture of a unique airplane that you've flown.

Also looking at getting some time in a pontoon seaplane. I'm hoping a diversity of experience in aircraft will be of some help in my skill development as well as in the interview/hiring process. Are these just icebreakers at best? Does a pattern of variety of aircraft help at all?

JohnBurke 02-07-2019 10:07 AM

Help with what?

No, they're not icebreakers. They're aircraft. They're experience.

What you do with that experience is up to you.

If you're talking about airline applications, there's really no place to list float or conventional gear experience, nor will anyone care. Single engine or multi engine, turbine or not. That's about it.

I learned to fly in a J-3 cub. I took my commercial checkride in a seaplane. Flying floats is about as much fun and enjoyment as one can have in a light airplane, with clothes on.

Again, it's experience. What you do with it is up to you.

While an endorsement won't show up on your applications or most of the time on a resume, a seaplane rating will. Few will care, though.

Excargodog 02-07-2019 10:13 AM


Originally Posted by JayMahon (Post 2759118)
Does a pattern of variety of aircraft help at all?

Absolutely.

IF it is multi engine, turbine, or requires a type-rating. Otherwise it's just hours.

TiredSoul 02-07-2019 06:05 PM

Varying your experience is always a good thing.
Anything that enhances your skill is also a good thing.

rickair7777 02-07-2019 08:44 PM


Originally Posted by TiredSoul (Post 2759545)
Varying your experience is always a good thing.
Anything that enhances your skill is also a good thing.

Yes, if you have nothing else to do this weekend go for it.

But as others have said, if time and money is limited, might be better spent on more career-specific training.

Also careful taking GA checkrides which you don't have to take... a random GA bust will follow you forever, and impact your career progression.

JohnBurke 02-07-2019 10:26 PM

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 02-07-2019 10:30 PM


Originally Posted by rickair7777 (Post 2759631)
But as others have said, if time and money is limited, might be better spent on more career-specific training.

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.


Originally Posted by rickair7777 (Post 2759631)
Also careful taking GA checkrides which you don't have to take... a random GA bust will follow you forever, and impact your career progression.

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 02-07-2019 10:39 PM

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 02-08-2019 05:12 AM

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 02-08-2019 05:28 AM

Land a tricycle gear airplane: flare.

Land a conventional gear airplane three-point: flare.

Not really a radical difference there.

JamesNoBrakes 02-08-2019 05:37 AM


Originally Posted by JohnBurke (Post 2759749)

Land a conventional gear airplane three-point

But where's the fun in that?

rickair7777 02-08-2019 05:41 AM


Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine (Post 2759657)
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.

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


Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine (Post 2759657)
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.

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 02-08-2019 05:45 AM


Originally Posted by JohnBurke (Post 2759749)
Land a tricycle gear airplane: flare.

Land a conventional gear airplane three-point: flare.

Not really a radical difference there.

Incorrect.

JohnBurke 02-08-2019 07:22 AM


Originally Posted by deus ex machina (Post 2759760)
Incorrect.

Do tell. Do tell.


Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes (Post 2759752)
But where's the fun in that?

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 02-08-2019 08:08 AM

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....

JamesNoBrakes 02-08-2019 10:03 AM


Originally Posted by JohnBurke (Post 2759854)

Wheel landings are easy.

Wheel landings are where you do things different with the elevator, that’s where the fun is.

JohnBurke 02-08-2019 11:08 AM

Not really that different. Wheel landings are simply putting it on the mains. Tricycle gear aircraft are always landed on the mains, or should be. Again, not really anything significantly different.

Wheel landings tend to be easier, and offer the most control, especially in a crosswind, and are harder to screw up, and a lot more tolerant if one isn't properly aligned on landing, as some tend not to be. The wheel landing has the greater opportunity to recover if mistakes are made, and gives time to adjust before landing the tail. Easy.

If one makes a mistake when landing three point, one is out of options other than brakes, and with must of the aerodynamic leverage gone, can get into trouble if ham-fisted.

In general, especially in light airplanes, there's not much difference in operating a tricycle gear vs. a conventional gear airplane, and once airborne, zilch. Taxiing, it varies with the aircraft, just as it does with tricycle gear airplanes.

JamesNoBrakes 02-08-2019 03:10 PM


Originally Posted by JohnBurke (Post 2759988)
Not really that different. Wheel landings are simply putting it on the mains. Tricycle gear aircraft are always landed on the mains, or should be. Again, not really anything significantly different.

Wheel landings tend to be easier, and offer the most control, especially in a crosswind, and are harder to screw up, and a lot more tolerant if one isn't properly aligned on landing, as some tend not to be. The wheel landing has the greater opportunity to recover if mistakes are made, and gives time to adjust before landing the tail. Easy.

If one makes a mistake when landing three point, one is out of options other than brakes, and with must of the aerodynamic leverage gone, can get into trouble if ham-fisted.

In general, especially in light airplanes, there's not much difference in operating a tricycle gear vs. a conventional gear airplane, and once airborne, zilch. Taxiing, it varies with the aircraft, just as it does with tricycle gear airplanes.

This depends heavily on forward pressure on the yoke after the wheels touch, which is "opposite" of what you've done on every conventional wheel aircraft landing. It causes bounces and crashes in some cases when people try to "teach themselves" how to land in a tailwheel, this has to be "re-wired". This procedure is quite different than what you do when landing a conventional gear aircraft. It's very "opposite" of what you do on a conventional gear aircraft landing.

JohnBurke 02-08-2019 04:30 PM


Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes (Post 2760151)
This depends heavily on forward pressure on the yoke after the wheels touch, which is "opposite" of what you've done on every conventional wheel aircraft landing. It causes bounces and crashes in some cases when people try to "teach themselves" how to land in a tailwheel, this has to be "re-wired". This procedure is quite different than what you do when landing a conventional gear aircraft. It's very "opposite" of what you do on a conventional gear aircraft landing.

You're overthinking it. There's nothing to rewire.

It's a bit like the whole dead-foot dead-engine and tail-rises, head-falls bull **** that does little more than confuse people.

One flares into a wheel landing, but just until the fusalge is level. It's no different than landing anything else, but just a bit flatter. Instead of continuing to pull back until the nose is pointing at the sky, one approaches the runway, typically nose toward the runway, and pulls back gently in a flare until level as the mains kiss. That's a wheel landing.

If you're approaching the runway in a nose up attitude and touching the mains, then rolling it onto the mains, that's not a wheel landing. That's a half-baked three point that is cheated into a quasi-wheel landing. In reality, it's just sloppy.

As the aircraft slows, one can keep the tail in the air by maintaing or increasing forward pressure, adding a bit of power, etc, but that's not necessary, and in a crosswind, can prove hazardous if one waits until the stick is full forward and the tail is out of airflow and energy before attempting to transition to a three point attitude. It's quite intuitive: just land the tail; it's not contrary to what one has learned. Simply by applying a bit of back pressure or by not applying forward pressure, the tail comes down, and one can moderate it as needed. Nothing to complicate there unless one tries to teach that it's a new skill...which it isn't.

We land a nosewheel, we land a tailwheel. Same thing. Lower it smoothly to the ground.

If you happen to be flying an airplane with a lockable tailwheel that relies on forward stick to unlock the tailwheel, as many do, then by applying the logic of forward stick, you may develop a dangerous condition in some aircraft by unlocking the tailwheel before the aircraft is slow enough to taxi. Try that in an older Air Tractor 502/602/802, and you're going to be in for a very rude awakening. The tailwheel will spin violently and you can easily end up in the weeds.

If the airplane is treated like any other, then that isn't a problem.

A wheel landing is a round-out that transitions from nose down to level as the mains touch, and little more. Again, if one is in the habit of touching nose up, tail low and rolling it back up on the mains, it's just sloppy, and you'e working too hard to accomplish nothing. If that's the case, you might as well flare just a bit faster, hold it off, and three point it.

You shouldn't have to depend "heavily" on forward pressure after you touch, or pinning the main gear, but if you choose to do so, then it's still intuitive. Push forward on the stick to drive the nose down; works the same in flight as rolling on the mains. No new skill there, nothing new under the sun.

A student can easily get familiar with a flared landing attitude in a tricycle gear airplane by tying the tail down, sitting in the airplane, and looking at the sight picture. I used to do it all the time with primary students. Likewise, a student can see a two-point wheel landing attitude in a conventional gear airplane by putting the tailwheel on a sawhorse or truck bed (depending on aircraft type), and sitting in the airplane. What you see then is what you see landing. No mystery, nothing new.

TiredSoul 02-08-2019 05:47 PM

Why is this going on and on and on?
Jeez, enjoy your time building in whatever you choose.
Tailwheel is fun but there’s no fun column in your logbook.

Retired56 02-08-2019 06:42 PM

Do it
 
Completely worth it. Is does require enhanced skill and will make you better. Anyone can be a mediocre tricycle pilot their entire career. You have to have an elevated level level of skill to fly a taildragger and it is directly transferable to flying at the airlines. For those who say it's not important probably are mediocre at best, land sideways and went to Embry Riddle. They probably clapped as a kid while riding in the back of an airliner too. I have a tailwheel collumn in my logbook and have been asked about it at two airlines and several other job interviews. If you have the opportunity do it! Or you could be another of the 100,000 airline pilots in the U.S. who think they're the bestist pilot in all of Atlanta that think through these doors walk the greatest airplane pointers in their own minds...

JohnBurke 02-08-2019 08:15 PM

There it is, the myth at work.

That old "real men fly taildraggers" chestnut.

Retired56 02-08-2019 08:16 PM


Originally Posted by rickair7777 (Post 2759631)
Yes, if you have nothing else to do this weekend go for it.

But as others have said, if time and money is limited, might be better spent on more career-specific training.

Also careful taking GA checkrides which you don't have to take... a random GA bust will follow you forever, and impact your career progression.

This is some of the goofiest advice I've heard for years in the airlines...

No, many airline pilots have failed a checkride somewhere along their progression. Don't fear a failure. If you're in the industry chances are the guy sitting next to you has failed something. I mean don't be lazy and not put in the effort, but Jesus this is crap. Just be humble when it comes up in the interview.

Retired56 02-08-2019 08:45 PM


Originally Posted by JohnBurke (Post 2760315)
There it is, the myth at work.

That old "real men fly taildraggers" chestnut.

I mean they do so...

Those "Sloppy" wheel landings you speak of are the preferred method for landing off airport, in fact my insurance speaks highly of that technique. That technique requires a low energy wheel landing, dumping the flaps with heavy brakes, the tail up and full aft elevator. From your other post your tail wheel experience or the way you learned were basic at best?
A big misconception is that wheel landings offer better control... until you're slow while lowering the tail. I like to land 3 point in winds... the steary thing in the back is on the ground giving much better control than any wheel landing.

Tail wheel does require an endorsement because it is a different animal. Although I agree it's easy, it definitely takes advanced training to learn the new skill set.

JohnBurke 02-08-2019 09:02 PM

My comments are based on several decades of flying conventional gear aircraft professionally, but perhaps I missed something along the way...like the tailwheel endorsement I never needed and don't have.

Whether it's the J3 I learned in or the various horizontally opposed, radial, and turboprop conventional gear aircraft that I've been flying for the better part of four decades now, I'm always happy to learn something new.

I guarantee I won't be learning it in this thread, though.

And yes, if you have to land tail low for a wheel landing and then roll it back up on to the mains, it's sloppy flying. This is true on grass, sand, rocks, dirt, where ever.

No, it's not advanced training or advanced flying.

My tailwheel experience and training is basic at best, is it? How many years have you been flying conventional gear airplanes in formation under powerlines, down into forest fires, flying aerobatics, doing back country flying, pest control, seeding, spraying, and working conventional gear airplanes around the globe? At what point, pray tell and how many more decades, does it no longer become basic? Is there possibly light at the end of the tunnel when school gets out and I can actually start, or will it be basic and unlearned for...another few decades?

Your first three posts, too.

2StgTurbine 02-08-2019 09:16 PM

I wish I had a nickle for every time John Burke had to prove how great of a pilot he is.

JohnBurke 02-08-2019 09:52 PM

Your words, not mine. I made no such claim, in any way, shape, or form.

When a poster on his first opens by telling me how much he can teach me because I never learned the basics, I do have to wonder at what point I'll actually reach that coveted milestone.

2StgTurbine 02-08-2019 10:05 PM

Just look at you posting history. For every well worded post you have, there is another one where you come off as condescending. And every thread you are in has at least one post where you talk about how many decades you have been flying and what type of flying you have done. Those posts undercut all of your good ones.

You don't have to "win" every internet battle.

JohnBurke 02-09-2019 05:01 AM

We're talking about conventional gear flying, and apparently, so sloppy technique.

JayMahon 02-11-2019 04:36 AM


Originally Posted by JohnBurke (Post 2760343)
My comments are based on several decades of flying conventional gear aircraft professionally, but perhaps I missed something along the way...like the tailwheel endorsement I never needed and don't have.

Did you have PIC time in a conventional aircraft prior to April 15th, 1991?

JohnBurke 02-12-2019 01:20 AM


Originally Posted by JayMahon (Post 2761616)
Did you have PIC time in a conventional aircraft prior to April 15th, 1991?

I did, which is why I didn't get a tailwheel endorsement.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:58 AM.


User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands