Tail dragger endorsement hurts airline job prospect?

[CDNPilotDave]

Seriously?

Seriously???

:banghead:

Where do these ideas come from? Sorry to pick on you, CDNPilotDave, but numerous other posters have explained why this logic is completely false. I don't understand why these myths persist.

For the knowledgable, don't take this literally. The question that Beasly asked shows limited experience. I was simply trying to pass on an attitude of "staying ahead of the airplane". There are a lot of "tricks" one can use to instruct others. If a "fear" (again, don't take fear literally - awareness with an edge - might be better) of either gear up or ground loop is instilled early then maybe instinctively, appropriate rudder input or gear down checks before landing will prevent these situations. The idea comes from a 20K plus hour instructor of mine who told me the "gear up myth" early on in my training. To this day, at FAF, 1000' AGL, 500' AGL and prior to touchdown, this fable makes me check my wheels (even on a fixed gear airplane) and thus, put off my gear up landing to the next flight.

I don't take it as "picking on me" at all. BTW, the statistical independence of flights and all that is not lost on me. I have a degree in mathematics.

:banghead: :banghead:

 

[jonnydwolf]

The first airliners were tail draggers. :bandit:

 

[jrh]

There are a lot of "tricks" one can use to instruct others. If a "fear" (again, don't take fear literally - awareness with an edge - might be better) of either gear up or ground loop is instilled early then maybe instinctively, appropriate rudder input or gear down checks before landing will prevent these situations. The idea comes from a 20K plus hour instructor of mine who told me the "gear up myth" early on in my training. To this day, at FAF, 1000' AGL, 500' AGL and prior to touchdown, this fable makes me check my wheels (even on a fixed gear airplane) and thus, put off my gear up landing to the next flight.

Ok, I see what you're saying, but I still don't like it. I've seen this myth passed on so often, I'd rather it go away entirely, regardless of how educational it might be for some.

When I hear the saying I think of fate, losing control, inevitability, resignation, and all kinds of other negative traits for a pilot to believe in. I consider it a flawed way of thinking no matter how it's applied. I'd rather teach a person to take charge, make good decisions, and understand they control their own destiny rather than simply delay the inevitable for one more flight.

Beyond underlying mental attitudes from these myths, they don't do anything to teach a true understanding of the risks involved. Your example of checking gear down on a fixed gear aircraft is a perfect example of this. It's a memorized response that does nothing to enhance the safety of the flight. There's no thinking involved, only worrying.

When I do complex endorsement training with people I try to show them how gear up landings usually happen when a pilot is distracted or thrown out of their routine. I emphasize the importance of procedures and discipline, especially during arrival to an airport, to keep from getting distracted. That way when they're on their own and see themselves going down the accident chain...busy airspace, controllers talking, looking for traffic, dealing with pax...they become more aware of landing gear up and stick to the procedure. They see the risks, think about them, and do something about it. They don't have a blind fear of being "that guy" and needlessly check things over and over out of paranoia.

The same idea can be applied to tailwheel operations. Pilots shouldn't be concerned about a ground loop sneaking up out of nowhere and biting them. They should look at their experience in the aircraft, weather conditions, runway conditions, and any other pertinent factors to decide if it's safe or not.

 

[Boris Badenov]

If you're avoiding doing something cool and fun because you're worried about screwing up your eventual, putative career prospects: Brother, you are in the wrong job. If you want the "safe route" to four bars and a shiny jet, go to Gulfstream and try not to kill anyone when you get out. If you want to be a pilot, fly cool planes as fast and as much as you can, make some mistakes, and learn how where your boundaries lie. I'm not Bob Hoover, nor even Han Solo, but I've flown taildraggers and other assorted "accident prone" aircraft/operations and I've yet to scuff the paint on an airplane (knock on wooden head). If I did, anyone I'd want to work for would see it as a "good story" and a chance to explain what I'd learned. Because good employers (like good pilots) realize that the most dangerous pilot is the one who's either afraid of something new or unexpected, or so confident that they're afraid of nothing. Exist in the middle and you will be Jedi. (/Obi Wan)

 

[Cptnchia]

Every one says get it. So do I. In my interview with Delta, the captain saw that I fly a Luscombe on the side and kept asking me about it, to the point that the HR lady had to move the interview along. That and the dead body on the runway story were what got me in.

 

[Douglas]

Along a long enough time line (hours), of course you have a very very good chance of ground looping and having gear problems.

People tend to jump on this adage a lot here.
That's really unnecessary

adage |ˈadij|
noun
a proverb or short statement expressing a general truth : the old adage “out of sight out of mind.” See note at saying

-------
Nobody saying it is a law of nature.

 

[TXaviator]

dont fly taildraggers.

in fact, if you have an extra, sukhoi, pitts or anything with more than 1 wing, please contact me asap and ill GLADLY take that death machine off your hands.

 

[ChasenSFO]

I dunno about some of you guys, but I'm getting a tail dragger endorsement very soon after I earn my private, looking forward to it.

 

[beasly]

......That and the dead body on the runway story were what got me in.

Please elaborate!

opcorn:

 

[Joe Gremlin]

Along a long enough time line (hours), of course you have a very very good chance of ground looping and having gear problems.

Likewise, along a long enough time line (hours), of course you a very very good chance of having a mechanic issue in flight which will kill you. But no one seems to like or want to believe the adage about how there are those who have gotten themselves killed in airplanes and those that will. I'm just sayin'. Come to think of it, I've never heard anyone say that there are those who have won the powerball lottery, and those that will. And yet, that is clearly true as well. Hmm....

 

[Holocene]

Where do these ideas come from?

Math.

It's absolutely accurate that you'll eventually crash an airplane, sooner or later. Fortunately the odds are low enough that most pilots never do it in a lifetime. But there is no way you can fly indefinitely and never crash.

 

[Cptnchia]

Please elaborate!

opcorn:

It's a long story, suitable for over drinks, but it's also the night I met my wife.

 

[CDNPilotDave]

When I hear the saying I think of fate, losing control, inevitability, resignation, and all kinds of other negative traits for a pilot to believe in. I consider it a flawed way of thinking no matter how it's applied. I'd rather teach a person to take charge, make good decisions, and understand they control their own destiny rather than simply delay the inevitable for one more flight.

You have the right to your opinion. I respect that. My perspective is that the PTS doesn't have a measurement for decision making. One can pass a checkride and not have to make certain crucial decisions. If training time could be infinite then sure teach a student to take charge, make good decisions, understand etc. You'd have the luxury of time. The FOI addresses this in levels of learning. First comes rote. Very few initial Private Pilots evolve past rote in all aspects of flight. I'd say in the majority of cases, by the time they earn their PPC, are just beyond dangerous. Think about it. Ever make any boneheaded choices early on? I did. Fortunately I was able to deal with it/them (won't reveal if it was ever more than once ). After a person figures everything out then they can dispense with the associated myth and go forward with comprehension and understanding.

Beyond underlying mental attitudes from these myths, they don't do anything to teach a true understanding of the risks involved. Your example of checking gear down on a fixed gear aircraft is a perfect example of this. It's a memorized response that does nothing to enhance the safety of the flight. There's no thinking involved, only worrying.

No absolutely, these myths or fables don't teach a "true" understanding but I disagree that it does nothing to enhance the safety of the flight. One has to go from rote to comprehension to application to ... before the real understanding happens. If a regular procedure is routinized then when the proverbial fecal matter is being randomly spread with an air circulator, more brain cells are available to trouble shoot. I wouldn't want someone "thinking" about extending the gear prior to landing. Just do it. Spend time thinking about what to do if it doesn't extend.

 

[beasly]

It's a long story, suitable for over drinks, but it's also the night I met my wife.

Love, suspicious death, airplanes....

sounds like that Cary Grant/Alfred Hitchcock movie--North By Northwest.

opcorn:

 

[Cptnchia]

Love, suspicious death, airplanes....

sounds like that Cary Grant/Alfred Hitchcock movie--North By Northwest.

opcorn:

Unfortunately I probably look more like Alfred Hitchcock than Cary Grant.

 

[Orange Anchor]

I had a hunch about that.

My dream is to fly a DC-3 (and a mustang and a harvard and grovesner's house and a husky.....)

I know a few guy who have T-6s and they say the Mustang is a nice little lead-in airplane to learn how to fly the T-6.

 

[jrh]

Math.

It's absolutely accurate that you'll eventually crash an airplane, sooner or later. Fortunately the odds are low enough that most pilots never do it in a lifetime. But there is no way you can fly indefinitely and never crash.

Math is exactly what proves the myth to *not* be true.

See my example of rolling dice I posted above. Every flight is independent of all other flights.

 

[jrh]

You have the right to your opinion. I respect that. My perspective is that the PTS doesn't have a measurement for decision making. One can pass a checkride and not have to make certain crucial decisions. If training time could be infinite then sure teach a student to take charge, make good decisions, understand etc. You'd have the luxury of time. The FOI addresses this in levels of learning. First comes rote. Very few initial Private Pilots evolve past rote in all aspects of flight. I'd say in the majority of cases, by the time they earn their PPC, are just beyond dangerous. Think about it. Ever make any boneheaded choices early on? I did. Fortunately I was able to deal with it/them (won't reveal if it was ever more than once ). After a person figures everything out then they can dispense with the associated myth and go forward with comprehension and understanding.



No absolutely, these myths or fables don't teach a "true" understanding but I disagree that it does nothing to enhance the safety of the flight. One has to go from rote to comprehension to application to ... before the real understanding happens. If a regular procedure is routinized then when the proverbial fecal matter is being randomly spread with an air circulator, more brain cells are available to trouble shoot. I wouldn't want someone "thinking" about extending the gear prior to landing. Just do it. Spend time thinking about what to do if it doesn't extend.

I don't see any reason why a private pilot can't progress beyond rote learning in most areas of flying before getting their certificate. Teaching these myths will only hold them back. If something isn't true, I don't think it should be taught. Simple as that. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Holocene]

Math is exactly what proves the myth to *not* be true.

See my example of rolling dice I posted above. Every flight is independent of all other flights.

I disagree.

Would you seriously argue that between a pilot that flies every day, and a pilot that flies once a year, they both have an equal chance of crashing in a given year?

Of course not. The pilot that flies every day is at a far greater risk of experiencing a crash within a 1-year period.

This is not because the risks associated with each flight have a cumulative effect (they don't). It is because each flight is a repeated exposure to that risk, however small. From a mathematical standpoint, this means that more flights raise the probability of experiencing a crash. This is not the same as a cumulative effect.

Each toss of a die may only yield a 16.6% chance of rolling a given number, no matter how many times it is rolled. But your chances of rolling that number are still going to increase if you allow yourself a higher number of rolls.

 

[Joe Gremlin]

I disagree.

Would you seriously argue that between a pilot that flies every day, and a pilot that flies once a year, they both have an equal chance of crashing in a given year?

Of course not. The pilot that flies every day is at a far greater risk of experiencing a crash within a 1-year period.

This is not because the risks associated with each flight have a cumulative effect (they don't). It is because each flight is a repeated exposure to that risk, however small. From a mathematical standpoint, this means that more flights raise the probability of experiencing a crash. This is not the same as a cumulative effect.

Each toss of a die may only yield a 16.6% chance of rolling a given number, no matter how many times it is rolled. But your chances of rolling that number are still going to increase if you allow yourself a higher number of rolls.

But flying an airplane is not rolling a die, i.e. it is not something which requires zero skill and has a result which is completely chance. If one pilot flys every day, and another pilot flys only once a year, the guy who flys only once a year stands a greater chance of bending some metal over time because his proficiency will be much lower.