Tail dragger endorsement hurts airline job prospect?

For the OP,
I have heard the same thing before, wait until you are in the left seat of your desired job before you fly a taildragger.

If I had the opportunity to do it, I would but at the same token I would take into account the less forgiving nature of a TW airplane. I would set pretty high personal minimums (IE I wouldn't go close to max demonstrated xwind) until I knew I could handle it. But I wouldn't let it stop me.
 
granlistillo said:
For the OP,
I have heard the same thing before, wait until you are in the left seat of your desired job before you fly a taildragger.

If I had the opportunity to do it, I would but at the same token I would take into account the less forgiving nature of a TW airplane. I would set pretty high personal minimums (IE I wouldn't go close to max demonstrated xwind) until I knew I could handle it. But I wouldn't let it stop me.
Click to expand...
Fly the plane correctly and you won't have a problem.

Being afraid of the airplane IS the problem. You are the pilot, you fly the airplane, it does not get to fly you.

Go get the tailwheel, it's far too much fun not to. TW flying is a very pure and exacting type of flying. Anyone who wouldn't hire you because of a TW endorsement isn't someone you want to be working for anyway.
 
Joe Gremlin said:
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.
Click to expand...


True, the die is not the best example. I was simply using it to illustrate that the probability of something happening can increase without the events having a cumulative effect.

There are so many variables involved in calculating the risks associated with each flight, that in practice it's essentially impossible to reduce it to a simple number. But the risks are still there, and I will still maintain that repeated exposure = higher probability that the risk will eventually materialize. To me that fact seems pretty cut and dried; maybe others will disagree.

btw, I'm not suggesting any of this should influence a decision to fly a tailwheel plane, etc. In reality, if you're a good pilot, the risks are not nearly large enough to waste time worrying about.
 
Holocene said:
True, the die is not the best example. I was simply using it to illustrate that the probability of something happening can increase without the events having a cumulative effect.

There are so many variables involved in calculating the risks associated with each flight, that in practice it's essentially impossible to reduce it to a simple number. But the risks are still there, and I will still maintain that repeated exposure = higher probability that the risk will eventually materialize. To me that fact seems pretty cut and dried; maybe others will disagree.
Click to expand...

No, no, no! Repeated exposure does not equal higher probability of an incident. It doesn't work that way. If it did, airlines would have a terrible safety record and weekend warriors could buzz their friends for eternity without consequence.

Every flight must be judged on its individual risk factors. If a pilot analyzes the risk factors properly, tell me why an incident *must* eventually happen?

We're not dealing with fate here. We're dealing with a limitless number of individual flights on a case by case basis. There is absolutely no reason why a pilot cannot fly for infinity (that's right, infinity, no limits, forever!) without an incident. I don't know how else to explain it, but I believe this is a critical concept to understand properly. It's the foundation of aeronautical decision making, risk management, crew resource management, etc.

If pilots aren't in control of their own destiny, why bother trying? Why develop good habits? Why not just blast off and hope for the best?
 
One of the worst captains I ever had the displeasure of flying with told me, "It's not a matter of IF you get violated, but WHEN." Of course this individual had a violation on his record. The other one you hear in GA is the gear up, "those who have and those who will." Sorry, but if you REALLY believe that you are just giving yourself a lame excuse to screw the pooch later on.
 
jrh said:
No, no, no! Repeated exposure does not equal higher probability of an incident. It doesn't work that way. If it did, airlines would have a terrible safety record and weekend warriors could buzz their friends for eternity without consequence.

Every flight must be judged on its individual risk factors. If a pilot analyzes the risk factors properly, tell me why an incident *must* eventually happen?

We're not dealing with fate here. We're dealing with a limitless number of individual flights on a case by case basis. There is absolutely no reason why a pilot cannot fly for infinity (that's right, infinity, no limits, forever!) without an incident. I don't know how else to explain it, but I believe this is a critical concept to understand properly. It's the foundation of aeronautical decision making, risk management, crew resource management, etc.

If pilots aren't in control of their own destiny, why bother trying? Why develop good habits? Why not just blast off and hope for the best?
Click to expand...

I'm not for a second suggesting that good habits or practices are in vain. But there are always risks that the pilot simply cannot control.
 
Holocene said:
I'm not for a second suggesting that good habits or practices are in vain.
Click to expand...

But if you follow your philosophy to its logical conclusion, that's where you end up.

Follow my if / then series:

If all pilots eventually get in to accidents, then some accidents must be unpreventable.

If an accident is unpreventable, then no amount of training / caution can stop it.

If no amount of training / caution can stop an accident, then why does training / caution matter?


The logical conclusion is that accidents are outside of our control and training / caution, at some point, become useless. This idea holds hands with the "resignation" hazardous attitude. I think it's a terrible philosophy to hold. In my book, training / caution *always* help to prevent negative outcomes.

Holocene said:
But there are always risks that the pilot simply cannot control.
Click to expand...

Like what?

There's a big difference between saying "I'll accept this risk in order to accomplish my objective" and "This risk is outside of my control."

A pilot has the ability to control every risk. Sometimes controlling the risk is not worth it in the real world, but it's still possible to control it nonetheless.

Again, I'm talking from a philosophical point of view, not necessarily a practical one.
 
Holocene said:
I'm not for a second suggesting that good habits or practices are in vain. But there are always risks that the pilot simply cannot control.
Click to expand...
That's true. If we look only at random mechanical failures which normal MX wouldn't detect or prevent, then yes, if you fly long enough, chances are you'll experience one. But a pilot induced groundloop is not a random mechanical failure. Therefore, a groundloop is a risk that pilot can control. And anyone who says otherwise is giving up too easily.
 
jrh said:
A pilot has the ability to control every risk. Sometimes controlling the risk is not worth it in the real world, but it's still possible to control it nonetheless.

Again, I'm talking from a philosophical point of view, not necessarily a practical one.
Click to expand...


I think we're now on the same page, I hope. A pilot could indeed control every risk associated with a flight, and that would be by not going at all. Ever. As you say, this is not worth it in the real world. I agree 100%.

I see what you're saying about the hazardous thought patterns; it's not a "helpful" conclusion to draw, and in fact serves no purpose to flight safety. But if we're to consider reality just for a second, no, you can NOT fly for an infinite period of time and never crash. You have zero control over birdstrikes, engine failures, center fuel tank explosions, sudden rudder reversal anomalies, complete hydraulic failures, metal debris on the runway, unsecured oxygen generators in the cargo area, or solid-rocket booster O-rings allowing erosion of fuel tanks, EXCEPT by not going at all. You train for it, precisely because you can't prevent it.

I hope we can agree on that, if not we'll agree to disagree.
 
Joe Gremlin said:
That's true. If we look only at random mechanical failures which normal MX wouldn't detect or prevent, then yes, if you fly long enough, chances are you'll experience one. But a pilot induced groundloop is not a random mechanical failure. Therefore, a groundloop is a risk that pilot can control. And anyone who says otherwise is giving up too easily.
Click to expand...


I agree. The original issue of a groundloop is largely something a pilot has the ability to control. It just seemed that some were making the false claim that you can fly indefinitely without experiencing an incident.

Also remember, no matter how well you train, the human mind is not failsafe. The vast majority of crashes are pilot error, not random failures. You can be the best pilot on earth, both you're not going to last for eternity, even if given that chance.
 
Joe Gremlin said:
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....
Click to expand...

Read the definition again, especially the general truth part.


There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots.
:cool:
 
esa17 said:
Fly the plane correctly and you won't have a problem.

Being afraid of the airplane IS the problem. You are the pilot, you fly the airplane, it does not get to fly you.
Click to expand...
You got to be kidding me :confused:
If this is directed at me it is misguided. There is nothing wrong at all, when you start doing something new in aviation to set personal mins. If you equate making a reasoned assessment of your abilities, and weighing the circumstances and making a decision with being "afraid of the airplane" then you need to pick up a book on ADM.
:beer:
 
I just got my ppl. Do you guys think a good next step would be a tail wheel endorsement? I was thinking Instrument but I am in Alaska so tail wheel might be better.
 
planesiscool said:
I just got my ppl. Do you guys think a good next step would be a tail wheel endorsement? I was thinking Instrument but I am in Alaska so tail wheel might be better.
Click to expand...

Tail wheel is a perfectly fine next step.

Tail wheel is just an endorsement, it is a much smaller step.
 
Tail wheel is kinda the opposite of instrument. There is not a lot of new head knowledge and there is a lot of feel and seat of the pants flying involved. Tailwheel would be a good one just after private/before instrument, or even as a break from hood stuff during your instrument training.
 
granlistillo said:
You got to be kidding me :confused:
If this is directed at me it is misguided. There is nothing wrong at all, when you start doing something new in aviation to set personal mins. If you equate making a reasoned assessment of your abilities, and weighing the circumstances and making a decision with being "afraid of the airplane" then you need to pick up a book on ADM.
:beer:
Click to expand...
It was, but only because of the contradictory nature of your statement, I mean no offense.

Personal mins are one thing, avoiding a situation all together because of what "might" happen are another. You know as well as I do when properly trained an airplane is an airplane. It doesn't matter if it is a 1946 J3 Cub or a B-737. When flown the way they are supposed to be, even in the worst conditions, they are still manageable.

I would question the judgment of an applicant who was applying for a position in a passenger aircraft who I found out avoided a tailwheel because of what could happen. We train, and train, and train for what could happen, we don't let it stop us.

There is nothing magical about what we do, except sometimes finding someone to pay us for it.

Again, I mean no offense, I just have a different take on it.
 
A controlled ground loop can be a useful tool as well for extremely short field landings. There are so many great airplanes that the endorsement opens the door to. I could not wait to get mine, and I have never regretted getting it. Most aerobatic planes are conventional gear, and there is nothing better than getting upside down.
 
Orange Anchor said:
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. :D
Click to expand...

Chuck Yeager said the same thing about the mustang at a talk he did in Dallas a while back:cool:

Neighbor has a Harvard, I'd love to get some time in it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top