Once I decided to start flying again, I started reading about current FAA rules. A few things have changed since 1982. Part of being a Private Pilot is having your health checked periodically. In 2011, I visited an FAA Medical Examiner who performed an intensive physical exam and issued a Third Class Medical Certificate. At that time, my main purpose was to use that as an indication of whether I was truly fit to race cars competitively in real life. I was. In addition to racing cars, I did build a nice flight simulator, using Lockheed Martin's Prepar3D software.
But, at my age, I felt that continuing to get my Third Class renewed every two years, in addition having my annual physical with my Primary Care Physician seemed impractical. I later learned about the Sport Pilot License and was intrigued. Hmmm---OK, now this makes sense-let the old man fly a light/slow airplane for fun as long as he able to drive a car. After all, all you need to drive a big motorhome on highways is a driver's license. So I started looking at all the various Light Sport planes. I never really felt comfortable with the thoughts of flying 30-60 year old planes. Most of the Light Sport planes were "new" or at least not much older than 10 years--and affordable. And, welded steel and aluminum structures seemed a lot like race cars---and since I have survived many race car crashes, I felt that these fabric covered steel/aluminum structures were relatively safe. So, three possibilities became interesting. A "new" replica of a Piper Cub by American Legend, a "new" replica of a Piper Cub by Cubcrafters, or a "new" version of the Champ by American Champion. Texas has a special place in my heart, so my first effort to buy a Light Sport involved contact with the American Legend Factory in Texas. As expected--really nice down to earth people and a good quality product. I made a firm offer on an 11 year old plane with low total time. The owner rejected my offer. I decided not to pursue the deal further because the plane was "heavy" allowing only a 400 pound payload. OK, let's go shopping again. This time I found a 10 year old Cubcrafter's Sport Cub for sale that was interesting. Owned by a very competent pilot--always hangared and in very good condition. I concluded the Cubcrafter design with flaps and toe brakes was really what I wanted and it weighed 50 pounds less than the Legend. (The Legend had standard heel brakes and no flaps. And, the Cubcrafter's weight would allow a 450 pound payload.) The seller accepted my $90,000.00 offer, we went thru Aero Tech Escrow Service and the owner delivered the plane (Sierra Charlie) to my rented hangar at Carroll County Airport in Westminster, Maryland on June 14, 2018.
Drew Seguin & Sierra Charlie at Carroll County
Since I already had a Private Pilot License, I only needed two things to fly my plane: 1) A Tail Wheel Endorsement; and 2) A Flight Review. Also, I learned that under the new Basic Med regulations, I could use my regular Primary Care Physician to perform a physical---and then in addition to my own plane, I could also be qualified to fly other (not Light Sport) planes, like a Cessna 172 or a American Champion Decathlon.
While I was "shopping" for a plane, I also started looking for a Certified Flight Instructor to get me the Tail Wheel Endorsement and Flight Review. I was delighted to find Duane Reigle in Palmyra, PA ---about an hour's drive from me. Duane is a Airline Captain flying with Frontier Airlines. His family has owned the 2000 foot grass and asphalt Reigle Airport since the 1940's. He soloed in a Piper Cub in 1980 at age 16. He owned a J3 and a Pitts Bi-Plane. Duane gave me my first "dual" in a tail wheel (The J3 Cub) on May 25, 2018. Unfortunately for me, Duane recently moved to Florida and was unable to give me any more time.
Duane Reigle's Beautiful 1946 J3 Cub
The flight in the J3 was fantastic. We flew ground reference manuevers: follow a winding creek; s-turns about a road; turns about a point, and some stalls. He reviewed airport pattern protocol but did not let me land the plane. I was sure my decision to go with the "Cub" and specifically "Sierra Charlie" was the right one. So, I continued my search for a CFI. Dave Myers at the York, PA airport is an excellent CFI with thousands of hours. My first plan was to rent a hangar at the York Airport (2 miles from my home) and have Dave fly with me in my plane. Unfortunately, the one hangar available was rented to another person over the Memorial Day weekend so my best next choice for a hangar was at Carroll County. (45 minute drive from my home) I just could not stomach the concept of parking my plane outside.
My continued search for a CFI to gain my Tail Wheel Endorsement led me to Joe Gauvreau who flys out of Freeway Airport in Bowie, Maryland. (Two hours drive each way for me.) Joe's Website
Joe is an outstanding pilot who instructs in his beautiful late model American Champion Decathlon.
My first flight with him was on June 2, 2018. My introduction to the famous SFRA Washington Area special flight rules.
Joe is a big fan of "wheel landings" and prefers them much over the more conventional "three point landings" that most other instructors prefer. (I must say, I agree---wheel landings with air flowing over the rudder giving excellent directional control just seems safer than a three point landing which is essentially almost stalling the plane on the runway.)
Joe is a NASA Engineer, but I really felt that we were landing on an aircraft carrier---we approached with a rather steep decent, firmly placed the front wheels on the runway, followed immediately by forward stick to kill the lift and used brakes heavily soon after to stop with lots of runway to spare.
Another Navy analogy--with Joe's teaching style, I felt like a shave tale rookie Ensign right out of the Annapolis Academy (with book learning but not much practical experience) with a old hand Training Flight School Officer barking instructions to me. ("Keep your wings level !" "You're high--slip it !" "Watch your altitude !" "More right rudder !") One thing for sure--you are safe when flying with Joe--he is extremely competent and will keep you from making big mistakes.
I kinda figured that I could learn a lot from Joe, so I would continue with him--hopefully having him honoring me with a Tail Wheel Endorsement. But, since I also needed a Flight Review, I decided to take dual in one of Dave Myer's C172's at York Airport. (Joe for the Tail Wheel Endorsement and Dave for the Flight Review) I also decided to use the new FAA Wings Program for my Flight Review.
So, my first time with Dave was in the C172 on June 4, 2018. Dave's Website
Dave has a different teaching style than Joe. He patiently explained how to work the radio in the pattern at York Airport. By the end of the lesson, I felt very comfortable with the protocols of pattern work.
Landing the tricycle gear C172, was a lot different from the wheel landings in the Decathlon with Joe. But the biggest difference was the C172 has side by side seating vs. tandem seating, and the sight picture is very different. In addition, the C172 uses flaps, which I much prefer over using a side slip necessary in a plane without flaps. We did 7 landings.
I returned to Freeway to work with Joe again on June 6. More of the same round and round in the pattern. Including my first stint, we had now completed 16 wheel landings in the Decathlon.
Like most rusty pilots, these first few hours were a little frustrating. First, I did not execute the landings as well as I would have liked. Second, I really felt that the instructors had little confidence in my ability--so normal self doubt was magnified. (Their barking was a bit distracting...and one thing I have noticed about aging is that multi-tasking takes more concentration--so a chatty instructor can be counterproductive.) The instructors were very kind and sort of encouraging, but their assessment seemed to be: " Your old and rusty. This takes more time than you think." I flew with Dave and Joe again on June 14 and June 16.
To add to the complexity, I applied for insurance with Avemco, and the pre-requisites for me to fly in my plane solo were five hours "dual" and a flight review in my plane or one just like it. Oh my...this is a logistical mountain to climb. My plane will be at an airport 45 minutes away from Dave Myers, who was not too keen on the idea of driving to/from Carroll County. (He is a very busy CFI and the commute was not the best use of his time.) Joe, while very happy to give me instruction at Freeway, was not keen on flying or driving to Carroll County either.
Helpful pilots on the Cubcrafter Forums suggested attending the acclaimed Andover Flight Academy. http://www.andoverflight.com/. The suggestion was to have my plane ferried there and that Damien DelGaizo would fly with me in my plane after I earned my Tail Wheel Endorsement. I called, but Damien never returned calls---either his was busy or uninterested--or maybe even that the operation has been curtained because of Donald Trump's flight to nearby Bedminster, NJ. In any case, dead end--but I did purchase Damien's excellent two videos and learned a lot from them.
Another helpful suggestion from the forum was to visit Jacksonville, FL and fly with Dana Holladay in a Cubcrafter's Sport Cub just like mine! Well, Dana and his Wife, Merideth who run Holladay Aviation were most welcoming. Dana cleared his schedule and I flew to Jacksonville flying with Dana on June 20. http://www.holladayaviation.com/
We completed 3.5 hours of flying. It was great. Dana is another extraordinary pilot. His flying and the Sport Cub's performance were truly impressive. (I hope I can fly the Sport Cuib as well as Dana someday.) He prefers three point landings, so we did many of those in the pattern at tower controlled Jacksonville Executive Airport, as well as Fernandina Beach and a beautiful 3500 foot grass strip at Hilliard. He introduced me to the use of the GPS (same as in my plane) and I became very comfortable with the Sport Cub. One surprise--he did not want to use flaps or brakes.
Dana's Sport Cub
Only one problem--the plane developed a mechanical issue with the throttle. My fault---on my last landing I bounced and when Dana added power to recover, I restrained the throttle with my locked hand and the linkage between the front and rear bent a bit. It then wanted to stick in the full throttle position.
Probably safe to fly, but I had carefully written a list of "Personal Minimums" which included a "Do not fly with ANY know mechanical defects-EVER".
The plane was scheduled to be down for it's Annual inspection the next week, and the repair would need more than a few hours to complete--so we decided to end the training session and I returned home. (During this dilemma, I had a strong feeling that God had a purpose for this delay--His timetable was a bit different than mine.)
I was anxious to fly my Sierra Charlie and Joe was gracious enough to fly up to Carroll County on June 30. We did 10 landings and flew for 2 hours, completing the "5 hours and flight review in the Sport Cub" Avemco insurance requirements. Hurray!
But wait----still no Tail Wheel endorsement and no Flight Review as a Private Pilot flying a non Light Sport like the C172 or Decathlon. How much more flying time? I now have 11.6 hours dual in a Tail Wheel Plane, with 69 landings to a full stop--wheel and three point. (13.6 hours of total dual in 2018.) Some claim that you need one hour of dual for every year since you last flew as Pilot in Command. (Yikes, for me that would be 30 hours of dual!) I am not sure I agree with that, but I do expect to continue using CFI instruction in my plane for at least another 10-20 hours---I just would like to be able to at least fly my plane to the instructor as: 1) Very difficult to find a CFI that will commute to my plane; and 2) Limited number of CFI's that want to fly in the back of my plane, or CFI's that are slim and light in weight enough--so I need to make it time efficient for those that are willing and able by flying the plane to them. So, I need to be able to solo my plane. It is amazing that there is such a shortage of hangars and how few flight schools offer a tail wheel in their fleet. You may also find that even some that do have a tail wheel have a business model that is inconsistent with the rusty pilot's requirements. The process of being a rusty pilot is not unlike what I experienced when returning to auto racing after a 20 year hiatus. I had a Class B FIA License (Indy Car level) , SCCA Pro License and a NASCAR Gold (Winston Cup) License, but when reappying for a National Amateur SCCA License, I was told I would have to go back to drivers school as if I had never driven a race car before! Sometimes when you are old and rusty, like Rodney Dangerfield said, "You just don't get no respect". 😎A fellow racer and pilot, Bruce MacInnes intervened for me I was given my National License after a three day class with the Skip Barber Racing School. Interesting that it seems more difficult to be approved to solo as a rusty private pilot (new to a tail wheel) than it was for me to solo 30+ years ago in a Cessna 152. So, if you are a rusty pilot wanting to fly a tail wheel plane, don't be surprised that you will be expected to demonstrate a much higher level of proficiency than you probably had to show when you first soloed. Next to Plan C.
Time in the airplane with a CFI is invaluable, but using other resources will accelerate your learning and vastly increase your knowledge. (Many disagree, so this is according to my personal experience.) Perhaps the most underappreciated tool is the computer based fight simulator. Expensive, full motion simulators are used for training for commercial air liners. PC based systems (without motion) are available for general aviation at a reasonable price. Xplane and Prepar3D (Lockheed Martin) have excellent software. And if you invest in really good rudder pedals along with basic joystick and sliding throttle, the flight experience is quite realistic. I set up a simple system at my desk. Biggest expense is a powerful GPU and Redbird rudder pedals. I used the J3 Cub, running in Prepar3D software. (see pics) Don't skimp on the rudder pedals--it is really important that they be "realistic" if you are learning to fly a tail wheel plane.
My modified "Cub J3" stick/rudder simulator
You will note that during the time I accumulated 11.6 hours of real life "dual" with CFI's, making 69 landings, I also accumulated 50+ hours and 776 landings on my simulator. (See below) Over the next week and a half, I added another 10 hours and 100 landings. Some real advantages is you can learn various airports (almost all of them are in the database) and you can change crosswinds. In addition, practicing stalls, spins, recovery from unusual attitudes, as well as emergency landings is not scary. The FAA will not acknowledge time in a simulator for your training, and many CFI's will roll their eyes, but it is still valuable. I set up the views so I could read the gauges and view the plane's attitude when making videos. I use a video capture software (Mirillis Action!) to make short youtube videos for review.
Youtube videos are also a valuable resource. In additon to Damien DelGaizo's (Andover Flight Academy) videos I purchased, I have watched literally hundreds of other free "training" videos on Youtube. Nearly every tail wheel pilot I have spoken with had read Stick and Rudder: An Explanation of the Art of Flying by Wolfgang Langewiesche. The concept of "Angle of Attack" dominates in his book, and he goes into long discussions about flying fundamentals. It is a thinking man's approach to flying. I read it carefully and repeatedly. Still, after all this instruction, I am still less than 100% comfortable with my landings. So I keep seeking more info. Maybe another instruction program. Maybe more videos. Maybe another book. Enter, Jim Alsip at Dylan Aviation in Florida. Jim's Website I had watched several of Jim's "Hangar Talk" videos on Youtube. So, I gave him a call. He answered on the second ring and graciously spent several minutes with me. In addition to suggesting that he would be happy to have me visit and train with him, he also suggested that I read his book/s. I purchased his Flying the Tailwheel Airplane book on Amazon and loaded it on my Kindle. Wow! Eureka! After reading his book, the "secret" that I had been missing in my understanding regarding landings was discovered! From Jim's book (pg 51):
And, he teaches that the "sight picture" will identify that you are in the proper flight attitude for each "phase". Typically, the "Glide" calls for a slight nose down attitude. The "Roundout" is where the plane is placed in a neutral flight attitude, about the same sight picture as when taking off with the tail up. These two phases are almost the same whether you are doing a power off wheel landing or a three point--the difference is how you slow down the rate of the decent in the "Flare"---with power in the wheel landing (followed by stick forward once the wheels touch) or by back pressure on the stick raising the nose for three point. Read the whole book, but this is the part that helped me the most. Timing of the "Roundout" is perhaps the most difficult thing to learn or judge, but to me, the consequence of being early is simply that you use more runway as you "float" further. (Doing it late can be bad---that will often cause the dreaded tail wheel "bounce".) So, be sure you are landing at airports with a bit of extra runway when you are learning and move to shorter runways when you have more practice. The two pics below show the "Sight Picture" for a wheel landing. Note the distance from the cowl to horizon is the same for level flight, just after "Roundout" and just after "Touchdown" with immediate forward stick pressure. They are the same. The plane descends slowly with the same level flight attitude and same forward speed.
The different two pictures below are for a three point landing---note that the sight picture changes as you raise the nose slowly and gradually as the plane sinks the last few feet. The plane slows and attitude is changed to more nose up as the plane descends from Roundout through this "Flare" to "Touchdown". The "classic" instruction about three points is generally, something like "try not to land" or "hold it off the runway as long as you can" but those concepts never worked for me. As soon as I focused on the changing attitude as depicted by the changing sight picture, it made sense. To do a wheel landing, you start from a level attitude at "Roundout", then use back stick pressure (gradual movement) to raise the nose and slow the plane in the "Flare" before touchdown--the cowl starts level with horizon and then rises. If you try to make this happen too fast, then you will gain altitude and if fail to adjust, you could stall and land hard or worse, so timing (when to start the process and how fast to raise the nose) is important. So, concentrate on the forward sight picture for attitude and your peripheral vision for descent rate, along with a sense of your speed decreasing--the descent rate will be very slow but constant--if you pull too fast, you will feel and see the plane rising. Focus on slowing the plane, maintaining a slow but constant descent rate and a rising nose high attitude--all at the same time in a coordinated process.
The other advantage of the sight picture is that it forces you to look to the horizon. Some find the wheel landing to be easier because it is sometimes easier to control the sink rate with throttle alone when the attitude remains constant--but timing of forward stick upon touchdown is critical or you will bounce. The three point landing requires a coordinated movement of the stick to control sink and speed along with an increasing nose high attitude, timing the touchdown before or at stall. I personally find that the process of controlling the sink rate and speed to be easy, with the timing of getting the nose high right to be a bit difficult---but if your speed and descent rate are low enough, a "tail low" landing a near minimum airspeed is still a pretty stable landing in calm cross winds--the tail will fall very quickly and you won't bounce--it may just produce a small and harmless "hop". A dangerous bounce during a three point landing attempt is mostly caused by too much speed and/or too fast a descent--inertia forces the tail down and there is enough speed to take off. The middle of the three pics above for a three point landing shows a sight picture that happens to be the same as this plane provides when flying a "minimum controllable airspeed" with 1500 rpm "level flight" just above stall speed. So at less than 1500 rpm, this attitude produces a deceleration and a slow descent. So mastering three point attitude is helped if you have practiced slow flight and how the plane feels just before stall. Just as you approach this critical speed, you will "feel" the plane sinking, even with increasing back stick--at that point, you can bring the tail down faster with full stick back on most planes and create a near perfect three point. The Prepar3D sim has been VERY helpful to me. I entered a thread on SuperCub.org and was flamed for questioning several responding members that doubted sims were helpful and even suggested they might be harmful. So ask most high time pilots---and they will tell you that the using a sim is not helpful. This is completely contrary to my experience. To me, practicing slow flight BEFORE you do a lot of landings is important. Obviously, I am in the minority in this view as most of the CFI's I have encountered tend to go right to doing take off and landings. My quest for knowledge continued. I found a website titled Advanced Tailwheel Training. http://advancedtailwheeltraining.com/
I was impressed with the organization of information, it's clarity and analytical approach. A wealth of information on all aspects of flying a tailwheel airplane. Ron Dillard's illustration of the difference between a "Power On" and a "Power Off" wheel landing was particularly illuminating as was his discussion about recovery from a "Nose High Unusual Attitude". His clarification of stall speed and banking angle was also useful. The FAA Wings Program that offers an alternative to the more traditional Flight Review "Ground School" provides a huge library of learning resources. I decided to fully participate in the program--I think it is excellent. One teaching that I found particularly useful is one that reinforced the importance of setting "Personal Minimums" and sticking to them---and changing them perhaps as your skills improve. UPDATE AFTER 6 MONTHS------Note: Keep in mind that I am not a CFI and I am simply sharing information that I have found valuable in my learning process. I repeat...The Prepar3D sim has been VERY helpful to me. You can see that over a six month period, I managed 3000 landings in 147 hours of flying.
Not even figuring plane rental--just fuel and maintenance for 147 hours of flight and 3000 landings would certainly be $7000 in out of pocket costs. So, the sim has saved me money. But most of all, it allows regular practice. I have averaged more than 20 practice landings, 5 days a week, for 26 weeks. I landed at 12 different airports in my flying area---and am now familiar with approach to each. I have practiced my dead reckoning cross country navigation--building confidence. And, since it is a sim, I can practice without fear. Practicing lots of crosswind landings, deadstick emergency landings, low altitude back country type landings--wheel landings, tail low wheel landings, and three point landings. I have practiced short field takeoff and landing techniques. Much more practice than I could have ever experienced in real life. And, I get to practice nearly every day---no matter what the weather is outside. Sure, the J3 in Prepar3D handles differently than my Sport Cub---less power and less sensitive controls--and no vortex generators. But, the basics are there. I see these sim's as very valuable tools to improve and maintain proficiency. In addition, I added Virtual Reality with the Oculus Rift. Increased pixel density so I could read instruments. Pretty amazing---very close to real flight. Only thing missing is the G forces. (Flyinside add-on did not work well for me, but the "standard" Virtual Reality view that Prepar3d v3 provides is quite good--just not as many bells and whistles as what the Flyinside add-on would provide--if it worked on my machine.
The FAA provides a publication titled "Private Pilot-Airplane Airman Certification Standards FAA-S-ACS-6B." (aka PTS) It is a 61 page document that clearly documents the term "proficiency" according to the FAA. The regulations regarding Tail Wheel Endorsement and the WINGS Flight Review refer to these standards. CFR 61.31(i)is the regulation about Tail Wheel Endorsement: "endorsement in the person's logbook from an authorized instructor who found the person proficient in the operation of a tailwheel airplane." The flight training must include at least the following maneuvers and procedures: (i) Normal and crosswind takeoffs and landings; (ii) Wheel landings (unless the manufacturer has recommended against such landings); and (iii) Go-around procedures. The CFI has "discretion" to use his personal judgment regarding additional manuevers to be covered, but the "standards" for each of these is pretty clear and well covered in the PTS. The FAA requires a Flight Review (CFR 61.56) every two years. The FAA WINGS Program is a well organized one that provides a clear set of activities to be completed. A070405-7, A070405-08 and A100125-08. A flight review "consists of a minimum of 1 hour of flight training and 1 hour of ground training. The review must include: (1) A review of the current general operating and flight rules of part 91 of this chapter; and (2) A review of those maneuvers and procedures that, at the discretion of the person giving the review, are necessary for the pilot to demonstrate the safe exercise of the privileges of the pilot certificate. The FAA WINGS Program is a well organized one. It provides on line resources for the "knowledge" and provides a clear set of activities to be completed. A070405-7, A070405-08 and A100125-08. A different CFI can validate each Flight Activity separately. One all three are validated, your flight review is complete.
Flight – perform the following:
Normal Takeoff and Climb
Normal Approach and Landing
Soft-Field Takeoff and Climb
Soft-Field Approach and Landing
Short-Field Takeoff and Maximum Performance Climb
Short-field Approach and Landing
Forward Slip to a Landing
Go-Around/Rejected Landing
Area of Operation VIII, Task A: Maneuvering During Slow Flight
Area of Operation VIII, Task B: Power-Off Stalls
Area of Operation VIII, Task C: Power-On Stalls
Area of Operation IX, Task A: Basic Instrument Maneuvers, Straight-and-Level Flight
Area of Operation IX, Task D: Basic Instrument Maneuvers, Turns to Headings
Area of Operation IX, Task E: Recovery from Unusual Flight Attitudes
Area of Operation IV, Task K: Forward Slip to a Landing
Area of Operation V: Steep Turns
Area of Operation VI, Task A: Rectangular Course
Area of Operation VI, Task B: S-Turns
Area of Operation VI, Task C: Turns Around a Point
Each one of these "Flight Activities" are clearly outlined in the PTS, with clear descriptions of the minimum definition of proficiency. And, for many aspects there are "tolerances" such as "maintain altitude +/- 100 feet and speed +/- 10 knots", "maintain altitude +/- 200 feet and heading +/- 15 degrees", or "touch down within 400 foot beyond specified point" when landing. Many CFI's will expect a higher precision than these standards--be prepared.
What is Proficiency? According to the FAA, proficiency, by definition, "is the state of performing a given skill with expert correctness. Pilot proficiency, therefore, relates to the pilot's ability to perform all tasks associated with the safe conduct of a flight with expert correctness." The next question is, How is expert correctness defined? Since the interpretation of regulations ultimately falls to the legal profession, some insight can be gained by examining the way the legal profession defines proficiency and being an "expert". Each state has a Bar Exam that lawyers must pass with a minimum score in order to "practice" the law. Minimum required scores are in the range of 130-145 of 200. or about 70%. Lawyers are not expected to score 90% + on their exams in order to practice law. So, I would expect that lawyers would also define pilot proficiency as sufficient for "safe conduct of flight". So Pilot Proficiency cannot and does not mean perfection at all times and in all things. I would submit that there is a minimum standard for "safe conduct of flight". (Sort of like the 70% Bar Exam score.) Which to me means: good judgment and knowledge; flying within/below your personal minimums; always choosing to fly with a "margin of safety" rather than trying to "show off" how proficient they are by operating near the limits; maintaining directional control---staying on the runway (not necessarily staying perfectly on the centerline); being able to recognize a mistake quickly and to remedy it in a safe manner. But, of course, even these general descriptions are subject to the arbitrary discretion of the CFI. So, is it necessary for a pilot to make a perfect landing on every attempt? Should a CFI withhold an endorsement because the pilot decided to perform a go around because he was not satisfied with his approach or he made a mistake on the round out or flare? Should a CFI withhold an endorsement because the pilot touched down and rolled out to the left or right of runway centerline, but still remained on the runway? Should a CFI withhold endorsement because the pilot landed with a "hop" or small bounce on landing from which he recovered safely? Should every landing be performed as if it was a short field landing so the plane can exit the runway at the first turnoff? Must the pilot demonstrate proficiency landing in crosswinds at the maximum demonstrated limit for the aircraft?
Under the present regulations, the definition of proficiency is clearly in the eye of the beholder--the CFI. Fair enough, except----my suggestion would be that statistics be maintained as to the actual number of hours required for the CFI to teach and the student to learn and complete the "endorsement" be it the Tail Wheel Endorsement, Flight Review Activities, or any other CFI endorsement. The distribution for these statistics would certainly be similar to the classic "bell curve" as student's abilities vary. But the "mean" would clearly show the difference between the expectations and/or abilities of the CFI. The CFI with requiring near perfection in pilot performance would clearly show a much higher "mean" or average time for the endorsement.
The current system tends to create an environment where there is a huge variance in expectations. There are advertisements suggesting Tail Wheel Endorsement in 5 hours. There are anecdotal stories of "rusty" pilots requiring 30 hours! Often, CFI's will claim the "average" is 10-12 hours and then "hedge" by stating that "of course for some, it takes longer"---often the "average" for that CFI is much higher than 10-12 hours---but there is no way for the student to know and once he reaches the 10-12 hours with no endorsement, he becomes discouraged and frustrated. He is faced with a choice--stay with the one CFI in an open ended program with no clear end, or seek out another CFI and start over. Or, he simply concludes that he "is not good enough" and gives up. (Or in the case of many of the 500,000 "rusty pilots" in the USA, may figure it is just not worth the time, humiliation, frustration and expense.) When training takes longer than expected, one must wonder if the cause is the student's inability to learn or perform, or the CFI's inability to teach...or higher than necessary definitions of "safe conduct of a flight with expert correctness." One should keep in mind that a Tailwheel Endorsement is NOT REQUIRED, if a pilot logged ANY pilot in command time in a tailwheel airplane before April 15, 1991. No doubt, there are many pilots that can legally fly tailwheel airplanes that many CFI's would be hesitant to endorse. Of course, the "elephant in the room" is that actual skill of each "endorsed" pilot can vary greatly and is difficult to measure, so a CFI that consistently endorses with very few hours of instruction might be allowing pilots with lower skill levels to fly. So again, it is important to "define" proficiency and for it to include the pilot having and using "good judgment" so as to avoid situations that he/she cannot yet safely handle. There is no doubt--being a "good" pilot takes lots of practice and never ending learning--not just accumulating hours. Nobody ever becomes a perfect pilot. Continuous learning and continuous improvement with continuous practice is what ultimately makes a good pilot.
I have observed that the backgrounds of CFI's tend to vary quite a bit. But, most "tail wheel" CFI's have a lot of hours--like 10,000 plus lifetime flying hours. Many are retired Airline pilots. Some are retired Corporate pilots. Many have very diverse backgrounds, like being a Ferry and Test pilot. A few have lots of hours actually training.
I have been privileged to work, so far with five really talented pilots. They all have amazing flying skills. The "teaching" and "people" skills of a CFI however are not correlated to hours of flying planes--often a very solitary activity. Being an effective teacher requires knowledge of the subject, but also requires the ability to transfer that knowledge to someone who has much less experience and knowledge. Being a "Sage on Stage" spouting all kinds of "Here is how you do it commentary" and "Watch this and just do the same thing" is not always effective. And, often these "high time" pilots are really offended if you challenge them in any way. I had one CFI flat out tell me that he expected me to "submit to his instruction".
A real problem stems from the fact that there are widely varied opinions on important issues. Not only varied, but downright conflicting opinions---often presented as facts.
Which is the best or preferred landing method? Wheel Landing or Three Point? Where is correct touchdown point for a "proficient" pilot--the numbers or past the numbers?
Is exact pattern height required at all times?
How "rectangular" must the pattern be?
Should you climb at Vx or Vy to prepare for possible engine failure after takeoff?
Should tail wheel springs be tight or loose?
Should you wiggle the rudders so you are "ready" or should you respond only as needed?
How precise do you need to be with speed, altitude and heading, other than when landing or when under direction of a traffic controller?
What are the exact proficiency standards for a Tail Wheel Endorsement?
What are the exact proficiency standards for a Flight Review (with or without Wings program)?
My oh my! Ask different CFI's and you will probably get different answers from each one.
Seems that many high time pilots assume that as a low time pilot, you must assume a submissive attitude--sort of like Parent and Child relationship. Question some of them that are CFI's and they will call you out as like some sort of rebellious teenager or an ego maniac. And avoid arguing, especially in forums. Be warned. (I am a confident person who asks lots of questions and never assumes "conventional wisdom" is 100% valid. I often get misjudged as having a big ego and friction ensues. I find this is OK as I end up with better results and often a level of grudging respect in the end--but it does make life difficult. So sometimes, if you want the easier path, listen a lot and talk very little during the flight instruction.)
Then, there is the emotionality. To me, cool and calm is the order of the day when piloting an airplane. But, keep in mind that flying with a "student" must be a bit scary for the CFI. Some will get quite agitated when the student makes a mistake---then the student is categorized as "needing close supervision" and the scene reverts to one like the Master Sargent and Recruit in military boot camp.
Personally, whenever the emotionality gets high, the learning experience is over, and since I am the one paying money, the lesson is over also. Depending on the circumstance, I would also end the relationship with the CFI. Flying is supposed to be fun--and you would have to be a masochist to enjoy being yelled at--while you are paying the guy (lots of money) doing the yelling!
I feel the same way, to a lesser degree about the "overly chatty" CFI. Some, when you fail to meet their particular standard for "precision" will really "nag" to the point of being very distracting. Flying requires my maximum concentration, and like yelling, nagging is counterproductive and unacceptable to me. The most important and difficult part of "pattern work" is getting the landing right---the student should not be distracted and rattled by needless chatter. One reminder--"keep it in the center" on takeoff and "maintain precise control" during the pattern is enough. The CFI should provide organized feedback once you are on the ground--"this is what you did wrong and here is a suggestion on how to fix it--now let's go try again". A written "Here are the things you need to work on where you failed to meet the required standards for proficiency" list at the end of the day would be invaluable.
The FAA has placed the CFI in a "gatekeeper" role. Their job is to some extent to "keep the dangerous incompetent flyers out of the sky and on the ground". Their other role is to help you as the student and their customer to become a flyer. (Not a "perfect" pilot, but a reasonably safe one.) These two roles can be in conflict and each CFI will have to manage this conflict. There is an excellent book: Teaching Tailwheel Flying An Instructor’s Toolkit by K. E. Bevier, CFII. It would be great if all CFI's read this book. One interestesting quote from his book: " You must be able to change teaching technique ad hoc, to create a new exercise out of thin air, while flying in same, to solve your student’s current hang-up. Instruction must never be simply keeping them safe until, with enough repetition, they accidentally discover how to perform the maneuver. You must be pro-active with a student’s training at all times, constantly seeking ways to improve their skill levels in all maneuvers. To do less is a disservice to the student."
Mr. Bevier mentions the "Hazardous Attitudes" of pilots while flying while under instruction and other times. Here is a link to an excellent AOPA article: Hazardous Attitudes-FAA-AOPA
There is also a self administered test that can help the pilot understand his "Hazardous Attitude Profile" and take remedial action to improve himself. Here is a link: Hazardous Attitudes Inventory Test Based on my experience--pick the CFI that is a "thinking" person (who explains "why" and presents the different "schools of thought) that has lots of "teaching" time and who has empathy for the plight of a "student". (Some high time pilots have forgotten what is like to be a student with less and 300 hours of flying time.) And, one who keeps the emotionality and nagging to a minimum. Keep in mind--the student is the customer. Finally, the CFI's flying skills can save your life if you make a serious mistake--so they need to be a very good pilot with both good judgement and cat like, fighter pilot level reflexes.
Good CFI's are worth every cent you pay them--in fact they probably should charge more! I must say that I am pretty sure that at least two of the four CFI's i have flown with judged me to be suffering a bit from the Anti-authority Attitude Hazard. I am very introspective and quite comfortable "in my skin" and would have to conclude they were mistaken. (I am the Chief Compliance Officer at my firm in a highly regulated industry.) Knowing and following the rules while a pilot is extremely important. I am also not anti authority--I respect authority and freely submit to it--the Holy Bible tells us to do that as well as a prohibition against pride. But I do bristle against what I perceive as an abuse of authority. So, if a CFI tells me to do something that is contrary to my current understanding and refuses to accept my questioning, or shows unnecessary impatience---then communication and trust can be damaged to a point that diminishes the learning process. Here a three examples: 1) I had always assumed that Vy or the "best climb rate" speed--the speed that gains the most altitude in the least time, was the desired attitude on climb immediately after take off. (Assuming there are no obstacles in your path.) One CFI repeatedly barked, "pull the nose up" and demanded that I fly at Vx or the "best climb angle"--the speed that gains the most altitude in the least horizontal distance. His explanation was that with an engine failure, gaining enough altitude while close to the runway/airport might improve your chance of making that "impossible" 180 degree turn back for an emergency landing at the airport. (I have been told by several pilots that Vy is better and I prefer to keep speeds above 1.3 x Stall Speed. In fact, the FAA Practical Test Standards for Takeoffs states clearly that the pilot is to "accelerate to Vy" after liftoff for a "normal" takeoff unless avoiding an obstacle.) Would have been no issue if he had explained that before the "pull the nose up" orders; 2) The CubCrafter POH clearly warns against steep turns in the base and final legs for landing. (see figure below from the POH) For this reason and to avoid the dangerous "Skid/Spin on Final" I used a strategy of turning in gradually and early on the base to final turn. More than one CFI scolded me for this and told me to make my pattern "less egg shaped" and "more rectangular". Such instructions made me very uncomfortable. And, in one instance, the desire for a sharp turn caused me to use the rudder too abruptly--creating the only instance i know of where I initiated a skid; and 3) One CFI told me "something must be wrong with you" because I tended to drop the right wing during climb. Well, after reflection on that one, I must say that the problem was I neglected to trim properly and was pulling with excessive force, causing me to pull the stick to the back and to the right.
Most probably, 98% of pilots would probably not be bothered by such things. But it was not an anti-authority attitude on my part--more like an excessive desire to please the instructor and frustration when despite my best efforts, the instructor whom I respected was not pleased--despite me doing my very best. Some students really need encouragement--if the CFI begins to focus solely on shortcomings, these students will become very frustrated. More than one CFI has told me that learning from more than one CFI can be counterproductive. One of my favorite instructors, Dave Myers admitted that the reason is that "there are so many opinions" that multiple instructors can lead to a bit of confusion. I agree with Dave--the journey IS more difficult, BUT I am a better pilot with more knowledge by having to have processed the information to a level of understanding of WHY there are different opinions. And, hopefully all pilots are studying many sources of information in addition to what their CFI's are teaching during their few hours together. Actually, I was not as frustrated by multiple instructors as I was flying in 6 different aircraft, (J3 Cub, 2-CubCrafters S2, C172, GCBC Decathlon, and 7ECA-150 Citabria) as well as landing at 11 different runways, often in very hot weather. Acclimating myself to these new environments took a bit of time and created a bit of stress. I would agree that working with one CFI, at one airport, in one plane would allow the Tailwheel Endorsement and Flight Review to be completed in the least amount of time and expense. But, landing at different airports and flying different planes will probably make you a more knowledgeable and certainly a more experienced and confident pilot. In addition to working with one CFI, at one airport, in the same plane, the training can probably be completed in less time if the airport is not a busy one. Dealing with traffic is important, but busy airports create lots of distractions. While your CFI is hammering the need for a "precise" pattern into your brain, there will be other pilots flying all over the place: downwind legs very far away from the runway; downwind and base legs with very high and very low altitudes, and finally, base legs that are way low and long. In an airport with a control tower, it gets even more complicated. You really have to pay attention and look for traffic which can be distracting. Now, let me say that I highly recommend all five of the CFI's I have worked with, as well as Damien DelGaizo at Andover Flight Academy who taught me much with his two videos, and who I will soon work with in person. In addition to the Tailwheel 101 and 201 videos I purchased from Damien DelGaizo (Vimeo), I must also add that Jim Alsip's Hangar Talk (Dylan Aviation) YouTube videos were also fantastic. But for Jim being in southern FL and my training occurring during summer, I would have trained with him. In addition to Jim's Flying the Tailwheel Airplane book, I probably learned more from his videos than from any one other source of information. Link to Hangar Talk. My primary tail wheel instructor: Joe Gauvreau, flying in his 2004 American Champion GCBC Decathlon out of Freeway Airport in Bowie, MD. But for the 4 hour drive (round trip--a trip through heavy Baltimore-DC traffic that I find very irritating and dangerous) and Joe's other full time job that limits his availability, there is no doubt I could have and would have completed all my training with Joe rather than using multiple instructors. (I was very happy that Joe was the CFI that provided the Tail Wheel Endorsement--I did fly with Joe 9 of the 17.5 hours of dual I required.) If you can get to Bowie, MD and find time in his schedule, Joe is a GREAT instructor. He teaches sort of using the Socratic method which stimulates critical thinking and he has an uncanny talent of knowing that you are going to make a mistake before you actually do. (He can be a bit "chatty" which can be distracting to some, and to reach his personal "standard" of proficiency, it might take longer than expected--but no doubt when he says you are "ready" you will be very proficient pilot.) My primary "local" instructor: Dave Myers, flying out of York, PA. (5 minutes from my home.) Dave has enormous experience TEACHING. He is self confident and emotionally very calm. He will let you make mistakes to learn, but has fighter pilot reflexes to rescue you from your mistake/s. (My time so far with Dave was in a C172) If the hangar I wanted to rent had been available, Dave would have been my primary instructor flying in my own plane. I intend to continue working with Dave after I gain my Tail Wheel Endorsement and Flight Review to continue a path of learning and improvement. I finally secured a hangar at York, so having Dave provide instruction in my plane or a C172 (for flying into B and C space and SFRA practice and orientation.) will now be possible and convenient. ( I like the C172 too, but switching back and forth from left seat in the tri-gear C172 to the front seat in a tail wheel plane was not ideal, so I decided to stay with the Cub or a Champ until I gained my Tail Wheel Endorsement.) I sought out Dana Holladay in Jacksonville, FL because he owns the same make and model plane as mine--so flying with him helped me fulfill my Avemco Insurance requirements. He was highly recommended by several pilots and the SE Cubcrafters Regional Sales Office. But for a mechanical problem with his plane (mostly caused by my mistake) my work with him most probably would have allowed me to complete my endorsement and flight review. As mentioned, Dana is a very skilled pilot and an fun guy to fly with. I sought out Ron Dillard with Advanced Tailwheel Training in Lebanon, Tennessee in an effort to accelerate and complete my tail wheel endorsement and flight review. I drove an 11 hour one way trip to meet Ron. Flying in his 1974 Bellanca Citabria 7ECA-150, we practiced lots of high G recovery from unusual attitudes and recovery from intentional spins maneuvers---some of which are prohibited in my Cub, but are good training exercises. Ron is an excellent instructor in these maneuvers as well as a demanding task master regarding "precision" flying. Ron has many thousands of hours flying corporate jets and has created a very organized training program with a Syllabus and many supporting teaching aids. He follows the FAA Wings Program Flight Review Standards to the letter. I completed a third of my flight review with Ron. A070405-08. We probably could have completed the tail wheel training and flight review, but Ron seemed to think that the intentional spin and recovery training (not required by FAA for a ASEL VFR) was important, so doing that cut in to the time we could have devoted to the tail wheel endorsement and flight review. (Ron told me I did "very well" in the recoveries but I seemed a bit "in a hurry" to pull out of the spins and he wanted to go back and do some more to improve my situational awareness. Ron believed that my cautious flying preferences were due to fear and a lack of familiarity with the airplane's "limits". My view is that engineers apply safety factors in their designs, not due to lack of knowledge, but rather a respect for the unexpected.) I must admit that all of the unusual attitude/s made me a bit sick as I feared they would---I would never intentionally do aerobatic maneuvers and would never intentionally enter a spin-- let alone hold it for a "extended" turn, so I was not enthusiastic about more intentional spins. I recall spin recovery training in a C152 but we focused on "immediate" recovery without delay. I felt the need to return home in part because of extreme weather in Pennsylvania and flooding at my home, figuring that I would finish up with Joe or Dave. (Like after my day with Dana Holliday, I had a strong feeling that God had a purpose for me going home early--His timetable was a bit different than mine.) I would highly recommend Ron's training, but be sure to allow enough time, allowing a day or so to fully recover from the spin and unusual attitude practice if it is new to you. CLICK ON "OLDER POSTS" (BELOW RIGHT) FOR THE REST OF THE STORY--Weblogs are set up for most recent first---I am using it more like a book---so the newest info is the "oldest" post in the weblog. 😁
