• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • There is no better time to show your support for SuperCub.Org than during our annual calendar campaign! All the details are HERE

Training Wheels or Tailwheels?

Lowflybye

Registered User
Mount Juliet, Tennessee
I had posted this on some other websites and was asked to post it here as well. This is an article that I wrote for our latest magazine (Aviation Insurance & Risk Management) that I hope will help clear up some of the insurance misconceptions on both sides of the fence...underwriters and owners.

Training Wheels or Tailwheels?
By; Chris Davis

Wheelies, 3-pointers, tailwheel two-stepping, and ground loop; if you are not sure what these terms mean you may still be flying with training wheels, or in a Land-O-Matic. For those of us who have experienced the joys and excitement of conventional gear (tailwheel) flying, these terms have become everyday parts of our hangar flying vocabulary.

Tailwheel aircraft by their very design are different from tricycle gear aircraft. The difference in design requires more discipline and dare I say skill from the pilots who fly them. Those pilots who have never flown a tailwheel aircraft may tend to argue with that statement, but those who have flown (or have attempted to fly) tailwheels know exactly what I am referring to. The majority of pilots today have never flown a tailwheel aircraft and over time many of the tricks of the trade have become diluted and misunderstood. Common misconceptions concerning tailwheels that have been ingrained into the aviation community seem to cause the majority of the issues when it comes to insuring them. Let’s take a look at some of these misconceptions and try to unravel the mysteries of the tailwheel aircraft.

In order to clarify the misconceptions we need to understand why tailwheels are harder to handle than tricycle gear aircraft. The concept is simple; it is nothing more than the location of the center of gravity as it relates to the main gear. The center of gravity in a tricycle gear aircraft is in front of the main gear so inertia pulls the aircraft along, and we can direct that momentum with the nose gear and the brakes. Picture a baseball bat being held from the top. It is easy to keep that bat vertical when gravity is working for us. In a tailwheel aircraft the center of gravity is behind the main gear and trying to direct that momentum from in front of the center of gravity takes constant correction from the rudder and the brakes. This is often known as the tailwheel two-step. Picture the baseball bat again, only this time we are holding it from the bottom and trying to keep it vertical. If you do not constantly anticipate, feel, and react to the movements, it will swap sides on you and you will be holding it from the top. This is known as a ground loop when it happens in a tailwheel aircraft.

Tailwheel aircraft have similar flight characteristics to tricycle gear aircraft, it is the landing and ground handling that separates the men from the boys. This seems to be an issue that many underwriters do not understand. Many times an underwriter will require a pilot transitioning to tailwheel aircraft to complete X number of dual flight hours prior to flying solo. While this is an acceptable concept in tricycle gear aircraft, it is not very beneficial in tailwheel transitions. In tailwheel aircraft the number of takeoffs and landings performed is much more important than the total number of hours in the aircraft. A dual requirement of 10 hours does not accomplish much more than giving the pilot an excuse to make a long cross country. Over the course of a 10 hour cross country a pilot could feasibly get by with no more than 4 landings. This is a waste of time and money since the pilot has not learned the skills necessary to safely land and taxi a tailwheel aircraft in various wind and runway conditions. The best transition plan for a tailwheel pilot is to designate X number of landings that must be completed with a qualified CFI in various wind and runway conditions. This will ensure a much safer and qualified tailwheel pilot when the dual requirement is lifted which benefits us all.

While we are on the topic of landings and runway conditions, let’s explore runway lengths and surface types required by many underwriters. In most cases underwriters are looking for aircraft that are operated from airstrips that are paved and at least 3,000 feet or greater. Again we see a concept that makes sense when discussing tricycle gear aircraft, but is not an accurate assessment when discussing tailwheels. Tailwheels by design sit at a higher angle of attack allowing for relatively short takeoff distances compared to many of their tri-geared cousins. Most popular tailwheel aircraft are safely off the ground in well under 1,000 feet and 50 ft obstacle clearance is achieved at or before the 1,500 ft mark on even your more anemic tailwheels. As for the paved runway requirement…this is asking for trouble when talking about tailwheels. Most tailwheel pilots will elect to land on a grass or dirt strip when given the opportunity. When landing a tailwheel it is crucial that the aircraft nose is lined up with the direction of travel, or you will have a side load on the gear at touchdown. In a tricycle gear aircraft a side load will do little more than jerk the aircraft and straighten it out, but in a tailwheel aircraft the potential for a ground loop is exponentially proportionate to the angle of side load at touchdown. On a paved strip the margin for error concerning the angle of side load becomes very small since rubber does not slide very well on pavement. On a grass strip a little bit of a side load may even go unnoticed since the grass will allow the tires to slide a bit. The greater the crosswind component, the harder the pilot has to work to keep the direction of travel lined up with the runway and the nose lined up with the direction of travel. Why make things more difficult by using a paved runway having less margin for error when an unpaved strip is available? Is a paved runway really a requirement that underwriters should consider concerning tailwheel aircraft?

What about damage to gear components on unpaved strips? Unlike most tricycle gear aircraft, tailwheels are designed for unimproved strips. Let’s think about a wheelbarrow for a minute. If you are pushing a wheelbarrow through the yard and you hit a chuckhole, chances are that the sudden stop on the tire is going to cause you to dump the load due to its momentum and possibly damage the wheelbarrow. On a tricycle gear aircraft the momentum is pushing the nose gear over the chuckhole and often times causes damage such as a bent nose gear or a prop strike. This is the reason for keeping the yoke full back on soft field landings. Now let’s turn that wheelbarrow around and pull it over the same chuckhole. The momentum is now pulling the wheelbarrow over the chuckhole and less force is applied to the wheel. The same concept applies to the tailwheel.

So why is insurance on tailwheel aircraft harder to get and cost so much more than on their tricycle geared cousins? The answer to that question is simple...underwriting companies spend more in claims for tailwheel aircraft per number of aircraft flying than they do for tri-geared aircraft. This is due to many factors including frequency and cost of repairs for landing accidents, lack of and cost of available parts, lack of experienced pilots, lack of available training, pilot attitude, and the off airport uses that many tailwheel pilots submit their aircraft to. Tailwheels have sort of a nostalgic and adventurous draw to them that many pilots want to experience and they are just so darn fun to fly. Let’s face it, not many people would take their tricycle geared aircraft into farmer Johnson’s fresh cut pasture for the local 4th of July barbecue, or land on a 1,000 ft gravel bar in their favorite trout fishing river. This is the world of flying that is available to the tailwheel pilot, and part of the catalyst for the higher insurance cost. There are two common problems that we often see as aviation insurance professionals: 1) A student pilot who is learning to fly in a tailwheel aircraft such as a Maule or other temperamental model. 2) A high time pro-pilot or military trained pilot who thinks he can fly anything if given the landing and maneuvering speeds. Either of these two scenarios are recipes for an insurance claim. The more claim payments that we have on a particular model, the higher the overall insurance cost will be for all of us who fly that model.

Another big problem in the tailwheel community is the lack of truly qualified tailwheel instructors. As you may have begun to realize, tailwheel flying is a skill that is different from any other type of flying. Many instructors today are on the fast track to gaining hours while someone else picks up the tab and since tailwheel hours don’t matter to the airlines, most of them never put their feet on the rudder pedals of a tailwheel aircraft. There are a few instructors at the local flight schools that have some time in the local Citabria that is used for unusual attitude training, but again the majority of their time is spent in the flight training portion of the instruction regimen as opposed to the landing / ground handling portion. Truly experienced tailwheel instructors who teach it because they love it and who fly tailwheels on a weekly basis are becoming harder and harder to find.

Alright, so you have caught the bug and want to fly a tailwheel aircraft. What should you expect from insurance and what can you do to help? First and foremost you must have the right attitude and a willingness to learn. This is true with most any aircraft, but especially true when transitioning into tailwheel aircraft. You will find that tailwheel aircraft demand more precision on landing as well as constant attention from the time the propeller begins to turn until the time it is shut down. Second, a good agent who knows the underwriting industry and has tailwheel experience can mean the difference between a “relatively” low premium, high premium, or no coverage at all. An agent who does not have any tailwheel flying experience will not be able to represent a tailwheel risk to an underwriter with nearly the same effectiveness as will an agent who flies tailwheels on a routine basis. It would be like a colorblind person trying to describe a rainbow to another colorblind individual. They both have a general idea of what a rainbow looks like, but they have no idea as to the true beauty and wonder it possesses. Do your homework before you buy. Find a well qualified tailwheel instructor and get your tailwheel rating. Join a free bulletin board community such as Supercub.org or BackcountryPilot.org and ask questions. Determine which aircraft best suits your mission profile and then find an instructor with as much time in that make and model aircraft as possible. Fly before you buy, and don’t buy a Thoroughbred before you learn to ride the pony. The hardest tailwheel pilots to get insured are the student pilots who want to fly a Maule, or another similarly high powered, short coupled aircraft. If you fit into this category, expect to see some very stiff “dual only” flight requirements from your underwriter, if they are willing to insure the risk at all. The annual premium for pilots in this group may be as high as double the average rate for a high time tailwheel pilot. For the new tailwheel pilot the “magic number” seems to hover around the 75 hour mark with reference to make and model time before any relief will be felt in the insurance rate.

Tailwheel flying has been some of the most fun, and rewarding flying that I have ever been blessed to participate in. It opens up an entire world of aviation that many will never see. It is up to each one of us to keep this world of aviation alive and affordable for generations to come. For those of us with experience, we need to pass on what we have learned to those looking to see what it is all about. For those wanting to see what it is all about, take the time to really learn it from those who have the experience to teach it. As with most of aviation, shortcuts can be dangerous and costly. It is up to all of us to do our part in making it as safe and enjoyable as possible. The safer we are as pilots, the cheaper and easier it will be to insure what we love to do.

A special thanks goes out to Frank Kimmel, Rick Rice, Darren Butcher, Ed Carney and the entire “Colonial Crew”. Thanks for introducing me to the wonderful world of tailwheel flying and for patiently teaching this “young” pilot some old tricks.
 
I didn't read every word, but there is no shortage of taildragger instructors. What is wrong is there is no differentiation in insurance rates, between a kid who instructs 1500 hours a year in nosedraggers, and an old guy with assets who wants to give, say, five tailwheel endorsements a year in an old Cub. You want competent instructors? How about a suitable insurance policy. I get asked all the time; I just cannot afford the risk.
 
Agreed.

I did not say that there is a shortage of qualified instructors, I said "Truly experienced tailwheel instructors who teach it because they love it and who fly tailwheels on a weekly basis are becoming harder and harder to find." This is partly due to the insurance rates that you are referring to and the underwriters need to realize that the young "fast track" instructors are not what is needed in tailwheel aircraft. I fight this battle each time I take a tailwheel account to the market.

bob turner said:
You want competent instructors? How about a suitable insurance policy. I get asked all the time; I just cannot afford the risk.

Keep in mind that you as an instructor can be added to the aircraft owners policy as an additional insured for little to no cost. If there is a cost you can require the student to pay it and it should not exceed $100. By being adding to the owners policy as an additional insured with a waiver of subrogation you have the same coverages and protection as the named insured on the policy. This means that you have liability coverage (including legal defense) and hull coverage to the full extent of the policy. The waiver of subrogation prevents the insurance company from subrogating (filing suit) against you to recover their losses in the event that your negligence causes the accident.
 
Great article, Chris. Thank you.

I do have a minor quibble with the latter half of "In a tailwheel aircraft the center of gravity is behind the main gear and trying to direct that momentum from in front of the center of gravity takes constant correction from the rudder and the brakes. This is often known as the tailwheel two-step".

In the J-3, it seems to me that the only thing the brakes are needed for, is to hold the plane during static runup and occasionally, to lock one wheel when rotating the plane about its axis at a standstill. They're not really needed for takeoff or roll out. And, I think the rudder action is often overdone. At Colonial, you can go from one end to the other in a J-3 without touching the rudder more than 4 or 5 times. In a crosswind, you just deflect to the average rudder correction, and then modulate that slightly every once and a while, as gusts dictate. Ed, Rick, and I have spent many a happy minute discussing overuse of the rudder and brakes while standing around shooting male cows.......

As an aside, Cherokees are far more prone to groundloop on soft, wet grass than taildraggers, possibly because of wads of grass tearing free and hanging up asymmetrically in the wheel fairings.

Thanks again for the article. Guys, Chris is an example of what all insurance brokers should be. His heart's in the right place.

JimC
 
Yes, that is what I do. A husky driver (or maybe two) has balked at the additional expense, and another's insurance has said absolutely no waiver.

My good Husky students are operating daily out of a 400' strip - they started with three hours' taildraqgger experience, and wound up way better than me.

I have tripled the population of Super Cubs at my home airport by encouraging students. They all have sprung for the additional insurance. I am working on a few more . . .

Still, I turn away lots of aspiring young folks. I send them to an excellent local pilot who goes bare . . . he has more fun.
 
bob turner said:
Yes, that is what I do. A husky driver (or maybe two) has balked at the additional expense, and another's insurance has said absolutely no waiver.

Those who balk at paying the additional fee and are often the same people who will fly to the next town for a $100 hamburger when driving would have been faster. Any excuse to fly, but always looking for a way to make it cheaper, even at the expense of safety in some cases.

On the flip side of that coin, I have argued with many underwriters who require dual instruction or recurrent training and then want to charge extra to add the instructor. Sort of counter productive in some cases. Many times your agent can argue the point and get the fee waived, but in some cases the underwriter has his mind made up.

There are some policies out there (Aerospace comes to mind) in which named pilots and those who meet the Open Pilot Warranty (OPW) are considered "someone we protect" which extends the policy coverage to them. In this case there is no need to be added as an additional insured since you already have the full coverage of the policy provided you meet the OPW and the insurance company cannot subrogate against itself.

Keep teaching whenever possible. A good teacher is worth their weight in gold to a student who is willing to learn and safe students / pilots mean cheaper rates for all of us in the long run.
 
bob turner said:
I didn't read every word, but there is no shortage of taildragger instructors.

I guess it depends on where you live. I have had a difficult time finding good tailwheel instruction. Maybe I'm not looking in the right place.

I am also intrigued by the military pilot comment in the article. I am a military pilot and a taildragger pilot. I have a significant amount of respect for both types of flying, different as they are. Very few of my military peers do any civilian flying and those that do tend to stick with spam cans.

Do you really see accidents due to arrogant military pilots who think they can fly anything with wings, or is this just an urban legend?

Thanks
Slowmover
 
slowmover said:
I have a significant amount of respect for both types of flying, different as they are. Very few of my military peers do any civilian flying and those that do tend to stick with spam cans.

Do you really see accidents due to arrogant military pilots who think they can fly anything with wings, or is this just an urban legend?

Thanks
Slowmover

It is not that we see more accidents from high time pro's or military trained pilots, it is that we get more attitude problems with those pilots when it comes to training or transition plans. I have a very healthy respect for both military and pro pilots as I am an Air Force brat myself. Both my father and my father-in-law were instructors in the Air Force and now both of them are pilots / instructors for major airlines. I have spent a great deal of time with both military and airline pilots and the problem is not that they cannot basically fly the aircraft. The problem is that they often have a hard time accepting the fact that they will have to do training in a little $30,000 tailwheel with no electrical system when they are some of the best at what they do in multi million dollar electric jets. Teaching a 7,000 hour ATP to fly with his feet when his mind never really had to fly that way before can be a little tricky and does take some time to transition and learn correctly...especially if the student thinks he knows it already and the training is a waste of his time

The most common complaint that I hear is "You want me to fly how many hours of dual and get a Flight Review? I complete a flight review every 8 months in a multi million dollar simulator, I don't think this _____ will be a problem"

The actual words and attitudes differ in each case, but you get the general idea. This is obviously a stereotype and not all military or pro pilots have this attitude, but it is fairly common and it makes getting insurance harder to do since they are not willing to follow a training plan to get them proficient in the small aircraft.

I routinely fly tailwheels with major airline pilots, and they always ask me why they have to do recurrent training in the small aircraft. Many of them see it as more of a hassle than an excuse to fly and improve their skill, or heaven forbid learn something basic that they may have forgotten in the electric jets.

It is not so much an accident statistic thing as it is an arrogant attitude thing and an arrogant pilot is an accident waiting to happen.

Again...this does not apply to all pilots in the military / pro-pilot category. It just seems to be more prevalent with those pilots
 
We all have our blind spots. Take me, for instance. I have a difficult time when my students insist that airplanes climb better with flaps extended. Yet the truth is, maybe some aircraft do.

We had trouble with single-seat fighter pilots - the nicest guys, and fun to fly with, but initially they could not handle another guy in the cockpit. Sharing the load was almost impossible. "We never did it that way in the Air Force" - but in the end, they worked out just fine. Our very best aviators were the Metroliner pilots. But after a while, it all worked out to some law of averages. Competent, nice people came from all sorts of backgrounds.

There is no shortage of competent tailwheel instructors. There is a shortage of experienced, insured tailwheel instructors. There really is a difference between an experienced instructor and someone building time. The insurers have not figured that out. You own a house, have some retirement saved, and a risk-averse spouse (like me) and you become more cautious.
 
bob turner said:
There is no shortage of competent tailwheel instructors. There is a shortage of experienced, insured tailwheel instructors. There really is a difference between an experienced instructor and someone building time. The insurers have not figured that out. You own a house, have some retirement saved, and a risk-averse spouse (like me) and you become more cautious.

Like you have said, the experience instructors are out there, they are just "becoming harder and harder to find." Agreed 100% that there is a huge difference between experienced and time building instructors. That is one issue that I am working hard to bring to light with the underwriting community. It will take some time to stop the train of thought and switch the tracks, but hopefully this article will at least open a few eyes and make them slow down a little.
 
The magazine went out a few weeks ago and I finally got around to uploading the article to the server in PDF format.

For those who want a copy with the pics and all: www.twoplaneguys.com/pdf/tailwheel.pdf

The file is about 8.5mb so it may take a minute to load.

Enjoy!

-Low
 
If you hang out at grass strips, good tailwheel instructors are very easy to come by.
JimC
 
Great article, lots of good points.

Is that Frank Kimmel the race car driver?

Where I live, good tailwheel instructors are not easy to find, but they are out there.
 
Chris,
That was an excellent article.

Bob,
I agree with you on the running bare part. It sure is not fare but that is what is out there. I fight that in my business every day.

I owe my pilot skills to my tailwheel instructor, I keep his rules in my head no matter what the bird I am flying.

Again, thanks Chris.

Ki
 
lancef53 said:
Great article, lots of good points.

Is that Frank Kimmel the race car driver?

Where I live, good tailwheel instructors are not easy to find, but they are out there.

No...Frank Kimmel of Greenwood, MS. He is a friend of mine and fellow aviation insurance agent.
 
Back
Top