Another opinion is that the trainer should present the student with challenges. While not being difficult to fly, it should at least force the student to work enough to develop skills in all areas.
Yet another group thinks that the trainer should clearly portray all of the laws of physics as they apply to airplanes in such a way that the student has to contend with, among other things, obvious torque, P-factor, adverse yaw, et cetera--and, in so doing, truly develop basic flying skills. This group of instructors is concerned with what they see as a downward spiral of basic flying skills and at least partially blames the airplanes being flown.
The primary role of a training airplane is to be a teaching tool. It gives the certificated flight instructor (CFI) something to use in demonstrating and teaching the student what is necessary for that student to become a confident and safe pilot, with an emphasis on safe. Of course, while everyone agrees that a student should be safe, they don't always agree (or even discuss) exactly what safe means. Are there different kinds or degrees of "safe," and what role does the airplane, as opposed to the instructor, play in promoting safe flying?
"Safe" in its most rudimentary form means that the student arrives in the same condition he left in every time. Beyond that point it could be said that a safe student is one who not only has the skills to handle the conditions likely to be encountered, but has developed the judgment necessary to evaluate conditions, knows when they exceed his abilities, and strives to avoid them. When "safe" is defined that way, the trainer isn't part of the equation. Only the abilities of the pilot in that airplane are of consequence.
The truth is that a really dedicated, detail-oriented, passionate, and skilled instructor can turn out a good, well-rounded student regardless of which airplane is being used. Within certain limitations, the instructor can make a student training in a Piper Warrior fly as well as one who learned in a Piper Cub, which is amazing considering these two aircraft represent totally opposite ends of the trainer spectrum.
The Warrior is heavier, extraordinarily speed-stable on final, and pretty much goes where you point it. It can be a true drive-it-up, drive-it-down airplane. The Cub, on the other hand, is second only to a Wiffle ball in its inability to penetrate turbulence and handle wind, and its adverse yaw demands that the student constantly be in tune with his posterior to guarantee a straight, smooth touchdown. Flown correctly, the Cub can go pretty much anywhere the Warrior can go, but it is going to work its pilot much harder. Both airplanes are subject to the same laws of physics. The primary difference between these airplanes is the way forces interact with the airplane's aerodynamics and the way they are perceived by the student pilot.
Both of these airplanes have the normal complement of forces acting on them, which includes but is not limited to lift, drag, thrust, torque, p-factor, spiraling slipstream, and adverse yaw. If you ignore the directional control differences on landing (taildragger versus nosewheel), the airplanes are identical in terms of what forces are acting on them and what forces they are generating. So, why is the Warrior so much easier to fly than the Cub?
The difference isn't in the forces but in the way that modern airplanes have been designed to greatly reduce the effect of those forces. In modern airplanes, the effect of such factors as adverse yaw have been engineered down to the point that they are barely noticeable. But they are still there. If no right rudder is applied on climbout, p-factor still drives the ball slightly off center in the Warrior just as it does in the Cub, but it's more noticeable in the Cub. If a turn is made without rudder in a Warrior or Cessna 172, the nose hesitates slightly, and the ball takes a step to the inside of the turn. Do the same thing in the Cub and the movements are much more visible. So, which is more desirable in a trainer?
It's hard to say which is more desirable--an airplane that slips and slides around if it isn't flown correctly, or an airplane that only moves from one side of a fairly small groove to the other if the pilot isn't on his game. When an airplane clearly demonstrates the effects of forces such as adverse yaw, the instructor doesn't have to work as hard to make the student see the advantages of flying it correctly. This makes instructing much easier. More important, when the airplane clearly shows a student when he is flying right, the instructor's input becomes less critical because the airplane is doing part of the training.
Most modern trainers of the Cessna, Piper, and Diamond varieties require a flight instructor who is literally driven to instruct the basics, because the differences between right and wrong are very subtle. It is extremely easy to find "good enough" creeping into the curriculum, yielding students who complete their training with no serious grasp of the basics.
No one is suggesting that flight schools replace their fleets of aluminum airplanes with acres of J-3 Cubs, although some would argue that if that were to happen, the quality of students would increase overnight. Given today's instructional and regulatory environment, it would be difficult for large operations to fulfill all of the requirements with an airplane as simple as a Cub. However, inasmuch as many flight operations are staffed with newly minted CFIs, a more demanding airplane would shift some of the burden to teach the basics off the instructor and onto the airplane.
But this isn't a realistic approach. A Warrior/Cessna/Katana instructor is going to have to work harder to make sure the student has a firm grasp of the basics, even though he's going to be dealing with some very subtle nuances. On the other hand, aviation is composed of nuances. If you're not learning--and the instructor isn't teaching--the tiniest details, the big ones can't possibly be correct.
And then there's the high-wing, low-wing debate, which shouldn't be, because the difference is small and only evident when the wind is really howling. A high-wing airplane is at a natural disadvantage in that the wind can get under the wing more easily, and the pilot has to work a little harder in a crosswind. However, if the two airplanes are in the same weight class--say, a Warrior and a Cessna 172--the difference in ability to handle a crosswind is more in the pilot's hands than a function of the airplane. (See "Wing Above, Wing Below," April 2007 AOPA Flight Training.)
Other airframe design factors have much more effect on crosswind abilities and handling characteristics on final approach than wing placement. It is often assumed, for instance, that a Piper will handle more wind than a Cessna but this has little to nothing to do with the manufacturer's placement of the wings. The difference, if there is any, is that the higher wing loading and touchdown speed of Piper products mean those airplanes penetrate through turbulence better and the higher touchdown speed lowers the effect of gust spread.
At the same time it can be argued that the higher touchdown speeds can lead to more runway handling difficulties because everything that occurs on the runway, from stopping to directional control, is governed by the square of the speed. However, statistics don't seem to point a finger at that as being a problem area.
Incidentally, the high-wing devotees point out the blind spots on low-wing airplanes, although the low-wing pilots can say exactly the same thing about high-wing airplanes. If the airplane has wings, you can't see through them, so this is not a valid argument.
So, is there a perfect trainer, one that challenges the student, but not too much; one that can operate in higher-than-normal winds with adequate penetration but doesn't fall out of the air; one that can be acquired at a minimum dollar and operated for pennies? Of course not. Airplanes are, by their very nature, compromises. Their designs trade off one characteristic for another. Each manufacturer has its own philosophy, and its aircraft are built to represent those philosophies. Piper and Cessna, for instance, seldom start out with a clean sheet of paper when they design an airplane. Certain things are known before the engineers even pick up their pencils--where the wing will be located, the types of flaps, etc. Other manufacturers, such as Diamond, may represent different thought patterns, but they too will not be likely to change concepts from model to model.
One thing is absolutely clear, however: no manufacturer is going to design an airplane with obvious adverse yaw, p-factor, or any of those other items that instructors would like their students to experience. Aircraft designers do not want to present any obstacles to getting the student in the air as effortlessly as possible.
So, is there a solution? Yes, there is, and it's easy and costs nothing: instructors must take it upon themselves to instruct to tighter tolerances so their students know what the rudder is for, and how to use their feet, and are aware of the nose's attitude. This will produce students who can become safe and confident pilots.
Budd Davisson is an aviation writer/photographer and magazine editor who has written approximately 2,200 articles and has flown more than 300 different types of aircraft. A CFI since 1967, he teaches about 30 hours a month in his Pitts S-2A Special. Visit his Web site.
Want to know more?
Links to additional resources about the topics discussed in this article are available at AOPA Flight Training Online.
Related Articles
