Not my pic. No news story. Not sharing particulars but it looks like lessons might be learned

*Sigh* there goes my insurance rates. Plane will fly again.
 
woodchucker said:
View attachment 102259
Click to expand...
:(

That surplus telehandler they're fixing to pick it up with is pretty cool, though.

I also find it slightly humorous that they chocked the one wheel that's on the ground. I mean obviously you'd do that before you set it back on its wheels, but it still looks funny.
 
Date: 29-NOV-2021
Time: c. 13:30
Type:
C185.gif

Cessna A185F Skywagon
Owner/operator: Private
Registration: N5947S
MSN: 18502169
Fatalities: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 2
Other fatalities: 0
Aircraft damage: Minor
Location: Cedar City Regional Airport (CDC/KCDC), UT -
N.gif
United States of America
Phase: Landing
Nature: Private
Departure airport:
Destination airport: Cedar City Airport, UT (CDC/KCDC)
Narrative:
A Cessna 185 nosed down after the pilot applied the brakes too hard on landing at Cedar City Regional Airport (CDC/KCDC), Utah.
Both occupants remained unharmed.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Can't let that get in the way of his trolling.
Click to expand...
In defense, my post is not a troll at all. Your post is much more of a troll.

Trike gear airplanes are notably more stable during landing than conventional gear planes (with equally competent pilots behind both). You can’t really debate that fact. It shows in insurance rates, this picture is case in point. You can keep your tail wheel, enjoy the high insurance, and also the occasional ground loop with accompanied damaged wingtip or engine.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
A trike would’ve been less likely to do this, probably. A car would be even less likely than a trike. So what?
Click to expand...
It is a lesson that can be learned. If you fly tail wheel, ground loops and nose-overs are something that can bite you in the ass at any moment. Practice (especially ground handling) is even more important for those pilots.
 
Zeldman said:
Folks, this is why you always put on clean underwear before a flight, just in case your britches come off during the crash....
Click to expand...

That’s a waste of clean undies. BRING the clean ones with you, that way when you soil the dirty ones, you have the clean ones at hand. Helps also when you get stranded overnight due to WX away from home unexpectedly.
 
Matthew Rogers said:
In defense, my post is not a troll at all. Your post is much more of a troll.

Trike gear airplanes are notably more stable during landing than conventional gear planes (with equally competent pilots behind both). You can’t really debate that fact. It shows in insurance rates, this picture is case in point. You can keep your tail wheel, enjoy the high insurance, and also the occasional ground loop with accompanied damaged wingtip or engine.
Click to expand...
The average pilot thinks trikes are safer, so he/she gets careless and wrecks the trike anyway. There are so many ways to do that:

-Landing too fast. That puts the airplane's attitude too low so that the nosewheel arrives first. That can cause porpoising as it bounces off and the pilot tries to fix it by shoving forward. Or it can result in wheelbarrowing, nose on and mains off, which make the airplane a really nasty taildragger, and bad things happen. Or the pilot tries to stop his too-fast airplane by clamping the brakes on, and that can result in an excursion off the side of the runway, or the end, or in blown tires, as there is too little traction with the wing still lifting.
Taildraggers won't tolerate that sort of sloppiness. They train you to fly them properly and make you a better pilot in both trikes and taildraggers.

-Landing on soft surfaces. That nosewheel starts to sink in, causing rapid deceleration from the drag, which results in the CG surging forward against that wheel and shoving it in further until the nosewheel breaks off or the airplane goes over on its back. It happens way too often. I got a 150 stuck once in a puddle on a clay field, where a taildragger had taxiied easily through it not long before. The taildragger's CG is much closer to the mains and doesn't ram the wheels in so hard during deceleration or under lots of power. 25 years or so ago I witnessed a guy in a Bonanza get his nosewheel stuck in a soft spot, and he just opened the throttle. It dug in some more, then snapped off and the prop threw mud and gravel all over the place. Prop, engine, cowling; all damaged.

We didn't pay any more for insurance on our flight school Citabrias than we did on the trikes. Students managed to bust the trikes as I outlined above. Trikes are no guarantee of safety. You still have to learn to fly properly.
 
Last edited:
Saying nose wheel is inherently safer than the tail dragger is sort of a false premise. I can see arguing they are easier but honestly I think they are all unforgiving towards complacency.

In regards to insurance premiums being higher that is just not true if you’re experienced in tailwheel. I have roughly an equal amount of tail dragger and nose dragger time. No meaningful difference in insurance quotes for me. Rates follow the hull value but not much else matters in my experience.
 
Matthew Rogers said:
Fly a trike. Simple and effective prevention of this scenario in most cases.
Click to expand...
Flying "a trike" is no guarantee that locking the brakes will not result in a noseover; however, flying a taildragger absolutely ensures a had landing will not result in a nosegear collapse. False dichotomies like these examples are pretty much meaningless but may help to soothe or bruise egos depending on which side of the fence you're on.

Nauga,
who almost avoided saying, "equipment solutions to skills problems."
 
I'll stick with my tailwheel, which is in fact very similar to the one on its nose. I watched a twin piper veer off the runway last week, resulting in a gear collapse and prop strike. Tri-gear pilots buy tail wheels and then realize that they never learned to use their feet. I see it now and then, a guy has been flying for 20 years, is a CFI and has lots of credentials, but cannot manage to push on the rudder pedals while careening off the side of the runway with the wing tip nearly dragging the ground.
Yes, tailwheels are inherently unstable on the ground. But, anyone with good hand and foot and eye coordination can safely handle one. If you are lazy with your feet it will bite you in a tailwheel, not nearly as much in a trike.
But, why do we fly regularly? Many of my friends fly to maintain proficiency, as well as fun. If you can't use your feet, you are not proficient!
 
I am not sure what is the point of rehashing this yet again… people who do detailed risk assessment for living base their financial protections on the fact that trikes are a significantly safer choice but hey ….folks on this forum just know better …
 
Warmi said:
I am not sure what is the point of rehashing this yet again… people who do detailed risk assessment for living base their financial protections on the fact that trikes are a significantly safer choice but hey ….folks on this forum just know better …
Click to expand...
At least there is one other smart person on the forum.
 
Warmi said:
I am not sure what is the point of rehashing this yet again… people who do detailed risk assessment for living base their financial protections on the fact that trikes are a significantly safer choice but hey ….folks on this forum just know better …
Click to expand...
And yet, like I said, we paid no more for insurance on the Citabrias than on the 150s or 172s. Maybe the guys that sell insurance know something? Or maybe we just had stupid insurance agents?
 
Dan Thomas said:
And yet, like I said, we paid no more for insurance on the Citabrias than on the 150s or 172s. Maybe the guys that sell insurance know something? Or maybe we just had stupid insurance agents?
Click to expand...
How long ago was that? If more pilots are crashing their tail wheels today, so be it, but it doesn’t change the current insurance facts.

And that is one data point. Another data point is the guy @rhkennerly on the homebuilt forum area who just bought a trike Bushcat because the insurance rate for the tail wheel version was significantly more expensive.
 
We should only fly single engine, fixed gear, 2-4 seat airplanes. Insurance says they're the cheapest. Time to get rid of all other airplanes, twins, retracts, taildraggers, 5+ seat planes. Think of the children, it's for safety.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
We should only fly single engine, fixed gear, 2-4 seat airplanes. Insurance says they're the cheapest. Time to get rid of all other airplanes, twins, retracts, taildraggers, 5+ seat planes. Think of the children, it's for safety.
Click to expand...

That’s not the point really …. It is people arguing that taildraggers are not inherently more dangerous and it is all just a matter of skills which is clearly not correct.
 
Warmi said:
That’s not the point really …. It is people arguing that taildraggers are not inherently more dangerous and it is all just a matter of skills which is clearly not correct.
Click to expand...
Don't worry, nothing will get in the way of his trolling... I feel like I have heard that before.

He even stated that it will make his insurance rates go up again. Wonder why that is? Perhaps because taildraggers continue to prove themselves more likely to be damaged in landing or ground handling accidents?
 
Matthew Rogers said:
Don't worry, nothing will get in the way of his trolling... I feel like I have heard that before.

He even stated that it will make his insurance rates go up again. Wonder why that is? Perhaps because taildraggers continue to prove themselves more likely to be damaged in landing or ground handling accidents?
Click to expand...

Wreck your trike and watch your insurance go up.


In the flight school we had so many students start one fall that we had to start some of them, from scratch, in the Citabrias. Those students learned to use their feet and became experts at landings, and crosswinds held no fear for them. A tailwheel teaches you to fly. The Citabria also has plenty of adverse yaw, so feet in flight are important, and a skid can easily result in a spin, so they eagerly learn coordination once they see that (at altitude, of course).

After they got their PPLs in the taildraggers, we checked them out on the 172s and R182. They found those airplanes "boring, way too easy to fly." They nailed every landing in them, too. None of this touching down too fast, or floating halfway down the runway, or porpoising or anything else. Speed control is mandatory in a taildragger, making landings much better.

So it's a skills thing. And who doesn't think better skill isn't a good thing? I'd like to see some stats on how much training in taildraggers applied to the pilots that keep wrecking them. Many, I'd bet, are people who learn in a 172 or Cherokee, think they're now pilots, then go buy a 185 after five hours in a Champ and get into trouble instantly. The Learning Factor of Primacy has a lot to say here.

And I also wonder how much taildragger time the taildragger critics here might have. Are they speaking from personal experience, or from internet myths?
 
Dan Thomas said:
Wreck your trike and watch your insurance go up.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but I don't worry about my insurance rates going up when some other student bounces a 172 and prangs a nosewheel, but the taildragger pilots somehow know theirs' will go up when they see a taildragger crash. Nobody is talking about crashing their own plane and a subsequent increase in their insurance rates. A greater percentage of tailwheel planes crash, therefore the insurance rates are higher.

I don't really care about what type of plane you fly. But don't try to argue that tailwheel planes are currently less expensive to insure, they aren't. People who have recently tried to insure them have reported this over and over again. And don't try to say that somehow tailwheel planes are easier to land and less likely to be damaged than their nosewheel counterparts. They aren't. You even agree that they are more of a handful. Sure this can be used as a learning experience, and it will eventually make a better pilot. But even with that better pilot, they are more likely to damage their airplane if it is a tailwheel than a nosewheel.
 
Matthew Rogers said:
I don't really care about what type of plane you fly. But don't try to argue that tailwheel planes are currently less expensive to insure, they aren't. People who have recently tried to insure them have reported this over and over again. And don't try to say that somehow tailwheel planes are easier to land and less likely to be damaged than their nosewheel counterparts. They aren't. You even agree that they are more of a handful. Sure this can be used as a learning experience, and it will eventually make a better pilot. But even with that better pilot, they are more likely to damage their airplane if it is a tailwheel than a nosewheel.
Click to expand...
I wasn't arguing that they were less expensive to insure. Our experience was that they were the same. This is in Canada, where maybe the training requirements are stricter. Nor did I say that taildraggers are easier to land. How in the world do you get this stuff from my post? And no, they're not more likely to be damaged if the pilot is properly trained and doesn't get complacent. Complacency gets both trike and taildragger pilots. There are plenty of taildragger pilots that have never groundlooped or nosed over. Crop sprayers come to mind, and they make landings and takeoff all day every day all through the season. If taildraggers were so dangerous, those airplanes would all be trikes.
 
A guy was shopping for a Rans plane which are offered as trikes or taildraggers … quoting him about insurance costs:

That quote was about 15% higher than for the trike version – with 100% of the difference being in the "physical damage" premium (hull insurance). Liability and medical were identical for both planes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top