H5487

Hi, remember me? I'm "5487", the one who started this thread. All of the replies have been very interesting; some informative, some insightful, but also some just plain hateful.

I was surprised at how many took my joke of "arrogant licensed pilot" seriously. While there is no doubt that many licensed pilots are wrapped up in their own holiness (those of us in the aviation industry call them "Delta Captains") most are just plain 'ol Joes just like the rest of you on RCU. Nonetheless, considering how many folks took the "arrogance" ball and ran with it, that tells me how many are already spring loaded to dislike licensed pilots. Thankfully, those seem to be a small percentage as most of you responded to my original question with very good comments. Thanks!

I was also surprised about the RC pilots who felt that their RC experience enabled them to instantly become great Cessna pilots the first time out. That's great and I suspect that there's a lot of probability there. But let me point out the one big difference in learning to fly RC models vs. big airplanes: When learning to fly RC, everyone expects to break some airplanes at first. However, when learning to fly Cessnas, even a scratch is unacceptable, much less bringing home the plane in a big garbage sack!

Me? I've got over 5,000 hours and over 10,000 landings and have yet to even ding a prop. Wish I could say the same for my RC skills! :-)

Mode One

Wow, I just read the whole thread over again and really didn't see anyone being "Hateful"! I must of missed the one you felt was that way. I've met some R/C pilots that I felt were truly "full of themselves", also. So, I don't think one side is any more or less egotistical then the other. It's pretty much like life in general. There are nice guys and there are not so nice guys!

AQ500

I have instructed full scale pilots a couple of times. They do pick it up a little quicker and understand things better. I also know two full scale airline pilots who fly RC.

I did have an exciting experience once. I was at the flying field and there were a couple of new guys. This was a public field so there are always new faces there. They set up at the end of the pit area and were getting their plane ready to fly. It was a used trainer they must have bought that was flyable. They did not ask for help and didn't really look like they required help. I was flying at the time and they decided to try to fly their plane. Well, the plane did get off the ground. The plane took off, turned, and flew right over the flight line missing pilots by maybe a couple of feet. The plane was being overcontrolled and rolled inverted a couple of times. Way too much stick movement. The pilot finally had it inverted and pulled up. The plane crashed just outside of the pit area.

After the crash people asked them about their experience. They said that they were commercial airline pilots and they had never flown RC before. They were offered help by people at the field to get up and going again, but the pilots said that they did not need help and that it was the plane that caused the crash. To this date I have not seen them return to the field. This could have ended in a serious injury, they just got lucky. I think they didn't realize that the roll rate of a 737 is a bit slower than a 40 size trainer plane.

Moral of the story, they do make good RC pilots. But, they need to understand that flying a plane by watching it is different from sitting in a cockpit. When you are 4 feet off the ground and turn the wrong direction, there is very little time to recover. Also there is no air speed indicator or stall warning devices, you have to see that the plane is about to stall by the way it flies and how it responds to the controls.

I do have a little stick time in a 150 while flying with friends and have thought of getting my liscense. I just don't have the extra $$$ and desire at the moment.

H5487

Without a doubt, the underlying message throughout this thread sems to be that no matter whether you're a hot F-16 pilot with 300 landings on the dark side of the moon, or just a RC newbie who has just graduated from the $2 Guillows stick gliders, you need to enlist the help of an experienced RCer to get started in this hobby. Back in the old days (before buddy boxes) when we used to learn to fly at the local high school parking lot on Saturday mornings, we expected to go through a few trainers before we finally got the hang of it. (I know that Devcon made a fortune off of me back then!) That was when the trainers had .15 engines, rudder only, and flew oh so sloooowly. Now days, the average trainer sports a .40 or larger and goes faster than the neighbor's kid's Kawasaki. And to make matters even more dicey, remember that the law schools graduated 84,878,417,589,146,596,459,814,698,156,905,162,065 new lawyers last year alone. If you hit a tree, all of those starving lawyers will scramble to represent the tree!

Just because you can fly the real stuff doesn't mean you'll be a wiz at the model stuff (and vice versa.) The two worlds are only slightly related.

5487

Mode One

I went for my pilots license in 1980. I had been very active in R/C for 4 years at the time. My instructor made comment that he felt I had a good grasp of how airplanes flew. I enjoyed the pursuit of my pilot's license and scored very high on the written. I wanted to go for my instrument rating, however there were no CFII instructors in my area to teach me. I flew for 4 years. I started out paying $27.00 an hour, for a Cessna 152. When I stopped flying the price for the same plane was $32.00 hr. Every time I landed I thought, I could have bought something neat for R/C with that money! Don't get me wrong, I loved flying and for a couple years I owned the Cessna I learned on and rented it back to the airport as a trainer. This was a good deal for me.

Flying full sized was just another extension of my life long-deep interest in aviation. Simply a part of the whole picture for me. There were things I learned about flying, aircraft, aviation and aerodynamics I would not have learned otherwise.

britbrat

Interesting comment about the "hatefull" thing -- you may have considered my response hatefull. However, I'm also a pilot with several thousand hr, including fighters, so don't get too upset about fellow airplane drivers being dissed. Your "spring loaded" comment is needlessly inflamatory.

The ones that get "the treatment" are the ones who deserve it -- in spades.

RCKen

My Feedback: (9)

I'm going to step in here for second. While I'm not quite ready to lock this thread down, I am getting close to it though. This is a very interesting discussion and a lot of people are enjoying reading it. But if turns to the point that insults start flying around then I'm going to lock this thread down. So let's keep it friendly here.

Ken

Jim Thomerson

To learn about a subject, you must first understand, both intellectually and emotionally, that your present knowledge of the subject is at best incomplete, and at worst wrong.

sigrun

Absolutely Jim. Sagacious words. Any individual's assimilation is ultimately affected through predisposition of either temperament or ability despite our best attempts to stereotype particular groups which might emperically demonstrate an above or below average tendency to certain behaviours.

But that said, it's fair to say as a universally accepted established psychological profile that the majority of pilots have egos. I deign to use the adjective "healthy" as it's not always so, it doesn't follow necessarily that that ego will present in ALL pilots as a barrier to learning although it sometimes = true for the emotionally undeveloped or immature pilot as any much as other stereotypical sub-group or individual.

What gets my goat are falsehoods which assume mythological = true status due popular propogation by the insecure wanting to believe it so as a means of reasserting their own status and reassuring feelings of inadequacy naturally aroused when presented with those who have a obvious status - for those who measure in such terms, which sadly is the majority, "what do you do for a job?" - 'advantage' and undeniable knowledge and expertise beyond the comprehension or understanding of their own.

Unfortunately, the question invariably ALWAYS breaks down into an a partisan perspective favouring the irrational emotionally driven obvious preferred answer of the natural majority whom it placates, the rank and file RC flyer prejudiced by a lack of 'ken and in many, previously mentioned insecurity. The best simple lay analogy I can quickly come up with in trying to present to your average RC flyer at his level about his level of "how it all works" understanding in comparison with that of a highly experienced airline captain, and please, remember, most airline captains were't always ..most have done hard yards somewhere, sometime, is "remember how 'smart you thought you were at 17 and how much you thought you knew about life....but now in the light of greater experience and knowledge at 50 realise how naive and ill knowledgable you were despite your unwavering self-assurance in your own belief system back then?".

The RC reality, is that much of RL aviation knowledge and practice directly transposes to the practical operating fundamentals in RC. RC is much, much simpler and easier than flying the real thing. The only aspect which doesn't come with any advantage is control 'reversal' or manipulation when in reverse perspective. Allthough that too is picked up easily enough, and very quickly and easily in this age of RC simulators by professional pilots who know what a procedural trainer is, how to use one, and have the discipline and methodology to do so - with the caveat - IFF they apply themselves. Most will. Why? Because they are conditioned to structured instruction and applied learning with the quickest way being listen, read, apply, and reinforce all through practise, practise and more practise using the sharpest tools. 4 or 5 P principle. Not to mention already being used to learning in the dynamic teaching/learning environment, used to being appraised & critiqued without personalising it, to being trained, checked and tested with expected minimum standards of demonstrated progress being acceptable. Most of these assets which compliment good instruction are completely alien to Joe Blow-in off the street.

Sure, all equally have to get used to to external vs internal perspective, although pilots will or should ordinarily still have the transition advantage there. They will still have to develop the new and necessary physical co-ordination skills just as a squash, racketball or tennis player would if they learnt. But, when learning mode 2, (or 3 for lefties) except for rudder which has to be re-learnt as being applied with the hand instead of the feet (unless auto-mixed), the co-ordination and natural application of controls comes swiftly, naturally and easily.

On the plus side, pilots don't have to learn (or shouldn't) what a circuit is and how to fly one. They already understand that, but just need to practise...like everyone else. They understand the fundamentals of changing power or attitude, how to do it and what their effect will be upon the overall flight picture. How to apply aileron without the necessity of it being explained to them that you only apply it to initiate, then recentralise and don't hold it in during the turn,.. etc. They shouldn't need it pointed that some up elevator will be required to be held in during a turn, increasing with steeper AoB, having flown and practised steep turns IRL. Nor require to be told of the importance of keeping the nose up or how to recover if the nose starts to drop, all fundamentals of which the RC noob hasn't a clue, has to learn from scratch and about which is NEVER long or short briefed except usually by corrective instruction during the lesson, which ipso facto, prevents adequate explanation other than monkey see monkey do - do what I say observational assimilation - if the instructor is offering good instructing and keeping his aural communication to the minimum necessary to ensure effective communication and minimise load shedding during the lesson. If the stud is lucky, it might be mentioned in post flight critique or debrief, if there is one which there more often isn't. I can go on for an age pointing out all the advantages, awareness of W/V allowing correction for drift and an understanding of how the difference between and how it affects heading vs track. Appreciating GS upwind and down wind. Manipluation of time by space or speed. Then there's just plain old fashioned airmanship which as a basic awareness appreciates intellectually that we operate in relatively close proiximity to the ground and takes into consideration what we might do to control the envelope to minimise incidents and maximise safety. Most importantly, they understand the importance of flying with ones limits, flying the type suited to their skills instead of desires and staying ahead of the aeroplane, something Dave Scott's acccelerated school of RC flying accceeds primary importance to (as it should) and refers to as "controlling" rather than "reacting". There is just such a great advantage to already being a competent pilot first, and this only increases proportionally with increased experience and qualification.

Of course, this is reliant upon the premise that the said pilot is actually knowledgable and competent, the degree of which must and will vary with experience, qualification and aptitude. But generally, the truth is that intellectually and emotionally, pilots whose egos aren't a barrier to instruction make better studs, will progress faster, with a greater level of understanding, and to a higher general level of basic RC competency.

But along with the other myths will be pepetuated in ignorance both here and doing the regular rounds at every club, this one won't rest any more than the other unresolvable arguments obfuscated by emotional irrationality and a preponderance for a belief system dominated by zealotry. In no particular order, they remain;

1. Pilots vs non-pilot (learning RC)
2. Mode 1 versus mode 2
3. Castor vs synthetic
4. 4 stroke vs 2 stroke
5. ARF vs kit (or scratch)
6. EP vs IC

Have I forgotten any?

Of course, being completely unbiased myself I shall present the definitvely correct answers we all know = true to the above listed 5 debates. [sm=punching.gif]

CAUTION FOR HUMOUR DEFICIENT <the following may be intended tongue in cheek> CAUTION FOR HUMOUR DEFICIENT

1. Real pilots have a relevant skillset with less to assimilate = learn faster [X(]
2. Mode 1 is for monkeys! - indisputable. Just look at how many monkeys fly it!
3. Castor belongs with Biggle's in his Camel!
4. Suck n blow...is all you need for speed! - or power when it comes down to it. [8D]
5. ARFs! - what do you want to be, a better builder or better flyer?
5. IC rulEz - just watch. Cheap IC ARF mid-airs EP. Buck for buck, my money's on the IC. A persuasively efficient technique for those pesky hovering helis and 3Ders as well.[sm=spinnyeyes.gif]

Hixx

I always think of "t-i-t-s" when the planes is coming towards me:
Turn Into Turn Stupid

Seeing as t-i-t-s are mostly in a mans mind anyway, its real easy to remember. Its saved me more than a few times.

Mode One

Jeez! Sigrun, I wonder if you have anything you might want to add to your extremely abbreviated response!

I have to admit, I got bored reading what you said. I didn't even get to the middle. So, what you said, escapes me all together.

Oh, that's right, we were talking about full scale pilots and what some perceive as THEIR huge egos!

sigrun

My words were in service of the intellect interested in understanding, never intended as platitude for those enslaved by ego.


Actually, there is a lot more might have been said on the topic, but then as Jim Thomerson so sagaciously said, "To learn about a subject, you must first understand, both intellectually and emotionally, that your present knowledge of the subject is at best incomplete, and at worst wrong." My post was intended to assist in that offering as concisely as one might, a perspective which brevity can't dutifully illustrate to those without the comparitive experience. Of course, even were it the post's objective, it can do nothing about one's willingness to want to understand.

And that should bother me how exactly? Expressed slight? Implied rejection? How should your choice to be intellectually lazy and remain unformed bother me? I wrote it for intellectual and emotional adults.

Ergo, except where unmistakably labelled otherwise, my post was generally intended for the cogent reasoning intellect, and contributory to the topic. Some, not much really, necessarily detailed to explain to those without any experienced true basis of comparison and understanding the why, so they might. Of course, worthy of repetition as reinforcment is one of the foundations of how we mere mortals learn, genuine interest, an attention span longer than a flea and the will to want to are prerequisites.

Which coincidentally, is how it also is in aviation.

Nothing in my post was motivated by an unhealthy or out of proportion ego. Having seen most of the geographic world and its impoverished peoples up close and personal, I am well aware of my own relative insignificance on this planet, and of our temporality. You mistake my articulation in service of truth, knowledge and understanding for ego, confidence derived of experience and acquired knowledge for arrogance, and erudition on topic for pomposity if you think otherwise.

I already took into consideration my post wasn't going to reach all, notably those who didn't want to understand, those deficit of the capability for understanding for one reason or another including obstinacy born of bias, selective thinking, illiteracy, an attention span deficit or those simply reproachfully lazy. Only one of those presents as a viable excuse.

So perhaps you can tell us why it is you consider your entirely ad hominem indulgence contributory to the topic, share with us how it is in fact contributory ...other than in its utter subservience of your own ego running rampant with intended slight and insult?

Gremlin Castle

My Feedback: (14)

Go to my profile and hit the blog section. About half way down is my story about learning to fly R/C as a full scale pilot and flight instructor.
As far as arrogance, I prefer that to the timid "sorry I made a mistake" behavior, just acknowledge it and keep on trying is the better approach.

sigrun

Hy Hixx.....JR is on the phone for you here.....can you take the call? <in joke>

Good one Hixx. I hadn't heard that acronym before. Commonly used over here is "Stick to the Low Wing", which quickly becomes instinctual and doesn't require any processig more significant than mere wakefulness. Both effect the same result, and work whether the flyer is mode 1 or 2, and the model is tracking toward or heading away from the stud.

That said, whilst such training a tool can serve a useful purpose, in my observation, it can disserve another. When the stud becomes disorientated and distracted trying to remember and action that memory jogger if he hasn't rote learnt and reinforced it though practise as many are wont not to, even for a few moments, he has to think about it and inaction occurs. The situation changes and he often again becomes indecisive, increasing his anxiety, afraid of inputting a wrong action for a multitude of reasons which can range from just fear of crashing through compounded by not wanting to (in his mind and perception) look stupid to the world nor demonstrate (again in his mind) 'incompetence' to the instructor.

Unless a stud is having extraordinary difficulty, I prefer to let him take immediate action and input instinctively without thought or recitation of the acronym, and of course, without fear of rebuke or in flight criticism. This is advantageous to the learning process because even if he inputs incorrectly, he is immediately visually prompted, and learns that he will be visually promoted, that it can be corrected by reciprocal opposite input. When he sees this in effect, two things observably occur. (a) His confidence in his ability to be "in control no matter what!" increases displacing apprehension, nervousness and fear; and, (b) when he inputs incorrect input in future, he instinctively and immediately inputs AN action action. This is extremely important in both RC and real aviation. Inaction through either indecisiveness or fear are worse tyrants than inputting an erroneous input which can immediately be seen and redressed to a corrective one.

"Nose in, Tail away" is another common one used over here to assist a pilot to correct track so it remains parallel to the strip and his pilot position. Again, regardless of mode or transit port to starboard or starboard to port. Not quite a word associative acronym, although NITA could be associated with "a neater way of doing things", needs to be rote learnt. Can be of assistance.

Were you ever taught to conduct any sort of rudimentary pre take-off check?' There apears to be an entrenched attitudinal anathema against using even the simplest one over here (eg: CATS). Somewhat of a simplistic insult in comparison with even the briefest checklists required even in GA sport aviation, I teach it anyway to those interested in preventing themselves from taking off with wrong model selected, incorrectly plugged in aileron servos, aerials down or trims out of wack or incorrect rates selected, all and any of which can be terminal. Take 10 seconds, can be done on the run during taxi or immediately after start for those prefecrring to carry their model to the holding point or strip.

Mode One

Careful there buddy! Some of us might actually take the time to read what you've said, someday!

sigrun

It's alright Mode One. I put the really important bit in a single sentence up the top saliently solo so that even you should have been be able to manage the attention required to read it. Whether you acceed it or choose to heed it - or not? I doubt you don't understand it. Do forgive me if I misrepresent you. Certainly not MY intent. [8D]

Mode One

Although I have asserted you are overly verbose and bombastic, you have asserted I am stupid, which I assure you, I am not!

sigrun

Quite to the contrary, Mode One. Perhaps it's an issue with comprehension as well as your limited attention span that disserves you? <sigh>

In either case, your opinon of me, as mine of you, is of no consequence to the facts or the issue under discussion, but more importantly, has no place here nor contributes anything worthwhile to the topic under discussion.

If you have a rational on topic contribution, I'm sure we'd all love to hear it. If not, rather than pursuing the intellectually pointless ad hominem path, perhaps you should go away where you might better spend you time discovering what Freud meant by "joy in malice", although I suspect you'll find him "boring" and "overly verbose" (sic) too. It may not alter the intrinsic aspect of personality responsible for the behaviour, but it will possibly help you understand why you indulge in it.

Other than in on topic discourse, to honour that parochially American phrase, you and I are done here. [8D]

RCKen

My Feedback: (9)

Actually, everybody is done here. I asked to keep this thread civil and I see that's not happening. I think that this thread has just about run it's course, so I'm going to lock it up.

Ken