I think it is a bit much to say it is the instructors fault alone. The student showed up and asked for a "VOLUNTEER" to instruct him. If I were being paid then that is one thing. I am not being paid. I am one of 3 instructors at the field. I will try my hardest not to crash the plane mostly due to the fact I own the training plane. AT the end of the day I am asked to help and will so if a crash happens my fault, their fault, or just magic that Harry Potter did if I felt I would be held to being forced at replacing or making monetary retribution I would not do this the risk to me is too great. With the lack of instructors here it would not work to have a retribution for having beeninstructed/helped. The main point is I am a volunteer not a paid instructorso you will get no promise from me. If that is not good enough then I guess that person can find another instructor.

OK, let me get this straight. First, we are going to throw out the concept that the instructor is the PIC , (pilot in command), captian of the ship and responsible for all, a concept that has been in place for 100 years.

And now we can't differentiate between wind, (which is often laminar) and gusts (which are often turbulent).

And since I am a volunteer, you should remember that you get what you pay for.

PilotFighter,

I really think some of your statements are a bit harsh! Especially to others here willing to donate their time and money to assist new pilots wanting to enjoy this great hobby.

Are you saying without question that with your ability that there would NEVER be a situation that a R/C student might place you in which you would not be able to recover from?

In my time as an Air Force pilot with 45yrs of total combined flight experience we had instructors die with their students and they were in the cockpit. Although there are some similarities between full scale and R/C there remains a big difference, its just visual eye to hand coordination no instrumentation.

Your ability to instruct one to fly an R/C airplane that your not sitting in able to react in less than perhaps a second to bailout a problem perhaps on takeoff or landing near the ground consistently without fail is amazing. My hat is off to you!

Its interesting in automobile braking studies reaction times with people knowing there was going to be a problem the reaction time on average was not all that quick. They were at the controls! Even though a R/C instructor has the student on the buddy cord there is a delay in reaction time for recovery beyond that if the instructor would be flying solo.

IMO no one is bulletproof while instructing R/C!

I wonder if you see a pattern here......almost everyone is saying that you cannot save a students airplane in every situation...except one guy......
I have seen full scale students react stupidly on or near the ground...the last time was a helo pilot taking fixed wing lessons I assume to get multi engine certified...with the instructor at the controls, at, or just before touchdown the student reached out and yanked the controls back...the airplane still had enough airspeed to leave the deck......The instructor said he looked out the cockpit windshield and saw only runway.....he saved himself and the student, no one was even hurt...but the airplane was a loss......never seen so much beer canning......
Instructors fault?....my student got a case of dumb thumbs.....he had shot numerious approaches.....my fault?
Ok I'll let you have this one, if and only if, you can tell me you have never ever had a car accident...never bumped your head, cut your finger, or stubbed your toe.....Or while teaching your kids to ride a bike they never fell over....or if you have never crashed an RC airplane......
I am not looking to get in a peeing match here...all I am saying is you can't save a students airplane in every case

No, I am not saying that. The student must be allowed to land at some point. And a mistake very close to the ground might be unrecoverable. I said that the decision to move forward in training to a point where the student must be trusted is the decision of the instructor alone. The instructor must make this decision by evaluating the student and deciding if the student is prepared or not. The student is relying on your ability to make an accessment of their abilities. They are trusting you to make the decisions to move forward in training or to continue training at safer altitudes. Any crash that might occur is a direct result of the instructors incorrect accessment of the student's abilities.

I am not certain how you could interpid that to mean that I can recover from anything , anywhere, at any time. As an experienced Air Force pilot I am certain that you are familiar with the phrase, "being ahead of the airplane". Aviation is not about quick reactions as many laymen tend to think. It is about anticipation, knowledge, and understanding. Good instruction should involve graduated tasks with increasing difficulty. This enhances the students skills and at the same time offers feed-back to the instructor and helps the instructor access the student's skills. The decision to trust the student very close to the ground should be based on evidence. The student should have proven themselves in some way. They should have displayed aptitude and ability enough to be moved forward in training and ultimately trusted. It has nothing to do with the instructors reflexes.

So because it does not exist anywhere else means that it is not the Norm here? Is that your statement or is it just your opinion that it should be the norm. My club or any other club I have been to operates as you suggest. The Student and InstructorMAY share blame in a crash as far as I have seen and the Instructor may volunteer recompense for a crash but none has been expected, from what I have seen. Have you seen diferent? Or do you want to see diferent? You have a very firm opinion and defend it well but I just do not agree or will ever agree with it. I fear that if many people took your view then our small hobby would get very small as the number of instructors would be few and no one would have anyone to turn to when learning.I just think it is a bit harsh to tell every other pilot on here that they should not be an instructor unless they meetYOUR specification that no one else seems to share.

No, I have never seen an instructor pay for a crashed airplane. And no, I am not suggesting that they should.

PilotFighter,


[/quote]

I am not certain how you could interpid that to mean that I can recover from anything , anywhere, at any time. As an experienced Air Force pilot I am certain that you are familiar with the phrase, ''being ahead of the airplane''. Aviation is not about quick reactions as many laymen tend to think. It is about anticipation, knowledge, and understanding. Good instruction should involve graduated tasks with increasing difficulty.

[/quote]



I agree with you to a certain extent.

However, regardless of how far ahead of the airplane you are your student is most likely not, and he/she is flying the airplane. This is much different than sitting in the back cockpit of a military trainer with your hand on the stick and throttle following the movements at critical phases should the student make a mistake. One has to remember in the beginning the student is flying mechanically having to think about every movement to coordinate each control input. Corrections are not automatic at that point much less recognizing a problem, or how to correct it.

Just think about what it was like when you were first learning to drive an automobile much less fly an airplane. Very mechanical at first until adequate experience was gained, and even then more time behind the wheel was required.

There always remains that unpredictable variable for the instructor which is what the student will really do when stressed. One has to remember their experience level is very limited up to the point of solo and well beyond. Even though a student is doing well is certainly not a guarantee that they will not make a mistake at any given phase especially as the complexity of training increases. In R/C with a buddy cord there will always be that built-in greater delay factor in reaction time for the instructor to recover.

It should be without saying that the instructor should not set the student up for failure.

If the winds are not suitable for good training graded upon a students proficiency level then its a down day. Where we fly if you don't fly in the wind you just don't fly much. Therefore we fly and train in the wind most days. You are correct some judgement is needed on the instructors part that is where their experience comes into play and why they are there.

The grace we have in R/C flying is that it allows for late bloomers. Whatever training time it takes for a student to be successful in their goal of being a proficient R/C pilot. Once my students are soloed and signed off they remain my students as they continue to explore the hobby. I'm there to help build upon their experience and answer questions as they arise.

Blue skies and good flying!

Just as a pilot is "ahead" of his airplane, an instructor should be "ahead" of their student. After teaching dozens of students I have noticed that they all tend to loose control at the same point in certain lessons. As they step out of thier car I already know when they are going to loose control that day. This is because I have seen it happen so many times. Early on it will be right turns, later watch out for base to final in a right pattern, there is a funny spot just past the threshold right before th airplane passes them by when landing. Anyone that has intsructed for any period of time knows where all the stumbling points are. If you tell the student what is about to happen, and how this is about to become tricky, they don't panic. If you are right there talking them through they will do fine. Now you have introduced the student to the phenomenom , let them experience it successfully and helped create self confindence in themselves and trust in you.

Instruction is not standing beside the student in silence and claiming that you will leap into action should something go wrong.

I figure there are at most three guys in my club (not including me) who have never crashed on landing or takeoff, maybe not even that many. Are you saying that the rest of the members should never have been allowed to solo, because their abilities had not developed to the point at which they could always land or take off without making a mistake? If that were how we did things, RC flying would be a very small hobby.

Your approach would seem to make instructors responsible for all crashes anyone has had, even after they have gone off on their own. After all, if we had made an informed "accessment" of their abilities, we wouldn't have said they could solo.

PilotFighter - " As they step out of their car I already know when they are going to loose control that day."


REALLY? You must be totally clairvoyant to make such a statement.

I wish I had your insight and skill set to be so confident considering that each student is different in their mental capability and natural abilities. Many student hurdles in training are certainly repeated therefore can be somewhat predictable. Beyond that IMO its about as far as it goes.

When instructing, I pull from my full scale learning process. I had one of the best instructors and have taken the time in reflection to ponder why I felt that way. He built confidence in my abilities, while teaching me proper procedures, and was a calm voice when I was getting a little flustered. For instance, early on, unknown to me, he was limiting the rudder travel by keeping his feet on the pedals so I didn't over control. In time he relaxed that restraint when he felt me using proper inputs. It gave me the needed confidence without any stress.

I try to do the same with RC instruction. I think the trainer cord has been a huge benefit in accomplishing this. I will insert control corrections early on, without letting the student know I did, so the student gains the needed confidence in his ability. No stress or distraction. In time, I need to correct less and less till finally, the student is fully in control. In the beginning, a student just needs to know they can, and the process is an enjoyable one. Some take longer than others, but most eventually get it. In the meantime, you are there to make sure he doesn't break his equipment.

Once basic control is learned, I move on to figure 8s. This teaches turns in BOTH directions. A very important skill to master so landing approaches are comfortable from either direction. How many guys do you see who can only comfortably make left turns and approaches? I see many.

There is much more to the process of teaching RC, engine safety, emergency procedures, flying the 'pattern', etc, but these are some of the main things I do. So, to be a good 'qualified' instructor, a well rounded knowledge of these things, people skills, a calm friendly voice, and flying skills that will allow you to keep the students plane safe, are essential, IMO.

The Instructor is a volunteer that is teaching so that a beginner has a fighting chance to keep his plane in a flying condition while learning to fly. If we start making Instructors resposible for the loss of the aircraft then we will not have anyone willing to teach. Then beginners are left on their own and I believe we all know the most common outcome of that.

There are some people that will never become proficient at RC flying and will occasionally crash their aircraft. One cannot hold an Instructor resposible for a students inherent lack of situational awareness or hand eye coordination. There comes a point where you just have to let go.

I think if some one askes you to be an instructor they must see something  that they can trust in you, Two years ago I was asked the same thing, I have been flying for over 15 years and have allways helped in anyway I can. the best thing is to have a buddy box, No passing the radio back and forth, only crashing can come from that, you will learn as the student is, Good luck

Come On PF (since I have known you for a long time, I will not use your real name, just PF today ) where do you instruct? I joined JXXXXX in 1985 when I officially moved back to the Republic, and I have NEVER seen you Instruct nor have I seen you on the instructor list, although I have asked you to do so.
While a lot of instructors have come and gone in Jxxxxx, there have been two extremely well qualified instructors since I started there. They are JXX SterXXX and myself. JS because he had 'Umpteen" hours as a Private/Commercial Pilot instructor and my status as a Flight Instructor in T-33 and T-38 USAF Pilot Training. Of course there were the times that some "instruction" came into play during the early '90s when the fast pilot growth at UAL required some instruction from left seat to the right seat!
Had my times there. All in experience.

Now if you wish to take on a student that after 7-8 months absent from flying, is about ready to start again, I would have considerable respect for your opinions if you would take on this student and solo this person after you are certain that said person is not a safety detriment to all on the flight line. I can't recall how many times that I am about to sign off this person when the hard drive falters and it's back to the most basic basics again.

Has this student crashed while under my control? Yes, the only one that ever has, in my being an RC instructor since 10 years before buddy-boxes. Student has made two nice approaches, two good landings and then on third landing approach, about 6 ft. off ground, student makes a sudden snap roll to inverted and nose-in. My fault because I was giving student the benefit of any doubt?
You would say "Yes" I say too much too soon. Another scenerio: Making a landing, student has trouble at the roundout and I am talking it through, "Hold that attitude, Throttle back full and ease in more UP, but student reverts back to old days and UP is forward, so immediate FULL DOWN stick to top of transmitter. Nose wheel grabs grass and model tumbles then catches wing tip. Minor damage but not good for solo status. Lots more, I just can't list them all.

I would like to arrange for you to instruct this person. I'm sure you know who.

Hoss, this forum is "internet based", not "reality based". If you try to mix the two, the next thing you know people will crash, and it wont' be their radios fault, they won't really know how to do a rolling harrier, their plane will stop going 150mph, and worst of all, all those hot chicks in the plane ads won't really dig rc pilots. Reality doesn't sound so good now does it?.

Smithcreek that is BS and you know it!

Too many macho's here trying to impress others by mouthing C-RAP. It doesn't really matter what the R/C instructor flies be it pattern, 3-D, sport flier, or fullscale! It really doesn't matter to a new R/C pilot as long as that R/C instructor is compentant able to give good continuity of training in charge all the time. Perhaps not the best R/C pilot, but a person able to communicate, demonstrate, and someone who knows their limits.

Many here started their aviation careers at a young age with modeling >>>>>>>>> U-Control, Freeflight, followed by R/C once it became available. Many of those modelers moved on in careers in the military or civilian aviation side, still remaining in modeling. In days of old when knights were bold there were no ARF's , package deals we all built the airplanes to fly. Not that the evolution is a bad thing its just that many skills and knowledge are being lost.

Smithcreek I question you being from Rhode Island have you ever been to Texas to visit Hossfly's field to make such a confirmed opinion about what he is saying? If not ????? What then validates your opinion? There has not been anyone here other than perhaps PilotFighter that has professed to be an instructor that is in total control of what a student will do or not. Respectfully are you as gifted as he is?

Inquiring minds would like to know? I know that I am NOT!

I'm going to go out on a fence here and say you probably missed the sarcasm in my post. Here, I'll explain, even if it does ruin the humor.

-first guy says he instructs but never crashes (internet reality)
-second guy that flies at the same field says first guy never instructs in the first place (reality reality)
-second guy tries to make sense of internet reality vs. reality reality

Third guy (me) comes along and points out that internet reality and reality reality are not necessarily the same reality, in fact sometimes they are mutually exclusive or even opposite realities. But, the beauty of this thread is we are seeing the rare intersection of the two realities. Internet reality and reality reality collide! Then I went on to illustrate several examples of internet reality vs. reality reality. For example, on the internet it's always the radio's fault, but in reality, you zigged when you should have zagged. The post culminated in the incredibly funny observation that hot chicks in plane ads don't really dig fat middle aged guys playing with toy airplanes.

See, not as funny with the explanation.

What exactly did you think I was saying? Maybe Hoss does get the hot chicks from the plane ads. I could be wrong, it's happened once or twice.

Smithcreek

I applaud your humor and insight ....................... Sadly I missed your point []. Thank you!

Hoss and I are both most likely too old to run HOT CHICKS anymore, but the admiring still remains. Damn they look great.

My post timed out

Hoss, I thought you of all people would have backed me up in stating that the pilot in command was responsible !!!

I trained in Johnson City, Tennessee , and in Kingwood Texas, and Huffman, ( at Fighter), and a little at Jetero. In all, I trained maybe 40 people. I don't really know the actual number. People introduce themselves to me and describe my having trained them in vivd detail back in the 80's. And I have no clue who they are. Others are life long friends that I see almost daily. I flew mostly in Kingwood from 85 until 92 and then mostly at Fighter until 04. I haven't trained much since then. And now I just help a few close friends that ask for help.

NO, I do not wish to be listed as a trainer on the website !!

And speaking of the website, I hear that you will be writing our news letter. I appreciate you volunteering. Good Luck.

I am going to give you the benifit of the doubt and assume that your problem is comprehension and not honesty.

I have repeatedly explained my technique in detail for those that are actually interested in learing to instruct. I will let them decide which posts contain useful information and which posts contain internet expert static.

Ok.... enough of this dribble.

If you guys wish to continue this, them move it over to the Clubhouse.

This has gone way beyond anything a beginner can get any benefit from. Therefore, I am locking it down.

CGr.