I know in Australia we have an MAAA Instructors program and certificate. Is there anything in the rules that says you MUST be a certified instructor to be able to instruct someone how to fly a radio control model in Australia ?

I ask because I got a phone call today, from a guy who visited our club a few weeks ago and was talking to various members about learning to fly RC aircraft. That day, I spent about half an hour chatting to him answering his questions. Many members told him that in Austraila the majority of pilots fly mode1 and finding someone to teach him would be easier on mode1.
Now I fly mode2. I explained the differences to him and to him he said it sounded more logical and more like the games/simulators he'd flown on his PC. Well today he calls me and says he's bought a plane and is almost finished setting it up, and would I give it a look over to see he'd done it all the right way, then fly it for him and help him learn to fly it. He's bought his radio in Mode2.
He has been flying a firebird for about 2 years, or so he says and thinking this glo model qualified as his second model he bought a Seagull PC9 [X(] I wish he'd consulted me or someone other than the LHS guy on that one. Whilst our LHS guy is good, I sometimes feel he'd sell anything to anyone if thats going to get the sale, rather than try to talk them into something more suitable if you know what I mean.

I am planning on getting my instructors certificate and with my full scale flight instructor experience I feel Id make a good instructor. HOWEVER I was also planning on getting a trainer model and using my 2 JR transmitters and a buddy box system to teach the basics with. This guy has bought a Futaba radio so I cant link up to it as Id like.

Should I be helping this guy out ?
IF I dont help him out he WILL have a hard time trying to link up with the only other guy I know of at our club who flies mode2 and would probably teach him.

I can not speak for "Down Under", but in "The Colonies" anyone who is checked off to fly solo may teach someone else. The person they are teaching, however, can not be OKed to fly solo until AFTER they have done at least 1 flight with a valid instructor and the instructor has OKed them.

Hope this helps.

I think you need to decide whether you're comfortable enough with this PC9 to do instruction with the student.

Sounds to me like you're planning on getting your own trainer to do instruction with. Maybe he would wait, until you have that trainer, and use your buddy box stuff. Or, you could offer to train him on the condition that he provide a suitable high wing trainer, student box and cord. First things first, you need to be confident with the setup you're doing instruciton with.

Good luck!
Dave Olson

I also have no clue about the rules down under.

As for what to do, by all means, help the guy out. Now, you should tell him what your reservations are, tell him your concerns, and do the best you can. After all, if you don't, his next option is to either not fly much or try it on his own, right?

If you have another JR transmitter and RX, you could just put your RX in his plane and use your boxes as a buddy box.

You could also do the "pass the box" method, or the "Ragland" method of learning to fly. A lot of us learned before buddy boxes were as common as they are now, so it is possible.

As for the US, There are absolutly no rules whatsoever about who may or may not teach, or any official "soloed" or "qualified pilot" status in the US in any way. Anyone can do anything they want. (The exceptions are for turbines and very large (over 55lbs) planes, if you want to have AMA insurance coverage). Some localities might have passed laws about it, but I've never heard of any, and there are no national laws or regulations. The AMA has suggested guidelines, but they aren't manditory and there is no enforcement power anyway.

Most clubs, however, have some kind of rules to stamp somene as qualified to fly unassisted. Some have instructor certifications as well, but some don't. So it varies widely.

It's all rather chaotic here, in fact.

I'm not sure what the official MAAA rules are but I am also one of few Mode 2 fliers in my club and have noticed that the other Mode 2 guy who typically flies on the same day as I do if often quite busy helping beginners even though he doesn't have instructor rating.
He was the one who got me going when I returned to the hobby after almost 10 years away from it and is one of the best ones around helping beginners.

A lot of the guys who are the busiest helping others are also without instructors certification.

I think you only need to be a qualified instructor to sign off someone for their solo or bronze / gold wings but can help others prepare for their solo.

Have you searched the MAAA website for details?

There are some contact details there for officials who can without doubt answer this

Best regards

Ari
SRCS

I agree with montague about the Buddy Box thing. You could either use two of your transmitters and a receiver, or ask him to buy an inexpensive transmitter and a cord.

I would also guess that anyone can instruct, but soloing a new pilot would require a certified instructor.
Dennis-

In this neck of the woods, soloing requires that all instructors and advanced pilots are sitting comfortably in their chairs waiting to applaud when the plane returns safely to earth. This can be done when the student thinks he is ready and he usually receives plenty of good advice from instructors and advanced pilots if they feel he is not ready.

Starting to instruct has opened a whole new aspect of this hobby. I have learned a lot and it is great to see my student (son) flying at nearly the same level that I do. One of the four clubs we fly at requires that the safety officer approve instructors. The other three allow anyone to instruct.

Dave

Not in MAAA regulations. For purposes of standardisation MAAA certification is encouraged & preferred but it's not a prerequisite. Of course that's the MAAA's standpoint and individual Club rule requirements vary, but it should go without saying that (in Australia) you do require assent be it formal or informal from most clubs to instruct on their turf. Check with yours. That's when volunteering your services FOC. When offering professional tuition, you definitely require MAAA certification, have to pay an insurance loading (currently $50-) and require the express permission of your club committee to conduct said ops at their site.

The usual my way or the highway mythology & folklore.

Most of the world does, and naturally all progressive thinking Australians do. [8D]

Well you can with your own 2x JR unit setup and cheapie trainer of you're that keen. Not for me for free. Alternatively depending upon what Futaba RX type he's got installed you can still do it. If its single or dual conversion FM, you're both laughing. PCM and you're sunk. Just get him to buy the appropriate freq XTAL for your master or his RX so they match and let him use your slave to fly his ship. Once he's soloed under buddy box supervision and you're confident he can be trusted on his own, you can test fly & trim out his Futaba unit so there are no nasty surprises awaiting before letting him loose to wreak havoc with his own kit. There are conversion cables available to enable various brands to talk to one another, but I don't know if there's a JR -> Futaba commercially available. As you know the two are quite different in how they communicate the signal as well as Futaba now increasing the complexity and confusion with the introduction of a new buddy cable connector type.

Yes. Enthusiasm to assist another, reasoned confidence in your own competency coupled with a modicum of basic intelligence are the three key ingredients to instructing R/C. Having an understanding of the impediments to the learning process in the dynamic teaching environment as you do will be an asset. Just remember though to KISS. Most R/C studs measure their rate of progress and therefore your effectiveness by monkey, see, monkey do and its result in terms of "am I ready for solo?" even if unspoken. They aren't really interested in or appreciate the role and importance of understanding the theoretical syllabus, so trying to explain the concept let alone significance of power controls ROD, attitude controls airspeed and the importance of that relationship in stabilising the approach or flying it at an less than Mach even with a model will fall upon deaf ears.

That's why you HAVE to help him. With the availability of the buddy box there's no reason for this "I fly mode 1 so you have to learn mode 1!" coercive nonsense if he wants to learn to fly mode 2. I copped it when I tried to learn but just told 'em to get stuffed and found a GOOD instructor instead. Change is slow, but we're growing in number at each field. As we're permeating the MAAA instructor ranks, with the additional influence afforded by the stamp of official approval we get an opportunity to influence the newbies with accurate information and eliminate that Neanderthal "Mode 1 only here" parochial rational.

The MAAA certification might not be a requirement to instruct, but don't kid yourself that that extra piece of tin doesn't carry weight with and influence the newbies. More folklore similar to the "I don't need any stinkin' Bronze/Gold wings provin' I can fly" uttered from the mouths of those too scared to attempt the test in case they don't pass at first attempt and lose face in front of their peers.

If one can cut the mustard there's nothing to be scared of and it's no big deal. Of course if one can't handle objective criticism or knows onself to have poor skillset and doesn't want to comply with achieving a minimum safe standard of competency there's plenty to fear.

In 2004 at the larger clubs achieving Bronze is becoming a standard requirement affording the privilege of flying solo without supervision. Nationally with the club's assent (usually CFI & committee) anyone can teach, but only an MAAA certified instructor can test for Bronze & Gold Wings and State CFIs for Instructor Wings.

Are the transmitters/receivers down under that much different than over here? JR and Futaba won't "talk" to each other in the US. And so far as I've heard, they won't communicate in the UK either. [sm=confused.gif]
Dennis-

Sigrun, Thanks very much for the advice/encouragement, much appreciated. To be honest I hadnt thought of him just buying a Rx crystal on my frequency, that seems the simplest way around the lack of buddy box.

DBCherry, In Australia, we dont have the positve/shift negative shift in the frequency talk, between differing types of radios, so our gear is compatible between brands. Unlike in North America. (which I had been led to believe was ONLY in North America)

Hi Dennis

The short answer to your question is yes.

As Lancair has already mentioned, we don't have the positive/negative shift issue between competing brands here.

PPM (FM) modulation is PPM (FM), whether the RX is single or dual conversion, unique individual compatibility idiosyncrasies notwithstanding. In theory however, any brand FM TX should talk to any brand FM RX on the same channel in our approved spectrum. We are fortunate in that regard, though given the equally usurous pricepoints of all brand receivers locally the only benefit is the one pointed out in my previous post. Personally I'd rather suffer the US problem where RX's (& servos, etc) are so cheap you'd just buy the prerequisite spare RX which costs hardly more than the extra crystal here so it'd be total non-issue in the first place. OK admittedly I exaggerate the pricing differential, but you get the gist.

PCM intercommunicability here is still artificially restricted by proprietary implementation between competing manufacturers, although locally Hitec have some PCM receivers which allegedly will also work with Futaba PCM TXs. If you're a JR person, you're plain out of luck though dual conversion is arguably an acceptable alternative without getting into the pointless "which is superior?" debate. On a positive note, JR has at last started importing a Malaysian manufactured JR branded PCM receiver at a more competitive pricepoint in the R770S, but I digress from the objective of my post.

As I understand (?) the UK operates predominently on the 35MHz band whereas we operate on the 36MHz band, both as allocated and dictated by our respective bandwidth authorities. TMK neither are encumbered with the positive/negative shift implementation issue plaguing compatilbity of competing brands in the US. Given the enormity of the US market, I am also given to understand that the US specify feature, models and naming nomeclature specific to their market, whereas the rest of the world suffers one size fits all international versions adopted to suit local market spectrum.

Though it started to change notably with the introduction of end user mode selectable, end user stick ratchet changeable computer radio units hitting the market 10 years ago assisted by the virtually now universal adaptation of the buddy box system for contemporary training, Australians wanting to learn R/C suffered for many years from the parochially restrictive "we only fly mode 1 in our club" mentality whenever approaching a club. Mode 1 still has the predominent though diminishing audience share here, largely through enforced inheritance and timid obeisance under the line of least resistance combined with the ignorance of any alternative laws. Sad though that situation is, even sadder the preponents of the status quo are as emotively vocal as they are forcefully prejudiced. Funniest part are the (ir)rationalisations they come up with to justify what is essentially just an inherited predilection.

Even so, there's is a growing awareness of and ever growing number of mode 2 R/C fliers in this country. Most who are aware there is an alternative before beginning training (the smarter ones who do their research before buying) opt for mode 2 unless pursuaded to the contrary. Always an interesting observation is the position of pilots who fly R/C. Those who are pilots before learning to fly R/C invaariably opt to learn R/C mode 2, whereas those who started in R/C and were forced to conform with the parochial default and only later progressed to flying full size predominently fly R/C mode 1. Few choose to switch from the mode initially adopted, though for those of us who do persevere with and enjoy a certain limited ambidexterity, one mode, the one we fly predominently for our own pleasure remains the most comfortable and acquired reflex mode. Annoyingly for those of us preferring mode 2, even our imported computer radios still have the ancillary knobs and switches annoyingly orientated for local market mode 1 stick operation. eg: trainer switch frequently in reverse placement to that of the identical US model.

However you do it, find a way and take him under your wing. Don't let another potential R/C flier and club member be discouraged or chased away by the unavailability of instructors in his preferred mode or the usual few vocal offenders in every club shoving the my way or the highway mode 1 shovel down his throat.

If you hold an instructor rating, you're already light years ahead of the current R/C teaching syllabus. Have confidence in that fact. To render it most effective, just remember what transfers as applicable and what doesn't. Discard the irrelevant and don't use it in some kind of pointless display of your own prowess, as the status seeking stupidity which is ego in all of us is wont to do. Keep with the KISS thingy and stick with simple easily understood, remembered and applied concepts for R/C training such as "nose in tail out/away", "stick to the low wing" for those having difficulty with orientation & control. And always remember....reinforcement is the mother of skill....

Lancair.
The big problem we are facing down here is INSURANCE Liability.
With the increasing influence of the American "Sue and screw the *******s, for every cent and every scratch" attitude now being picked up by OZ Lawyers, the MAAA's insurers are progressivly tightening the screws. (The HTH collapse didn't help either!)
The insurance component of your club fees will reflect that. A rise of nearly 100% in the last 3 years!
The MAAA is encouraging OZ clubs to adopt a policy of making Bronze Wings standard the MINIMUM requirement of skill to be attained, before allowing a newbie to go solo. ( This is to satisfy the Insurers demands. )
And ONLY a certified Instructor can award them.
Having said that, there is no hard and fast rule in OZ to say that a flyer cannot be taught by any competent model pilot and in whatever Mode the student feels comfortable with. Just when it comes time to go for those Bronze Wings, a Certified MAAA Instructor would have to conduct the test if the flight instructor was not certified.

Incidentally. I don't buy the argument of "real Pilots like Mode 2." Not one of the reasons I have ever heard is logical.
The guy who taught me many moons ago, is also a qualified "full size" pilot (a Qantas 747 "driver)and can fly both Mode 1 and 2.
He gave me lessons on both modes and left me to decide which mode I felt more comfortable with.
It was Mode 1, but I have since taught myself Mode 2, starting with an Aerobird, while I aquired a 2nd hand Mode 2 Tx that was Buddy box compatible. ( That took some time to find!!!)
Anyway, this was so I could instruct a friend, who being left handed, was more comfortable with Mode 2. His 1st 10 training flights were on an Aerobird, down at the local sports complex.
I still fly my stuff on Mode 1 , except for 2 models (not counting the Aerobird)
One is a trainer and the other an old low wing sports model I use for keeping my Mode 2 hand in.
I think your giving your student the choice of Mode selection is a very wise move. Well done.
And whoever invented the Aerobird should be given a medal. They are a brilliant intro model for teaching a newbie!

Lancair,
I agree with what both SIGRUN and WOODY 51 have said. Just check with your club to see that you are not breaking any club rools. If you can help a beginner then go for it. You will kneed an instructor to sign of on bronze wings ect. Our local club allows the more expericened pilots to instruct,(me included) helps spread the load. You only kneed the Gold wing standard if you are going to enter comps, ect. Good Luck.

Cheers,

Remember, Always look after the ORGANIC part of the model.

Thanks for the support guys. After talking with the LHS owner and one of the instructors at our club, they dont have seem to have a problem with me teaching, even though Ive only been flying R/C for just under 2 years at present and have only transited to flying Glow powered models in the last few months. They've seen me flying and knowing my instructor background have no problem with it, or at least they didnt object.
So Ive ordered a Rx crystal for Hitec and Futaba, (apparently it has to be made for me as Futaba dont make even numbered frequencies (36.560) but wont cost me anymore than an already made one). I have friend whos been struggling to find an instructor and the time to fit in with him, plus he's been trying to learn on mode1 which he finds foreign. He's not a full scale pilot but has been a flight engineer in the airforce on the Orion and lately with Qantas on the 747's unit he was forced to retire due to injury last year. During that time he's flown the simulators many times and of course watched the pilots flying for thousands of hours and feels he may get a better grasp of it on mode2, so at least Ill be able to take him up and give him a shot at it with his trainer equipped with Hitec gear.

Sigrun (and Lancair),
Thanks for clearing that up for me. I find it curious that here in the US the manufacturers would have "chosen" to make their components incompatiple, as opposed to finding common operating modalities; Airtronics being the epitomy. That does seem to have been the standard operating procedure, but appears to be changing in order to remain competitive in light of increasing consumer awareness.

The "the American "Sue and screw the ****s, for every cent and every scratch" attitude" is indeed insanely predominant here, and I'm sorry to hear that it's spreading to other countries Woody. The attitude is driven by an ever burgeoning glut of lawyers who have had to devise methods of finding employment, and the US population has adopted this new opportunity to "get rich quick" in an ever shrinking economy. The work ethic in this country is falling by the wayside; manufacturing is constantly being farmed out overseas, and we are fast becoming a service based economy. Which is frightening in two respects; one because no economy can survive without a manufacturing base, and two, on a lighter note (?), because true service is becoming more and more difficult to find.

In any case, I don't want to hijack your thread Lancair. So let's get it back on track!
Dennis-

DBCherry,
I seem to recall reading somewhere that the positive/negative shift in signal control methods used in the USA was brought about by the FCC (that is the US communications regualtory authority isnt it) in a attempt/effort to make radio control of model aircraft safer. IE: Making it just that bit harder for someone on the same frequency to "shoot down" anothers model therefore affording an extra level of protection to innocent bystanders. If that makes any sense.

That brings about another question, do clubs in North America use 2 frequency control boards, one for the positve shift units and one for the negatives ? Seems it would make sense if a Tx radio on positive cant control a Rx on negative.

How about, how would/could you really know if you're not a "real pilot"? Think about it. But I digress in provocative semi-jest.

Woody your inaccurate paraphrasing, presumably referring if only in part to what I'd said in the previous post, reflects that you either didn't read or comprehend accurately what was written. As you've stereotypically paraphrased it into a cliché as worn out as it is inaccurate, what should be an intelligent point of discussion assumes that stupid, tired and pointlessly ugly argument so oft presented which is really one of ego assertion in disguise rather than one based upon reflection of salient truths.

Whether you "buy it" or not, what I've referred to is substantiated by investigative fact. Whether their individual decisions were made emotively or logically, or your or my opinions coincide are irrelevant.

And if the immediately available empirical evidence implies any significance to what has thus been said, Lancair & I are both mode 2 fliers. Of the pilots I know who fly R/C, the stats are as previously elaborated to in my previous post. Saliently, most pilots who learn to fly R/C after becoming licensed pilots, excluding the club 'legends' who "went for a TIF/had a lesson once" or "held a student licence once", prefer to learn mode 2 if aware of and offered the choice. Professional pilots invariably insist upon it. I shan't reiterate the rest which by way of illustrative examle is applicable to a young fellow whom I mentored, who is now a professional pilot but who learnt to fly R/C before becoming your definition "real pilot" and who learnt and still flies R/C mode 1.

Do a search here and find the "mode 1 vs mode" 2 thread where in a post by me you'll finally find your evasive and long sought after logical reason.

Frankly, that's a stupid idea. One shouldn't have to explain why. And the fact that your original instructor was/is a QANTAS driver doesn't necessarily impart instructing skills, let alone imply good instructing skills. And before you go 'my quoted sources are more impressive than your sources', 'I have the biggest gun' ballistic, spare a moment to think what formal qualifications we who are commenting here might have which hold equal or greater credential weight than your referred to R/C instructor. Both Lancair & I hold Instructor Ratings, & myself the MAAQ R/C one amongst a stack of other professional aviation credentials for those impressed by chest puffing more than weight of intelligent, informed debate.

Even those of us of sufficient ambidexterity to manage flight in either mode have an observable predilection for one or the other, usually the one most frequently practised which more frequently than not coincides with first learnt. One can change modes successfully with discipline and perseverence, though the overwhelming majority simply don't have sufficient motivation and determination to do so even when presented with a valid reason. That's just human nature. Anyone who says to me that they don't have a mode preference is deluding only themselves or lying. If the latter they're fooling no-one but themselves. By way of analogy over many years I've driven from all possible combination of seats and controls combos in aeroplanes and I have a definite preference. Similarly with English/Italian motorcycles of bygone era versus opposing conventional control ergonomics adopted by the Japanese. With exposure, one can get used to an operate the gears/brakes either side & in reverse direction well enough, but one arrangement is ergonomically superior - as well as my personal preference. Similarly though less challenging and valid the drive on the left side right side of the road argument. That's a much easier either or without any valid superiority argument I'm aware of, but doing both? In the latter case particularly, the one practised most frequently, presently and continuously quickly becomes most 'natural'.

Trying to teach both modes to someone who is in the novitiate state of not knowing whether they're Arthur or Martha in the air and has zero datum upon which to base any meaningfully comparitive appreciation is likely ony to confuse and impede a student in his/her progress. Load shed thresholds, performance and perceived plateaus, confidence vs skill curves, impediments to learning in the dynamic teaching environment. When you are up to speed on those, there may actually be some point to discussion. Until then, just accept that KISS is best, and that includes not confusing any prospective student irrespective of individual intelligence with superfluous information or choice he is ill-equipped to appreciate let alone assimilate or benefit from.

And you offer this after referring to a requirement if I might paraphrase you "logical reasons"? Pardon my mirth. If ever there was a mode more biased toward right hand orientated operation, it's mode 2. And don't you think that this right-handedness might just have a little to do with the fact that the majority of the world flies mode 2? Or that stick and pole airplanes are invariably flown with the right hand controllig the stick and left on the throttle where the design is not otherwise due to economic imperative? Mode 1 control came about through TX control limitated ergonomics of an era passed. In 2004, there's no valid ergonomic reason limiting R/C flight to mode 1, nor preferring it. Coercion to join the dark side by the forces of evil persists only through inheritance and ignorance.

Raising awareness and offering a stud a choice of mode selection, notably not something usually proffered by the "we only fly mode 1 here" parochial club forefathers is a "wise move". However that differes entirely from teaching both, and equally unwise move.

Lancair,
While interesting speculation, the reasoning behind positive/negative shift as a safety issue doesn't work, because a positive shift transmitter on the same frequency (channel) as a negative shift WILL interfere and cause a loss of control. They aren't compatable to the point where they will work with receivers of the opposite shift, BUT they will "work" well enough to interfere.

So no, we don't use separate frequency boards, it's still necessary to use one.
Dennis-

DB, I thought that was probably the case. So if it wasnt brought about by the FCC, who decided to do it that way ?

Sigrun,
I enjoy reading your rebutals, excellant reading and thanks for answering what I really couldnt be bothered to try to explain to Woody. Ive given up trying to explain to fellow club members, who somehow believe mode1 is still superior to what the rest of the civilised world is flying.

Lancair,
Don't bother tring to explain which MODE is better. Just fly with what you (me,myself & I) feel most comfortable with and realy enjoy the sport & flying. I gave up trying to explain a long time (early 80's). Just enjoy yourself.

Cheers,

Remember, Always look after the ORGANIC part of the model