Conference vmszoo::rc

    Chris,
    
    Don't knock it..."KID" will be a "welcome" nom-de-plume before you
    know it.  To this day my (sometime) nickname to close personal
    friends and family is "Big Kid!" and I love it more by the minute.
    
    Planning not to crash is certainly a worthwhile objective and is
    absolutely achievable if one will do ALL the homework involved
    with pre-flight inspection, battery maintenance and other crash-
    preventative items AND avoid getting over-confident (cocky) and
    over-extending themselves into a situation they are not prepared
    to extricate themselves from.  That's the trick...when you are ready
    for it, begin practicing unusual attitudes so you'll be prepared
    BEFORE the crisis situation develops!
    
    You do this by taking off, climbing to a "safe" altitude, rolling
    to the inverted and flying a routine flight, including aerobatics,
    from-inverted-to-inverted, only rolling upright when it's time to
    land.  I did this with an Aeromaster many years back and the lessons
    learned are still paying off today. (Obviously, you start at a high
    altitude and only bring it down lower as you become more skilled
    and confident.)  Also, it's NEVER too soon to start learning what
    the rudder stick is for, besides steering on the ground.  Rudder
    can save yer' bacon when nothing else will and "anything" else will
    actually cause a crash!  Experiment with rudder/elevator-only flight,
    practice cross-controlled maneuvers, i.e. slips, knife-edge flight,
    etc.  Again, ease into these exercizes only when yer' ready for
    them and at a high practice-altitude 'til you have 'em mastered.
    The VERY FIRST thing you want to learn is that the instinctive,
    "knee-jerk" reaction of yanking full-up when in trouble WILL wind
    up augering you into thr turf one day...the exercizes I've mentioned
    will help break this habit in short order.
    
    Adios,	Al
    
    

>    Rudder? What's that?  So far I have only used it for turning on the
>    ground and tryed it in the air a few times.  

	* ONE DAY, SOONER OR LATER, THESE WILL BECOME "FAMOUS LAST WORDS!"
	You can carve 'em into the tombstone of the plane you lost `cause
	you didn't know what the rudder was for.

>					..........I noticed that when
>    I turn in the air using rudder that there seems to be very little
>    roll effect.  I guess your right Al, being close to the ground this
>    probably would have done the trick.  With the way the wind was holding
>    it, the Ailerons (also due to almost no air speed) had zero effect.

	* EGGGGGGZACKLY!  When the wing is nearly stalled, there simply isn't
	enough airflow over the ailerons for them to be effective...PLUS, due
	to the high angle of attack, the ailerons are "blanked out" by the 
	wing itself, further rendering them useless.  About all they'll produce
	is enough drag to snap you on yer' back and spill ya', usually in the
	direction of the down aileron!  As long as there is "some" forward mo-
	tion, the rudder "will" be effective to some degree...USE IT and the 
	throttle together to getcher' self out of trouble.  Oh! And by the way,
	if the "wind was holding it up," you "had" airspeed, no groundspeed,
	perhaps, but you "did" have airspeed!  One thing you "did" do right:
	YA' NEVER GAVE UP and I'm proud of ya' fer' "that," Kid!  Now you just
	need to learn which controls will help you and which ones will "kill"
	you in emergengy situations.

	If I were yer' instructor, I'd have you devoting a portion of each 
	flight to rudder/elevator only turns; EXCELLENT practice!!

    
>    When the witnesses asked what happened that I had not turned back,
>    I said to them "I gave it full left Aileron".  After you just forced
>    me to think, I realize now why it continued straight to the tree.

	* EGGGGZACKLY again!!!!  Ailerons no workee!
    
	Yer' two MOST important controls when you find yer'self in trouble low/
	slow/near the ground are throttle and RUDDER.  Remember elevator is NO
	GOOD at all without power!  (If you want to go up, use up-elevator...if 
	you want to go down, use "more" up-elevator! Think about it...........)

>    BTW- Wasn't the suspense killin' ya'?  

	* Yeah! I have to confess being concerned about the condition of "th' 
	Kid's" airplane...you can ill afford to lose yer' bird at this stage of
	yer' learning process (unless you have another'n ready to go).  Crash-
	induced delays increase the learning time exponentially...ya' can't 
	learn to fly unless yer' in the air.  You'll just become a master-
	builder who "still" hasn't learned to fly.
    
	Adios amigo, keep it flyin' and PRACTICE THAT RUDDER,	Al

    Re: .-2, Glenn,
    
    You make a very important point:  GROUNDSPEED HAS NOTHING TO DO
    WITH AIRSPEED.  It is this little understood FACT that causes most
    of the "downwind turn" crashes and controversy.  The plain and simple
    truth is that a plane could actually have ZERO airspeed while having
    considerable groundspeed.
    
    Let's setup an example:  let's say that yer' pride 'n joy has a
    top speed of 60mph and stalls (and falls outa' the sky) at 25.
    Now, let's imagine that yer' flying in a 30mph wind.  No problem
    upwind, regardless  of appearances, the plane is plowing through
    the "air" at a true airspeed of 60...groundspeed is 30mph.
    
    But, now turn downwind and things get tricky.  Groundspeed increases
    to 90mph but "airspeed" remains at 60; remember this important point.
    Now, this high speed makes you uncomfortable so you throttle back
    every time you turn downwind to try to balance the upwind versus
    downwind "groundspeed."  Think about what happens though; say you
    manage to reduce your downwind groundspeed to 60mhp.  That means
    your VITAL "airspeed" is only 30mph, a mere 5mph above the plane's
    stall speed.  At this point, anything you do to reduce "airspeed" a
    further 5mph will spell stall, snap, disaster...and your groundspeed
    was still 55mph!!
    
    Points to remember when flying in high wind include:
    
    1. If yer' uncomfortable with high downwind speeds, don't fly 'til
    you have more experience.
    
    2. NEVER throttle back to make a downwind turn, even when setting
    up a landing...hold power 'til the turn onto final is complete,
    then reduce power gradually/carefully.
    
    3. POWER/AIRSPEED is your best friend on landing; hold _some_ power on
    'til touchdown.  In the example cited above, consider that, upwind,
    a groundspeed of zero equates to an "airspeed" of 30mph, still 5mph
    above stall.  This is why ballooning is so prevalent landing into
    a stiff wind:  The plane IS NOT stalled at touchdown.
    
    4. Try to never run out of altitude, airspeed and luck all at the
    same time!
                                                                  
      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Dan, Ken,
    
    When inverted in a roll (or for any other reason) concentrate on
    thinking "push" the nose up, i.e. "push" the elevator stick forward
    for down-elevator to raise the nose when inverted.  Confused?  Just
    keep practicing 3-mistakes high and it'll come to ya'.
    
    As both of you have discovered, little or no down elevator is needed
    to perform one-roll _IF_ you raise the nose enough on entry.  However,
    multiple rolls _absolutely_require_ the elevator to be rythymically
    cycled, down-up-down-up-down-up to maintain altitude.  If you get
    to feeling ballsy, go up about _4_-mistakes high and try 2 consecutive
    rolls; you'll see in a hurry what I'm referring to;  failure to
    use elevator (or to mis-time application of same) will result in
    a rapid loss of altitude and/or heading loss.  This will become
    second-nature in time with lots of practice but there's lots of
    other things you should work on before worrying about stringing
    consecutive rolls, right?   

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Re: .1094, John,
    
    Eureka!  I think you've solved the mystery regarding the ag-planes
    at the Schweiser factory.  As you noted, ag-planes, notably the
    Piper Pawnee and Cessna Ag-Wagon, are very popular glider-tugs as
    would be, I'm sure, the Grumman Ag-Cat.  A plant that was manufac-
    turing and testing sailplanes would, of necessity, have a fleet
    of these tugs for towing purposes.  Gracias, John, I think you struck
    upon the answer to why there'd be ag-planes at a sailplane plant.  
    
    Re: .1095/.1096, Dan,
    
    Congratulations on the successful maiden voyage of yer' new bird.
    I have to side with Anker's alarm at yer' half-inside loop to recover
    from inverted to upright flight.  Yeah, it's easy but it stresses
    the airframe needlessly and can get a novice in _LOT'S_ of trouble
    in a big hurry if he tries it at too low an altitude or downwind
    where a seemingly adequate altitude might well be about 6-feet less
    than he needed!
    
    Most importantly, it teaches the novice an EXTRREMELY bad habit: "When 
    in trouble inverted, pull full-up."  I'd MUCH prefer to see you
    push the nose up with a dab of down and roll out _OR_, try this;
    push over the top with down elevator, like half an 'OUTSIDE-loop.'
    Either of these methods will condition yer' response/reflex to push
    the nose up with down-elevator when something happens inverted (like
    the engine quitting) instead of the often *FATAL* opposite reaction
    of immediately pulling full-up!  In a dead-stick situation, even
    if you haven't sufficient altitude to roll out, an inverted landing
    will leave you something to patch up (especially flying in grass) 
    where  the "Full-up Syndrome" usually produces a total wash-out!!!!  
    Give it some thought, eh?

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    Dan,
    
    There _is_ such an adage in full scale aviation, though I'm hard-
    pressed to remember it exactly at the moment.  It translates to
    altitude being safety and cautions one not to waste it...damn! wish
    I could remember how irt goes - maybe someone can help refresh the
    ol' Rat's memory (read: HELP y'all).  Another old aviation saw cautions
    one not to run outa' altitude, airspeed and luck all at the same
    time.
    
    Seriously, you've already come up with the solution to the dreaded
    'full-up when inverted' syndrome...PRACTICE.  I used up an entire
    Aeromaster doing just what you described; taking off, then rolling
    inverted (at a safe altitude) and completing the entire flight,
    doing all my usual and favorite maneuvers from-inverted-to-inverted
    'til time to land.  Even then, I shot the entire landing approach
    inverted 'til about half way down final...then I'd roll upright
    and land.  As I got more and more proficient, I'd bring things lower
    'til I was as comfortable flying inverted at normal altitudes as
    I was upright.  Then, and only then, I brought maneuvers even lower
    'til I could do 5' and lower inverted passes and such with as much
    confidence and comfort as upright.
    
    I can say in all sincerity that this practice has enabled me to
    save quite a number of birds over the years, my own and those belonging
    to others who got into trouble.  I highly recommend the program
    you and I have outlined to all pilots who've become reasonably
    competent and are capable of basic aerobatic maneuvers.  The increased
    prowess at recovering from [intentional _and_ unintentional] unusual
    attitudes as well as being able to competently perform low-level
    hot-dogging is the benefit to be received and enjoyed.   

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    This weekend I think I had a new lesson involving stalls.
    
    It seems that I subconsciously had an incorrect image of the stall
    process dating from my days flying full scale.  Back then the seat
    of my pants had associated stalling with falling, and I had never
    thought things through enough to intellectually realize that at
    the moment of stall the plane is still on the pre-stall path; it
    will fall, but for the moment it will continue to move upward or
    whatever it was doing before the stall happened.
    
    Because of my flying experience, when I started RC flying lessons
    I didn't take any time to read about flight.  Another case of a
    cub thinking he knows more than he really does.
    
    As a result, when from the ground I observed the plane continuing
    to move upward [at times when I had already stalled], I did not
    associate the loss of control with the stall process.  Jeff has
    probably been wondering why this turkey keeps stalling and never
    seems to learn.
    
    Yesterday was windy enough to force through an understanding.  Oh
    yes, it was also windy enough to teach me a lesson about engine
    failure just after take-off.  When we switched transmitters (via
    the trainer cord), my much different throttle setting killed the
    engine, and the landing gear was soon removed from the fuselage.
    It would be prudent to take the plane where it could be landed
    immediately before handing over control.  It would also be prudent
    for me to check my throttle position before taking control.

    I've looked elsewhere for a place to put this, and I think it fits here.
    
    Subject: Pilot Proficiency Program
    
    At a recent officers meeting, one of our club's newest pilots complained
    that after he soloed, he felt very much on his own to "learn the
    ropes", and that felt abondoned without any further training.  As a
    result of his input we decided we needed some kind of ongoing training 
    to help people improve their flying skills.  
    
    We discussed this and are set down plans to create a club Pilot 
    Proficiency Program (PPP, or P-Cubed, for short).  
    We have created five categories:
    
    1) Beginner - learns to fly with an instructor.  Goal is to solo.
    2) Novice - works with instructor or more experienced pilot to learn
    some of the basic things you need to know to keep flying safely, build
    confidence, learn a few simple maneuvers.
    3) Intermediate - works with more experienced pilots to learn
    additional maneuvers, culminating in learning Novice Pattern.
    4) Expert - works with more experienced pilots to learn additional
    maneuvers and ends up learning SPortsman Pattern.
    5) Advanced - works with more experienced pilots to learn advanced
    maneuvers and finishes with Advanced Pattern.
    
    We are going to create a set of instructions, a description on the
    things to be learned at each level, and some notes about how to go
    about using this self-managed program.  The program will be voluntary. 
    Those wishing to participate will be given 5 checklists that contain
    all the achievements for each level.  At their own speed and comfort
    level, they can move thru the program, having a club instructor sign
    them off each time they have achieved a new maneuver or goal.  Once all
    the goals within a given level are achieved, we'll present a
    certificate and/or patch recognizing the achievement, and "graduate"
    them to the next level.
    
    In this way, we hope to create an environment for continued learning
    and improvement of flight skills.  SInce it is entirely voluntary, no
    pressure will be placed on anyone to participate, and those who do will
    self-manage their own development at their comfort level.
    
    Question:  Has any other club had any experience with such a program? 
    What kind of program was it?  How did it work?  I'm open to
    suggestions/comments at this point, since our program is still in the
    formative stages.
    
    Looking forward to feedback from y'all,
    
    -Joe                                                                   

We have a bit of a problem in our club with some people who fly only
during the week being given solo status from the same instructor who
taught them.  A secondary problem is that they don't have proper
experience in traffic, and this has caused some situations on a busy
day, such as a Saturday.

These proficency problems have been much discussed at our board
meetings with little resolution.  Please keep us updated on this
program -- though I think it may be headed for failure because it is
*too* formal and our experience is that whoever is responsible gets
into burnout very quickly.

    I think what we need is structure, but without formality.  That may
    sound like a contradiction in terms, but its not really.  For example,
    if I just soloed and asked some club member how I go about learning
    more, today's answer would most likely be, "just keep practicing and
    get lots of stick time, and some day you'll become good, just like the
    rest of us did." 
    
    No structure.
    
    What we need is an answer like, "OK, now that you've soloed, here's
    some of the things you should set a goal to do.  There are many things
    you need to learn, such as A, B, and C that will make you a better
    pilot.  Seek out help from an instructor or another experienced pilot
    willing to help, and learn these things.  Progress at your own speed,
    and learn each step well before going on to the next.  When you
    complete this set of things, come back, and I'll give you more to get
    you to the next level"   
    
    Structure, but not forced, and not too formal. 
    
    It also needs to be flexible enough to take individual needs into
    account.  For example, it took me 6 months and over 50 flights to learn 
    enough control to solo.  Last night at our field, a new member who
    joined this month soloed in under a week on his THIRD RC FLIGHT!!!  Then 
    he took off and did it again, better the second time.  Four flights, two 
    of them solo. This guy's got a natural talent and will go far.  He and I 
    need different tutoring, but there needs to be a structure in place to 
    accommodate each of us.  I think the failings of programs like this may 
    lie in their being inflexible, so we will strive to make sure this is not 
    the case.
    
    At any rate, it is worth a try, so we'll forge ahead.
    
    -Joe
    

This is half jest, half serious... 

How about something along the lines of a points / skill system.

These are kind of lame titles, but hopefully you will get the idea.

Airman
Pilot JG
Pilot
Squadron commander
Wing Commander
etc.

I suppose you could add honorary Ground Crewman for someone who pulled
a real boneheaded move while flying... :)

Anyway, to move the next level you would need to complete some set of
tasks.

What do you think?

>    1) Beginner - learns to fly with an instructor.  Goal is to solo.
>    2) Novice - works with instructor or more experienced pilot to learn
>    some of the basic things you need to know to keep flying safely, build
>    confidence, learn a few simple maneuvers.
>    3) Intermediate - works with more experienced pilots to learn
>    additional maneuvers, culminating in learning Novice Pattern.
>    4) Expert - works with more experienced pilots to learn additional
>    maneuvers and ends up learning SPortsman Pattern.
>    5) Advanced - works with more experienced pilots to learn advanced
>    maneuvers and finishes with Advanced Pattern.

I think this is a great idea and it sounds a lot like the LSF Soaring
Accomplishments Program.  If you have never read an LSF form you
should probably take a look at that.  If you can itemize the things
that should be taught/observed/witnessed to attain each level then
you can zero in on a workable self administrating concept like the LSF did.

It just needs a good acronym - let's see - your club is the Flying Eagles
right?

Flying Eagles Trained dude = FAT dude.

Seriously - it sounds like a grand idea - want me to send you an LSF form?

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

    Verrry funny. Youse guys wan' a broken' leg, or sumptin?
    
    Sure, Kay.  I'd like to see the LSF document you refer to.  
    
    But how do you get FAT from Flying Eagles Trained?  FET, no?
    
    Thanks,
    Joe

    To my way of thinking, once a pilot has soloed, he should be proficient
    enough to handle the plane under most circumstances.  This is how it
    operates in the full scale world.  Once you have soloed you are
    permitted to fly within the limits of your license(IFR/VFR, type
    rating, etc).  
    
    The key is to make sure the instructor and student are in agreement
    over when the pilot should be "soloed"(allowed to fly alone).  Both
    should be confident before the student is on his own.
    
    One other interesting question involves the type of aircraft being
    flown.  When I joined my current club(all power flyers) I had never
    been instructed or soloed in my life, having flown alone in solitary
    fields with my gliders.  No one in the club had any desire to "solo"
    me after seeing my electric glider fly.  It was a totally foreign
    machine to them - hand launched, fast, easily tip stalled, and a very
    hot lander.  To this day only the top pattern flyer in the club has
    ever taken the sticks to show me how to do rolls, and even he refused
    to land it.  So I was kind off "soloed" by default.  But if you handed
    me a trainer I have no idea if I could even get the thing off the ground
    because I have never ROG'D a power plane before(I might nose over or
    something like that).
    
    So here is a circumstance where the club instructors are unwilling to
    fly a plane, which is just one example of the difficulty of a rating
    system.  We have many instructors who are very capable with trainer
    type planes, but who are not that competent with higher performance
    aircraft.  

    re -1
    Unfortunately, that type of thinking is what gets alot of club members
    into trouble.  Just because a person has soloed a trainer should not
    allow him to go out to the field and fly anything.  The club that I
    belong to in Vermont had this problem.  Guys were wanting to go
    directly from soloing trainers to trying to solo hot low wing aircraft. 
    After a few planes went through houses, trees, and and even a dump
    truck window, the club came up with a loose set of rules for all new
    aircraft and pilots entering the field.  1)  To be able to solo any
    aircraft, the pilot had to do 10 consecutive take off and landings
    without any significant damage to the aircraft.  2)  New solo pilots
    had to fly their present aircraft at least 3 months and show typical
    club ground rules for control of that aircraft during that time before
    they could move on to the next level/faster type aircraft (ground rules
    being typical traffic control rules for flying).  Of course there were
    exceptions, but in general these and other club rules reduced the
    carnage rate at least 40% or more.  The bottom line is no matter what
    rules your club comes up with, there are going to be disagreements,
    fallouts and whiners along with the agreers.  The majority has to set
    the rules and let the rest follow them or fly somewhere else.
    
    Even in the real world, most all pilots go thru more trainning before
    moving up to faster/bigger aircraft.  Air Force Cadets are about the
    only instance that I can think of were pilots go directly from trainner
    Cessnas or whatever into jets.
    
    my 2c worth
    
    Robert
    

    re: -1
    
    My experience is clubs loaded with rules seeking to dictate what type
    of aircraft others can fly soon cease to exist.  The best flyers in
    my club don't seem to be as concerned about limiting what others can
    fly because they are too busy improving their own skills and
    constantly pushing their own limits with new challenging aircraft.
    
    In fact a number of members in my club joined because their previous
    club had become dominated by a couple of "rules freaks" ruining all
    the fun.  When they told me the names of these "rules" guys I had a
    good laugh because I know they are all VERY mediocre flyers and
    builders.
    
    Be sure the intent of the rules is safety and not simply a forum for
    the "control freaks" in the club.  I personally defer my flying 
    whenever possible, when what I consider, a "questionable" situation
    arises.  This might be the best flyer in the club taking a flight
    with his P-38 or a relative beginner struggling to get the handle
    on his first low winger.  These flights are usually educational
    and sometimes entertaining, plus you are in a better position to
    take cover if need be 8>).  A club full of trainers is boring!

    Order or Anarchy?.
    
    I hate to take this stance but we need to protect people from
    themselves. If we know that a plane is beyond a pilot's current
    abilities we should intervene, train them on the plane, and protect the
    rest of the club.
    
    I flew at an Essex club whee you were tested before you were allowed to
    fly alone. As a club member, or as in my case, as a guest. Sooner or
    later we will not be allowed to use sites unless we improve on this
    safety aspect.
    
    Eric H. (the former E) :-) 

    Some silent jottings...
    
    We have a proficiency scheme now built into the requirements of our
    insurance. I think it helped to stabalise the ever increasing premium.
    
    As most of you aware the club I belong to is Silent Flight only.
    The Sloping part of this does tend to atract some of the most casual (read
    cowboy), risk taking pilots (I think that's where EV-1 learnt his
    trade) and whilst many of these develop into good glider guiders the
    development period is somewhat fraught with danger.
    
    The insurance now requires we have a process to bring beginners up to
    solo standard and during that time they can only get airbourne under
    instruction. [I note that Given the points raised about different model 
    types this in itself is probably weak, but its better than nothing]
    
    Generally on the subject of instruction
    - much has been made in this note about the ability to fly
    which is of course uppermost in priority but I believe two other points
    should be equally expressed and these refer to the new pilots knowledge
    before he partakes in flight.
    
    	Airworthy - is the model fit to fly and what preflight checks
    	               need to be performed.
    
    	Safety - Complete knowledge of all the club and general safety
    		    rules and any special T&C's for the day
    	
    
     
    	IN terms of Existing Schemes.
    
    BMFA (British Model Flying Association) have a documented scheme
    which goes through 3 or 4 stages for both power, helicopters and Silent 
    flight and they have approved examiners.
    
    
    BARCS (British Association of Radio Control Soarers) have separate
    achievement schemes for both Slope and Flat which run through Bronze, 
    silver, gold, diamond, and Double diamond. (the Double diamond was
    only added, I believe, after the dozen or so Diamond holders requested
    something a little more difficult).
    
    
    Regards Trev
    

    While I agree that an RC airplane out of control presents real
    danger, I can't think of a workable system to limit what people
    fly.
    
    Do you have "proficiency police" who unilaterally decide who can
    fly what?  Does the club vote on who can fly what?  Is a proficiency
    committee formed to decide what aircraft each club member can or
    cannot fly?  I certainly would not want to be a member of this
    policing force.
    
    Let's look at a probable example - John Doe flys a couple years and
    is doing ok with a SS60.  One day he shows up at the field proud as
    can be with his new 1.20 powered Top Flight Mustang, spent all winter
    building it, boy is he excited.  As he is setting up there is a
    discernible buzz from the "proficiency committee".  Finally a 
    proficiency policeman comes over and says - "John, the committee has
    decided that you should not be allowed to fly this airplane.  We are
    sorry but have noticed a few errors in your flying lately and feel that
    for the safety of all involved it is better that you not fly this
    plane.  We're sorry we know you have invested a lot of time and money,
    but it's for your own good."
    
    What I envision happening in this environment is a paranoia setting in
    that you "are being watched" every time you fly, with rank demotion
    or flying privileges revoked.
    
    Two years ago I had a bad aileron servo in the left wing of my Robbe
    Calibra.  It started out kind of intermittent but eventually went
    solid which is when I found it.  The servo would drift from center
    then hunt back ver quickly.  If you had seen me fly the conclusion
    would be that I was "out of control".  Under the police system would
    a hearing be held where I would present evidence that the servo was
    indeed bad and that I was not really such an erratic flyer?
    
    I am not categorically against trying to promote safety through 
    limiting what a person can fly, but I would like to see a lot more
    details of how it would be implemented.

    Let me promote one scheme that I support that only has one minor
    flaw:
    
    -When you fly you need a spotter/helper at your side who has the
     ability to take the sticks if necessary.
    
    The obvious flaw is determining if the helper is proficient to 
    take the sticks.
    
    Luckily in my club most members have the common sense to do this
    voluntarily.
    
    
    
    

One of the clubs I didn't renew this year has a system like this in place. The
"proficiency committee" is a group of some of the lousiest fliers in the club.
These people are the officers and a group of instructors and I have seen the
total several student's planes in the process. It only works if everyone is
brought under the rules. They fly at a private airport and I feel that someone
is going to take out a full-size. I got out before it happened. 

    Jim, was that reply to my comments 435.18? if it was then I gave the
    wrong impression I certainly come from the keep it simple brigade.
    
    I think each club should have two things..
    
    	1. a scheme to help the novice safely into the air.
    
    	2. a safety officer, who simply has quiet a discussion with
    dangerous pilots when required. (Constant offenders are referred back to
    the formal committee who have the ultimate power to expell) 
    
    
    On the subject of the pilot moving to more advance models and the
    risks. 
    In my personal experience a pilot with a new model will not want to risk 
    all his building time on the maiden flight - he tends to look for a more
    experienced pilot to check it out, give it its first stick stir, check
    the trims etc.. before going solo on it himself. In this way the
    modeller himself is providing his own controls. 
    
    Noisier than usual
    Trev

Which Jim? 8^)

My note (.21) was reflecting back to Jim Blum's note .19

    re:-1  "Who polices the police?"
    
    Good point!

    re: -.22
    
    Trev,
    
        My note was not written in reply to your note in 435.18.  They
    were entered simultaneously. Coincidentally we both use the
    word "Proficient".
    
    Keep up the noise, we need it!
    
    Regards,
    
    Jim

    The problem with safety officers is that you come up against the
    "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones" syndrome.
    
    Picture me as a safety officer. (I have been one several times). I find
    a guy who is about to take off with his engine wobbling all over the
    place. I stop him. He's glad that I saw it. Made a friend.
    
    The next guy is landing straight towards the pits. I tell him to go 
    around and land parr~ to the pits. He hates me. Badmouths me. Goes so 
    far as to get up another candidate to try and get me unelected from the 
    committee. Points out to everyone all of my flying flaws. "That pass was 
    too close, too low, it's not safe to roll on take-off etc. etc".
    
    The net is that he still has his front teeth but I don't do safety
    officer duty anymore. Many people quietly tell you that they support
    what you are doing but they will not stand up and be counted when a person
    has to be confronted. As I see it we all have to be safety officers.
    That, of course, will never happen. 
    
    What I don't understand is that despite a clearly dangerous situation
    to both a person and the hobby, there is always a band of people,
    allbeit well meaning, who react to the steps that are needed to solve 
    the problem, rather than react to the problem itself.
    
    Ostrich approaches do not work. The problem will not go away on its own
    and we can't stand by and watch it inevitibly get worse.
    
    This guy needs to be told that he is considered to be unsafe in Gremlin
    Combat an that people do not want him to compete in Gremlin comps. Harsh 
    words I know but neccessary.
    
    Regards.
    
    E.
          

    
    
       Joe,
    
          Here are my thoughts regarding a pilot "proficiency" program for
    the Flying Eagles.
    
             Having been a member of three clubs over the past few years, I
          have observed the following:
    
          CMRCM has some talented flyers/instructors, but as a club, we have
          not shown a committment to training. (Example: Rene is the
          instructor available most often.)
    
          The Flying Eagles have demonstrated the strongest committment to
          getting people trained (ie; Tuesday night, and Sunday morning 
          instruction periods with several instructors supporting the
          effort / Pilot proficiency programs ), but needs to do some 
          instructor training to have a solid program.
    
          Gardner falls in the middle regarding both committment to
          instruction, and instructor capability.
    
          Based on the above, my thoughts are:
    
      1. Train the trainer.
    
             If you want people to learn pattern, and advanced flying, you
          need to get the instructors proficient. Currently, I don't know
          any instructors in the Flying Eagles ( that are regularly
          available) that could teach either the Sportsman, or Advanced
          pattern routine ( me included). My definition of proficient is that
          they have competed in at least 6 contests at the level they are
          teaching (or something similar). In some cases, instructor's basic 
          flying techniques need to be worked on.
             In addition, flight training is as much instuction as it is
          flying ability. Some training regarding instruction techniques
          would be beneficial. An analogy is that in full scale, you
          recieve a commercial license when you demonstrate a level of
          flight proficiency, but do not recieve a flight instructor rating
          until you learn how to teach. 
    
    
       2.    Don't just focus on Pattern routines. IMO ,the Novice and
          Sportsman routines could be nicely adapted into proficency programs,
          provide a standard to be judged against, and you can fly these
          patterns with a trainer. The Advanced routine tend to be more
          specialized in both equipment needed and the type of flying done.
             There are several routes a pilot can take after gaining basic
          proficiency including Pattern, Gliders, Heli's, Ducted Fan, and 
          Scale (All of which require a level of specialized skills). I suggest
          that instructor specialties be listed next to their name, and
          the basic proficiency program not extend beyond Sportsman pattern.
          After the Sportsman level, pilots can contact specific
          instructors for any specialized instruction.
    
    
             Example:   Instructor X - Airplane (Advanced Pattern), Glider    
     
             I have been in a position to instruct on gliders because I am
          an instructor, even though I have very little glider knowledge,
          where as a Jeff Friedrichs, or Ken Hanson would have been a much
          better choice.
     
    
       3.    Other things like slow flight, stalls, spins, should be included 
          in the proficency program at some point. Neither the novice or
          sportsman routines include these manuevers, and they are often
          not taught before solo.
             
       
       4. Make the whole process challenging, BUT FUN!
                    

I agree with Dan on the specialization aspect. I have aked to be put in as a
glider instructor since that's where I spend my competition time. Balancing a
glider for optimum flight is much different that setting up a pattern ship for
proper symetrical manuevers even though both can benefit from the other, it
isn't the primary concern.

(Rene competes in gliders and is thus qualified there as well 8^)