[Sideslip]

Has anyone taken a look at the MAAC guideline Training guide, and what MAAC suggests as minimum requirements for instructors and senior instructors?

The problem I have with the guidelines is that they use specific precision aerobatics routines as a measure of a pilot's qualifications to teach a beginer through to clearing.

While pilots who can perform flawless precision aerobatics routines are certainly qualified pilots, it doesn't follow - in my opinion - that just because a pilot is not interested in precision aerobatics, and has therefore not practiced such maneuvers, that he is therefore not a competent pilot.

I teach my student pilots controlled straight and level flight, maneuvering to directed headings, perfect set ups for text book landings and takeoffs, stalls, deadsticks, cross wind take offs and landings etc., in short, the basics of safe controlled flight. Once they are completely confident (and that is the important part) in these areas, they are safe, and on their way.

In my opinion, any pilot who is completely confident and capable in these basic areas, and is willing to come out on a regular basis and teach students, should be considered qualified to be an instructor.

While the document says the guidelines are not "mandatory", the fact that they have been officially released, and the recent confusion in MAAC over what guidelines are "mandatory" from an insurance perspective seems to imply that guidelines are meant to be followed.

It is hard enough trying to keep a good student program running, and to find enough volunteers willing to give of their free time to teach newcomers to the hobby without burdening volunteers with the obligation to meet unecessary criteria... I don't understand why documents published by MAAC often seem to confuse the issue rather than clarify it, and often seem to make the process more difficult than it has to be?

But maybe I'm wrong?... What do you think? Should proficiency in preceision aerobatics routines be a prerequisite for instructors?

[JimMcIntyre]

Originally Posted by Sideslip

Should proficiency in preceision aerobatics routines be a prerequisite for instructors?

In brief, I think this is the question and I think the answer is no.

The ability to teach, combined with a head for safety and the ability to recover from any attitude, good judgement to know when to take over and when to allow the student to correct their own mistakes are superior metrics in my humble opinion.

[JimMoss]

I have to agree Dave!

Some of us could easily fly the routines mentioned, however many instructors I know are not disiplined to fly precision, however they are in very good control of their aircraft at all times, and are very good instructors.

JMHO but the "requirements" I feel are unrealistic.

Even for the Show Pilot, I know people that can take a Fun Fly plane and put on a great show, ask them to fly a routine as described and they would laugh at you saying "I'm a Hot Dogger".

Jim Moss

[ronm]

I agree with the 2 Jims.

Aerobatics manuevers are only one aspect of RC proficiency, and should not be the measure of a proficient pilot, any more than, say, taking off and landing a float plane on the water.

The criteria must be basic enough that all types of RC flying are covered.

Ronm

[JimMoss]

Agreed!

Each Discipline has different requirements, one instructor could be great at Aerobatics, but know squat about float flying!

Would he make a good float instructor ...... not likely!

Jim Moss

[AJCoholic]

I had a chat with our club president this past month about this very thing.

IMO I dont believe that an instructor should be able to fly all the aerobatics sequences shown. In order to teach a student how to fly (and fly the prescribed manouvers also shown on the same form) he/she doesnt need to know how to do an avalanche, etc.

I know in my own club, we would have VERY few instructors left (maybe one or two?) if that became mandatory.

That being said, I do believe there should be some sort of "instructor test", if nothing else in order to make sure the instructors themselves are competant pilots. I have witnessed some of our club's own more experienced instructors do many things that I dont personally agree with...

Its a complicated issue and a touchy one also...

[Guest]

Just for clarification....this is NOT a current pattern sequence.

Cmon you guys, those are dead simple manuvers to perform. Its not like its asking the FAI schedule or anything.

If a person cannot fly those manuvers then I dont think they have enough experience yet to be considered "fully in control" of their model. Yet if you can capably fly through those manuvers I think its a safe bet that you are fairly competant and putting your model where it needs to be when it needs to be.

If you need to qualify somebodies skills as a proficient pilot how are you to go about it if not like this? It needs to be something fairly universal that can be tested at virtually all fields.

[AJCoholic]

[quote="can773"]

Cmon you guys, those are dead simple manuvers to perform.


If a person cannot fly those manuvers then I dont think they have enough experience yet to be considered "fully in control" of their model. "


Chad, I agree to some extent. The problem is some of our instructors are not at all into aerobatics. I mean, they still fly trainers and cubs and dont do anything other than the occasional roll or loop. I agree 100% that flying aerobatics improves your flying and ability to react quickly and get out of tight situations. But is it a necessity for teaching someone to fly the pattern, take off and land? Probably not.

I would like to see, as I stated, some type of instructor proficiancy test. But there are other things that come into play, sometimes more important like is the instructor a personable person, able to react well with people and make them feel comfortable? Are they proficient with setting the engines and radios up? Are they able to actually teach/instruct or are they unable to allthough they may themselves be excellent pilots. Like school teachers, the most "qualified" often do not make the best instructors....

This is a many sided thing, no black or white. I know people who cannot fly these manouvers comfortably that have taught MANY people to fly and saftetly at that. But, like I said, I have also witnessed some less than proficient flying from club instructors as well...

[Guest]

I agree Andrew that there are those who may not be able to fly these daily and still instruct, although I bet give them a day to try them out they could manage to pass quite easily if they are truly competent.

Really what other method of skill testing can you use, that will work at any field and able to be done on virtually any model?

I am sure if one wanted to teach, he could take the hour to learn the manuvers, pass the test, and be considered competent.

[Gary Maker]

Hey, why keep it simple when it can be made complicated" Basically I think this is what is really happening here!. If you review the first couple of posts, it was stated that an instructor should be able to instruct a studen to fly "Safely" and my personal opinion says thats what its all about! A student doesn't have to get his wings by being an awsome pilot able to dazzel everyone at the field, If he/she can perform the basic manovers, and do it "safely" then why hold a student back.

We've heard arguments before how some instructors are so rigid that they will take a student who is more than apt at moving along quickly but they will insist that they fly circuits for a whole month before they are allowed to go on say to doing approaches. In the mean time the student becomes so bored that they just don't show up any more. On the other hand I've personally seen instructors teach their students how to do snap rolls, tumbles, and a whole gambit of aerobatics but the student can't even take off and land his plane let alone do it safely. There has to be some rules and guidelines but lets keep it simple! Lets make it fun! And more importantly lets all do it "safely"

I don't understand why MAAC would even as a guide, imply such a stringent program for instructing. MAAC has for years said that that we're in trouble as far as inrolement especially with getting young people involved. How in the heck is this going to help with progress and numbers if we have less qualified instructors because the interest is crushed by unessary stringent qualifications? Just MHO!