Lee Smalley

John the powerboxes have been around for many years now and are super reliable top pilots use them in very expensive airframes and have ultra faith in them, so to be honest if they are showing something wrong it is probably something in your setup, or your batteries, firstly make sure the switch is set up for LiFe batteries and not Lipos their voltage is wildly different after that check your batteries, mine was doing the same and when i checked my Life packs one had split and leaked, so trust your powerbox

why so much better, just to clarify the u/c fixing method in the Magician is bomb proof if made correctly and you will destroy the model before you rip the u/c out. it is a great model, i must get myself a mystic next year

That quote probably has more to do with Davids ability to run an IC engine than anything else

Alan G makes a very good point here actually, what if there is no one else at the club able to demonstrate ?? Chis Bott also makes a good point, why not more ACEs it can do no harm can it??? David on the whole most people have behaved very well, i am sure you would agree! i think the one thing we can't forget here is that whatever ACEs are around and whatever there standard was or now is, .....they give their time free, for us and the hobby and i for one appreciate it, no matter what my personal feelings are regarding this matter.

Posted by ken anderson. on 09/12/2014 10:32:11: so the examiner who for what ever reason has decided (probably for the benefit of his club/and area) has to be super human/ace flyer no question's asked and if there is any chink's in his armour he is going to be disposed of ASAP? .... when did anyone say he had to be an ace flier Ken, you are taking things out of context here and it is degrading the debate somewhat, all some, including myself; here is saying that we think they should be able to fly a reasonable A or B cert, no one mentioned superhuman or ace flier but you !! and no they are no disposed of (again you are over dramatising things a tad) but they can be used as long as one of the examiners present is able to fly the standard being tested. again i personally would quit if i was unable to fly the test i am examining for, regardless of the rules. it is quite clear that if they did all quit, we here in the north west would be very stuck, so i hope they all do continue as i want to take my Jet C, but we should be bringing new blood through who are the future and can fly the schedules they are testing. sadly here in the north west i don't think we have much option at the minute !

In short BEB yes he should step down, I would.. However there may be instances where lack of cover and lack of ace examiners, that they need to stay on, but then it is the BMFAs job to ensure the best examiners out there are encouraged to become ACE, and we have a good supply of fresh blood coming through, I do feel very sorry for those who can't fly through ill health but I personally would quit as examiner if I could no longer do the test reasonably, others are different obviously and that's up to them, my own opinion is that the ACE if required should be able to show the student what he is looking for, many times I have been asked why I would fail a certain flight for a B cert and after discussions that did not clarify the issue I took of and demonstrated it, in 1 flight it became very clear for all watching

hi Ken, i would not presume to know if Andy is bothered or not, i would be!!! but i do not know about him, i assume the reason he mentioned the first part on the forum is because he did not get a reply of the BMFA when he asked them, or at least not one that was suitable, i am not sure if if a vote or poll would show if people would be concerned or not, i only know i would be !! there are loads of people like yourself and Andy that do loads of hours un-paid work for the hobby, i myself have also done more than my fair share, and examiners are no different, however i would not like to be an examiner if i could not do the test i was examining for, if that day ever came i would refuse to be an examiner

i think Axe to grind is the wrong word to use here Ken, and i know you do not mean it with provocation, but it could certainly come across as that, what you dont know is that Andy is very passionate about the training stuff, he was very heavily involved with it as he is at his club, he is a staunch defender of the standards at TMFC and it results in a high level of competency across the board at TMFC, more so than most clubs, i have visited. so i take any frustrations Andy has, as a frustration of the a potential denigration to the achievement scheme here in the NW, rather than an Axe to grind. the words sour grapes and axe to grind have a tendency to incite !! personally i find it staggering that someone can test you and not be able to do a basic b cert (it really is not that hard) that fact that some are ok with that is again to me staggering, but maybe that is just me, and we are not talking about every schedule here Ken, just A + B, again not hard really.

untterly disagree levanter, why should i listen to you if you were an examiner and yet could not fly, what gives you the authority to judge pass or fail on me, when you can do nothing yourself, it is a slippery slope, every scheme like this has to have the respect and confidence of its members and more importantly the people under examination for it to have any credibility. imagine people going for PPL licence with an examiner who can't fly, can you imagine the students disbelief and the general publics outrage??

Fair enough BEB but as I said in my opinion the scheme looses credibility when the examiners cant fly or can't fly well enough to do the basic manouvers in the a or b cert

I think they should be able to demonstrate the schedule they are examining to, personally I understand what some are saying about diving judges, or similar, but I do feel it has absolutely no relevance here, your driving (car or bike) instructor must be able to demonstrate the test, and same here, not perfectly by any means, but not even be able to do it roughly has a real danger of loosing credibility as an achievement scheme, its like having a safety officer who crashes more than anyone else on the patch, how can he command respect!! He can't and for me neither can an examiner who can't fly the test he is rating. jmo

Posted by Erfolg on 05/12/2014 11:00:05: It does also strike me, that a secret ballot, should remain so. That is unless the individuals involved wish to make their reasons public. the position is a non paying position, i think that right or wrongs of the decision aside the person involved deserves at least a reason why and at least a phone call, to do neither smacks of cowardice

right this might come across as a bit but, i think i needs to be said, when i joined TMFC a lot of years ago now, i thought i could fly, however it soon became very obvious i could not, i just thought i could, through andys time, patience, demonstration, and the occasional clip around the ear, i got half decent and progressed so much that i now look at how i used to fly and i am ashamed of it. he has taught me so much it really would sound like a bromance if i listed it all here, yes of course he can be a complete nipple at times and yes there are times i would/ could have stabbed him in the eye with a fork.... but i owe him so much it is untrue, i will not mention the fact he drove over a 100 miles just to pick me up from hospital after i blew myself up! his teaching skills are top notch and as the achievement scheme is about improving skills and not a popularity contest it is shameful the BMFA have done this, it is all of our loss that he is not A.C.E. anymore although i think he is kiss kiss !! Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 05/12/2014 12:45:19

Loops sorry monz please forgive my ignorance

actually Ultymate your wrong Charlie Whiting is race director but the people who judge if drivers have made mistakes and should be punished are all ex racing drivers Nigel Mansel being one of them, this was brought in for exactly the issues mentioned above, that the drivers had no respect for his calls as he had never driven in a race, so ex-racing drivers most still very active in racing are used. and you are missing the point the whole ethos of the achievement scheme is based around the ability to demonstrate what is required, if it was not you might have a point ....however

i have disagreed with Monz in the past but he is bang on this time and beautifully put too... i am surprised at how many people are not reading the post properly and jumping to conclusions about age or judging ability, examiners are not judges awarding points for how good your star jumps are, examiners are specifically there to asses you based on a specific test and to demonstrate if required what they consider needs to be done, if the achievement scheme did not specifically ask for this ability off the examiners or instructors then it would not be a problem, but how much respect would i have for a guy telling me i was doing it all wrong, when he can't even fly....not a lot i would suspect. as for ageism ....please... im 42 ....can i run around a footie pitch like i could age 21.....no.... because my body has deteriorated...and i let it !!!! simples .... i have no doubt there are 70 year olds that could fly rings around me and i have no problem with that, but from what i have heard the guys in left in position are in their 70s and either in bad health or just do not fly anymore..... just the facts!

well it makes sense, if the whole principle of the training and achievement scheme is that of demonstrating, then they should be able to do so! simples, Also I wish to take my jet C cert next year (i got very close to doing it this year) who is going to take me for that?? some poor beggar may have to travel very far to enable this, and i mean this as no disrespect but there are a few A.C.E out there that i would get very miffed at if they fail me, i know i probably should not think this but if they can't fly for toffee how dare they fail me when i can fly rings around them (sort of thing) i know i should not think that but i can guarantee that's exactly what will be going through my head!!

in the red bull scheme pretty please!!!

Who the heck said 1600 quid is not a lot of money, what was said is for what you are getting 1600 is not a lot of money, personally I consider the cost of some foamies very expensive carbon z scimitar anyone? This on the other hand given size complexity and design cost is reasonable, Ben you can always buy the wood fuselage version and its cheaper as well, but it already seems like you have had your mind set anyway

sorry have to disagree a tad, everything fiberglass fus, including retracts and proskin covering for 1.6K for a 1/4 scale model... not bad in my opinion

I am with Ian on this why blow up a smaller scale plan, there are lots of greAt designs out there purposely for 1/4 scale, whilst micks kits can require a bit of thought and fetteling they do all fly well, from an experience standpoint I suggest you listen to our Ian! Ps if you do fancy a slightly smaller spitfire I can really recommend the current db spitfire as a good kit a great flier

the gold wing stuff is ok and they do fly pretty well but getting them in the Uk is tough, model maniacs dont seem to be bringing any new stuff in, the build and accessories however are not a patch on the Skyartec one in my opinion

http://www.skyartec.co.uk/

I just bought my replacement yak 54 from skyartec it is considerably more expensive than the seagull one but is considerably better, you have to wait a while as it comes direct from factory the company is UK based, their communications are excellent and they pay the import duty, the kit itself is pretty much top notch, cf wing tube and uc and all accessories are excellent it even has a pipe tunnel at 299 it is a bit pricey but I think it is work every penny, 30cc will fit excellent google skyartec