BMFA A-certificate 1kg minimum model weight

[PatMc]

The BMFA achievement scheme is just that - a record of personal achievment in the form of a certificate. It's not a safety scheme or a licence to fly any particular type or weight of model.

I see no reason that the A cert has to have a lower weight limit but anyone taking the test that had to wait on suitable low wind conditions might not feel they had achieved all that much if they were honest with them-self.

[Alan Cantwell]

Pat, now THAT is a good reply

[Peter Beeney]

One acid test you might apply to an A test candidate to sort out their ability to to pass the test on different types and sizes of models is to find someone who has learnt to fly with a small foamy, passes the A test and is then is instantly given a 6 kilo war bird to retake the test. As this is only a trial, he’s already passed the test, I would be very inclined to take the precaution of adding a buddy lead. No sense in smashing a decent model unnecessarily. However, if this were the other way round, and the foamy were the trial model, I suspect that there’s a much better chance that the lead might be surplus to requirements.

We have a youngster that is learning with his Wot 4 foam-e, I’m not sure about the weight, so it might not be a suitable A test model anyway, but that apart, he has flown the club trainer, although somewhat reluctantly to start with, it’s a Boomerang, Irvine 53 power, very lively, and with maximum control throws. This morning my friend had him on a Touch and Go fun-fly model, with a 46. Again, the Full Monty. I saw them in a prolonged flat spin at one time. I think that variety is the spice of life! Later he will have to watch me start the engine, then tell me exactly how to do it, and finally do it himself. He’s already got the electric bit well sorted. This is a personal responsibility thing with me, to give him the best chance of continuing in the sport without hurting himself; or anyone else.

We are very relaxed about all this A test stuff, the procedure I’ve always used is at some point in a flight I shall invite him to land, pull the buddy plug, hand him the tx, step back and say, ‘Ok sunshine, you’re on your own. Do a circuit and landing for me, please’. Then he really will be on his own. Then the gentle persuasion will be on to practise for and take the A test. For the next personal achievement. Two weeks ago I said to a 10 year, with a MPX Fun Cub, that when he feels relaxed enough to just go on out to the strip and fly. I’m more than confident that he’s up to it, but I’ll let him get there in his own time. He was basically taught by a 16 year old, now a B Cert. and Show pilot, that 4 years ago was himself a learner.

I’ve often read about being supervised or not, up to the A test. What’s all that about? Is it one of those conundrum puzzles where, if you asked 10 different clubs you would get 11 different answers? I’ve never been a member of a club were this has been significant, fortunately, so I’m not familiar with it; although there has been a lot spoken about this in various other threads.

What I would like to see is a better uniformity of at least the test standards. I get very nervous when someone comes along, waving an A certificate, takes off, instantly flys over the pits, and then has to give the box to someone to land it for him! This still very definitely happens! I know very little about the full size aviation world, but it must surely be that wherever you go the instruction will be the same, at some point you will be invited to go solo, and then later the flying test will also be same test. I realise this two completely different situations but to repeat what I said in a previous thread about cells - ‘The BMFA and CAA are keen to tell us that in some cases the same overall safety rules apply to both models and full size, such as in the ANOs 137 and 138 etc. …So why don’t the same overall safety principles equally apply?’

We would encourage prospective A test candidates to use the club trainer for the test, that’s the first step to setting the same conditions. Reasonable wind conditions and activity at the strip does not make any difference at all. Students will have learnt to fly in these conditions and will be expected to be able to do perfectly safely immediately after.

I, too, would very much like to think that the student is much happier passing on merit rather than just being nodded through! I’ll not forget the time, way back, when, at a modelling convention, a friend came to me in high dudgeon. He’d asked an examiner if he could take a A test and the examiner wanted £15 for a pass and wouldn’t take the test. My friend would have paid the man, but he wanted to be able to say he’d passed the test……

Now, where’s our examiner, I really must have a word in his shell-like about getting that figure-of-eight sorted out……….

PB

[buster prop]

Interesting stuff, Peter. First, the WOT 4 Foam-E is just over the 1Kg limit, I have one and its' ready to fly weight is 1165 g so your young flyer should be able to take his test with it. I know what you mean about some 'A' cert holders, we had one in our club who could only land in one direction and even then he often missed the strip! We don't have a club trainer although getting one has regularly been discussed at AGMs. I must be in a minority because I'm contented with flying small light electric planes such as GWS and Brit Flight, the Wot 4 Foam-E is my biggest. For the record I'd be happy to see a BMFA achievement for small planes.

[PatMc]

Posted by Peter Beeney on 10/07/2011 21:48:00:

We have a youngster that is learning with his Wot 4 foam-e, I’m not sure about the weight, so it might not be a suitable A test model anyway, but that apart, he has flown the club trainer, although somewhat reluctantly to start with, it’s a Boomerang, Irvine 53 power, very lively, and with maximum control throws. This morning my friend had him on a Touch and Go fun-fly model, with a 46. Again, the Full Monty. I saw them in a prolonged flat spin at one time. I think that variety is the spice of life! Later he will have to watch me start the engine, then tell me exactly how to do it, and finally do it himself. He’s already got the electric bit well sorted. This is a personal responsibility thing with me, to give him the best chance of continuing in the sport without hurting himself; or anyone else.


We would encourage prospective A test candidates to use the club trainer for the test, that’s the first step to setting the same conditions. Reasonable wind conditions and activity at the strip does not make any difference at all. Students will have learnt to fly in these conditions and will be expected to be able to do perfectly safely immediately after.

Peter,why not let the youngster progress & take the test with his Wot4 without bothering with the club ic trainer ?

 

Posted by Peter Beeney on 10/07/2011 21:48:00:
‘The BMFA and CAA are keen to tell us that in some cases the same overall safety rules apply to both models and full size, such as in the ANOs 137 and 138 etc. …So why don’t the same overall safety principles equally apply?’

I don't understand what you mean at here.

What safety principles do you mean, in what manner & who do you expect should apply them ?

Edited By PatMc on 11/07/2011 00:08:59

[John Privett]

As Pat said earlier, the A test is a personal achievement test, it is NOT a "licence" to fly anything up to 'x' kg. Individual clubs have a responsibility to ensure their members fly safely without unduly endangering themselves or others and many clubs will ask for an A test to fly unsupervised. Other clubs may have their own proficiency test, though that is likely to be fairly similar to the A test - for obvious reasons!

 

It seems that in the OP's case, the easiest solution (if there really is a problem) would be for the club involved to permit planes under 1kg to be flown without an A cert, though probably after a basic (similar?) test conducted by a club official.

Edited By John Privett on 11/07/2011 00:06:26

[Andy Symons]

Think I can probably help on this as I sit on the ASRC who put the proposal forward.

 

An essential part of the A test is managing the kinetic and potential energy of the model. With very lightweight models you cannot do this so it is actually unfair to allow them to be used for the tests in my opinion.

 

Regarding Indoor A and B there is ongoing work but on indoor aerobatic A and B tests as there has been a fair amount of interest for them.

[buster prop]

I don't think many do want an 'easy in' but there are a lot of us who only want to fly small planes for whatever reason. The BMFA 1Kg ruling seems to send the message that flying a plane weighing less than 1Kg is not proper RC flying. The 'A' is meant to be the first step on an achivement scheme but it is treated as a qualification or licence by organisers of fly-ins and some clubs. I like the idea of clubs allowing flying with small models to gain experience after passing a basic competence test. In fact I started off in a club with a no-A, no-solo rule and suggested exactly that but got nowhere so I left. If I were organising a fly-in I'd want to be sure that no one was going to do something daft like flying over the pits or switching on a 35MHz transmitter without using the field transmitter control. That's all in the 'A', and is probably the main reason that an 'A' minimum is insisted on before being able to fly at fly-ins. Being safe is probably more important than proving you can fly accurate figure 8's with a big 46 glow powered trainer as long as you can fly something lighter competently. Best of luck to the young flyer who wants to take his test with a WOT 4 Foam-e, as long as it meets the BMFA requirement it's not up to anyone else to insist on a higher standard.

[Peter Beeney]

PatMc @ 23:56:19,

With regard to the youngster flying the club trainer, our flying time is very limited, so while his battery is re-charging it’s a good opportunity for some more practise. I’m also of the opinion that model i/c engines with propellers on the front are extremely dangerous, as are electric motors too, of course. But the method of operation is different, and I’m certainly not going to let a 14 year old loose on say an Irvine 53 without making sure that he really really knows what he’s doing. To the best of my ability anyway. His father is not a club member or a modeller so we assume responsibility for his safe being while he is flying with us. That’s our choice, though, I’m sure if other clubs have a different agenda then that’s perfectly ok with us. He won’t need an A certificate to go solo so there are no desperate pressures on to pass, just an encouragement to get to the next level. It will be very nice to think that he can take the test on either model and pass in a professional and confident manner; if these are the right words. I don’t consider this is hindering his progress at all.

With regard to the safety principles, in the first instance I was talking about the latched plugs and sockets on battery connectors. The CAA’s ANO 138 says - A person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property. - the BMFA then says - These laws cover ALL model flying. This is a complete guess, but I reckon a full size will have latched connectors on any essential power lines. There will be a rule that says they must be so. I view this as a safety principle. 138 also applies to models, it says here, so why not apply this same principle to the model?
My same reasoning applies to instruction, training and examinations. 138 applies to aircraft of all sizes so why not the same rules? Within reason, of course. Again, a guess, but I would be inclined to believe that full size training is a set procedure, and I should hope given by people with some qualifications to do so, so why not apply the same principle to models?

I realise this will never happen, model flying is unregulated so that’s put the mockers on it straight away. The nett result of which simply results in everyone having his own idea about how things should be done. From the evidence that you read there are many different interpretations of the BMFA’s recommendations. I’m sure our modus operandi attracts criticism from some quarters. There was an interesting case some time back when a heli flying gentleman joined our club saying that a rule had recently been established in his previous club that anyone without an A certificate had to be supervised at all times. In effect, turning the certificate into a licence. Unfortunately, it seems, there were no heli A pilots within the club. So no one could fly a helicopter. Some two years later when I enquired, that still held good. It may well still be the same rule, even today; a curious situation, to say the least. But, and being slightly indelicate about it, one about which I have a gut feeling that’s it’s by no means unique!
And again, that mysterious word - supervision!

Something else which seems to becoming more prevalent too is the rather subtle inference that woe betide us all if we don’t stick rigidly to the BMFA recommendations. I sometimes get the impression that if we don’t correctly dot this i or cross that t we will be committed to Hades in a state of eternal damnation. Well, some amongst us might feel that’s acceptable, so we just might have to serve on the club’s committee long term instead, obeying all the regulations. Often our members read something and then they query their status within the club. It certainly is becoming confusing.

If there is a lower weight level of competence testing raised, a bantamweight ‘A’ perhaps, less than 1 kg, then so be it. It’s certainly not a flying licence. If someone comes along to us and can demonstrate an acceptable flying ability they can fly. From what I’ve occasionally seen some pilots would not even be solo at at our strip, let alone taking the A test.

Anyway, we shall soldier on rewardless, to coin a phrase. Some times it’s difficult to keep up with the youngster’s language, they often seem to speak in txt! And I don’t even have a mobile. But I do enjoy the boundless enthusiasm!

PB

[Simon Chaddock]

Peter

I could not agree more.

It is a certificate of competence not a licence.

If weight is really so significant then perhaps the test plane's weight should be noted on the certificate.

 

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Sorry Simon but I think that's going over the top. The minimum weight is there to make the test representative of the type of model likely to be flown. It's not perfect - there's nothing about wing loading, wing section thickness, power to weight ratio or any of a host of things that differentiate between a simple trainer and something altogether more ballistic within the normal range of models flown by A pilots but it does stop someone turning up for a test with a tiny (I'll say it although I can already hear the howls of protest) toy plane to take a test designed for the more serious hobbyist.

 

The use of the "toy" word is NOT meant to trivialise the benefit to the hobby and fun that can be had with them - I have my fair share along with models up to 1/3 scale...however, could anyone really say that someono who has flown an A test with one has demonstrated the same skills as one taken with a conventional trainer?

 

What's more to the point would be for clubs to recognise that there is a class of low powered, low energy models that can be operated (perhaps under minimal supervision within a club environment) by people without having satisfied the A test requirements. Last year, to that end, I suggested that we allowed <500g models to be operated free from many of our normal requirements which was accepted by the rest of the committee and the membership of our club.

 

There seems to be a bit of a hole in our rarrangements now between 500 - 1000g which is hopefully something that the scheme will address for us in their current deliberations - otherwise it's time to think again!

Edited By Martin Harris on 12/07/2011 18:00:55

[buster prop]

The number of posts in a short time shows that this is a subject which many have views about. As a 'toy' plane flier I think the idea of clubs allowing non 'A' cert flyers to fly with <500g planes is perfectly sensible. Otherwise newbies may fly them in a park near a road, an out of control plane there doesn't bear thinking about.. The BMFA handbook is all common sense stuff and every flyer, of whatever achievement should follow its recommendations. Another thing I see no need for is to take the test with a massive 53 ic powered plane just because a flyer 'might' fly something similar in the future. When I passed my driving test in my Mini, no one suggested that I should take it again in a Ferrari because I might get a more powerful car in the future! If someone passes their A test at a club with a (1Kg) foamie then let them know that flying bigger faster planes is more challenging and offer them the chance of more training. I think you need a 'B' to fly jets.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

The comparison is more like taking a driving test on a push bike. They both run on wheels on the same roads and under similar rules but they are quite different in many respects. The precise reason the BMFA Achievement Scheme saw fit to bring in a lower limit.

 

Your Mini/Ferrari comparison is more akin to a 46 engined trainer/complex scale Spitfire - no more testing required and anyone with any sense will work up to it but many of the skills required will start to be acquired on the trainer.

 

If you aspire to the Spitfire, then the existing A test is a step on the jourmey. Meanwhile, pending the scheme covering <1 kg models then why not lobby your club to take a more relaxed attitude?

Edited By Martin Harris on 12/07/2011 22:01:08

[PatMc]

There's nothing to stop clubs applying whatever test they want to allow solo flying. It would be simple apply the A cert criteria without the weight restriction to satisfy local needs if they so wished.

 

[Ultymate]

I think the club (BMFA) examiner's status could be at risk if they were to be found awarding "A" certificates to candidates flying models of less than 1K in weight.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

True Ulty, but I suspect what Pat was suggesting was that a club does of course have the right to issue a "permission to fly solo certificate" of its own upto say 500g to someone should they wish to do so for their own local purposes. Such a test would not be a BMFA A cert but it could be based on the proceedure of the A test.

 

BEB

[PatMc]

Exactly BEB.

 

Clubs can use whatever criteria they want to permit (or restrict) solo flying without reference to any other body.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

There's nothing to stop any club applying any criteria to their members. It's just the case that most go along with the A test guideline for safe solo flying and B test for >7kg models - neither of which are legal or even BMFA requirements.

 

If it's a half decent club, any rules will be made with the consent of the majority of the members.

 

Edit

Sorry Pat - I was a bit slow posting and some of it repeats what you've said...

Edited By Martin Harris on 12/07/2011 22:53:46

[Ultymate]

The whole premise of this is an enigma. Why would anyone who solely wants to fly under 1K foamies want a BMFA "A" test. I am absolutely in favour the achievement scheme and firmly believe that the "A" should be club's standard for solo flying, but I see individuals wanting to join a "normal" aeromodelling club only to fly flyweight foamies and get an A test to boot as a touch too much red tape craziness to me.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Ah, that's a completely different question!

 

My personal opinion is that the 1Kg rule is good and it should stay. In my club we operate the A cert to fly solo up to 7Kg rule. To fly jets or over 7Kg at our club you need a B cert. That's just our rules and as Martin said they were passed by the membership. Everyone seems happy with them - or at least I've never heard any compliants.

 

But my previous post was simply pointing out that clubs can issue their own certs of competance if they want and make their own rules for their awarding! Its a free country - more or less and up to now

 

BEB

[Tony Smith 7]

Expect that by now there must be quite a lot of people who only fly sub-1kg models, and don't really intend to change. I would think that a lot of these would be new to the hobby.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

I wonder about that Tony. There may well be - but maybe they are outside of the club scene and even "the hobby" in any organised sense entirely - i.e. never jeard of BMFA don't even know about the wider hobby, they are happy just occassional taking their BNF foamie which they bought in general shop not a model shop to the park now and then. And good luck to them that's fine as long they are not interfering with anyone else.

 

But in that case the whole A cert thing for them goes away.

 

But in a club context - if my club is anything to go by - generally speaking models are getting bigger not smaller. We have lots of members who are (rarther comically) at either end of the scale. They bring a 100cc petrol powered Yak or something and because it takes up so much room in the car the only other model they can fit in is a 24" wingspan handlaunched electric jobbie. So they fly both ends of the spectrum!

 

I recognise that there are people, and some post regularly on here, who confine themselves to smaller models. But its just not my experience in my club - where everyone flies a range for little foamies to "monsters"!

 

This is why I support the 1Kg limit. In my experience, and I emphasise it is only my experience, no one I know confines themselves to models of up to 500g.

 

BEB

[David E]

Interesting to hear the ongoing discussion from a variety of points of view on this and the reasons for the introduction of the rule.

 

It still troubles me that lots of clubs seem to be saying, in effect, "unless you fly heavy models, we don't think you're serious enough about this hobby and won't let you fly solo at our club."

 

This can't be good for the hobby in the long term can it?

 

Is it possible that the reason that some only see people who fly heavyweight models at their club is that the club rules present this attitude to newcomers who would otherwise start with a low-budget model?

 

Certainly at the club I'm at, it doesn't work like this. We don't operate a no-A-certificate-no-solo rule. We've had a lot of ab-initio new members in the last few years, perhaps because of offering a cheap and straightforward enty. Many of them have started off on foamies under 1kg. Most people are willing to find the cash to fund "getting serious" with a hobby once they find that they really enjoy it and the novelty doesn't wear off, but it seems to me that for many, right at the start, spending several hundred pounds on something they're likely to take home in a bin bag just isn't going to happen.

 

Unfortunately in many areas the only clubs available treat the A-certificate as a licence to fly solo. While previously I've had no issues with this as it is a convenient benchmark of the ability to operate a model plane safely, now it seems to me to present a danger of being perceived as a snobby attitude by newcomers to the hobby.

Edited By David E on 13/07/2011 12:58:39

[Tony Smith 7]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 13/07/2011 10:04:31:

I wonder about that Tony. There may well be - but maybe they are outside of the club scene and even "the hobby" in any organised sense entirely - i.e. never jeard of BMFA don't even know about the wider hobby, they are happy just occassional taking their BNF foamie which they bought in general shop not a model shop to the park now and then. And good luck to them that's fine as long they are not interfering with anyone else.

 

You could be right, but there could be a self-fulfilling element. If the "A Test" is held up as the entry level qualification, then the club will seem to be pretty unwelcoming to someone who only flies small electric.

 

For example I'm not really a club person, but even I have to think what I'd do if I lost my field (which will happen if we move). I could go back to just slope gliders. Joining the local club wouldn't appeal if I had to re-train onto an IC powered trainer, rather than taking a proficiency test with my own model.

 

I wonder whether a proficiency scheme for light electric would attract more outsiders into the system, some of whom will go on to bigger and noisier things.

[Ultymate]

Posted by Tony Smith 7 on 13/07/2011 13:03:29:

 

"For example I'm not really a club person, but even I have to think what I'd do if I lost my field (which will happen if we move). I could go back to just slope gliders. Joining the local club wouldn't appeal if I had to re-train onto an IC powered trainer, rather than taking a proficiency test with my own model.

 

I wonder whether a proficiency scheme for light electric would attract more outsiders into the system, some of whom will go on to bigger and noisier things."

So you don't want to join a club but if forced to you would purely to gain access to their facilities ?

Edited By Ultymate on 13/07/2011 13:25:46