BMFA A-certificate 1kg minimum model weight

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

OK - time to stir things up a bit!

 

I don't want to reinforce the prejudices against clubs but there is as a point where "toy" planes become just that. As a stepping stone or introduction to the sport/hobby of RC aeromodelling they have a definite place but they aren't what I feel should become the norm at a "pukka" club.

 

I have no objection to, and personally took steps to make it easier for "toe in the water" flyers to take advantage of our club facilities BUT it's with the ultimate aim of encouraging people to progress within the hobby to aspire to the type of flying (and hopefully encouraging aeromodelling skills) that the club was set up to do - and the existing members wish to continue to enjoy.

 

We have a field which is located (just) far enough from habitation to enable us to fly sports and larger models without undue interference to the local population, into which the club has invested nearly 30 years of money and effort to establish. What we want - and need - are members sufficiently committed to the hobby to continue with this ongoing process.

 

Edited By Martin Harris on 13/07/2011 14:22:28

[Tony Smith 7]

Posted by Ultymate on 13/07/2011 13:25:14:

 

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

Yes, it doesn't sound very good the way you put it, but I suppose that's the case. I'm sure I'm not the only person to join a club because I would gain something from membership. It doesn't mean that you don't contribute to the club once you have joined.

 

Its was kind of the same for sailing, when I sailed from Stonehaven I was a member of the club, but now we're based at Findhorn the club there has really nothing to offer us. On the other hand I still do the scoring for the Stonehaven Regatta, even though I'm no longer a member!

 

[Romeo Whisky]

Sorry Martin, but this attitude still seems disparaging and highly condescending to those who want to fly small electrics.

 

I (and I suspect many others) buy small electrics (not just foamies) because ..

a). I can afford them

b). I can store them

c). I can transport them

d). because of all the above I can have a greater number and variety of model aircraft types - an important part of the fun and enjoyment for me.

 

Even today I heard our club exmainer say that small models are harder to fly than large models, in which case maybe big-model flyers should aspire to flying small models - not the other way around!

 

It still seems fundamentally wrong that small electrics are excluded from any existing safety award scheme. If the current "A" is for larger models, then there should be a separate award for small electrics, just as there is for other disciplines.

[Steve W-O]

I'm not certain small models are harder to fly than larger ones.

 

Yes, they are harder to fly a set course on a windy day, but that is about all.

 

The small light models will survive flying skills (or the lack of them) that will destroy a model a bit bigger.

 

The Funcub is relatively light, it just makes the 1000g with a bit to spare, it is also reputed to almost fly itself.

 

But compare flying that with my sons small cub (800mm wingspan) and there is a huge difference. The small cub can't really reach enough speed going down to destroy itself hitting the ground. He has made some spectacular cartwheel landings that would give an Olympic gymnast a good go, with minimal damage. You don't really need to worry about controlling speed in descents, it just loses speed so quickly. If it stalls, it drops a few feet and goes on. Get it in a spin, and it goes all the way to the ground and bounces.

 

The Funcub by comparison, though easy to fly, has to be kept under proper control.

 

A wot4 would be even more fussy about the pilots level of control.

 

I have nothing against small ones for a person starting, but the ones I have seen and flown do not require the level of control needed to bring even a Funcub home in one piece.

 

It is simply not true that a person needs to spend several hundred pounds to get something over 1kg, a plain exaggeration in an attempt to prop up an opinion!!!

 

I have three planes that are over the 1000g mark, a Mentor, a Funcub, and a wot4foame, all are foam, and all take a fair amount of punishment, though the wot4 keeps falling apart.

 

The Mentor was the most expensive, and new it cost me £135 for everything excluding radio and battery, it is an ideal trainer, and will satisfy a new pilot for years. That is not much more than the small cub new.

 

You can put a Funcub together for £100, and I have seen them on ebay for a lot less.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Romeo Whisky on 13/07/2011 16:55:38:

Sorry Martin, but this attitude still seems disparaging and highly condescending to those who want to fly small electrics.

 

I (and I suspect many others) buy small electrics (not just foamies) because ..

a). I can afford them

b). I can store them

c). I can transport them

d). because of all the above I can have a greater number and variety of model aircraft types - an important part of the fun and enjoyment for me.

 

Even today I heard our club exmainer say that small models are harder to fly than large models, in which case maybe big-model flyers should aspire to flying small models - not the other way around!

 

It still seems fundamentally wrong that small electrics are excluded from any existing safety award scheme. If the current "A" is for larger models, then there should be a separate award for small electrics, just as there is for other disciplines.

 

Then I apologise because it's not meant to be.

 

You'll see from previous posts that I support the idea of a test for small models and have been instrumental in making it easier for them to be accommodated within our club.

 

Large models do cope with conditions better but the consequences of getting things wrong with them are far more serious - both to the model and bystanders. That and the fact that the skill set is very different is why I am set against their use for the existing Power A test.

 

Edited By Martin Harris on 13/07/2011 17:58:37

[Andy Symons]

Large models do cope with conditions better but the consequences of getting things wrong with them are far more serious - both to the model and bystanders. That and the fact that the skill set is very different is why I am set against their use for the existing Power A test.

 

Edited By Martin Harris on 13/07/2011 17:58:37

Exactly why the lower weight limit was introduced.

 

A few years ago I had a bit of a heated exchange with a club member who decided I should have my examiner status removed for refusing to take him for a test with a shockflier. While they were not specifically banned from the tests I deemed the model unsuitable, however there have been instances of tests passed using shockfliers.

 

"Posted by Romeo Whisky on 13/07/2011 16:55:38:

It still seems fundamentally wrong that small electrics are excluded from any existing safety award scheme. If the current "A" is for larger models, then there should be a separate award for small electrics, just as there is for other disciplines."

 

There isn't an existing "Safety award scheme" there is an existing "Achievement Scheme" which not only tests a fliers safety but also his flying skills too, and as Martin has already said with a heavier model you are using a different skill set as you have to deal with the the momentum of the model and its energy management.

 

As far as clubs are concerend this is a bit of a non issue, they can soon sort out there own lightweight test if they so wish, or just say you don't need to pass an A to fly a sub 1kg model solo.

Edited By Andy Symons on 13/07/2011 18:40:20

[Tony Smith 7]

Posted by Martin Harris on 13/07/2011 14:21:58:

OK - time to stir things up a bit!

 

I don't want to reinforce the prejudices against clubs but there is as a point where "toy" planes become just that. As a stepping stone or introduction to the sport/hobby of RC aeromodelling they have a definite place but they aren't what I feel should become the norm at a "pukka" club.

 

Edited By Martin Harris on 13/07/2011 14:22:28

 

You've really made two points. The second one about your club being specially focussed on large models is perfectly valid, if you've put effort into facilities and practises tailored towards large models, then naturally you'd prefer members who are committed to that type of modelling. It sounds like you have enough members who share that common interest, and maybe there are other clubs or facilities for people who don't.

 

Your first point, whether small models "should" be encouraged, is a bit different. Is it really the size that you take issue with, or would you have the same objects to small models if they were scratch-built own designs rather than ARTFs bought from Ebay?

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I don't object to small models Tony. I have several and enjoy flying them.

 

We seem to be moving away from the point of this discussion which is supposed to be about whether a lightweight model is suitable for taking a Power A test with. What I've been trying to explain is why this should be, within the context of model flying clubs which the scheme was designed for. Although there's no reason why lone flyers can't take the test and they'd be welcome to do so at our site, it hasn't got much relevance unless they want to fly at a club so I make no apology for the club orientated statement.

 

I feel that the overwhelming majority accept and are in favour of the status quo but I also see no reason why flyers who feel excluded shouldn't lobby the BMFA for a more suitable test for lightweight models.

Edited By Martin Harris on 13/07/2011 20:23:28

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by David E on 13/07/2011 12:57:13:

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

Just to clarify a point David - we really have no choice but to insist on an A-cert for solo flying as we fly from a public park and it is a condition imposed by the local authority through our lease.

 

BEB

[Peter Beeney]

It would certainly seen as though there are a number of different views on this subject. I’m afraid I’ve never been able to understand why there appears to be so much emphasis placed on the A certificate anyway. As I said, I’ve never been a member of a club that has these rules about having to have an A before solo flying; so I don’t really have any practical experience of how this actually operates in practise; and how it affect the members personally. I have to say though, I think it’s no wonder that so many people want to be able to get the certificate with a minimum amount of proficiency. Or as quickly as possible.
I sometimes read the statement ‘Always accompanied by an A pilot’. Does that mean ‘Always on a trainer system, such as a buddy lead?’ Or perhaps just standing alongside? Or is just being on site sufficient? Is this level of supervision universal, or does it vary from club to club?

Our method is to judge a pilot’s flying ability on his ability to fly. When he’s capable of going solo he goes solo. The ‘A’ test doesn’t come into it. We too operate in a public Park, or at least a park where the public often are, there are nearby popular footpaths, plus horse riders and vehicles. Cars pass by within 3 metres of the end of our strip, although fortunately not too often. So we like to start on a buddy system, if at all possible, but all the emphasis is placed on safe flying. One fairly recent new pilot, a retired gentleman, said to me Wednesday at the field that his instructors had just coaxed him into doing a first solo flight, his model is a Touch and Go fun fly with a four stroke tug in front, now he’s really keen to get an A and he can carry on practising that so that he can pass in style!
I would also like to think, as with all the other new pilots, that if he goes to another club as a guest he will be able to fly safely in a manner that will satisfy the severest critic.

I’m not sure that that I could really compare the BMFA proficiency scheme to passing a driving test. When I was back there the minimum age for a motor cycle licence was 16 years and a car 17. Has that changed? In the aeromodelling world you can obtain a B certificate aged 10 and fly a gas turbine at a model show. There goes that ‘licence to fly’ angle again! There are no minimum age limits as far as I know; and thus no consideration for ‘a minimum age of responsibility’. Lets say a junior aged 8 obtained an A on a small electric. In theory this then instantly gives him carte blanche to go and fly any model up to 7 kg, all on his own? Without any further instruction on say how to start an i/c engine? Such as a SC 52 with standard silencer turning an 8 by 8 toothpick at 16,000 rpm? … I clocked that on Wednesday! In a Whizza; which is now definitely a fairly accurate description! Although some electric versions might still be quicker, even so! Whereas the pilot that’s flown regularly for 20 years but has never found it necessary to ascend to ‘A’ level always has to be supervised? I wouldn’t care to comment on any of this, and it’s completely hypothetical anyway, but it does rather seem to speak for itself. I certainly know of two cases, and was told of a third, where pilots have been granted B certificates without ever starting an engine for themselves. Stating that the system is ‘flexible’ might be just only one way of putting it.!

Our Landlords are not a local authority, but they still like to think we are fairly responsible people. So to this end I’m sure they would not be the least bit interested in any certificates the pilots held, particularly if it were pointed out that they had no legal standing anyway. What they are much more interested in is the insurance though, and so they keep a copy of our BMFA affiliation certificate each year. That they can understand!

I don’t have any issues with any of this, it doesn’t really affect me. Big or small models for the A test, we’ll do whatever the book says.
However, there is other minor issue that has cropped up, and that’s the pilot that qualified for an A perhaps about twenty five years ago, then ceased flying and has now just returned. Depends on his attitude, of course, but one view he might take is that it’s perfectly in order to carry on where he left off. Which if he’s read the book I guess he’s entitled to think. But it’s not always quite that easy, and that can put you in a situation where you have to suggest that a quick refresher course might save a trip or three to the glue shop.

In a nutshell, I think our attitude would be that we accept whatever an adult wanted to do, within the rules, and provided it wasn’t dangerous to other people. But, if necessary, we would offer advice if we thought it was not a wise action.
But with younger members we would insist on certain procedures, in that member’s own interests. If this conflicts with the rule book, then so be it. I’m sure that there are people that would instantly say that this nullifies the insurance and other such dire predictions but I’ve never been totally convinced about that either.

Just one more line of thought…….

PB

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

To try and answer at least some of your questions from the earlier part of your post Peter.

 

As I've said we are a club that requires an A to fly solo. The rule (which is a local club rule) is exactly what it says - if you want to fly unsupervised at our site as a member of our club then you must have an A certificate. Everyone understands the rule and I have never heard anyone in the club question it or object to it. All of the members seem perfectly happy with this arrangement.

 

So what happens if you don't have an A cert and you want to fly at our club? Well if you are a beginner we have approximately 8 club instructors. You will commence your training flying on a buddy lead.

 

Once you have progressed sufficiently, and the instructors feel you are reasonably safe, an instructor will say that they feel you are ready to fly without the buddy lead and will ask if you feel comfortable with that. Assuming you do you can now fly without the lead. But you must still have an instructor with you - by your side - when you fly. During this period your instructor will be reminding you to keep reading the appropriate sections in the BMFA Handbook that crop up in the test. He will also be seeking to expand your flying experience beyond the bare basics of the safety. He will for example demontrate and get you to practice stalls, basic aerobatics (loops and rolls), touch and go's etc. He will also just talk to you about the 1001 things its useful to know about flying model aeroplanes. So its not just about "passing the test" - its about learning to operate and fly model aeroplanes.

 

Once you progress further the instructors will suggest that you have a couple of flights with one of the examiners - they are obviously of the opinion that you are of test standard. Assuming the examiner is happy he'll usually ask "Would you like to try your test". Most of our beginners past the test on the first or second attempt.

 

Now they are free to fly when they like and anything upto 7Kg, except gas turbines. But....in our club the learning doesn't stop there. If a beginner were to pass with say 1.01Kg electric model and then immediately turn up with a 26cc petrol 6.99Kg model I am confident both the club chief examiner and the safety officier would show a more than normal amount of interest!

 

Learning doesn't stop there of course - new fliers are strongly supported, encouraged and yes "advised" on accassion when they do something that bit get them of someone else into difficulties. An A cert is not a licence to do what you want! For example we have had one instance of a beginner passing the test but his subsequent flying showing that he was clearly not of the standard expected. He was put back onto "supervised flying" again until the standard improved - so its not a "one way" process - you can, if its deemed necessary, go backwards!

 

What if you have an A cert from another club and turn up at our site and want to join? Or what about the case you mentioned of the guy who past the test 20 years ago but hasn't flown since? Simple, individuals like this have a couple of assessment flights with one of the examiners - if the examiner is satisfied then there is no issue. If he isn't satisfied then that person will be given the option to join the training scheme, perhaps at an advanced level just to polish up a few aspects of their flying. If they don't accept that then they have a right od appeal to the committee, if the committee upholds the examiner's judgement (very likely) and the individual concerned still doesn't accept it then its a free country they can always find another club.

 

What if someone has been flying for 25 years - but has never taken the A test? Again simple, there is nearly always at least one examiner down at the field every weekend. Take the test, pass and you can fly. If you want to stand on principle and refuse to take the test - then you can't fly unless its with an instructor - same rules as anyone else. Now you might feel that's unfair - but ask yourself this, is it really so different from what you describe as "we would assess his flying ability...and decide". I don't believe it is, and at least our test is prescribed - ie you know what to expect!

 

I think in practice this is a pretty typical system just like you would find in most clubs. When folks say "what about this..." and "what about that..." its usually common sense that prevails. If, on the odd rare occassion - and as I say I've only seen it happen once - someone has an A but is still (for whatever reason) unsafe, we have it covered by the catch all that the safety offier and the committee have the final word!

 

It all runs in practice in a very friendly abd supportive way and beginners etc are usually very happy with the organised level of support and encouragement they receive - and all for free!

 

BEB

[Tony Smith 7]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 13/07/2011 21:57:25:

Just to clarify a point David - we really have no choice but to insist on an A-cert for solo flying as we fly from a public park and it is a condition imposed by the local authority through our lease.

 

BEB

 

Out of interest, did the local authority already know about the BMFA and the A test, or did they ask for your club to suggest how competence and safe operation would be ensured?

 

The nearest equivalent that I've been involved with has been hang gliding sites, and normally the landowner, or agent or factor had no prior knowledge of the sport or its organisation so the onus has been on us to come up with acceptable guidelines.

Edited By Tony Smith 7 on 16/07/2011 10:11:16

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

It was a bit like you say Tony. We've been on this site for about 40 years, our lease is usually for a 5 year period - renewable. At one of the renewals, the Local Authority stated that it needed documentary evidence of the proceedure we employ to ensure that pilots are safe and competant to fly in a public park. They didn't specify exactly what that proceedure was to be - but there had to be one!

 

The obvious solution was to formally adopt the BMFA's "Up and Away" as the training scheme, the club instructor and examiner scheme and the A-cert as an "off the shelf package" from the National Body. The LA were happy with that. If I remember correctly our lease does not explicitly refer to the A-cert instead it says something like "the club will employed a proceedure, as prior agreed and appended to this lease, to ensure that all pilots flying on site are safe and competant" or words to that effect anyway. All this happened before I joined so I'm going on what I have been told here.

 

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 16/07/2011 13:49:47

[Peter Beeney]

BEB @ 21:38:46,

Thank you for your comprehensive answer. From the discussions on this that I’ve read before it had to be something along these lines. I’m sure there are other slight variations of this ruling, every club I’ve ever been in has operated differently, one particularly so, so there may be many other ideas.

I certainly don’t have any problems with this, and as you very rightly say if I didn’t like it I could simply leave or not join in the first instance. But as I said, I’ve never experienced the A certificate ruling so I shouldn’t really comment.

At the end of the day I’m sure we finish up with the same product - a person that has gone from beginner to capable solo pilot. The only difference being that in our case he doesn’t necessarily have an A cert. at that point. He can then go on to achieve that at a later date.

Also we differ in that ours is unfortunately not for free. Our landlord charges us substantial landing fees so every member has to pay a yearly subscription. In fact, I’d say that this is the one area where my different club memberships have always been consistent. They’ve always charged a fee! I’m sure that a club where the members don’t pay any fees is always going to be popular!

I’m really beginning to wind down these days, and so unless some really radical changes take pace, as for instance, to the hobby’s non-regulated status, then I don’t think things will change very much for me. After all the years I’ve been flying it’s unlikely that I would want to consider a retrograde step, at least that’s how I would regard it now; however, if I were a beginner I’m sure I’d look at it completely differently. I’m sure the BMFA handbook will gradually get thicker, as different rules covering more areas are introduced, such as in the O/P, different sizes and types of models for the A test.

I’ve always been slightly unorthodox, when the computer simulators first started to appear I was asked about their use and I thought that for juniors it was a good idea if they could refrain from using one until at least they’d done their first solo flight. Simply so they could have the satisfaction of getting to that stage on the real thing. Then practice on the sim!
I suspect that in recent years there could well be far more model flying being done on computers than out in the fields. Some people have admitted to me just how long they spend at it, many others never say a word. But I’m sure they have undoubtedly helped many star performers along the way. Inclement weather, hours of darkness, the fact you’ve crashed your model and have to repair it before you can fly again, none of these are obstacles to the mighty mainframe.
Oddly, it’s only in recent times that I’ve owned a computer, and that’s a MacBook, so I’ve still never tried a sim. If/when I buy a Windows laptop, for other reasons, I’ll get one and and have a bash! Or crash! Or two! I’ve been told by some of the lads that are into these that the good ones really are good.

So the next project could well be a laptop shelf and a transmitter cradle to fit on the Zimmer frame……………

PB

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Hi Peter,

 

I totally agree. I'm sure we do end up in the same place in the end - and in reality the route probably isn't that different either probably!

 

One thing I should clear up - we to have to pay the Local Authority. Legal fees for the lease every 5 years (ours and there's!) and we pay an annual rent - though I have to say its very reasonable compared to what I hear some clubs pay - but don't tell them that! So, like you and most other clubs we have annual subs - of about £60.

 

When I say "for free" I mean that the instruction and examination system is free, as it is in the vast majority of clubs. I honestly feel this is a great asset to our hobby - afterall in how many other hobbies that involve the skill levels of flying model aeroplanes is the tutition free? Try going to a golf club and expecting free instruction!

 

In your closing paragraphs I think you do yourself down Peter my friend - 'many a good tune' and all that eh? As I am sure you know, flying model aeroplanes is a hobby that be sucessfully followed to quite advanced years - as long as the eyes keep up to standard!

 

BEB

[ken anderson.]

slightly off topic-our club have just received permission from ATC/Newcastle int airport to be allowed to fly 7kg+ aircraft...in our airspace-we are aprox 10-12 miles from the main runway.....the aircraft go over at 2000ft...1 mile from our site....on the aproach to the airport...the committee wrote and had a meeting at the start of the year.....

ken anderson ne...1.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Well done on that Ken! Amazing what a bit of negoiation can achive eh?

 

BEB

[Darlo0161]

Silly question maybe but I have to ask. If I have a 750g trainer. Can I load or with a bit of ballast to make it over 1kg ?

Or is it the officially listed weight ?

I know this is an old thread but is anyone still following it ?

[fly boy3]

Hi D, not a silly question at all, but thought provoking. No examiner I think will check out your model to see if you have oversize servos, bigger reciever batt.than required,large pushrods,etc with some lead to get that cog position correct.(he will give it a safety check though ). This is only my slant on it. The rule may say with or without fuel, can,t remember now,but if it hits the min.weight limit, go for it. Remember the model may not fly quite as we'll. cheers. Could be putting myself on the line for some flack here.Checked out bmfa ruling, it only mentions 1Kg, forget fuel comments LoL.

Edited By fly boy3 on 11/03/2013 20:13:11

[Bearair]

Posted by Andy Symons on 11/07/2011 00:54:04:

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.

Really, I would of thought that handling the Kenetic and potential energy of the model was more dependant on wing loading than weight. A 7LB Flair Puppeteer will fly in a manner much closer to a foamy than a 2LB Club20 pylon racer traveling at 120mph. Ever since the LMA called themselves large rather than heavy, people have been making this mistake. The handelling of a model depends on its wing loading not its weight. My club and area votted against this rule because it discourages the very modellers we should be encouraging.

But has been pointed out quite correctly this is a acheivement scheme not a licence. As an examiner I always point out to a sucessful candidate I have not in any way given my approval that you can fly a model aeroplane competently.

Roger

[Simon Chambers]

Posted by Darlo0161 on 11/03/2013 19:15:24:
Silly question maybe but I have to ask. If I have a 750g trainer. Can I load or with a bit of ballast to make it over 1kg ?

Or is it the officially listed weight ?

I know this is an old thread but is anyone still following it ?

I can't see why not! The requirement is total flying weight - excluding fuel (but including batteries). So if it can fly with that extra weight, I can't see why not. Also if its electric you could just put a bigger battery pack in too.

However that extra 250g is an extra 34% of the total weight. Unless your trainer is over powered, it may not fly as well or anywhere near as fast - causing other types of trouble.

Si.

[Darlo0161]

To clarify i wasn't suggesting that people do that. I'm nowhere near ready to take my licence.
I find the whole 1kg a bit odd. I understand the need for a skill test(certificate) and I have every intention of moving into bigger models. But equally I don't want to wreck a club trainer or a balsa built without some solo flight time.
As some foamies weigh more than others it seems like the rule may have been written years ago (but I know it wasn't).

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Roger,

I quite agree that there are more aspects than simple weight of a model but the fact remains that the average < 1kg model that is likely to be presented for an A test will have a relatively low wing loading.

The A test is taken, in almost all cases that I've witnessed, with a 50 to 70 inch span model with a wing loading commensurate with a model suitable for training purposes. This model won't reproduce the flight characteristics of a 7kg warbird but does represent a good starting point towards flying more advanced models whereas a typical foamy will handle very differently and have little inertia.

We've recognised the gap within our club and introduced an "L" test - which is designed to acommodate those not wishing to fly larger models in the near future. It's based on the BMFA test with the exception of compulsory undercarriages and minimum weight and we expect similar competence and knowledge of safety procedures and rules although any of our B rated instructors can perform the testing. Once in possession of an "L" the member can operate their small models with the same freedom from supervision of any "A" cert holder. Obviously it wouldn't be valid outside our club but we see it as a way to encourage those with different aspirations.

If they want to progress, they only need to practice with a qualifying model under supervision and repeat the test with an examiner - something that should hold no terrors for them having already learnt the basics..

P.S. An overloaded foamy will probably provide quite a good demonstration of flying skill, Darlo, so if you want to take the A on it, I can't see any problem using it - just take your scales along with you!

Edited By Martin Harris on 11/03/2013 21:42:46

[Simon Chambers]

Btw, if you haven't already read elsewhere on this forum, the Wot 4 Foam-E is 1kg with a standard 2200mAh 3S and hence perfect for taking your A-Test with.

When I first looked to get my A in 2004/2005, the 1kg rule wasn't there - just the undercarriage rule. In fact I experienced another club member doing their A-test on a flimsy indoor type model as it had an undercarriage. However my much larger and heavier TwinStar 2, I couldn't take my A-Test with...

I guess its for those sorts of reasons why the 1kg rule was introduced. A weight had to be set somewhere and I guess 1kg makes a nice round number!

Si.

[Dave Towell]

It was to stop people from using things like a indoor vapor to take the test as did happen a couple of years ago.