Methods of attaining an A certificate

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Martin Harris on 14/02/2014 16:33:16:

Really?

Are that many people actually uncomfortable with what seems to be a fair attempt at providing a national standard? Yes, I believe there is a vocal minority who oppose it on grounds of "why should I have to demonstrate what I've been doing for decades" or in the view of many, rather tenuous grounds of attacks on personal freedom but in my own experience, there are very few (if any) club members that I know who see it as anything other than a standard to aim for and (for beginners) a logical step in their progression.

Of course there will be the odd anomaly but by and large, I think the efforts of the achievement scheme are something to be applauded.

BEB

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

another

not only worthwhile puts a smile on faces

[stuey]

Posted by DH 82A on 14/02/2014 16:23:17:

BMFA really opened a can of worms when they instigated the A test.

So did I bringing the subject up!!

[Phil 9]

I found myself in a strange position at one club. A club rule was you could not fly without an instructor unless you had an "A".

but the club had nobody qualified issue the certificate. the only option was to pre book an assessment with another club (the next nearest club was a 1 1/2 hour drive.) due to the unpredicted nature of my work and weather this was a difficult task. All I could do was turn up with my models when I could on the off chance my visit combined with the annual visit from a qualified person. It got to the point where I would fly unassisted "turning a blind eye to the rule". But I felt uneasy about this because if there had been an incident the words "you should have not being flying unassisted" ringing in my ears from the committee.

After a house move I moved clubs. My new club also did not have a qualified person but ran an "in house" assessment so I still dont have an "A". but this time I could enjoy flying more as I was within the club rules

[Peter Beeney]

PART ONE

Yes indeed, Phil, some of these stories are strange, more akin to the shenanigans at any local Town Hall rather than a friendly model club. I’m convinced these sort of very difficult to understand, (for me, anyway), types of rulings are much more common than you think. Sometimes it gets even more bizarre, I know of one circumstance where the ‘pupil’ and the ‘instructor’ pretended to use a buddy lead when flying, the instructor just holding the plug. There was a good reason for this. The buddy lead was just to satisfy the Safety Officer, who thought this was a genuine situation. When I asked why they bothered it seemed that if they didn’t official Committee letters warning of bad tidings would soon be in the post, the rules have to be obeyed. Needless to say, the ‘pupil’, after what must be well over 30 years of belonging to this particular outfit decided to leave. I guess that any standard, ability and length of flying experience doesn’t even enter into it…

Fortunately I’ve only ever belonged to one such club, and as it so happened it didn’t matter much anyway. It was an unusual situation, however, the club had one person in total charge and it was impossible to dispose of him. He had the power to shut the club site down if he so wished. The ‘considerable amount’ of members that always turned up at the AGM to back his rules never came flying, though, I reckon that at least half the club were all in the same Secret Society, much bigger than aeromodelling itself! So the flying modellers just carried on as normal, regardless. The site was only 5 minutes from my door and myself and a friend spent many enjoyable summer evening hours there, amongst other things, he wore out a couple of OS 40 four stokes in a Flair Cub.

This Chairman/Safety Officer’s rules were fairly extreme, one such was that you had to have a BMFA B certificate to be an instructor. He justified all these orders by insisting these were BMFA rulings. I wrote to Graham Lynn, who was then the General Secretary of the BMFA, with some concerns about this, he returned a very pleasant letter fully agreeing that all my interpretations and assessments of the matters I raised were absolutely correct; but he then went on to to say that the BMFA would not interfere in any way with the running of any individual clubs, either. I think it might occasionally be a bit galling to the officials at the BMFA when they see it’s name used in this way, although perhaps in others circumstances it might fully suit them.

I think this may be the crux of the matter all over, many of these clubs justifying their own rule book by saying it’s a BMFA requirement. It’s also amazing just how far these hidden tentacles can reach out to. I made a remark once, at this site, about the frequencies, 35MHz back then. Another rule here was that only certain frequencies could be used, it was explained that the nearby electric trains would interfere with the others. My statement wasn’t particularly about this rubbish, but the next thing I know is that an extremely terse letter from Mike Goldby, the then Technical Officer at the BMFA, is coming through my letter box. This was explaining that I would be Breaking the Law, and I would find myself in Court, facing a Hefty Fine etc. etc. Mr Goldby had not even bothered to take the trouble to establish that I was a BMFA member, he thought I was Joe Public, so I instantly fired back an equally terse reply, a full explanation of the situation. His short answer was just an acknowledgement that he now fully understood, and he finished by saying that I should obey the BMFA rules at all times. I was not even contemplating breaking any BMFA rules, simply interested in using a known BMFA recognised frequency, but there was not the slightest hint of any apology because he’d got it wrong.

[Peter Beeney]

PART TWO

Oddly enough, this club was affiliated to the BMFA, as a club, but this was always emphatically denied, too, they were not a Club, they were just friends of the farmer. Perhaps you can have your cake and eat it…

These long arms can stretch out even further; clout can sometimes go a long way; as I’ve explained before on the forum, around the same time I did the the exam for what was then the brand new scheme of Approved Instructor. After talking to the BMFA about it I had to personally arrange the whole thing, the Examiner duly turned up at our site on the second time of asking, (he forgot on the first!), he spent the morning with us, and I passed the rating; although I wasn’t convinced he had any particular MO anyway; but it was still all very early days. He gave me a receipt with all the details to send to the Chief Co-ordinator, which I did. I’ve never heard anything since, and after some investigation, perhaps over a couple of years, a friendly Chief Examiner finally discovered that the official line was that the test never took place. This was also from the examiner himself. I’ve also recently discovered, only this year in fact, that a good friend, who was present at the time and had a long conversation with the examiner, and is also the ‘instructor’ in my first paragraph, wrote in high dudgeon to the BMFA on my behalf about this, but it also fell on very stony ground. I’ve always said that one of the biggest regrets of my life was in not taking and sending a photocopy of that receipt, I really would have loved to have been able to pull the original out of the bag at a crucial time. Certainly I’ve kept copies of everything ever since…

This never mattered anyway, it was just to prove a point, but unfortunately I rather shot myself in the foot here. It’s said that CCTV takes your photo on average 300 times a day, as in Big Brother, I think there might also be a few other sinister forces acting out there, too.

Again apologies to stuey’s OP and the A test, no room left to speak here, but it certainly seems to generate some interest! One aspect that’s always stuck me is that when there is a rule that solo flying is by A cert. only, then by obtaining this qualification this is considered to automatically make you a solo pilot. In my opinion this is definitely not always the case, I’ve seen a number of examples where this is clearly not so; including one of which that concerned a training school pupil... ...which perhaps now partly explains the BMFA’s latest thinking on flying schools and examiners… John Lee @ 04/02/2014 16:10:46.

PB

Edited By Peter Beeney on 15/02/2014 20:44:58

[Bandit]

Your story sounds so familiar

[Peter Beeney]

I’ve been around model clubs for a long time now, Bandit, and I’ve seen at least some of it, I guess. I’ve always felt my experiences must have been pretty similar to what generally goes on all over, and my dusty tome is probably only the tip of the iceberg, anyway. I’m not particularly anti BMFA, as it happens, but I’m rather pleased to note that there are probably more words written about it in two minutes here on the forum than there are spoken about it in two years at our club site. I sometimes think that the rules at some point will incorporate a law of diminishing returns, ultimately resulting in the fact that eventually no one will actually be allowed to fly… - And you think that a bit too far-fetched, it’s already at that point in some disciplines within some clubs right now…

PB

[Bandit]

I have noticed similar at a club where they dont talk about stuff. Or if they talk about it they say follow some channel to the committee and then they simply refuse to do anything, don't reply or simply make an excuse as to why they dont want to change.

The only thing for it is move club.

I am pro BMFA .

Some I speak to say they should do more for flying on a national level in the form of promotion of flying at base level, aquire national sites, lobby to modify the land use clause that is something to do with 28 days. I guess they feel there is much regulation and support for existing events etc

I guess everyone has an opinion, all I want to do is fly

[John Privett]

Posted by Peter Beeney on 15/02/2014 20:41:40:

One aspect that’s always stuck me is that when there is a rule that solo flying is by A cert. only, then by obtaining this qualification this is considered to automatically make you a solo pilot. In my opinion this is definitely not always the case, I’ve seen a number of examples where this is clearly not so; including one of which that concerned a training school pupil... ...which perhaps now partly explains the BMFA’s latest thinking on flying schools and examiners… John Lee @ 04/02/2014 16:10:46.

Peter, it may indeed be that you (and I) have come across examples of A-cert holders whose fitness for solo flying is at best dubious. But that should not be the case if the test guidelines are being followed. And if an examiner ignores the test guidelines then he should really be quietly taken aside and shot have the errors of his ways pointed out.

Near the top of the first page of text in the "TEST STANDARDS for CHIEF EXAMINERS and CLUB EXAMINERS
GUIDANCE for TEST CANDIDATES" document it clearly states,

The 'A' Certificate is a measure of flying ability and safety which "may be equated to a safe solo standard of flying" and an increasing number of clubs use it as their 'solo' test. As an Examiner, the level of competence you should expect of a candidate should be based on that criterion; that is 'is this person, in your opinion, fit to be allowed to fly unsupervised'.

[Andrew767]

Posted by Martin Harris on 14/02/2014 16:33:16:

Really?

Are that many people actually uncomfortable with what seems to be a fair attempt at providing a national standard? Yes, I believe there is a vocal minority who oppose it on grounds of "why should I have to demonstrate what I've been doing for decades" or in the view of many, rather tenuous grounds of attacks on personal freedom but in my own experience, there are very few (if any) club members that I know who see it as anything other than a standard to aim for and (for beginners) a logical step in their progression.

Of course there will be the odd anomaly but by and large, I think the efforts of the achievement scheme are something to be applauded.

......and another in support

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

well done J.P.

not a lot to ask is it, few basic safety questions answered

you've done it

[Peter Beeney]

John P, I fully appreciate that the dubious A certificate definitely should not be the case, in any situation, and I certainly don’t have any problems with the way the BMFA choses to word it’s documentation. Unfortunately, though, unless I know the flyer personally I’ve no idea how they got their A certificate, so by this token I’ve no way of knowing if the test guidelines are being followed by the examiner or not. We don’t have any problems with participating in the tests, we have two examiners that are always on hand; anyone that shows any interest is given every encouragement to do the test, but there is no pressure at all to take it. Our criterion for safe first solo flying is when the instructor says so. If I were to ask myself a question, 'is this person, in your opinion, fit to be allowed to fly unsupervised'. then one way I would answer is to say ‘can he let the model drift a long way downwind, get disorientated, recover and fly back unaided?’ I’m not sure that I would be able to glean a true answer for this from just watching an A test, even if flown in an exemplary manner. I’d like to think that I could put the model into any situation and the pupil could get out of it unaided, but that might be high expectations.

Like everything else about my somewhat long and slightly rocky association with the BMFA, my A pass was, at the least, unorthodox. Back around 1980, or perhaps a bit earlier, as I remember, the A and B scheme were just being mooted; and indeed they were very largely an unknown quantity. A member of our club at that time had a close family relationship with a prominent member of the BMFA, but fairly distant geographically. Because of this connection we were given an invitation to go to a site to meet an official that would give us an A test. This might have been something of a trial run, I don’t know. This meant travelling on a weekday, and one man out of 3 or 4 four of us that were elected to go was able to do this, so off he went to a far away place. He actually came back at a rather higher level as an Area Chief Examiner, the BMFA could do this sort of thing in those days, and his first move was to hand us a piece of paper that was an A pass. I think that any of us, himself included, would have considered it as a bit of an affront to do it in any other way. After all, he knew we were just as capable as he was. So had I been able to go instead on that day I would now be a Area Chief Examiner. Given the choice, I think I would much sooner see a long term pilot with a proven safety record just handed an A certificate, rather than someone struggling to practise the simple manoeuvers and then passing the test by the skin of his teeth. When a guest flyer comes to our strip now on their first flight there is always someone discreetly on their elbow; and also it’s observed that they do in fact check the controls for correct movement before they attempt to take off. In my view the A is just an acknowledgement that the recipient can preform these tasks, an achievement; for me personally it’s not a licence for someone to fly solo safely; particularly on a busy flight line. We’ve always had a very good relationship with our site landlord, there’s never been any problems, but like many other sites it’s not that lonely. At one end the runway butts onto a track with frequent vehicles passing by, and at the other there is a Border footpath with walkers, plus horse riders. One model possibly only landing, let alone crashing, in the wrong place at the wrong time might lead to some sort of recriminations, and the landlord doesn’t really need us there…

PB

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Peter - I don't know the names nor circumstances but I find nothing about the appointment of the first ACEs that surprising - logically, some people needed to be appointed in order to start the scheme...and they could hardly be experienced B rated examiners...

Hopefully your first ACE was found to be a suitable person by the official(s) and the decision was made on the day with an element of recommendation from your club.

Your club obviously finds its arrangements to work well for it and if I were to visit with a view to flying, I would not feel in the least affronted if you were to ask me to demonstrate my competence even though I hold a current examiner endorsement - and I suspect/hope that would apply to any reasonably confident/competent flyer. Personally, I would have serious doubts about the abilities of anyone unwilling to do so and would not risk the long term future of a club site for the sake of upsetting a visitor.

So now I've just given validity to the view that an A is irrelevant?

Well not really. If the visitor has an A or better, I know that they (should) have a working knowledge of Air Law, reasonable ground procedures (possibly different in details), club operation, flightline etiquette and in almost all cases have been taken through some sort of a training programme which will be backed up by an assessment of their actual demonstration. This may not be particularly formal - often after checking credentials, a bit of a chat and outlining local procedures, the check may be as simple as keeping an eye on their first flights.

No A? Well, all of our members who "own" the club and facilities have accepted/agreed that they can only fly unsupervised with an A, have spent time and effort obtaining it and I think it would be unfair and unreasonable to allow someone to turn up and just leapfrog this agreed proviso. There are 3 alternatives - take an A test there and then if they are a BMFA member and one of our examiners is on site, fly under "informal supervision" in company with a suitable member or accept that their personal beliefs are incompatible with our club.

So much simpler for all if they have that nationally recognised certificate of achievement before they arrive...

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Peter

all the safeguards you list, rest of us have its not rocket science

basic instructing, don't be a long way downwind

monitor guests? we all do it

license, never heard of one

clubs set their own constitution, joining is voluntary

taking your A is voluntary

pass your driving test, THEN you start to really learn

to pass your A, put him in any situation get out unaided? your a hard man to please

Edited By john stones 1 on 17/02/2014 01:55:54

[Erfolg]

I can understand why the "A" test can be used as a means of a club to maintain a safe environment for a group of modellers and the public. I can can also see that other clubs or groups see no need to use the "A" test to maintain safety.

I do side with those who say I see no need to demonstrate my competence to others. That is unless they want to fly with those who collectively use the "A" test to establish the criteria they all adhere to. I personally have no great desire to take the test, I feel know need to impress others, or massage my ego. However I see that others may require me to have one if I am to fly with them.

I did feel most uneasy at the statement that an examinators can fail anyone they think is paying lip service to BMFA rules. Does this mean, if the person is aware of the UK legislation for the piloting of model type aircraft and can demonstrate the fact, operates in a way which is both safe and adheres to the clubs operating procedures, goes on to demonstrate that they can control a model in accordance with the test, then answer the safety related questions, can be failed, because the instructor suspects that that person does not necessarily agree with all the BMFA rules/advices. If so, that does seem like a thought crime, even worse, you must demonstrate unquestioning compliance with all that the BMFA issues. I hope and guess that something was lost in what I thought was being stated. If not, oh dear!

It would be interesting to know how many people who currently fly models have the certificate, relative to the numbers of modellers who currently fly.

I think one of the issues I have some difficulty coming to terms with, is that we are discussing awards, yet in the same breath, we can see that they are also used as a licence or seen as such, by some, although without any legal status, bur by a common consent. I am not sure that I have any feelings about the situation, other than the status is ambiguous.

I do have a fear, that something which started out as a means of improving safety, is morphing into something with differing agendas, not strictly related to safety.

[Peter Beeney]

Martin, I’m sure you are perfectly correct about the ACE in my post, the BMFA just wanted to get the scheme off the ground. It just happened that our club was asked, because of a personal connection, if we had someone that was willing to have a go at the A test and could also fly a little bit. I think that who ever went there would have been raised to Area Chief Examiner on the spot, most likely by another Area Chief Examiner, maybe the first, even! I’m sure our club would have had no input at all, other than just supply a body. Nothing particularly wrong in any of this, of course, this was the style back then, but it’s just an indication of how casual it all is.

If you came to our site you wouldn’t have to prove anything to anyone, because your attitude, body language and your model would all soon say you were a regular flyer. As I said, it’s unlikely that anyone on site will think about the BMFA very much, so the A or any other tests and so on would be unlikely to get a mention. But possibly the best giveaway might well be the condition, it’s age, maybe, of your flight box; and I guarantee that within half an hour you would consider you’d been flying here forever.

Also I’ve no objection to the way in which any club chooses to run itself, if I didn’t like it I wouldn’t join anyway. Surely this is what democracy is all about. However, just for curiosities sake, let us turn your club’s A requirement slightly on it’s side for a moment…

Taking a hypothetical case, a gentleman (a visitor) asks a (your) club member if he can come and have a fly, as a guest. He has an A, which he insists on showing before he’s even asked. Because you are a friendly and accommodating bunch permission is given, so he turns up to fly. Presumably now at your strip he is now treated like any other A member, left to his own devices and entitled to fly solo throughout; his model is a 40 powered, a very sedate high wing WW1 lookalike monoplane. He takes off ok, all on his own, but very quickly is seen briefly swooping low over the pitts area, obviously with very little control. But he does succeed in recovering from this, and goes round a couple of circuits. But again, you soon observe that he’s getting further downwind and the model is again zooming wildly around, a touch of disorientation, you think. Eventually you take pity on him, and also because you don’t really want him to stuff his model into someone’s greenhouse, you stroll over to the strip and say “Ok, old son, give us your tranny, and we’ll soon get you back.” So he does and you fly the model back and land it. Collectively, what would your club now say to him?

I said this was a hypothetical case, but it has it’s origins in real life, and I can say that what we more or less said at the time was “Take it easy, fella, no harm done”, quickly followed by, “The best thing to do is to go up again, but with a bit of help this time”. Sadly, and as happened in other similar cases, he emphatically declined. Sympathetically and understandably so, because he must have been utterly mortified.

Also having a B doesn’t necessarily guarantee total success, either. As I’ve related before, it happened that a youngster was given a B the day before he flew at a model show. Half way through his flight at said show he panicked, and his father had to step smartly up to the flight line and land his model for him. As a long time serving Safety Officer, almost right from the start, tales of this nature are not exactly what I really want to hear, either. There is no lower age limit to obtaining a Certificate, a 10 year old can quite legitimately be solely in charge of a gas turbine at a model show.

Having said all this, I’m sure the notable accident rate must still be very low. A number of crashes, maybe, but not significantly high profile. I suspect the biggest attrition rates are as usual the self inflicted ones, fingers in props, and other such pitts located injuries. So by and large all the club procedures do work satisfactorily; which, all round, is much better news.

PB

Edited By Peter Beeney on 17/02/2014 19:35:23

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Erfolg on 17/02/2014 18:37:28:

I did feel most uneasy at the statement that an examinators can fail anyone they think is paying lip service to BMFA rules. Does this mean, if the person is aware of the UK legislation for the piloting of model type aircraft and can demonstrate the fact, operates in a way which is both safe and adheres to the clubs operating procedures, goes on to demonstrate that they can control a model in accordance with the test, then answer the safety related questions, can be failed, because the instructor suspects that that person does not necessarily agree with all the BMFA rules/advices. If so, that does seem like a thought crime, even worse, you must demonstrate unquestioning compliance with all that the BMFA issues. I hope and guess that something was lost in what I thought was being stated. If not, oh dear!

 

I'm sorry Erf but that is quite a gross distortion of what I said - I think a case of "reading what you wanted to read" rather than what was actually said.

If you refer back to the my post you will find that what I said was:

" if the examiner feels your general way of conducting yourself is only "paying lip service" to safety and you are not "walking the talk" as it were and he sees evidence of that in your actions, then he is perfectly within his rights to fail you. Even though you flew well and answered correctly."

Bold added later here. I was very careful to include that statement I have now put in bold to make it clear that I was not talking simply about an examiner's "thought" or opinion - but where he saw real evidence in your actions that, while you obviously knew the correct safe procedures, you were not carrying them out.

No "thought police" required Erf and that is an example of the sort of emotive language which makes sensible debate about this topic so difficult!

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 17/02/2014 19:37:02

[Erfolg]

I am still not clear what you are really saying.

For example, if the model is not checked out properly before flight, say a cursory glance, then the model has clearly not been checked. If that is what you and others mean, I have no issue. That is not about walking the talk, it is a straight forward, lack of a thorough and adequate inspection.

As for the emotive language, I am pleased it has been clarified, as I was rather concerned, I have noted that the message many of us intend is not always received as intended. being misconstrued. In my case, this is often down, straight forwardly, to sloppy writing. Not devoting as much time as is warranted to construct the argument and then review of the written text, so as to ensure a clear message

I am not sure that all see the "A" test what it is. A test on a day. If it is to be used as some form of passbook, periodic reevaluation would be necessary. Other than having such a process it would seem reasonable when considering people who are not known and holders of the certificate as probably safe, with respect to knowledge and operation. I personally would see such a process as far to bureaucratic and cumbersome, to even consider.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Peter - I do understand your point of view and your club sounds like a well run organisation. I do think that things have moved on a long way from those early days and that quoting those events from 30 or more years ago as an example of why you dislike some aspects of the scheme may be somewhat irrelevant now.

I do know a couple of members of the Achievement Scheme Review Committee and I know for a fact that they are people who are dedicated to improving and levelling the standards across the country for the benefits of all. They invest a substantial amount of their own time and efforts for no reward other than the feeling of a job well done.

Erfolg's question about attitude is certainly answerable from the B test examiner's guidance notes where the examiner is expected to take into account the candidate's general attitude and demeanour around the flightline and pits as well as their flying competence and knowledge.

I've certainly heard views expressed about the suitability of testing children for the B for just these sort of reasons - the example quoted really does lend credence to these views. Of course, the individual candidate may differ wildly and a young person could be far more mature than another far older so some common sense and experience from the examiner is definitely needed - and should be a very important part of examiner candidate selection - the responsibility of club committees, of course.

[Peter Jenkins]

Martin, you make some very good points. I wonder how many who appear to be so critical of the BMFA and the Achievement Scheme have actually read both the BMFA handbook, which describes what is required for the A test, as well as the Examiners Guidelines for the A test.

The application of a common standard in testing is also something which is highly desirable and is the subject of current debate. Within my Area, it is being actively pursued with the intention of getting Club Examiners and ACE's aligned to ensure that, as far as possible, an Achievement Scheme test will be conducted to the same standard across the whole Area.

That's what we should all be focusing on. Helping those pilots who want to improve their flying standard to do so. Of course, both the A, B and C Certificates are merely an indication that the holder was at one point capable of conducting themselves in a safe and competent manner. If after passing these tests, the holder does nothing to maintain their flying standard, or even seek to improve to progress to higher standards, that's up to them. But, if they choose to allow their skills to atrophy they should not expect a Club to continue to grant them the freedom to operate to a level they can no longer achieve.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I know that our area is looking to run examiner events to encourage standardisation this year - hopefully examiners will make the effort to attend...I hear rumours that the area may be funding some refreshments as a small inducement!

Maintenance of standards doesn't seem to be a great problem in my experience. One or two older members have found things getting a bit trickier as the years have advanced but in the main, are aware of their limitations and mature enough to adjust their model choice and flying style. Other members who have had a lay off seem quite ready to actively seek assistance or the presence of an experienced pilot while they find their feet again.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by Martin Harris on 18/02/2014 00:34:53:

I know that our area is looking to run examiner events to encourage standardisation this year - hopefully examiners will make the effort to attend...I hear rumours that the area may be funding some refreshments as a small inducement!

Maintenance of standards doesn't seem to be a great problem in my experience. One or two older members have found things getting a bit trickier as the years have advanced but in the main, are aware of their limitations and mature enough to adjust their model choice and flying style. Other members who have had a lay off seem quite ready to actively seek assistance or the presence of an experienced pilot while they find their feet again.

well written Martin

could not agree more

[Erfolg]

Martin

I really do have issues with anything which is subjective, if no reason, or guidance is part of the process, to ensure fairness.

With respect to safety and my personal experiences, I held various certificates with respect to safety, before retirement, which have included IOSH Certificate, Commissioning of Plant and equipment (Mechanical and Electrical, Management of Contractors CDM Regulations and a few more, which do not seem to be on my CV. Not one had any subjective element. You were required in principle to know the Laws and regulations related to the topic, demonstrate that you can recognise issues, understand the nature of the issues, then formulate a method of implementation, in addition to understanding your responsibilities and that of others. No room for being subjective.

Even ice dancing as a sport has moved from, being subjective in many of the aspects, where there was establishment of a reputation by the dancers, the repetition of a known repertoire. To one where reputation counts for nothing, elements and components being compulsory with a know marking system.

So the idea of some one not passing a "A" test, because some one was thought not totally committed to safety, without evidence, seems wrong to me. Particularly if they have demonstrated safe practises during the testing process. It seems a recipe for prejudice, settling of grudges and any other negative scenario you care to run with. I would not expect this to happen though, just that there is the potential.

At the same time, I would take the view, that anyone, with or without a "A" certificate, can and should be subjected to sanctions if their actions indicated significant, repeated practises which are unsafe, within the context of a club.

As for youths, I think there are potentially a number of issues, can they be legally considered responsible for their actions, can their life experiences sufficiently equip them to be able to take a balanced view of their actions unsupervised. I have many concerns with youths these are but a few and although I have no input to the formulation of "A" test process. At club number 1, although permitted to fly unsupervised in principle, in practice a careful watch is taken, advice given, if issues are thought to be arising.

I would also prefer the BMFA to move from the publishing of their rules or however you define them, as this is what you must do. To a situation, where the various obligations and requirements under British Law and Regulatory bodies, are identified, then linked to the BMFA interpretation of how these obligations can be discharged. The objective being to ensure that the implementation at club and individual level, recognises the linkage, or not, to their own situation, to ensure that there is appropriate compliance. Where there is no obvious linkage to specific laws and regulations, then to explain the nature of the hazard, and how the guidance achieves the objective. In most respects I believe in people being aware of the issues affecting them, then encouragement to make safe working part of their environment, rather than being handed down as some one elses solutions which are to be implemented or else. I saying less top down, more bottom up processes.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Erfolg on 18/02/2014 17:14:27:

 

So the idea of some one not passing a "A" test, because some one was thought not totally committed to safety, without evidence, seems wrong to me. Particularly if they have demonstrated safe practises during the testing process. It seems a recipe for prejudice, settling of grudges and any other negative scenario you care to run with. I would not expect this to happen though, just that there is the potential.

 

Erf you are obviously having some sort of difficulty here - so can I try once again to make the point as crystal clear as I possibly can,....

No one - repeat no one - has ever suggested that a candidate should be failed on an A-cert test on a mere thought or opinion that is not backed by evidence. I even wrote that bit in bold in the hope you would grasp it!

What we are talking about is the simple fact that just answering the questions correctly and flying satisfactorily is not, on its own, enough! The examiner has the right to see all of your actions - from the moment the test starts until he tells you its finished - as part of the test. So, if you answer a safety related question correctly, but you can be seen to be not to doing the very things you have said in your answer, then you will fail.

An example to make it even clearer - a popular question often asked on the A-test; "what checks should you routinely carry out on your model prior to a flight?" Now you might answer, quite acceptably, something like "all control surfaces are securely fixed, move freely and in the right direction. That the airframe is basically sound and no part of the model is likely to become detached in flight. etc. etc.". Then you might be asked "What precautions should you take immediately prior to lining up for a take off?" And you say something like "Check Tx on, correct model selected, Tx voltage good, trims set, final control check, check no one is on approach, call "lining up", taxi out, then make final observations, call "taking off" and go" Very good says your examiner!

But, now suppose that in the practical part of the test, having perhaps been told by the examiner to prepare your model for flight as if it was the first flight of the day etc. you actually do none of these things?. You just turn your Tx on, bang a battery in the model and take off from a standing start in the pilot's box - no checks, no calls, no observations. You might then fly a perfect test.

So, you answered the questions correctly, you flew the set piece exercises correctly - but you will fail - and you should fail. Yes, you talk safety - but you don't act safely!

Where is the "thought" or "opinion" on the examiner's behalf in this decision to fail you? Its clear cut. He has the evidence of his own eyes of you not doing what you say!

What's the problem? What don't you understand? Why do you keep going back to this statement about how unhappy you are that people can be failed because the examiner "thought" they were unsafe? He doesn't "think" they are unsafe - he knows they are unsafe, because they have demonstrated that they are!!!!!

I can't make it any clearer!

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 18/02/2014 18:39:30