Methods of attaining an A certificate

[Bernie]

I agree with most of what's said here ,I am not saying let a newbie untried person loose that would be crazy .yes let a person who says he can get up get around and get down safely .I perhaps didn't explain myself very well .safe flying is paramount take a test ok.but if someone can fly safely lose the buddy box .I'm afraid I carry a lot of baggage from my last club and of course not all clubs are like them .I think the A should be optional ,as I said the club should give you a short test to see if you are safe and then you should be left alone to get on with it and take an A if you want to .that's just my opinion and I probably haven't put it across very well .at the end of the day the red tape police will get their own way .Blue skies to nevery one . Bernie

[Alan Gorham_]

There's still no real difference between an A test and the club giving you their own short test. Except that if the club devise and run their own test then some poor sap on the committee has to write the test, put it to the members for approval, administer test forms, materials for the guidance of the test candidate, then document that the test has been taken.

Also, how would you simplify the flying part of the A test and still make it a meaningful test? It takes one 10 minute flight to check someone can take-off, fly left and right hand circuits, land off a circuit, fly a figure 8 and perform a simulated dead-stick landing. They are all things that any flyer who has just gone solo should be able to do, so therefore any prospective member of any club who claims to be a competent flyer should be able to do them too!

No wonder some clubs use the A test instead! All the above is done for you, tried and tested. The only "red tape" involved is by the examiner on the day of the test. He fills in the BMFA supplied test form and posts it off to the BMFA office, who then process it and send a certificate back to the flyer and a new membership card with the A qualification shown to the club secretary. He can then record that the member has gained a A and give him his new card.

Having been a club secretary and a chairman as well as an instructor and examiner, the reason that I favour the A & B tests is that they work and are less effort than making some arbitrary tests up from scratch. Honestly, the BMFA have made it as easy it can be.

Yes, it's not perfect but I was told once not to let perfect be the enemy of good. I.E. it's the best we've got.

Bernie, I'm not having a go - I do see where you're coming from but I do have to speak up in favour of clubs who do feel the need for the A as a basic requirement. There are lots of misconceptions about what the test is or isn't.

[jolliffee]

I wonder what the purpose & benefit is of the figure of eight is - the rest I understand!

[Masher]

When I did my training, the 8 was described as good example of showing that the flyer is under full control. To do it properly you have to make corrections for wind as you change direction and probably use all the controls to keep level and symmetrical

[Ultymate]

This topic always leads to a crazy long discussion , in my view if you cannot pass an "A" then you shouldn't in this litigious day and age be flying on your own anyway let alone surrounded by thirty or forty clubmates. It's an easy test but a topic for each individual club, but getting everybody through the "A" at our club despite initial resistance was the best thing we ever did several years ago and generally upped the standard of flying at our site JMHO

[Alan Gorham_]

Interesting post Ultymate

And Masher, yes that's a fair summary of why a figure 8 is a useful test manoeuvre.

I just wonder why so many people pick away at the test standard or get defensive about it...

Honestly, if you can fly a trainer round for a ten minute flight on a regular basis without crashing then you are capable of passing the test. You might have to practise some of the manoeuvres just to polish them up a bit, but think about all the time you spend practising...you will be doing what you love i.e. flying your plane.

I also agree that it is capable of lifting standards of flying.

[Simon Chaddock]

Martin

I am sure your reasons for setting the original weight limit are correct but It does beg the question why should shock fliers and the like be expressly excluded from a pilot achievement scheme?

I am still left with a sneaking suspicion that anything below 1kg is considered to be 'not a proper plane' and thus flying it to a particular standard does not demonstrate pilot ability.

[ken anderson.]

over the years I've met on a couple of occasion's-flyers who could only do 'left hand 'circuits.....and they were done for if they got in the wrong part of the sky.........they either flew where they weren't supposed to-or crashed.....and then argued the point.....we had a fly in at our club along time ago....and one such flyer/guest landed in the pits and took out several models also.....

so the figure of eight I would say is to demonstrate that you can fly-left or right hand circuits....

 

ken Anderson ne..1 ......... left hand circuits dept.

Edited By ken anderson. on 21/02/2014 13:54:29

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Simon Chaddock on 21/02/2014 13:44:32:

Martin

I am sure your reasons for setting the original weight limit are correct but It does beg the question why should shock fliers and the like be expressly excluded from a pilot achievement scheme?

I am still left with a sneaking suspicion that anything below 1kg is considered to be 'not a proper plane' and thus flying it to a particular standard does not demonstrate pilot ability.

I'm not sure that the demand would be very high.

I really don't want to infer anything here and I think many of us do fly small models in addition to the more typical club models but you're probably right that in the context of the average club, any model that small/light is going to regarded as a bit of fun, toy, novelty or whatever.

This shouldn't decry the skills of the user/builder in any way but these are models that aren't really likely to have much impact (literally or figuratively) if flown badly so perhaps there's less need to be seen to have a competence scheme to establish a sort of base competence level? Even a paper dart can "have yer eye out" so there can always be exceptions to such assumptions but I think it's the reality.

[Alan Gorham_]

I think it is more that the test is conceived to apply to a typical club environment where trainers of say 50-60" span are flying along with similarly sized sports models.

As I said, the tests were devised in the early 1980's when electric flight was in its infancy and shock-flyers etc were inconceivable.

If you want to fly shockies and similarly sized models and demonstrate your ability there were proposals 2-3 years ago for an indoor A and B test. If the BMFA achievement scheme had a flood of interest in this it could be resurrected.

Alternatively, if you demonstrate to your club that you will only ever fly lightweight, sub 1Kg models then they might consider the risk you pose to be minimal and they might exempt you from the need to take a test.

[Alan Gorham_]

As an addendum, I've just read Ken Andersons post above re the figure of 8. Ken, the A test requires the candidate to perform both a left hand and right hand circuit.....

The figure of 8 is surely more of a test of co-ordination than a nice wide, gentle rectangular circuit.

As Masher put it above: "When I did my training, the 8 was described as good example of showing that the flyer is under full control. To do it properly you have to make corrections for wind as you change direction and probably use all the controls to keep level and symmetrical" which seems a good description to me.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

It's a great test as it requires constant changes and adjustments in 3 dimensions and at all angles to the pilot to be demonstrated in both directions.

A stroke of genius by whoever specified it for the A test.

[Alan Gorham_]

Yep, to me it's the make/break manoeuvre. If the candidate does a good job I am impressed. Still watching their subsequent manoeuvres like a hawk, but it's far and away the most demanding bit of the test.

It's the spatial awareness thing too. Cross-over in front of the pilot....both circles to be equal diameter and also keeping a constant height...also coping with the varying amounts of bank required through the figures. And the model flying away then coming back toward the pilot. All good tests.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

...plus flightline communications and awareness of others in the air. I must say that I prefer to see an A test done with other models in the air.

[Alan Gorham_]

Me too, although in my experience most flyers land to watch the goings-on. That brings its own kind of pressure, but I would still prefer to see how they cope with another model in the circuit.

When instructing I always encourage pupils to fly when there are other models in the air. They need to be exposed to this.

[Mr.B.]

This thread is so far from Stuey's original question it can't hurt if a stray a bit further..

When instructing I always encourage pupils to fly when there are other models in the air. They need to be exposed to this.

Our club always seems to give the candidate sole use of sky while a test is under way. This does mean you can gauge your performance from the sucking of teeth and mumbles coming from behind you.

I do not understand why the notes say a landing cannot be aborted due to a poor line up. I would have thought that recognizing a poor approach and having the wisdom to abort is better than pushing through to a landing. The notes already say that maneuvers can be repeated but warns that the test must no degenerate into multiple attempts at each maneuver.

I can remember as a newby when I was only intersected in (so called) park flyiers being a bit put out that I would have to invest in a larger aircraft to take the A. Now I have matured in the hobby I have, and want larger aircraft. I can see, and understand why the 1kg limit is there but to does prevent people who only have or want sub 1kg aircraft flying solo where the A is a club requirement. Maybe there should be a light weight or park fly cert.

As an aside, our club runs regular indoor events. Last year we ran one between Christmas and new year, this was well publicized. Lots of new people turned up with Christmas present indoor helis and multis. The more the merrier, and all income for the club. We explained that they would be allowed to fly as 'guests' but if they wanted to come again they would need to join the BMFA for the insurance and they look at you like your barking. Indeed BMFA membership just to fly a little heli indoors every other week through the winter does seem a bit steep. Is there a case for light weigh membership?

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Mr.B. on 21/02/2014 16:28:39:

This thread is so far from Stuey's original question it can't hurt if a stray a bit further..

When instructing I always encourage pupils to fly when there are other models in the air. They need to be exposed to this.

Our club always seems to give the candidate sole use of sky while a test is under way. This does mean you can gauge your performance from the sucking of teeth and mumbles coming from behind you.

Yes - this does often seem to be the case - but it's probably just out of vicarious interest.

I do not understand why the notes say a landing cannot be aborted due to a poor line up. I would have thought that recognizing a poor approach and having the wisdom to abort is better than pushing through to a landing. The notes already say that maneuvers can be repeated but warns that the test must no degenerate into multiple attempts at each maneuver.

You're looking for a level of competence where the candidate is capable of reasonable accuracy (but certainly not perfection) and if the approach is so far out that it needs to be aborted then it's below the standard to be demonstrated. However, making the decision to abort if it was wrong is the correct thing to do and I would make a point of commending the candidate on his airmanship and ask him to fly a second test with a better handled circuit.

I can remember as a newby when I was only intersected in (so called) park flyiers being a bit put out that I would have to invest in a larger aircraft to take the A. Now I have matured in the hobby I have, and want larger aircraft. I can see, and understand why the 1kg limit is there but to does prevent people who only have or want sub 1kg aircraft flying solo where the A is a club requirement. Maybe there should be a light weight or park fly cert.

That's just what we've introduced in our club. No validity outside it of course but it's there to help accommodate and include those who prefer very light models either as a stepping stone or means to an end.

Edited By Martin Harris on 21/02/2014 17:18:18

[Martin Cavie]

Having read this thread with a fair amount of interest I do not understand the issue about the A certificate. As an examiner and instructor I have always used the A schedule as a basis for any training. It teaches full control of any model in both directions, if I have one criticism of it, it would be that it does not cover a stalled model. The silent flight electric A test does and you actually have to stall a model and recover smoothly.

If a club insists on an A to fly solo then that is their prerogative and you either tow the line or move on. And to be honest if you can take off, fly circuits in either direction and land then where is the issue with the A test anyway.

[Alan Gorham_]

Martin I think the issue is more difficult to implement in a club environment where all the members have not needed an A to fly and then such a requirement appears. This might not be down to a majority of club members passing it an a club AGM; it might be imposed by a landowner etc.

obviously it seems a bit unfair to just issue a blanket exception to all existing members and just test new ones.

Like you say if you are a potential new recruit to a club that has established this rule then you either take the test or find another club.

PS - agree totally on the stalling part of the test. When instructing I tend to teach it quite early on so the student can recognise it, hopefully stay away from it, but knows how to recover should the worst happen. Although most modern trainers I've flown (Arising Star, Boomerang, E-Pioneer) tend to struggle to stall easily.

[Peter Beeney]

Martin @ 17/02/2014 22:48:21 I only quoted that old event to explain why I’m in no mans land, and always have been, really, because strictly speaking I don’t have a correct A certificate.
- I have a certificate, true, but I’ve never taken the test. So where does that leave me now…

It may be an old event, but it’s still up to date in this respect, at least…

Certainly it was not my intention to give any impressions that I dislike some aspects of the scheme, indeed I’ve alway been a vigorous campaigner to uphold it. I’ve always had all the paperwork associated with the A and B tests so that I know and can pass on exactly what is required and I’ve always given new flyers maximum encouragement to have a crack at them. One way of doing this is providing tuition. Having seen many anomalies over the years, I’ve thought for a long time that more and better standardisation is paramount; or perhaps even paramount on paramount; however when I hear that many clubs are now turning the A certificate into a form of solo licence, at the same time implying that this is endorsed by the BMFA, to the point where someone, in order to be able to fly, has to have a colleague holding the open end of a buddy lead whilst standing together to be ‘legal’, then I can only think that any degree of standardisation is still a very long way off indeed… These deviations are the bits that I find slightly difficult to understand, but I don’t particularly dislike them, as they don’t affect me. If this is progress, and what is required in modern clubs, then so be it. As I said, this resulted in the involved member leaving after a long term membership; so I’m not convinced that it is perfect progress, anyway.

It wasn’t too much of an old event, though, this was a Christmas 2013 event.

We shall just carry on rewardless, in general I’m sure we have the exact appearance of a bunch of old fogey’s just enjoying a bit of model flying. So I’m sure that’s exactly what we are… Over time this does start to have an effect, …time itself, that is; and now that I’m into what might well be the second half of OAP the old clock is slowing down a mite. Or maybe by even an hour or more… Thus I’m considering more than ever that I should think about beginning to take it a bit easier; maybe a pair of cutters standing close enough to my buddy lead to put a bit of daylight between the ends might be a starting point…

I’ve tried to get a definitive decision about this from the BMFA, but so far they’ve been just a touch slow to respond on this one; hence the delay in replying back here; but after having had a careful check I’ve been unable to find any recommendations within the the BMFA chronicles for clubs to use the A certificate as a mandatory licence for solo flying, so I think that I’m safe in assuming that in any cases where this happens this is entirely down to the club’s own actions. The illusion that this is a BMFA rule might well be aided and abetted by the fact the first thing a newcomer is told is that he must join the BMFA as a condition of membership; that’s mandatory; secondly he can’t fly solo without an A certificate. So by association it instantly appears as though this is a mandatory rule, too, whereas it can only ever be a local club rule. Therefore I think we are just as justified, within the rules, to set our own standard for solo flying within our club, which is simply that when the instructor is satisfied a student is capable of going solo, he goes solo. It usually comes as a invitation to do a circuit out of the blue, something akin to full size procedure. But at the same time he might well be cheerfully told to “now practise the A schedule, because we will be doing that sometime soon”.

But we shall still be keeping half an eye on any unknown quantity brand new A pilots that appear in the circuit…

avtur @ 20/02/2014 00:39:50 I’m sure you have a very valid point indeed. I’ve often thought that if I were lucky enough to be a thirteen year old interested youngster, but a little bit unsure of it all, a visit to a club just to be greeted with all these do’s and don’ts coming at me from all directions, such as ‘You can’t fly today without an A’, might certainly test my resolve to fly a model aeroplane. Can we really then complain when youngsters don’t seem interested? I’ve always had youngsters to teach, we currently have seven in our club with thirty two adults; I’d say that’s a fair ratio. Most have an A, the others are working up to it. They must like it, too, because they keep coming back for more, despite the banter they have to take; but at the same time they are encouraged to just get on with it on their own; and as an entirely separate entity I also try and keep some semblance of order at a school model club as well, usually up to fifteen strong; mostly boys, of course, but there are occasional young ladies, too. At a recent session I counted twenty two bodies. I’ve found that if I tend to treat kids like adults, and adults like kids, it does result in some sort of limited progress, at least…

If I do get a response from the BMFA I’ll come back with it.

PB

[Alan Gorham_]

Peter:

" but after having had a careful check I’ve been unable to find any recommendations within the BMFA chronicles for clubs to use the A certificate as a mandatory licence for solo flying, so I think that I’m safe in assuming that in any cases where this happens this is entirely down to the club’s own actions. "

You won't be able to find a BMFA recommendation for the A to be a MANDATORY license for solo flying (as I have quoted you above), because it's no such thing as has been said many times in the course of this thread.

There is a BMFA suggestion that it could be used by clubs as a standard, which again, we have discussed is the only standard that exists unless your club agrees to design it's own, implement it and then administer it, thus duplicating an existing scheme!!

"But we shall still be keeping half an eye on any unknown quantity brand new A pilots that appear in the circuit…"

Yes, and as discussed this is the advantage of the A cert, in that, if your club is unhappy with the standards being set by any A cert holder then you have the mechanism of having the certificate withdrawn and then assessing them again to check they are able to meet the standards.

" I’ve often thought that if I were lucky enough to be a thirteen year old interested youngster, but a little bit unsure of it all, a visit to a club just to be greeted with all these do’s and don’ts coming at me from all directions, such as ‘You can’t fly today without an A’, might certainly test my resolve to fly a model aeroplane"

Well, you would let 13 year old children turn up and fly solo on their first visit would you? I'm guessing not, and you would either have them on a buddy lead or at least with the instructor right next to them.

In which case they aren't flying solo but are covered by your BMFA affiliated club's insurance policy which covers such ad-hoc taster sessions.

Please don't attribute non-existent restrictions at the door of the BMFA achievement scheme. It's no wonder so many potential flyers don't take the test when there is such misunderstanding about it's well-meaning (and harmless) aims.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 21/02/2014 18:18:10:

Martin I think the issue is more difficult to implement in a club environment where all the members have not needed an A to fly and then such a requirement appears. This might not be down to a majority of club members passing it an a club AGM; it might be imposed by a landowner etc.

obviously it seems a bit unfair to just issue a blanket exception to all existing members and just test new ones.

I'm sure you're right on this but never having been in that situation I could only speculate. I suspect it would be very much down to the leadership shown by the committee and senior members - maybe if committee members and well respected pilots were to volunteer to do the test first (even if, perhaps, they were already holders) perhaps - how it was implemented with days allocated for mass testing - BBQ laid on, one to one sessions for the very bashful etc.

All in all, an interesting challenge!

[Erfolg]

Last night was our club meet, as is usual there was a general discussion, plus an indoor flying session. Both are relevant to this discussion, in that BMFA tests and insurance came up as topics. To place things in context, we are a typical very edge of suburbia club. Where members have a very cosmopolitan backgrounds, reflecting most if not all working backgrounds, Tradesmen, Chemist, Head Teacher, Uni Professor, Accountant, Engineers, Process workers and so on. United in flying model aircraft, predominantly electric models. both FF and RC.

The discussion initially was in respect to local club memberships, and attitudes to members, and then discussion turned round to the BMFA tests. The response was essentially why? I put forward what I take to be the two principal thrusts of the awards, that of personal demonstration of achievement and the part they may play in safety.

It became apparent that there was a consensus, that our prime interest was flying and building models. Of course safety is important, but it is not the prime driver. It is something that as a group is addressed relative to what we do. That is taking in the location, the laws which bound all activities in the UK, with particular reference to flying models. Our club Chairman, supported by the membership have ensured that we take due account of safe operation. An inflexible set of rules issued by others was not seen as promoting self regulation and analysis of the risks and how to maintain individual or to a wider community safe behaviours.

Then there was the use as a means of demonstrating due care. It was pointed out, that this is process normally used by an employer in court to show that adequate training, systems and record keeping etc had been provided by the business, to avoid company liability. From a flyers perspective, it does not offer them any protection, if regulations are infringed or laws broken, they will still be liable to prosecution, BMFA award or not.

Many took the view, that they had no need to prove how good they were. All knew their all limitations, and have no desire to impress the others. It seems that our competition flyers who I had assumed had taken a test, had not. BARCS competitions not requiring them, the organisers reserving the right to disqualify any who do not abide by the safety rules or can be seen to lack the necessary skills. This fits with my own time as a competition director, when we would get 60-80 competitors. Not once did I encounter unskilled or unsafe competitors. Pushing the boundaries of sportsmanship and the rules, oh yes. I do suspect one our famous modellers may have a cert (who was not present), although he has not entered the Nationals now for some years. I bet it was awarded (if he holds one) on the basis, of yep, just go through the motions, I know you are safe, having flown in your company for x years.

Which made me think, I would contend that all our members should pass the basic tests, with no problems. If they cannot, it would be the test that was flawed, not their skill set. Having flown with many of them now for 40 years. But not a one was remotely interested.

We then went to fly our indoor models, in the hall, the idea that BMFA insurance was needed for this activity was looked at askance. We welcome all who turn up, members or not. Again the club Chairman would immediately prohibit any model that was a serious risk to either individuals or the fabric of the building. As a group we openly laugh at the idea that playing conkers needs, protective goggles, ice hockey face mask and padded gloves.

I guess we have a lot to thank our Chairman for, perhaps not all clubs have such a well balanced individual, whose temperament is considered, all round well suited to the role.

I will repeat, I have nothing against the scheme. However I would resist strenuously any moves to expand the scheme, such as a compulsory requirement for club affiliation.

Edited By Erfolg on 22/02/2014 12:13:12

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Erfolg on 22/02/2014 12:10:34:

I will repeat, I have nothing against the scheme. However I would resist strenuously any moves to expand the scheme, such as a compulsory requirement for club affiliation.

Erf,

I don't think this has ever been suggested seriously by anyone in authority, has it?

From what I recall. your problem is that you want an A certificate but the powers that be within your club (I believe you're in a couple so the post above may not apply directly) have decided they want a higher standard than the A test to be demonstrated and then issue an ordinary A pass. I still contend that you should be entitled to ask for a standard A test which will benefit you in your quest to fly at Greenacres - whether or not this "allows" you to fly alone at your club.

You in particular can obviously see that having an A would be to your advantage!

[Erfolg]

Martin

I am putting an alternative view, with respect to the BMFA tests.

As any other modeller, there is an underlying concern with respect to issues of safety, specifically with respect to our areas. Yet safety is something which should not be seen as unique or isolated to RC modelling.

I think two issue concern me.

• Mission creep
• Scope

Mission creep, is the call by some , to expand the reach of the award.

Scope, is the distinction between precision and what is necessary for safe operation. I sense that as time moves on, there is a temptation to want ever more precise execution of manoeuvres.

I can see that the tests are a useful tool for defining how modellers will be viewed by clubs.

In some respect I do prefer to have some one stood by my shoulder, informing me of what is happening on the field and in the air, it is a real safety aid. It saves taking my eyes of the model, it is just like having a spotter as in thermal comps. It is a bit of a luxury, I feel I am being spoiled. I do worry a little that my spotter may eventually be less than enthusiastic at the situation.

 

Edited By Erfolg on 22/02/2014 16:39:58