Multi Rotor A and B Test Launched

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Both those modes would pass that test Martin! So that won't work!

But sport mode has certain features that make it much easier to fly the test - particularly the figure 8. Which I think is agianst the spirit of what was intended. I can go into the technical details if you are curious.

BEB

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Do you mean that they would both stay put? That being the case, I don't think it could be considered as a suitable model. The test guidance states:

It is acceptable to use an electro-mechanical or solid state gyro/s in a multirotor being used to take the test although electronic stabilisation is restricted to enabling flight, at no point should the stabilisation effect take over control from the pilot or achieve automated or self leveled flight. This allows a range of gyros to be fitted, from simple yaw dampers to solid state heading lock units. The use of any autopilot and/or artificial stability features which are (or may be) designed into such units beyond definition above is not acceptable during the test and is not allowed. Candidates should be prepared to explain the capabilities of the system they are using and show that it does not take over control from the pilot and that automated flight will not be achieved during the test. GPS must not be used during the test.

(My emphasis in bold - spelling by the BMFA!)

If not, yes please - feel free to expand on the nuances of these modes - I might well be asked to conduct an MR test at some time in the future!

Edited By Martin Harris on 17/03/2016 00:36:42

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

To take a member for the multi A test I'd need to study a bit BEB, I do/have asked questions but as we've few flying them what I've learned is easily forgot so I'd need a refresher course, which is why I gave a link to the BMFA test and left it to someone who knows, I ducked it yes but there you go

John

[cymaz]

As a bmfa member is going to take the A and B tests, am I right in assuming that the insurance company has passed these tests so the successful candidate can get cover?

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

Posted by cymaz on 17/03/2016 06:29:18:

As a bmfa member is going to take the A and B tests, am I right in assuming that the insurance company has passed these tests so the successful candidate can get cover?

As long as you are a paid up member you are covered, you do not need to hold any certificate to be covered.

[Dave Bran]

IMO the BMFA did the best they could at the time generated with what they had, which likely was based from very little expertise, hence it being really a minimally modded Heli test set..

The Multirotor scene is so fast moving that anything done would be likely to be quickly less than ideal, that's just the way the changes force it.

Having taken some time to read the various "tests" around, inc those being used within the commercial training process I am of the opinion that the BMFA test schedule now falls considerably short of that required, whether the examiners are totally au fait with it or not!

That opinion also gained from having currently 7 MR's, most being Race Quads, with a large fleet of fixed and rotary wing.

What ongoing monitoring and changes are proposed to keep the achievement tests relative to the product out there?

An additional pertinent question is what is being done to integrate FPV into the BMFA suite of skill achievements?

 

 

Edited By Dave Bran on 17/03/2016 08:43:51

[Frank Skilbeck]

Posted by Martin Harris on 17/03/2016 00:31:11:

Do you mean that they would both stay put? That being the case, I don't think it could be considered as a suitable model. The test guidance states:

It is acceptable to use an electro-mechanical or solid state gyro/s in a multirotor being used to take the test although electronic stabilisation is restricted to enabling flight, at no point should the stabilisation effect take over control from the pilot or achieve automated or self leveled flight. This allows a range of gyros to be fitted, from simple yaw dampers to solid state heading lock units. The use of any autopilot and/or artificial stability features which are (or may be) designed into such units beyond definition above is not acceptable during the test and is not allowed. Candidates should be prepared to explain the capabilities of the system they are using and show that it does not take over control from the pilot and that automated flight will not be achieved during the test. GPS must not be used during the test.

(My emphasis in bold - spelling by the BMFA!)

If not, yes please - feel free to expand on the nuances of these modes - I might well be asked to conduct an MR test at some time in the future!

Edited By Martin Harris on 17/03/2016 00:36:42

As somebody who dabbles in quads, I have a 250 sized with a CC3D controller on board, and I have it set up with three modes, stability with heading hold :- keeps the quad level and holds the heading, stability :- only keeps the quad level, acro, in the first two modes movement of the aileron and elevator stick translate directly to the angle the quad leans too, so the go forward you have to push the stick and hold it there, centre the sticks and it self levels. Acro mode is akin to flying a fixed wing or heli, the further you push the stick the faster it will rotate about that axis. It's the last mode the BMFA want you to demonstrate your competence with, bit like not using a cars self park feature if taking the driving test.

Also the BMFA do hold examiner workshops around the country so I'm guessing the MR tests will be rolled out to examiners at these workshops.

[Dave Bran]

Posted by Frank Skilbeck on 17/03/2016 08:42:53:

the BMFA do hold examiner workshops around the country so I'm guessing the MR tests will be rolled out to examiners at these workshops.

Considering the deadline for April's BMFA Drone Awareness Month, I would have hoped that was done, dusted and all examiners able to assist the process. Seems not?

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Martin, really pushed at work at the moment! But will explain more tonight! Watch this space!

BEB

[Martin McIntosh]

Not ploughed through all of this as yet but I tend to agree with Martin Turner and BEB. Flying a MR without the intended stabilisation seems to be a pointless exercise for most people including myself so why do it just for a test? Fine maybe if you are racing but I don`t even know if those guys fly that way.

I have a dilemma. I have been asked to do an `A` test for someone but without a certificate myself cannot officially fly one of mine at my club site to enable me to ascertain any difficulties involved, particularly in a wind. So what do I do? Do I fail someone because it drifted a few metres or is that unavoidable?

The tests need sorting out before they are implemented but this is getting a bit late now. It seems to me that these have been cobbled together by an unitiated BMFA committee.

On my CC3D equipped 250 size quads I do not really know how to turn off the stabilisation.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

One problem is that examiners are being told "check if its self-leveling". The implicit theory behind this is that all possible modes that are not self-leveling are equally acceptable and don't use stabilisation or other non-permited flight aids.Sadly - this just isn't true!

Take the example asked about - the APM flight controller. if we consider the acro-mode and the sports mode both of these would pass the test of being "non-self-leveling". But in reality there are significant differences. One of the key differences is in how the two modes handle yaw input.

Suppose the quad is tilted forward in pitch, say 45 degees, and then we yaw 90 degrees left. In acro mode the quad will rotate about its own axis. The quad will now be level in pitch but have a 45 roll to the right. In contrast in sport mode the yaw will take place not about the quad's axis but about the global or world axis - ie a vertical axis. So the 45 degree pitch remains 45 degrees pitch but pointed 90 degrees to the left.

Now if you are trying to fly a figure 8 maintaining nose first - level or banked - it will be a lot (a great big lot!) easier in sport mode where the tilts don't cange direction as you go round!

So is that stabilised or not? Well strictly speaking its probably not "stabilised" but it most definitely "assisted"!

BEB

[Mark Stringer]

AH, so the dust hasn't settled yet ... but great to get some conversation going on the topic

APM in acro it is then ... i think ...maybe

Thanks all ... i guess i expected it to all be ironed out by now and an easy question that i had missed the answer to in the pages of MR regulations ... but clearly not as yet

[Bob Burton]

If memory serves me well there are, or soon will be, separate tests for assisted and non assisted conventional aircraft. Why should it be different for multi-rotors ?

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

As it stands - from the official guidance:

Manual

This is the only flight mode acceptable for use in the tests, as in this mode the multirotor is not self stabilised. A continued aileron input for example will see the model continue to rotate around the aileron axis. An easy demonstration to request from the pilot to confirm this is the flight mode in use is to ask the pilot to apply a small aileron input and then release the stick to centre. The model should continue along the new aileron trajectory and not self level, requiring opposite aileron input to stop the slide and return the model to level.

There is a simple check defined and if the requirement is met, then the MR is compliant and I would proceed with the test.

It also states that electronic stabilisation is restricted to enabling flight, at no point should the stabilisation effect take over control from the pilot or achieve automated or self leveled flight. This allows a range of gyros to be fitted, from simple yaw dampers to solid state heading lock units. The use of any autopilot and/or artificial stability features which are (or may be) designed into such units beyond definition above is not acceptable during the test and is not allowed.

This seems to allow BEB's example of the sport mode as the more advanced one is akin to a form of heading hold / yaw stabilisation, if I understand the explanation correctly. As has been observed, the nature of the genre is that it is under rapid development but at the time of inception, the review committee took advice from a number of experienced MR operators who, I'm given to understand, contributed to the discussions and endorsed the test as it is published. I do know that least one of the committee bought a MR in order to familiarise himself with their operation but primarily, they relied on advice from people with specialist knowledge. I would expect the requirements to be adapted to major advances but there must be a sensible limit to the frequency of any changes to the test so perhaps it's best that this simplistic check of the system's capabilities should stand for the time being?

I understand that it was never intended to serve as a qualification - it was devised due to demands for a test to recognise ability to control a MR manually (within the limitations of its nature) and show awareness of safety and applicable legal aspects.

Edited By Martin Harris on 18/03/2016 01:28:57

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

I see your point Martin, but the problem is that flight modes on quads are not a "fixed feast". The reality is a flight mode is software and as such is defined by the programmer. It can have any features the programmer can a) conceive of, b) successfully implement. This means that, first of all, every flight controller is different and, secondly, there will always be people who can even write their own personal non-standard flight modes! (And they are not nearly as rare as you might think in the quad world!)

I wouldn't describe what sport mode on the APM is doing as adding stabilisation - at a stretch it could be described as a form of heading-lock. But my points are really two fold:

1. The simple test "if you put in a aileron it just continues rolling" or "if you blip aileron it stays tilted and doesn't correct" won't detect the use of this sort of "heading hold" - despite the fact that such a facility is a considerable assistance in performing the test.

2. It is almost impossible to write a regulation that will cover this! Whatever you come up with there will be something new within a week that makes it outdated!

So, what should we do? Well I think there are two possible solutions. Either we stick with what we have, ie the FC must only provide a heading gyro - nothing else. But for this to work examiners need to be good enough quad pilots to be able to confirm this is so and, without in any way wishing to be disrespectful to that fine body of men, I'd suggest 99% of examiners are not in that category and are not likely to be be so any time soon.

The second possible solution is far more radical  and I think much better! So, what do you think of this?......

Maybe, where quads are concerned, we should move away from the traditional view that the principle skills we are assessing are primarily raw piloting skills - ie how well you can "steer" the aircraft through a set of manoeuvres. Perhaps this isn't a relevant test for quads? Maybe we need to rethink things here?

The tech is an integral part of any quad, so how about a test that, instead of stripping the technology out and reducing it to a "fixed-wing clone", focussed on assessing the quad pilots' ability to safely, efficiently and effectively use the technology to best effect? For example, testing their ability to decide what the best flight mode might be for a given aspect of the test, switching between modes during the flight as appropriate. It could test the pilot's ability to manoeuvre very accurately in tight spaces through obstacles - choosing whatever aids he thinks appropriate as he goes along even switch between VLOS and FPV as we go if appropriate! Yes the test should also demonstrate that, in the event of an emergency and a loss of some or all of the tech, the pilot can still fly and land the thing safely - but may be that shouldn't be the main focus of the test?

The problem with that second proposed solution of course is that it requires a quad flyer's point of view of what a good test should look like - not a FW pilot's view of what a quad pilot should do - which is what we seem to have now! If you think the A-cert is out of touch with typical quad operations, take a look at the B-cert - that's just bizarre and full of stuff no quad plot would ever do - while simultaineously failing to test anything they actually would do!

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 18/03/2016 10:15:15

[Dickw]

Posted by Bob Burton on 17/03/2016 22:18:19:

If memory serves me well there are, or soon will be, separate tests for assisted and non assisted conventional aircraft. Why should it be different for multi-rotors ?

It isn't different for multi-rotors (or helicopters either).

Separate tests for stabilised fixed wing or rotorcraft plus an FPV endorsement were all mentioned in the February issue of BMFA News. They should be available soon.

A & B tests will be still available for non-self levelling flight, but "Basic Proficiency" certificates now an option for those who can't, or don't want to, do without stabilisation.

Dick

[Two Six]

Doing a loop LOL, that's a pretty stupid requirement. This is super-advance multi-rotor flying IMHO.

I have rarely seen MR's doing a proper round loop even ones flown by really really good pilots that can fly the heck out of a quad!. Honestly its a rare thing indeed to see that..

A loop at least requires a load of speed in hand and lots of height. A loop flown by anybody who isn't very very good will turn into a flip which is easy to do. You would not want to try a large round loop with anything other that a small 250 sized quad and even then, you wouldn't really want to try it.

I would rather see a spiral dive from height being required as this could potentially help a lot with safety as a rapid descent might be required to avoid other air traffic.

The top hat...hummmm perhaps but that is more of a helicopter thing, the 45 degree descent, again more of a heli thing with both moves giving a nod towards avoiding a vortex ring state, which is relevant with a MR, hence the spiral dive test.

Perhaps emergency stops from speed would be better or recovery of controlled flight at a distance when visual orientation is very difficult or almost lost..

Of course I would also like to see nice square circuits flown with nice banked turns at speed.

For the A test, hovering it out to a point, then hovering it sideways to both sides, fair enough.

Figure 8's fair enough...However lazy 8's are perhaps not going to show a suitable skills in nose in control but at a basic test, fair enough..

I think nose in flying skills should be in the A test and the candidate should be required to fly nice rounded circles where the MR is nose in at the mid point.

This is where the noob will have potentially dangerous problem.

As for the stabilization bit...tricky, this has got to be assessed on an individual basis by somebody who know how flight controllers work. However by definition all FC's provide stabilization in all modes.

Finally, I have been in the BMFA since 2005 and I have never met ONE qualified examiner..there were rumours that so and so was one but I wouldn't know how to go about getting tested.

Nice one for trying BMFA but so far these MR flight tests are a bit of a fail. I am sorry to say.

Edited By Two Six on 18/03/2016 12:46:17

Edited By Two Six on 18/03/2016 12:47:19

Edited By Two Six on 18/03/2016 13:00:38

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Getting in touch with an Examiner is no great mystery 26, contact the BMFA and they'll point you to one.

John

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

To fly at Barkston at the F3A comp Festival of Flight I needed a B cert...anyone know what achievement level the multi lads/lasses needed to fly at the last Nats ?

John

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

Posted by Dickw on 18/03/2016 10:43:05:

Posted by Bob Burton on 17/03/2016 22:18:19:

If memory serves me well there are, or soon will be, separate tests for assisted and non assisted conventional aircraft. Why should it be different for multi-rotors ?

It isn't different for multi-rotors (or helicopters either).

Separate tests for stabilised fixed wing or rotorcraft plus an FPV endorsement were all mentioned in the February issue of BMFA News. They should be available soon.

A & B tests will be still available for non-self levelling flight, but "Basic Proficiency" certificates now an option for those who can't, or don't want to, do without stabilisation.

Dick

**LINK**

[Mark Stringer]

Stabilisation. .. but it doesn't say if that is "stabilised" or "GPS stabilised" ... still not sure which APM mode refers to either but i assume acro or stabilised.

I am looking forward to the dead stick landing though

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

Posted by Mark Stringer on 18/03/2016 18:59:14:

Stabilisation. .. but it doesn't say if that is "stabilised" or "GPS stabilised" ... still not sure which APM mode refers to either but i assume acro or stabilised.

I am looking forward to the dead stick landing though

Multi-Rotor booklet says "GPS must not be used during any test"

[Martin McIntosh]

Since helis do not have their stabilisers turned off during a test then why should quads? Ever tried flying a heli with no gyros? Possible but far from easy and realistic. I speak from experience with an early fixed pitch Schluter Engstrom.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Mark Stringer on 18/03/2016 18:59:14:

Stabilisation. .. but it doesn't say if that is "stabilised" or "GPS stabilised" ... still not sure which APM mode refers to either but i assume acro or stabilised.

I am looking forward to the dead stick landing though

No Mark - it can't be 'stabilised mode' - because that self-levels. But it could, within the BMFA definition, be either 'acro' or 'sport' - though I don't think BMFA mean you to be able to use 'sport' - but their wording doesn't ban it I think despite the fact it makes the test easier!

@Martin - I'm not a heli flyer, but I assumed that standard heli modes just use a single heading gyro - is that not so? If yes then that's equivalent to the BMAF MR case where I believe as you are not allowed stabilisation but you are allowed a heading gyro - without which it would be almost unflyable! Its difficult enough with it!

BEB

[Mark Stringer]

But that link from Andy Symonds says there will be a new test with stabilisation enabled. .. just, yet again, doesn't clarify what exactly that means ... i wanted to do my A but starting to wonder if it is worth bothering to be honest