BMFA Area Chief Examiner standards

[Slopetrashuk]

So….. I got a very nice letter from the NW Area of the BMFA telling me that fellow chief examiner Richard Budd and I had not been re-ratified as area chief examiners in the secret ballot. No reason given, and none able to be given in the ensuing telephone calls other than a hint that my RCM&E column might be contributory – but nothing solid.

 

I'm not really too bothered. I am however a firm believer in an area chief examiner being able to demonstrate the tests he is taking, as I believe was Richard. Over recent times I had expressed this to anyone who would listen, including the other area chief examiners. When I recently discovered that the area had earlier made up another gent who had admitted to me that he could not fly the tests, I nearly resigned, but was persuaded not to by other clubs on my patch who preferred their tests to be undertaken by me. You should perhaps be aware that Richard and I were also the two area chief examiners who undertook to fly the A&B demo’s at our area examiners seminar and also the two youngest area chief examiners in the North West.

So, in the first instance my apologies to all the clubs that asked me to stay on, and a final congratulations to all the people I have worked with and tested over my 18 year stint. I trust that they know that if they passed the tests, they properly earned them. Frustrating I know when you can see so many being scattered around at lower standards, but that’s for you guys to fix in your own clubs.

So going forwards, the gloves are off. Now I am no longer a BMFA Area Official I perhaps don’t have to be quite so guarded. So…. Here we go.

I’m taking a stand against other Area Chief Examiners who I consider are not capable of demonstrating the tests which they are testing up to the point where the tests become specialised (the C certificates), or the disciplines are new(Indoor and Multirotors).

My reasoning goes a little like this:. I know you do not have to be a murderer to judge a murder trial, but the founding principles of the whole BMFA achievement scheme and the UP and Away document that outlines its current approved training scheme, are Demonstration, Imitation, Recapitulation. i.e. the instructor demonstrates, the pupil imitates, the instructor recaps until the beginner flies the manoeuvre correctly.

It stands to reason then that up to a point (where the models diversify to specialist levels such as aerobatics, jets, scale C certificates) the examiners must be able to demonstrate to candidates or trainees, exactly what it is they require to see. This is not a competition with subjective judges, this is a model flying test. Your driving examiner could I assume, drive when he passed your car test?

A good deal of the nationwide Chief Examiners are still first generation volunteers selected from people who stepped forwards when the scheme began. Most of these are now in their 70's or knocking on the door of it and many no longer actively fly. Those that do, often have a significantly lower standard of flying than when they took on the role. That’s just how it is.

My opinion, and it is only that, is that if the Chief Examiner cannot Demonstrate and Recapitulate the A&B certificates he is authorised to test, then he should not be testing them. There are younger, more active and more current model pilots who are willing to pick up and run the scheme, if the original examiners stepped aside.

It is my intent to lobby the BMFA through the proper democratic channels, to insist on regular reassessments of its standing Area Chief Examiners. Make their full participation at the Area Examiner Seminars compulsory (i.e. demonstrate the tests) and make a requirement of their re-ratification the ability to demonstrate the tests as required when asked.

It has been put to me that the requirement to demonstrate is one for an Instructor rather than an examiner. If you were not aware, all Area Chief Examiners also hold the post of Area Chief Instructor. In this instance a demonstrable flying ability is a must.

What do you think? Would you support such proposals? Do you think we are due an explanation?

 

Over to you....

Andy Ellison

Edited By Slopetrashuk on 04/12/2014 16:09:08

Edited By David Ashby - RCME on 04/12/2014 18:59:04

[Martyn K]

Hi Andy

As you are aware, I am in full agreement with you on this. In fact, I thought that it was a requirement - Page 3 of the RCAS - Fixed Wing 'A' says

It could then be extremely useful for you to offer to fly a demonstration test for them (assuming that a suitable model is available to you and that you are happy to do so)

 

In this case, 'you' is the examiner

(Same thing on page 6 of the B FW Examiners test)

 

Martyn

Edited By Martyn K on 04/12/2014 16:20:00

[Dave Hopkin]

I am shocked to learn that is is NOT a requirement for an examiner to be capable of demonstrating what he/she is examining,

It would also appear to be quite wrong if the two who were advocating this as a requirement were ousted from their posts by the others who (I assume) may see it as some sort of threat to their positions.

[Andy Green]

Demonstration, Imitation, Recapitulation. .. Very clearly stated in the Up an Away booklet.

Andy

[Lee Smalley]

well it makes sense, if the whole principle of the training and achievement scheme is that of demonstrating, then they should be able to do so! simples,

Also I wish to take my jet C cert next year (i got very close to doing it this year) who is going to take me for that?? some poor beggar may have to travel very far to enable this, and i mean this as no disrespect but there are a few A.C.E out there that i would get very miffed at if they fail me, i know i probably should not think this but if they can't fly for toffee how dare they fail me when i can fly rings around them (sort of thing)

i know i should not think that but i can guarantee that's exactly what will be going through my head!!

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

I have no idea what/why the reference to your rcme column means Andy ? it's muddied the water for me, is it possible to expand ?

John

[G-YRUS]

Your views seem to be common sense to me although the BMFA appear to be following so much of the over control of almost everything in life by do as I say not do as I do. I don't see how you can have any respect for someone who can not fly the schedule themselves and how they can have any self respect if they cant do it. Being out spoken as well, my opinion is that this sort of thing also attracts the wrong characters to do testing if you follow my drift.

I get the feeling they are way out of touch with average club members anyway.

[Chris Barlow]

I'd rather be failed by somebody with first hand experience & knowledge who knew I needed more practice than someone who only knew the theory.

Similarly I'd also prefer to be passed by the same experienced person who considered I was good enough to hold that certificate.

In any organisation there are politics and agendas which is why many other people don't want to be involved.

[Ultymate]

Hi Andy,

To a degree I see where you're coming from about examiners being able to demonstrate said test but I'd like to take you to task on a couple of points. I know you've been a long standing "servant" of the BMFA and you richly deserve commendation for that, but once you've jumped ship and are swimming you sure as hell aren't going to have any say in how said ship is run.I know like most of our fellow modellers that it's frustrating as hell sometimes dealing with the admin of our hobby but at the end of the day it's run very much on a volunteer ad hoc basis so if the right people don't step up to the plate what's the alternative ?

Finally being fast approaching seventy myself I dislike the hint of ageism that creeps into said debate, sad to tar everyone with the same brush.

Cheers and enjoy your retirement I'm loving mine Brian

[Chris van Schoor]

Posted by john stones 1 on 04/12/2014 17:23:19:

I have no idea what/why the reference to your rcme column means Andy ? it's muddied the water for me, is it possible to expand ?

John

It seems clear to me from the OP that Andy is a muddied as you are (he refers to "hints" only), so I wonder how he's expected to expand?

Chris

[Slopetrashuk]

Posted by Ultymate on 04/12/2014 17:57:21:

Hi Andy,

To a degree I see where you're coming from about examiners being able to demonstrate said test but I'd like to take you to task on a couple of points. I know you've been a long standing "servant" of the BMFA and you richly deserve commendation for that, but once you've jumped ship and are swimming you sure as hell aren't going to have any say in how said ship is run.I know like most of our fellow modellers that it's frustrating as hell sometimes dealing with the admin of our hobby but at the end of the day it's run very much on a volunteer ad hoc basis so if the right people don't step up to the plate what's the alternative ?

Finally being fast approaching seventy myself I dislike the hint of ageism that creeps into said debate, sad to tar everyone with the same brush.

Cheers and enjoy your retirement I'm loving mine Brian

Hi Brian (missed you on your patch the other day btw). Not sure what you mean by 'jumped ship'. I am still a fee paying BMFA member, Club delegate and club examiner for fixed wing and silent flight. How is it I now can't have a say in 'how the ship is run?'

I have in club candidates for examiner positions and BMFA C certs and no local area chief examiner capable of demonstrating the requirements. While I appreciate the requirement is not in the 'rules' and that the guys still in position could (perhaps) have at one time done so, there has been some degradation with age. One no longer flying at all, two in poor health which has affected their flying and travelling, one newly appointed who told me he had not flown fixed wing for two years. It is a fact that they are of an age, not an issue, which you seemed to infer.

New candidates are not coming forwards because there are no vancancies.

This is another point I plan to address.

 

Andy

Edited By Slopetrashuk on 04/12/2014 18:34:16

Edited By Slopetrashuk on 04/12/2014 18:35:35

[Slopetrashuk]

Posted by Chris van Schoor on 04/12/2014 18:14:28:

Posted by john stones 1 on 04/12/2014 17:23:19:

I have no idea what/why the reference to your rcme column means Andy ? it's muddied the water for me, is it possible to expand ?

John

It seems clear to me from the OP that Andy is a muddied as you are (he refers to "hints" only), so I wonder how he's expected to expand?

 

Chris

Hi lads. A reference was made to my last slope column where I objected to the attitude shown by a volunteer free flight marshall at the Nats towards my son. My point was that not every BMFA volunteer is a good volunteer especially if they have a tendency to use bad language to children within earshot of their fathers.

 

Andy

Edited By David Ashby - RCME on 04/12/2014 19:26:39

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

I'll make it a little easier then, I don't buy every rcme...so I don't know if something he wrote ticked somebody off. Andy included this in his post, it's a fair question. It don't take a genius to see what I am asking....has he been unfairly removed for something he wrote or not ?

John

Thank you Andy

Edited By john stones 1 on 04/12/2014 18:59:20

[Dave Hopkin]

Posted by Slopetrashuk on 04/12/2014 18:38:53:

Posted by Chris van Schoor on 04/12/2014 18:14:28:

Posted by john stones 1 on 04/12/2014 17:23:19:

I have no idea what/why the reference to your rcme column means Andy ? it's muddied the water for me, is it possible to expand ?

John

It seems clear to me from the OP that Andy is a muddied as you are (he refers to "hints" only), so I wonder how he's expected to expand?

 

Chris

Hi lads. A reference was made to my last slope column where I objected to the attitude shown by a volunteer free flight marshall at the Nats towards my son. My point was that not every BMFA volunteer is a good volunteer especially if they have a tendency to use bad language to children within earshot of their fathers.

 

Andy

Edited By David Ashby - RCME on 04/12/2014 18:43:47

Ahh you broke the commandment "thou shalt not be critical of the BMFA in any way shape or form" then.......

Edited By David Ashby - RCME on 04/12/2014 19:27:00

[Slopetrashuk]

Hi John. I (we) have been given no reason behind the voting result. There was no debate and no opportunity for us to give our opinion. Just a very apologetic letter from the area scheme controller who did not agree with the decision but had no real option but to enforce it.

Andy

[Slopetrashuk]

Ahh you broke the commandment "thou shalt not be critical of the BMFA in any way shape or form" then.......

Lol. Yes John. Dont have to be quite so careful now though do I.

Apologies to David for the asterix's. Forgot they weren't allowed here lol. I dont breeze by often.......

Good job I didnt put what he really said!

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Thanks for replying Andy

John

[Erfolg]

I just wonder how many Olympic judges can actually undertake the Gymnastic, diving, Ice Skating, ski Jumping and so forth events?

Strangely they all seem to know what is required!

[Andy Green]

I think the point is all the manuals & publications say Demonstation, imitation recapitulation. It's their rules they are disregarding.

Andy

[Slopetrashuk]

Posted by Erfolg on 04/12/2014 21:19:51:

I just wonder how many Olympic judges can actually undertake the Gymnastic, diving, Ice Skating, ski Jumping and so forth events?

Strangely they all seem to know what is required!

....But can they demonstrate it?

One of my 'projects' when in the position was to take a club with no qualifications at all through lectures at club nights on the schemes, demonstrations of A certs on the field then A tests a few weeks later, then B cert demo's on the field and further club nights going over the requirements, then B tests on the field, then after 6 months returning to assess B cert holders for examiners and conduct tests for approved instructors (where I played the part of the beginner while they taught me). The club is now self sufficient, but I did an inordinate amount of demo flying to get them there. This earned me a level of respect that I knew what I was talking about and showed them what they had to strive to achieve.

Anyone reading the BMFA handbook can ascertain what is required. my OPINION is that Area Chief Examiners should also be able to demonstrate it.

Andy

[extra slim]

That's a proper kick in the nuts for you guys, I'd be totally hacked off. I didn't realise the BMFA and the FA had so much in common. The hobby needs enthusiastic doers, who can do!. Those that can, do, those that can't judge!!..I hear what you are saying fella. There's quite a distasteful under current to the way you have been treated, which is sad and worrying, as in order for the hobby to stabilise it needs to be far more transparent and open to change.

Whereas I agree to a point about not being able to fly the test is a big problem, I don't think it is that clear cut. It is a problem when the examiner can't show you what they mean else you would be just "like this"..."no"... "Like this...no!" Etc. but there are a few fellas who do what a pass looks like but not quite up to demo'ing.

What about the area chief has to take a B every year, if they can't/haven't got it, they can only award with another examiner?, if they have got a current B they no probs, that way the older fellas who have given up a lot of their time can still be involved/respected?

bottom line though IMO, you've been well and truly dumped on....shameful

[Paul Jefferies]

Hmmm........ I hear what you are saying and instinctively I agree with most of what has been said BUT........ Back in the 80s when I was flying aerobatics competitively, one of the best judges of the day was Yvonne Weller, wife of Clive Weller and much respected by all. As far as I know, Yvonne couldn't fly an aerobatic model but she certainly knew what the schedule should look like and she was one of those very rare things...... a completely objective judge. She didn't care if there was howling headwind or a crosswind, your manoeuvre was either symetrical or it wasn't. Your loop was either round or it wasn't and if it wasn't, she marked it accordingly.

So yes, in principle, I think an examiner should be able to practice what he preaches, but I am not sure it is strictly necessary..........

Paul

[Dave Hopkin]

As the A, B and C certs are part of an educational program and not a mandatory test, then one of the implied roles of anyone involved in the testing process is to engage with and encourage pilots to go through the training and take the tests - to gain that engagement, as a novice myself, I want someone who is an active flyer and whose flying skills I respect (and envy) - So while it may not be strictly necessary to be able to fly the schedule to test it, it is a requirement to gain the respect and engagement of the average club flyer.

So I would certainly support a rule change to make a "Test the Testers" part of the formal process

 

Edited to say "Perhaps C is mandatory, I dunno thats so far off for me I havn't read that bit!

Edited By Dave Hopkin on 04/12/2014 21:59:44

[Julian Beckett]

Until I read a reasoned explanation as to why these two seasoned ACE's have not been re-elected, I'll continue to assume that it's simply the old boys network up to mischief. The whole episode stinks. Shameful behaviour.

[Monz]

Posted by Erfolg on 04/12/2014 21:19:51:

I just wonder how many Olympic judges can actually undertake the Gymnastic, diving, Ice Skating, ski Jumping and so forth events?

Strangely they all seem to know what is required!

Dude, seriously? When last were spectators at risk from someone jumping into a pool of water or skiing across some snow?

A little bit different to being judged competent to fly a 10, 15 or 20kg projectile around the sky at over a hundred miles an hour, especially if there's a crowd watching.

If you can't fly the test I want to take, I'm not going to trust you to certify me.