Club Examiners

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Yep squabbling was a poor choice of word , here's an idea from the grass roots, lets have the A.C.E's in there BMFA have my details, I look forward to flying with them all, they can set us the standard. Don't worry about my wages i'll stand the cost myself voluntary.

John

[Dave Hopkin]

Posted by john stones 1 on 23/05/2015 22:23:48:

Posted by Dave Hopkin on 23/05/2015 21:56:39:

Posted by john stones 1 on 23/05/2015 21:46:07:

The worst part of this though is some good honest Examiners may fail the retest, even though they perform the test in a right and proper manner and have done so for years....How can that be right ??

No-one is questioning the honesty or integrity of anyone, but if the proficiency ratings are to mean anything at all they have to be to a clearly understood standard and those standards applied consistently across the country in al tests

If examiners cant/wont attend workshops then in time the standards they expect for a pass will diverge and we will end up with some clubs setting higher levels and some lower - when that happens the perception of any the tests as a measure of proficiency becomes eroded and devalued

I disagree Dave

These Examiners on here will tell you, and if you read the Examiners guidelines booklet (which I have advised repeatedly) it's not rocket science it's a BMFA test.

If you're not happy with yours speak up.....and again I work for a living who are you to tell me to attend, you paying my lost days wage ?

And again what if you lose a good lad because he got a bit older, can't fly as well as he once did but his tests are spot on.

The standard of some passes in the past is solely down to honesty and integrity, you can't retest for it.

John

Again two people can read guidelines and INTERPRET them differently and apply that interpretation locally but differently to the other people, over time and with amendments to the guidelines that difference will only increase - that's why examiners workshops in my view are essential - if an examiner cant or wont attend the workshops then some other method of ensuring the same interpretation is being used across the country

Who am I to tell you you should or shouldn't attend and loose a days wages? No-one - you are a volunteer you do it for your club/hobby and I sincerely applaud you for that and in no way am I having a go at you or anyone nor am I unhappy with any examiner I have come across, What I am saying is that the A,B,C etc tests are a national standard and as such have to be maintained at the same level to ensure that club X's A Cert has the same level of difficulty as Club Y's - and that can only be done by examiners coming together in workshops

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

I jump through hoops quite often Dave, put the aces in with me i'll jump through some more. They where never mentioned till I referred to the minutes again. For the record I've never refused to attend a workshop, I've never been asked to.

John

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

10th Jan 2015 item 22...page 19 (c). Even if the scheme controller has reservations they can settle by a vote ?

here

Now I know you lads will out debate me but this looks unlike consistency to me. If you've got some doubts lets have tx in hand and have some recapitulating to settle it.

P.S to have a national standard delivered by workshops run by the aces would require the aces to be of the same standard and view of what that was. I recall some debate recently that suggested that may not be the case either.

So now where are we ?

Edited By john stones 1 on 24/05/2015 01:34:15

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I'm getting a bit lost here, John but I assume this is what you're referring to? If it is page 19 item (c) then I'm even more confused!

There was an action on the ASRC from the last Full Council meeting following a comment from Western Area “that they are hoping the ASRC will bring something forward that Club Examiners should be re-tested every 3-5 yrs. or encouraged to come to a workshop” There was some discussion on the merits and practicalities of implementing such a requirement, and the possibility of implementing some form of formal system to demonstrate continued competence. The ASRC consensus is that in principal the idea has merit. However, it was felt that it was vital to establish the national programme of workshops first, before implement any formal form of re-validation that required attendance. For illustration, only five Areas had organised workshops in 2014, and it was felt that the programme would probably take at least another year or two to become fully established nationally. The target is to have all Areas organise at least one workshop per year and all Area chairmen and co-ordinators are being encouraged to engage in this process. If delegates would take a request back to their Areas for them to organise a workshop(s), this would be appreciated.
In addition, the ASRC thought it important that Area chief examiners be involved in the process of organising and delivering workshops, and this will be incorporated in the 2015 version of the workshop guidance document.

I only see a suggestion from an area and some discussion about it where the ASRC have considered it, decided that there was some merit in it and thought a little about possibly implementing a requirement to maintain common standards through workshops some time in the future. Formal re-tests don't appear to be anywhere on the agenda.

I'd wait and see what (or even if anything) develops from this before crossing aerials with anyone over the matter!

Edited By Martin Harris on 24/05/2015 01:33:37

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

You've lost me mate, I'm not much cop on a p.c.

961/01/15 (22) C

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Is this a separate point - i.e. not referring to the re-test idea you started this thread on? What you're referring to seems to be in relation to the appointment of new ACEs with the option for the controller to initiate debate if he's unhappy that the person nominated is suitable to represent and/or administer the scheme:

From East Anglia Area that, Areas acting through their committees shall have the responsibility of appointing Area Chief Examiners and Area Chief Instructors. These appointments shall be ratified by the relevant Achievement Scheme Controller but if the Controller has any reservations as to the proposed appointment he/she shall, in the first instance, advise the nominating Area of his/her reservations. If the Area, having considered the Controller’s reservations, persists with the appointment, the Controller shall have the option to initiate a deciding vote by areas Council on the matter. This vote may be by electronic means if no convenient meeting of the Areas Council is scheduled.

I can't see the relevance to this topic though - what is it you don't like? It seems like this gives a mechanism against possible "cronyism" within an area committee amongst other benefits.

Edited By Martin Harris on 24/05/2015 02:03:38

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

By voting on it for some

By demonstration for others

[Peter Jenkins]

John, you are confusing several things.

If a Club wants to appoint a member as a Club Examiner, the Chairman or Secretary writes to the Area Achievement Scheme Coordinator (ASC) who appoints an ACE to examine that member for suitability to be a Club Examiner. This is a key role for the ACE. At a mutually agreeable date/time/location, the candidate is then required to fly a full B test and to critique it to the ACE. This will include a more comprehensive question and answer session at the conclusion of the test. If you don't fly a manoeuvre to an acceptable standard, you should tell the ACE what went wrong with the execution of the manoeuvre at the end of the flight. If successful, the ACE issues a certificate which appoints the member as a Club Examiner and paperwork is sent to the BMFA office who issue a new membership card with the Examiner symbol.

To become an ACE, the candidate follows a similar procedure and the Area ASC either appoints an ACE or carries out the candidate test themselves if they are also an ACE. How the candidate is examined will depend very much on how much is known about the candidate by the ACE. In other words, how good is their standard of flying and can they demonstrate how they intend to promote the Achievement Scheme in the Area. If successful, the candidate is proposed to the next Area Committee meeting (to which every Club in the Area is invited to attend). If approved by the Committee, the candidate's name used to be submitted to Areas Council for ratification. As Areas Council only meets when sufficient business is envisaged, the process instituted was to email all Areas Council members (the Area Delegates make up Areas Council) and they vote yes or no. This had become a rubber stamping exercise and some Areas said they would be affronted if their candidate were not approved. Hence the proposal for a change in procedure to simplify and speed up the process. As the process now stands, the Controller will approve the Area's request unless he has some reservations about the candidate. It has nothing to do with allowing an ACE through purely on the approval of the Achievement Scheme Controller.

Both the Club Examiner and the ACE are therefore asked to demonstrate their skills and knowledge with the ACE having to show a much higher standard than for the Club Examiner. An ACE can approve a Club Examiner but approval to become an ACE requires an Area Committee to approve them and then the Scheme Controller to ratify them.

This is all set out in the BMFA Handbook and the Guidance Notes for the Area Chief Examiner role - which is available on the BMFA downloads section.

I think you incorrect in your post above.

One of the key roles of the Achievement Scheme Examiner workshops is to establish a standard for what constitutes a pass at A and B level. I have seen some Examiners operate to rules that they have thought up. For example, one said he would expect a higher standard of flying from someone flying an aerobatic aircraft as opposed to an Acrowot. The test is about the pilot and not the aircraft.

The workshops in the East Anglia area are open to Club Examiners, Instructors and candidates for tests. The ACEs play a key role in helping at these events and fly demonstration A and B tests which are critiqued by the attendees. The tests (including the pre and post flight checks) are debated after the flight and a common standard agreed. This is not about the top of the BMFA stamping its foot. It is all about fairness to club members to ensure that they are examined to rules and standards that have been agreed by the Areas ACEs, Club Examiners, Instructors and candidates operating together. Got to be good for the whole movement I would have thought if the standard to achieve an A or a B is not wildly different across an Area let alone the whole country.

As a club examiner, I welcome this approach whole heartedly. None of us is perfect and it is always comforting to have a review of standards from time to time. Note that the Examiners are not required to fly any form of test - merely to attend the event and participate in the discussion.

I'm assuming from your comments that you have not been to one of these workshops. I have been to two in our Area and all those attending thought that it had been an extremely worthwhile event - some came with very low or negative expectations but commented that they had found it invaluable.

[Bob Rowland]

An examiners ability to fly the test doesn't make him a great examiner - fact.

As an examiner I am watching how a flyer conducts himself every day he is at the field, not just on " test day"

Safety in the pits, plane set up, courtesy and care for other flyers all help me make my decision.

The candidate should show a level of consistency every flight not just for two rolls in both directions on the day.

As you say John " it ain't that difficult"

You need confidence in your decision and the support of your club.

If the ACE would like to come and watch me conduct a "test" the he is more than welcome, and I will take on his feedback.

I for one won't be attending any retest - In true Dragons Den style "I'm out!"

Very interesting debate - great job John for bringing it up!

[Bob Rowland]

Ps - Peter I would attend a workshop - when and where?

Perhaps you could tell me when my area will be holding one, as they seem unable to communicate in any shape or form.

[Dave Hopkin]

Posted by Bob Rowland on 24/05/2015 07:13:41:"

Safety in the pits, plane set up, courtesy and care for other flyers all help me make my decision.

The candidate should show a level of consistency every flight not just for two rolls in both directions on the day.

You illustrate the point about lack of consistency perfectly....

You are adding things to the test schedule that are not there....

How would you adjudicate a test on a non-club member who you didn't know but by arrangement turned up on test day to demonstrate his proficiency at flying the documented test schedule - when by your own statements you have no knowledge of his consistency so would have to either fail him or apply a different standard to your own club members.......

[Bob Rowland]

 

You raise a good point Dave

I would follow the documented process and pass on what I see and hear

Likewise I wouldn't pass a candidate on what I have seen over the previous weeks.

Perhaps we should only take our own club members thought the scheme, after all we are Club Examiners That way we would know their level of proficiency over a longer period of time.

I struggle to see how retaking the test would deal with this issue.

 

Edited By Bob Rowland on 24/05/2015 07:54:47

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Hi Bob

You keeping well ? I was the pit crew when this man took his Examiner test alongside a 17 year old at our club, both passed which came as no surprise to me. What did impress me was the ACE who took them, if I could remember the mans name i could not praise him highly enough.

Bob ran workshops at our club and the other examiners chipped in, we also had models there to demonstrate if required, I know his standards are good because I've seen them far more than once every 5 years. It is my job as a club member to ensure this is the case, SO if the "grass roots" are concerned about standards "get involved" at your clubs.

John

[Peter Jenkins]

Hi Bob, suggest you PM me with your email and in which Area you are and I'll try and help get you in touch with your Area ASC. Failing that, contact the office and ask for them to provide that contact.

I agree that you are right to avoid passing someone who habitually fails to maintain the required standards but then carries them out "just for the test". We are after safe pilots not people who are a danger to their fellows by ignoring safety rules and breaching club rules habitually.

Peter

[Dave Hopkin]

The point I raised was specifically to highlight how guidelines will be interpreted and a myriad of different rules applied unless there is some overarching structure that harmonises examiners

Yes you are club examiners, but if test candidates were only from your own club how would country members be included in the scheme? But the guidelines and schedule for the test are specifically written around the day, if a candidate turns up, goes through all the pre flights perfectly, flies the schedule correctly, does a good post flight and answers all the questions correctly - he should be passed, but if he was a club member and you knew he (say) never restrained his models, but did so on the day, is it within the guidelines to fail him? According to the letter of the schedule it would not be.....

I feel that workshop attendance is vital for examiners and those that cant or wont attend them should be considering their position in the scheme

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

...this is an excellent example of the sort of topic that can be discussed at an examiner's workshop!

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Crumbs - that's quite a strong position to take on the ideas generated so far!

As far as I can see, this suggestion is purely aimed at promoting a level standard across areas and thence nationally which can only be a good thing. With the best will in the world, over 20 odd years, attitudes, interpretations and perceptions can change and the opportunity to meet other examiners, discuss standards expected from candidates and gauge your standards can only be a good thing.

If the areas do their job well (and get decent co-operation from clubs) then an event fairly close to (or even at) your club should be possible to attend once every few years without too much trouble.

The BMFA scheme administrators don't judge your continuing competence - your club renews your examiner rating, which should be based on your performance and standards. All that's being seriously suggested is that you take the opportunity to compare your standards - and have the opportunity to discuss them with your peers!

Edited By Martin Harris on 24/05/2015 22:05:28

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[John Privett]

Yes Percy, the scheme is voluntary. Examiners voluntarily run the tests. But the standards applied should be consistent as far as is reasonably possible, otherwise the whole scheme becomes worthless. And the examiner workshops' aim is to improve that consistency.

[iqon]

Is anybody saying that it is not consistent as it is....

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Surely one criticism that is levelled at the scheme is that there are variable interpretations of the requirements - witness the club documented in several other threads which requires a double loop to be performed as part of the A test...

How do you know what standard is acceptable? Yes, you have decades of experience and I'm sure you apply your standards diligently and fairly and forgive me if I'm wrong but when you were tested for your examiner rating, I suspect that there was less emphasis on the actual conduct of the test - and time and personal standards may possibly have diverged from the intended national level. Even if you are spot on, which may well be the case given your experience, the workshops give an opportunity for you to assist others to attain the correct standards.

As I've stated earlier in the thread, I was quite surprised at the range of standards expected at the workshop I attended last year - quite an eye opener.

At the end of the day, examiners should be motivated by a desire to contribute to the hobby so it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to ask them to put a little effort into this sort of exercise.

Edited By Martin Harris on 24/05/2015 23:09:04

[Bob Rowland]

Hi Dave

Are you not an examiner or involved in examining flyers?

I am glad to see you appreciate the challenges faced.

[Dave Hopkin]

Posted by Bob Rowland on 24/05/2015 23:18:08:

Hi Dave

Are you not an examiner or involved in examining flyers?

I am glad to see you appreciate the challenges faced.

 

Good God no!!!!        

I am a relative novice to flying!!! Came over from the dark side of RC boats last year!!!!

So perhaps that allows me to look at things dispassionately (and in blissful ignorance of the procedures/protocols/politics of the things)

Edited By Dave Hopkin on 24/05/2015 23:30:52