BMFA News - Achievement Scheme Mandatory Questions

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

How many questions in there are not related to fpv xyz and have been in handbook for god knows how long, and examiners have asked them already with no complaints ?

How many Examiners do you know of who ask heli related questions to someone taking a f/w test

They are a list of questions to choose from, do we think Examiners have all lost the plot ?

And as we've been screaming from the rooftops for every Tom Dick n Harry to be educated at point of sale, Why should we be excluded ?

John

[Martin McIntosh]

Lets say you are taking a driving test and the examiner asks you "What are the implications of Section 3) , sub section a) in the Highway Code?".

This may well be the same as "What do you do when approaching traffic lights changing to amber?".

Is there really any difference here from what the BMFA is proposing?

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by john stones 1 on 02/02/2016 20:58:50:

Posted by Donald Fry on 02/02/2016 20:35:00:

To my mind, if I were an examiner, and presented with a candidate flyer of satisfactory flying competence. And on questIioning, was unsure of the numbers of the ANO, would simply put one open question. " Four ANO's apply to model fliers, tell me their broad content. Don't want verbatim, just their gist. Tell me you know your legal responsibilities. I wish to pass you."

Any complaints out there.

I best be careful If you're asking would I pass a candidate who's worthy and he knows his stuff and has a good safety attitude but trips over a number, of course I would.

John...any complaints ?

I agree Martin

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Martin McIntosh on 03/02/2016 16:53:06:

Lets say you are taking a driving test and the examiner asks you "What are the implications of Section 3) , sub section a) in the Highway Code?".

This may well be the same as "What do you do when approaching traffic lights changing to amber?".

Is there really any difference here from what the BMFA is proposing?

Apart from the fact that driving test examiners haven't asked questions for a couple of decades or more, I think this has been answered several times previously. What is important is knowing the content, not the ability to memorise the article numbers.

Edited By Martin Harris on 03/02/2016 17:06:33

[Bill Michie]

OK I'll bite..................

Here's a few bullet points, based on discussions with modelling colleagues over the last couple of days, including Examiners, Instructors & Club fliers:

• The overall impression of the Question Bank, is that it is becoming very “prescriptive” and can (& will) introduce a further barrier or “disincentive” to your average Club flier looking at progressing and “achieving” a higher standard; especially at the “entry level” “A” Certs
• There are considerable concerns that this could quite significantly, negatively affect the Club flier takeup of the Achievement Scheme Tests; OR:
• There are also concerns, that it is “possible” that the requirements could in practice, be “waived”, questions not asked, or answers given in discussion, etc etc (none of which I would do or condone!) in order to reduce the perceived impact & to avoid “failing” a Test simply from getting one or more questions, wrong; this then would defeat the whole excercise!
• The content, style & phrasing of the questions raises concerns about whether some of the questions have real value, eg “what does Article xxx state?”, or several others which infer or imply, the Candidate having a good working knowledge of the ANO, CAP’s etc. Answering “parrot fashion” does not necessarily imply good knowledge of the Law!
• Many questions have multiple answers required, so “one question = 3/8/2 answers, etc
• Many questions are seen to be not relevant to the average Club “A” Candidate (many refer to “Drone” operation, or FPV, etc) BUT could still be asked legitimately (though not reasonably!) by an Examiner, and a Candidate failed on “lack of knowledge”.
• It’s difficult enough at the moment to persuade Club Members to prepare for, and undertake, Achievement scheme Tests & the opinion of me AND several colleagues in the last few days, is that this could put a real barrier in many fliers’ way & put them off attempting ANY tests from now on. This will also include of course, the new Basic Proficiency Test Candidates, as they are included in “for all future tests”. (from 31^st March).

That's my feeling anyhow.

[Braddock, VC]

There must be a boomer of a thermal over this thread .

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

I'll talk to you Bill a lot of those points where/are relevant without the additional questions ?

John

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I don't know what percentage of clubs require A certificates for solo flying but anecdotally, it seems a large proportion do. That being the case, most new flyers will accept the legal questions as part of the learning process. As I understand it, these questions are part of a visible upgrading of the BMFA scheme in order to preempt more restrictive legislation.

As to those clubs who haven't adopted A testing, but imposed whatever standards locally that they felt fit, the track record stands well - or at least hasn't shown up as any different - so this shouldn't flag any concerns to "the authorities".

Time will tell whether the hobby can remain totally self-regulating without any global adoption of the scheme, but uptake seems sufficient to have satisfied the CAA at this time. I think it's important for the scheme administrators and examiners to work together to present this additional imposition as a reasonable but not too onerous requirement. After all, Air Law has always been within the remit of the questions asked and all that's being changed is that a few more questions are being asked on a subject that candidates should have already learnt.

[Tim Cheal]

The matter of the question bank is interesting, but it is only a matter of time before the 20 questions and answers are put onto the interweb. This will allow the answers to be learned verbatim with little or no understanding of the answer, and therein, in my opinion, lies the risk. I am surprised the questions with answers have not yet appeared in this thread. However, if the BMFA see this as a way of keeping the regulations to a minimum and keeping the regulator off our backs then it gets my vote (although I cant see how anyone can monitor the purchase and control of small drone toys)!

I do wish to take challenge with Erfolg on his sensationalist take on commercial airliner heights, and perhaps is Heald-Greenism. I live quite close to there, and as commercial pilot flying regularly form Manchester Airport I can assure him that great lengths are made to fly on a constant 3 degree approach to touchdown. This starts from a long way out, and airlines are penalised for flying below the 3 degree approach if below an altitude of 3000ft (approx 2700ft above the threshold at Manchester).

So, at 2NM from touchdown the aircraft will be 600 ft above the threshold elevation, and at 7 NM from touchdown it will be about 2100ft above the threshold. Even accounting for the rise of the pennines at about 13 NM from the 23 threshold our height rarely gets below 2000 ft until inside 6.6 NM from the landing threshold. I fly models near Heald Green and our site is limited to 400 ft (as I guess are many). I put a GPS sensor in my plane to see how high that is, and while it is easy to infringe, particularly in vertical manoeuvres, it is not often that ones plane is above this. However, I cant help thinking most small drones (that seem to be the problem) would be impossible to control at that height.

Police helicopters seem to transit at about 1000 ft, so unless they are on task I don't really see them as a risk either.

Tim

[Nigel Armstrong]

I would have thought that the questions being asked should be relevant to the test being taken. Should a candidate doing his fixed wing A test need to know about helicopter blade safety? I used to think the certification scheme was a good thing....now I think its lost the plot and needs a total rethink to bring the average club pilot back on board. I would be keen to know what percentage of BMFA members have any sort of certification. I only did by B cert because it was a requirement to fly in BMFA contests.........way back in 1980!!

[Erfolg]

The take of a pilot on the relative heights of aircraft approaching MIA is very interesting.

Just accepting that aircraft are at 600 feet above the ground 2 miles out from the threshold, they look incredibly large when looking up at them. The detail that can be seen is pretty impressive. on many aircraft. Perhaps the approach from Stockport is possibly an exceptual topographical contour, as parts of Stockport are high relative to the actual threshold at MIA. So even a 3 degree approach will potentially bring a aircraft lower to the ground than many airports located on flatter land.

What i am really driving at, is that the use of even a small drone within this approach corridor could easily bring such devices much closer than is desirable to flying aircraft. In most if not all cases i am sure that malicious intent is not intended. It is just an inappropriate location for any model flying, yet many thousands live within this corridor.

Although not strictly a thread topic, there was a recent occasion where a commercial jet was passing in the vicinity of our field, I voiced my thoughts as to how high it was. Another member whipped out a phone with a app that purported to provide details of the aircraft and its present height, which from memory was about 1,500 feet. I have seen several aircraft circulating at apparently similar heights above ground. Although the majority seen are much, much higher. Which does make me wonder why. Particularly as there is quite a lot helicopter activity near our field, which is several miles from MIA, probably about 20 as the jet flies.

 

 

Edited By Erfolg on 03/02/2016 21:03:45

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Nigel Armstrong on 03/02/2016 20:29:36:

I would have thought that the questions being asked should be relevant to the test being taken. Should a candidate doing his fixed wing A test need to know about helicopter blade safety? I used to think the certification scheme was a good thing....now I think its lost the plot and needs a total rethink to bring the average club pilot back on board. I would be keen to know what percentage of BMFA members have any sort of certification. I only did by B cert because it was a requirement to fly in BMFA contests.........way back in 1980!!

I think that is why there is a selection of questions - so that there are relevant questions for the test being taken. Any examiner with any sense - and in my experience they are a pretty sensible lot! - will fit the questions to the test being taken. Obvioulsy questions on the ANO are valid for any test, questions that relate specifically to helicopters are not. Simple surely. All it requires is a little common sense from the examiner - which I think we can reasonably expect.

BEB

[steve c]

my son wanted to take his A this year but after looking at these questions he has decided not to ,in fact he may well decide to give up flying ,that is how upset he is with these questions .

If he does give up I will be asking for his membership money back from the bmfa ,He is a better flyer than probably 90% of our members and is very safety minded but this has realy made him think twice about flying .!!!!!! So a big well done to the BMFA on their encouragement to the younger flyers comeing into the hobby !!!!

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

If he's that bothered, why not encourage him to take his test before the 31st of March?

While the task might look a little daunting at first glance, the test already involves answering questions from anywhere within the safety code, local rules and air law. These questions are actually far simpler than the existing ones as the candidate already knows exactly which questions they will be asked and can mug up on the answers before the test, confident that only those questions can be asked!

So in essence, no additional learning required and the 5 extra questions are gimmies anyway!

[Kevin 216]

I am still going to do the A test this year - I don't think the questions are too onerous, though I agree asking what does Article XYZ say is not the idea format for a question.

[Erfolg]

If you start from the premise that the "A" test has some merit, you should have some idea what the benefits actually are.

The first that most have agreed on, is a demonstration of a basic level of control skill. All of which I see as extremely subjective.

The second, for me that is far more significant, which is an awareness of UK laws and regulations, and also safe working. This aspect which in the past seemed a tag on aspect, can at this time be argued to being far more important. I have previously stated the reasons as to potentially why (I think there may be changes being made).

In most respects I would argue that in principle nothing has really changed, in this area. That is other than the BMFA attempting to point at a peice of paper and state to one and all, "just look, all who hold our certificate have a good knowledge of the ANO". Where I strongly disagree, is the apparent, requirement for a verbatim recitement of the specific order as identified by its alpha numerics. Others are equally strongly in favour, notably BEB. I think we have both agreed to disagee. Although I truly hope that a satisfactory process is adopted that demonstrates an understanding of all the relevant regulations, this is the how.

What is important to me is that any new format, does not dissuade anyone from taking the test who otherwise would, yet upholding the concepts of an award which demonstrates skill and relevant knowledge and working practises.

I am perhaps as interested who the audience is, that the BMFA is now seeking to address.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Re the last question Erf

Dave H has said a number of times, he believes the audience is those in a position to put even greater proposals/limits/sanctions our way, I think most agree with him.

John

[Pete B]

My take on it - the EASA proposals seem to be intended to bring together all users of airspace and set limits as to who can do what and where. Up until now, the modelling fraternity has been relatively small in number and largely inconsequential in terms of potential conflict with full-size aviation, so to an extent, we were not really a problem. The fundamental principle of not flying into conflict with full-size was a given for the overwhelming majority of modellers.

This has now changed with the advancements in model technology and in particular, the proliferation of small but high-performance craft which are being acquired by non-modellers and which can, and are, being used in locations and circumstances which would never have been considered by aeromodellers.

This increase in numbers and reported incidents can, in all honesty, no longer be ignored by the authorities as the potential, if not actual, risk has probably grown significantly.

By being drawn into the, let us say, 'big boys world', I think the BMFA have little option but to move towards demonstrating that members share some real knowledge of how they may interact with other airspace users. Now clearly an aeromodeller doesn't need the same level of ANO knowledge as a PPL holder but a basic understanding will be deemed to be essential.

The alternative, if the BMFA cannot convince the authorities that their scheme is mature enough to live alongside full-size aviation, is that we will probably be hit with a blanket restriction which will seriously inhibit the freedom of the air we have up until now enjoyed.

Pete

[Jon H]

I agree that something needs to be done to educate but i do not think this is it. We need, and want to educate non modellers in the safe operation of their aircraft, we all agree on that as we cannot have drones buzzing about all over the place causing annoyance and getting in the way of full size aircraft.

But, to give a non modeller the choice of flying in a park without a care in the world, or joining a club and taking tests which are becoming increasingly involved, we all know which route they will take. I agree with the principal, but i fear it will discourage not only drone/FPV flyers but others as well. Not to mention that a great many clubs in this area simply do not allow drones, which we at the High Wycombe club feel is unfair. They are another part of the hobby and while i personally dont like them we cannot and will not obstruct others flying them so as club we treat them equally with fixed wing and other rotary craft. This means that drone pilots must take the drone A cert to be cleared for solo at our club, just as heli pilots take the heli A and FW pilots the FW A. all is fair!

I just feel that the questions asked for any given test are appropriate and specific to the test being conducted. So heli questions for heli tests, FPV questions for FPV tests etc. Clearly there are many that overlap and these should appear across the board, but questions that have no relevance to the type of model being flown do strike me as pointless, and i know the examiner can choose other ones, but in general most of the questions on that list were FPV and drone related.

 

 

Edited By Jon Harper - Laser Engines on 04/02/2016 14:03:41

[Bill Michie]

Maybe the best solution is to REQUIRE that ALL R/C fliers are BMFA Members before flying any R/C model. And that they are automatically sent the latest BMFA handbook with a covering letter stating the basic Legal responsibilities. The new questions don't address the thousands of "independent" or "unregulated" fliers, esp at the "toy" end of the market, but as can be seen by various comments, aren't necessarily having a beneficial effect on the Achievement Scheme either. I'll continue to follow this with much interest as it'll impact anyone involved in Training & Examining.

Bill

[Martin McIntosh]

We all know that it is not us established modellers who are going to buzz airliners or overfly football matches etc but of course we shall get the blame anyway.

There may be a solution.

This would be difficult and would require legislation but the way forward may be to compell shopkeepers to request production of a current club membership or BMFA card before a product such as a `drone` or even a heli can be sold in much the same way as providing proof of address when buying a TV set. Obviously personal imports could not be controlled in this way but it may be a start since most of the rogue stuff probably comes from Maplin or Amazon.

Just a thought.

Most club `drones` are likely to be the 250mm racing types which have very limited visible or FPV range and are hardly a threat to anyone.

It would be good to see comments on here from Duncan McLure and the rest of the committee who came up with this question format but maybe they have all gone to ground?

[Bob Burton]

Posted by Bill Michie on 04/02/2016 14:36:45:

Maybe the best solution is to REQUIRE that ALL R/C fliers are BMFA Members before flying any R/C model. And that they are automatically sent the latest BMFA handbook with a covering letter stating the basic Legal responsibilities.

Oink, Oink, Flap, Flap (as long as the pig holds the relevant certificate, of course)

[Jon H]

Posted by Bill Michie on 04/02/2016 14:36:45:

Maybe the best solution is to REQUIRE that ALL R/C fliers are BMFA Members before flying any R/C model. And that they are automatically sent the latest BMFA handbook with a covering letter stating the basic Legal responsibilities. The new questions don't address the thousands of "independent" or "unregulated" fliers, esp at the "toy" end of the market, but as can be seen by various comments, aren't necessarily having a beneficial effect on the Achievement Scheme either. I'll continue to follow this with much interest as it'll impact anyone involved in Training & Examining.

Bill

There is alot to be said in favour of making it a requirement for all RC flyers to be BMFA members and thus insured. All car drivers, full size pilots etc are have licences and are insured. I assume there is something for boats as well?

It would be quite a step though, and i assume there would be exceptions for indoor flying? i think there would need to be as people can drive without a licence on private land as they are not a danger to road users and an aircraft indoors is no threat to aviation/people so...

I dont think it would be necessary to require people to be a member of a club....just a BMFA member...It would need to be thought through very carefully, but there are numerous advantages including (i assume) lower BMFA fees due to economy of scale ( i live in hope ). Everyone would then be fed literature etc on the rules governing models, everyone would be insured...I like the basic idea i have to say.

I do think however that retailers need to be taken to task as well. I recall being at duxford a few years back and had a guy try to sell me an IC collective pitch heli as a beginners machine i could fly in a park... i have no doubt similar things are happening with multirotors

[Erfolg]

Bill, the notion that all must be BMFA members will find favour with a few of the BMFA hierarchy, although I also would predict that many others would be uneasy with the concept. In my opinion, not only would such a requirement kill the so called toy trade pretty much dead. In the longer term it would kill RC modelling, as it would be another obstacle for some. There may be a temporary increase in BMFA membership, that would be seen as positive by some.

Most if not all see the sense of flagging up to relevant authorities, that the BMFA has a scheme that is both educational and tests the understanding of the ANO. Again, it is the how, that raises heckles.

I have always had issues with drones, in that they are a very wide group of devices, that fly using similar lift method. Thereafter the devices almost, perhaps do, defy categorisation simply. Size is a very obvious differentiator. Control systems capabilities for airborne stabilisation is varied. Then there is the capability to be total automotous, to requiring manual control as the prime system.

I am optimistic that the authorities have few if any qualms with the present fixed wing and helicopter models. As we all keep repeating the group has an exemplary good record.

With respect to the drones, I can imagine that the present state of the art of many top end drones to fly automotomously, to way points, must be of some concern to the authorities. We can all see the very real benefits that such devices can provide, from monitoring power lines, surveying rail tracks and so on. Then ther is the side that disturbs, when in the wrong hands.

The other aspect, of drones, the ability to operate out of a back garden, or even from a pavement. When this occurs on the approach path to an airport, it could be a problem. We all recognise that full size aircraft have to land and this process brings them close to the ground. A contributor suggested that they would be at +600 feet 2 miles out from MIA. Yet you really feel you can touch the aircraft. How do you ensure that children, thoughtlessly flying a drone in such circumstances? The recently reported incident at MIA, could be of this sort.

Being totally honest, this is not a good time to be an BMFA official representing us with the authorities. There will be real concerns with the authorities. Yet I know that our group is not the problem. Although there is a potential problem, the challenge is to isolate the nature of the problem and the viable options available to manage the issues. Particularly with so many branches of technology and capabilities changing so fast.

On that the highlighting the need to flag up ANO, is pretty small beer.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

These questions relate to exactly the issues that brought all this kerfuffle about, we as modellers are saying "we know the rules and understand them, and we have a good record " so leave us alone please ?

If we want to distance ourselves from the wrong uns, could you pick a better set of questions to demonstrate we have our act together ?

John