BMFA News - Achievement Scheme Mandatory Questions

[GONZO]

John Harper, when I last made use of my PPL, back in 1999, flying a PFA aircraft out of a farm strip there was no legal requirement to have insurance. It would have been very foolish not to have had any though and every plane at the strip had insurance. I don't know but would guess that it is still not a legal requirement.

Edited By GONZO on 04/02/2016 17:32:18

[Jon H]

Posted by GONZO on 04/02/2016 17:31:02:

John Harper, when I last made use of my PPL, back in 1999, flying a PFA aircraft out of a farm strip there was no legal requirement to have insurance. It would have been very foolish not to have had any though and every plane at the strip had insurance. I don't know but would guess that it is still not a legal requirement.

Edited By GONZO on 04/02/2016 17:32:18

I am very surprised by this, I would have though it was mandatory!

[Glyn44]

As far as I am aware you do not need any form of licence to pilot a full size glider!

[GONZO]

Gliding like hang gliding, parachuting and others are self regulated and licencing. Possible future model for the BMFA and aeromodelling??? Oh, in addition you didn't need insurance for a hang glider.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I believe that EC Regulation 785/2004 brought in minimum insurance for all aircraft over 500kg maximum take-off mass.

While licences for gliders didn't exist in this country, I understand that EASA is insisting on licences and controls over organisations providing instruction for gliding, which are currently being phased in.

The reason that there were no licences are that the BGA had administered gliding efficiently and the CAA were satisfied that there was no reason why they needed to involve themselves other than if air law was transgressed. Until European bureaucracy got involved, gliding was administered by clubs and the national association - sounds familiar?

Edited By Martin Harris on 04/02/2016 23:23:09

[Erfolg]

I am most probably displaying my own knowledge of the ANO(cap 658), in asking this question.

I have for some time wondered at the absolute limits of the ANO. I had thought does it cover models flying indoors. IIn the extreme BEBs paper dart. In the vast majority of cases, the model will be very near to a building.

I have had similar thoughts with respect to videos and filming of buildings, particularly by drones both commercial and hobby, apparently a lot closer than 30m.

I then thought, if I take my kitchen, where I had flown my Sea King helicopter, after it was built, but without any contents. I once flew the model with the bi-fold doors wide open, where essentially the model was now in a hanger type structure.

Common sense indicates to me that these actions did not breach the ANO, although it does not seem apparent that flying indoors, or my garden is exempted, however small the model.

[Don Fry]

Erfolg, how many angels can stand on a pinhead, medieval philosophical question. The ANOs follow military thinking as in "conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline". You can do all sorts of sins of commission or omission, and get away with it. Until you REALY annoy someone who matters. Then to wander into another saying, then wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind small.

[John Privett]

Posted by John Privett on 02/02/2016 00:12:10:

BEB, yes it is common sense essential that we should all know that;

‘A person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property’

and that;‘

'A person must not recklessly or negligently act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft, or any person in an aircraft’

(plus of course the other 2 relevant ANO's)

But is there any value at all in knowing that one of those (which one?) is ANO 137 and the other is ANO 138? Especially as the numbers change from time to time. When I took my A test ANO 137 was 73 and ANO 138 was 74. ANO 166 was 94.

Well it was only 6 months ago that I said the above, but the numbers are changing again! As of 25 August the Air Navigation Order 2016 replaces the Air Navigation Order 2009. So anybody taking their tests in more than 10 days time needs to know that ANO 131 will be 91, 137 becomes 240, 138 becomes 241, 166 becomes 94, 167 will be 95, etc....

Full details here from the CAA.

I still think it's a shame we can't have some questions that test people's understanding of aviation law as it affects us without having to trot out, parrot-fashion, the words that match the numbers. I can think of one potential A test candidate in my club who knows that he mustn't endanger aircraft (etc!) but would probably struggle to recall when quizzed that it is ANO 137 (or soon 240) rather than 138 that states that.

[Peter Jenkins]

I followed the link John and found that at para 2.1 of the notice there was a link to the new ANO. I followed that and now have a copy which I am reading carefully .

[bert baker]

Perhaps they should rename the scheme.

Sounds like a load of hassle rather than an achivment.

Does that mean my B is now no good.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I hope that there will be rapid action to update the mandatory questions - although I'm sure a little discretion will be tolerated, the way it's presented leaves a bit of grey area as the model answers are prescribed as the only ones acceptable! In fact, the correct answer to many of the questions after the 26th will be either "nothing" or perhaps something to do with instrument landings or passenger evacuation!

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Driving test changed numerous times since most of us took it, A B C test may get tweaked from time to time, it's no biggie.

John