BMFA Achievement schemes

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

This has got to be the most frustrating thread I have ever read!!

Right Erf - let's try and set you straight on this.

1. As far as I (and I suspect 99.99999999%) of us are concerned there is no confusion, there is no lack of clarity, there is no lack of differentiation. Two complementary schemes, aimed at two slightly different groups of flyers.

2. The original achievement scheme and the A and B cert programmes are unchanged. They remain what they have always been. CAA, EASA, HSE, and The White Fish Authority will not see any change; in standard, purpose, content, aim, objective, outcomes, skill sets, learhing objectives, achievement, attainment or any other "-ent"!

3. Point 2 is semi-irrelevant anyway! Because except for a very few people the status of the BMFA achievement scheme certificates with the CAA and Uncle Tom Cobbly and All are a matter of supreme indifference. It is an achievement scheme, run for the benefit of a hobby - that's all!

4. So now we have seen what it is - let's see if we can list what it isn't:

a) It isn't a licence

b) It isn't a professional qualification

c) It isn't a permit of any kind

d) It isn't a way of limiting people's freedom.

Its just an achievement scheme for a group of hobby RC flyers - that's all!

Now,...our hobby changes. New people and technologies come along. People who have different values maybe. Perhaps for them the technology is not just a means to an end like it is for many of us - maybe its almost an end in itself as far as they are concerned. For them pilot skill is not a big aim - they are happy to use stabilisation systems and autopilots for that. So,....what do we do? Do we say:

"You're all weird we don't want you in our playground"!

Or,..do we say:

"Hey, here's some folks quite like us, let's encourage them. We really enjoy having an achievement scheme, so why don't we dream up something equivalent for them too - then they could join in with us. And you know what? We might all get a little stronger because of that".

The second seems good to me - and obvioulsy did to BMFA as well! So we do that. And so that people can recognise that its a different but complementary scheme we can give it a slightly different name - I know let's call it the "proficiency scheme" - that contrasts nicely with "the acheivement scheme" - and should avoid any confusion.

Simple - yes? So that's dealt with? No confusion, no problem, just a bit of inclusiveness.

Now can we can back to flying model aeroplanes and stop worrying about CAA, HSE, and any other TLA (Three Letter Acronym) you care to mention?

BEB

 

 

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 23/03/2016 11:34:07

[iqon]

Now you have got BEB at it....what ever happened to short posts to the point

[Peter Christy]

For a long time, I've had concerns about the way the achievement scheme is used by both the BMFA and Clubs (following the BMFA's lead). Firstly, let me state clearly that I applaud the idea and the way it generates a desire it improve ones abilities. My concerns are with the inconsistencies in the way it is used, and the worst offender here is the BMFA itself.

The BMFA has clearly stated, on many occasions, that the certificates are purely a measure of personal achievement, and are NOT a license of any kind. Yet the BMFA also stipulates that only "B" certificate holders may fly at the Nationals, which clearly implies that is IS regarded as some sort of license. Clubs up and down the country follow the BMFA lead and many will only allow pilots to fly "solo" (un-supervised) once they have achieved an "A" certificate.

The proliferation of classes and certificates is simply muddying the water further.

Now I don't care which way they choose to go with this, as long as they are consistent. Currently they are not.

Contrast the situation with the SAA (BMFA equivalent) in Scotland, where their certificate scheme clearly states that a pilot achieving a specific level (I think its their Gold certificate, but I'm sure someone from north of the border will correct me if I'm wrong!) should be considered competent to fly in public.

The BMFA refuses to make a similar statement for fear that they may be held liable should a "B" certificate holder cause an accident at a public display.

I cannot accept that argument. To use an analogy, if I take my car in for an MOT and it is issued with a pass certificate, yet the next day it suffers a major mechanical failure resulting in an accident, is the garage held liable? No! All the MOT says is that *at the time it was tested* it was OK. It does not imply that it would be safe even an hour later - let alone 12 months on. The achievement scheme certificates should be viewed in the same light.

To highlight the inconsistency in the BMFA approach, event though a Nationals entrant must hold a "B" certificate to participate, the BMFA still insist that it is down to the flight line director to ensure that the competitor is competent to fly, and that the "B" cert is no guarantee of this!!!

Now the only way a flight line director can ensure competence of entrants is to see them fly. Quite often, he will never have met or even heard of some entrants prior to the Nats, but time constraints will effectively prevent him from carrying out any form of flight test. Yet he is to be held responsible if anything goes wrong!

To summarise: The BMFA insist that the achievement scheme certificates are purely a measure of personal achievement, and should not be used as some form of license or even measure of competence beyond that. At the same time, they do precisely that by using a "B" cert as a "qualification" for Nationals entry, yet then placing responsibility for establishing the competence of the entrant on the flight line director!

Clubs up and down the country follow this lead - and who can blame them?

I have had this argument time and time again at the highest levels within the BMFA, and never had a satisfactory or consistent response. At one Council meeting, even the then Technical Secretary tied himself in knots trying to provide a lucid explanation of the situation, but nothing was ever done about it.

As I say, I do support the achievement scheme and what it is trying to achieve. I just wish there was a bit more consistency in the way it was treated before adding further confusion by the array of certificates and classes now being made available.

--

Pete

 

Edited By Peter Christy on 23/03/2016 10:18:44

[Engine Doctor]

Well put BEB .

[Erfolg]

I totally agree Peter.

I experienced similar situations and some proposals.

Very well put.

[Kim Taylor]

Putting aside all of the other arguments, it would seem to me that the new test would have more value if there was a simple upgrade path to the A cert by the holder doing just the flying bit when they change to a suitable model.

As has been said both on here and by the BMFA the test is identical - the only difference is the model you turn up with.

May encourage more people to take the 'A Light' if it has some longer term benefit.

Kim

[Dave Hopkin]

Hey I have just had a radical innovative and practical idea

If you dont like the tests, dont take em...................

I dont like Marmite but I don't spend my life on forums arguing that Marmite should be chocolate flavour

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Nice one Dave!

@Peter C - Peter - regarding the requirement for a B-cert to fly at the NATS, I suspect there is an external factor at play here! A major event such as the NATS obviously has to be covered be public liabity insurance. BMFA will enter into negoiations for such a package. Costs have to be controlled - and if the insurer offers a deal in which in return for having some "flying standard for participating pilots", say like a B-cert for example! - they will judge that their risk is much reduced over an open entry field and so will significantly reduce their premium - well that has to be attractive doesn' it? Yes, it does sort of compromise the "its not a qualification" position - but sometimes we have to be pragmatic.

Now - obvioulsy I don't know that that is indeed the situation - but I'd be prepared tp place a a modest wager on that, or something similar, being the explaination. I do not think it is a simple case of BMFA just exercising dual standards - there is more to it than that.

BEB

PS Hey - look at this - me defending the BMFA! Whatever next?

[Erfolg]

BEB. The "B" award has been put forward as a requirement for other competitions.

I can see the value with respect to public events, which the nationals may represent. Although I know of some excellent UK flyers who in the past have been competitors at the nationals who do not have a "B". My primary reservation is that a league wise adoption will almost certainly act as a barrier to newcomers to competitions. Particularly that last comp at our field attracted 6 people. I used to have to handle 80 in the day.

I do think that both the "A" and "B" have found a purpose outside of the modelling community, in essence they have come of age, with the present zeitgeist. I now know that BEB believes that the regulators have no regard to the BMFA schemes as they were. I would contend, that if this were the case, they would as a minimum see a structured scheme addressing the issues of Legal requirements and safety. At best they could see a community that is self regulating, with a commitment to education of its members. They may even see and use the schemes in their discussions with other bodies, to urge restraint when others are calling for action.

In general I can see value in the existing schemes, my reservation as stated in presenting a simple structured picture of self regulation and that the world of electronic assistance seems to be still developing at some pace, possibly being nowhere near maturity.

I do think that we should understand the regulatory community, typically there are more Phds than you can shake a stick at, come mob handed to meetings, each agency probably more than the average university has on staff. These guys typically set the agenda. Some have some practical experiences, although at a high level, with a dominant characteristic of academia, Not to be underestimated.

Lets be clear I am not against in principle against the "A" &"B" tests. I was seeking assurance that there is a logic to the extension. We may disagree, hopefully discussion and reflection on the issues will improve what we have.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

what some people independently choose to use it for and what the BMFA intend it to be are two different things. If an independent body chooses to use the B-cert as some sort of standard that is their responsibility - BMFA cannot be held responsible for that!

BEB

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Peter Christy]

BEB: Yes, you may well be right about the insurance for public events, and also that the BMFA cannot be held responsible for how other bodies choose to use the A & B certificates.

However, now that even the CAA are quoting the A & B certs as appropriate qualifications towards the award of some "drone" licenses, then I think the BMFA has to acknowledge and respond to this. It simply isn't enough to say that the only purpose of the certificates is a measure of personal achievement when they, and more importantly the CAA, are attaching much more importance to them.

I certainly wouldn't want to have to defend that position in court!!!

Either the BMFA must tell the CAA (and insurers) that the certificates are not intended for the purpose the CAA is applying to them, or they need to take on board that that is how they are being used in practice.

It is some 4 or 5 years since I gave up my positions on the BMFA Council, so I'm not sure what has happened since then. I know the Achievement Scheme has a new Chairman now, someone indeed that I know and respect. However, back when I was involved with the BMFA Council, I had to fight tooth and nail to get the achievement scheme committee to consult with the specialist bodies before making radical changes to the tests. The whole point of the specialist bodies is to provide expert opinion to the BMFA on matters concerning those disciplines, so I was always at a lost to understand the attitude of the committee at the time to seek out such advice on matters that often impinged on the said specialist bodies.

As I say, I really don't care which way they go with this - either purely personal achievement (the official line) or some kind of qualification (what is happening in practice).

But I DO wish for some consistency!

--

Pete

 

Edited By Peter Christy on 23/03/2016 14:47:19

[Dickw]

Posted by Peter Christy on 23/03/2016 14:46:29:...................................................

However, back when I was involved with the BMFA Council, I had to fight tooth and nail to get the achievement scheme committee to consult with the specialist bodies before making radical changes to the tests. .......

As a past member of the Achievement Scheme committee, your version of events certainly differs from anything I recall.

On several occasions we had competing specialist bodies (yes really!) offering different opinions on the same subject. A member of one of those bodies would obviously not be happy about the achievement scheme committee even talking to the other body.

The achievement scheme committee has always tried to get the specialists to agree first, but sometimes that doesn’t work!

Dick

[Peter Christy]

Hi Dick,

I can only speak about what I found as the AHA (helicopter) rep. I'm sure you recall - as I do, with a shudder - the rows that ensued back then! I take your point about cases where more than one specialist body was involved, a situation in which I never found myself. But I do recall having several "full and frank" exchanges of views with the then chairman over the matter!

But that was then, this is now. What hasn't changed in the meantime is this inconsistency - even within the BMFA itself - as to how precisely the various certificates are used. This is NOT the fault of the achievement scheme people, who are simply following the brief they are given.

It would be nice if the rest of the BMFA stuck to the same brief!

--

Pete

[Tony Smith 7]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 21/03/2016 10:54:54:

How many times have we been asked by members of the general public "do you need a licence to fly these?" They clearly have that expectation.

Never. However there are no members of the general anywhere near where I fly, None of my friends or colleagues or neighbours have asked either, nor said anything that would indicate such an expectation. It might be different if I was flying some big heavy or high powered device in a public place.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Not sure why big and high powered alters things Tony, fishing requires a license, mind you all the ones I catch are monsters

Yes BEB I've been asked plenty of times if we need a license, my wife asked me as well, I told her "no dear, but I did need one to marry you"

John

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

, ,Posted by Percy Verance on 23/03/2016 13:44:31:

Wow. All this is enough to put anyone off taking a test ever again, and I'm a BMFA Examiner!

Percy, despite all the extremely lomg winded posts on here there is in effect very little that has changed, apart from the scheme has been opened up so those people who only fly under 1kg aircraft, or have extra electronic stabilisation active can, if they choose, have access to the scheme, and there will be some extra mandatory questions about the legal controls on model aircraft flying, and even the questions are known in advance and the answers provided in the standards booklets and they are questions that could have been asked anyway, so no extra learning required either and they are questions that if an i dividual cannot answer them anyway they are not in a position to determine if they are flying lawfully. There isn't even any new tests that examiners need to consider, the tests for the basiv proficiency certificates are exactly the same as the relevent A certificate with the aircraft an individual uses being the determining factor as to whether the candidate is awarded either th BPC or A cert on passing.

[Don Fry]

Can we close this post, I loose the will to live.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Don't look then!

[Don Fry]

Touché.

[Tony Smith 7]

Posted by john stones 1 on 23/03/2016 17:15:43:

Not sure why big and high powered alters things Tony, fishing requires a license, mind you all the ones I catch are monsters

Maybe it doesn't, just speculating about why the issue has never been raised with me. (Seriously do you think you'd be asked if you were flying a 25 gram micro helicopter?).

Fishing, no licence in Scotland. I don't think it's an analogy in any case since there's no test of competence for your licence nor a safety justification that I can see. Especially as kids below the age of 12 appear to be exempt! Isn't it about protecting the fishery and a bit of revenue generation for the EA, like in the old days where it was a fishing permit from the right holder?

Or are you raising it from a more argumentative viewpoint - "I need a licence for my hobby so I don't see why should shouldn't need one for yours". Let's have legally required licences for everything from chess to jetskis while we're at it.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

No Tony I thought it would be read as tongue in cheek as intended, make of it what you wish.

John

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Erm,...let's keep it friendly eh chaps! I don't think anyone is challenging amyone here!

BEB

[Engine Doctor]

Posted by Dave Hopkin on 23/03/2016 11:00:34:

Hey I have just had a radical innovative and practical idea

If you dont like the tests, dont take em...................

I dont like Marmite but I don't spend my life on forums arguing that Marmite should be chocolate flavour

Defo agree with above.

But I'd have an issue with defamatory remarks about Marmite . It should only be Marmite flavoured. Unless is is in under 1kg pots or has a flavor inhibitor added . This way we can include the margininal Marmite fans . large containers over 7kg should only be supplied to experienced Marmite users while drums weighing over 20kg will only be supplied on production of a Cheese And Anchovy(CAA ) exemption certificate. I will have to go to the Marmite police if An apology is not made by April the 1st .

Silly yes but not dissimilar to some of the post . lighten up and enjoy the hobby for what it is, or meant tobe, having fun safely.