Are the BMFA Mandatory Questions Applicable?

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[GrahamC]

So BEB... If I fly my rc glider up into the approach path to the local airport.... am I in contravention of article 240 or not? Would you answer be

a] No because you and your glider are exempted by the ANO from compliance with article 240

Or

b] Yes because by virtue of what you are doing, you are a person recklessly or negligently acting in a manner that is likely to endanger an aircraft, or a person in an aircraft"

If I throw a laser pen up in the air, I dare say it isn't governed by the ANO while it is in flight. However if I turn it on and point it at an aircraft I am certainly in contravention of article 240.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by Steve J on 08/02/2017 16:56:27:

Posted by john stones 1 on 08/02/2017 15:57:00:

Thirdly, why you always looking for doom around the corner.

Experience.

Have you read section 5.14 of the DfT's drone consultation document?

Steve

I've read links n proposals galore, if you've a point make it.

John

[GONZO]

5.14 The Government is therefore considering whether on top of the educational guidance on the rules that already exists, there should also be a knowledge or situational awareness test (similar to the driving theory and hazard test) that leisure users could or would have to undertake. Such a test could either be voluntary, or wrapped up into a mandatory registration process (as proposed in Chapter 6 of this consultation). There would likely be a similar threshold of exclusion to registration, i.e. drone owners/users of drones weighing below the drone registration threshold would not be required to take such a test.

Just to help??????

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Thanks Gonzo.

BMFA has already put some of the same in place, i can't see what 's there to worry about ?

John

[Peter Christy]

Posted by john stones 1 on 08/02/2017 16:00:00:

Get yourself elected Peter if you wanna change things

John

Been there, done that!

I actually had this argument at a full council meeting a few years back, and watching the then Tech Sec trying to square the circle had the rest of the Council gasping in disbelief! I was under the impression at the time, that it was something that was going to be looked at in more detail, but it seems to - once again - have fallen off the agenda!

(Sorry! This one is a bit of a hobby horse of mine!)

--

Pete

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

I know Peter hence the cheeky post.

John

[TigerOC]

BEB; I would suggest that the CAA has covered 240 by 257;

Rob

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

Well I hope, whatever anyone feels about the mandatory questions and how they are structured, that everyone can now agree that article 240 does apply to model aircraft flyers.

However there are a couple of opportunities coming up for any BMFA member with an interest in the scheme or who would like to express their opinions to members of the Achievement scheme review committee directly. Also chance to discuss anything at all about the scheme including the way forward.

Free to attend and lunch is provided. A great chance to meet others interested in the scheme. You do not have to be an instructor or examiner, just have an interest in providing constructive feedback.

Dates are 25th February in Brighouse, West Yorkshire. See **LINK**

and

18th March at Wooton Bassett. See **LINK**

There is an online booking form on the linked pages, why not a few together from your clubs and share travelling costs.

Still places available at both venues.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

What's the point - you never listen - you're not listening now!

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 11/02/2017 15:15:44

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Could I ask for some clarification from the experts?

Article 240 - Endangering safety of an aircraft - appears to apply to everyone in the country, whether or not they happen to be standing in a field clutching a transmitter (any mode!) studying the antics of a model above them. As I see it, the only question that needs answering here is whether including a question about something not specifically applying to model flying is valid?

Whether simply asking for chapter and verse for an Article number is a particularly good test of understanding seems to be a different question altogether - and appropriate for raising at one of the meetings.

My personal opinion is that as there could be a possibility of endangering the safety of an aircraft by inappropriate use of a model, rather more so than if you were, for example, simply mowing your lawn, it is a valid question relating to air law and model flying. The fact that you could also contravene this order by shining a laser pen at a cockpit from your bedroom window is irrelevant in this context and not a reason for excluding the question.

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

Hi Martin.

Your understanding is spot on. Excellent post.

BEB
I fail to see how reading your post, the main thrust of which is demonstrably incorrect, and then taking the time to correct you can be considered not listening.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by Martin Harris on 11/02/2017 15:48:02:

Could I ask for some clarification from the experts?

Article 240 - Endangering safety of an aircraft - appears to apply to everyone in the country, whether or not they happen to be standing in a field clutching a transmitter (any mode!) studying the antics of a model above them. As I see it, the only question that needs answering here is whether including a question about something not specifically applying to model flying is valid?

Whether simply asking for chapter and verse for an Article number is a particularly good test of understanding seems to be a different question altogether - and appropriate for raising at one of the meetings.

My personal opinion is that as there could be a possibility of endangering the safety of an aircraft by inappropriate use of a model, rather more so than if you were, for example, simply mowing your lawn, it is a valid question relating to air law and model flying. The fact that you could also contravene this order by shining a laser pen at a cockpit from your bedroom window is irrelevant in this context and not a reason for excluding the question.

Can't speak for your workshop Martin, ours was of the opinion "chapter n verse" isn't required, what is, is an understanding of your responsibility and if there's a little confusion over numbers, the use of communication between candidate n examiner will usually clarify it.

John

[Peter Christy]

The chap currently in charge of the achievement scheme is someone I know. He is a very reasonable sort, and open to *constructive* criticism.

My problem is that the nearest of these meetings would involve me in a 280 mile round trip - not something to be undertaken lightly, and I don't think I could justify the expense!

An old friend of mine (and flying buddy of over 50 years, now!) has been an area chief examiner for over 30 years. The last time I spoke to him, he was seriously talking about packing it all in. Why? Because he is now expected to know the ins and outs of many different disciplines within the hobby in some detail. Like he says - life is too short!

I support the Achievement Scheme in principle, but I believe it has become too complex and unwieldy for its own good. Too much emphasis seems to be placed on being able to quote - parrot fashion - chapter and verse, rather than to demonstrate any real understanding. And far too often, it is being used for purposes for which it was never intended.

Perhaps time for a major re-think?

--

Pete

[CARPERFECT]

The questions are not fit for purpose. All this has come about from the Drone problem around the world. The idiots causing the problems will never be asked these questions, The Government would be better passing a law , that all models Fixed, drone multy whatever, should have in the box a piece of paper with the does and do nots on and what the fine is for breaking the law. Asking a 10 year old taking his A test what the ANO is irrelevant.

As i live In Brighouse where one of the meetings is, i will go and listen and have my say

[John F]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 11/02/2017 15:15:26:

What's the point - you never listen - you're not listening now!

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 11/02/2017 15:15:44

I think, with respect BeB, you maybe a little bit blinkered creating a thread purely to have a go at the BMFA. Again.

The BMFA specialist has told you what the gen is. .

If you cannot see that Article 240 does apply and is a generic rule for everyone to know then the real issue is that he isn't the one not listening, IMO.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by CARPERFECT on 11/02/2017 17:05:32:

The questions are not fit for purpose. All this has come about from the Drone problem around the world. The idiots causing the problems will never be asked these questions, The Government would be better passing a law , that all models Fixed, drone multy whatever, should have in the box a piece of paper with the does and do nots on and what the fine is for breaking the law. Asking a 10 year old taking his A test what the ANO is irrelevant.

As i live In Brighouse where one of the meetings is, i will go and listen and have my say

What if a 10 year old buys a kit/box with a bit of paper in then ?

[Tim Hooper]

I'm a simpleton. Most of my clubmates are simpletons too.

We drive our vehicles to our flying club, and on the way we abide by the speed limits. We don't need to recite the chapter and verse of the relevant Traffic Act in consequence.

Get my drift?

tim

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Shaunie]

Gonna throw my tuppence worth in and prepare to be shot down.

The questions are important and valid, what however in my opinion is not important is knowing the numbers. Proof of this is that they have just gone and changed them. It is important to know the content and reasons not exactly what number is what. To use the motoring analogy, I know to stop for a red light, I have no idea what number rule it is in the Highway Code. Knowing the number has absolutely no bearing on the fact that if I fail to stop for a red light I am likely to collide with another car or a pedestrian and may cause injury, damage or death.

Shaunie.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I suspect that the majority of us feel the same way about those particular questions. The format of the mandatory questions is technically fixed but I would hope that most examiners are intelligent enough to pick questions that they think are relevant and fair both to the candidate and the aims of the scheme.

Meanwhile, I know that some members of the scheme review committee are aware of the concerns raised about the way some of the questions have been phrased - hopefully they will be considered for review at a future meeting...all the more likely if enough people attend meetings and make constructive criticism.

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

The guidance says.

It is expected that examiners will select questions that are appropriate to the test being
taken, however candidates should familiarise themselves with all of the questions on the list.
Candidates are not expected to be ?word perfect? with their answers but they should be able
to demonstrate that they are fully aware of the legal controls for model aircraft flying. For
example if a candidate gives the answer to Question 4 (What does article 241 of the ANO
state?) when asked Question 3 (What does article 240 of the ANO state?) it is likely they are
aware of both answers and the examiner should point out they have answered the wrong
question and ask for the correct answer.

Nobody is expected to recite the answers parrot fashion. John Stones post from earlier is what is expected.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

I suspect the majority of us are fed up with answering questions related to way the questions are phrased, i also suspect if we'd been asked for feedback before the questions went out, we'd have a different look to em already.

John

Ah we posted at same time Andy, i've said same thing repeatedly but folk are fixated with the numbers.

Edited By john stones 1 on 11/02/2017 20:42:18

[Dave Hopkin]

Posted by Steve J on 11/02/2017 18:59:44:

Posted by Tim Hooper on 11/02/2017 17:44:45:

We drive our vehicles to our flying club, and on the way we abide by the speed limits. We don't need to recite the chapter and verse of the relevant Traffic Act in consequence.

Not a very good analogy. You had to pass a driving test (at least I hope that you did) in order to be able to drive to your flying club.

Steve

I might be asked whats the maximum speed limit on a motor way, but I would not be asked "what does section 4.1.13.of the road traffic act 1973 say? - the purpose of the test should be to expose my knowledge of the laws not the ability to recite sections verbatim......

[Colin Bernard]

I think the point being made is that rather than asking 'What does article 240 of the ANO state?' the question should rather be 'What is a person's responsibility towards aircraft or persons in an aircraft?'

That changes the requirement from needing to remember which article is which number, but rather simply knowing the guidance they provide.

Taking Tim's analogy, when you took your driving test you would have been asked 'When should you use your headlights?' not 'What does rule 113 advise?'

And to answer the original point I believe article 240 is very relevant. As has been said, it applies to everyone and highlights that not only do we as model pilots have a requirement to ensure that we do not fly into the path of a microlight or whatever, but we, and any spectators or visitors, also have a responsibility to ensure that we do not do anything to risk a model currently being flown.