Jump to content

Recommended Posts

In whatever hobby pastime etc there will be those that like to administer  to the point that they forget that main point of the hobby or pastime is participant enjoyment. I am the secretary of a BMFA affiliated  club. We have always said that the main purpose of of our club is the pure enjoyment of model flying whilst at the same time living within the BMFA guidelines. We do not insist on any achievement certificates, but anyone joining our club will be closely watched regardless of any bits of paper they may hold until we are happy with them. This has stood us in  very good stead for the last 30 years.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, john stones 1 - Moderator said:

Examining ain't the big deal threads portray it as, thankfully. ?

From what I have seen in my short experience examiners enjoy doing it and obviously do not see it as a big deal. I think they get a buzz from passing people who demonstrate the required skills, I assume they see it as part of the fun.  Similarly anyone working towards a certificate should not see it as a big deal, it's also part of the fun.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, EarlyBird said:

Good grief Peter it's supposed to be fun.

I get a great deal of fun out of seeking to improve my skills.  I try and help others to do the same.  Often, pilots who have not had the opportunity to understand what is meant by flying to a particular standard are more likely to have to resort to a bin bag to take their cherished aircraft home.  That's not my idea of fun.  Nor is it fun when someone flies an aircraft past you at 10 ft distance without warning you because they failed to realise what effect a cross wind has on the aircraft's track.  That's not fun either!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Peter Jenkins said:

I get a great deal of fun out of seeking to improve my skills.  I try and help others to do the same.  Often, pilots who have not had the opportunity to understand what is meant by flying to a particular standard are more likely to have to resort to a bin bag to take their cherished aircraft home.  That's not my idea of fun.  Nor is it fun when someone flies an aircraft past you at 10 ft distance without warning you because they failed to realise what effect a cross wind has on the aircraft's track.  That's not fun either!

By all means have fun by seeking to improve your skills & encourage others if so you wish & if they are happy to listen.  

But I don't believe there's any evidence that the achievement scheme has made any impact on the standard of flying or reduction in accidents. 

 

Edited by PatMc
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well PatMc, my experience is that if you have put in the time and effort to get a B certificate, and you have maintained that standard, you are less likely to crash.  If you don't maintain the standard and drift back to, say, an A Cert standard, then you are unlikely to reduce the number of times you crash.  Note that you can achieve a B standard without necessarily taking the test.  I understand the issue of people not liking the idea of testing as it causes them grief but that shouldn't stop you if you want to raise your standard of flying less formally but using the yardstick of a B say.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PatMc said:

By all means have fun by seeking to improve your skills & encourage others if so you wish & if they are happy to listen.  

But I don't believe there's any evidence that the achievement scheme has made any impact on the standard of flying or reduction in accidents. 

 

Its quite difficult to get empirical data on that but I have heard quite a lot of anecdotal evidence from clubs who have promoted the scheme to suggest it makes those clubs a more safe environment.

 

I firmly believe the scheme has been and remains the best driver of improved standards of safety and flying ability.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Andy Symons - BMFA said:

Its quite difficult to get empirical data on that but I have heard quite a lot of anecdotal evidence from clubs who have promoted the scheme to suggest it makes those clubs a more safe environment.

 

I firmly believe the scheme has been and remains the best driver of improved standards of safety and flying ability.

Without data it's simply opinion.

I've heard people say that if they had to take a test to either start or continue model flying they either wouldn't bother or they would but not in a club/controlled environment.

IMO it wouldn't make any difference to the safety or ability standards but would lead to an increase in the risk of accidents not covered by adequate insurance. Also of course an increase illegal model flying but reduction in overall model flying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, john stones 1 - Moderator said:

I reckon many play a part, Instructors being a big one, not a deal wrong with the scheme apart from we discuss it endlessly.

I reckon there's nothing wrong with the scheme so long as it's viewed for what it is - as no more than a personal achievement scheme. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Peter Jenkins said:

Well PatMc, my experience is that if you have put in the time and effort to get a B certificate, and you have maintained that standard, you are less likely to crash.  If you don't maintain the standard and drift back to, say, an A Cert standard, then you are unlikely to reduce the number of times you crash.  Note that you can achieve a B standard without necessarily taking the test.  I understand the issue of people not liking the idea of testing as it causes them grief but that shouldn't stop you if you want to raise your standard of flying less formally but using the yardstick of a B say.

Peter, you're expressing nothing more definite than your opinion, my opinion is no less valid but different from yours.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My last word on this thread is this. Like people have said the scheme is voluntary. I personally have no wish to take one, however once a year I practice the A  schedule at my field. I do it until I have it right. No examiner, just me making sure I can still do it. And that for me is all that I require.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Peter Jenkins said:

It's my experience not my opinion.  You may disagree with an opinion but not with what I have experienced.

Unless experience(s) can be backed up with measurable data it can only be expressed, with any confidence, as opinion.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pretty much agree with Andy and Peter's take on this.  It's also my opinion (and gut feeling) that promotion of the scheme raised standards (and reduced 'incidents') in our Club since we first required "A to solo" back in the mid '90s, albeit the emphasis has waned (reasons previously mentioned) over the last few years.

 

As to complexity and putting people off, well this discussion is primarily about examiner appointments and ratification, so its essentially about procedural and administrative matters for the parties involved and nothing for mere mortals to concern themselves with.

 

Anyhoo, prompted by this thread, I addressed my manifest shortcomings by (re-)reading the relevant part of the AS handbook - and it set me thinking:

 

If a Club Committee can 'break' a Club Examiner at the stroke of a pen, so to speak, then why does it require the involvement of the Area Scheme Coordinator and Area Chief Examiner, plus an additional B test and supplemental questions to 'make' one in the first place?

 

Logically, if a Club Committee is deemed competent to dismiss, surely it should be deemed competent to appoint? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The committee nominated someone who they felt had the right qualities. The ACE confirmed that they were technically competent. If at a later date, the performance of the examiner was questionable then the club would have the right not to reappoint the examiner. 
 

If this was at odds with the perception of the examiner and they weren’t prepared to step down from the role, then I’d suggest that problems would run deeper within that club. 
 

The bottom line is that it is an appointment by the club and the ACE is simply confirming that the examiner meets the required standard at the time of appointment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I assume that is something like the thinking behind it.  I just wanted to throw it out there as logic test.  It serves to demonstrate that there is a lot of nuance in all these matters that isn't necessarily captured by just the bare words in the handbook...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...