Jump to content

Club Examiners.


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, ken anderson. said:

all to fly toy model aircraft...could be seen as another nail in the hobby's coffin......youngins and probably a lot of older ones will be put off by a lot of the associated stuff you(may) have to do to enter the hobby...via a BMFA club,dont you think......reading this, I'm not trying to cause WW3 in your replys,just my take on the bigger picture...encompassing "flying model aircraft"... toys.

 

ken anderson...ne.....1....................comments dept.

I disagree, essentially there is very little extra required to enter the hobby now as there was 20 years ago and in reality there has been very little change in the regulations either.

 

In fact it has probably never been easier to get started flying model aircraft.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely what the BMFA are doing is finding ways to ease the pain of the rather knee jerk legislation forced on us by the misuse of drones (or interested lobby if you believe some of the conspiracy theories).  If an occasional simple on line exercise can help reinforce CAA confidence in examiner's standards, then I have no objections to doing it. I don't see this as any additional hurdle for new entrants to the hobby.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ken, I can see your point, but as there is no such thing as common land in the air, we have to comply with the Air Navigation Order.  That being the case, Article 16 was a great coup for the BMFA and we have been saved a lot of unnecessary grief and can continue to operate our toy aeroplanes much as we did before the rules were changed.  I do think that there is a greater risk to the general public in flying toy aeroplanes as opposed to operating model cars or boats.  So, all things considered, I don't think it's over the top really!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe i need to clarify my position?

 

i have the utmost respect for the caa,bmfa,lma...and any legislation that we have to adhere to and obey...no objections from me.

 

what i see as maybe a hurdle for anyone starting from scratch in our hobby apart from the expense is the rules and regs/tests ect(i also realise that life as such is governed by r/regs......) but i do see it as a put you off doing the hobby...IE...flying a model/toy aeroplane.

 

joining a club of course is the way to go...but all the rules that some clubs impose(what i have read on here) plus the new CAA regs/article 16/getting your official number,is a bit off putting....some say yes/some say no.......i'm not looking for a sabre rattling set to...just my observations at present.... 

 

ken anderson...ne..1...sabre rattling/not dept.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/10/2021 at 16:07, john stones 1 - Moderator said:

I see on page 25 of the BMFA mag from 2022 club examiners will need to hold a current RCC (Registration Competency Certificate) to retain their status, no biggie really, roll it out to the masses though A, B, C, cert holders and the story might be different.

 

Anyway, to my question. Have Examiners been told this was coming via an email or some such, or is it news to you ? I subscribe to the BMFA bumf and post the stuff on our web pages, have I missed this one and you all knew ?

 

It is interesting that the BMFA have chosen to go this route. I happen to have both the RCC and have taken the DMARES test (I didn't want to be relying on the original BMFA exemption when registration came in if questioned by Plod), but if I were an examiner who was already fully compliant with the law (i.e. I had an Op ID and Flyer ID) I'm not sure I would ecstatic to be asked to take the RCC as well, even if it does have additional questions on the Article 16 auth. For a few this might be all they need to stop examining and just fly for fun.

 

On the flip side (and it will be an unpopular view) I would like to see the exemption on DMARES/RCC for A/B/C cert holders removed. It's eminently clear from practical observation that a dusty 25 year old A or B does not equip anyone with an understanding of the current legal restrictions under which we operate, so allowing people to sign that they understand with a simple tick box is a risky approach. All it will take is one of those members being involved in a high profile incident where they are in contravention of the law and/or our Article 16 authorisation and that very authorisation could disappear overnight.

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

I think it's nailed on some will not get ratified this year, but new people entering the hobby ? No big deal really, not deterred a single one and we've had a few of late.

 

Tongue in cheek, bit of mischief, call it what you will. Should BMFA approved Instructors be included ? They teach newcomers after all, same logic ?

 

Are new A B C certs of more worth than those currently held by those who ticked a box ? Have they diverged ?

 

Typing at same time Matty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, MattyB said:

 

It is interesting that the BMFA have chosen to go this route. I happen to have both the RCC and have taken the DMARES test (I didn't want to be relying on the original BMFA exemption when registration came in if questioned by Plod), but if I were an examiner who was already fully compliant with the law (i.e. I had an Op ID and Flyer ID) I'm not sure I would ecstatic to be asked to take the RCC as well, even if it does have additional questions on the Article 16 auth. For a few this might be all they need to stop examining and just fly for fun.

 

On the flip side (and it will be an unpopular view) I would like to see the exemption on DMARES/RCC for A/B/C cert holders removed. It's eminently clear from practical observation that a dusty 25 year old A or B does not equip anyone with an understanding of the current legal restrictions under which we operate, so allowing people to sign that they understand with a simple tick box is a risky approach. All it will take is one of those members being involved in a high profile incident where they are in contravention of the law and/or our Article 16 authorisation and that very authorisation could disappear overnight.

 

One further addition... I get that the two halves of my post above might seem to be in opposition to each other. The reason for that is that I am pretty certain anyone who is a current BMFA examiner is a) fully legal to fly via one of the acceptable competancy routes and b) is well aware of the changes in the law in the past few years and Article 16. As a result making them do an RCC probably won't add much. Flip that around to the average Sunday flyer with an old A/B cert though and I don't think you can say the same. Ensuring all these individuals take a periodic (say 5-yearly) refresher in the legalities of SUAS operation would seem to me a price worth paying to protect the Article 16 Authorisation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that there’s a world of difference in take up of knowledge between regular club flyers and occasional attendees or lone pilots. 
 

The lone flyer is on balance more likely to be inadvertently operating in prohibited airspace or an unsafe location  - playing devil’s advocate, perhaps country members - or even club members operating away from a club site - have more need for compulsory RCC testing to enable them to take advantage of the article 16 exemption?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, john stones 1 - Moderator said:

... this RCC thing is reasonable to me.

Well you would say that - you just passed!

I gave it a bash yesterday (no swotting) and failed, so obviously I'm inclined to think the whole thing is a bit of an imposition!  ?

 

(I'm happy I didn't fail on anything which was hitherto looked upon as common sense, just on weights (shouldn't they now be in lbs an ozs?) and 'woke' stuff like worrying about somebody else's privacy.)

Edited by Mike T
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mike T said:

Well you would say that - you just passed!

I gave it a bash yesterday (no swotting) and failed, so obviously I'm inclined to think the whole thing is a bit of an imposition!  ?

 

(I'm happy I didn't fail on anything which was hitherto looked upon as common sense, just on weights (shouldn't they now be in lbs an ozs?) the 'woke' stuff like worrying about somebody else's privacy.)

 

Took me two goes Mike, lbs n oz, not going there will get me in bother, "Woke" no idea who they are Mike, still working on the "Gammon" one, think they're probably sound bites/put downs used to belittle.

 

Had approval on my RCC from BMFA, so they're awake at the wheel and I didn't mess up down loading it. ?

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.

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...