Jump to content

The BMFA Achievement Scheme: The B Certificate


David Davis 2
 Share

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, EarlyBird said:

Am not splitting hairs Denis, but they don't need to be axial rolls as some barrelling is allowed.?

 

Steve

 

Oh Steve, he can already do two rolls, and three is so much harder.

My bug bear was always trying to come out of a spin into wind.

I was lucky to come out of the spin in any direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Several points gentlemen.

 

1. I fly or try to fly manouevres which are part of the B Schedule like stall turns, rolls, loops and bunts. I am capable of flying them but not to the precision which is expected by the B Certificate examiners if the BMFA's video of the demonstration of the B Certificate is anything to go by. I refer readers to my previous remarks regarding my preference for a video of the B Certificate schedule being flown by standard issue club member with a WOT 4 powered by an old OS 46!

2.  I have not crashed a model owing to pilot error in over a year but I suspect that I have recovered from some unusual situations during that time.

3. I do not intend to fly any very large models. A quarter scale triplane and my Galaxy Mystic are the limit of my ambition. Neither weighs more than 7kgs so a B Certificate should not be necessary and I doubt that I'll be stunting the triplane having invested so much time and effort in it's construction.

4. The Acrowot seems not to require down elevator when inverted in high speed rolls. Low speed rolls are another matter. Several of my other models, the Boomerang trainer for example, require this in the inverted stage of the roll. It is something I am used to.

5. Temperamentally I am not suited to learning things by rote, i.e, flying a schedule to someone else's pre determined plan.

6. I will not be returning permanently to England until my sister's terminal cancer has run its course. I don't want to be involved in two stressful events at the same time so all of this talk of the B certificate is somewhat academic at least for the foreseeable future.

 

Thank you for your advice anyway.

Edited by David Davis 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Denis Watkins said:

 

Oh Steve, he can already do two rolls, and three is so much harder.

My bug bear was always trying to come out of a spin into wind.

I was lucky to come out of the spin in any direction.

Rolls are my problem, even one is ugly it's a good thing that some barrelling is allowed. There seems to be an idea that an aerobatic model is required and it has to be flown to the standard that Doug McClure demonstrated. I have been told neither is true and have had the B demonstrated with a Wot Trainer. In the BMFA news some time ago a young lad passed his A and B on the same day using a Riot. Is there no requirement on what type of model is used and could it even be three channel? 

 

Steve  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you would struggle to do stall turns without a rudder, and rolls without ailerons. 
Makes you smile though how the B system  is abused, few posts up, need a B to fly heavy stuff, and the lad with experience of a Riot turns up with a heavy fast scale Jobby, and what does the safety officer think or do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that you don't need a pattern ship to fly the B schedule Steve but I have owned and flown competition aerobatic models in the past. They were a delight to fly but I crashed them both when I was an even less accomplished pilot than I am today! Years ago I bought a scruffy old DSM Aerostar 62 on eBay. It's down in my workshop gathering dust but you never know...?

 

As for young lads passing both tests in one day I saw a twelve year-old flying continuous inverted circuits yesterday afternoon using a well-flown ARTF trainer. I couldn't do that! ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO, Your Acrowot is more than suitable for the B and I am not saying you need to do the B test, just its a good way of expanding and practicing your skills.

You may never want to do a bunt, but one day you might come across a situation where it gets you out of a sticky situation and you can just "do it" without surprise or fear of it going pear shaped!  Or in my case know why it goes pear shaped!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Chris Walby said:

but one day you might come across a situation where it gets you out of a sticky situation

This reminded me of a sticky situation I got into on a windy day. Luckily I had been trying out inverted flying, which at first came as a shock as once inverted it felt like learning to fly again but I kept trying and managed an inverted circuit. On this particular windy day the model got away from me down wind and I lost orientation and started diving as I pulled up elevator without having to think I instinctively fed in down elevator and performed a half roll. No panic no drama because of previous practice which is exactly what you describe Chris. Inverted flying saved one model and considering I started inverted just for fun, I didn't realise it was not in the B, the practice was well worth it although I did not realise that when I first tried it. 

 

I also find the discipline of flying a set routine helpful because it focuses my mind and with repetition the required reactions become instinctive. That's just the way I am and that's the way I like it. I know others have different ideas that work for them, which is absolutely fine we all need the freedom to do our own thing simply to make it fun.

 

Steve 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion - and with the benefit of several examiner event/workshops to back it up - I believe the B should be attainable by the majority of model pilots without undue difficulty. 
 

Yes, it may feel challenging to a recent A pilot but the standard of flying required isn’t at top competition level. You just need to demonstrate the ability to position a model reasonably precisely (doesn’t sound too bad so far?) and fly a few demonstrations which will require some practice. 
 

I think most of us can do an inside loop without undue stress so this simply needs tidying to make it reasonably round (throttle control) and large enough to show this. 
 

Yes, the bunt feels daunting at first so start off from inverted flight and get used to the top half first from inverted. When you feel happy and can keep the wings level, continue round from the top, throttling back and add power smoothly just before the bottom for the climb back uphill. If it starts going wrong DO NOT pull back on the stick - simply half roll to upright and THEN ease out of the dive.  With a bit of practice it becomes far easier and is something I particularly like to do on a regular basis. 
 

Spin recovery? Most models recover quickly by simply centralising the controls and slight misalignment can be corrected as you exit. It’s good to practice a standard recovery for those models that may try to catch you out - throttle closed, ailerons central, full opposite rudder and then elevator forward until the spin stops, centralise rudder and EASE out of the dive but if it stops reliably by simply relaxing the spin inputs it’s much easier to correct the exit heading. 
 

Rolls - as said, you can allow some barrelling so concentrate on timing the elevator input which should be progressive rather than a dab. You’ll probably get on better one way than the other so work hard on the weaker direction. 
 

Nothing else should require more than practice for accuracy - work on one manoeuvre at a time and you should soon be ready. 
 

With less work (which is fun anyway!) than you may expect, you’ll soon be ready to join the ranks of B flyers and feel the glow of knowing you’re a better flyer for it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I passed my B with an Acrowot back in 1990 but I wouldn't recommend it for the test because although being a pretty model and somewhat aerobatic it does have some strange habits, mine wouldn't knife edge, always squirrelling out, even with the CG way back and would bunt with the application of rudder only. The point is these things show it's not such a true flying model. A properly aerobatic model is a better choice for the test but I would always make allowances for the type of model when judging a test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Andy Stephenson said:

I passed my B with an Acrowot back in 1990 but I wouldn't recommend it for the test because although being a pretty model and somewhat aerobatic it does have some strange habits, mine wouldn't knife edge, always squirrelling out, even with the CG way back and would bunt with the application of rudder only. The point is these things show it's not such a true flying model. A properly aerobatic model is a better choice for the test but I would always make allowances for the type of model when judging a test.

Knife edge is not a B requirement.....bunt with rudder only. Wow be interested on how it does that? Flown a few models  with very coupled rudder - yaw - roll, but not a bunt! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Chris Walby said:

Knife edge is not a B requirement.....bunt with rudder only. Wow be interested on how it does that? Flown a few models  with very coupled rudder - yaw - roll, but not a bunt! 

Yes, knife-edge is not a requirement in the B test but it illustrates some of the idiosyncrasies of the model.

I didn't believe the bunt thing when I was told it but if you take it up to a good height and with full throttle apply rudder only it will indeed perform a bunt albeit a skewish one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep it in perspective. The test is that of the pilot, not the model.

 

I practice both the A & B Tests at least weekly and probably with the Acrowot more than any other model, it is fully capable of performing either test without undue difficulty.

 

The last two tests I examined (both passed) were a scale Flybaby with a very nice twin cylinder Saito for the 'A' and a scale Chipmunk for the 'B'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, David Davis 2 said:

Thank you Peter for a most informative reply. I am grateful for the time and trouble you took to respond. You are obviously a very competent and enthusiastic pilot. Other threads you have posted in suggest to me that your main interest in aeromodelling seems to be aerobatics. While I accept that being able to fly the B Schedule makes you a better pilot, I feel that some of us, perhaps most of us, are not sufficiently skillful to be able fly the B Schedule and that we feel little motivation to have a go. I haven't lived in England for over six years but the club I belonged to when I lived there insisted that pilots had to have the A Certificate in order to fly unsupervised, so most of us managed to pass the A Certificate. The club had a membership of eighty but I doubt whether 10% of the membership had a B Certificate. Of the three or four friends who used to go for a beer after flying, none of us had the B Certificate. The examiner must have passed his B Certificate and there were two or three highly competent pilots who may have passed theirs but the rest of us felt no motivation to have a go.

 

Yesterday was a superb flying day here in central France, 14C and no wind to speak of. My club consists of about thirty members. Of those, four are certainly better pilots than I am but three of those live and work in Paris so they are rarely at the field. Another four are about the same standard as me, the rest are either people who have come back to the hobby after decades away from it and are struggling to regain their skills or people who have taken up radio controlled flying in retirement and are learning the art. Two of us, the club's chairman and I do the bulk of the instructing. It is a time consuming process as older beginners take much longer to learn the skills involved than younger people. One of the four pilots who is more competent than me is twelve years old! He flew an ordinary ARTF trainer in inverted circles yesterday afternoon! His father is one of the other three.

 

After spending the morning instructing I got out my Laser 70 powered ARTF Acrowot. I was a bit ham fisted with the rudder on take of but I got it into the air and tried to do one of the manoeuvres required by the B Certificate, three axial rolls to the left and to the right. I could manage two before losing altitude while attempting to perform the third and as for doing one set of rolls into wind and another with the wind, forget it! Is the horizontal eight a requirement of the B Certificate? I can fly a horizontal eight all day but with equal sized circles, at a constant altitude, with the intersection at a fixed point in front of the pilot? Forget that as well! I enjoyed the aerobatic capabilities of the model for a few more minutes flying loops, rolls and Immelmans before landing a bit too fast. No damage.

 

The point is Peter, that I have been flying r/c models for thirty-two years, I turn seventy-four next month and I have come to the conclusion that I am not skillful enough to be able to pass the B Certificate, that I am never going to achieve that level of skill and that I am certainly not alone. Neither am I motivated to have a go. I would not enjoy the learning process. The B Certificate remains the preserve of a minority of pilots whose main interest is aerobatics.

 

Someone once started a thread called "Ever Wanted To Improve Your Aerobatics?" My response was, "No, not really." My interests lie elsewhere.

 

Thank you once again Peter for your interest in this thread and for the time and trouble you have taken to encourage me.

 

 

Thanks for your comprehensive reply David.  I have also read your subsequent posts and I understand that you are conflicted over whether to bother with taking the B test.   I'd like to make the following points:

 

  • the question of age is interesting.  I'll be turning 72 this year.  I am currently the lesser of the two FAI competition schedules but my aim is to try and fly the more complicated one some time this year.  Age is whatever you wish to make of it.  I personally find that challenging myself helps me to keep my brain active and that's supposed to be good for us old 'uns.
  • Someone once started a thread called "Ever Wanted To Improve Your Aerobatics?" - that was me!  I did it because I had found that flying precision aerobatics was so engrossing that it supplanted my desire to fly scale although I still do the latter - I have a Bucker Jungmann, a Precedent Stampe and a Top Flite Mustang 60 almost complete.  I had never written a thread like this before and it made me think through each manoeuvre that I was describing in great detail - mind you, I still screwed up on some with either a typo or an incorrect description which was quickly pointed out.  Ultimately, I took the rather worrying step of writing and self-publishing a book on precision aerobatics that seems to have gone down well around the world - much to my surprise.  It is of as much use to the club pilot who just wants to fly better aerobatics as to someone wanting to get into competition aerobatics.  Even scale buffs have said it was a useful book as it helped them both to trim and to fly their scale aircraft.  Incidentally, the reason you find the Acrowot is easier to roll than some of your other aircraft is that you have a CG towards the rear of the limit.  I mention that as you seemed not to equate the Acrowot's rolling performance with CG position.
  • I have run half a dozen events to introduce pilots to flying the entry level aerobatic schedule and many of those who turned up left the day really energised that they had learned something new they could take away and develop.  At least 10 pilots who attended are now still flying aerobatics competitively,  This was all down to the great guys, and gal, who supported me by acting as mentors to these new comers, helping them to trim their aircraft (usually turn down the huge throws they had on their controls) as well as how to do the basic manoeuvres of loops and rolls.  For some, it was not something that interested them sufficiently to pursue but that's fine, they gave it a go and found out it wasn't for them.  Until you have given it a go with a mentor to help you, then it's difficult to make an informed decision.  
  • I keep my Wot 4 to demonstrate the B (and an Irvine Tutor to demo the A) rather than use one of my aerobatic airframes.  I also put people on a buddy lead to allow them to fly the Wot 4 with the low rates I use for the 2 rolls.  Rolling slowly helps to get the elevator timing right and by pitching the nose up just a tad before you start you build in a bit of leeway so the nose does not drop so much.  Using the buddy lead, I can fly a demo and then immediately allow the pilot to fly the same manoeuvre.  It is a great help and allows the Wot 4 to live on relatively unscathed after 12 years!

I appreciate the rationale for your decision so please don't take this the wrong way, as I'm just trying to put a different perspective on some of the views you have expressed that might be construed by others as being a good reason for not taking up the challenge of doing the B test. 

 

Good luck with what ever you decide to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Andy Stephenson said:

I passed my B with an Acrowot back in 1990 but I wouldn't recommend it for the test because although being a pretty model and somewhat aerobatic it does have some strange habits, mine wouldn't knife edge, always squirrelling out, even with the CG way back and would bunt with the application of rudder only. The point is these things show it's not such a true flying model. A properly aerobatic model is a better choice for the test but I would always make allowances for the type of model when judging a test.

Hi Andy

 

I had exactly the same problem with the Wot 4.  Both airframes have all the rudder above the engine thrust line unlike a purpose designed aerobatic job that has 50% of the rudder above and below the thrust line to remove the very strong rudder induced roll on those Chris Foss designs.  

 

By mixing opposite aileron to rudder, so that when using rudder the aircraft just yaws, you can fly KE with relative ease and, more importantly, fly a slow roll using rudder and elevator to keep the aircraft level during the roll.  In fact, a couple of weeks ago, I flew my venerable Wot 4 and flew a slow roll of approximately 4 secs with both height and direction of flight essentially unaltered.  Worth a try as it makes the aircraft much nicer to fly.  A further help is that in a stall turn the roll in the direction of full rudder is countered making the stall turn easier to accomplish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that someone will try the manoeuvres is a positive for me, some issues people have, come from their model hindering their efforts. A well trimmed model is a big plus, lost count of people who say they can't loop/bunt without screwing, when you take the model from them and fly it yourself, it soon becomes obvious a few tweaks of side thrust would help matters. If you're struggling, pass your box on to someone and find out if it's you or the model at fault.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading through the replies has confirmed what I had been told which is any model above 1 kg. Allowances will be made for the model for example a three channel without ailerons will be allowed loads of barrelling when doing the rolls, don't laugh I have been told it has been done but it could be just a story. I did wonder if aerobatic models were marked harder than a trainer but I think the clue is that the pilot is being judged not the model which means to me that it's the skills demonstrated by the pilot with the chosen model. Surely anyone that can do two consecutive rolls without ailerons deserves a B. BTW I have seen it done much to everyone's amazement.

 

For me the incentive is the personal achievement I get with every manoeuvre I try and the model survives. The key for me is to focus on what I can do and practice what I can't do.  It's fun that way.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ron Gray said:

Really? I didn’t think that was in the ‘testing’ criteria / examiner guidelines.

Indeed, the guidelines state (my emphasis):

 

 

"Whatever model is brought by the candidate it must be suitable to fly the manoeuvres required by the test they are taking.

 

It is a common misconception that the candidate for the 'B' Certificate needs to fly an 'aerobatic model'. In fact the test can be performed with most powered fixed wing models. The options allowed in the test mean that even a three channel trainer can cope if well trimmed and flown.

 

Having said this, on no account may the candidate use the performance of the model as an excuse for a poor performance on their part. For instance, a candidate flying a three channel model through the rolling manoeuvres accurately deserves the credit but one who makes a mess of the rolls with the same type of model cannot say that it is the fault of the model. You should make no allowances on this point.

 

You do not have the authority to alter the required manoeuvres to suit a model and if, in your opinion, the model is unsuitable for the test then you should explain this to the candidate and tell them that they cannot use that model. The selection of the model to do the test is the responsibility of the pilot and it is they you are testing, not the model.

 

Similarly, the type of model presented cannot be used as an excuse for not completing certain manoeuvres. A pilot cannot turn up with a twin, for instance, and then say that the spin is too dangerous because the model would not pull out of it.

 

Another important point to remember is that the candidate is not expected to build or even own the model they use. There is no reason why a flyer who does not own a suitable model could not borrow one from a friend or club mate."
 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ron Gray said:

Really? I didn’t think that was in the ‘testing’ criteria / examiner guidelines.

What I meant is that if someone is flying a pure patternship, for example, I would expect to see more precise manoeuvres than someone flying something like an Astrohog or a trainer. A Sebart Angel rolls virtually without any correction whereas an ordinary sports model won't, see what I'm saying, the test can't be perfectly equal for all models flown.

The examiner must be allowed some discretion as it's always a judgement call.

Edited by Andy Stephenson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would you expect a higher standard?  You are testing the pilot not the aircraft.  You can have a badly set up pattern aircraft and a well set up Wot 4 for example.  The test guidance is very clear on this matter.  You cannot blame your aircraft for your short comings.  As I understand it, the Examiner does not have the right, to decide on issues that fall outside the guidance notes.  However, I have heard that reported back to me as being said by other Examiners.  

 

Do other Examiners hold the view that candidates with pattern aircraft are more harshly marked than those with a Wot 4?

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...