BMFA News Feb 2019

Martin Harris - Moderator · January 27, 2019

Posted by Martin McIntosh on 27/01/2019 21:25:59:

Thanks, I know that now but nobody seemed to at the workshop.

It's actually an illustration of the value of these events - although yours sounds like a rather large hiccough in the system which is the sort of void that can be filled by cross area events. I don't know which workshop you attended but the information was certainly available at the Buckminster Roadshow I attended last year and the information would certainly have been available from the organiser at any of the South Midlands Area run days as he is a member of the scheme review committee.

Handyman · January 28, 2019

I will grant you that they have done some good things. I did say that I am not knocking the BMFA. As regards the relaxing of the 400' Rule for BMFA and other organisation members, I personally do not see any advantage of wanting to fly above 400 feet. I like to keep my models at a height where I can see what they are doing, and can get them back on the ground in the shortest possible time, if problems appear. Not fly to a height where its just a speck in the sky.

And just as an aside, a lot of these impending regulations appear to be as a result of our membership of the Quango that is called the European Union. (Oh dear, I think I may have breached the forum posting regulations) Oh well at my age, I can stand any any rebukes that come my way. Its part of life!!

Peter Jenkins · January 28, 2019

Handyman, I fail to see where HASW has any impact on our hobby. I'm not quite sure who you have in mind for your comment "Then suddenly, out of the depths emerged the unelected spectre of Bureaucracy." If you mean the Government, then you and I elect them. If you mean the BMFA, again, you and I elect them - if there is more than one candidate for one of the Executive posts and your Club elects its Area representative on Council. So, to whom are you addressing this point?

The BMFA has always been at pains to point out that the Achievement Scheme is just that - an achievement. It is not, and has never been a licence.

That being said, Clubs, whose committees are elected by members, tend to use the competency to fly solo as the BMFA A test. Some also seek a B Certificate if members wish to fly a jet or an aircraft that weighs more that 7 Kg. Again, this is not a BMFA requirement. There is a recommendation that all pilots flying in front of the public should have a B Certificate but I suspect that most Display Directors would want to know a bit about the pilot and their competency than just "I have a B". I have seen some pilots who hold a B certificate fly and they would struggle to pass the A as they have not kept their skills current.

The reason why the BMFA encourages Areas to run Achievement Scheme Workshops is to help Examiners as well as instructors and candidates to come up to date with what is standard for a pass in both the A and B tests. I have seen Examiners demand that candidates fly the Fig 8 with a 45 deg cross over when this requirement was replaced with two touching circles in 2010 for the A and has never been there for the B. If you are to have a national standard such as the BMFA Achievement Scheme surely it is only common sense for all partaking in the scheme to know what is the standard required for a pass? Otherwise, you will get overly strict and overly lenient standards between Clubs and that is not a good thing. For example, an ACE told me that his view of the B was that it was all about safety and flying skill was secondary so if the candidate did not loop directly in front of the pilot position he was OK with that. Same for the 2 rolls, he didn't think the needed to be centred. If you have that interpretation of a B how can you be sure that the holder of a B passed by such an examiner is able to put his aircraft where it needs to be and not where the aircraft and wind takes it?

As an Examiner, I practise the B schedule on a number of occasions in the year. This is so that I can demonstrate the B to a candidate and know that I can fly it to the required standard - or where I don't, to tell the candidate what I did wrong. I fail to see why providing these Workshops is such a big issue for you Handyman.

When you talk about extra burdens on Examiner and Instructors are, what are they? I would expect all Examiners and Instructors to be aware of the need to download and read the Guidance Notes on the various A, B and C tests. However, I know that some Examiners can't be bothered to do this simple thing (you can also ask the office to post you hard copy if you don't use the internet).

If you don't read the latest guidance notes, which are updated every year now, and you don't go to any workshops how can you examine candidates fairly?

The BMFA rules are not legislation. That is down to the government, or rather in the case of drones, to the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the BMFA has been doing a sterling job to keep the impact as low as possible. I think that, so far, they have done marvellously well although we will need to see what legislation the government enact towards the end of 2019.

I look forward to reading your response.

Martin Harris - Moderator · January 28, 2019

Posted by Handyman on 28/01/2019 00:02:50:

I will grant you that they have done some good things. I did say that I am not knocking the BMFA. As regards the relaxing of the 400' Rule for BMFA and other organisation members, I personally do not see any advantage of wanting to fly above 400 feet. I like to keep my models at a height where I can see what they are doing, and can get them back on the ground in the shortest possible time, if problems appear. Not fly to a height where its just a speck in the sky.

I think you might be surprised just how low 400 feet is - any model much over 5 feet span will still look pretty large at 400 feet and most pilots are likely to exceed it if flying a larger model - and even more so if they wish to thermal soar gliders. A typical large model needs constant vigilance at our club in controlled airspace which has an exemption to 400 feet for over 7 kg models.

Peter Jenkins · January 28, 2019

Posted by Handyman on 28/01/2019 00:02:50:

I personally do not see any advantage of wanting to fly above 400 feet. I like to keep my models at a height where I can see what they are doing, and can get them back on the ground in the shortest possible time, if problems appear. Not fly to a height where its just a speck in the sky.

Handyman, you may like to know that there are 2 types of aerobatic competition where if you were limited to 400 ft you would not be able to perform the required manoeuvres. F3A, the FAI aerobatic Schedule, requires you to fly at approx 150 mtrs out from the pilot and judges and has a vertical limit of 60 deg to the horizontal. This puts the height at 300 mtrs or 980 ft. I sometimes end up at 1200 ft if I'm late in initiating a vertical manoeuvre. These heights do relate to 2 mtr class models but they are perfectly visible to both the pilot and, more importantly, to the judges. The other type is IMAC where 3 mtr span is the norm and they also go well above 400 ft.

Jets are the other type of aircraft that will need to break 400 ft for almost any vertical manoeuvre especially if they fly fast.

Just thought you might like to know that there are very good reasons for flying above 400 ft.

David Payne 4 · January 28, 2019

As an examiner I also attended the road show at Buckminster which was a very informative day

I have no problem attending one or more roadshows/workshops in a five year period

however the proposed star rating system I don't agree with as we will get examiners forcing candidates to take tests that they are not ready for to obtain a higher star rating , a single quality test is better than a hundred poor tests

with some areas having a shortage of examiners putting too many hoops to go through to remain an examiner or become an examiner will put people off and as volunteers many will give it up or not bother in the first place,

on the other hand a set standard must be maintained otherwise there is no point in an achievement scheme to carry on

With the BMFA trying to run the registration and testing scheme that we are going to be made to complete under the European Air Laws in my view will benefit the modeller better than the government or CAA conducting it, we may or may not agree with it but as modellers we are going to have to do this to comply with the new legislation

Having seen a video clip of the CAA staff on the subject of the registration and testing they did not have any idea what was going to be done, regarding the testing all they would say is that it needed to be easy enough for a 16 year old to pass and possible easier version for the under 16's

As regards to the rules and regulations for model flying and the BMFA

it is in the best interests for the BMFA to reduce the impact and restrictions in any new laws/regulations for un-manned flight, after all if the government and the CAA banned model flight then there would be no BMFA

The BMFA had the restriction of 400 foot for models under 7kg lifted but could not get it lifted for multi-rotor models and as this was the best they could obtain it was better than all models restricted to 400 foot, our glider pilots and those who slope soar should be very great full of this

For the sudden rush of BPC and A tests later in the year , well it may give some the push they were after to do their test but others will just sit at home and complete the online test

If you don't have an examiner in your club/ flying group and wish to take a BPC/A/B test then contact the BMFA office and they will put you in touch with your local examiners

SIMON CRAGG · January 28, 2019

Posted by Peter Jenkins on 27/01/2019 10:25:01:

Just to clarify, the AS Roadshows to which Duncan refers are the ones run by the ASRC and not the ones run by Areas in this first iteration. He says that he will consider extending this to Area run events next year. I think this will significantly reduce the number of Examiners reached as they will need to make one of the 2 Roadshows in 2019. Fingers crossed that Phase 2 comes along in 2020.

This has the potential to open a real bag of worms. Having read the article several times, it looks to me at this stage that as an examiner, I need to go to either Buckmeister or South Wales to get a rubber stamp for a further five years. As we are based near Bournemouth, and it is implied that it would be useful to stay overnight, its a bit of a non starter due to distance / cost / (and what if her indoors wants to go on holiday at the same time!!).. I suspect I am not alone. I am going to contact the Southern Area to see when / if they are going to run a workshop in due course. I realise that EU rules need to be followed and we are in changing times, like it or not etc. etc, but we are a fairly small club, I am getting older, so if I have to drive round the world to obtain another five years worth, I will probably give it a miss. I hope I have got some of this wrong!. I have tested many people over the years, and believe that all BMFA examiners are an excellent resource. I would hate to chuck it in!.

Peter Jenkins · January 28, 2019

Posted by David Payne 4 on 28/01/2019 01:06:21:

If you don't have an examiner in your club/ flying group and wish to take a BPC/A/B test then contact the BMFA office and they will put you in touch with your local examiners

I would suggest contacting your Area Achievement Scheme Coordinator in the first instance as they will be better placed to help. If you don't know who your ASC is then you can find a list on the Achievement Scheme Website under the Contact Us tab and you can email them from there.. If you don't know in which Area your Club is then you will need to call Head Office. It is the Area that administers the Achievement Scheme not Head Office.

Martin McIntosh · January 28, 2019

I think my local patch is about 100yds long. Imagine a model which has just become airborne. After another 100ft it will still look quite large; then imagine it at the same distance upwards (400ft). Still very low. Any F3A model would certainly struggle to loop within that height, never mind perform vertically downwards maneouvres.

Oh, and why do they insist on mixing metres and feet? Because the rule was devised by full size aviators.

Cuban8 · January 28, 2019

I appreciate the fact that this is still very much work in progress and likely to be changed and tweaked as we progress further - but can I just be perfectly clear on a few things as they stand now.?

(1) The direction at present is for the ASRC to organise road shows and workshops at Buckminster only, and those that attend will gain the necessary five year approval rating.

(2) Area run road shows (for the moment at least) will not count towards the five year approval.

Am I correct?

john stones 1 - Moderator · January 28, 2019

Posted by Peter Jenkins on 28/01/2019 00:09:38: