Examiners 2022 and beyond.

[ken anderson.]

16 minutes ago, Richard Acland said:

I am the Secretary of our club and have just had our BMFA examiner ask me to put him as retired when I do the ratification this year. Bit of a loss really.

that's a shame Richard,i can see a few long standing/existing examiners doing the same ....it can be argued that why?... but i see the new introduced bits and pieces will put off a lot... 

 

ken anderson...ne..1..bits and pieces dept.

 

 

[SIMON CRAGG]

1 hour ago, ken anderson. said:

that's a shame Richard,i can see a few long standing/existing examiners doing the same ....it can be argued that why?... but i see the new introduced bits and pieces will put off a lot... 

 

ken anderson...ne..1..bits and pieces dept.

 

 

I don't think its just the RCC test that is "putting off" examiners. (With the potential loss of all that knowledge and experience).

 

As has been discussed on other threads, like it or not the average age of us "flyers" is getting older, not younger.

 

Not everybody is up with the latest computer jargon, and to some it might as well be a foreign language.

 

Putting a stamp on a letter is more or less a thing of the past.

 

Not everybody finds it easy to "https://achievements.bmfa.uk/rcc-upload" etc.etc.

 

Ok, with the help of the younger generation it could probably be completed now and again.

 

But every year?.

 

For what its worth, I think this whole issue is an unneccessary burden, which appears to be already losing valuable examiners.

 

 

 

Edited November 25, 2021 by SIMON CRAGG

[RottenRow]

8 hours ago, Andy Symons - BMFA said:

We know that circumstances are different at each club and for each examiner. I have just been speaking to one that is in 2 clubs and ratified by both. However he very rarely visits one of the clubs, maybe only once or twice a year and then just to take a test, however he is a very active flyer, can still demo a very very good B, and actively promotes the scheme, so the club would have to answer no to the first and third question, but the examiner is still definitely worth keeping.

 

Yes I quite agree that an examiner such as you have described would be definitely worth keeping. But with 'no' being the answer to two out of the three questions I personally would question the value of those questions in the first place. And who decides that 'he can still demo a very very good B' unless that person is an examiner himself? You only have to read Duncan McClure's last few articles in BMFA News to realise that the expected standard of a B schedule is pretty high and I'm not sure that relying on the opinion of non-qualified committee or general club members to agree or otherwise that he can fly a very very good B schedule is right. That's just my opinion of course but is the way I would interpret the letter of yesterday.

 

8 hours ago, Cuban8 said:

A lot of over-thinking going on IMHO.

 

7 hours ago, John Lee said:

I'm with C8 on this, too much over thinking going on.

 

Really?? If we don't think about these things now we can hardly complain when things go awry in the future.

 

Just because the BMFA says something, it doesn't always make it right or that it should be rubber-stamped without airing one's concerns.

 

Again just my own point of view.

 

Brian.

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

25 minutes ago, RottenRow said:

 

Yes I quite agree that an examiner such as you have described would be definitely worth keeping. But with 'no' being the answer to two out of the three questions I personally would question the value of those questions in the first place.

The value is less about the answers and more about the consideration that they ensure is then given to whether the person is still effectively filling the role as the club examiner.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

3 hours ago, SIMON CRAGG said:

No.

 

It means that it is our long standing  club policy to teach on the buddy lead during the embryo stages.

 

This enables the instructor to "save" the model should the need arise.

 

When the student is deemed experienced and capable enough, his instruction is continued but without the lead.

 

He continues under instruction until he is ready for his test, and that is when I come in.

 

Subsequently, if we did not have an "in house" examiner, in theory the student could potentially be on the lead ad infinitum until a suitable examiner could be arranged.

 

Hence the reason I have got to take the annual test like it or not.

OK - I'm confused. 

 

They come off the lead when "deemed experienced and capable enough" and "instruction is continued but without the lead"...but they can't come off the lead until you've passed them for their A test?  I do appreciate that they may not be allowed to fly unaccompanied without their A but these are club rules which could be tweaked to allow you (or other suitably experienced members) to adjudicate should your club not have access to an examiner.

 

More importantly the bottom line, in my opinion, is that I understand the need for an examiner to keep current and spending half an hour once a year completing an effectively unfailable test in order to check/update understanding and knowledge of current legislation is something that anyone interested enough to be an examiner shouldn't baulk at.  You sound like such a person as you have the interests of your students at heart but I suspect there may be examiners out there who are reluctant to let go of their "status" while having lost interest in the real aims of the scheme - these are the ones who this new requirement will weed out, to the overall benefit of the scheme's credence.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Bold claim Martin, it will certainly remove those who don't do the RCC, the rest I'm not so sure, I could comply and do the RCC and be an absolute waste of space at the club, nothing changed ? Can't get my head around this status thing either, what status ?

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

The status that shouldn't be seen as such!  I may be wrong but I suspect that there may be a number of people out there who have been examiners for decades and feel this imparts some sort of status within their peer group.  They may hang on to the rating because of this, rather than allowing someone less experienced but keener to pick up the reins, while not seeing the need to keep abreast of changes, attend workshops etc.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Yep agreed, time their members spoke up and got em gone for me.

[SIMON CRAGG]

19 minutes ago, Martin Harris - Moderator said:

OK - I'm confused. 

 

They come off the lead when "deemed experienced and capable enough" and "instruction is continued but without the lead"...but they can't come off the lead until you've passed them for their A test?  I do appreciate that they may not be allowed to fly unaccompanied without their A but these are club rules which could be tweaked to allow you (or other suitably experienced members) to adjudicate should your club not have access to an examiner.

 

More importantly the bottom line, in my opinion, is that I understand the need for an examiner to keep current and spending half an hour once a year completing an effectively unfailable test in order to check/update understanding and knowledge of current legislation is something that anyone interested enough to be an examiner shouldn't baulk at.  You sound like such a person as you have the interests of your students at heart but I suspect there may be examiners out there who are reluctant to let go of their "status" while having lost interest in the real aims of the scheme - these are the ones who this new requirement will weed out, to the overall benefit of the scheme's credence.

Don't be confused, its very, very straightforward.

 

Let me try again.

 

Student stays on the lead whilst learning to a standard that the instructor deems good enough to come off the lead.

 

Student then practices (under continued guidance) OFF THE LEAD, until he passes his A test.

 

Student can then fly happily on his own.

 

"Unfailable test?"

 

I dont think so. Try reading some of the posts. Quite a few members have been up front and admitted to failing it first time (me included). So in no way is this a half hour tick box excercise.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

My confusion is your statement that "Subsequently, if we did not have an "in house" examiner, in theory the student could potentially be on the lead ad infinitum until a suitable examiner could be arranged." but it seems like this isn't the case so let's not get too hung up on it.

 

If you fail the RCC (or get a couple wrong) on the first attempt, the system tells you which answers were incorrect and shows the correct response - you simply repeat the "test" and answer the questions again, using the correct information.  It's as much a learning exercise as a test...hence the statement "effectively unfailable".

 

 

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Yep correct, if you don't know It'll show you where, hence you learn and pass.

Will you remember tomorrow ? When you can't find yer glasses or car keys and have no idea why you went upstairs, is another matter. ?

[Andrew Calcutt]

Who the hell has come up with this ridiculous idea?it is a hobby,I know plenty of guys who have been flying for years without A or B tests and that looks likely to increase.The BMFA have to much time on their hands.

[Martin McIntosh]

MH, you only get all the correct answers when you have passed. Prior to that you get a red cross on the wrong ones and in green the options you could later take.

There is nothing whatsoever in there about actually assessing flying which is surely what being an examiner is about. Any examiner worth his salt instinctively knows when a candidate is safe to go solo.

 Being able to interpret Paragraph X, sub paragraph Y, section Z does not make for a capable, safe, flyer.

Technical committees may live and breath these terms but it is about time that they realised that the rest of us do not.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I'll have to take your word on that but I'm told that you get the same questions each time, there's no restriction on time and you can refer to the relevant publications in as much detail as necessary.  Hang on...you just learnt what the legislation requires you to know and ensure test candidates can understand and comply with!

 

It's also important to remember that the tests are primarily achievements and as such, there are requirements for the candidate to demonstrate each and every facet to a minimum standard, not just base your assessment on their overall capability to operate safely.

[Andy Stephenson]

Martin,

I agree the BMFA is getting a lot like the civil service.

[ken anderson.]

10 hours ago, Andrew Calcutt said:

Who the hell has come up with this ridiculous idea?it is a hobby,I know plenty of guys who have been flying for years without A or B tests and that looks likely to increase.The BMFA have to much time on their hands.

well said Andrew.....years ago at our club it was touched upon that every member must have an A cert,and there was a heated exchange and the idea never came back,and rightly so a lot of people said"i've been flying models for years,why should i be made to do a test now?"

 

so why have the achievement scheme? Fair enough if its for an individual to be able to demonstrate their competency,and have a cert to prove it,but it seems to becoming more than that.Why not do away with the A/B and C and have the RCC,and make that do. There must be thousands of model flyers who couldn't give a jot about certificates or RCC tests ect,and quite happy enjoying the hobby/pastime.

 

as Andrew says its a "hobby"...playing with toy aeroplanes......ken anderson...ne..1...toy aeroplanes dept.

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

10 hours ago, Andrew Calcutt said:

I know plenty of guys who have been flying for years without A or B tests

and they can carry on doing so. 

 

However the scheme is very well respected by such as the CAA, has helped drive improvements in standards of flying and safety and doesn't impact on anyones fun.

 

Small steps to ensure examiners are current with the regulations we operate under (which we all have a responsibility to be anyway) is hardly worth getting hot under the collar about.

[EarlyBird]

10 hours ago, Andrew Calcutt said:

Who the hell has come up with this ridiculous idea?it is a hobby,I know plenty of guys who have been flying for years without A or B tests and that looks likely to increase.The BMFA have to much time on their hands.

Obviously you don't know why the achievement schemes (AS) came about. 

The BMFA spend a lot of time fending off regulations that could be forced on us by officials who don't buy into the toys and hobby idea.

The  AS demonstrate that that there is a learning process in place and assessments have to be part of that.

Examiners also need to be assessed to make the AS plausible. Unfortunately there are clubs where the officials have the idea that having many instructors and examiners proves they are a vibrant club however in reality most on the list don't teach or examine. For a novice this illusion is very annoying and disheartening when once the subs are paid no one will teach. Yes there are instances where improvements need to be made.

[Cuban8]

9 hours ago, Andy Stephenson said:

Martin,

I agree the BMFA is getting a lot like the civil service.

No, I'm sorry but that's very unfair. I loathe red tape and buraucracy with a passion, but BMFA has done well to deflect and reduce the burdon of the real civil servants and IMHO their over exuberance with mad rules and regs. I've said before that I don't think this will all last, and perhaps the changes to the crazy rules concerning the registration of control line models (who thought regulating a tethered model was a good idea in the first place?) will herald a step back and review of what real benefits are garnered by all of this. Not for a year or two, but give it time. Just because it's the law doesn't always make it right, sensible or indeed just plain workable. We've seen enough back-pedalling from those at Westminster (all of them) recently to win any slow bicycle race you can think of.

Dealing with government, whether the local or national varieties is a bit like reasoning with a stubborn mule - a fixed agenda until it suits them to change.

Edited November 26, 2021 by Cuban8

[Richard Acland]

4 hours ago, ken anderson. said:

well said Andrew.....years ago at our club it was touched upon that every member must have an A cert,and there was a heated exchange and the idea never came back,and rightly so a lot of people said"i've been flying models for years,why should i be made to do a test now?"

 

so why have the achievement scheme? Fair enough if its for an individual to be able to demonstrate their competency,and have a cert to prove it,but it seems to becoming more than that.Why not do away with the A/B and C and have the RCC,and make that do. There must be thousands of model flyers who couldn't give a jot about certificates or RCC tests ect,and quite happy enjoying the hobby/pastime.

 

as Andrew says its a "hobby"...playing with toy aeroplanes......ken anderson...ne..1...toy aeroplanes dept.

I quite agree, and have stated on this website before. I have nothing against the achievement scheme and I was always under the impression that it was a voluntary scheme. If you wanted to take part and get a certificate fine. It now seems to be more than that with many clubs using the A cert as a requirement to be able to fly on your own, or in some cases to be able to join a club. Now this is where I have a problem with that ruling. I am now 75. I could have passed my A cert 20 years ago when my hearing, eyesight and general health was fine, unlike now. But as far as most people are concerned I have an A cert so I am good to go.

In my club we adopt what I like to call the common sense approach. Anyone joining our club will be watched very closely for their initial flights. If any bad habits are noted a bit of instruction with a club instructor will be required, regardless of whatever  certificate you  may hold. 

What is important is how you conduct yourself now, not when you took a test many years ago. This stance has stood us in good stead for many years.

 

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

19 minutes ago, Richard Acland said:

I quite agree, and have stated on this website before. I have nothing against the achievement scheme and I was always under the impression that it was a voluntary scheme. If you wanted to take part and get a certificate fine. It now seems to be more than that with many clubs using the A cert as a requirement to be able to fly on your own, or in some cases to be able to join a club. Now this is where I have a problem with that ruling. I am now 75. I could have passed my A cert 20 years ago when my hearing, eyesight and general health was fine, unlike now. But as far as most people are concerned I have an A cert so I am good to go.

In my club we adopt what I like to call the common sense approach. Anyone joining our club will be watched very closely for their initial flights. If any bad habits are noted a bit of instruction with a club instructor will be required, regardless of whatever  certificate you  may hold. 

What is important is how you conduct yourself now, not when you took a test many years ago. This stance has stood us in good stead for many years.

 

All the A cert is a demonstration that you can take off, fly around a bit and land safely and a demonstration that you know the regulations that apply to us, your club rules and some general safety stuff. I would be surprised if a club was happy for people to operate unsupervised if they cannot do that, whther they have demonstrated it by passing an A or some other more informal method.

[Richard Acland]

 I still maintain the achievement scheme is voluntary. Naturally a well run club such as ours issues all new members with the club rules, and safety rules are well enforced. As a BMFA  affiliated club we ensure we comply with BMFA  regs. All of this does not require a certificate.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

You’re quite correct Richard. It is entirely voluntary whether a club decides to require an A (or other) certificate for solo operation. Many clubs see value in this and many don’t but I would hope that all clubs monitor their members abilities and attitudes with regard to operating safely for both their members’ and neighbours’ safety and enjoyment. 

[Martin McIntosh]

Until I did that test I was under the impression that tethered models were exempt, never mind a weight limit. Regarding FF, no one has any control over the flight volume once launched since this will usually be governed by wind conditions. Most club venues cannot accommodate these anyway. Where, other than the Nats, have you ever seen them Drones have been banned by our landlord after he read about the idiots buzzing airliners, even tiny racing ones, so the questions on these were totally irrelevant to me.

My club insists on an A certificate to fly solo which is fair enough but people who joined before 2000 are exempt!

Due to adverse comments from here and there about whom should have passed an A or not I only stay on as a second examiner for B tests which are rare.

Take this scenario. A person visits the field as a newbie to be advised on what start up gear to buy which they do and eventually come to take an A in order to go solo. No matter how well they can fly they are then faced with a set of questions about a subject they have never even heard of. Gobbledygook to them so they pack it in and go fishing instead.

[MattyB]

9 hours ago, Andy Symons - BMFA said:

I know plenty of guys who have been flying for years without A or B tests"

and they can carry on doing so. 

 

However the scheme is very well respected by such as the CAA, has helped drive improvements in standards of flying and safety and doesn't impact on anyones fun.

 

Small steps to ensure examiners are current with the regulations we operate under (which we all have a responsibility to be anyway) is hardly worth getting hot under the collar about.

 

We all need to get used to additional admin like this coming in over the coming years. The BMFA (and the other national associations) are between a rock and a hard place...

 

The future of many clubs (and in turn the associations they affiliate to) now hangs on the Article 16 authorisation. As a result the associations have to defend those authorisations at all costs. Unfortunately the actions that "prove" ? to the authorities the safety/compliance value of being in a national association (and help keep the existing agreements in place) will frequently be viewed as an imposition by members, an imposition that maycause some to give up and others to not join in the first place - this additional burden on examiners is an example of that. This delicate line now has to be trodden by the BMFA every day, and it is unlikely to change as the legilsation in place will almost certainly never be rolled back. Add in the demographic time bomb ticking under the traditional model flying hobby and it's easy to see that the BMFA, LMA, FPV UK etc. have a very hard job in the coming years. I do not envy them.

Edited November 26, 2021 by MattyB