Examiners 2022 and beyond.

[ken anderson.]

this thread is getting muddled....started off as examiner, now its heading to raw beginners turning up at a site etc...i think that AS link above says it all really....and needs to be read...as its a totally different subject....

 

ken anderson...ne..1..raw beginners dept.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Thanks Ken - I was about to make the same observation. Whilst this thread was created to discuss a facet of how the BMFA are acting in order to maintain confidence in the organisation to qualify as an Article 16 exemption body, it isn’t about the legislation imposed on us by the authorities. 
 

Can I ask that we return to discussion of the issues around a yearly refresher for examiners please. 

[Peter Jenkins]

On 25/11/2021 at 15:56, 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.

Did he do a lot of tests, provide guidance, demonstrate the A or B etc.  If the answer is no to all, then what have you lost?  I would put the word out in the club that you are looking for people to step up to be an Examiner and see what happens.  You might also mention the help that would be to the club.  As for some benefit of taking the trouble to get themselves up to standard perhaps you might provide them with a year of membership for free?

[Erfolg]

 

I guess we all recognise their is a benefit from the Achievement Scheme. We probably differ as to what those benefits are, and the purpose of the scheme.

 

IMO without the scheme, we would all be taking or have taken the CAA online test. Probably for them the scheme provided confidence that the BMFA, took the various regulations and safety seriously. I believe that the BMFA, tacitly recognises the drivers and agendas of the CAA, hence the specific questions within the "A" test. It is apparent that the CAA remain vigilant, in that they require us to register certain unplanned events. We could assume that the CAA interest is that we know the regulations and laws that govern the operation of our models. Also they are assuring themselves that all flights begin and end safely as planned. If the model arrives is not the greatest concern, how skilfully it is flown is not the primary concern of the CAA. A matter of emphasis.

 

The reorganisation by the BMFA will also be seen as providing confidence in the scheme from bodies such as the CAA. There will now be structured system, that provides information of those operating the scheme, that can be investigated via a simple search (either via a relational data base or data mining etc) no phone calls, bits of papper. Those involved in the scheme will all be in position due to demonstrating current competences.

 

From a BMFA perspective the costs of operating the scheme will be easier to know and anticipate. I can imagine that being able to search and examine its scheme will be invaluable. In an era where the membership hovers around the 30,000 level, cost control is particularly relevant.

 

I accept that there will be some issues affecting individuals and potentially clubs. Change always comes with some issues. Yet change is inevitable. 

 

 

[Richard Acland]

1 hour ago, Peter Jenkins said:

Did he do a lot of tests, provide guidance, demonstrate the A or B etc.  If the answer is no to all, then what have you lost?  I would put the word out in the club that you are looking for people to step up to be an Examiner and see what happens.  You might also mention the help that would be to the club.  As for some benefit of taking the trouble to get themselves up to standard perhaps you might provide them with a year of membership for free?

As a small club we have not lost much, however he did also belong to another larger club in our area.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

On 25/11/2021 at 15:56, 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.

I had to go back several pages but I assume the above is what you’re referring to. 
 

I hope he’s notified his other club that he doesn’t wish to continue as an examiner - if he really doesn’t have the desire or capability to put a small effort into staying current as an examiner then perhaps it is the time for him to step aside for someone prepared to do so. 
 

I see it as a compliment to be approached to take on the role but it is one that involves a measure of unpaid effort both to achieve and maintain.  It’s not a “reward” for more senior members to mark their long involvement within a club but a responsibility to be taken on for the benefit of the club and to perform it to the best of your ability.
 

Probably a bit controversial but I would be happy to see some sort of compulsory attendance at a workshop every few years, whether physical (best) or on line if there are real logistical or regional difficulties, in order to help maintain common standards and practices. 

[SIMON CRAGG]

I have always been a supporter of all the excellent (mostly behind the scenes) work the BMFA completes on behalf of all of us.

 

As club sec and a long time examiner, I have promted the AS, attended "refresher / workshop" events, and generally kept up to date with developments.

 

The BMFA are never going to please all the people all the time.

 

I just think on this occassion, it has gone a bit pear shaped.

 

I cannot understand why the RCC was good for 5 years in October (presumably ratified at Committee level), yet in November it is only good for a year.

 

Us examiners are not daft, and surely a simple amendment could easily be promulgated to all examiners, who could then update their copy of Article 16 and pass on relevant points to club members?.

 

Maybe I am missing something?.

 

 

Edited November 27, 2021 by SIMON CRAGG

[Ron Gray]

Not sure I understand this, I decided to do the RCC test the other day, passed it, uploaded onto ‘Go’ and its showing that it’s valid for 5 years.

[Peter Jenkins]

Ron, that is correct, but the requirement is for Club Examiners to sit the test every year so that they are up-to-date for when they administer Achievement Scheme tests.  Under the new scheme where candidates can take the test on-line and show the Examiner their pass certificate that means there is technically a gap in that the person taking the test may not be up-to-date with any changes in the Article 16 compliance.  You have to draw the line somewhere otherwise everyone would have to take the test every year!  I'm sure that wouldn't go down well.

 

Having just taken the test, and passed (phew!), one question was slightly confusing and I just forgot one of the tick boxes on the other a "tick all that apply" section.  Not too shabby for an old git!  That's it for another year!

[SIMON CRAGG]

7 minutes ago, Peter Jenkins said:

Ron, that is correct, but the requirement is for Club Examiners to sit the test every year so that they are up-to-date for when they administer Achievement Scheme tests.  Under the new scheme where candidates can take the test on-line and show the Examiner their pass certificate that means there is technically a gap in that the person taking the test may not be up-to-date with any changes in the Article 16 compliance.  You have to draw the line somewhere otherwise everyone would have to take the test every year!  I'm sure that wouldn't go down well.

 

Having just taken the test, and passed (phew!), one question was slightly confusing and I just forgot one of the tick boxes on the other a "tick all that apply" section.  Not too shabby for an old git!  That's it for another year!

Any amendments could easily be ditsributed via the BMFA News, which as far as I know goes to all members.

[Peter Jenkins]

2 minutes ago, SIMON CRAGG said:

Any amendments could easily be ditsributed via the BMFA News, which as far as I know goes to all members.

Yes, but many have stated on this forum that they just throw the BMFA News in the bin.  So, the BMFA is taking the extra step of showing the CAA that they are taking Air Law seriously by having Club Examiners do a refresher test every year.  Personally, I think it's a good idea and even if nothing has changed it makes you go and re-read the last Article 16 document.

 

I also think the 3 points committees should consider prior to re-ratifying their Club Examiner is helpful and in particular whether their Examiner can fly the B test to an adequate standard.  As ever, some will disagree but how do you demonstrate what is an acceptable B test flight if you are unable to fly one?

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

All this is great for the (hopefully) majority of examiners who keep up to date but how often have we read comments like “just throw it in the bin onopened”.

 

Having kept up to date, the RCC test will take less time than a properly conducted A test to run through on a cold damp winter’s evening - surely not something that a committed examiner would begrudge?

[RottenRow]

I have just, out of interest, clicked on the link in the recent secretary's communication that takes you to the re-ratification page on the website. For some reason the three questions mentioned in the original letter (beginning of this thread) have been reduced to two on the online form, followed by a comment about what happens if the answer to either question in 'no'...

 

Here is a copy of the front page of the re-ratification form.

 

 

BMFA Club Examiner Ratification 2022

Please do not use this form to register instructors or approved/qualified instructors. There is no requirement for them to be ratified. Before ratifying examiners you should carefully consider if they are still active flyers and actively promoting the Achievement Scheme within your club. If the answer is no to either question they are no longer suitable as current club examiners. Please note: Examiners can only be ratified for 2022 if they have passed the latest version of the BMFA Registration Competency Certificate.

Step 1 of 3

 

 

Club Number *

Club Name *

Number of examiners you wish to ratify *

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6

 

It still seems pretty clear to me at least, 'no' to a question means 'no' to re-ratification of that particular examiner.

 

The online form appears to be out of sync. with both the original letter and Andy's comments on here, perhaps that form needs amending before clubs start re-ratifying?

 

Brian.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Some will bin it no doubt, can't see the harm of it going in the mag though, to borrow a word it'll "Prompt" (maybe) some to take the responsibility seriously before they vote to tick the box for next year, it'll keep members on same page (maybe), why would we object to members being better informed ? Could be a small part of why we are here discussing it.

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

11 minutes ago, SIMON CRAGG said:

Any amendments could easily be ditsributed via the BMFA News, which as far as I know goes to all members.

Simon, it does indeed get sent to all members. Sadly that doesn't mean its read and digested.

 

A few months ago the achievement scheme review committee were contacted by a candidate who was very concerned, he had prepared extremely well for his A test, had taken the RCC and passed too, clearly someone who had taken the time to find out all that was requiried and knew his stuff. We then had an embbarrasing situation of the examiner turning up, insisted on asking the mandatory questions, but sadly the original ones from 2016, the examiner was neither aware of the RCC, Article 16 or CAP722. He still thought we were flying under CAP658!  I', not sure what more we could have done to get all the news about the regulations out there, including in the BMFA News on a number of occasions.

Based on some of the emails received just recently there are a few others that are not keeping up with things as they should. Taking the RCC on a yearly basis if you wish to be ratified again is a simply pragmatic solution that will not take much more than 1o minutes or so for any examiner who has kept himself up to date with any Article 16 changes.

[Ron Gray]

34 minutes ago, Peter Jenkins said:

Ron, that is correct, but the requirement is for Club Examiners to sit the test every year so that they are up-to-date for when they administer Achievement Scheme tests.

Ah, yes, I see what you mean!

[Jason Channing]

4 hours ago, Martin McIntosh said:

I think you miss the point. A raw beginner rolls up at the club with a set they cannot buddy up. They will never have even heard of C/L, FF or article 16 so are they expected to be able to answer 40 questions on a subject which is totally alien to them before they can even get a flight under instruction?

Well if they have the Powerbox Core or Jeti set up on the trainer model then I'm sure they'll learn quite quickly, Even these can be buddy boxed up quickly, Personally anyone that I teach is brought up to scratch regarding current regulations and help as required regarding the RCC , basically its no more different than reading an instruction manual for the radio set. End result the pupil goes away being able to fly safely and is able to comply with Article 16.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

1 hour ago, Andy Symons - BMFA said:

Simon, it does indeed get sent to all members. Sadly that doesn't mean its read and digested.

 

A few months ago the achievement scheme review committee were contacted by a candidate who was very concerned, he had prepared extremely well for his A test, had taken the RCC and passed too, clearly someone who had taken the time to find out all that was requiried and knew his stuff. We then had an embbarrasing situation of the examiner turning up, insisted on asking the mandatory questions, but sadly the original ones from 2016, the examiner was neither aware of the RCC, Article 16 or CAP722. He still thought we were flying under CAP658!  I', not sure what more we could have done to get all the news about the regulations out there, including in the BMFA News on a number of occasions.

Based on some of the emails received just recently there are a few others that are not keeping up with things as they should. Taking the RCC on a yearly basis if you wish to be ratified again is a simply pragmatic solution that will not take much more than 1o minutes or so for any examiner who has kept himself up to date with any Article 16 changes.

 

Scuse I for quoting your Post Andy, something similar happened to me, new lad very keen and setting his stall out to do his A, we were talking and he said he doesn't have to answer the mandatory questions having done the online RCC, news to me says I, anyway on getting home I had a look, then messaged him saying yes you're correct, missed it. Have to say I prefer the new way.

 

 

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

In case of confusion, I think I’m correct in saying that 5 questions from the site rules and handbook still need to be answered - it’s just the mandatory “20 questions” that are replaced by the RCC. 

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Site rules questions, If they ain't got that sorted by the time they're taking a A, then we do need a shake up, me, I would be monitoring those aspects of flyers, regardless of the scheme, and if they're poor, you ain't getting a test untill it improves. No wrong uns coming in my name.

[Rich Griff]

Surely the club flying site has the up to date info on RCC and article 16, as well as any "club rules and conditions" on prominent display ?

 

If so then no problem, if not, perhaps they should be ?

 

Just my 2 pennies worth...

 

I try to keep up to date as much as possible and take documents etc. with me when model flying.

 

If challenged I can say " have a look at this...."

 

I think it's fair and good that examiners should pass an annual RCC, seems sensible to me.

 

Seems sensible examiners should have a periodical " assesment" , maybe every 5 years ?

 

Practical and theoretical, so still up to a high standard, firm but I fair.

 

Edited November 27, 2021 by Rich Griff

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

1 minute ago, Rich Griff said:

Surely the club flying site has the up to date info on RCC and article 16, as well as any "club rules and conditions" on prominent display ?

 

If so then no problem, if not, perhaps they should be ?

 

Just my 2 pennies worth...

 

I try to keep up to date as much as possible and take documents etc. with me when model flying.

 

If challenged I can say " have a look at this...."

 

I think it's fair and good that examiners should pass an annual RCC, seems sensible to me.

 

Bit like the mag Rich, you can provide the info and even lead a horse to water, but........

[MattyB]

4 hours ago, SIMON CRAGG said:

...I cannot understand why the RCC was good for 5 years in October (presumably ratified at Committee level), yet in November it is only good for a year.

 

Us examiners are not daft, and surely a simple amendment could easily be promulgated to all examiners, who could then update their copy of Article 16 and pass on relevant points to club members?.

 

Maybe I am missing something?.

 

See my previous post - it is all about managing the perceptions of the CAA. If the BMFA shows it is going "above and beyond" to ensure they are educating their members in safe, legal flying via instuctors who are fully up to date with the latest regs/Art 16 authorisation, there is less risk to that all important Article 16 Authoristaion being pulled, at least in theory.

 

Edited November 27, 2021 by MattyB

[Rich Griff]

By paying the club subs you are agreeing to abide by the club rules ?

 

Break the club rules get a yellow card for bad/dangerous flying.

 

Third yellow you are out....

 

Examiners should display safety first attitude.

 

By being up to date, and proving it, must be a good thing.

 

Examiners will probably be the best overall fliers/members.

 

The guys to ask.

 

Those are my views.

 

Over and out.

[MattyB]

3 hours ago, Andy Symons - BMFA said:

...A few months ago the achievement scheme review committee were contacted by a candidate who was very concerned, he had prepared extremely well for his A test, had taken the RCC and passed too, clearly someone who had taken the time to find out all that was requiried and knew his stuff. We then had an embbarrasing situation of the examiner turning up, insisted on asking the mandatory questions, but sadly the original ones from 2016, the examiner was neither aware of the RCC, Article 16 or CAP722. He still thought we were flying under CAP658!  I'm, not sure what more we could have done to get all the news about the regulations out there, including in the BMFA News on a number of occasions.

 

Putting examiners qualifications aside for a moment, this is exactly why the pre-Article 16 A test exemption should be binned entirely IMO. It won't be a popular viewpoint, but a 20 year old A and a tick in a box online provides precisely zero knowledge of the current regs. Everyone should be taking the DMARES or BMFA RCC at the standard defined intervals; the BMFA being able to show 100% of their members have doen that would IMO be far more impressive to the CAA than this annual mandatory examiner RCC test. It won't happen though, as it would be too unpopular members of the more senior status.

 

Edited November 27, 2021 by MattyB