Achievement scheme.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

I recently posted about the monthly mag, one topic was the trialing of a collision avoidance manoeuvre to replace the go around one in the tests. Mag says opinions are welcome, so I sent mine off to Duncan, being a curious (nosey) sort I wondered what others think ? Here's what I think.

 

Been lots of change in recent years, new regs, new questions, more tests for new disciplines, examiners attending workshops, RCC required to meet ratification rules. No problem with any of this, it addressed what was needed, but a period of calm would be nice, unless we have issues to sort.

 

Not much meat on the bones as yet on the manoeuvre, but my first question is why ?

It felt the test are lacking as is ?

 

My opinion is, the tests display you can turn either direction, manage throttle, decend/climb under control, that you have awareness of the situation around you whilst flying "Safe and in Control". Am I missing something ?

 

 

[John Lee]

I've always regard the go-around as a collision avoidance manoeuvre and hope, and expect, that the change is just a clarification rather than a fundamentally different manoeuvre. In my briefing to candidates I always tell them that when I call 'go-around' treat it as though a dog or child has run onto the landing strip and you need to immediately climb away to avoid colliding with them.

[Don Fry]

My view, over 2 meters off the deck, above stall speed, keep it simple, straight and level, and it’s too close, but it’s still missed the collision. Evaluate the reason after.

Speed first, then climb.

Splitting  hairs accepted.

 

 

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I'd say that's fair for the A test John, but the B is meant to reflect a higher standard of control and in various attitudes.  In terms of achievement, what's the value in demonstrating an approach and then a climb away - which is the extent of the present overshoot manoeuvre...one which I've always wondered why it's included in the test.

 

I believe that the suggestion involves a change in heading, as well as climbing away from the hazard in a safe manner rather than flying over it, to simulate an incursion on the runway.  Perhaps the information is generally vague, in order to stimulate ideas? 

 

We've certainly seen some changes in the peripherals and range of test disciplines but the flying aspects of the fixed wing tests haven't changed in any meaningful way for over 20 years - maybe many more? - in my recollection.  Perhaps it is time to review them?

 

I think that anyone with a firm view on this either way, as John has done, should take the time to drop an email to [email protected]

 

P.S. In light of a couple of posts while I was typing, I see the present aborted approach as the equivalent of doing an emergency stop on the car driving test at the candidate's time and place of choosing!

Edited February 1, 2022 by Martin Harris - Moderator

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Fair enough Martin.

For me the B contains enough to cover it as well, more accurate positioning required, more complxity and difficulty, all these demonstrate a higher standard of control and awareness.

I would echo your comment though, when feedback is encouraged, take the time to do so.

Not getting into the driving test one though, tests are Personal Achievements, not a license.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

No intention there - it was just an example of a skill test that we're all familiar with, picked at random...

[MattyB]

12 hours ago, john stones 1 - Moderator said:

Not much meat on the bones as yet on the manoeuvre, but my first question is why ?

It felt the test are lacking as is ?

Agreed, I am less interested in what this “collision avoidance” manoeuvre is supposed to be than in why it is being suggested now. Is this about addressing a perceived “gap” in the achievement scheme assessment, or is it more of a stakeholder management play with the CAA?

[Frank Skilbeck]

It's also worth bearing in mind that a "B" is often a prerequisite for display pilots, so taking appropriate avoiding action on a runway incursion, is probably a good skill to acquire.

[MattyB]

1 hour ago, Frank Skilbeck said:

It's also worth bearing in mind that a "B" is often a prerequisite for display pilots, so taking appropriate avoiding action on a runway incursion, is probably a good skill to acquire.

 

In my expereince a runway incursion is far more likely during "normal" recreational flying than it ever is at a display, where there are always a lot of extra controls in place to prevent such an incident occuring. I am not saying it isn't a useful skill display pilots, more that if this were to be deemed important making it part of the A rather than the B would seem to add more value. We would need to understand the rationale from the proposer(s) to be sure, though. 

[Don Fry]

Matty B is right. My present club does not always follow good practice, and the odd dog comes over from an adjacent track behind us, and it happens to me often enough to give me practice.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

6 hours ago, Frank Skilbeck said:

It's also worth bearing in mind that a "B" is often a prerequisite for display pilots, so taking appropriate avoiding action on a runway incursion, is probably a good skill to acquire.

 

Taking avoiding action is built into every day flying, and most certainly within the test, if you're not looking at what's around you and especially on landings/take offs/overshoots you likely not pass a test.

[Brian Cooper]

On 01/02/2022 at 19:43, john stones 1 - Moderator said:

I recently posted about the monthly mag, one topic was the trialing of a collision avoidance manoeuvre to replace the go around one in the tests. Mag says opinions are welcome, so I sent mine off to Duncan, being a curious (nosey) sort I wondered what others think ? Here's what I think.

 

Been lots of change in recent years, new regs, new questions, more tests for new disciplines, examiners attending workshops, RCC required to meet ratification rules. No problem with any of this, it addressed what was needed, but a period of calm would be nice, unless we have issues to sort.

 

Not much meat on the bones as yet on the manoeuvre, but my first question is why ?

It felt the test are lacking as is ?

 

My opinion is, the tests display you can turn either direction, manage throttle, decend/climb under control, that you have awareness of the situation around you whilst flying "Safe and in Control". Am I missing something ?

 

 

 

Okay, chaps, this one is my "baby". It is something that I have been banging on about for about the last 8 years and it has finally come into the spotlight. 

 

When the "B" was first conceived, the overshoot manoeuvre was supposed to be due to a baulked landing.  

In other words, something got in the way.  

 

Somewhere along the way, this reasoning seems to have dropped off the radar, and I am proposing that we put it back on. 

 

Currently, an overshoot merely requires the pilot to fly straight ahead, gain height and rejoin the circuit. 

 

However, now image that your model is on final approach and a child has run onto the runway. 

Or a dopey dog walker has strolled onto the runway, complete with dog...!!

Or one of your clubmates has not noticed you landing and can't hear you calling because of the noise of his engine, and is carrying his model onto the runway prior to a takeoff. 

Now what are you going to do? 

If you fly in a straight line, there is a risk of hitting them. 

 

The idea behind Collision Avoidance  is to steer away from the obstruction and climb away.  Nothing more and nothing less.  

 

I have been trialling this manoeuvre with volunteers at two clubs since last September and nobody has had any problems with it. . It isn't violent, it isn't  difficult and it isn't dangerous. The 10-year-old kids can do it with ease. 

 

I shall be demonstrating it at the various Achievement Scheme days which we have every month at Buckminster during the warmer weather. Volunteers are welcome to try it. 

 

If anyone has any problems with it, it is all my fault.  . Lol. 

 

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Ah so you're the culprit Brian. ?

No I don't have a problem with it, I don't view it as dangerous nor difficult, just questioned Why ?

For me the tests demonstrate the required abilty to do this as is, tests demonstrate ability to turn either way, the eight does it even more, the awareness of surroundings is part of the test, on the A, questions tend to be based on field safety/rules, I believe we have it covered. Only my opinion though and others no doubt will disagree.

 

Can I ask if we have handbooks already printed, will they be out of sync then, it gonna cost us money ?

[Brian Cooper]

Yup, I am the culprit. 

 

I am not sure if we print handbooks anymore but don't worry too much. . . With the speed the BMFA goes at, the Collision Avoidance criteria will probably not be implemented until this time next year (if at all...). 

 

I shall be demonstrating it throughout the summer by having a glamorous assistant throwing a big Teddy bear onto the runway a few seconds before touchdown. . . Well, it's worked so far. ?

 

For the regulars at the Achievement Scheme events at Buckminster, I am the nutcase who demonstrates the "B" schedule with an Ultimate biplane. ?

 

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Bear Left. ?

[MattyB]

1 hour ago, Brian Cooper said:

Okay, chaps, this one is my "baby". It is something that I have been banging on about for about the last 8 years and it has finally come into the spotlight. 

 

When the "B" was first conceived, the overshoot manoeuvre was supposed to be due to a baulked landing.  

In other words, something got in the way.  

 

Somewhere along the way, this reasoning seems to have dropped off the radar, and I am proposing that we put it back on. 

 

Currently, an overshoot merely requires the pilot to fly straight ahead, gain height and rejoin the circuit. 

 

However, now image that your model is on final approach and a child has run onto the runway. 

Or a dopey dog walker has strolled onto the runway, complete with dog...!!

Or one of your clubmates has not noticed you landing and can't hear you calling because of the noise of his engine, and is carrying his model onto the runway prior to a takeoff. 

Now what are you going to do? 

If you fly in a straight line, there is a risk of hitting them. 

 

The idea behind Collision Avoidance  is to steer away from the obstruction and climb away.  Nothing more and nothing less.  

 

OK Brian, thanks for explaining it. What I don't really understand is why this is part of the B not the A? I would expect any pilot capable of flying solo to be able to carry out this manouvre, so it feels more like an A test one to me. YMMV.

[Brian Cooper]

7 minutes ago, MattyB said:

 

OK Brian, thanks for explaining it. What I don't really understand is why this is part of the B not the A? I would expect any pilot capable of flying solo to be able to carry out this manouvre, so it feels more like an A test one to me. YMMV.

One step at a time.... It has taken several years for the Collision Avoidance to be even given some consideration. 

 

The "A" remains fairly basic..

A pilot needs to be able to:

Take off, turn left, turn right and land. 

There are no plans currently to make any more intense. 

[Andy Gates]

I can see where you are coming from Brian, but I do agree with others that the manoeuvrers required to execute this are already covered in the tests.

 

I guess that what you are looking to assess here is the mental ability to recognise and deal with the risk during what is a higher pressure manoeuvre (landing) in an appropriate and safe manor.

 

I have observed a certain degree of shall we say "tunnel vision" when executing a take off or landing which would mean a fail of the Collision Avoidance manoeuvrer you are suggesting.

 

If you are going down this road, does this mean you are suggesting that there should be a fixed lifespan of the A / B certificates so that everyone should be retaking their certificates on a routine basis (say 5 years)?

 

Now ducking my head so it does not get shot off!

Edited February 4, 2022 by Andy Gates

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Eye tests ?

[Brian Cooper]

@Andy, 

Nope, there are no other similar manoeuvres in the "B". 

Come to Buckminster to see it done. . . It really isn't a difficult manoeuvre.  

 

Also NO to any introduction of time limits on any of the Achievements.  

[Dickw]

21 hours ago, john stones 1 - Moderator said:

............................................

Can I ask if we have handbooks already printed, will they be out of sync then, it gonna cost us money ?

Just for the sake of completeness, no it is not going to cost anything ? -

The details of the various Achievement Scheme tests are no longer in the Handbook, or even the Achievement Scheme handbook, but are available to download from the BMFA main website or the Achievement Scheme website.

All the individual test detail docs are updated annually anyway, so unless your copy is dated with the current year you had best assume it is out of date.

The 2022 ones don't seem to be available just yet but I guess they soon will be.

 

Dick

Edited February 5, 2022 by Dickw

[MattyB]

On 04/02/2022 at 16:19, Brian Cooper said:

One step at a time.... It has taken several years for the Collision Avoidance to be even given some consideration. 

 

The "A" remains fairly basic..

A pilot needs to be able to:

Take off, turn left, turn right and land. 

There are no plans currently to make any more intense. 

 

Interesting choice of words. I'm afraid that I just can't understand the logic here - making this a mandatory part of a B test means the only people doing it will be more expereinced fliers with better base piloting skills already. Let's face it, if you are at the stage were you are considering doing a B then you have probably already had to deal with one or more incursions already, so this manouvre would be trivial. However such an incursion can happen to absolutely ANYONE and is most likely during recreational flying at sites where the public have some degree of access, so the pilots who really need to practise to execute this manouevre are those with less experience.

 

I get that the BMFA Achievement scheme leadership will be wary about making tests any harder because it might put some people off. However, if your target is to improve the general standard of flying (which presumably this is about) then sometimes that will be necessary. Putting this in the B (which only a tiny fraction of pilots ever attempt) isn't going to do that - it's a bit like proposing the reverse park should only be part of the advanced driving test.

 

Edited February 7, 2022 by MattyB

[Cuban8]

I always used to teach learners to cope with overshoots and baulked landings prior to their 'A' although it wasn't required for the test. I viewed those manouvres as similar in scope to an emergency stop on your driving test and I would ask my pupil to make a series of approaches to the patch from circuit height and I'd call "abort" on finals which would result in a straightforward go-around or on short finals close to the patch perimeter, a shout of "obstruction on landing area" and I'd expect the pilot to deal with the situation quickly, calmly and safely in order to avoid the imaginary obstructed landing spot.

Not a difficult exercise for a pilot close to 'A' standard and good to get used to handling a model close to the ground and being aware of one's surroundings in a simulated emergency situation. Obviously not something that a learner with very little stick time should be pushed into too early, but  I believed was worthwhile for the advanced learner. I'm surprised that it's never been part of the 'A'.

Edited February 7, 2022 by Cuban8

[Brian Cooper]

2 hours ago, MattyB said:

Let's face it, if you are at the stage were you are considering doing a B then you have probably already had to deal with one or more incursions already, so this manouvre would be trivial.

 

However such an incursion can happen to absolutely ANYONE and is most likely during recreational flying at sites where the public have some degree of access, so the pilots who really need to practise to execute this manouevre are those with less experience.

 

 

Yes indeed, hopefully all pilots should be capable of dealing with unexpected obstructions on the runway during the landing approach. 

However,  the current  (B) "overshoot" manoeuvre doesn't address this simple action. . It merely requires the pilot to open the throttle and keep going in a straight line, which is a pointless exercise. At least having to steer the model away from the runway puts a purpose to the manoeuvre. 

 

The "A" remains a basic test of aircraft handling. 

The "B" is for more advanced pilots and requires a higher degree of accuracy with the flying. 

 

Plus, we need to remember that none of these Tests are compulsory.  They are Achievements . . But we all like a challenge, eh. 

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

I agree the overshoot is a nothing manoeuvre, used to say "aborted" ? No heading change specified though. As it is a test of pilot control and a personal achievement where's it fit though, B contains a higher standard of accuracy, heading changes both ways, loops inside/outside, 2 rolls opposing rotations/directions and the eight. If it's to be trialed then maybe included, I would say it should be in the A also.

 

No issues with change but like it to fit a need, inverted eight, stall turn, overfly at specified height ?