BMFA Multi Rotor Achievement Scheme

[bunnygirl80]

Hi guys,

As many of you know I have been flying planes for over 15 years now. I am a member of the BMFA (British Model Flying Association) and fly to the standards of their A and B achievement schemes. The BMFA currently have certificates for Fixed Wing and Helicopters, BUT not for Multi Rotors.

This afternoon, I spoke with Andy Simmons who is the BMFA Achievement Scheme Committee Secretary who informed me that they are currently looking into this and in discussions with the CAA. This is something that they will be discussing further in their next meeting on the 16 March. He told me that it will take a while to put a certificate together, but all being well the MR scheme will be launched 1st January 2014.

Stef

[neagron]

  Yes Steff its something that needs to be addressed,also the other thing is insurance,Marty.  :scotland:

[Tony Campbell]

Doesn';t the normal BMFA or SAA insurance cover multi rotors? It covers helis, so I';d have assumed it did? Then again, I';ve fallen foul of assumptions before........

[Big A]

Yes BMFA insurance covers multi rotors.

[mickyt]

Thank goodness for that lol im insured with them 

[Gaza07]

+1 Me to Micky 

Thank goodness for that lol im insured with them 

[Big A]

Hi guys,

As many of you know I have been flying planes for over 15 years now. I am a member of the BMFA (British Model Flying Association) and fly to the standards of their A and B achievement schemes. The BMFA currently have certificates for Fixed Wing and Helicopters, BUT not for Multi Rotors.

This afternoon, I spoke with Andy Simmons who is the BMFA Achievement Scheme Committee Secretary who informed me that they are currently looking into this and in discussions with the CAA. This is something that they will be discussing further in their next meeting on the 16 March. He told me that it will take a while to put a certificate together, but all being well the MR scheme will be launched 1st January 2014.

Stef

Bit of an update, the ASRC met today and have agreed in principle to propose the introduction of a Multi-rotor A based on the Helicopter A manouveres. There are a few thinks to sort out first, there is an issue with Multi-rotor failsafe settings and complying with CAP658, although BMFA are discussing that with the CAA. We have to look at ensuring we are testing the pilot and not the electronics too. Although the BMFA Multi-rotor/FPV specialist interest group will be able to provide input for that. That said at the moment I don';t see any reason why an "A" will take too long to appear.

[bunnygirl80]

Bit of an update, the ASRC met today and have agreed in principle to propose the introduction of a Multi-rotor A based on the Helicopter A manouveres. There are a few thinks to sort out first, there is an issue with Multi-rotor failsafe settings and complying with CAP658, although BMFA are discussing that with the CAA. We have to look at ensuring we are testing the pilot and not the electronics too. Although the BMFA Multi-rotor/FPV specialist interest group will be able to provide input for that. That said at the moment I don';t see any reason why an "A" will take too long to appear.

Hi BigA,

Thanks for that update. We were aware that the BMFA were meeting on the 16th to discuss the Multirotor scheme, but not aware of the outcome. So, many many thanks.

For those of you who are interested, here is a link to the BMFA A Cert for Helis. As BigA mentioned, the Multirotor test will be based on this. Page 8 onwards described what the current test involves and you can imagine how it would apply to multi';s.

http://www.bmfa.org/achievement/files/2013/Hel-A-2013.pdf

Let me know what you think!

[Gaza07]

I already have a heli A will I need to take a Multi A to 

[guest325]

I already have a heli A will I need to take a Multi A to 

If you';re flying at a club it';s the clubs discretion, if not it doesn';t matter.
I fly mine at our club and because I don';t have any A I have to be supervised by a B test holder - I have no problem with that but can';t wait to get my fixed wing A because they';ve already said that if my competence level is OK they will allow me to fly solo with my quad!

[guest325]

A bit of an update on this (as I have an interest! ) - there will be an achievement scheme for A and B awards early in the new year; I';ve just been speaking to a guy (Duncan) who is completely up to date with what';s happening. Great!!! I could well be one of the first to take the test next year!

[Marklincs]

Hum...

http://www.rcheliaddict.co.uk/rcha/102784-rcha-achievement-scheme-draft-multi-rotors-quads-octo-hexo-copters-etc.html

[pheasant_plucker]

Hum...

http://www.rcheliaddict.co.uk/rcha/102784-rcha-achievement-scheme-draft-multi-rotors-quads-octo-hexo-copters-etc.html

Ok but they are not the national body so their test doesn';t carry the same clout as the BMFA one would! Would it be worth the paper it';s written on?

Gerry

[flybywire]

If it addesses the issue that currently, if you follow the bmfa';s policy to the letter (and lets face it they will!) multi rotor pilots are not covered unless they set failsafe to ';low'; throttle, then i guess i';m in (kicking & screaming).

Andy

N.B i hope somebody with legal quals can reasure me that i have mis-read or misunderstood this stipulation?

[Hands0n]

Am I missing something? Failsafe to low throttle equals stone falling out of sky. What is safe about that? That has the whiff of the Driving Standards Agency who insisted that ABS activation during Emergency Stop was a fail. It took years to persuade them that it was safer than encouraging (mandating) under-braking!

As a total maverick right now I would like to train for and take a competence test when the RC clubs come out of the dark ages that preceded multi-rotor craft.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[flybywire]

Amen to that Danny.  I would suggest an off-topic comp to find the dumbest ';law';, but lets face it, there are so many, I wouldn';t know where to start. 

[jwl940]

CAP 658 Chapter 5 contains this particular minefield, I quote:

Any powered model aircraft fitted with a receiver capable of operating in failsafe mode should have the failsafe set, as a minimum, to reduce the engine(s) speed to idle on loss or corruption of signal.

Two questions spring out of this; what on earth does ';as a minimum'; mean and is this particular section a law or a guideline?

Personally the sooner the BMFA brings Multis into their fold the better.  I';d sign up to the achievement scheme if only to find out what I';m doing right and more importantly what I';m doing wrong and to save receiving a letter from Aviation House.

[Hands0n]

I do fully realise that the aim is to "test the pilot and not the automation" but surely, failsafe is just that? Making a "fail" situation as "safe" as possible. 

With a fixed wing it may be safer to glide somewhere random. I really have no idea about that. It doesn';t sound "safe".  But surely, given this day and age, the art of the science, the ability to either Land or RTL autonomously it makes total sense to allow those safety nets to invoke rather than simply drop from the sky.

Surely a competent pilot will have correctly set up those fail safe available to them in that aircraft - and a test of competence should be for the pilot to demonstrate it working (thus testing the pilot in that respect, not the automation).

My own view is that any test of competence to fly should include every single mode that the aircraft is capable of.  Thus demonstrating that the pilot is fully competent in the whole definition of that simple word.

[Marklincs]

Ok but they are not the national body so their test doesn';t carry the same clout as the BMFA one would! Would it be worth the paper it';s written on?

Gerry

BMFA Clout does not stand for anything particular.

The BMFA isnt a national governing body but a self appointed body

Because if the BMFA had clout at the CAA meeting last year the No Buddy exemption would not be around because the BMFA WANTED all FPV Flyers to be on Buddy leads.  FPVUK were the ones who got that kept and RCHA were there agreeing with them.


Oh and also worth noting if your an FPV Multicopter Pilot it Was RCHA who got the weight limit upped to what it is today. Not the BMFA.

The BMFA went along with both things because otherwise they';d of let there members down. They didn';t have to take up these 2 things.


So with that in mind if you do not fly at a BMFA Club and want insurance consider:

http://www.store.rcha-uk.com/product.php?productid=17533&cat=0&featured=Y

Some BMFA Clubs will allow RCHA insurance some won';t, it is down to the Club wether they say yes/no not the BMFA for the record. They only need 5 members for BMFA affiliation anyway the rest can have what ever they want unless in the Club rules.

[flybywire]

Yep.
I think, joking apart, i';m sure the vast majority of us just want to have a deal of fun in the pursuance of our chosen hobby, in a safe and (fairly!) responsible way, do we not?  As a minimum, we would ask that as we pay our subs just like anybody else, that we should be shielded from the personal costs arising from any litigation we may find levelled at us, and dropped on us from a great height, so that we can fly our models without undue worry.

[nub]

they should make the test mandatory with a 5 minute nose in hover within a 1/2 meter box in acro mode

[Marklincs]

they should make the test mandatory with a 5 minute nose in hover within a 1/2 meter box in acro mode

Er thats easy enough with a multi, I';d get bored after 30 seconds  i';d be itching to go after 2 mins 

[nub]

bet for a lot it ain';t though, well without any assistance.

[jwl940]

Half meter box, that';ll be an instant fail for me!  With my 450 I';d just have 25mm wriggle room either side of the quad ;D

[Biffa]

So with that in mind if you do not fly at a BMFA Club and want insurance consider:

Indeed, or here:

http://www.fpvuk.org/become-a-member/