Scrutineering

[Rob Buckley]

Folks,

Thanks for all the input...and we are reading it! I'll give the reasons for the change when I get a spare moment.

Thanks

Rob

[Alan King]

I think the reasons for the change should have been prepared for any challange long before the change was announced, I would challange that this type of change could bring the flying safety of large model aircraft into the realm of the Doddo.

There is no harm in change only the method by which it happens and the reasons for it, the fact is i would consider that this could become a serious safety issue and as such we as a membership need to be involved, i would consider that decisions have been made as a Knee jerk reaction to what has happened elsewhere and in fact feel that is this is the case then why do we even have inspections for over 20KG models, could the same argument then not be used, " he/she said it was ok to fly so its their fault the wing fell off".

I must site another example, in South Africa certain aircraft can be operated under the LS1 category, untill a few years ago this included fast jets and others, it was intended for homebuilt aircraft in which the plane was signed off by a responsible person and certain other A/C many though climbed on this band wagon and the CAA was warned of the loopholes and the danger this held.
At an airshow in the Cape a pilot paid with his life for the lack of regulation when his Lightning jet crashed, it was operated under the LS1 sceme and his ejector seat failed to operate, doe to this regulation has been ramped up and now these birds don't fly, if a bit more regulation was in place then the chances are the seat would have worked and the pilot survived, trust in those operating these A/C to self regulate meant that went it went wrong the CAA stepped in and changed the regs.

I suggest we need to regulate ourselves appropriately before we loose our exemptions. We need to trust each other sure but we also need to check each other for the security of our hobby, the decision to stop Scrutineering could have serious consequences and remmember it takes only one thing to go wrong and we could become the scourge of the press and it affiliates. We are already seen by many as a bit odd lets be the safe bit odd lot.

I therefore feel I have the right to challange this as I am a member, if not then what exactly am I a member of. The LMA stands head and shoulders above other organisations and for this reason I feel this is an important decision which needs appropriate consideration.

[Cary Bailey]

I think the reasons for the change should have been prepared for any challange long before the change was announced, I would challange that this type of change could bring the flying safety of large model aircraft into the realm of the Doddo.

There is no harm in change only the method by which it happens and the reasons for it, the fact is i would consider that this could become a serious safety issue and as such we as a membership need to be involved, i would consider that decisions have been made as a Knee jerk reaction to what has happened elsewhere and in fact feel that is this is the case then why do we even have inspections for over 20KG models, could the same argument then not be used, " he/she said it was ok to fly so its their fault the wing fell off".

I must site another example, in South Africa certain aircraft can be operated under the LS1 category, untill a few years ago this included fast jets and others, it was intended for homebuilt aircraft in which the plane was signed off by a responsible person and certain other A/C many though climbed on this band wagon and the CAA was warned of the loopholes and the danger this held.
At an airshow in the Cape a pilot paid with his life for the lack of regulation when his Lightning jet crashed, it was operated under the LS1 sceme and his ejector seat failed to operate, doe to this regulation has been ramped up and now these birds don't fly, if a bit more regulation was in place then the chances are the seat would have worked and the pilot survived, trust in those operating these A/C to self regulate meant that went it went wrong the CAA stepped in and changed the regs.

I suggest we need to regulate ourselves appropriately before we loose our exemptions. We need to trust each other sure but we also need to check each other for the security of our hobby, the decision to stop Scrutineering could have serious consequences and remmember it takes only one thing to go wrong and we could become the scourge of the press and it affiliates. We are already seen by many as a bit odd lets be the safe bit odd lot.

I therefore feel I have the right to challange this as I am a member, if not then what exactly am I a member of. The LMA stands head and shoulders above other organisations and for this reason I feel this is an important decision which needs appropriate consideration.

+1 from me again.
To add to this we have a great relationship with the CAA that enables the LMA to hold the exemption that enables us to fly our large scale models. The flying authorities will support us moreso by the very nature that we are treating safety on top of the list, especially at shows never mind our own fly ins.
Cary

[chris poyser]

i have just sat and read the thread from start to this point, i nearly said finish but i dont think its finished yet!! and i understand where the committee is coming from on this, i also understand what Phil is saying, and my conclusion is that yes another pair of eyes are always welcome to check over your model, and i also read my journal and seem to remember the statement that the LMA would still be conducting random checks, so here,s a thought, if you feel more comfortable and seeing as there are inspectors around why not ask, politely, if they would mind just casting an experienced eye over your model!!!

i dont think the committee have taken this decision lightly, nor do i think they will be changing their minds, nor should they! i am perfectly happy to say my model is airworthy and take responsibility for it, i wouldn't fly one that was not airworthy at my local patch, and yes,,i will ask a mate to check it over.

chris

[John Greenfield]

What an interesting thread and of course has brougth out both sides of the argument but what surprises me is no one has asked for the facts behind the decision.
I am sure it would help all to understand the decision if the full facts that brought this matter to the table were explained.

John

[Cary Bailey]

i have just sat and read the thread from start to this point, i nearly said finish but i dont think its finished yet!! and i understand where the committee is coming from on this, i also understand what Phil is saying, and my conclusion is that yes another pair of eyes are always welcome to check over your model, and i also read my journal and seem to remember the statement that the LMA would still be conducting random checks, so here,s a thought, if you feel more comfortable and seeing as there are inspectors around why not ask, politely, if they would mind just casting an experienced eye over your model!!!

i dont think the committee have taken this decision lightly, nor do i think they will be changing their minds, nor should they! i am perfectly happy to say my model is airworthy and take responsibility for it, i wouldn't fly one that was not airworthy at my local patch, and yes,,i will ask a mate to check it over.

chris

Chris, very good points made. I'm very much a novice when it comes to the larger models & will always ask my peers for advice & check over my plane. That gives me a level of comfort and I'm sure that would give existing & potential new members the same.
Cary

[Alan King]

Decisions are made and decisions can be changed but i think we have asked for the reasons to be shared, at least i have strongly hinted at this, as to asking others to check your model, i can just hear the answer already " sorry mate i may get sued so better I dont " I have come up with a solution, i am going to take my Know it all son along as he will certainly point out all the problems better then any scrutineer, then again he might not as he will have a good chuckle when it crashes.

now i have personally witnessed people at clubs failing to point out a problem just so as to see what happens, in fact lots of these videos are on Youtube.

I do think on the whole that people will be good at policing themselves but perhaps the best method is to introduce a full preflight for each model, exactly as would be done for full size, this would then mean we have little excuse for problems other than being a bit lazy. I have seen many folk pre-flighting their planes but many never bothering, so perhaps this is the safest alternative lets all start to have a formal pre- flight which we sign before flight.

I would suggest a log book may then also be handy, anal it may be to some but at least then a history of A/C could be kept.

[Dave Hayfield]

I still think that we are missing the point here. SAFETY IS PARAMOUNT is the slogan that has been instilled in our heads, or most of us! Ok so someone at a flying display somewhere in Europe was questioned about who was responsible for something untoward happening, so what? that will be sorted out by their insurance setup but what really matters is that we are seen to be doing everything possible to avoid accidents.

[Alan King]

Perhaps all these opinions show that this is a decision which needs to be opened to the members as the views expressed on the whole seem to support scrutineering of some description, the members need to be polled as to their opinion instead of it having to rest on the shoulders of a few to make a far reaching decision with unknown long term consequences.

[Robin Woodhead]

Interesting not a single comment from the Board of Gardians! (except one)!

I can recall that in the sixtys at Le Ferta if you wished to fly a cat 3 model, you had to present it disasembled to the chief scruteneer who examined it externally and internally with the pilot. You would then be asked to correct anything he did not like, once given the OK, you were requested to fly it and presnt your public display routine for approval.

It addition you also had to present full technical details of the mode (mine was 28 pages of their forms)l.

Sometimes we can learn how to do things correctly even from the French.

I think this a poor decision to do away with Scrutineering

I should also like to know the reasons which underly this decision.

Robin

[stewart clifford]

If done properly( without the vicious wiggling and pulling) is it actually any hardship to anyone if scrutineering continues? It doesn't cost anything and doesn't really take long to do and no scrutineer should ever end up in the dock if the worst happens.

[Alan King]

I think we need to see how long it takes before all these questions are adressed seems to be taking longer then the decision to stop scrutineering, sorry but my opinion is the scrutineering ban is a knee jerk reaction and i really feel an appropriate answer needs to be posted, I may be new to the LMA but feel this is not been adressed or are the decision makers hoping this dicussion will stop, we need answers and we need them soon to satisfy the questions and concerns being raised.

I am soon going to be flying some large models and although I have built some rather big 1/1 scale planes I have yet to put anything in the air that is over 20kg without a Pilot on board i therefore have real concern that i will pass through the inspection phase etc but then be left to my own devices, this worries me as it would any reasonable person so lets have an answer before I commit more of my time to serious scale models as I may well decide to go through the process but never display in public as I would want some form of check to support me and if this is not forthcoming before public events would rather not fly to be honest.

I think we need some answers fine Gentleman of the commitee.

[Alan Cantwell 1131]

going round in circles now gentlemen, i dare say the guys have a good reason for this, i dont know if it takes the next commitee meeting to discuss it, but why dont we just leave it until they have had a chat?

[Rob Buckley]

Folks,

If you could put away the pitchforks and extinguish the torches for the time being, a full statement of the reasons behind the decision, and an answer to the points raised is in preparation. As you can imagine, this takes a little time to make sure we’ve covered all the angles, so please be patient, a full answer will be posted soon.

Thanks

Rob

[Alan King]

well they say Hindsight is 20/20 vision and in hindsight I think the answers to why this decision could have been prepared ages ago, or let me rephrase that the reasons for this decision should have been prepared before it was announced so that they could have been posted and then challanges to the decision would have been met by the reasons already stated, in other words the decision to stop scrutineering can be shown to have been well considered, anything now posted would only be in response to the questions raised showing unfortunately a lack of forsight in preparation for the inevitable challange that was to come.

I am sorry but all I see are reasons for this matter to continue to be raised and I think the longer the elapsed period between your reasons and the questions asked shows a hope that this matter will disappear. I stand by what I have posted, this decision was hasty and ill considered, it is not safety lead but a reaction to a legal issue elsewhere, Safety comes before all else.

[Rob Buckley]

Scrutineering at LMA events has over the years been carried out by a small band of volunteers, and is, by the tone of many of the postings on this thread, an utterly thankless job!

For reasons of their own, the number of these hardy volunteers has declined, and it needs to be remembered that this is a hobby that the vast majority of us do in our spare time for fun. Nobody expects to be attacked or pilloried for helping the hobby to run smoothly.


Safety

Flying model aircraft is orders of magnitude safer than motorsport or full-size aviation, as the statistics, insurance premiums and the approach of the CAA prove. (ref. AVI0401)

There is a suggestion in some posts that the ending of blanket scrutineering at LMA events will cause either the sky to fall, or the end of model flying as we know it. We are confident that neither of these scenarios will come to pass.

It is a fact of life that model aircraft can crash. They are generally guided round the sky by a simplex radio link, with many single points of failure; that’s why for all LMA shows we assess the risk and have layers of control measures, to both minimise that chance of a crash, and ensure that if a model does crash, the crash is where nobody will be harmed, and nothing will be damaged.

The control measures we have in place against a crashing model are (in no particular order)-

Operator Training

All pilots have passed the LMA proficiency test (or BMFA ‘B’ in limited cases), so have shown they are competent at both carrying out a thorough pre-flight inspection and flying a model at a public display. They have also displayed a good knowledge of the rules in place and best practice governing flying displays.


Physical Separation

There are large separation distances between the public and flying models, and all flying is done in defined areas. This is to ensure that models are not flown over anybody or anything that could be damaged.


Failsafe

CAP 658 stipulates that models over 7kg have a working failsafe. The purpose of the failsafe is not to save the model, but make sure that it ‘lands’ safely in the defined flying area if the radio fails, rather than fly off either into downtown Wolverhampton or into the engine of a passing A340.

As a working failsafe is a specific CAA requirement, the function will continue to be checked for all models.


Model Airworthiness

Models over 20Kg have been through the >20Kg inspection scheme, so should be sound of structure and systems, with a minimum period of flight testing successfully carried out.

Models under 20kg that are to be flown in public are, we trust, adequately designed, built and tested to minimise the likelihood of failure


Scrutineering

What has traditionally been done as ‘scrutineering’ has been a brief external inspection of the things that should be covered in a thorough pre-flight inspection. Yes, a second pair of eyes is helpful, but should not be relied upon as the only pre-flight inspection that is carried out on the model.


Despite the recent incident in Europe, to the best of our knowledge, the role of model scrutineers has never been tested in UK law. The responsibility for a flight is defined in the Air Navigation Order (ANO) as being solely that of the pilot-

The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft may only fly the aircraft if reasonably satisfied that the flight can safely be made.

What is being asked of pilots in place of the scrutineering of all models, is a statement from the pilot on every day before flying, confirming that-
• They have carried out a full pre-flight inspection of their model, and they are satisfied that their model is airworthy.
• They are in good health, and capable of safely flying their model.


Pre-Flight Inspections

The best person to carry out these checks is the owner/pilot, as they know what is normal and what is abnormal about the state of the model, but by all means, ask another pilot or a flight line official for a second opinion or another pair of eyes if necessary.

A pre-flight checklist has been suggested, and these are very useful documents to make sure that the model is properly inspected at the start of every days flying and before each flight.

Because every aircraft is different, the detail of the inspection would be model-specific, but a generic inspection template could be produced if people would find one useful.

‘Deep’ Inspections of models have been suggested as a way forward. These would go far beyond any scrutineering inspection that has been carried out on model aircraft so far, and would be more akin to a full-size aircraft ‘annual inspection’ in scope. The model failure rate does not justify this level of inspection.


Conclusion

So, in summary, the reasons for removing ‘blanket’ scrutineering inspections at LMA events are-

• A lack of personnel available to actually carry out the inspections
• Scrutineering is only one small part of the overall risk assessment and control measures in place for LMA events.
• Re-enforcement of the need for pilots to carry out thorough pre-flight inspections (by asking them to confirm that the inspections have been carried out every day before a model can be flown)
• Spot checks will be carried out to ensure that standards of airworthiness are being maintained

None of these are in any way attempts to ‘abdicate’ any legal liability or responsibility away from the LMA committee / officials towards pilots. The LMA retains overall responsibility for the events it runs.

The LMA committee is confident that there will be no negative impact on safety through removing blanket scrutineering, but will monitor the situation over the 2013 season.

[Glenn Masters]

Well said Rob, I think you have made perfect sense of all of it. And I think it is worth mentioning that a vote of thanks is in order for all the willing helpers who have freely given their time for flightline checks (better term than "scrutineering") It is a thankless task that is all to easy taken for granted. Our kit has become more reliable and our collective knowledge has reached a point where these changes make sense - should we be afraid of taking responsibility for ourselves ?

[Alan King]

I must say the reasons given make perfect sense unfortunately it appeared the decision was made due to litigation elsewhere and this added confusion, again I must reiterate if this had all been posted or printed in the journal than this discussion would have prehaps been in a completely different vein.

I fully understand the difficulty in finding people to scrutineer and can see the commitees reason for the decision but i also trust that in future perhaps when a decision such as this is made the reasons will be given at the same time as the decision is made.

I do believe most models and flyers will be safe and apply sense to their flying but i still feel that the lack of a bit of officialdom could cause some chances to be taken and problems could result.

[John Greenfield]

Thank you for the clear and consice explaniation. I now consider the matter closed as far as I am concerned.

John

[Mike Booth]

Nothing left to doubt Rob.
Thorough, practical explanation and advice, many thanks.