Dizz

See you there! Jamie and I will be with the JMA display

No idea Simon, it will depend what work has to be done wrt access, clearing areas, etc: a suitable site hasn't yet been identified yet alone bought. Pete

Posted by john stones 1 on 16/06/2015 18:04:51: Country members can and did give their opinion at our club meeting, their opinion/ vote will not count towards our clubs vote though, because they are Country members, so are not included in the club number. Please tell me I've got that wrong i'm getting headache John No, you have got that correct John: only members with that club shown as their lead club will count towards the number. Pete

Thanks Andy - and thank you Mr Chairman That maybe the case Dave, but that is the way it currently works. I know the one member, one vote has been looked at before, which resulted in the move in that direction for elected officials at the AGM. There were sound reasons for not rolling it out further at the time, but unfortunately I can't remember what they were right now. Hopefully the NFC debate will re-invigorate the process. Pete

Think the General Meeting voting process was covered earlier, but just to re-iterate: usually voting is by a simple majority of a show of hands - one attendee, one vote. However, voting can be by a "poll vote" which can be called by the Chairman, Council or 5 or more voting members in person or proxy before a show of hands on that resolution (taken from the Articles of Association). This is when proxy votes come into play. Each club represented at the meeting is credited with the numbers shown on the BMFA books 28 days before the General Meeting, ie the number of members with that club shown on their BMFA membership card. The voting strength is recorded on that club's card issued during signing in process and during the vote it is then posted in the appropriate ballot box. During the vote it is possible for an attendee to comply with their proxy instructions (can carry a maximum of 5 proxies) and place voting cards in both "for" and "against" ballot boxes. When I checked with BMFA HQ at lunchtime yesterday a poll vote had not yet been called. There are approximately 10,000 country members. HTH Pete

Posted by Dizz on 15/06/2015 11:50:30: .....................Agree with your view on the meeting requirements and have just sent an email to HQ seeking clarification if a poll vote has been called yet or not (under 5.9.2.1)....................... Edited By Dizz on 15/06/2015 11:51:42 Received a quick reply to my requests and as of approx 12.30 a poll vote had not been called for. It was also confirmed that it would be perfectly acceptable/achievable for an attendee to carry and register both "for" and "against" proxy votes if it came to a poll vote. Pete

Posted by Peter Jenkins on 14/06/2015 20:57:41: I've just checked the Articles of Association and I have pasted the relevant sections below: 5.7.6. Votes may be given on a poll either personally or by proxy. On a show of hands only members present in person shall be entitled to vote. Proxy votes, given by one member to another shall be taken into account only in a poll. 5.7.7. Members entitled to vote may give proxies to any other member entitled to vote, subject to a maximum of five proxies to any one member. Proxies must be in writing and lodged with the Secretary of the Society at least twenty-four hours before the allotted time of the meeting.   5.9.1. A poll on a resolution may be demanded: 5.9.1.1. in advance of the general meeting where it is to be put to the vote; 5.9.1.2. or at a general meeting before a show of hands on that resolution. 5.9.2. A poll may be demanded by: 5.9.2.1. the Chair of the meeting; 5.9.2.2. the Council; 5.9.2.3. five or more Voting Members present in person or proxy having the right to vote on the resolution or, if less, a person or persons representing not less than one-tenth of the total voting rights of all the members having the right to vote on the resolution.   As I see it then, a proxy is only valid when a poll vote is taken and a poll vote has to be called before the show of hands at the very latest. I would suspect that the reason a show of hands does not include a proxy is that it might cause some confusion as to the actual number of votes being cast - how do you vote for 5 with only 2 hands? For a poll vote you have to be in possession of the Club's card which you will be given on the day when you register for the meeting. The card also includes the number of votes for that Club, Seems like a poll vote will be the sensible way to go.   Peter Having been abroad the last week on business I have been out of the loop since the EGM called. Agree with your view on the meeting requirements and have just sent an email to HQ seeking clarification if a poll vote has been called yet or not (under 5.9.2.1). In theory, with a little planning and using car sharing, 4 club delegates could attend with each representing 5 clubs = 20 club votes in total and travel costs reduced.  BTW, it is a 620+ mile round trip from down here and I have already agreed to carry 5 proxies. See you on the 4th! Peter   Edited By Dizz on 15/06/2015 11:51:42

Posted by MattyB on 11/06/2015 10:30:42: Fair enough, but it needs to be a two way thing. If they want to convince members of the case for an NFC and the validity of the LLF site the BMFA should provide the information by multiple channels (BMFA News and on the website), and then allow the members sufficient time to absorb it and provide their feedback via club and area meetings. Time will also be needed to allow clubs to ensure they are represented at the EGM and agree all the logisitics (this is particularly important for clubs that will need to send someone a long way to attend). Assuming most clubs and BMFA areas meeting on a monthly basis (not sure if that is correct or not?), that would mean at least 2 months and more optimally 3 between release of the information and the EGM being held...................... FYI the SMAE/BMFA Articles of Association (effectively a Constitution) state that a minimum of 21 days between the Hon Sec calling an EGM and it taking place. Pete

Posted by Erfolg on 04/06/2015 13:33:40. ...............Then again there are other aspects of finance that legally need to disclosed to the public and other cases to I would like to see similar efforts as those being expended on LLF, NFC being directed to seeking greater access to NT properties (being one of the largest UK landowners), for both gliders and electric power. On the basis that both forms of aeromodelling have a very low impact on the tranquillity of the countryside etc. This would serve a greater benefit, to a greater proportion of ordinary members, than a competition centre. Actually the ~15 year old agreement with the NT is already being jointly reviewed with an intent to an updatein due course. Pete

Posted by DH 82A on 23/05/2015 12:19:57: Is there no end to Bumfa's interference with our hobby? Bit harsh: the Achievement Scheme is entirely voluntary. Pete

Posted by Dave Hopkin on 23/05/2015 12:30:07: But if you look at the slo-mo of the projectile going down the range, you can see it starting to tumble already - that does not bode well for range or accuracy in operational use Edited By Dave Hopkin on 23/05/2015 12:30:23 I disagree: the first firing does indeed tumble, but that seems to be a brick-like lump. The later shots (with the sabot and central dart projectile) punch a straight line of holes in the target plates. If the USN are actually deploying it in a trials vessel then the concept must have legs. Pete Edited By Dizz on 23/05/2015 15:06:13

Martin As it happens several Areas were caught "in limbo" between their SMAE Ltd Company Director and Area Delegate responsibilities. I'm afraid you will have to wait for the official feed back on the meeting for any specifics, which should be forthcoming fairly soon. Sorry. Pete

I haven't finished BEB. Also FYI from Council Handbook (Issue 8 Feb 15), Appendix B: The Council Delegate is expected to attend the Society’s Council meetings and report Council business to the Area. An important point is that the Council Delegate is made a Director of the SMAE Ltd at the first Council meeting that he attends and thereafter every January. The Delegate is required to sign the Director’s declaration form at the Council meeting. It is important to note that the Council Delegate is NOT mandated in either the Area Constitution or the SMAE Articles of Association to follow the Area’s wishes in all matters. The most that the Delegate is required to do is to ‘liaise between the Council and the Area Committee’ and to ‘ensure that Council is kept informed’ of the opinions of the Area Committee and the clubs within the Committee’s jurisdiction. In practice the Council Delegate will follow the Area’s wishes whenever he can but Areas should take note that there are occasions at Council when matters are raised from the floor and the Delegate will be asked to make decisions purely on what he hears around the table. Also, and perhaps more importantly, the Delegate will sometimes be asked consider a matter at Council purely as an independent Director of SMAE Ltd and he will have to do exactly that, with no reference to Area opinions whatsoever. The fact that the Council Delegate must be a Director of SMAE Ltd is the reason for the 7 days notification of change and it should also be noted that the Delegate must also be either a member of an affiliated club or a Fellow of the Society to comply with the main SMAE Constitution. The Council Delegate is also a voting member of the Areas Council. If the Council Delegate has to miss a Council meeting for any reason then he may send a substitute. At the Council meeting the substitute has all the responsibilities of a Director, albeit temporarily. This can be very useful for an Area as it will sometimes allow other Area officers gain experience of a Council meeting that they would otherwise never have. This should not be underestimated as it can give the Area Committee an insight into the work that is required of their Delegate.

FYI from the BMFA Council Handbook available on the web site: 1.1 The BMFA is a legally constituted “Not for Profit” organisation and as such it is formally registered at Companies House. This means that it is subject to relevant legislation, which is handled by a formal Constitution with governance by a Board of Directors, the Full Council, which is charged with representing the interests of all of the members. This dictates the nature of some of the BMFA structure. 1.2 In the pre-internet era, the primary link that ordinary club members had with the BMFA was via their club and respective Area. Now that the day-to-day running of the BMFA is handled by the professional staff in the BMFA Office, headed by the CEO, much contact to and from individual members is done directly from that office albeit usually through the member’s club. 1.3 However, the work of the BMFA office is supported throughout the organisation by volunteers who are vital to the running of the organisation. The Areas, with their volunteers, continue to provide a vital link between the clubs and the BMFA and help ensure that the interests of the ordinary club flier can be properly represented and protected. 1.4 To many fliers, the BMFA is simply the organisation which provides their insurance so that they can fly safely at their local club field. Other than that and perhaps the bimonthly BMFA News magazine, they have little contact with the organisation other than when things go wrong, such as a threat to their flying field for example. However, as the motto says, “Together we Achieve” and the interests of both the fliers and the organisation benefit from a continued interaction via the Areas. 1.5 The Full Council mentioned above, is made up of three elements: ten Elected Officers (much like a club committee), representatives from the five Technical Committees, which look after the competition disciplines, and fourteen Area Representatives, one from each of the BMFA’s Areas plus a Delegate from the Royal Navy Model Aircraft Association, (collectively known as Areas Council) who ultimately look after the clubs in their Area and thus the individual fliers. Inevitably this wide representation results in a large Council which, at times, makes for slow decision making. 1.6 The five Technical Committees handle the rules and competitions for their disciplines. They have regular interaction through the Technical Council and a good understanding of the interests and activities of competition fliers. 1.7 The Areas representatives are there to look after the interests of the clubs and their members within the Area and hence rely on input from their clubs in order to do this. Collectively, the Areas play a vital role as Areas Council in administering the Achievement scheme. They are responsible for appointing Area Chief Examiners, who in turn agree examiner appointments to club level and so help improve standards of flying and safety for all. The Achievement Scheme is a good example of something the organisation provides for every flier, not just those interested in competitions. The Areas Council appoints the members of the Achievement Scheme Review Committee (ASRC) and has final administrative oversight of their activities, decisions and recommendations.

Posted by Erfolg on 13/05/2015 15:50:59: Dizz I accept that the figure of £6m is wrong, in that it was quoted as available on the BMFA site. I had no idea of knowing it was correct or where the figure can be found. It was not disputed by the two people who may have known. If it is much higher, then it becomes more of an issue of how it is to funded and the time scales envisaged. There is one bit of info that I do not want to labour, although available from the sales pack and that is about crops that apparently will be grown on the site, for a period, if I remember correctly of 4 years. If the contracted arrangements are not bought out (if that is possible), it seems that the use of the fields will be restricted for that period. Perhaps another issue is that the buildings are derelict, which indicates that either refurbishment or new build is required to create accommodation. Which comes at a cost. During the discussion it became apparent that the size of the fields, is very similar to the one that my club flies of at this time. I am less than convinced that all the facilities can be built on the site and still retain sensible feasibility for all the envisaged disciplines. Without facilities some suggest that the venue is to small for free flight, without encroachment onto adjacent farm land. If true, could become an issue with the farmers concerned. It does seem that this is probably not the right field, the location is also contentious for many, not being near the geographical centre of England, that is before considering Wales. My opinion is still pretty much the same, I need more information with respect to finance and I am now convinced that for us RC modellers there is not a major issue, that is without substantial buildings. For some others 100 acres or 42 hectares is to small. I still remain sceptical that the study is as comprehensive and is as structured as I would expect, although many others they may find the content is acceptable. Above all I would like to see it, hopefully to be pleasantly surprised. I do believe the BMFA needs to start communicating fully with its ordinary members and take us with them, if the journey is to happen and be successful. Edited By Erfolg on 13/05/2015 15:51:51 Edited By Erfolg on 13/05/2015 15:53:22 Edited By Erfolg on 13/05/2015 15:55:28 The study document anticipates the development of a NFC with staged funding over at least 5 years. Define "near". For people in my part of the country, a 30 mile shift in location makes little difference in reality; it is still a very long drive. However the selection criteria did actually include weighting for proximity to the population centre (rather than geographic centre). Any site, no matter what, is going to be subject to the distance from home argument. Pete

Posted by Dave Hopkin on 13/05/2015 15:02:49: Posted by Dizz on 13/05/2015 14:46:13: Posted by Dave Hopkin on 13/05/2015 13:28:36: That's one of the things I have not seen, a sustainability plan (assuming all the implementation funding happens) - how is the center going to pay for itself - I would love to see something like the NFC but not at the expense of creating a millstone round the BMFA's neck To be honest I cant see how anywhere near enough funds could be generated from visiting sports flyers, unless the cost of flying there was extortionate (which would be self defeating) - yes there are the Nats and other shows (LMA, FPV?) that might be encouraged to use the facilities - but that will only be for a handful weekends a year - so where are the running costs coming from - I somehow dont think and aeromodelling museum is going to cause traffic jams of traffic queuing to get in can you? There are sustainment funding figures quoted in the document, but I expect if you asked 15 people to estimate them you would get 25 different answers. Something to factor is that thePower Nats at Barkston Heath run on a 500+ acre airfield and still there are encorachments between discplines: the proposed site is only 107 acres. BTW, the £6M for the project Erfolg quotes is wrong; in the study the building cost estimate alone exceeds that figure. I will be visiting the site before the Full Council meeting.............looking forward to it. Pete Edited By Dizz on 13/05/2015 14:47:14 Can you share a link to the doc with the sustainability numbers in please Afraid not, got it in hard copy only

Posted by Dave Hopkin on 13/05/2015 13:28:36: That's one of the things I have not seen, a sustainability plan (assuming all the implementation funding happens) - how is the center going to pay for itself - I would love to see something like the NFC but not at the expense of creating a millstone round the BMFA's neck To be honest I cant see how anywhere near enough funds could be generated from visiting sports flyers, unless the cost of flying there was extortionate (which would be self defeating) - yes there are the Nats and other shows (LMA, FPV?) that might be encouraged to use the facilities - but that will only be for a handful weekends a year - so where are the running costs coming from - I somehow dont think and aeromodelling museum is going to cause traffic jams of traffic queuing to get in can you? There are sustainment funding figures quoted in the document, but I expect if you asked 15 people to estimate them you would get 25 different answers. Something to factor is that thePower Nats at Barkston Heath run on a 500+ acre airfield and still there are encorachments between discplines: the proposed site is only 107 acres. BTW, the £6M for the project Erfolg quotes is wrong; in the study the building cost estimate alone exceeds that figure. I will be visiting the site before the Full Council meeting.............looking forward to it. Pete   Edited By Dizz on 13/05/2015 14:47:14

Posted by Frank Skilbeck on 08/05/2015 20:46:09: And who selects these dictators sorry directors? You do, well the membership actually. Pete

Posted by Andy Meade on 08/05/2015 19:24:38: Were the 2014 accounts available anywhere? I guess they may have only just closed that fiscal year though? Edited By Andy Meade on 08/05/2015 19:24:53 Yes, only just closed off for the year. Accounts and budget for the next year are presented to the Full Council meeting in September and when approved go forward to the AGM in November. All clubs get a hard copy with the calling notice for the AGM. Pete

Posted by MattyB on 07/05/2015 12:47:04: ................... Either way I don't think there is much more any of us can do now, other than making your representation to your area committee member - hopefully if enough people do this there will be enough votes to put the brakes on thsi proposal until financial modelling can be shared and questioned by rank and file members and a revised proposal put forward. Of course Area Committees make take the view to endorse this proposal.

Posted by Martin Harris on 06/05/2015 12:18:29: Surely an EGM is a form of referendum? I'm trying to remain objective about the proposals but I get the feeling that a small faction is thoroughly in favour of the idea and is pushing the project through with undue haste - just a feeling, based on the feedback from the BMFA, but one that seems to be shared by many others. My vision was a feasibility study to be considered by the membership, approval of the idea and then detailed examination of site availabilities. To tell us that the prospective land purchase is simply a financial investment with just a possibility of using it in the future doesn't seem to fit in with the chairman's letter published on the BMFA website and feels rather patronising to me. Edited By Martin Harris on 06/05/2015 12:26:10 My thoughts too Martin

Further to my 16:42 post on 2/5/15, the information pack was waiting on the mat when I got back to Torbay this afternoon: 13 pages and 8 appendix to read and inwardly digest. As I am down in the SW, achieving one of the site visit slots is going to be challenging

Posted by cymaz on 01/05/2015 06:26:45: If the meeting is that important..put it on the front page for all to see. Club members have a greater chance of seeing it and then asking their delegate. I had no idea Peter Disney was going. I will email him or see him at Truro Club sometime and ask him what is going on. Now I will also ask our area chairman. It seems too cloak and dagger....BMFA should publicise meetings more via the front web page.   Cymaz: The subject of a National Centre along with the way forward in general for the BMFA and Areas organisation has been discussed many times in the last year at the Sub Area meetings.  It will be on the agenda again next Friday.  I am surprised you are not aware that I, as the Area Delegate, attend Full Council meetings (and Areas Council as required): who do you think represents the collective views of the county up the line? All BMFA members in the county (including Country Members) are, and always have been, very welcome to attend the meetings at Trispen.  I look forward to seeing you at the Clock and Key at 19.00 on Friday-mine's a pint of Tribute thanks. Pete Edited By Dizz on 02/05/2015 16:56:53

Here is the proposal to be put to Full Council in 2 weeks time. PROPOSAL: That Council endorses the actions agreed upon unanimously by the BMFA Executive Committee on 11th April to make all relevant planning and change of use searches while concurrently contacting the selling agents of Laws Lawn Farm in East Northamptonshire in order to open negotiations on making an offer to purchase (subject to contract ) the said property. REASON: Background factors: By the date of the next BMFA Council meeting in May, all Council members will have received an exhaustively complete feasibility study document detailing the thorough nature of the searches for suitable sites and, more importantly, the overall financial feasibility and viability of acquiring and effectively maintaining a National Centre for the BMFA. Additionally all Council members will have received and hopefully accepted an invitation from the BMFA Office to visit the proposed flying/ National Centre site and formed a view as to its suitability. As it stands and at the time of submitting this proposal, the BMFA has not received permission from the appropriate authorities to host the Free Flight, Power or Silent Flight Nationals at Barkston and/or Cranwell in 2015; additionally the BMFA is only too aware of increasing difficulties in gaining access to any MoD sites such as Salisbury Plain and Middle Wallop. While this proposal offers no solutions to the immediate 2015 problems it highlights the increasingly difficult and uncertain situation in accessing major MoD sites and underlines the need for the BMFA to secure a site over which it exercises control. The UK economic situation is such that we can expect ever increasing pressure on the MoD to reduce costs and maximise usage of its remaining sites; moreover with all political parties planning massive housebuilding programmes all MoD sites for disposal or changed use will be considered primarily for housing or commercial development which renders them likely to be unaffordable to the BMFA. Interest rates on financial loans are at an historic low in the UK which for the foreseeable future makes an outright purchase more attractive and financially sound. Reasoning: To secure longer term support funding for this project the BMFA is aware that grant-funding bodies and other potential investors will need to see a high degree of financial commitment already in place before considering any applications. To achieve this the BMFA has been fortunate in identifying a site which immediately offers a tangible and affordable first step while offering the potential for further development as additional funding becomes available. If an offer to purchase is accepted, the BMFA’s financial situation, coupled with expectations of support from our very generous insurance brokers, means that these initial actions through to 2016 require no additional financing via the BMFA’s membership fee. Extensive information and consultation with our membership will now begin culminating in either an EGM or AGM motion in 2015 seeking to better inform the membership on the details of this project and enlisting their views and hopefully overall support. Key to this is the fact that a land acquisition of this nature at this time makes good financial sense for the reason that BMFA funds invested currently are receiving virtually no interest while land continues to escalate considerably in value. The Executive is vitally committed to proceeding on this project through an active support and information process in place with Council, clubs and country members. However, as anybody who has ever purchased a house or other property will know, the process of negotiating a price and securing a purchase with agents, often playing interested parties off against each other, is a volatile and fast moving process. The BMFA Executive Committee takes the view that, if we are ever to succeed in such a venture, actions will have to be taken in a timely manner which renders a consultation with our thirty six thousand members virtually impractical. However, safeguards must be in place to protect the interests of our membership. To this end, the Executive is clear that even if further development is impossible after purchase, either because of a majority or convincingly reasoned rejection from the membership, or a possible error in the BMFA’s financial planning, no cost penalty will accrue to the membership as the land may be re-sold. Indeed, it may prove profitable. Conclusion: Clearly this represents a major step for the BMFA and indicates a way forward that puts the BMFA in a controlling position of a major flying site for the first time. The Executive Committee has agonised at length over this decision and is unanimously of the view that this is the right thing to do at the right time. We are hugely concerned that we act in the best long term interests for model flying in the UK and this potential property acquisition gives the BMFA a way forward which may ultimately mean we can promote events and programmes of interest to and support from all our members without having to rely on the vacillating and sometimes grudging support of those bodies such as the MoD. Given the full documentary briefing you will have had, plus guided access to the proposed site, I, on behalf of the unanimously agreed Executive Committee, commend this proposal to you and, in seeking your endorsement to the actions already taken, sincerely trust that you will actively support the future consultative processes with our members leading to an informed and positive outcome. Thank you. Chris Moynihan, Chairman NB I haven't received the additional information pack or an invitation to view the site yet Pete Disney RNMAA and SW Area Delegate

Posted by Erfolg on 16/04/2015 15:45:54: I have cloud model 163, which is pretty much identical in span. Launching it, is hit and miss, requiring a good launcher. It seems that the drop of undercarriage would do the trick for me, which is available as a spare. How difficult do you think it would be to retrofit into a model such as the cloud version? The drop-off wheel set is listed as a spare, but the actuator isn't. However I expect it will become available as a standard item on the HK site idc. Afraid no idea whether it would fit or not as I am not familiar with the Cloud Models Me163.