A national flying site?

[David perry 1]

The Greenair Gadzooks looks like a lot of fun...a LOT of fun! I wish they'd get their website sorted out though, the damned thing is so user unfriendly Ive never yet managed to order from them.

 

While we're on it, the section on model rockets looks fun too...I might pop over the Avebury for a look sometime.

 

A good article on insurance too.

 

And an Obit for Vic Smeed.

 

All in all, not a bad issue.

 

D

[Simon B]

Try this link for the Gadzook. I managed to order a birthday present from my dad off there.

[Erfolg]

I personally was more interested with respect to the proposed increased BMFA fee to pay for a BMFA flying site, next year.

 

I am expecting that all the membership will be balloted on such a momentous move, outlining such issues as:-

 

a) Why, what is the purpose of the proposed field.

b) What is the expected purchase price.

c) What is the anticipated annual operating cost, for such things as

i) mowing

ii) site maintenance

iii) will insurance and other administrative cost be incurred.

d) where will it be located:-

1) A central UK location equidistant for those in Scotland as for the South of England.

2) Central England

3) SE where a large proportion of the UK population is located

e) Will there be an annual component of the Membership fee to pay for the ownership or Lease etc. Or will it be self financing, if so, how?

[David perry 1]

Ah they do some odd things!!

 

I still wear my crumbling MPA hat!

 

D

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

BMFA trolling maybe?

 

In addition, I think saying that it's a BMFA proposal is overstating the case a bit - seems it was one person's suggestion for discussion.

 

This is a very old chestnut and surely it won't reach a serious proposal? There are so many things against the idea, e.g. who would use it regularly enough to make a permanent site worthwhile other than people in a 25 mile (being generous) radius, who would regulate its use (or would it be free for anyone to do whatever they wanted) maintenance, security, the list goes on.

 

Best to just ignore it unless anyone sees fit to make a serious proposal.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Erfolg]

Martin

 

It could be argued as semantics, if "suggested" or "proposed", would be a more accurate.

 

My reading of the piece is that the subject, is provisionally pencilled in on this years agenda for discussion. Of course I could well be wrong.

 

 

This idea for a "national site", could be used as a means of broadening discussion, increasing inclusiveness, and by doing so increase the dynamism of the BMFA.

[Ultymate]

Goosedale didn't last long

[kc]

The idea of a BMFA owned site has 2 major faults

 

1 there is nowhere that would suit BMFA members who are all over Britain

2 That as soon as a site is purchased and used somebody will file a noise complaint and stop the flying so all the money will have been wasted!

 

It is obvious the BMFA would locate it near Leicester to suit their officials, so it would just be for BMFA insiders benefit but we all would pay. You have only to look at the BMFA News to see how much space is devoted to non RC such as freeflight & control line, while RC is without doubt the majority interest.  So this tell us much about the BMFA.  It is the majority paying for the minority interests.

 

Also look at the voting system.....has your club representative ever asked the club members for their views?.  How is your club rep appointed?  Does anyone attend?

Edited By kc on 25/01/2011 11:03:52

[David perry 1]

I'd back an RCME purchased site though! At least it would be well aligned to MY activities.

 

Come on Ashby clan, get rattling those tins!!

 

D

[Capt Kremen]

Hear, Hear KC,

 

The 'silent majority' of BMFA members are so for one purpose, the insurance that prudently and wisely we have should anything happen whilst pursuing our interests F/F, C/L, R/C, rockets etc. etc. (Can't remember the last time I saw anyone fly C/L or F/F in my area!)

 

Why don't they offer the option to opt out of receiving the glossy mag that could save a few bob surely?

(It could be online for those folk that want to view the photos of the great and glorious receiving their awards in Black Ties at 'the dinner' - what a waste of space in the last issue! To all but a few and those involved not needed or wanted).

 

Central flying site - again only of interest to 'locals' and the (relative) minorities of our hobby that pursue pots 'n trophies.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Looks like this (already retitled isn't it?) thread is going to deteriorate into another "knock the BMFA" list of woes.

 

I'm sure there are areas that could be handled better but we always seem to lose sight of the fact that "they" are "us". I'm generally content that my money provides me with, yes, insurance and also a great deal of behind the scenes lobbying and back up.

 

I would say "put up or shut up" to the naysayers - if you really feel the BMFA is going in the wrong direction then lobby your area or put yourself up for office - I'm pretty sure it's not a closed shop in most areas - you often see them appealing for new area (and national) committee members.

 

As an example, the good Captain above raises a fair point about electronic copies of the magazine - our club made the move to the default option for communication to be email a few years ago - but I would ask him, what has he done about it other than making the post above? I hope the answer is not "nothing" but I'll be pleasantly surprised if it isn't!

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Posted by David perry 1 on 25/01/2011 11:28:35:

I'd back an RCME purchased site though! At least it would be well aligned to MY activities.

 

Come on Ashby clan, get rattling those tins!!

 

D

 

LOL

 

Well I've always quite liked the idea - A nice big site for 365 days a year multi-discipline flying, a shop, museum etc. A proper home for British Aeromodelling, somewhere permenant, away from the fragility of club site tenancies........

 

....but then I'm a bit of a romantic at heart.

 

....yes thread title amended to reflect the thread Martin.

[Capt Kremen]

Hi Martin,

 

Proposed at National and my club BMFA representive level ... deafening silence ....

 

Sorry don't wish to be branded a BMFA basher but the reason the silent majority don't speak out is they don't like committees and the points of order MrChairman stuff that goes tediously with it. Most have enough of it already in the day job.

 

And ...Yes been there .. got the Committee T-Shirt on several occasions!!!

[Erfolg]

Martin

 

I hope you are not proposing that members should not discuss the issue.

 

To date the BMFA has not provided a path for the general membership to register their view. Why not go through my local delegates, both are broadly supportive of the notion. I have some concerns, but have I been heard, will my and similar views be recognised?

 

I first heard the proposition some 2-3 months back, with no real detail by a committee member who attended and one who sits on a regional sub committee during a discussion of the General Meeting.

 

 

I am pleased that you are content, others may not be as content. Surely they are entitled to air their concerns, support and views?

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

I'm not so sure a National flying site is a good idea. To be of any real use it would have to be huge - big enough to host the Nats for example. And that, in a reasonably central location, would cost a fortune! And I just couldn't see it benefiting the majority of the membership.

 

Having said that - I do agree with Martin on the "knocking the BMFA" front. OK, the organisation's not perfect. But it does do several things very well in my opinion;

 

1. Most importantly it represents us both nationally with the government and various organisations like the CAA, and locally in negoiations/advice with respect to flying sites.

 

2. It provides the insurance scheme - very useful. Yes, I know you cam organise your own - but having it organised for you, and being sure that it is approriate, is a benefit.

 

3, They organise the Nats. Now forget competition, the real point of the Nats, as far as I am concerned, is a once a year jamboree, shopping expedition, flying show, meet my mates weekend away saturated in my favourite activity!

 

4. They run the achievement scheme. Say what you like, I think its a positive force in our hobby and provides a framework which improves standards, promotes safer flying and aids "flyer mobility" by providing a sort of national baseline standard of competance. It may not be perfect - but its better than nowt!

 

For my money you can keep the rest. I don't resent others doing F/F and C/L etc, its a free country (well its fly to fly your model plane in - at least partly due to the BMFA!). But for me the above 4 benefits are worth the £26 a year or whatever. But a central flying field? I don't think so.

 

BEB

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Absolutely not, Erfolg, but discussing it here is not the same as BMFA bashing, which is the way I don't want to see the thread going.

 

Until we have a concrete proposal - or pretty good outline of such, it seems rather pointless people making comments about the BMFA building something in the rolling parklands and gardens of Chacksfield House (this is somewhat tongue in cheek by the way - take a look at the "mansion" on Google Street View) for the convenience of the Mandarins.

 

Surely anyone with concerns about THEIR organisation should address the problems at source, not simply bitch about them. In many clubs I've known, those who grumble most are usually (with occasional exceptions) those who "don't hold with committees" and won't make any real effort to do anything.

 

Capt. K - I applaud your efforts and hope you can get somewhere in the end - of course, in a democracy, enough people have to voice their opinions so if anyone has a concern, do what the Captain has and make yourself heard where it can count! If your representatives aren't representing you, that is in your hands as well...

Edited By Martin Harris on 25/01/2011 14:17:16

[Mowerman]

I seem to recall, some time ago there was a suggestion for the BMFA to purchase Barkston Heath in order to secure a permanent site for the Nationals.

What other benefit would there be for the majority of members?

Also, as pointed out above, it only takes one noise complaint to throw a spanner in the works.

[Geoff Smith 1]

Hiya all, time for my twopennyworth. I, like many others on this site are pensioners being 'got at' from all sides these days. £26 per year is a lot to me but I consider worth it. I would be strongly opposed to the purchase of a permanent site (using my money) that I couldn't use due to the distance involved, unless it's in Somerset of course. Ha! Ha!. Cheers

Geoff

[Erfolg]

I am very surprised and not a little shocked, that any suggestion that the BMFA should communicate directly with its general membership as BMFA knocking.

 

The BMFA membership is not enormous, in this day and age, there are many opportunities to communicate economically with the majority of the membership via the net, or the , in a way that is more effective than via committees.

 

Where the interest is narrow, such as competitive flying, committees are appropriate.

 

I urge communication on big issues which have an impact on all members should be as direct as possible. As an example the magazine could be used to provide a coupon/ballot paper for postal voting. It would be far more democratic. At the very least members should be able to openly state their views in an open forum.

 

 

 

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

I don't think Martin was suggesting that noone should question to be fair Erfolg. But you do have a point about communications.

 

One thing that really surprises me, most people would see our hobby as very technologically advanced. We talk freely and often about some very complex and sophisticated technical ideas; frequency hopping, lipo batteries, digital servos etc. But the communication mechanisms of our national body really are straight out of the 1950's! No strike that, more like the 1850's!!!

 

Firstly in the days before the web, video conferencing, skype and email, committees and area meetings and all the rest might have been appropriate - but not today. Erfolg is absolutely right - the BMFA does need to look seriously at its communications strategy as a matter of some urgency. You could argue that in these times the whole concept of "representatives" going to meeting in far flung places to decide the future of the majority is dated (hang on haven't I just described parliamentary democracy there?! Never mind). Why not have a password system and internet voting on major issues? Why is there no monthly email newsletter? Why do I have to go to the website to find out what going on where I might find the minutes of my area committee - or then again I might not!

 

Secondly - look at the magazine. Oh dear, oh dear. Just put it down on the table next to RCM&E and compare the two. Depressing isn't it. OK, I know RCM&E is a professional product charging premium magazine prices etc. But the problem isn't really about quality - or even content. Its the appearence - from the very staid and dated typeface to the 1960's latout it all feels very dated. I've seen school magazines produced on a tight buget which would knock the BMFA mag into a cocked hat.

 

I can't buy anything from them - from membership to badges - over the internet. Why not? Again in this day and age this is basic to any professional service organisation.

 

I'm not knocking the BMFA as such, as I say above they do several things well. But in my view the main reason they pull all this scorn down on themselves is their appalling communications. I don't think they do it deliberately. They are not trying to exclude anyone I think. Sadly I just don't think they know any better.

 

They need to sort this and if there is money to spare its a much bigger priority than a National Flying Site!

 

BEB

[andy watson]

I can't disagree with the comments about communications, but the idea of a "national" flying site is excellent- even though I might never visit.

 

The membership is circa 30k if I remember correctly. We were talking at our club about the prospect of buying the field as opposed to renting and the sums being bandied around were about £150k. Well beyond the remit of our club, but £1 onto BMFA subs, and it is a 5 year deal. Better still save over a quid for the paper magazine and it comes free! Obviously other sites might cost more, or less, but the principle is sound.

 

The upkeep is irrelevant- you simply ask a local club to move onto the patch, pay a peppercorn rent but are responsible for maintainance and must host X events per year.

 

This achieves a permanant base for RC flying in these days of pressure on open spaces. More importantly in 5 years time a new patch can be bought......and on and on and on. If this had been done since 1922, we would have a network of "official" flying sites that were not beholden to farmers extortionate rent demands or changes of mind.

 

Seems like a plan to me.

[Romeo Whisky]

I am horrified that the BMFA AGM should have given it any credence at all. It would benefit just a privileged few who lived close by (in Leicester?) and the rest of us would be paying for it forever. It would have to be huge to host the Nationals so there'd be no saving there.

 

No No NO!

[ken anderson.]

think a better idea would be a few site's around the country run-poss owned by the BMFA.....for member's.........will it happen(nah)...not a chance........

 

ken anderson ne...1.

[Peter Beeney]

Back in the dim and distant past I belonged to a club that were eventually able to buy their field. At the time I put forward a suggestion that the members bought the field and the site was then ran by a trust, for and by the club, consisting of young and older members and one non-member, preferably a solicitor. This meant £250 up front, which bought 10 ‘future years’, at £25 per year and this was 150 members. I read all the books on the subject from the library etc; and of course, there was a lot more to it; I tried to do all the homework and cover all the angles. One important aspect, I thought, there were some members that couldn’t afford it, but there were others, a fair few, in fact, that were prepared to put in more than £1,000 to start with, and then being paid back as more more money was paid in. The advantages of owning your own field are legion and manifold!! It’s a very attractive proposition indeed!

I suspect that nowadays these figures are way out of date, things are a bit expensive today. It would need some research.

However, in the event, this was not even considered by the committee, they wanted to make the rules, rather than the members.

However, could something like this work as an locally organised entity? If the BMFA were prepared to do the legwork, finding the sites and sorting out the planning permission, or Certificate of Lawful Use etc. to start with, then some local clubs in various areas might be able to organise something. There are many pitfalls, not least that of the power struggle as to who would be overall in charge. I’m personally all for making the rules as few as possible, but what rule you do have everyone understands and abides by; and above all, they should be decided by a majority membership, and after some debate, if necessary.

This is just a thought, and I’m sure it would be generally dismissed, as before, but I’m not really convinced that a dedicated BMFA site is ever going to get off the ground. (Sorry!).

The BMFA might still have a sum of money somewhere about their person, was it about £100,000? as overpaid VAT, I think. Has that ever been accounted for? I did make a couple of enquires way back, to BMFA officials when they came to our club meetings, but the answers were somewhat evasive.

I’ve still got the reams of hand written notes that I did at the time, no computers back then!

PB