A National Aeromodelling Centre

[Alan Cantwell]

this is very very interesting, the national flying site thing has been aired many many times, its a non starter, R/C power flyers have blinkers, there are many differant branches of flying, not just R/C. not just power R/C either, what do the other branches do? flying free flight might lose the field, noisy power models might lose the field, it just wont work,

 

BUT, a national site to celebrate the history of this great hobby/sport, is LONG over due, and a location such as housing in a national museum is a superb idea, there are thousands of treasures seconded away up and down the country, they need, not a flying site, but a museum, and why not have it collated with the BMFAs help? fuddy duddy it might be, but if this idea has merit, and its put into a goverment enviroment, then that goverment will only deal with a national body, do it privatly, and it will fall at the first hurdle, it would be great as another attraction at a national museum, where ever it is, but would NOT stand alone

 

as for goosdale, well, good old Mike didnt see eye to eye with the town planners, and sadly, it closed, Mike fell ill, and sadly died on the operating table, and a great museum got crated up, and sold to an american buyer, the dream died with Mike

[Tim Mackey]

lets not turn this thread into a BMFA bashing session - in fact, the poll simply asked whether a national centre would be good /bad , no-ones said it has to be anything to do with the BMFA!

[Andy Symons]

What happened to the idea of individual postal votes - has it been dropped?

Edited By Martin Harris on 16/08/2011 20:11:49

No, still very much in operation!!

Edited By Andy Symons on 16/08/2011 20:31:59

[Andy Symons]

On principle I can see nothing at all wrong with there being a National Aeromodelling centre, I don't see how anyone could be against the principle of it.

 

However the implementation of it is the big issue, how its funded initially and ongoing is really the only issue, personally I would have no problem with say an extra couple of pounds on my BMFA subs every year, irrespective of whether the site is near me or whether I would use it. £2 a year is neither here or there in the grand scheme of things.

 

That said I'm happy to wait to see what the feasibility study brings forward and then make my judgement accordingly.

[Erfolg]

Perhaps a postal vote is a very good vehicle to establish if the membership will support a National Site.

 

It seems that I am not the only one who has issues with what is Democratic. It seems we all have our own ideas.

 

In my opinion, you defiantly need a Structured Proposal to vote upon. A vague do you support a National Facility, vote "yes" or "no" is not enough.

 

 

 

 

[Andy Symons]

Posted by Erfolg on 16/08/2011 20:54:32:

Perhaps a postal vote is a very good vehicle to establish if the membership will support a National Site.

 

It seems that I am not the only one who has issues with what is Democratic. It seems we all have our own ideas.

 

In my opinion, you defiantly need a Structured Proposal to vote upon. A vague do you support a National Facility, vote "yes" or "no" is not enough.

 

Agree 100%

[Alan Cantwell]

ERM, I did not knock the BMFA, far from it, i would wish them to be heavily involved with such a museum, and as i said, if it goes into a goverment building/museum, then said goverment will only deal with a national body, this would get my vote in an instant, and my cash, plus a donation

[Tim Mackey]

I didnt aim it at you Alan - just a general caution to all

[kc]

Well Andy Symons may not see how anyone could be against it, but it's obvious to the rest of us that it's only going to be of real value to those who live within an hours drive or less. That means most of the members will not be able to use it as a regular flying field, but will still have to pay for it! And 2 pounds a year from each BMFA member would not even pay the wages bill let alone buy the property or building.

I am correct in saying that ordinary members do not get the chance to vote on proposals such as the subs. National Centre or any other proposals Did we ever get the chance to vote on the change the name from Society of Model Aeronautical Engineers to BMFA? And " Country Members" do not have an opportunity to send a delegate even though they probably outnumber any individual club membership.

 

Clearly it is not a viable propostion financially or Eaton Bray and Goosedale would still be here and other centres would have been built. Anyone who wants a National Centre should start such an organisation and fund it not leech onto BMFA funds and eventually bankrupt it.

If its a financially sound idea then why doesn't MyHobbyStores build it?

Edited By kc on 17/08/2011 00:46:31

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Whatever you say about "the rest of us" there has been a constant majority for the idea, at least in principle, all the way through polling KC.

 

BEB

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

With respect, the question is a little ambiguous - while I'd quite like to see one I don't think I'd be in favour of the BMFA creating and running one from its (our) own funds. If a serious self-funding or lightly susidised sustainable proposal could be formulated then I'd probably be in favour of if it!

[Erfolg]

On reflection I a have a similar view as KC to the idea of an levy or increase in subs. We have lived through a decade where money has been thrown at this months good idea, by government. No or little consideration to the views of the broader communities was considered as relevant, or informed. Yet much of the money was wasted, with the the cost of impoverishing the UK. Taxes increased, many companies relocating overseas (both head offices and manufacturing) to avoid taxes. Could the same happen to the BMFA, lost membership, people abandoning modelling etc.?

 

For the very nebulous project to have any chance, a champion is required. Experience does show that the majority of successful projects are driven by at least one individual. Be it your own club, Virgin Brand, Microsoft, Apple, going back in time Isambard Kingdom Brunnel. A list would be almost limitless all individuals. For failure, think R101, Brabazon and other projects driven via committees, where success was limited and achieved at great expense. I suspect some of the previous National sites failed, as the driving force died or lost interest. So step forward into the limelight "champion" and start selling.

 

With respect to the financial viability, I suspect it is at best marginal. Consideration would need to be given to the worst case. If BMFA membership falls, if income, is some percentage lower than projected, if operational expenses increase etc. Will the preferred financial model viability be compromised, in the short and long term? I believe the current buzz word for the process is "financial stress testing".

 

 

I also remember being told about the USSR, the people all had a vote, they could vote for the party candidate they wished, the successful candidate would sit on a council, the council would select a member for the regional assembly, and so on and so on. This person thought the process was truly democratic and transparent. Many other people did not see this as a a true democratic process. Yes, I know, some do.

 

[A.A. Barry]

AS a comparison, how much do you all pay BFMA a year, and then your club fees?????

At the moment we (Aus) pay $95.00 to the state assos. 1/2 of that goes to the national body MAAA, our local club asks for $5.00 a yr, but some clubs are as high as $350.00 yr inc. national fee

The same rules apply as your clubs, 3 visits to fly and then you must join.

One of the benifets of the national body is that if a club wants to upgrade their site they can put in a proposal for a loan up to $100.000.00 at a very small interest rate

So how does this compare with your fees

A.A. Barry

 

devide $'s by 1.6 and that should be close to the UK pound

Edited By A.A. Barry on 17/08/2011 10:13:04

[Erfolg]

AA

 

I like the idea of loans to purchase flying sites.

 

How do you make the business case, that the club will be able to repay the loan?

[Andy Symons]

Posted by kc on 17/08/2011 00:40:37:

Well Andy Symons may not see how anyone could be against it, but it's obvious to the rest of us that it's only going to be of real value to those who live within an hours drive or less. That means most of the members will not be able to use it as a regular flying field, but will still have to pay for it! And 2 pounds a year from each BMFA member would not even pay the wages bill let alone buy the property or building.

I am correct in saying that ordinary members do not get the chance to vote on proposals such as the subs. National Centre or any other proposals Did we ever get the chance to vote on the change the name from Society of Model Aeronautical Engineers to BMFA? And " Country Members" do not have an opportunity to send a delegate even though they probably outnumber any individual club membership.

 

Clearly it is not a viable propostion financially or Eaton Bray and Goosedale would still be here and other centres would have been built. Anyone who wants a National Centre should start such an organisation and fund it not leech onto BMFA funds and eventually bankrupt it.

If its a financially sound idea then why doesn't MyHobbyStores build it?

Edited By kc on 17/08/2011 00:46:31

KC

 

I'm not sure you understood what I put, either that or you didn't read it properly, so I shall try to make it clear, I don't see how anyone can consider a national aeromodelling centre a bad thing, what detrimental effect could it have on anything?? What is at issue is who sets it up, how its setup and how its financed. As there is no information yet on those questions we cannot make an informed decision. The poll asks a hypothetical and quite ambiguous question "Would you like to see a nationalAeromodelling centre?" it doesn't ask "Would you like to see a National Aeromodelling centre funded out of BMFA subscriptions or funds?" an entirely different question.

 

So my answer to the poll question is yes, but until I have had a chance to study any in depth proposals that are brought forward I don't know if I would lend my support or not, I certainly wouldn't rule it out without seeing any indepth proposals, that would be a bit blinkered in my opinion.

 

Also I would be quite happy to pay a few extra pounds on my subscription to help towards funding one, others may not be which is fair enough.

 

Hope that makes my position easier to understand for you.

 

As to the levels of democracy within the BMFA, its been done to death elsewhere, surfice it to say that I am happy with the current system, its not perfect but then what system is.

 

 

 

 

Edited By Andy Symons on 17/08/2011 10:35:47

[Flanker .]

I think it is a silly idea. A new HQ will lead to increased costs to members - building, wages more staff (bigger building needs more staff)

 

Does the association of a minority interest NEED a big new HQ ? No just a better rented office space.

 

A museum ok . Been done before and was it popular and well visited ? No. Bye bye Goosedale. OK the history of model flight is marginally interesting - to us. Would I drive 200 miles to see it ? Would anyone ? No. Attached to the science Museum as a special exhibition would be a good idea.

 

A national flying site ? Er what for ? We all HAVE flying sites already. Reminds me of the ill fated MPA ! How long did their flying sites MPA 1 etc last ?

 

A better office space and more energy combating legislation against us is where the energy and money should be going 1 Vote NO.

 

Grumpy Flanker !

Edited By Flanker . on 17/08/2011 10:45:45

[andy watson]

Sorry KC, but I think your asrguments are almost completely wrong. Your statement "it is obvious to the rest of us" shows you are not really listening to other peoples views as the poll suggests you are in a minority.

 

Your main argument seems to be that the site will inevitably be shut down on the basis if noise. I disagree with this completely- obviously on the basis that the site chosen is suitable. Flying clubs around the country have managed to deal with the noise aspect of the hobby. I suggest a site owned by a national organisation is far less likely to be vulnerable to your suggested "single complaint" than a locally rented field. For our case, even though we have good relations with our landlord and neighbours, should "Outraged of Prestwich" move next door, then even if we make (legally) reasonable steps to accomodate them, they might cause the landowner enough grief in having them complaining that the farmer might well just decide it is easier to not let us use his land for a quiet life (no pun intended). A national organistaion/owned field would not bow to that pressure. There are well established precedents for long established activities being able to continue in the face of new people moving into the vicinity. It has been mooted in several places that a link up with airfields or similar could well be viable.

 

Secondly the wages aspect. The BMFA presumeably already pays wages out of our existing subscriptions- why would this change or have to increase? The same might be said for the building. I suggest most people here either own, or would prefer to own their own house- rent is dead money etc etc etc. I assume the BMFA rents their current offices. If it owns them the point is even more important as they could be sold to offset some of the cost of the new site. To make the centre financially neutral is an obviously worthy aim- and negotiating with similar organisations to share resources would be an excellent idea where possible. Presumeably there is some form of national RC car organisation. They could rent the facilities for use.

 

The real issue is cost. The simplest argument I would make to you is that if this idea had been acted on 20 years ago the site would be paid for by now. We would have our land for free for all future members of the BMFA- this is a chance for us to make a legacy for the future of the hobby. Of course, we need to be able to pay for it along the way. You seem outraged at the idea that £1 per year of your money might be spent on something you might never use. I suggest far more of the BMFAs money than £1 is currently spent on activities that you have no interest in directly. I know for a fact every time I go near a model shop I seem to spend more than £1 on something I'm sure I might have some use for at some point in the future. The £1 is completely irrelevant. As for other income- well there is almost certainly a local club that would be prepared (delighted) to use the club as it's base andf promote run special events. They would still be expected to pay rent to the BMFA for the site in the normal manner, and would undertake the maintainance of the site- just like they are doing on whatever current site they use. In addition there might well be surrounding land that is flown over, but not used that could be rented to farmers etc.

 

So financially this is not difficult to make a case for, as long as people are prepared to take a slightly longer term view and be prepared to act collectively for the benefit of the whole hobby, rather than worrying what they personally might get for their quid. The only thing that is difficult is finding someone with the skills, drive and vision to make it happen in the face of people dismissing it as a waste of time/money.

 

As a final point- what if it all goes wrong? Well so what? If I spend (made up numbers following) £250k on a flying site and no one uses it, or it becomes a strain on the finances to service the loan- well I sell it. I get my money back and think again. Obviously there are some issues in the current housing/land markets that mean it's not quite as simple as that- but as pointed out above in a lot of cases (especially where the land has been held for a while) the value of the assets will have increased. Who knows KC- maybe they will knock £2 off your subs for you that year!

[Andy Symons]

The BMFA owns the current HQ, its not rented.

[Erfolg]

Andy

 

Being generous, your financial modelling is a little light in substance.

 

For me it is contentious to suggest that it is OK to expect others to pay for your expectations. In my opinion, any project needs to pay for itself.

 

I do not expect others to pay for my wants. Or will you subscribe to the Ferrari I would like? A much bigger house would be nice to! Then again a smaller wish list, would contain my BMFA substitutions being met by the rest of the membership, after all it would be less than a pound a head, you would not notice. Teasing.

[kc]

BEB, my view is that 59 percent in favour and 41 percent against means 51 percent are dreamers and only 41 percent are sensible people who think through the suggestion!

 

Andy Symons. My objection is to the centralisation of any such project which means the majority pay for excellent facilities for a tiny minority. However all the dreamers have not done the simple maths to calculate how long you would have to wait " for the peg" if all the BMFA members were able to use the facilities!

If you have 1 flightline then probably only 12 models could fly at once ( more if small less if turbines or large scale ) and for a 15 minute "slot" this means 48 flights per hour. If operated 10 hours a day ( less in winter ) then 480 flights day and 365 days year means 175200 flights a year. With 36000 members we would have 15 minutes flight and then wait about 75 days for the peg for the next flight! Even longer because of rain, fog or high winds would prevent 365 days use. Let alone noise complaints.

 

If we allow 24 or 36 models to fly at one flightline or we had a huge area then maybe 2 or even 3 flightlines could be used and we would only have to wait 37 or even 25 days for the peg!

I have not factored in the control line or free flight members, which might help the RC fliers get the peg, but then again I have not allowed for priority peg time for 'Fellows' or the celebrities they might invite or Al Mcshowpilot etc getting priority.

 

Centralisation is impractical. ( or maybe my calculator is on the blink and therefore my mathematics way out )

 

 

Edited By kc on 17/08/2011 11:24:31

[Andy Symons]

Posted by kc on 17/08/2011 11:20:23:

Andy Symons. My objection is to the centralisation of any such project which means the majority pay for excellent facilities for a tiny minority.

Edited By kc on 17/08/2011 11:24:31

But as there are no proposals on the table as to how it may be funded you are objecting purely on principle and not on any informed basis.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Erfolg,

 

I fully agree that any plan to take this forward would have to be fully costed and the robustness of the financial model rigourously tested. And I am confident Andy would agree with that.

 

But at this stage surely what we are discussing is the desirability not the mechanics. Do we aspire to such a thing? Would it be sufficiently beneficial to the hobby as a whole? Once we've answered that question (and the jury is obviously "still out" on that) then the next question would be how would we do it in such a way that it meet the tests you so rightly propose, indeed can we do it in a financially robust way. But I am interested at this stage in is there an appetite for such a centre at all.

 

BEB

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Andy,

 

Can't fault most if not all of what you say but until the "person of drive and wisdom" presents a well thought out case the answer has to be no. The last thing we need as a hobby is for a well intentioned but financially disastrous - or divisive - decision to commit the national organisation's future - which for all the negativity we sometimes hear has done a pretty good job of fighting our corner against the forces of NIMBYism and excessive legislation over the years - to something that we would mostly like to see but don't really know if we need.

[Erfolg]

BEB

 

Although others have raised the issue, I will remind ourselves.

 

It is not stated what is being proposed.

 

Is it

a) A Museum?

b) A flying site, if so, for what?

c) A combined flying and museum site

d) to train modellers, competitions, leisure modellers, for the community?

e) none of the above.

 

A good "vision statement" would be a start.

 

For a time I worked on project evaluation. The group I worked with recommended the termination of probably 99% of projects submitted. It is not easy driving through a project, the enthusiasm of the Sponsor, often clouds their judgement. You may be surprised that we wanted all the projects to be viable, as they meant work. Recently one of the projects recommend for termination, that was built and operated, for political reasons (I would guess), has been closed, confirming all our fears, if not worse of why it was not economic.

 

More clarity and substance is needed. After all the government will not pick our bills. Well unless we can run up a few billions worth debt or there are votes in it (for whom, hmmmm).

[kc]

Andy Symons. I am objecting on principle to the BMFA funding a site which is centralised and therefore of no use to the majority of members. If you want to do it yourself then go ahead but dont risk the BMFA funds. We need a solvent BMFA and not one that provides a deluxe flying site for the elite.