This quarter's BMFA news

[Cuban8]

Posted by Cuban8 on 11/02/2015 12:54:39:

Amazing what you can find when you look! I didn't realize that back issues of the mag are already published on-line on the BMFA website!

Seems even more wasteful to be spending so much on delivering hard copy to everyone.

**LINK**

[Tomtom39]

The matter of having an electronic issue was raised some two/three years ago at the BMFA AGM . I think it was voted down (I got there a bit late so wasn't there to find out reason). I hate waste and would be happy to have an electronic copy.

[avtur]

Posted by Tomtom39 on 11/02/2015 12:59:54:

The matter of having an electronic issue was raised some two/three years ago at the BMFA AGM . I think it was voted down (I got there a bit late so wasn't there to find out reason). I hate waste and would be happy to have an electronic copy.

I'm a committee member of a car club (older collectible vehicles 1930's through 1970's). We produce a monthly magazine, a modest little A5 affair. When sent through the post it attracts the lowest tier of charge (53p). We produce and distribute about 150 copies per month so the production and postage costs are both modest and affordable. (I appreciate this is on a different scale to the BMFA mag)

We have been debating the on-line vs. hard copy question for last 3-4 years. The consensus of opinion is still strongly in favour of hard copy so we’re sticking with that for now.

However, since the magazine is produced as a PDF to send to a commercial printer we’ve recently started to place a copy of the PDF on the club website, this has the effect of introducing it’s on-line presence without forcing people to use it.

The most common comment in favour of a printed copy is the flexibility of when and where it can be read, which is clearly valued by our membership. Now an on-line version could be printed at home by the member to give the same flexibility, however our membership are quite savvy and realise that it’ll cost them both paper and ink, hence we’ll carry on as we are for now. Also not all members are on-line.

[Erfolg]

There is obviously virtue in providing the magazine on line. Perhaps a reduction in BMFA fee could be used to encourage members to choose to receive the publication in this form.

There would be a reduction in postal charges, although these could be less than obtained at this time, with what could be a substantial reduction in volume.

Again there would appear to be a reduction in printing charges. Again, how real would be the saving, when volumes reduce?

Advertising revenue would be potentially remain unchanged.

You might even claim you would be doing your bit to save the environment and planet, with a online magazine.

At a personal level, I am no quite certain that a on line magazine is better. i do like the tactile feel of a magazine, but then again I still buy and read books, which may not be typical.

Perhaps the bigger question is, would I be prepared to buy the magazine? My answer would be no. Its strongest strength is the broad spectrum of aeromodelling disciplines covered. The weakness is that the quality of the content is just not up to the commercial magazines. Some contributions are very good. Others the constant preaching, in a heavy handed manner, more appropriate to a Safety Bulletin.

So the biggest issue with me is about emphasis and tone, together with a desire to constantly improve the content, to better than commercial standards, whilst recognising the unique aspect of what the BMFA is doing and done for its members.

[Mowerman]

On page38 Mike Woodhouse says " These features enhance our image with the public.we should show that we are not overgrown schoolboys with expensive toys"

Ops, and there's me thinking we were just that (schoolgirls as well of course)

[The real Ron Truth]

Holy cow the costs mentioned for publishing and posting the BMFA news are truly awful. Im gobsmacked!

I throw mine in the bin after about 5 mins of scanning it.

Whether you like the magazine or not, there really should be an online e-zine version for members to download or read on line. Its extremely wasteful and resource hungry.

[Cuban8]

By all means keep the magazine going as a PDF, but I'm sure the money that's going down the drain getting it to everyone as hard copy could be better spent as grants to clubs to improve facilities etc. Quite ironic, when in another thread, we have mention of certain club secs driving around delivering BMFA certs and cards at their own expense to save a few pence on postage.

What on earth possessed those that voted no to an on-line copy at a recent BMFA AGM?

[Erfolg]

I do think we do need to be fair to the BMFA. The income is not massive from its members.

Although we live in a world where IT is all pervasive, at a commercial level it is not cheap to provide, where even a modest web site costs money to build and maintain, particularly where security is required. In some areas progress has been made by the BMFA, where some credit is due.

It is perhaps asking to much to expect that the thin resources at a technical and financial level, can simultaneously be stretched to switching to IT based provision of a magazine. Particularly as the technology continues to develop, requiring more expenditure just to stay where you are.

I do assume there is a plan where objectives are identified, with projected time frames and costs for the future of IT systems within the BMFA.

If I am quite candid, my main concern, is the resurrection of the ego project of a National Centre. Where the supporters will talk of ambition, a legacy to future aeromodellers and opportunities, where just modest subscription increases would deliver Nirvana and so on..

[Cuban8]

Posted by Erfolg on 11/02/2015 18:34:55:

It is perhaps asking to much to expect that the thin resources at a technical and financial level, can simultaneously be stretched to switching to IT based provision of a magazine. Particularly as the technology continues to develop, requiring more expenditure just to stay where you are..

The previous edition is now available as a PDF on the BMFA website along with back copies going back several years. (found myself mentioned in one ) so can't see how it's going to cost much as the process for publishing it as a PDF is already there.

[fly boy3]

Do not like to stir it up, but I am with Cymaz here. Could be the Winter does not help with flying subjects, or what is on offer is not my type of flying. Wonder if there has been a poll on what we would like to read, and if not, could we have one please. Please do not take this as a critisism, but rather a statement. Cheers

[Erfolg]

I have no problems with a poll of what people are interested in reading.

There is a strength in my opinion with the present format, is that it does cover the wide spectrum of disciplines within the BMFA.

There have been occasional flashes of inspiration, such as when some of the technical aspects of electric flight were covered, as electric flight was becoming mainstream, demystifying the subject as it then stood.

A similar approach cold now be taken with drones and quads. They do not particularly interest me, I must say.

I will concede that at present the historic back issues are available on line. It just seems that the BMFA site would need to be both better structured than it presently is, although more importantly if the site were to become the main portal to the BMFA, it needs to be more reliable and secure, than apparently seems the case at present.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Well there is some info in this months edition regarding the centre survey and also on drones and the CAA, all worth reading. Quite a few clubs advertising for members as well . Bit on google about CAA prosecuting a "Drone" flyer.

John

[Kris S]

Also a bit about lipo batteries that says don't discharge below 2.5v per cell.Sounds dangerously low to me.
Surely a misprint?

Edited By Kris S on 18/03/2015 16:51:31

[GrahamWh]

I think the mag is okay but needs to stay more with current issues. One channel radio sets and vintage rudder and elevator models can't appeal to that many people nowadays. Some coverage should be included, but in proportion to the number of readers who are into it. I also agree with an earlier comment that the classification numbers should be explained when there is an article on them - what is F1D or whatever? The text only gives me what sort of model is involved - powered acrobatic or a glider etc. It is nice to read something that is not plastered with ads though, and it is good that a wide range of stuff is in there. A survey to see what people are interested in might be good though so they can tweak it.

[cymaz]

Same old , same old...couple of interesting articles but still too much vintage, free flight, indoor( yes I know it's winter).

Glad to see more ordinary fliers getting their faces on the pages after passing A and B tests.

Will have another read through and see what else I can find.

[Pete B]

Re the classifications, could it be that those at the top of the organisation, with a military background, work on the principle that 'If you need to ask, you don't need to know?'.....

[CARPERFECT]

A very simple way of dealing with this matter is to give people a choice. Four issues per year at £1.25 = £5. On the MBFA renewal form give the option of mag or no mag . £5 reduction for no mag. This would stop all this belly arching.

Edited By CARPERFECT on 19/03/2015 08:19:40

[Andy G.]

In general, I think the magazine is fine; o.k not everything in it interests me but it's still good read. There has been a lot of moaning on the forum about content of magazines lately, but with a hobby as diverse as ours it's inevitable that some content will appeal more than others. I write the monthly newsletter for my club and often find it difficult to balance content in what usually amounts to 8 or 10 pages, imagine how difficult it is to fill something the size of RCME every month. My only grumble with the BMFA mag is the size of the staples that hold it together, nearly every copy I have has the centre pages fall out as soon as I open it. A small gripe but a very niggling one!!

[GrahamC]

Posted by CARPERFECT on 19/03/2015 08:19:01:

A very simple way of dealing with this matter is to give people a choice. Four issues per year at £1.25 = £5. On the MBFA renewal form give the option of mag or no mag . £5 reduction for no mag. This would stop all this belly arching.

Edited By CARPERFECT on 19/03/2015 08:19:40

I wonder how much it costs the BMFA to send out the mag? Just thinking outloud really. I notice that there are about 12 pages of adverts out of 64 pages. [Not a complaint!] I would imagine that goes someway to reducing the cost of the mag to the BMFA.

[Cuban8]

I think the problem is that the magazine is called "BMFA News" but to all intents and purposes has a minority of its contents as news of the BMFA, its doings and its members. Trying to copy the style of the commercial publications is really a waste of effort and filling it with lengthy articles on very specialist areas of the hobby, despite the best efforts of the authors, will not appeal to most readers, so why bother?

The publication needs an overhaul, as at present, given its impact, it represents poor value for the not inconsiderable outlay to the BMFA's coffers. I do think regular communication with the membership is vital, but what we have at the moment is missing the mark both in content and form, and it's a shame that those that are spending considerable time and effort writing about what they love about our hobby, is for most members something to be merely glossed over.

IMHO, the mag only needs to be published quarterly, perhaps thrice yearly. Drop the regular specialist pieces, but have occasional articles on Aerobatics, FF and Vintage but covering the disciplines in a more general and less technical manner. Publish it on-line only, I know this will upset some, but hard copy to 30000+ members really doesn't make sense coming from what after all is quite a small society.

How about having some input from professional freelance aeromodelling authors? I'm sure the very popular Alex Whittaker and others could occasionally put something amusing together, but with a leaning towards society matters.

[kc]

Surely the worst thing about the BMFA News is the ridiculous waste of space showing youngsters and others who have passed their A certificate test! Complete waste of space and just an ego trip for a few of the least accomplished members.

The free advert for someone who has just decided to become an author is also not justified. Or is it a paid advert masquerading as editorial?

So they waste space on this stuff and cannot give us the full info about important technical matters. There is some reference on page 6 to some changes in 2.4 Ghz equipment and the fact that some equipment may not be ' backwards compatible' but no hard facts about which items are known to be affected. Discussion here on Modelflying has alerted us to the fact that Futaba FASST will be affected. I would have expected the BMFA to have informed us all whether in future we will, or will not, be able to buy new FASST Tx that will work with existing FASST Rx. . I want facts not some wishy washy comments. We all need these facts in order to buy the right equipment instead of wasting money.

And no mention of the death of one of the greatest innovators in modelling materials! Almost every modern modeller will have used some of his revolutionary materials and benefitted from his expertise. A rather small comment in one of the magazines on sale in newsagents is all I can find that mentions his death! ( I am not going to mention his name here because i cannot find any confirmation of the facts - nothing mentioned here on Modelflying either that I have noticed )

Edited By kc on 19/03/2015 16:18:42

[ken anderson.]

nice to see a mention of BLYTH VALLEY RADIO MODEL CLUB (my club)member Gerhard Fehringer.....a nicer lad you couldn't meet-destined for great things due to his hard work and dedication....in the aerobatic circles....

 

ken Anderson..ne..1 BVRMC dept.

Edited By ken anderson. on 19/03/2015 17:06:38

[Erfolg]

I do agree that to much is made of the "A" test, and the achievement schemes as a whole. I can see that it is a fit with the emphasis on safety. Which I believe has disproportional exposure. Very important, yet is the magazine and the BMFA a safety bulletin and organisation? It is a question of emphasis, in my opinion, something to be referenced in the background. I am a member of the BMFA to fly and build models, who provide insurance, which I expect to do safely, with respect to others, the environment and myself, but this is not the end in itself.

To be fair to the BMFA there is a clear statement on the legality of the operation of existing 2.4 sets, which are not compliant with the latest amendments to the appropriate legislation. I do agree, that this is a topic that is relevant to the wider population of us 2.4 modellers, particularly the situation with respect to all the manufacturers and their model range. A potentially big subject area, yet there would be benefit and be of interest to a lot of 2.4 modellers.

I am disappointed that the subject of the National Centre is relegated to the back pages. I am also disappointed some sweeping statements that by and large all BMFA members are favourably disposed to the concept. I know that at my club, there was not this endorsement of what a good idea it is. It so important to the future of the BMFA that it should in my opinion be a high profile subject.

The basic problem with the BMFA and magazine has that it is reliant on volunteers. The principle people who volunteer are those those who have a passion, in our hobby these are mainly those who are active in some aspect of competition. Naturally they have a bias. Unlike many sports and hobbies, most members are content to operate in a low key manner, their competitive drives and even interests, something in the past. Yet they know what they like doing, be it flying, chatting at the club field, building models and have a passing interest in many other of the pinnacles of our hobby, the results of competitions are of very little interest to most.

My concerns for the BMFA is the age profile, and the implications for the future. I see this as a threat to our hobby. Perhaps an article on how the BMFA and other members see the future, or should it be of no concern.

[Linds.W]

While I agree with most of the comments. I can't understand all the various warnings about safe flying then we see a "free-flight" event with people hurling I.C. plane with no control lots of photos also in RCME trying to dodge a wayward plane!

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

I have no problem with a club sending a photo of someone with an A or B being presented, especially a youngster, I don't see it as pushing safety on us, it's just a well done and involving clubs to me. Same with the Quad bits, thread after thread asked "what's the BMFA doing about it" well now we know. Heritage Flying Centre.. whatever your opinion about it is, we can't claim to be uninformed. Only down side for me was event calendar only went up to end of May, ours is in June...hope next copy's out before then

John