No Insurance?

[Rich too]

I agree, but what happens when your cricket ball does damage that your dad can't afford?

You cannot possibly legislate for every risk. My 10 year old car is covered in car park rash, some dents we did, some just appeared. I chose not to get the car repaired, and repainted, I wont lose any sleep over it. Things happen..

Rich

Edited By Dickster on 27/05/2013 20:11:38

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 27/05/2013 22:17:18

[Bearair]

Thankfully I never had to face the "dad cannot afford it" issue. I have a feeling it would of invoved a lot of pain and no pocket money though!

[Rich too]

haha!

[Erfolg]

An interesting aspect opened up by this discussion has been the issues surrounding flying from essentially non club sites.

Although a member of two clubs i have on occasion flown from non designated sites. These have varied from hill sides, slope soaring, to water authority moorland with electric models.

It seems that many others have done the same, snatching the occasional flight, keeping a low profile.

I have on occasion read about the BMFA representing generally small groups or individuals who flew from similar non designated sites.

In fact my first awareness of the BMFA was from a modeller, from a group which flew from a well known landmark for many years. The site being lost after BMFA representation after a dispute with (then) a newly formed country park authority. The out come was not seen as reflecting well on those representing the fliers.

I can see that such circumstances are extremely difficult to resolve in a positive manner from a modellers perspective. This is mainly because of the relative strength and influence from a range of interests, these often are not equal and certainly not in our favour. With groups such as walkers groupings , the RSPB etc being very effective pressure groups. Yet it is to easy for our representatives to capitulate, seeing the fight as unwinnable.

Given that this area does seem to be an issue, that of "open access", as achieved by walkers. It is issue for possibly +50% of modellers, at some time. It would be good to read about what the BMFA does in this area, to both maintain and advance modellers access to a greater numbers of locations than at present.

We do have feed back on the benefits of Insurance, with particular emphasis on the BMFA policy. It is not clear that emphasis on regulated (by clubs) flying, that the BMFA is supportive of lone flyers, which I for one would hope is not the case. Again i am suggesting that the BMFA insurance position is presented with a positive slant for the lone flyer.

I would also urge that some thought is given to publishing what the BMFA does to maintain and further modellers access to flying sites, with particular emphasis on the lone flyer.

Edited By Erfolg on 30/05/2013 16:05:42

[john melia 1]

Totally agree Erfolg well said

[SkippyUK]

Seeing as it's been such poor weather over the last few days I have been doing some googling following the IPROW statement about what you can't do on a foot path.

I was suprised that of all the things that you shouldn't do on a footpath, model flying was specifically listed by IPROW as if it was the number 2 bad thing that everybody did.......

(perhaps the FAQ was written in the aftermath of the Dartford incident)

To put it in context, IPROW is not a legislative body and can only offer it's opinion as an association of fee paying members - much like the BMFA really.

I have also contacted IPROW stating that I'm involved in a discussion about this topic and wanted to know the origins and references to legislation that can be used to back up their advice - no reply yet but it is holiday week.

I've searched several government agancy as well as local government websites and can find a few local bylaws forbidding model flying in certain places but I've yet to find a blanket restriction which could be interpreted as 'thou shall not do this anywhere on the country'.

What is supported in numerous places is the rights of land owners to restrict almost anything from happening on their land so having permission is a must if it is a regular occurance.

On regular flying there are various restrictions (even with permission) ranging from 14 to 28 days per year without planning permission (several threads on here about this).

So overal I believe that if you fly very occasionally over open land and take heed of any objections etc., then carry on doing it just using common sense and consideration for others.

If someone can post a link to a legislative body (not ramblers or country side alliance etc. as they have no legislative power - only advisory) then I would like to further this interest so we may target the correct places to open up a few more places to enjoy our hobby.

Skippy

ps. - kite flying is rarely mentioned except at beach locations but according to accident figures, has lots more reportable accidents at A&E than those listed as RC or model flying incidents...
I remember having to administer first aid to one of my Scouts who got hit by a carbon framed kite at a county fete - it punctured his arm.

Edited By SkippyUK on 30/05/2013 20:22:31

[Erfolg]

I do believe that this is an area where the BMFA could act in a positive manner.

The danger is that without commitment, it all to easy just to say there is nothing or little that can be done. It is not a stance that many effective pressure groups and organisations accept. Their representatives know what they want and keep going until the objective is achieved.

[Bearair]

Maybe you should start a thread on the subject Erfolg I would certainly have a contribution to make. My first question would be "who runs the BMFA?" because I have no idea. I can tell you who dosn't and that's the individual members!. But I think its probably a discussion for another thread.

Skippy it is nice to see someone stating facts on the subject not just anecdotes based on hearsay and myth.

In case anyones interested I have repaired my Mini Vec and flying today showed that whilst it looks horrible it is in fact, structurally sound. Mr other gentleman has assured me that the money not spent on my Mini Vec will be spent on his insurance. And to be honest I am quite happy about that because being able to fly at St Agnes is much more important to me than having a good looking model. (Rihanna Excepted!)

So peace and tranquillity has returned to sunny Cornwall.................................Except I am now intrigued by the gentleman who turned up today, did not introduce himself, launched his model from behind another pilot who had no idea he was there. Swooped low over the walkers on the path causing them to duck and repeatedly flew low passes with his model passing between the other fliers and himself. But its not that lot i'm intrigued by, its the fact that, with literally miles of coastline to approach over, why would he chose time and time again to fly over the 100 feet of car park?

One who is cuckoo does not make a summer!................................ Unfortunately!

 

Edited By Bearair on 30/05/2013 22:02:29

[GONZO]

Well I've followed this with some interest. Yet again with issues like this we aeromodellers seem to indulge in a form of self flagilation, examining the moral/legal issues in minute degree. Yet, if you were to substitute children/adults playing football/cricket in the road, for us and our planes, very few would even give it a second thought. But, the highway (all, even side streets etc) is for the passage to and from for vehicles only and not people on foot (thats the pavement) let alone a play area. I suppose its just that society has yet another dual standard. Perhaps I should start flying from my front garden, its easily big enough for helicopters and small electrics?

[WolstonFlyer]

I fly small helicopters in my front garden (from a MCPX up to hovering a 450 size) because my back garden is too small. I stay in the boundry of the garden so there is no problem... right......

[Erfolg]

Bearair

The trouble with any BMFA discussion is that it rapidly becomes embroiled in vitriol.

Those wanting reforms and refocucs, being lambasted by die hard supporters.

Unfortunately it will be just hot air, as the BMFA incumbents, essentially like things how they are.

Joining the BMFA at activist level, leads to frustration, as individuals are marginalised and contained.

We have to recognise that those who are active, frequently have a specific interest, which engagement allows them in the participating of moulding of these areas of interest to reflect their wants. Yet often this is not a bad thing for competitive activities.

The real issue is that the vast majority have a passing interest in many of the specific competitive areas. The general vague interests of the majority are ignored in the believe that they are not interested in the broad brush of what the BMFA does. The exact opposite of the competitive members, having specific interests and being vocal.. To counter this I would like to see a restructuring along lines that are flatter, not with a hierarchical structure more reminiscent of trade unions or an ancient bureaucracy. I would like to see a much greater use of the Internet, for communication (in the broadest sense), with more communications about the apparently mundane, such as access issues for lone flyers, insurance (which has recently been covered), the threats to the general hobby and how the BMFA responds.

Although not exactly the same, our local council used to be dominated with shopkeepers, who fought to keep supermarkets out of the area. The coming of the supermarkets, swept away these vested, trade interest, as the benefits of being a councillor diminished. Although I am not sure that things are really much better, although there are certainly different motives of those who stand for council.

No a discussion would be to bitter.

[Mogs]

On land UK ownership - many moons ago during a lecture on contract law for builders. The lecturer as an aside stated that there is only one person in the whole country that truly owns the land, that person being the reigning monarch. It's under this that compulsory purchases and mining rights actually function.

[WolstonFlyer]

No that is not correct, if you own the freehold title on land then you are the owner.

There is a provision in Law - The Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 where you can be forced to sell property under certain conditions but this does not constitute shared ownership with the current monarch!

[Rick Tee]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 26/05/2013 15:59:31:

I think you're right there Pat. Our insurance is strictly for "recreational activity" - ie what we normally do! Any flying where payment is involved - and I see no reason why that should not include payments that go to a charity - are specifically excluded. So my interpretation would be if you are mounting a flying display for a local charity event you very well may not be covered by the BMFA's insurance scheme and should look to arrange alternative cover.

In cases like this you can always ring the team at the BMFA - Manny in particular is knowledgable on this sort of issue - they are very helpful and will do their best to give you accurate, well informed, advice.

BEB

This is incorrect, the taking of a fee is specifically included.

Edited By Rick Tee on 16/07/2013 08:50:04

[Erfolg]

If you are suggesting Rick, that commecial activities are covered, and that is true, I would urge the BMFA to investigate if this is a aspect that should be considered as an exclusion and to seek a reduction of insurance costs.

[Peter Christy]

Erfolg,

Whilst I have no wish to start yet another BMFA argument, I would suggest that it IS possible for individuals to shift the BMFA. It just takes time and patience!

Some years back, I had a major issue with the BMFA and went along to the AGM as a result. Normally ordinary members aren't able to address the meeting, but my club chairman nominated me on speak on the club's behalf.

The comments I made clearly touched a nerve - I was mightily relieved when after a short, stunned silence when I had said my piece, someone started to clap (thank you, whoever it was!), applause which rapidly spread around the room.

As a result, I was invited to represent my local area at Council, and it was as a result of that that we now enjoy "One member, One vote", something we never had before.

Now I'm not saying this to blow my own trumpet, but to point out that a suitably motivated individual member CAN make a difference if he's prepared to get off his backside. Also to point out that every member has a vote in who runs the BMFA. If you don't like the way its being run, the solution is in your own hands.

The voting figures at elections are generally abysmally low, but at least you have that option available to you now. Please use it!

--

Pete

 

Edited By Peter Christy on 16/07/2013 10:29:18

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Rick, can you point us to the wording that says that. My view, and was carefully expressed as only a view not a statement of fact, was based on a discussion with Manny on related matter in which I was told that any flying done in what might be considered a "professional capacity" was excluded from cover. That the insurance covered us for recreational activity only. The one exception I am aware of to this is that "Paid Flying Instruction" is covered (subject to conditions). So if you have furher updates on this please share them - because I'd be very interested.

BEB

[Erfolg]

Peter, I have no wish to have a go at the BMFA issue.

The points which i may be trying to address, are I would hope aligned to the the BMFA's position.

• Who does the BMFA represent, leisure modeller or a wider audience, professional/trade
• Minimising expenditure whilst maintaining value for money, to the membership.

I have considered seeking nomination from my no.1 club to the BMFA. Last year however I had pneumonia, either at the time of club representative election, or was still paranoid with respect to mixing with crowds, who said I still am.

I am somewhat sanguine with respect to BMFA reform, for a host of reasons. I would hope that the BMFA recognises that the insurance cover is the prime reason for membership for most recreational modellers and needs to be managed as such.

The second, is a somewhat smaller group who compete. From what I see, this second area is in retreat in most if not all categories.

[Rick Tee]

Rather then post a wall of text and to avoid any misunderstanding: BMFA handbook 2010, Page 12, Flying Training Cover.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

But that provision only applies to Paid Instruction Rick - which I refered to above. It is not general carte blanche saying you would be insured if you were being paid for flying. Indeed on page 10 under "Exclusions" we read the general exclusion from insurance for:

"Any form of commercial or trade activities including professional, semi-professional or sponsored display teams."

But interestingly - in the context of the original question - it goes on to say that this exclusion does not apply to payments to clubs for putting on displays at fetes etc. i.e:

"Money paid to clubs by organisers of fetes, shows, etc, where the club is giving a demonstration does not constitute ‘professional use".

So, while I wouldn't quite agree with your wider statement that "the taking of a fee is specifically included" because its only included for one specific case - for instruction within a BMFA Affliated Club and specifically not as part of a commercial organisation - it would appear that a club taking a fee for providing a demonstration at a fete is covered. Interesting.

BEB

[Rick Tee]

Indeed, but then insurance is generally full of inclusions, exclusions, exceptions etc. you can never take it on face value so its always best to check. Taking a fee for model flying is not specifically excluded either, just under certain circumstances.

Watch out! if your car tyre pressures aren't correct you may not be insured.

[Shaunie]

Of course it could be that you are not "taking a fee" for displaying at a fete but "receiving a donation". One being a demand for something, the other effectively being a gift (even if the amount was determined beforehand). Of course, this may only apply if your club has charitable status.

The other thing is no individual benefits directly, the money goes to the club.

I'm no expert, just my thoughts on this.

Shaunie.

[Mouse]

Hi all

As a fledgling flyer and a very new member to this site i have read this thread with great interest and i have a question or two, is the bmfa the only place to get cover or can i get it from else ware as I am never keen to give my hard earned to a monopoly that can set the cost as to what they think is acceptable and could i make a claim for accidental damage to my own plain ect the same as fully comp car insurance.

Thank you

Bill.

.

[Erfolg]

I believe that the vast majority believe that responsible modellers will have insurance cover.

I think that this may be the current position, although far from certain.

• I believe that to compete at BMFA run events, you have to be a BMFA member.
• BMFA membership require you pay for insurance, as part of membership.
• To compete internationally at a representative level you have to be a BMFA member

if the above were true, it could be an area for much debate.

For most modellers the above is of no importance.

As far as I know, the BMFA does nothing top prevent clubs or individuals obtaining there own insurance, other than to be a affiliated club, your members must all be members of the BMFA, and for competitors the implications from the above.

I think it is a situation where most have some unease with how things operate, yet recognise it could be a lot worse, if modellers were not to be insured. So we all let sleeping dogs lie.

[avtur]

Posted by M ouse on 16/07/2013 17:58:55:

Hi all

As a fledgling flyer and a very new member to this site i have read this thread with great interest and i have a question or two, is the bmfa the only place to get cover or can i get it from else ware as I am never keen to give my hard earned to a monopoly that can set the cost as to what they think is acceptable and could i make a claim for accidental damage to my own plain ect the same as fully comp car insurance.

Thank you

Bill.

Model flying insurance is to cover third party claims ... if there were to be 'comprehesive' style of cover the premium cost would be so high as to make it a factor of 1000's of percent beyond being cost effective.

Other than the BMFA it may well be the case that other underwriters would cover the risk, however without extensive knowledge, experience and understanding of the risk (whcih the BMFA and their under writers have have) then I would suggest you can be sure that other providers would cover the risk at an incredibly high premium.

I think the BMFA insurance is excellent value for money ... so if I were you I wouldn't fret about it ... I would simply take out the BMFA cover either as an idividual or by way of subs if you join a club.

No one likes to pay insurance premiums, however they are one of life's necessary evils .... so bite the bullet, get the cover and then forget about it.

 

Edited By avtur on 16/07/2013 18:44:16