Model Flying Insurance. Not BMFA

[Bearair]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 02/03/2014 13:26:16:

I can see Bearair's point here. Whether we like it or not, or indeed understand it or not, there are people in this world that simply have an abhorrence of large organisations and "joining things" - so they just will not join the BMFA - even if its in their interests to do so. "There's nowt as queer as folk"!

And BMFA will not offer the insurance cover alone to non-members.

So, immovable object meets irresistible force!

There are also those, possibly a growing number, that aren't what we would recognise as aeromodellers. They just buy a cheap "toy aeroplane" from a non-model shop or online from ebay or Amazon and they know nothing about insurance and less than nothing(!) about the BMFA - and if its possible care even less again! To them this isn't a hobby they are planning to take up seriously - its just a short term novelty. True - it might grow, but right now they are not serious about this.

So I believe he's right - surely it is in in the interests of our hobby that these two camps get at least some sort of insurance - even if its not particularly great value due to being a lower level of cover, having more exclusions and maybe the insurers don't know as much. But its better than no cover at all!

I would feel that for 99.999% of us on here its a no-brainer - the BMFA insurance is better. More cover, more applicable and knowledgeable and most of all the more of us take it up the cheaper the individual cover becomes. So no - I wouldn't recommend this as a first choice package to anyone - I'd tell them they'd be better joining the BMFA. But I'd rather they had this than fly uninsured. I think the MOD thing is a bit of a red herring to be honest - I very much suspect that the people who would be content with this type of frankly rather second-rate cheap insurance are not going to be the sort of folks flying large models at MOD site events!

BEB

Thanks BEB what you say is correct, I have sorted insurance cover for a small group that would probably fly without any insurance if I hadn't. I too would not recommend it as a first choice but it is adequate and to me a damm site better than nothing. At the moment due to health reason's it is very unlikely I will be flying very much at all or even participate in this forum much. But if by chance I get the opportunity to go flying then at least I will be covered, if I regain full health then I will rejoin the BMFA just for the better cover.

With regard to Country membership.

No vote at area level. But as many votes as clubs you are in if a club member.

Not even allowed to participate at area level without the club delegates consent.

No dedicated Country members staff unlike club level

If you are not in a club your examiner status is revokes(or downgraded as the BMFA) puts it. So last year I could not take anyone for their Slope A test even though there were lot's who wanted me to and I was the only examiner in Cornwall who had taken such exams the previous year to my knowledge and the only examiner I am aware of regularly flying the slopes in Cornwall.

I will try to reply to any comments on this thread but I am afraid it will be very spasmodic.

Roger

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

politics, religion and BMFA. Bearair, dodgy topics

head says don't get involved, heart says im a sucker for the underdog.

seems you have a gripe re loss of examiner status, do's that make your points worthless? Country members don't get a fair deal? I think you raise some fair points myself.

I don't see the problem with others shopping around for their insurance myself, the level of cover etc is a matter for you, not my business.

would some competition help keep all our fees down, enabling BMFA to get us an even better deal from our INSURERS ?

is £16 a big deal to some people? sadly yes. I see links on here all the time showing best deal for stuff

why should insurance be any different than shopping at HK v LMS ?

how many model flyers @ £32 what surprises me is that there are not more after our business.

[Delta Foxtrot]

Posted by Ian Jones on 02/03/2014 12:57:17:

Posted by david fillingham 1 on 28/02/2014 12:33:23:

Another potential consideration is how conversant insurance companies advocates are with the realities of model flying and safe practices.

I seem to remember people at our club mentioning that they used to have non-BMFA insurance and that when an incident did occur the legal man did not have a clue flying models and this made life difficult. This should not be an issue through the BMFA insurance.

dave

As mentioned the BMFA itself does not provide insurance cover, it's through an agent and though we might have some difficulty trying to get good cover at club level the BMFA as a bigger organisation has been able to do this for us.

As to the knowledge of the insurers, I have had first hand experience of the current agents visiting clubs and competitions to get to know all the ins and outs. I also know that they considered the previous claims procedure as more difficult than it needed to be.

There's some good arguments been put forward for people who may need a lesser degree of cover but we don't know what we've got until we make a claim. For me the best hope that the cover will be right if I have the misfortune to need it is via the BMFA

Edited By Ian Jones on 02/03/2014 12:57:49

My point wasn't that the bmfa directly provide insurance, but rather that the bmfa can lend their considerable expertise if needed. I should have said insurance through the bmfa rather than bmfa insurance.

[Ian Jones]

Sorry David, I wasn't taking issue with your comment and I didn't intend it to be read that way, apologies if it seemed different.

Oh and I quite agree with your comments.

Ian

[Allan Bennett]

Posted by john stones 1 on 02/03/2014 23:05:38:

... I don't see the problem with others shopping around for their insurance myself, the level of cover etc is a matter for you, not my business....

Hmmm... Maybe the level of cover you have is my business! Certainly, if I need to make a claim on it, I need to know that it's adequate. Discussion of the merits of £5m or £25m is a little meaningless, for insurance is designed to cover the unexpected, and there's no telling what the financial value is going to be put on the damage if you crash into someone or something. Just check out the cost of looking after a young person who's crippled for life, or rebuilding a large warehouse that's destroyed by fire.

[Bearair]

Posted by Allan Bennett on 03/03/2014 08:06:58:

Posted by john stones 1 on 02/03/2014 23:05:38:

... I don't see the problem with others shopping around for their insurance myself, the level of cover etc is a matter for you, not my business....

Hmmm... Maybe the level of cover you have is my business! Certainly, if I need to make a claim on it, I need to know that it's adequate. Discussion of the merits of £5m or £25m is a little meaningless, for insurance is designed to cover the unexpected, and there's no telling what the financial value is going to be put on the damage if you crash into someone or something. Just check out the cost of looking after a young person who's crippled for life, or rebuilding a large warehouse that's destroyed by fire.

Actually it is none of your business what so ever, since there is no mandatory requirement for insurance. But I can assure you that when people start to talk like that, then peoples attitude will start to harden. If you want to make it your business then start a campaign to make it mandatory.

John I can honestly say that I have been championing the cause of Country members for years, especially when I was a club delegate to area level. Losing my examiner status was not an issue with me, certainly not a gripe I was merely using it for an example to answer the question about country members. I have many more important (to my mind) gripes about how the paid employees of the BMFA are behaving and if your really interested I will PM you because I really did not want this thread to be about the BMFA.

It has always fascinated me the what ifs? I have seen hundreds over the years, of course they nearly always have the same characteristics. No evidence to back them up, and quite good imagination. What if you crashed your model through the hanger of some M.O.D property causing an explosion, the mod things it's a pre-emtive strike by the russians, We retaliate with a nuclear strike on Russia, leading to all out nuclear war. Then space aliens come to earth to finish off the remaining humans because of their war like barbaric ways. How is your 5million cover going to cover you then? Stupid of course but no more than others I have seen. You cannot insure yourself against everything.

Yet again I will reiterate I try and have got people who fly without insurance to get some ,and surely that is better than not trying anything than sitting here pontificating!

[Bearair]

Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 02/03/2014 13:49:24:

I think you haven't read all of my post properly...

I stated that I do have criticisms of some areas of the BMFAs operation, but please don't say I'm offering you old rhetoric when I am stating facts about the most popular insurance cover for model flying in the UK.

I have acknowledged all of the points you have made, but the reality is that the BMFA offers the most comprehensive cover (and FWIW use of the word cheap as has cropped up in this thread is all relative: I consider the BMFA insurance cheap for the level and type of cover it offers).

You might consider it unfortunate that to get this insurance you have to join the BMFA, but I will just reiterate that for the extra £10 or so a year on top of the insurance costs, the BMFA pursues a lot of good causes on behalf of model flyers of all shapes/sizes/persuasions. I do accept that it's up to the individual to consider that our continuing use of the 35MHz and 2.4GHz bands, use of MOD property for flying (and not just for large models or competitions), protection of flying sites and airspace is worthwhile or not....

You and others have raised the fact that your alternative insurance may be a more attractive option to new entrants who have bought their parkflyer etc either online or from a toyshop or such where they would not be encouraged to either have insurance or to join the BMFA to get insurance as they might at a traditional model shop.

Well, here's the thing. Your alternative £16 insurance might not sound attractive to a new entrant. Along the lines of "if it's not compulsory, then no thanks".

So, yes, well done for showing us all this alternative, cheaper insurance, but on balance I will stick to a better level of cover, efficient claims handling, a proven insurer who understands our operations and also the level of cover required etc.

I would consider the following to be rhetoric

The BMFA does have full-time employees who, among other things, negotiate the use of the frequency bands we need to control our models, negotiate for the use of and conditions under which we use the airspace, and also they have funded a legal case over the use of a flying site for a club within the last year or so (at their expense), as well as taking up planning permission cases for many others.

It increasingly is taking good quality promotion seriously (simulator trailer etc at full-size airshows, flight challenge for school kids and university heavy lift for students, finally a good quality website!). Plus, the BMFA news is a good tool to show people new to the hobby all the different facets our hobby can have and it also perhaps may highlight events and meetings that a new entrant may like to visit but would not otherwise have known about.

So, even if you don't like or don't agree with the way the BMFA works in some respects, you have to say that they are working hard to protect and promote the hobby on our behalf.

Your are not addressing the issue of insurance you are simply making the case for the BMFA and your not alone in doing this. It is actually taking the thread off topic which is Model Flying Insurance NOT BMFA! It is like when people ask for a "best phone NOT Apple" and we then get a string of people asking "why not apple" and then listing the benefit's of Apple.

[Allan Bennett]

Oh dear, things are getting a little prickly here! I said the level of insurance cover is my business if I need to make a claim on it. Mandatory insurance might be a good thing, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to campaign for it -- I would rather trust that my fellow flyers have adequate cover (or personal resources) to cover any harm they might do to others.

[Bearair]

Sorry Alan I did not mean to sound prickly, "Maybe the level of cover you have is my business! Certainly, if I need to make a claim on it," I have obviously taken this the wrong way apologies I know can be somewhat blunt at times.

I have suffered financial lost due to an un-insured flyer when I was hit by his 12ft wingspan model, just how bad it was did not become evident until along time after. I was trying (very badly) to point out that if anyone starts asking the people who choose to fly without insurance in the wrong way, then they most likely will be  told to go forth and multiply with a webb footed creature. And in that situation the only thing you can do is look for an attractive duck! I am aware of this from person experience. We need to coerce and persuade these people in my opinion and the cheapest insurance is the way to go.

 

Edited By Bearair on 03/03/2014 10:36:35

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Allan in that case what are you going to do about the FPV insurance ?

said it was dangerous topic

lifelong BMFA man myself, topic and reply stated I see no problem with competition to Doodsons

i'll talk about anything Bearair.

not going to post any gripes I may have had with BMFA on here though

wouldn't do it about an LMS either, would speak to them directly

reasons im for BMFA, we are stronger voice together, its club rule, makes life easier for me as BMFA secretary responsible for checking all members are insured. lot of good people give up their time and do a good job.

are there area's people feel BMFA have not got it quite right?

judging by the number of posts that start "I've had my gripes with the BMFA but" maybe there are

Alan I don't need you telling me to check out the costs of caring for a young person injured,

be a little careful what you say, you may be talking to someone who has personal experience of it. but I wouldn't post that on here either.

pm me if you like Bearair, ive no problem with it

[Simon B]

John, the BMFA covers you for FPV.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

yes I know im bmfa secretary Simon

some lads are flying on a cheaper FPV insurance outside clubs mate

[Delta Foxtrot]

Posted by Ian Jones on 02/03/2014 23:38:05:

Sorry David, I wasn't taking issue with your comment and I didn't intend it to be read that way, apologies if it seemed different.

Oh and I quite agree with your comments.

Ian

No need to apologise Ian, I only clarified my earlier post as I could see potential misinterpretation due to loose wording on my part.

cheers

dave

[Allan Bennett]

No problem Bearair. I know how difficult it is to get across one's precise meanings in words alone.

You're right john stones 1, FPV is a tricky matter, for if/when you get hit, or set on fire by an exploding LiPo, you may never know who owns the offending model. Have you just made the case for compulsory unlimited 3rd-party insurance, with a scheme to cover uninsured accidents, as with motoring?

As a generally law-abiding citizen, who does have model flying insurance cover, I might be in favour of that. But I don't feel strongly enough to actually promote it because, generally, I'm against the government sticking their noses into our hobby !

Edited By Allan Bennett on 03/03/2014 12:32:59

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

answers simple

I never said cheaper FPV is a tricky matter. You did

I said what are you going to do about it?

its legal to fly with the cheaper insurance, done and dusted for me.

has anyone ever tried to buy insurance as an individual from Doodsons

[Allan Bennett]

Eh? I never said "cheaper FPV is a tricky matter" either And I have no issue with "cheaper" insurance either, so long as it's adequate when someone needs to claim off it.

The problems, so far as I'm concerned are the adequacy of the cover, and the fact that some people fly with no insurance.

[John F]

I volunteered to edit Rogers' insurance document, to remove personal stuff, for all to see. Here it is.

It would appear that you are covered for almost everything with virtually no restrictions.

I emailed FPV UK for reassurance that there were no exclusions. Not a single email replied to despite sending three emails from two different email accounts.

[Allan Bennett]

Having read that certificate, I notice that it's the same broker that our club uses, though not exactly the same policy. Note in the last paragraph the limit on engine size and type for model aircraft.

[Richard Marshall]

I find it strange that that .....

1) Why anyone would risk less known insurance for a measly few quid less?

2) How much do we spend on our beloved aircraft!!?? If a prop broke we wouldn't hesitate to replace it no matter the cost! £32 to what is a MUST and confident that one is getting the best transparent cover is a no brainer!!

Compared to the amount we spend on our aircraft (and anything else come to think about it!!) the additional £16 really isn't worth arguing about!

Who smokes? I don't but I noticed that a packet of 20 is nearly £10! How much is fuel!??

Just put it all into perspective and the cost and cost difference really is NOTHING!

[John F]

Well, with the insurance certificate it is perfectly clear to see that you're insured with almost no exclusions, that's why the insurance is tempting. How can it be a no-brainer when insurance costs more from BMFA?

If a club or an organised flying meet accepts the insurance from FPV UK as a valid alternative then that is the start of competitive practices that surely must be a good thing as it offers us, the customer, a choice for the first time instead of BMFA having a total monopoly.

With a choice comes the question; I have not inquired whether the insurance is accepted but why pay the more expensive price if the cheaper option is accepted just as readily?

The only thing that puts me off is the complete lethargy and total lack of reply from the company after four emails to FPV UK.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

As I understand this thread, after it strayed from the simple enquiry posted, the majority of the discussion has revolved around the provision of insurance for lone flyers. Reference to the final paragraph of this insurance document appears to imply that the insurance is provided to a club member, not for an individual arranging it independently. .

[Ian Jones]

Posted by Richard Marshall on 23/04/2014 05:27:34:

I find it strange that that .....

1) Why anyone would risk less known insurance for a measly few quid less?

2) How much do we spend on our beloved aircraft!!?? If a prop broke we wouldn't hesitate to replace it no matter the cost! £32 to what is a MUST and confident that one is getting the best transparent cover is a no brainer!!

Compared to the amount we spend on our aircraft (and anything else come to think about it!!) the additional £16 really isn't worth arguing about!

Who smokes? I don't but I noticed that a packet of 20 is nearly £10! How much is fuel!??

Just put it all into perspective and the cost and cost difference really is NOTHING!

Also,t he BMFA has not previously had a total monopoly, until recent years my club arranged it's own insurance. IIRC it was about £1 p.a. cheaper for far less cover.

It's not just about price and acceptance either, it's also a question of whether or not it fulfils the requirements of the policy holder. Compensation for injured 3rd parties is all very well but personal accident cover is important too and so is member to member liability and so is committee members liability. Another requirement is good communication with the policy holder.

With regard to the few exclusions in the Select Insurance certificate previously posted I notice that there's a good number of inclusions that aren't mentioned either.

Again the point has to be made that BMFA insurance does not cost £32 p.a. - that figure is for BMFA membership which includes the cost of insurance. I'll not comment on what else you get for the £32 because this thread is about insurance not what else the BMFA does or does not do.

[Richard Marshall]

Like I said previously , it's a no brainer in my opinion. You get what you pay for . I most certainly wouldn't risk uncertainty over a measly few quid less. Each to their own.