National Model Flying Centre

[Cuban8]

Not sure whether to laugh or cry!

Download the PDF for all the comments.

**LINK**

 

Edited By Cuban8 on 10/08/2014 10:15:57

[Stevo]

Yes enlightening reading. I have to admit to not being a member - I really have no problem being one, but my club is not affiliated so membership is not a requirement.

I did look around - what was the definition of the "National Model Flying Centre" and what would we gain?

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Lies, damned lies and statistics?

I particularly like the way Q4 is presented. A healthy majority of people "skipped" answering this, which presumably means they opted for no increase but looking at the graphical presentation gives the impression that the majority of the responding members supported a subscription increase of £5 - £10!

And nearly 4% wanted a £50 increase?!?!?

It felt to me that those members with an open mind but who were not prepared to indicate support for an unspecified idea were excluded.

Edited By Martin Harris on 10/08/2014 10:49:18

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Cuban8]

A pity that only just over 1800 members could be bothered to respond, and out of those, nearly three quarters were over 50 years of age (including me at 57!). Hardly a true representation of the membership, but if people don't get involved what can be done? Had to chuckle at one comment saying that "flying was expensive enough at £100 a year with club fees and BMFA"

Quite sad that many said that "just because I won't use it I'll vote against". If the site is centrally based, naturally many will be too far away to benefit at all, some may be only able to visit a couple of times a year (a good campsite could help here, and raise revenue from other visitors) but those within say an easy drive will be seen as winners.

In the case of 'the winners' I'd expect them to be charged a daily fee of around £10 or an annual sum rather like joining a club. If the facilities are that good, it's a small price to pay - wouldn't include me, unfortunately, as I'd be too far away, but would probably benefit from being able to stay with the caravan (for a charge of course).

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[iqon]

I said no 3 times...

perhaps we could do our own pole on her..

[cymaz]

Could not the bmfa host events in different parts of the entire country. It has regional delegates etc..etc..

[Prop Nut]

We are seen by many outside the hobby as grown men playing with 'toy' aeroplanes, creating noise and nuisance, and very few are even aware that the BMFA exists. Competition for recreational space in some parts of the country, over-zealous 'elf 'n' safety rules, and the threat of terrorism, mean that minorities like us are likely to come under increasing pressure for control and regulation, or even being banned altogether by knee-jerk politicians who have no knowledge of, or wish to know, what we do and why we do it. Fanciful? Well, hand gun shooters never thought it could happen to them, until 'Tony couldn't see why anyone would want to own a hand gun' - so they were banned. Although a national model flying centre may not be a panacea, or the only answer, it would raise our profile and give us a focus to promote our hobby and fight off the sort of insanity we see in the modern, socialist desire for the state to control everything we do. I think a few quid on my annual membership fee for the BMFA could be money well spent.

[Tony Bennett]

my view is that it would be better to spend the money needed to fund a national Centre would be better spent on funding improvements to local clubs.

some clubs are losing their sites, why not fund the purchasing permanent fields from local councils.

or even set up county centres rather than one central one.

Edited By Tony Bennett on 10/08/2014 13:05:24

[cymaz]

Good points PN but the outer reachs of the uk may be left to fend for themselves. I do think that the bmfa should be reaching out more to local clubs. There is no national movement against model flying but some clubs have been closed or moved to electric due to local backlash not screaming public headlines. It may be the slow drip, drip demise of clubs.

Local clubs must and should encourage local support among people. Nimby's can hardly raise a stink if they fly as well.

[cymaz]

How about a poll on this site? National flying centre or county centres?

[Peter Beeney]

By coincidence, in a casual conversation just the other day, it was said that there had been some recent idle mutterings in the pilot’s lounge yet again about the National Model Flying Centre, and the word on the street now seems to indicate that it could at least most likely double the BMFA subscription.

Although I too am very suspicious that perhaps such news might not be best received in every quarter, either…

I also remember reading somewhere a while back that the average age of the BMFA membership was 60… … and rising…

PB

[cymaz]

The bmfa survey highlighted by Cuban 8 at the top of the page confirms your suspicions PeterB. 47% that answered the survey were 61 and over.

[leccyflyer]

Posted by Cuban8 on 10/08/2014 10:14:06:

Not sure whether to laugh or cry!

Download the PDF for all the comments.

**LINK**

Edited By Cuban8 on 10/08/2014 10:15:57

Agreed - what an utterly depressing read.

[Peter Beeney]

Yes indeed, cymaz, I did see that, it’s what drew the remark. I’ve also just done a ‘best guess’ on our club, some ages I know, and trying to take a sensible estimate at the others. Excluding juniors I arrived at an average of 59.7; including the youngsters, whose ages I do know, reduced it to 56.5. It’s all in the same ballpark, as they say...

I seem to remember that once upon a time a ‘Centre of Excellence’ was being mooted, that was back during the time when Graham Lynn was the General Secretary, and that apparently didn’t even include a flying site; I seem to remember Graham comparing the situation then to a football club without a pitch..

I felt at the time that a much better idea would be to concentrate on local sites, but after I’d given it some consideration I soon thought better of that, too. Many folk seem to be quite happy to be members of a club which is largely influenced by the BMFA, with many seemingly incomprehensible rules and regulations, but I’m afraid that’s not really for me.

So just imagine a site actually controlled by the BMFA. Again, I’m sure there are are those that that would embrace this, but on a personal basis it’s something I’d definitely be steering well clear of; I’ve always been a SMAE / BMFA member, simply for the ‘safety in numbers‘ angle, but as in many cases, it can also have it’s drawbacks.

With regard to any / or protection afforded by the BMFA, I’m not quite sure how much influence they would be able to bring, however high their profile was. Not a million years ago, someone, (not me), was phoned by a policeman, wishing to discuss at length all about quadcopters and the like and their ability to potentially be used as weapons and so on; so the awareness is of course ever present. But I’m sure it will take some sort of trigger to start any actions in motion, though, let’s hope that is still way down the road a’piece…

PB

[Gary Manuel]

Interesting how statistics are (mis) used to make a point. There are around 36000 BMFA members and only 1728 members voted.

I've used the same statistics to make my own point. Here's my poll results:

Are you interested in a National Model Flying Centre?

Yes = 4.8% (1728)

No = 95.2% (34272)

Hardly a mandate for going ahead with the proposals.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Glad to see you discussing it, the figures they give don't reflect the feelings amongst our clubs members.

Doodsons are funding the survey...whats the best way to see what BMFA members think ? ASK them.

January 1st each year insurances are due, include a form for each member to complete and return, don't put a survey on a website few visit and call it representative. I don't see it raising our profile either, the locals will notice it few others will.

John

[ken anderson.]

my view-it will be the masses paying for the minority.......who will use it-very few.....it'll cost more to get to it than to make it worth the trip-----and of course it will be at the southern end of the country...and if it was passed that the fee's went up to help pay for it would not that make all who contribute a shareholder? ........... fair enough air the idea and invite comments.........my opinion..

ken Anderson ... ne...1 ... no way dept.

[Alan Gorham_]

I have to admit that my take on this topic is a bit different to most on here and other places I have seen it discussed. Sorry in advance for the coming rant but I really think there's a lot of short-term and selfish thinking out there...

Firstly, I get annoyed when I see all the comments saying that" it's too far away to benefit me so I don't want it."

I then laugh when I see all the threads on fora various about everyone getting excited about travelling to Barkston for the Nats or to the RCM&E Greenacres fly-in. There is undeniably an appetite out there for model flyers travelling to attend flying events. If these events happened to be held at the national flying site instead of on an RAF base then I think you would still attend?

Also, over the last 5/6 years I've travelled to fly-ins for electric models at various excellent venues all over England as well as more general events at Old Warden. The large numbers of attendees at events like this leads me to believe that many modellers ARE interested in travelling to events to meet friends old and new, see something different from the usual down at their club, buy special materials etc from traders and so on.

Perhaps what might not be so appetising is popping down to a National Flying site for 3 flights with their Sunday flyer, but to me that is no reason not to grab this opportunity with both hands.

I also note with interest the survey results show the largest cohorts of the age of modellers to be approaching, at, or past retirement age, with a dramatic fall-off in numbers towards the younger members. Lets assume that this is representative of the wider BMFA membership. That should be a huge worry for those concerned with the future of the hobby and in my opinion if we as a body of modellers do not secure a site for the future then our hobby may not last another three or four generations. Dramatic? possibly yes but what if I'm right?

One of the whole reasons I felt that a site like this was needed was to hold the Nationals on if the worst should happen with access to MoD property due to financial pressures etc. This has now come to pass and there's no immediate solution on the horizon.

I know that most will say they are not interested in competing themselves, but one of the reasons that the BMFA has tried to raise the profile and standard of the Nationals in recent years is that this is their shop window to show that our hobby is indeed a sport and is worthy of a place in the minds of government (national and local), the media, the military and the general public. If that opportunity disappears to showcase the best in one place then our hobby might fade from the collective conscience with disastrous results.

[Alan Gorham_]

Continued...

Let's face it the typical club environment is not going to show our hobby in the best light and there is a need to encourage new entrants like never before.

Let's also face something else...The cost of paying BMFA subs plus club subs for a year is not the major expense that most of us will incur in the course of a years worth of flying. If you buy/build two .46 sized models per year and kit them out with engines, radio etc from the ground up and then drive to field once a week, say, on average to fly them then tot up your fuel costs (model and car). And if you build anything bigger/more complex than that then lets get real and say that you will spend perhaps five or six multiples of your combined BMFA and club subs.

Then let's consider the level of your BMFA subs (currently £32). Last year they were £31 and the BMFA treasurer proposed that they were left at this level at the AGM. A motion from the floor (i.e. from a BMFA affiliated club eligible to vote) got them increased for no good reason. Ok, fair enough, but then consider that out of those £31 the BMFA were able to fund the Nationals (free flight in May and R/C in August), buy a simulator trailer that clubs or shows can use for events, pay the premiums on an insurance policy that gives members up to £25m third party cover on any one claim, fight a legal case which cost around £40k (I think) to win a club back their flying site and then tell me that (say) £10 or even £20 a year for the next 10 years would not be excellent value...

Barkston as a site for model flying was/is used for more than just the May and August Nationals. It was also the main flying site for a club (for both R/C and FF) and was used for various large scale fly-ins, the Midland area festival of flight and sometimes centralised FF comps. So now where do these events go? To another RAF base? If so, where? I've heard mention of Sculthorpe which is in Norfolk. Convenient for most of you? And if not Sculthorpe then where? And for how long until the MoD say: "Sorry but so long" from that site as well?

Let's also consider that the BMFA have permanent staff who run the society day-to-day. Their current premises are small and arguably not fit for purpose, especially when extra bodies come to visit for Council and Area Council meeting periodically. Having the admin of the society centralised with a flying site venue could in the long run lead to revenues gained from the running of the National comps help to fund the cost of the admin. site if it's in the same location. So, potentially, in 20 years time, our National Centre could (could...!) support itself.

Also, those of us currently buying ARTFs, petrol engines, Lipos, ESCs and brushless motors cheaply from China could soon find that they will not be so cheap due to increasing wage demands from the workers being enacted into a law which will see minimum wages for workers increase. Therefore our modelling goods will get more expensive and we will be able to buy and operate less models for our £. In this scenario surely it's a small investment for each of us to make this site a reality rather than just concentrating on our own small sphere of interest?

Let me state finally that I am not an official in the BMFA, nor do I have any hidden agenda in this. I am a 36 year old who has been a modeller their entire life (good parenting I calls it...) and I really feel that our hobby/sport owes it to itself to fund and build something like a National Centre to allow a central venue for flying, administrating our hobby and, not least a permanent museum to preserve valuable historical artefacts for posterity. There might never be another chance to do this and if it costs us all another £20 a year for the next then years then even if you never go and visit personally, is it not a price worth paying?

[John Privett]

Posted by Peter Beeney on 10/08/2014 14:14:58:

Yes indeed, cymaz, I did see that, it’s what drew the remark. I’ve also just done a ‘best guess’ on our club, some ages I know, and trying to take a sensible estimate at the others. Excluding juniors I arrived at an average of 59.7; including the youngsters, whose ages I do know, reduced it to 56.5. It’s all in the same ballpark, as they say...

Here's something I did back in 2010 as a guesstimate of the age profile of my club. This is only a guess based on their 'mugshots' so I could be 5 or 10 years out for individuals - and they're probably all 4 years older now! - though some will have left the club and maybe been replaced by younger members.

[LPP]

What an excellent post by Alan Gorham.

If only everybody else thought on those lines.

Be interesting to see how many likes or dislikes there would be from the forum if they were available.

[Peter Beeney]

JP - from your graph, John, combining ages 55 and 60, approx. average 57.7, it then looks like almost equal member numbers either side, give or take..

We are all now singing from the same hymn sheet this time, I guess..

Excellent stuff..

PB

[Alan Gorham_]

One last comment for now...

What a disaster that the survey closed prior to the news about the loss of Barkston came out.

So many respondent's comments were along the lines of: "What we have at Barkston is fine, why change...."