National Model Flying Centre

[cymaz]

Posted by cymaz on 10/08/2014 13:05:22:

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

That would be interesting, already asked.......

a poll about a poll

[Alan Gorham_]

I would also like to point out to those saying that this is a minority in the BMFA pushing this forward that the results of the survey show an overwhelming interest in favour of a Centre of some sort. To this end the feasibility study looks like it will now go ahead with a certain, defined scope in terms of outline costs, finding a site etc.

So then, if a feasible proposal emerges to be voted on by the wider membership it's up to the wider majority to reject it.

Those of you in clubs ask yourself honestly what image your club projects to a young person potentially interested in flying....

Personally I feel that a lot of the interest in quadcopters etc is that they are perceived to be very technological and accessible ie you can buy one easily from a shop, fly it anywhere you like and with no instruction. So, many young people will have more exposure to a quadcopter being flown than a traditional model at a traditional flying club site.

If the BMFA doesn't try to promote the hobby/sport then tell me who will?

[cymaz]

There is such a great debate about this on this forum because we are all passionate about our hobby.

But how do we secure it for the future? This National Centre could make or brake the BMFA and either way the BMFA and its members must get it right first time. Then whatever the outcome is everybody should get behind it. If not this will lead to splinter groups within the BMFA. this will, in turn lead to different factions being set up and then its a case of divide and conquer. The BMFA will lose the authority as being a national umbrella.....I think model flying will be the worst for that.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

I'm afraid not Alan - as has been pointed out the overwhelming majority of the membership did not vote in favour of this idea.

What is much worse, anyone who answered the first question with a "No" was unceremoniously turfed out and excluded from any further involvement in the process. They call this "logical questioning", I'm afraid that to me and many others what it projects is that the instigators of this survey set up the questionaire to generate the answer they wanted - and frankly they were not the slightest bit interested in the views of anyone who didn't give them the answer they wanted to hear! This survey is fundamentally flawed!

To continue to the expense of a feasibility study on the active support of less than 5% of the membership (and that's all it is) is a crazy view of democracy.

BEB

[Gary Manuel]

Alan,

This is simply not true.

Only the majority of the members who were interested enough to vote gave the impression of an"overwhelming interest". The remaining 95% of members did not vote because they were not interested enough to do so.

If the question posed to them was more along the lines of "Do you want to finance a National Centre through increased BMFA funds", I suspect that the outcome would have been very different.

[PatMc]

Alan, the survey was a completely meaningless. There was no requirement to give a BMFA number & no way to prevent multiple voting.

[iqon]

Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 10/08/2014 19:26:37:

Those of you in clubs ask yourself honestly what image your club projects to a young person potentially interested in flying....

wont be any different if this goes ahead , apart from it may cost them more money

[Colin Leighfield]

Sorry BEB, that doesn't alter it for me. First of all, I think a lot of what I hear reflects a jaundiced view of BMFA among a lot of our pals and they might have good reason. I can't argue with that. Where I'm coming from on this one is a position that is neutral on BMFA. I have no particular experience beyond paying my dues and on the odd occasion that I've been in touch those I've spoken to have been helpful. Clearly others have different experiences and if I'd had the same perhaps it would have affected my opinion.

It must be a mistake to decide that focusing on increasing the interest of young people is not worth the trouble. You describe the number of 50 plus males who come in to the hobby as work and domestic pressures reduce. The question I would ask, and perhaps you know the answer, is how did they find out about it? Are they completely new or are they returning to an interest they had as kids? If it's the latter we should be worried, because those numbers will progressively decline. Personally I needn't worry about it, I'm at "departure lounge" age anyway so why should I care about happens when I'm gone? Perhaps quite a few of us genuinely feel that way and that's perfectly reasonable, but I don't think that I do. A properly managed National Centre could do a lot to raise the profile of the hobby in a positive fashion, encourage new blood and generate income. Is there any suggestion that grant funding might be available to help finance it?

What it needs is a thorough investigation to determine what the objectives should be and the programme of action required to achieve them. Consultants do that and advise appropriately. Clearly the apparent concerns about BMFA make it essential that there is some independence in the process for the recommendations to be credible. Perhaps a good starting point would be to insist on a business plan which demonstrates that the venture will be self-financing. If it was and perhaps even generated a profit, how many would still object?

Edited By Colin Leighfield on 10/08/2014 20:09:05

[Tony Bennett]

do the bmfa actually advertise model flying ? i have never seen it.

but anyway i am not going to knock the bmfa.

if a national centre CAN be self funding and CAN promote flying as a hobby rather than just being a huge mill stone round the current members necks, then go for it.

but in my honest opinion i dont think it will.

surely they would be better off spending funds on a national advertising scheme in schools, youth clubs, pension offices and dare i say it "television" or radio.

then maybe there will be enough income generated to fund their "legacy"

[leccyflyer]

Do the BMFA advertise model flying - well they certainly promote it, which can only be a good thing.

However there was a BMFA representative on national television this morning, promoting the use of quadcopter "drones", on BBC's <click> segment of the Breakfast News. Not sure that was a good thing.

[Alan Gorham_]

A few points to counter:

Nowhere did I state that a majority of BMFA members responded to the survey. It's perfectly clear that out of around 1800 respondents, 1700 or so were BMFA members (or said they were).

Note if they said they weren't BMFA members then their further responses were ignored.

The purpose of the survey was to test the water to see respondents were receptive to the idea of a National Centre.

If you go on and read the responses then it becomes clear that many of the respondents are broadly in favour of some kind of National Centre, but that each persons idea of what this should be is very different!

Also in the comments section are a wide selection of comments from respondents who do not want any centre, so to say that it doesn't represent people who do not want a centre is unfair.

I do think that the survey was flawed, partly because it had such nebulous, open-ended ideas at the time it was created. So it was little more than see if respondents want a centre and then to build on that.

Also if you say that if 95% of BMFA membership didn't vote in the survey then they aren't interested then fine, but this survey was fairly low key and since I haven't heard about a required level of response before proceeding with the feasibility study was required then it looks like the next stage in the process is there.

If 95% of the members truly don't want this site then when the time comes to vote for or against vote then. No problem!

I'm not here to defend the way the survey was written or conducted, but then I am in favour of such a centre and am keen to see the actual facts and figures about what it might actually take to create such a place from the ground up and crucially keep it going. That is the key for me.

Also can I just point out again that at this point now, there are no venues for the May or August nationals next year. Bit sad that a body of nearly 40,000 has to go cap in hand to rent land from the military in order to hold it's own champs eh?

I also believe that RAF Church Fenton has been lost to model flying this year as well, so it's a shrinking pot to choose from.

Remember that Barkston Heath is hired every year so that a proportion of the gate money (and maybe entrance fees for the comps as well?) goes straight back to the MoD. This money could be used to support a National Centre where the Nats are held...

Edited By Alan Gorham_ on 10/08/2014 21:14:41

[Colin Leighfield]

I saw that too leccyflyer. It was about a training acheme to teach people how to fly these things safely and not break the law. Surely that's the sort of thing that BMFA should be doing? If the law-makers don't see a responsible national body capable of doing this they'll find another way of doing it and that wouldn't be in our best interests at all, surely?

Edited By Colin Leighfield on 10/08/2014 20:52:09

[eflightray]

Goosedale was quite good, (museum and flying site), if you lived in fairly easy reach of it.

But I would guess people only tended to visit if there was a show/event on that related to their modeling interest.

The big national events obviously get a few more people willing to travel fair distances. The same goes for those who are competition minded. But who would visit a model museum on a general weekday, probably only those on holiday nearby. Once you have walked around a museum, how many more times would you want to do it again ?.

As for getting younger people interested in the hobby, they might if there is a very local club who was willing to help, (some clubs may not like beginners or have restrictions on the number of members). Otherwise it's down to a parent driving them to a club/flying site. Much easier to fly in a local park or field if they do want to try.

Tell some kid that he will need to pay out as much for club fees and BMFA membership as the plane he bought, just to fly with the 'grownups', and you probably wont see him again.

Wasn't the 'Sports Council' supposedly involved with modeling ?, I vaguely remember some mention that the BMFA and model flying was recognised by the Sports Council. If so, what have the SC actually done for the hobby ?

National Model Flying Centre ?, central to who ?

[Brian Cooper]

Several years ago there was a National organisation called the Model Pilots Association (MPA). At its height, we had several "National" flying sites (we tried to get one in each region) and it all seemed to work quite well, and people came from far and wide to meet like-minded aero modellers and generally have some light-hearted fun. We even had barbecues in the summer months. Although we paid attention to safety, etc, the atmosphere was always relaxed and laid-back.

This was in the days when there were no organised Fly-Ins anywhere else in the country so the MPA was the only organisation which actively enticed people to fly at venues other than their regular (same old) Club field.

If the BMFA want to recreate that kind of scenario, I am all for it. But I am not sure it will work if they have just one National Site.

B.C.

[Cuban8]

Brian, correct me if I'm mistaken, but was Dave Boddington also involved in forming the MPA and did it have backing from one of the magazines?

What brought about its demise?

[Area 51]

Why not consider "moving in" with an established aviation venue.. Such as RAF Cosford?

Surely some support from the RAFMAA movement would be forthcoming; the site is already directed toward recognition of aviation heritage, therefore "support/funds" could be easier to come by and secure.. (Lottery etc etc)

Additionally; the longevity of any project is not in question as the status of the current site would be boosted by the presence of the Centre or Excellence (I dont like this name, but that is me)..

Possibly, another plus, would be a site such as Cosford would welcome further regular funds from this “extra presence” and their own facilities would benefit from additional visitors too..

Surely a spare hangar can be found for BMFA heritage; as the military reduce their activities… This could double as an indoor arena and swapmeet “centre of bargains”..

As the government reduce commitment to military establishments/overheads; my view is this suggestion could me made to sit well with central/local government if a project (such as the centre of excellence (uck)) eased the financial burden and possible the transition of such a site (Cosford) into local ownership in the dim and distant future....

The facilities are already in place at a location such as Cosford!

Costs to establish a BMFA national heritage centre would be less than any brown/green field site… would not be competing with commercial development investment at such locations too..! (Imagine the BMFA secure a chunk of Barkston; only for the rest to be sold to private developers.. no new home owner on the remaining land is going to allow modellers to fly over his new house – end of!)

Cosford is close to a healthy M/way network.. has a super established airfield to handle a “nationals” type event annually..

The local air ambulance is also based at this airfield, indicating a desire to diversify income opportunities by RAF Cosford.

Admittedly it’s a shame its on the opposite side of the UK to the occupants and employees at Chacksfield.. but I’m pretty sure this would not be a reason why such a site could not be considered..

Just my 10p worth and I wholeheartedly agree the new blood will come from older generations..!

The younger people have a world changing by the year with latest PC/media inventions and bling... So its best, in my view, they get this out of their system and discover “us”.. when they have a more time in their lives again!

[FilmBuff]

The capacity of model flyers to display a lack of vision and ambition never ceases to amaze, and is in full flow on this thread! There is also some nonsense being directed at the survey. Sure, it is not of the IPSOS MORI standard for scientific validity, but it does give a snapshot - and that is all that is being captured at the moment.

I see two issues that must be separated:

• Do model flyers want some sort of national centre?
• How will it be funded?

Now, if we leave for one side the arguments over validity of the survey, sample size, etc - then over 80% of respondents would like to see some sort of national centre. I agree that this is far from a mandate, but it does give a direction of travel. It's probably "roughly right", rather than "precisely wrong".

BTW, if the sample of 1800 is representative of the BMFA membership, then with a membership of 40,000 such a sample will give 95% confidence with a margin of 2.25% each way. That is, you could be 95% confident that between 77.25% and 82.25% of members support a national centre.

The issue appears to be how such a centre is funded - and this is where the heat is. But first let's understand the appetite. Suspend disbelief for a few moments before reaching for the key board. Put down your Daily Mail and imagine what it could be like to have such a facility.

With a well formed view of what is possible, all the tricky stuff can be tackled with verve and vision.

Simple exercise - same words, but very different meaning:

1. "I want to go to Barbados, but it's expensive"
2. "It's expensive, but I want to go to Barbados"

#1 probably means you won't be soaking up the sun to Rhiana's beats. #2 means you will probably find away! Just swap Barbados for "National Centre" or similar description, and see what is possible. Dare to Dream!

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Filmbuff - well that's a first! No one, and I mean no one! - has ever accused me of lacking vision! Over enthusiasm, yes! Being a bit of an idealist, definitely! Even possibility a dreamer, yeap - from time to time.

I can assure you my lack of enthusiasm for this proposal does not stem from from a lack of vision! But my vision is radically different from what's proposed! And I'd be happy to share it - if I thought for 2 minutes that anyone in the BMFA heirachy would listen!

My problem is, I totally fail to see the benefits, in line with the costs, for the average member who is never going to see the inside of the "centre of excellence" and is probably likely to only see the outside of it once a year at the Nats! This money could be much better spent to benefit of our hobby than on this "white elephant".

I can also assure you that I fully understand the concepts of statistical significance. In fact I understand them well enough to know that they are only applicable if you are confident that your sample is representative and truly randomly selected. Are you suggesting that this survey even distantly approaches that criteria? Because I am absolutely sure that it doesn't! The overwhelming majority of the BMFA's membership rarely visit the website - because basically it so static and poor. And if they do visit, it only to go to the classifieds! The one section of the site that does change occasionally!

This survey was totally flawed and not only in terms of its sample. The questioning strategy was worthy of the democratic credentials of Vladimir Putin! Talk about "loaded" questions. The design of the questions such that anyone who expressed lack of support was then excluded from further questioning - such as "why don't you support", "would you support it in a different mode or under a different model" etc was also a basic flaw. Let's be kind and say it was amateurish and naive. More sceptical individuals than I might call it manipulative and biased.

This survey would only have attracted the attention of a few dedicated "BMFA watchers" and those deeply involved in the system anyway. As a serious attempt to gauge the views of the membership it was little more than a sham, and is certainly no firm basis for committing further resources.

BEB

[FilmBuff]

BEB said: I can assure you my lack of enthusiasm for this proposal does not stem from from a lack of vision! But my vision is radically different from what's proposed! And I'd be happy to share it - if I thought for 2 minutes that anyone in the BMFA heirachy would listen!

BEB - I'm all ears!

[Dave Miller]

I’ve written on this vanity project before and made my feeling known to Manny Williamson the BMFA Development Officer.

I believe that no more than 5% of the membership enter competitions organized by the BMFA the remainder are members because their clubs take advantage of the easy access to a good insurance policy.

Such a central site as is being discussed will cost several millions to purchase and set-up and a £150k or more a year to operate. The latter could be funded from a £5 to £10 increase in the subs so it’s the former that needs addressing and that’s not going to be funded from a few pounds on the membership. There also remains the small problem of finding the odd 100 acres of flattish land in central England with welcoming neighbours. I await an explanation of how the BMFA intend to find and fund the land purchase and development cost.

[Colin Leighfield]

I certainly don't disrespect the views of BEB and other colleagues who clearly have experiences with BMFA that influence their opinions on this. I am sure that they are better informed than me and bearing in mind how important it is that we have credible national representation, that worries me.

Perhaps I'm coming at it from a different angle and no specific influence from a view of BMFA either way. I can see the potential benefit of a properly thought out and managed National Centre which was planned and operated to be self-financing and perhaps even profitable. I come back to the National Motorcycle Museum example again on this one. I certainly wouldn't support the idea of something new which contributed nothing and was a cost burden which required some kind of levy on membership fees, which I'm sure would never fly anyway.

If the tenor of the debate is reflecting dissatisfaction with BMFA because of mistrust of motives and competence, I see that as a separate issue which needs to be separated and thrashed out. In fact, that should be done first and if the emotions that seem to be triggered by this are as strong as they appear to be, something is wrong and needs to be addressed.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Why are you seeing it as dissatisfaction with the BMFA or lack of vision, it reads to me that it's the idea of a centre that's the thing folk have the strong feelings about. It's also odd to label some of these folk as backward looking and not promoting model flying ? most if not all promote the BMFA within their clubs and modelling within their community's. Can we not express an opinion without being labelled anti BMFA.

John

[Colin Leighfield]

John, I didn't accuse anyone of a lack of vision or being backward-looking. I got the impression from what BEB said that he has issues with BMFA and that was part of the problem.

All I was trying to say was that there could be a different approach to this which might work to everyone's benefit. I personally don't have a problem with BMFA, but certainly some do and I got the impression that it was influencing the issue. However, the last thing I wish to do is offend anyone, it's not worth that.

[Lee Smalley]

Lee Smalley in agreement with BEB alert !!! holy smokes guys this is a rarity,

1. i did not even know a survey was going on about this A) the BMFA news is such a rubbish read that it is lucky to get a cursery glance before it hits the bin B) as BEB says the website is sooooo rubbish no one looks at it more than to go to the classifieds or download a test

2. if i did know a survey was going on i would not be favour of it based on some of the articles i have read previously i too would consider it a white elephant

Reasons

1. national site located wherever would only serve the BMFA, and a very small amount of its members that live close, most of us would never visit it

2. vast amount of money used to build the facility could be put to better use securing multiple fields across the country for its members to use and actually fly at

3. whilst a national centre would be nice for the BMFA bods to have tea at, i personally feel it is more of a "look at what we have" thing than something of real value for its members

generally the BMFA is out of touch and very old fashioned and stuck in its ways, one look at the website+ BMFA news tells you this, I think it was Simon Delaney that was brought in as editor, and he started to modernise the mag, only for him then go !! nice !! and now we are back to the usual rubbish content, a mag that has 50 70% of its content in free flight and vintage when i would estimate 20% of its members actually participate in.

yes the above has not a lot to do with the OP but i personally of the opinion that it shows an organisation that really does not listen that much and very backward in its approach, we are only now able to apply online for insurance ...its 2014 guys !!!! wake up!

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

I read your posts Colin, I know you would not give offence, I just chose the word dissatisfaction because I could copy your spelling to those who say ignore the online poll, it means nothing, tell the BMFA that, because our club of 60+ don't reflect the results and a lot voted.

John