BMFA National Flying Centre

[Dizz]

Posted by Dave Hopkin on 13/05/2015 13:28:36:

That's one of the things I have not seen, a sustainability plan (assuming all the implementation funding happens) - how is the center going to pay for itself - I would love to see something like the NFC but not at the expense of creating a millstone round the BMFA's neck

To be honest I cant see how anywhere near enough funds could be generated from visiting sports flyers, unless the cost of flying there was extortionate (which would be self defeating) - yes there are the Nats and other shows (LMA, FPV?) that might be encouraged to use the facilities - but that will only be for a handful weekends a year - so where are the running costs coming from - I somehow dont think and aeromodelling museum is going to cause traffic jams of traffic queuing to get in can you?

There are sustainment funding figures quoted in the document, but I expect if you asked 15 people to estimate them you would get 25 different answers. Something to factor is that thePower Nats at Barkston Heath run on a 500+ acre airfield and still there are encorachments between discplines: the proposed site is only 107 acres.

BTW, the £6M for the project Erfolg quotes is wrong; in the study the building cost estimate alone exceeds that figure.

I will be visiting the site before the Full Council meeting.............looking forward to it.

Pete

 

Edited By Dizz on 13/05/2015 14:47:14

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

An aeromodelling collection would be worthwhile if enough "interesting" stuff is available but I have to ask myself, as a pretty committed modeller with roots in the hobby extending to the mid sixties, "Would I make a special journey to see it?" and TBH I can't think of anything that would interest me enough to do so. I've always thought such an exhibition would be better at an established aviation museum where a wide audience of aviation enthusiasts would be available.

£6 million - well at least that sounds a realistic starting point for something along the lines envisaged - but we (or they, if BEB is correct) don't even have the £1.25 million to buy the site - unless there's a very lumpy mattress in the bowels of Chacksfield House.

Volunteer labour? Nice idea but if our club is anything to go by there's usually a hard core who do most of the work (and largely most of the flying, to be fair) - but an hour or two's drive from most major population centres is likely to severely limit numbers.

Once again, I'll harp back to the need for the members - and especially those on the area committees - to actually see the properly costed proposals and funding options. I sincerely hope that it is viable but have deep fears that it can't be.

Edited By Martin Harris on 13/05/2015 17:50:29

[Dave Hopkin]

Posted by Dizz on 13/05/2015 14:46:13:

Posted by Dave Hopkin on 13/05/2015 13:28:36:

That's one of the things I have not seen, a sustainability plan (assuming all the implementation funding happens) - how is the center going to pay for itself - I would love to see something like the NFC but not at the expense of creating a millstone round the BMFA's neck

To be honest I cant see how anywhere near enough funds could be generated from visiting sports flyers, unless the cost of flying there was extortionate (which would be self defeating) - yes there are the Nats and other shows (LMA, FPV?) that might be encouraged to use the facilities - but that will only be for a handful weekends a year - so where are the running costs coming from - I somehow dont think and aeromodelling museum is going to cause traffic jams of traffic queuing to get in can you?

There are sustainment funding figures quoted in the document, but I expect if you asked 15 people to estimate them you would get 25 different answers. Something to factor is that thePower Nats at Barkston Heath run on a 500+ acre airfield and still there are encorachments between discplines: the proposed site is only 107 acres.

BTW, the £6M for the project Erfolg quotes is wrong; in the study the building cost estimate alone exceeds that figure.

I will be visiting the site before the Full Council meeting.............looking forward to it.

Pete

Edited By Dizz on 13/05/2015 14:47:14

Can you share a link to the doc with the sustainability numbers in please

[Erfolg]

Dizz

I accept that the figure of £6m is wrong, in that it was quoted as available on the BMFA site. I had no idea of knowing it was correct or where the figure can be found. It was not disputed by the two people who may have known. If it is much higher, then it becomes more of an issue of how it is to funded and the time scales envisaged.

There is one bit of info that I do not want to labour, although available from the sales pack and that is about crops that apparently will be grown on the site, for a period, if I remember correctly of 4 years. If the contracted arrangements are not bought out (if that is possible), it seems that the use of the fields will be restricted for that period.

Perhaps another issue is that the buildings are derelict, which indicates that either refurbishment or new build is required to create accommodation. Which comes at a cost.

During the discussion it became apparent that the size of the fields, is very similar to the one that my club flies of at this time. I am less than convinced that all the facilities can be built on the site and still retain sensible feasibility for all the envisaged disciplines. Without facilities some suggest that the venue is to small for free flight, without encroachment onto adjacent farm land. If true, could become an issue with the farmers concerned.

It does seem that this is probably not the right field, the location is also contentious for many, not being near the geographical centre of England, that is before considering Wales.

My opinion is still pretty much the same, I need more information with respect to finance and I am now convinced that for us RC modellers there is not a major issue, that is without substantial buildings. For some others 100 acres or 42 hectares is to small. I still remain sceptical that the study is as comprehensive and is as structured as I would expect, although many others they  may find the content is acceptable. Above all I would like to see it, hopefully to be pleasantly surprised.

I do believe the BMFA needs to start communicating fully with its ordinary members and take us with them, if the journey is to happen and be successful.

Edited By Erfolg on 13/05/2015 15:51:51

Edited By Erfolg on 13/05/2015 15:53:22

Edited By Erfolg on 13/05/2015 15:55:28

[Dizz]

Posted by Dave Hopkin on 13/05/2015 15:02:49:

Posted by Dizz on 13/05/2015 14:46:13:

Posted by Dave Hopkin on 13/05/2015 13:28:36:

That's one of the things I have not seen, a sustainability plan (assuming all the implementation funding happens) - how is the center going to pay for itself - I would love to see something like the NFC but not at the expense of creating a millstone round the BMFA's neck

To be honest I cant see how anywhere near enough funds could be generated from visiting sports flyers, unless the cost of flying there was extortionate (which would be self defeating) - yes there are the Nats and other shows (LMA, FPV?) that might be encouraged to use the facilities - but that will only be for a handful weekends a year - so where are the running costs coming from - I somehow dont think and aeromodelling museum is going to cause traffic jams of traffic queuing to get in can you?

There are sustainment funding figures quoted in the document, but I expect if you asked 15 people to estimate them you would get 25 different answers. Something to factor is that thePower Nats at Barkston Heath run on a 500+ acre airfield and still there are encorachments between discplines: the proposed site is only 107 acres.

BTW, the £6M for the project Erfolg quotes is wrong; in the study the building cost estimate alone exceeds that figure.

I will be visiting the site before the Full Council meeting.............looking forward to it.

Pete

Edited By Dizz on 13/05/2015 14:47:14

Can you share a link to the doc with the sustainability numbers in please

Afraid not, got it in hard copy only

[Dizz]

Posted by Erfolg on 13/05/2015 15:50:59:

Dizz

I accept that the figure of £6m is wrong, in that it was quoted as available on the BMFA site. I had no idea of knowing it was correct or where the figure can be found. It was not disputed by the two people who may have known. If it is much higher, then it becomes more of an issue of how it is to funded and the time scales envisaged.

There is one bit of info that I do not want to labour, although available from the sales pack and that is about crops that apparently will be grown on the site, for a period, if I remember correctly of 4 years. If the contracted arrangements are not bought out (if that is possible), it seems that the use of the fields will be restricted for that period.

Perhaps another issue is that the buildings are derelict, which indicates that either refurbishment or new build is required to create accommodation. Which comes at a cost.

During the discussion it became apparent that the size of the fields, is very similar to the one that my club flies of at this time. I am less than convinced that all the facilities can be built on the site and still retain sensible feasibility for all the envisaged disciplines. Without facilities some suggest that the venue is to small for free flight, without encroachment onto adjacent farm land. If true, could become an issue with the farmers concerned.

It does seem that this is probably not the right field, the location is also contentious for many, not being near the geographical centre of England, that is before considering Wales.

My opinion is still pretty much the same, I need more information with respect to finance and I am now convinced that for us RC modellers there is not a major issue, that is without substantial buildings. For some others 100 acres or 42 hectares is to small. I still remain sceptical that the study is as comprehensive and is as structured as I would expect, although many others they may find the content is acceptable. Above all I would like to see it, hopefully to be pleasantly surprised.

I do believe the BMFA needs to start communicating fully with its ordinary members and take us with them, if the journey is to happen and be successful.

Edited By Erfolg on 13/05/2015 15:51:51

Edited By Erfolg on 13/05/2015 15:53:22

Edited By Erfolg on 13/05/2015 15:55:28

The study document anticipates the development of a NFC with staged funding over at least 5 years.

Define "near". For people in my part of the country, a 30 mile shift in location makes little difference in reality; it is still a very long drive. However the selection criteria did actually include weighting for proximity to the population centre (rather than geographic centre). Any site, no matter what, is going to be subject to the distance from home argument.

Pete

[Steve T]

Location is such a no brainer, no matter where it is, most of us will be looking at an unacceptable journey to make it a regular visit. We are not going to the nearest field we have access to, or a local club, this has to be worth the journey. I started modelling around 1971, then there was a long gap, but I still can't see the appeal of looking at old models, I would rather build one for myself. What can this centre offer me that would make me travel and spend the money it will need to make it viable? Free flight? I can do that locally, vintage? again I would rather build from an old plan. The Nats? I used to live in Sleaford so yes they are a good weekend but exactly just that. The only thing I can think of is that it should be combined with an aviation museum, like Duxford etc. even that idea doesn't give me a vision of big income. Am I correct in thinking there are actually less modellers than there used to be? Late 60's into 70's I knew loads of young un's like myself flying our own built stuff, I don't see enough youth out there any more, the computer game had washed the grey cells totally clean. So where will the attendance come from?

[cymaz]

Posted by cymaz on 04/05/2015 14:21:01:

"They" should also consider more ways of making it pay for itself. Venue for trade shows, caravan rallies, concerts etc.

I know, not exactly model flying but something to keep the cash flow rolling and the tills ringing.

I rest my case

[kc]

Why can't we have a poll here on Modelflying to find out if people here support a NFC? I asked for this on 1st May and the thread got diverted here but nothing has happened.

[cymaz]

I'm up for that, since nearly all of us should be bmfa members.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

The volunteer labour is/was not extra labour to match the grant awarded, it's in the work you already do at your field, organization, community, shows etc even man hours for committee meetings went down in the figures. it's how you show your commitment and show you're worth funding, because they want to help those worth helping as opposed to those sat on their backsides doing nowt.

John

[Erfolg]

It is quite correct to say that there is no perfect location that will satisfy every one.

Yet it is also true some locations are so poor that a very large proportion of those in England and Wales would consider the location extremely difficult to reach, taking many hours of driving, through congested areas.

In the case of Kings Cliffe, it can be reasonably be argued is particularly onerous to reach for many. It lies on the wrong side of the M1 for a large proportion of the membership. This location requires a major journey for those from Cornwall. For those in Wales, again quite a trek, although it would take careful area selection to improve access for these groups. It is a similar story for many modellers in the NW, not only a long journey, but a difficult journey.

Population centres and balances are not easy to define, although I would argue thre are three major regions of high population density. I would argue that there is a band across the country stretching from Liverpool across through Leeds to Hull. There is another possibly larger or much the same density around the Birmingham and Wolverhampton etc. We all know that London is probably has the largest clearly identified concentration of people, although almost all major roads radiate out from the capitol. I would suggest that a better location would be west of Nottingham rather than East of Leicester.

I just do not think that the location of proposed site cuts the mustard, not taking into account the other issues, it seems to have little going for it.

Yet all of us ordinary members continue to be deprived of a lot of relevant information, to form informed opinions, being drip fed, small morsels of information. I am very surprised how far the membership have gone in accessing information, as it has not been made easy for us.

I do sympathise with the task of just identifying the ideal area, but this one leaves a lot more dissatisfied than is desirable.

[cymaz]

Posted by Erfolg on 13/05/2015 19:35:12:

It is quite correct to say that there is no perfect location that will satisfy every one.

This location requires a major journey for those from Cornwall.

Thank Erflog for thing of us down here near the equator

[iqon]

I thought location was ok, near A1 and M1, just a pity about the airport next door.....82 miles further north though would be better

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[The Wright Stuff]

Posted by kc on 13/05/2015 19:03:16:

Why can't we have a poll here on Modelflying to find out if people here support a NFC? I asked for this on 1st May and the thread got diverted here but nothing has happened.

Not against a poll per se, but it depends so much on how it is worded that you almost need a poll to decide how to phrase the poll, and what the other options should be. And it needs to be neutral. What you proposed was "Do you want a fancy centre near Leicester or a plain field in every county?". Not exactly unbiased!

It might be better to ask more specific questions with less room for emotion, such as "How far would you be prepared to travel?" or "How much would you be prepared to pay per visit?" or "How often would you visit?"

[Cuban8]

How about..................................."are you in favour of a National Model Flying Centre"?

If it's likely to be too far away or too expensive to travel to, or there isn't the interest or there's a fundamental objection, then vote No - for the reverse vote Yes! How hard can it be?

[Erfolg]

I would be wary of such a poll under the present circumstances, if I were the RCM&E.

The reasons would centre about a number of potentially perceived issues. That it is a matter of the BMFA, and some would argue their membership. That some may perceive that the magazine had issues of their own, relationships with both the BMFA representatives and their readership.

Also such a poll would be dealing with issues such as who will visit etc., that you would expect the BMFA to have addressed and have quantitative indicators available with respect the 33, 000 membership.

I think such a poll would be useful, never the less.

[The Wright Stuff]

Posted by Cuban8 on 14/05/2015 10:40:59:

How about..................................."are you in favour of a National Model Flying Centre"?

If it's likely to be too far away or too expensive to travel to, or there isn't the interest or there's a fundamental objection, then vote No - for the reverse vote Yes! How hard can it be?

Well, if it's just for fun, I've no objection at all. As for whether the poll reflects genuine public opinion, actually that can be very hard. A few other people found that out to their cost last week!

In response to your poll, I would want to vote "it depends". If "it depends" was not an option, then I would more-or-less vote randomly "yes" or "no" depending on my current state of mind and the tone of the most recent posts in the thread at that time...

[MattyB]

I think the poll that would be useful at this point is "Based on the current information provided by the BMFA, do you support the purchase of Laws Lawn Farm (East Northants) for £1.25m on June 5th for the potential establishment of a National Model Flying Centre?". That is the pressing question right now - whether members are for or against the idea of an NFC is of secondary importance (and the BMFA would argue has been answered by their survey last year). That can (and apparently will following the May 16th Council meeting) be debated anyway between now and any EGM to agree going forward with the NFC.

Edited By MattyB on 14/05/2015 11:30:15

[Cuban8]

Posted by MattyB on 14/05/2015 11:16:58:

I think the poll that would be useful at this point is "Based on the current information provided by the BMFA, do you support the purchase of Laws Lawn Farm (East Northants) for £1.25m on June 5th for the potential establishment of a National Model Flying Centre?". That is the pressing question right now - whether members are for or against the idea of an NFC is of secondary importance (and the BMFA would argue has been answered by their survey last year). That can (and apparently will following the May 16th Council meeting) be debated anyway between now and any EGM to agree going forward with the NFC.

Edited By MattyB on 14/05/2015 11:30:15

Yes, agree with that - especially as Lawns Farm is only something of the order of 20-25% of the size of good old Barkston, judging by an on-line land area tool. Sounds too small to host a Nats sized event - certainly as we know it now. .

Edited By Cuban8 on 14/05/2015 12:00:33

[Colin Leighfield]

I'm not sure how much this will influence anything, although it's well intentioned. The channels are through BMFA. Also one reason we are in this predicament is because the true aspirations haven't been well enough communicated perhaps and we have certainly aired that issue.

As I understand it this is not simply about having a new dedicated place to fly at which is too far away for most members to want to go there, unless on special occasions. It is about creating a new progressive model for BMFA and building resources, capability and income streams which will benefit everyone in the long term. If it's not, it should be.

What percentage of BMFA membership is represented by the interested contributors on this forum? Clearly some colleagues can be influential through their local and regional committee work, and are trying to be so. My opinion on this is still,on balance supportive, but that needs to be validated by the further detail that we are all waiting for. Key issues for me will be:- central position reasonably accessible from the major road network, conference facilities which can be used to generate income, Motorcycle Museum style and with good quality hotel accommodation nearby for those visiting, including potential business users.

 

Edited By Colin Leighfield on 14/05/2015 12:58:54

[Steve T]

I now have a figure I needed, along with a few others. 33,000 - 35,000 modellers/pilots ! I am on the east coast, no motorway to the midlands or anywhere else, 2-1/2 hours if lucky. This will never be a place I will visit. Sorry but it is as simple as that. I know you can't please everyone but it has to be something very special to commit time and money to travel so far and to what is considerably smaller than Barkston. Oh dear!

[Erfolg]

Colin

Right from the beginning a major issue for me has been a lack of clarity and any consultation with the broad membership.

There really should have been some effort in selling the image that the centre hopefully has to the membership and also of listening. The magazine is a perfect vehicle for this process. Not stuck away as a footnote, rather than a major feature article.

There are differences in general perceptions what a NFC could be. In your case a key feature in engaging with younger generations and raising the profile of the hobby. In my case a facility that is relevant, useful and accessible to present BMFA members.Some see a facility dedicated to the historic development of aeromodelling. Some see the NFC as a learned centre/society dedicated to the technical advancement of aeromodelling I am sure that there are many other visions.

I have reservations about anything above a field if it is only 100 acres. My concerns are the legal requirement to come no closer than 50m of buildings etc and 150m from a large crowd and so on. A large building, car park and camping area, would have some impact on s modest sized site as the one under discussion. It has been pointed out, that the Nationals as run now, would require substantial restructuring to run on such a sized site.

Yet I have an impression that the Nationals are very high in the mind set of the supporters.. It is apparent that there is an issue. There may not be a solution, as there appears to none to running the Eddie Riding Cup in my area, most unfortunately.

Yet for all my aspirations, the returning elephant in the room is MONEY. This aspect needs to be discussed with the membership and the options understood, by all.

The supporters of the the NFC, should be applauded for their ambition, although there lack of consultation requires revision. BEB has pointed out that the BMFA is a company, where it appears that whoever are the shareholders are, are not apparently us, the members. On that basis it seems there has been a feeling that we do not need to be consulted. There seems to be much in common with some part of the civil service, commonly know as "the need to know" and members do not need to know.

Anyway Saturday is almost here, and no doubt we will eventually come to learn something.

[The Wright Stuff]

Posted by Steve T on 14/05/2015 13:09:15:

I now have a figure I needed, along with a few others. 33,000 - 35,000 modellers/pilots ! I am on the east coast, no motorway to the midlands or anywhere else, 2-1/2 hours if lucky. This will never be a place I will visit. Sorry but it is as simple as that. I know you can't please everyone but it has to be something very special to commit time and money to travel so far and to what is considerably smaller than Barkston. Oh dear!

Steve, you are assuming that you will need to visit the centre in order to benefit from it as a BMFA member. In my mind that's much too simplistic an argument, and is why a poll will be difficult to interpret.

I would hope that the centre would also aim to benefit members indirectly, like generating income that could subsequently be re-invested elsewhere, or simply by making model flying more accepted by the general public as a mainstream activity. This could increase the number of potential sites available all over the country, by increasing awareness of model flying as a growing, relevant, inclusive sport, not just 'a peculiar hobby for retired old men'...

Of course, it might not work, but I think it's that bigger picture that we ought to be judging this whole project on, not just whether or not we would benefit personally in the short term...