BMFA National Flying Centre

[Area 51]

I have always thought a shared venue would be better... to raise cash/get the visitors in/protect the site and develop support from government / council departments.. Private enterprise if fine; if you have "mass" appeal.. funding and support will be no problem...

My own thoughts were a shared venue such as Cosford!. But that is me.. Good motorway connections/infrastructure in place, central, established flying site, museum, regular visitors.. the operational airfield could be shared for flying events.... full size and models can co-exsist with appropriate planning...

One does hope this new location that is about to be purchased has adequate road access in and out.. any volume of visitors will need this as minimum.. Access roads and planning to acheive the same are not cheap!..

[MattyB]

Posted by John F on 14/05/2015 15:41:31:

Posted by Erfolg on 14/05/2015 13:56:16:

Colin

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

How could there possibly be a lack of consultation with the broad membership when every member was told about this?

This has been ongoing for almost exactly a year.

I am sorry but the repetitive issue of not being informed, or consulted, is completely untrue.

Club Bulletins had news of the NFC and if your club did not know about it then maybe your club needs a rattle to keep itself up to date with what is going on. That is the role of the club; to inform members, and if the club is unable to do so then maybe it is time for a new set of personalities to keep the club going.

Sounds harsh, and I apologise if it does read as such, but the excuse of not being kept up to date is simply not acceptable when so much is available to everyone.

This is the first moment the idea was given birth: **LINK**

Then they actually, specifically, asked for thoughts and comments : **LINK**

There is even a forum style discussion with actual real members of the council who are involved in the NFC who welcome any question. The bonus is that you get answers from the folk who know, which quells the guestimations: **LINK**

If that is not enough you even get a recent update from the BMFA : **LINK**

I am sure that they are fully aware of the regulation regarding spacings at air shows!

The only elephant in the room is the fact that some people do not bother to acquaint themselves with these full, frank and completely open sources of information which answers many of the wee gripes that are currently floating around here.

The clarity is all there, for everyone to see, as is the consultation from members that they have repeatedly asked for.

Sorry John, but the sources you cite all read like the last 6 weeks of listening to Cameron "explaining" the £12bn welfare cut and Milliband's "plan" to cut the deficit. The headline is there, but the substance is missing.

Taking on the Paxman role , can I therefore ask where in these sources the following pieces of information reside (none of which are directly related to the land purchase and therefore do not need to be remain confidential):

• Total estimated cost of the project (inc. land purchase, buildings and all other necessary infrastructure);
• Sources of funding for the land purchase (i.e. how will the defcit between BMFA reserves and the purchase price be made up - mortgage, loan from our insurers, PPP arrangement, something else?) - detailed amounts not required;
• Funding model for the projec overall (i.e. x% from the lottery, y% from member donations, z% from fundraising etc)
• Approximate level of BMFA reserves available for contingency following the land purchase;
• Estimated timelines of the project;
• Risk analysis for the project, including list of project risks identified with outline mitigation plans if available;
• Steps taken re: gaining planning permission for the Laws Lawn site;
• Steps taken re: establishing the impact of the bridleway which crosses the Laws Lawn site;
• Steps taken re: establishing the impact of the Wittering MATZ;
• Alternative options that have been costed, and reasons for why they have been discounted in favour of Laws Lawn Farm.

Perhaps you think I am being picky, but I can asssure you that any PM leading an infrastructure project of this size in a major company would be expected to acquire and share all this information and more prior to gaining funding. That none of it is available to members means it is impossible most of us to give any view to our area committees other than "No - do not proceed with the purchase until the plan, funding model and risks are clear and understood".

Edited By MattyB on 15/05/2015 11:49:04

[MattyB]

Posted by The Wright Stuff on 15/05/2015 09:57:11:

I think of it this way. If I wake up one morning with a sudden and unexpected urge to go skiing, and have never done it before, then I can ring up a UK ski centre (e.g. Sheffield, Milton Keynes), book a session with an instructor, hire all the kit I need, turn up, have a go, and leave at the end of the day having made no commitments, invested no money in equipment or membership, and not had to do any preparation, research or practice beforehand. Maybe I'll have enjoyed it so much that I subsequently take it up later as a hobby.

Similarly if I want to have a go at paintball, golf, quad-biking, Go Ape, shooting, and half a dozen other outdoor activities that I can think of.

But what if I want to try model flying in the same casual manner? I'm not talking modelling, Suppose I have no interest in building or understanding ESCs or servos, I just want to fly. Where do I go?

Not quite so easy is it?

We may not like it, but most of those people now go down to their local Toys R Us, Halfords or go online, buy a quadcopter, and take it out and fly it. The safest and most likley way of being successful? Probably not, but it's what most newbies seem to do these days.

Edited By MattyB on 15/05/2015 11:54:57

[John F]

Posted by MattyB on 15/05/2015 11:45:13:

Sorry John, but the sources you cite all read like the last 6 weeks of listening to Cameron "explaining" the £12bn welfare cut and Milliband's "plan" to cut the deficit. The headline is there, but the substance is missing.

Taking on the Paxman role , can I therefore ask where in these sources the following pieces of information reside (none of which are directly related to the land purchase and therefore do not need to be remain confidential):

• Total estimated cost of the project (inc. land purchase, buildings and all other necessary infrastructure);
• Sources of funding for the land purchase (i.e. how will the defcit between BMFA reserves and the purchase price be made up - mortgage, loan from our insurers, PPP arrangement, something else?) - detailed amounts not required;
• Funding model for the projec overall (i.e. x% from the lottery, y% from member donations, z% from fundraising etc)
• Approximate level of BMFA reserves available for contingency following the land purchase;
• Estimated timelines of the project;
• Risk analysis for the project, including list of project risks identified with outline mitigation plans if available;
• Steps taken re: gaining planning permission for the Laws Lawn site;
• Steps taken re: establishing the impact of the bridleway which crosses the Laws Lawn site;
• Steps taken re: establishing the impact of the Wittering MATZ;
• Alternative options that have been costed, and reasons for why they have been discounted in favour of Laws Lawn Farm.

Perhaps you think I am being picky, but I can asssure you that any PM leading an infrastructure project of this size in a major company would be expected to acquire and share all this information and more prior to gaining funding. That none of it is available to members means it is impossible most of us to give any view to our area committees other than "No - do not proceed with the purchase until the plan, funding model and risks are clear and understood".

Edited By MattyB on 15/05/2015 11:49:04

 

With all of these points, Matty, you're going to have to ask the BMFA on their forum. Specific answers for specific questions are much better direct from the horses mouth, and be a better direction for concerns, would it not?

Don't forget though, and I think a lot of people who are repeatedly banging drums here have completely forgotten this point, all of this is embryonic and being overscrupulous over the minutiae at this point in time is unecessary as it is still in the consultation stage.

This also explains exactly why specific info is not yet available - this is the period of consultation and all the answers are there for the asking.

Edited By John F on 15/05/2015 12:20:23

[MattyB]

Posted by John F on 15/05/2015 12:16:36:

 

Don't forget though, and I think a lot of people who are repeatedly banging drums here have completely forgotten this point, all of this is embryonic and being overscrupulous over the minutiae at this point in time is unecessary as it is still in the consultation stage.

This also explains exactly why specific info is not yet available - this is the period of consultation and all the answers are there for the asking.

You keep saying that, conveniently overlooking the fact that the BMFA will be committed financially from June 5th when contracts are exchanged - we will not be able to back out of the transaction, so the association will need to find £1.25m to buy the site and service any loan needed! The period of consultation over proceeding with the NFC is irrelevent; it will not complete between May 16th and June 5th, nor will there be time for the members to go through the required channels if they wish to call an EGM to attempt to prevent the transaction. The timeline the BMFA have set here means that May 16th is the one and only chance for the land transaction to be halted - if full committee approve it will go ahead.

Or do you believe the above is incorrect, and if so, where?

Edited By MattyB on 15/05/2015 12:40:12

Edited By MattyB on 15/05/2015 12:42:56

[Steve T]

Area 51 suggestion regarding shared has all the correct boxes for me. Stand alone? Afraid not!

[John F]

With consultations general plans are one thing - specifics are entirely another thing. Having said that the purchase of the land has also been extensively explained on the BMFA forum!

This is going around in circles and is fruitless when you can clearly obtain all of this information by asking the BMFA on the forum that they set up specifically for that purpose.

[MattyB]

Posted by John F on 15/05/2015 12:48:32:

With consultations general plans are one thing - specifics are entirely another thing. Having said that the purchase of the land has also been extensively explained on the BMFA forum!

This is going around in circles and is fruitless when you can clearly obtain all of this information by asking the BMFA on the forum that they set up specifically for that purpose.

If they were going to provide answers to these sort of questions surely they would have done so previously online or at the area meetings, but that's not been the case as far as I'm aware - the confidentiality card has been played with a straight bat every time. Let's test your theory, but I'm not holding my breath for an answer, especially not on Friday afternoon...

 

Edited By MattyB on 15/05/2015 13:22:33

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I have to agree with Matty and applaud him for his wide-ranging encapsulation of the majority, if not all of my concerns.

I think John F's answer that we'd need to ask the BMFA for answers to the many basic questions regarding the scope and financing of proposals flies in the face of his claims that the membership has been kept fully informed!

I will admit that some (often very woolly) responses have been received to some questions on the BMFA forum - but does anyone really believe the view that the purchase of the site is mainly on the grounds of financial prudence and any use of it as a flying site is incidental?

We're being told that the organisation is run by professionally qualified people who are fully skilled to make decisions of this magnitude but there is no track record of anything of this scale within the SMAE/BMFA and unless some figures that make sound sense are released, I for one, will continue to question the wisdom of the project because I feel that not to do so would be irresponsible. I have questioned directly at national and at area level through my club representative and I know that my area shares similar concerns.

Edited By Martin Harris on 15/05/2015 14:23:04

[John F]

Posted by Martin Harris on 15/05/2015 14:20:36:

I have to agree with Matty and applaud him for his wide-ranging encapsulation of the majority, if not all of my concerns.

I think John F's answer that we'd need to ask the BMFA for answers to the many basic questions regarding the scope and financing of proposals flies in the face of his claims that the membership has been kept fully informed!

I will admit that some (often very woolly) responses have been received to some questions on the BMFA forum - but does anyone really believe the view that the purchase of the site is mainly on the grounds of financial prudence and any use of it as a flying site is incidental?

We're being told that the organisation is run by professionally qualified people who are fully skilled to make decisions of this magnitude but there is no track record of anything of this scale within the SMAE/BMFA and unless some figures that make sound sense are released, I for one, will continue to question the wisdom of the project because I feel that not to do so would be irresponsible. I have questioned directly at national and at area level through my club representative and I know that my area shares similar concerns.

Edited By Martin Harris on 15/05/2015 14:23:04

The information that is available is there for all to see. There is lots of it to read and digest. You get fully informed as and when the answers are available. Sometimes there is precious little but they tell you anyway. Maybe not enough to answer every question that anyone can ever come up with but, then again, will there ever be enough to quell some of the more searching questions? Probably not.

Some specifics being asked is nitty gritty minutiae as well as something that the BMFA could be seen as commercially sensitive and choose to refuse to release. They don't have to tell us everything.

This thread is going around in circles - I'm getting quite dizzy.

What I'm saying is that if you want a question answered - ask the BMFA.

They could simply have said "Hey folks here's a new place we've built and we're going to call it the National Flying Centre" but they didn't, and now they're being chastised for being so callous as to try to keep you informed of progress! (Or of not knocking on your door and telling you face to face!)

They're damned if they do and damned if they don't. They can't win!

[Andy Meade]

Same as Martin - I think you bring up some great points Matt, but am worried that you may get short shrift and told to mind your own business! It is a business and their own consideration after all, and as such not something that needs to be passed by us every time they want to spend some money - no matter our feelings on the subject.

I would like to see the answers to your points, however, and will keep an eye on the BMFA forum bit just in case

[stu knowles]

This thread reminds me of my experiences in a former club. The people who sit quietly at AGM time & don't volunteer for the Club Committee and then spend the rest of the year vociferously disagree with everything the Committee do.

I trust the people filling the BMFA structure to do what they think is best to advance the causes of this hobby - just as they have done for many years.

Those who have something to say on the subject of the National Centre have made their position clear, there is no point in repeating ad nauseam, we will just have to wait and see.

[MattyB]

Posted by Andy Meade on 15/05/2015 14:43:46:

Same as Martin - I think you bring up some great points Matt, but am worried that you may get short shrift and told to mind your own business! It is a business and their own consideration after all, and as such not something that needs to be passed by us every time they want to spend some money - no matter our feelings on the subject.

I'm certain I will get no meaningful answers tbh, but putting the request in writing is still worth doing as it shows others who happen upon the page that the BMFA are not behaving transparently. However, if they choose to proceed with the purchase on Saturday I suspect there is going to be a significant "No" movement which will mobilise quickly to hold them to account - there are additional avenues which have not yet been fully explored...

Edited By MattyB on 15/05/2015 16:27:33

[Colin Leighfield]

There are limits on what you are free to say if involved in a due diligence exercise involved in a prospective purchase. I'm happy to see what comes out of this and then consider it. I'm just concerned that people who are probably doing their best can be forced to feel as if they are being accused of having other motives. I doubt very much if that is the case.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by John F on 15/05/2015 14:41:26:

The information that is available is there for all to see. There is lots of it to read and digest. You get fully informed as and when the answers are available. Sometimes there is precious little but they tell you anyway. Maybe not enough to answer every question that anyone can ever come up with but, then again, will there ever be enough to quell some of the more searching questions? Probably not.

Some specifics being asked is nitty gritty minutiae as well as something that the BMFA could be seen as commercially sensitive and choose to refuse to release. They don't have to tell us everything.

This thread is going around in circles - I'm getting quite dizzy.

What I'm saying is that if you want a question answered - ask the BMFA.

They could simply have said "Hey folks here's a new place we've built and we're going to call it the National Flying Centre" but they didn't, and now they're being chastised for being so callous as to try to keep you informed of progress! (Or of not knocking on your door and telling you face to face!)

They're damned if they do and damned if they don't. They can't win!

 

"The information that is available is there for all to see."

Tiny details like how much do they intend to spend on it and where on earth (in even the vaguest detail) the money is coming from?

...even if it's just a field that they are buying to invest money they will need to borrow!

As for them "being chastised for being so callous as to try to keep you informed of progress! (Or of not knocking on your door and telling you face to face!)", I think you're being disingenuous to those of us who have tried to keep up with progress and were eagerly awaiting the result of a proper feasibility study in order to be well informed for the implied EGM to endorse any major expenditure.

And yes, I think most of us were hoping for a positive outcome.

Edited By Martin Harris on 15/05/2015 17:14:33

[MattyB]

Posted by Colin Leighfield on 15/05/2015 16:57:34:

There are limits on what you are free to say if involved in a due diligence exercise involved in a prospective purchase. I'm happy to see what comes out of this and then consider it. I'm just concerned that people who are probably doing their best can be forced to feel as if they are being accused of having other motives. I doubt very much if that is the case.

Correct, there are limits on transparency, but much more could have been shared than has been. For instance the vendor will have no interest in the estimated minimum and maximum budget for buildings that would need to be erected, so why can't tahat be given to members? Also let's not forget that nobody forced the BMFA to move for the site publically right now - the feasibility study was supposed to be completed and released before anything like this happened. Even if they were keen on Laws Lawn they could always have released the feasibility study now referencing hypothetical sites/funding models x, y and z and gathered support behind their preferred option. Instead they chose to tell us they wanted to buy immediately with none of the details around how or why.

Until we see the figures it is impossible to tell, but it all points to a project team that has done the feasibility study, realised the numbers don't add up but feel under pressure to proceed because of the investment in time and effort to date. They may have the best of intentions, but it's the numbers that will determine if this initiative can be a success, and for as long as they are witheld I will remain extremely sceptical.

Edited By MattyB on 15/05/2015 17:26:00

[cymaz]

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

Dizz is correct. I too have seen the document in which that was mentioned. It was shown at our area meeting but not for general release.

So the BMFA empty the coffers and reserves to grab purchase the land. There is now in excess of £6,000,000 needed to get the thing built.

Hellooooooooooooo........earth to BMFA

 

I think they should really have a good long hard look at asking to use the facilities at some of the larger clubs to hold events . Woodsprings comes to mind

Reading all of today's posts on this topic echoes the points of view at our area meeting. The point was raised there was that "most of the BMFA members see the organisation as just a means of getting insurance ". There is some merit in that.

 

Edited By cymaz on 15/05/2015 17:50:08

Edited By cymaz on 15/05/2015 17:56:53

[MattyB]

Looks like Manny made a response to my post - nothing materially new, but at least it was acknowledged that the information requested should be put in the public domain. Apparently the feasibility study will be published after the Full Cuncil meeting, I guess we shall wait and see...

"Matthew: Thank you for your further posting and questions regarding the current Feasibility Study, I have of course noted the comments on the forums, some of which have been very valid, some perhaps less so. I would agree that there is no reason that the questions you have raised shouldn’t be answered, however, given that the Full Council meeting takes place tomorrow and the minutes and information will subsequently be published, it would seem more appropriate to await the outcome of the meeting and the official publication of results. In relation to points 8, 9 and 10, these are all works in progress and are covered in the current “gating” requirements (I would suggest that you have a look at the response I posted earlier today to Martin Dance as this covers a number of the points you have raised). In relation to point 11, a number of alternative options have been considered but a central all encompassing facility was agreed as an initial starting point. As has already been published, a significant number of sites and locations have been evaluated as part of the study. There are of course a number of ways in which the study could have been conducted; the methodology used was decided by the team carrying out the work to be the most appropriate for purpose. However, I feel it is worth noting that at an early stage in the process we placed a call for volunteers in the BMFA News, this has produced some very positive contacts and I am sure that we will be calling on some of the willing and very qualified individuals who responded should the project proceed further, however it was a very valid opportunity for those with strong views such as yourself to become involved and contribute to the overall direction and content of the study. I hope this is of assistance. Manny W"

[MattyB]

...and here's the bit about "gating requirements" which he references above...

"@MARTIN DANCE: Martin: Thank you for your posting and comments on the current NC study. The initial idea was to look at the possibility of establishing a facility which would be as attractive as possible, to the largest number of people possible, this concept has remained central to the overall study. Should the concept actually become reality then it is clear that a phased approach over many years would be required, therefore the full range of facilities and usage would take time to develop, however the aim would certainly be a facility that could accommodate the type competition activity to which you refer, as well as a whole range of more regular model flying activity covering a good selection of disciplines and of course general sports flying. Additionally the aim has always been to include a caravan and camping site to attract visitors, there is no doubt that a significant aspect of any development will be cultivating imaginative usage as a method of generating income and contributing towards the overall sustainability. As an example we have consulted extensively with the AMA (the American equivalent to the BMFA) in order to draw on their experiences, they generate substantial additional revenue from their centre at Muncie through additional activities such as dog shows. We had always taken a view that any centre would have to accommodate some non model flying activity as a revenue generator and the list of possibilities is extensive, it is also likely that on any location purchased some agriculture would be retained, again as a revenue generator and part of an overall ecological sustainability plan. The location of the site that is being investigated in more detail is in East Northamptonshire, close to the junction between the A1 and the A47, clearly location has been a priority, and the aim was to evaluate locations that were fairly central, close to positive road links and within reasonable distance of large centres of population. Whilst the location referred to meets these criteria it is a fact that whatever location is chosen should the project proceed will be closer to some people than others. In relation to the specifics of the site under investigation, there are of course a number of issues to be addressed before any firmer commitment could be made, these are being worked on at present and are represented by number of “gating factors” which have to be closed off before proceeding further. As an example of the current work streams, we are consulting with the relevant planning authority, the local councillors, the highways dept, solicitors and RAF Wittering to name just a few on the route to addressing all of the gating factors, there are of course more. Looking at your last point, I feel that you make a fair comment, however there have been a number of issues that have lead to a misconception as to where we are, this has not been helped by some of the forum traffic that has made a substantial leap from the facts publicised, to the opinions of the posters. I will try to explain the current position. The Feasibility Study has been well publicised through the BMFA News and on the website right from its initiation last year when we were directed by Full Council to proceed, there has also been this facility running on the BMFA Website in order to permit members to express their views and to ask questions, I have tried to keep up to date with responses to the posts made. The findings of the study haven’t been publicised (although I did put together an interim report as a news item) as the requirement is to report to Full Council (the meeting is tomorrow), once the report is presented at Council then it is in the public domain and I am sure that a summary of the findings will be made available fairly soon after the meeting. Moving on to the specific developments in relation to the site identified at Kings Cliffe. The location was identified by a member of the team (not myself, we have a small team working on this project) as a consequence of the study, and was highlighted to the BMFA Executive at a meeting at which I was required to provide a progress update. The location was identified as scoring well on the criteria matrix and also as being currently on the market, on this basis the Executive were shown the site as an indication of what may be achievable. Following the site visit the Executive requested that we formally register an interest in the site and conduct further site specific feasibility work, a proposal was then submitted by the Executive Committee to Full Council requesting that the actions of the Executive be endorsed by Full Council and also making reference to the Laws Lawn Farm location. Members of Full Council are the directors of the BMFA and as such all receive a copy of proposals as required by our own constitution, and additionally in this case a copy of the supporting information provided in respect of tomorrow’s meeting. In addition to being directors of the BMFA, a percentage of the Council members are also Area Delegates and as such they are sometimes required to vote as directors of the company, and sometimes as Delegates of their Area. This meant the document covering the work of the study that they received in preparation for the Full Council meeting actually made it to a number of the Area meetings and was discussed without access to the presentation that will be given at tomorrow’s meeting, I feel that it is this aspect that has given rise to some of the strong opinions currently being expressed by a small number of individuals."

[MattyB]

...continued (was too big for one post!):

"There is most certainly an awareness that the membership needs to be informed of any developments and of course should the project proceed, then engendering the support of the members will be a hugely important aspect, however, up until now there has been nothing to report as the information has not yet been presented to the Full Council as referred. I hope this has helped, there is no doubt that tomorrow’s meeting of the Full Council will be an interesting one, however, as already stated we are still some way from a final decision as there are pivotal factors yet to be addressed. Manny W"

[cymaz]

MattyB........can't see the Manny posting. It has come up on the email but not on my page. Is the site having a hissy fit or could it be my ageing lap top?

[MattyB]

Posted by cymaz on 15/05/2015 18:13:16:

MattyB........can't see the Manny posting. It has come up on the email but not on my page. Is the site having a hissy fit or could it be my ageing lap top?

I think it must be your PC - it's definitely still there. Try clearing the cache on your browser maybe?

Edited By MattyB on 15/05/2015 18:49:00

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Have the BMFA never heard of paragraphs? Or perhaps they think they cost money and they're saving up for something.

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 15/05/2015 21:39:25

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Anyone one know the number of people on the Executive Council and Full Council ? and what majority carries a vote ?

John

[Dickw]

From the information on the BMFA website, it looks like 9 for the executive council and 31 for the full council.

I guess a simple majority for voting.

Dick