BMFA National Flying Centre

[Keith Lomax]

Posted by cymaz on 20/05/2015 20:32:34:

If another body came along and provided public liability cover, this might be the death nail for the bmfa as members would move. If the price was right. The bmfa have a monopoly at the moment.

This does happen from time to time. The most recent was the Model Pilot's Association - about 15 to 20 years ago. This was set up by one of the magazine publishers (IIRC it was RCM&E), and run by the editor and a couple of contributors in their own time, but with the insurance and other costs met by the company. I believe that they gained just over 1000 members. It lasted two or three years.

Then the publishing company was taken over, and the new owners decided that it was not commerically viable.

Another example (before my time) was the National Guild of Aeromodellers.

There have also been insurance companies who put togther an offer and sell it direct to clubs as a stand-alone offering. The issue is that insurance requires a large body of individual policyholders to cover the risk of a single large payout.

Interestingy, in Germany there are two separate organisations, a large body representing the sport/hobby fliers and a much smaller one supporting the competitive fliers.

[MattyB]

Posted by Martyn K on 21/05/2015 09:55:51:

Update from BMFA this morning:

 

NATIONAL CENTRE STUDY - Update

Excellent, looks like they have seen sense and agreed 1) an EGM is required prior to any purchase, and 2) the supporting information needs to be shared in advance with the membership. Here is the full text:

At Full Council on Saturday 16^th May 2015 at Leicester a proposal was considered regarding a National Flying Centre. The full wording of the proposal was :-

Proposal from the Chairman: that Council endorses the actions agreed upon unanimously by the BMFA Executive Committee on 11^th April to make all relevant planning and change of use searches while concurrently contacting the selling agents of Laws Lawn Farm in East Northamptonshire in order to open negotiations on making an offer to purchase (subject to contract) the said property.

The Development Officer gave a comprehensive update to Council, to complement the document that Council had been given to study in advance of the meeting.

The Chairman then gave all members of Council present the opportunity to ask questions regarding the National Flying Centre, and the above proposal, and a full discussion ensued.

A vote was taken and Council voted overwhelmingly to support the proposal which, please note, is not a commitment to purchase Laws Lawn Farm, or any other site. Land purchase, like house purchase is always subject to contract while final legal issues are clarified. As the outstanding issues relative to any possible contract are legally very sensitive, members will appreciate the difficulties implicit in full disclosure of the status of ongoing negotiations. Before any exchange of contract, an EGM of the Society will be scheduled.

A video of the Development Officer's presentation along with supporting information will also be made available to members (via the website) in the near future.

Formal (provisional) Minutes of the meeting will be circulated as normal, but it was felt by the Executive that the decision on the proposal for a National Flying Centre should be shared with the membership as soon as possible and not delayed while the rest of the Minutes are prepared.

I know I have been critical of the BMFA in this thread, but presuming they are as good as their word I think this is a solida dn pragmatic approach - they deserve credit for listening to the voices on the forums and from the area committees when they made their decision.

Edited By MattyB on 21/05/2015 12:42:08

[Colin Leighfield]

Thanks for going to the trouble to keep us informed Matty, much appreciated. I'm certainly happy with the way this is going, hopefully this information will answer some of the reasonable questions that our colleagues have been asking.

[Erfolg]

One of my clubs in the past had independent insurance of the BMFA. It was at a lower cost than the then BMFA membership, which of course is also a wrapper for other services in addition to the insurance.

On the basis of cost alone, if the differences can be considered to be marginal, in many members minds at present charges. I cannot envisage that there will be a mass movement to set up independent insurance, if the BMFA are true to statements that a NFC will not be achieved by increasing membership charges.

All could change though if there is a significant increase in membership charges. Clubs may decide that continued insurance via the BMFA is not in their members interest. It could also be that individual modellers may decide that their interests lie else where, on that basis resign.

I know there is a counter view, of what is an extra £10, or £20, why should modellers not spend an extra £100 on membership? The argument goes,many modellers will think nothing of spending +£300 on a model, or fuel to visit the sea side with their family. From my perspective this order of spend on a hobby is just not something i would do, other than something special, with a tangible asset. Money spent on my family is very well spent. Insurance is like buying petrol a necessary distress purchase, which i attempt to minimise.

I am surprised that it appears from Martyn's link that all the regional areas voted in favour of the purchase of the farm. I had expected there to be at least 3 areas voting against, requesting more meaningful information. Or am I miss reading and interpreting the BMFA posting?

I personally am not against the purchase of a flying field. Although I do think that this particular site is very poorly located for many. Particularly the NW of England, all of Wales and the West Country.

The comments made that most club members are indifferent to the issues of both the NFC and the farm purchase is totally at odds with what I found with members of one of my clubs. This has caused me to wonder why?

I am now awaiting further events. However i have been left with a ingrained view that the issue to-date has been managed by limited information, by both timing and content, in some areas a view that their is culture of the "need to know", where ordinary members have no need to know. That is until decisions and actions have been completed.

Edited By Erfolg on 21/05/2015 12:58:58

[Keith Lomax]

Posted by Erfolg on 21/05/2015 12:58:24:

I am surprised that it appears from Martyn's link that all the regional areas voted in favour of the purchase of the farm. I had expected there to be at least 3 areas voting against, requesting more meaningful information. Or am I miss reading and interpreting the BMFA posting?

 

That is the difference between "overwhelming" and "unanimous". A small number did vote against or abstain - the minutes will record the exact numbers.

Edited By Keith Lomax on 21/05/2015 13:34:13

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

I don't know what an EGM actually means or if it has any say in the outcome ( not picking fault just one not sure anymore).

I also consider myself as someone who likes things to progress and try new things, I try to join in at club level, give me something to support and I will.

As I've already said this will have little actual impact on my life, or our club. it will all take a long time to put in place yet, and we are more than capable of looking after ourselves anyway.

Come Jan 1st I think I will disengage myself from the BMFA other than my insurance, the opportunity to visit Greenacres, Langer, and other clubs makes that a must. Anti BMFA ? no I've just had enough.

John

[Tomtom39]

Hello John,

I used to feel the same about the BMFA (as I suspect many of our older members did too!) . I have however changed my opinion as without Manny Williamson and his predecessor at the BMFA, we would not have been able to secure our site and managed to fend off some pretty rough opposition (from a local councilor).

[Erfolg]

Tom

It is not that the BMFA are a waste of space, or are an expensive insurance broker.

Aero modelling just as any niche activity needs an effective presence with respect to the general public and the authorities in all the guises and forms, that is possible.

Where my issues with the BMFA are their relationship and communications with the BMFA membership and our status.

It is a top down structure as demonstrated by recent events. There is more in common with a structure found in the Victorian era, of the early 20th century.

No attempt has been made to effectively communicate with the broad membership. The survey undertaken with respect to the NFC has a lot in common with the proposed Congestion Charging for Greater Manchester survey.

It appears from a distance that recent events have been organised to ensure that even regional groups have had little to no time to discuss the issues of the proposed NFC, whilst at the same time restricting much of the information available, to the extent that any interested ordinary member has little relevant information to form an opinion.

Edited By Erfolg on 21/05/2015 14:59:48

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Take a read of my post history on BMFA threads tom tom, in it you'll find me praising Manny and the BMFA for an offer of help when we had a incident with an heli, we dealt with it ourselves but the offer was appreciated.

John

[Tomtom39]

I can't argue with either of you (John/Erfolg) . I have had this conversation with David Phipps and Andy in the past. I understand that they are consciously trying to address this by use of social media . I'm not on facebook so not been able to find out if this is working , having said that couple of our members (in their 70's) and some of those in their teens/early 20's seem to be having no issues in keeping me informed of the latest ! I guess that the BMFA news is the next logical avenue (for those that don't check the BMFA website) .

As a secretary of a club, I remember receiving a note from the BMFA re the poll for the proposed NMFC and this was highlighted to all members and raised at the club AGM (ie I asked individual members to vote in the poll and submit their opinions to Manny)

Having being to the AMA MFC. I like the idea of his and if we were to combine BMFA HQ within this then it might be a worthwhile investment for the future. Conversely and closer to my heart would be the idea of regional sites co-owned by both BMFA and local clubs. (I'm at least four hours from the area that they are looking at!)

Ps I'm only a club modeller and to date have not taken part in any competitions but may at some stage in the future consider it (now where is that BMFA Dart and are their any comps for dart distance throwing ) . 

 

Edited By Tomtom39 on 21/05/2015 16:26:12

[MattyB]

Posted by john stones 1 on 21/05/2015 14:06:57:

 

I don't know what an EGM actually means or if it has any say in the outcome (not picking fault just one not sure anymore).

On further reflection I think that is an extremely good question.

When I initially read the BMFA's update yesterday I assumed the EGM would include some sort of vote on whether to proceed with the NFC in line with the chosen proposal from the feasibility study. However, when I ready Manny's column in the BMFA News he re-iterates that the final decison making mechanism has not yet been agreed, but that he backs Full Council making the decision:

The comments on the scale of the undertaking are also interesting, and were not mentioned in the website update. It is clear that the feasibility study indicates they will have to scale down their initial list of requirements or accept a 10-15 year journey to get to the final product. I am really not sure members will have the stomach for such a long journey; if all that is built inisitally is an office block, toilet block and camping, will anyone really travel any distance? They have also discounted the large single "Wing" building as an option for cost reasons, though that was somewhat of an open secret already.

Anyway, we are going to need to wait and see with regards to what happens next - hopefully the feasibility study will be released soon and we can look at the details and timelines of what is being proposed. I will certainly be interested to see the agenda for the EGM when it is released...

Edited By MattyB on 22/05/2015 10:44:54

[Dave Hopkin]

Do I detect from Manny's words a distinct shift in focus from a showcase centre to a much more simplistic flying site too?

[Andy Meade]

It sort of feels that way, which is a shame, imho. It would be great to see that large showcase centre first drafted a while ago - something to really be proud of rather than (what I would assume to be) half a dozen faceless, featureless buildings.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

There is some info there so i'm good with it, I also like Manny says what he thinks and it's in full view of anyone who cares to read it.

John

Edited By john stones 1 on 22/05/2015 11:30:01

[Area 51]

Posted by Dave Hopkin on 22/05/2015 10:51:58:

Do I detect from Manny's words a distinct shift in focus from a showcase centre to a much more simplistic flying site too?

Dave, I read it this way too after the BMFA news arrived yesterday.

A significant watering down of the “dreams” and as for the 10-15yrs time scale.. Nothing wrong with that if the profile is there to attract income (sorry, visitors).. Without that it is a white elephant.

I have previously posted; but I do feel for any such notion of a NFC to come about, the site would need to be shared with a common themed site (aviation) to attract/share visitors..

After seeing the BMFA news I will say it again; something like Cosford..! or anywhere similar really... Cosford has the museum (visitors = income!!) and space.. A hangar with office space could be purchased as the MOD scale back.. The road connections are good, neighbours used to aviation etc etc

Perhaps the BMFA could ask the RAFMAA to assist in exploring such options? Heavens.. Just think, the RAFMAA may have access to the right doors in the MOD to convince government to allow our hobby to have access to defunct RAF stations/land.... I know housing is on the agenda, but persevering model flying does too.

I laughed at the BMFA comments about how they (BMFA) had looked the AMA business model at Muncie, IL for this type of national site in the UK. Hiring out the venue to "dog shows" was mentioned....

The UK is well enough catered for in these type of events.. Small and large.. to drive income in the NFC, like minded “footfall” at the site is a must (it is all income); if people are there and visit other aviation interests.. then all parties win.. I cannot for one moment see the dog show goers popping into use Manny Williamsons mobile trailer simulator can you? never mind flipping a few pound coins for the privilege..

Elsewhere in the news it says the BMFA attended a Commons committee on drones; also mentioned was that knowledge on the sport/hobby activities was pretty low…. (my guess is at present, “drones” bring us firmly into the “public nuisance category” at such working groups.

This is an ideal opportunity for the BMFA to leap into the driving seat and boost awareness; a few flying sites who provide training around the UK.. then let this lead to a conversation about “needing dedicated space”..

MP’s need leading too or providing with the answers!; they are not recruited to know them.

Two options from all of this now exist (in my own thoughts)

1) Approach existing aviation sites about sharing the location/income/investment.. Elvington/Bruntingthorpe/Cosford etc

2) Buy several sites around the UK to establish the prominence of the hobby / sport.. Working with local clubs who have a good location, landowner relationship; buy the site(s) and they could all be developed at the same speed and provide better access for all the BMFA members.. One North, South, East and West.... Perhaps the local ATC cadets near each location could be asked to share the site to boost prominence/local and national PR..

This NFC was always going to be killed by the costs; North of £6m for buildings…. therefore it should be approached by what revenue it can generate from day one to maintain itself and keep the interest to users....

NB ~ As a member of the BMFA, I would expect discounted flying rates to use this Law Farm site if it goes ahead…. I do not expect flying at the site to be seen as a form of income which the BMFA will need all “users” to be….

However, it would be 250mls round trip that kills it for me so my visits will not be frequent if at all!

Now then, after that.. I’m off for some flying at my local field!

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I was too busy at the flying field yesterday to see that things have moved on a bit but I'm quite relieved that some of the possible negatives have been addressed. The EGM before contract exchange should help address concerns about the democratic aspect of the decision - it's now up to the membership to make their voices heard in support or constructive criticism of the detailed proposals promised.

I'm very glad that the gloomy scenario of the BMFA being just another company dictating services to its "customers" has been shown to be a fallacy and even if the decision is made through elected and area delegates rather than a full referendum, it does illustrate that the membership has a voice. I know that some of us may have been more vocal on this matter but I feel that it would have been wrong not to point out concerns, both through public channels and more direct approaches to the organisation.

I look forward to seeing the detailed proposals and hope that the BMFA can continue to thrive as a result of decisions made over future developments.

 

Edited By Martin Harris on 22/05/2015 11:46:37

[MattyB]

Posted by Martin Harris on 22/05/2015 11:42:43:

I was too busy at the flying field yesterday to see that things have moved on a bit but I'm quite relieved that some of the possible negatives have been addressed. The EGM before contract exchange should help address concerns about the democratic aspect of the decision - it's now up to the membership to make their voices heard in support or constructive criticism of the detailed proposals promised.

I'm very glad that the gloomy scenario of the BMFA being just another company dictating services to its "customers" has been shown to be a fallacy and even if the decision is made through elected and area delegates rather than a full referendum, it does illustrate that the membership has a voice. I know that some of us may have been more vocal on this matter but I feel that it would have been wrong not to point out concerns, both through public channels and more direct approaches to the organisation.

I look forward to seeing the detailed proposals and hope that the BMFA can continue to thrive as a result of decisions made over future developments.

Agreed. I am sure they did not enjoy it, but do believe the feedback given on this forum, others and directly on the BMFA site influenced their decision to not proceed with the land purchase on June 5th, especially once it was added to the concerns that came from some of the areas.

[Erfolg]

It is only to be hoped that the NFC is taken forward at a speed that allows a more measured approach to be adopted, as now appears to being suggested.

The immediate challenge to the BMFA is to make the purchase, which I expect to take place, work.

The immediate question must be what does my term "work" mean. Is it holding the Nats at the field? Perhaps other competitions. Or maybe something else?

Again there appears to be an underlying problem, or may be not. That is the fields appear to be let for the next 5, or so years, for crops. Even if no crops are present, it probably indicates that the fields cannot immediately be used.

With respect to a NFC a lot of good unhurried quality work needs to be done. What is the scope, particularly, that thank God, the hierarchy of the BMFA, has finely decided that such a venture will take some time.

If it is recognised that probably at least 20% of us will not be around in 15 years, who will the centre be serving and what will there needs and wants be? How many aeromodellers will there be, flying what and how?

As we keep touching upon, running such a facility comes at some expense, particularly if commercial, the rates can be crippling. Also the BMFA is at present our representative, does it want to devote a considerable amount of time and effort to running a non modelling related activities facility.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Steve T]

15 years time I could quite possibly have a very different set of ephemeral wings !!

[Cuban8]

Ten to fifteen years is a ridiculously long time scale whether one is aged seventeen or seventy. Initially, I was enthusiastic about the project but if it's going to take more than say three or four years to get going, then forget it.

[Erfolg]

Ten to fifteen years is to long?

I am pretty sure that if the BMFA were in a position to lay their hands on £7m pounds, a NFC would be built in a few years.

I am certain one of the major aspects of the project, is putting together a plan of how and from where such sums of money can be raised. At present I would guess that there are just a few general ideas and finger in the air guesses. At what rate the funds can be raised is a major issue.

Another issue is how much will such a facility cost to run, what are the possible earnings from it. Many of us looking around will see many hall type venues, that are making nothing, many closing. Particularly when in competition with LA and hotel type venues. The former being supported by the rate payer, the latter in that is what they do, their reason for existing. For the BMFA, this aspect is more about squaring the circle, just as in mathematics, the purpose of the BMFA is as stated in the Articles of  Association of the SMAE and BMFA, yet running a commercial non modelling facility/events achieves the end, yet runs the risk of losing focus on aeromodelling as stated in the Articles of Association.

As for the building, it is important in some instances, yet for the aeromodeling aspects of the BMFA what it looks like does not matter, it certainly does if you expect non aeromodellers to go. Then I think of the many hours I spent at the Museum at Culloden, where a swank new building replaced a couple of motley old sheds. Being in such beautiful environment, with access to learned Historians, educated me to the myths spread for political purposes, against, who actually was involved, how and why they were there, and an insight to why certain actions were taken. Or the Falkirk Wheel, where good architect designed buildings, outstanding engineering and again a good dose of history again made the venue a destination of choice. There has to be a reason to go or visit. The Quality of building does matter, yet what is the vision of the NFC, why would any one want to go? I do however reflect one of the Chief Engineers in a progress meeting, Forcably telling us all, when people talk of architectural finishing, I see great piles of £20 notes mounded as high as a house being burnt.

Is fifteen years to long, probably not, as just about the first step has been taken on a journey, without a clear idea of the destination, and certainly no idea what the route ideally should be. If there was a plan, and money, perhaps 12 months would be more than enough.

Edited By Erfolg on 22/05/2015 16:10:10

[iqon]

5 years growing crops - should not be in the equation

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by iqon on 22/05/2015 16:27:30:

5 years growing crops - should not be in the equation

well that's a turnip for books

John

[cymaz]

BMFA....

British Midland Farmers Association