BMFA National Flying Centre

[Nigel Dell]

Oh I forgot you have to be optimistic as well as telepathic in this organisation silly me!!

[Keith Lomax]

but the silent flight has been separate for a longtime now.

... and Free Flight for even longer.

[Nigel Dell]

Posted by Keith Lomax on 14/09/2016 13:47:02:

but the silent flight has been separate for a longtime now.

... and Free Flight for even longer.

Of course Keith, maybe this could be the start of the Association being a little more self sufficient when it comes to bringing things together who knows.

Perhaps tent and caravan sharing will be promoted.

You may have a point there Bert, but I fear it may lead to other kinds of clubs!!

[MattyB]

Posted by Peter Jenkins on 14/09/2016 08:58:43:

As ever, some folk will never be satisfied with the way the BMFA works and will look to criticise them at every turn. However, I think that events have shown there is a significant element within the BMFA management fold who have both the knowledge and expertise to take on this challenge without sinking the Association.

Posted by John F on 14/09/2016 08:32:53:

...I am sure that they, as so far proven, know what they are doing and accounts would be published in exactly the same way they are now and the BMFA execs are well aware of where their money goes. Their financial management, I am sure you would agree, is quite astute. They would not allow the NFC to start to suck the general coffers dry.

Don't get me wrong, I much prefer what it appears the BMFA are now proceeding with (a lease rather than an unaffordable purchase), and I do agree that there is no evidence at this time that the coffers will be sucked dry. However there are other statements above that cannot really be substantiated.

So what has been proven so far? The BMFA have successfully identified a site that meets the gating requirements, negotiated a lease and have completed the planning permission for a change of use . However there are still no capex figures for phase 1 or phase 2, nor any opex estimates for the annual costs to run the site after each phase, nor have the project management team been named and their experience and qualifications given. Without these items being transparently shared there is no way for the wider membership to take a view on how successful progress has been or how likely it is to succeed. Managing a departmental or even organisational budget in "business as usual" running is dramatically different to delivering a large scale infrastructure project. The BMFA leadership have lots of experience of the former, but we currently have no idea of their experience levels for the latter, nor can we see anything about the finances to come to our own conclusions as to the affordability of this current iteration of the project.

Posted by Peter Jenkins on 14/09/2016 08:58:43:

We should congratulate all of those on the project team for getting this across the line. I for one, look forward to the development of the nascent ideas that gave birth to the project. We should all aim to support the project team's efforts. The decision has been taken, now we have to get on and support the project.

I do congratulate the team on getting this far and recognise that a level of confidentiality as been required on the financials during the negotiation of the lease. However, moving forward I personally will only support the project only if solid capex and opex estimates (and how they were arrived at) are shared with members, and that those figures reassure me that the scale of fundraising is achievable and levels of financial risk to the association are low. Vague statements that "expenditure will be proportional" and that "at a basic level, the project falls largely within our existing financial capability" may be enough for some members to be reassured, but having been involved in enough multi-million pound infrastructure projects that they are not enough to reassure me - sorry.

Edited By MattyB on 14/09/2016 15:05:37

[John F]

Gosh, Mattyb, you've certainly put yourself on a pedestal there.

Why is it not OK just to let them get on with it instead of folk wanting to get into the minutest details of the lease / build / finances / flying arrangements / licensing etc etc.

They don't have to share as much info as they have already shared so far but is basing a decision on whether you support it is based on named project management people along with qualifications and capex and opex figures, including workings out, (as if they're in a school maths exam) not just pure arrogance on your part?

I suspect that whether you support it or not it will still go ahead and they would be none the wiser if you cancel your BMFA membership.

[Nigel Dell]

Looks like he is not the only one.

[MattyB]

Posted by John F on 14/09/2016 15:58:03:

Gosh, Mattyb, you've certainly put yourself on a pedestal there.

Why is it not OK just to let them get on with it instead of folk wanting to get into the minutest details of the lease / build / finances / flying arrangements / licensing etc etc.

They don't have to share as much info as they have already shared so far but is basing a decision on whether you support it is based on named project management people along with qualifications and capex and opex figures, including workings out, (as if they're in a school maths exam) not just pure arrogance on your part?

No, it's perfectly reasonable that the membership should receive this information, and multiple people in this thread with PM experience have said the same - the figures are important and should be shared if at all possible. An estimate of how much in capital each phase of the project will need and how much money will be required to run the centre each year is not "the minutest of details", it is the bare minimum needed for a large infrastructure project. I am asking for four figures only - two capex, two opex (one for each phase) - along with a basic list of the assumptions used to calculate them. There is no need for a detailed spreadsheet. The BMFA actually released similar data in their pre-EGM materials, but that are no longer available and (given the change of model and site) probably no longer applicable either.

If this info is not shared with the membership how can they build belief in the project, set fundraising targets to get each phase over the line and motivate members and partners to contribute? Do you really think potential corporate sponsors of those who approve EU or lottery grants are going to be interested without this kind of information?

Posted by John F on 14/09/2016 15:58:03:

I suspect that whether you support it or not it will still go ahead and they would be none the wiser if you cancel your BMFA membership.

Completely true. But a single member leaving is not the problem they should be worrying about. If they are not transparent about the financials it will undermine any efforts they make to get members and others to donate or run fundraising events.

If I look at a project on Kickstarter and am trying to decide whether to contribute I can obviously find out about the product, but I will also be able to see how much they are looking to raise and what the funds will be used for - basic stuff. Why do you believe the same is not applicable here? Do you really think the membership are going to leap forward and start throwing money at the BMFA solely on what has been released to date, with no idea of the funding targets to be reached or the ongoing costs that need to be met to keep the centre running?

Whatever side of the argument we reside on it is eminently clear to all that there are a good percentage of people who are currently either ambivalent or unconvinced that an NFC can be created and sustained. If this project is to be successful the BMFA need to get more of those people on board and contributing to the funding, but without sharing any details of the financials I cannot see how they will do that.

Edited By MattyB on 14/09/2016 16:31:52

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

I'd miss you Matty

[Nigel Dell]

Whatever side of the argument we reside on it is eminently clear to all that there are a good percentage of people who are currently either ambivalent or unconvinced that an NFC can be created and sustained. If this project is to be successful the BMFA need to get more of those people on board and contributing to the funding, but without sharing any details of the financials I cannot see how they will do that.

Matty

I have agreed with most of what you say and as one of those 'ambivilant' or somewhere between that and unconvinced!

And the fact that Donations crops up rather a lot in the speel, I do however have a certain amount of trust, misguided it maybe, that they will prevail in the end but the reality is I fear as you say there are a lot at present unconvinced and just need that extra to convince them to get behind it me included.

There maybe the sponsors in the wings that will be heavily behind it and good on them, but also the more of the membership that get onboard surely that is a good thing rather than the 'be none the wiser if you cancel your BMFA membership'. attitude of some.

Hell I am bored now!

[Erfolg]

Personally I am reassured that the accounts for the NFC are to be separate from the general accounts of the BMFA. I am also hopeful, that there will be transparency that clearly demonstrates that there is no cross financing or subsidy from the general funds and operations to the NFC.

With these assurances in place, I do wish the supporters of the NFC well.

Along with a number of others, I do not as yet see a project that is being run as anyone in the current commercial world would recognise. The cynical or is that Wordly Wise would suspect the approach is of a finger in the wind and then cutting the cloth to suit what is available. It is in the interests of the NFC project members to have all these things in place, if they wish sponsors to come on board, in the numbers that are perhaps hoped for. In addition I would expect the membership will see the new cost structures and spend profiles with respect to time.

All the so called critics, should be welcomed, in that it should reassure the project staff that they are on top of the programme. Being able to say, yes, we have that information, and here it is.

In addition to this is how we will undertake the project, there needs to be a this is how we will deal with all the major milestones that are show stoppers. Including being required to abandon the project, including when commissioned and running.

I do see one obvious outcome is that the site is principally used by a local club, paying an annual rent, with competitions having priority. Although I do have concerns that the project could reduce the full attention on the day to day functions of the BMFA with respect to the general membership. That is those who do not compete. Although dismissed as all in hand, the EU driven deliberations with respect to all unmanned/model aircraft is a real issue. A successful outcome in this area is far more important to the ordinary general membership. If things stay the same, then most will not be surprised, although this could be real success by the BMFA. Some major change could make the NFC and the general members irrelevant.

Renting is far more realistic, and does get my support as a viable approach

Edited By Erfolg on 14/09/2016 19:10:52

[Gary Manuel]

I've unsubscribed from this thread.

Got home from a days flying (you guys ought to try it sometime ), to 16 emails telling me that someone had something new to say on this thread.

Turns out that all 16 emails were wrong - Nothing new to read here.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Cuban8]

Hang on a minute chaps............the BMFA have gone from looking at a 100 acre site (Laws Lawn) to a site that's not even half that size for the NFC!

Seems to be perfectly reasonable to continue discuss the repercusions of what our national body is doing at this time.

[MattyB]

Posted by Cuban8 on 16/09/2016 15:24:09:

Hang on a minute chaps............the BMFA have gone from looking at a 100 acre site (Laws Lawn) to a site that's not even half that size for the NFC!

Seems to be perfectly reasonable to continue discuss the repercussions of what our national body is doing at this time.

Yep, I guess it became clear as the BMFA investigated potential sites that (despite selling it to the members as feasible at the EGM) the purchase of a 100 acre site was financially out of reach. To be fair though they were never going to be able to buy or even lease a site big enough to run the Nationals in their current form - perhaps 20 years ago they might have been able to purchase one of the RAF airfields up for disposal, but planning changes and rises in land prices make this completely untenable now. The question is now whether this site have the wow factor to get people to travel long distances to fly and attend events there, or if it will really be a centre primarily for the competition disciplines.

Edited By MattyB on 16/09/2016 16:41:58

[Erfolg]

There are a number of clubs who have access to flying fields of very similar proportions to that being investigated.

As a venue for most if not all RC disciplines (I cannot think of one that will not work), the site will work.

Can the BMFA afford it? Given that the club that I am a ordinary member can lease a field, and the club where I act as secretary can afford a similar field, why not. If they have difficulties I suggest that one of them descends from ivory tower and dains to speak to clubs who presently rent field a field on lease. In short it should be a non issue.

There are two problems, the first is FF and to a less extent CL. Free flight may in the long term be forced by circumstances to become radio assist to prevent fly always etc. The CL issue could be solved by a concrete plinth, out of the way with a dismantable cage.

I am coming around to it can all be done, if the bigger is better and we must have everything and it must be the best, people are kept in their box. This means for me that a fancy archive and a museum are reigned in to an affordable size, or put on the back burner.

Yet at the end of the day this will essentially be a competition site primarily, with possibly a resident club primarily using it.

It does seem do able, now, if people are sensible.

[cymaz]

With all the controversy over the EASA wrecking model flying.....to quote Dave Phipps " In their current form ( prototype rules) , the proposals represent a serious threat to model flying as we know it which I cannot understate".

Should the BMFA be persuing the NFC . . .? Seems a bit odd to report on pages 4&5 on EASA and on page 6 laud the new site in the latest BMFA rag.

[Peter Jenkins]

The EASA proposal is just that and there is a great deal of work being done by the FAI, Europe Air Sports and the BMFA to get a change to these proposals. If we were to wait for the EASA proposal to go through all its reviews we would then have missed the current opportunity to lease a site for our National Centre.

I believe that the new leased site is a viable proposition with suitable protection for the BMFA's funds and longer term use of the facility. The old option of buying a site is just too difficult to pursue with any degree of certainty so the lease option, which doesn't require as much up front funding to make it viable and will have a lease with frequent break points, represents the sensible way forward. Note that planning permission has been approved for the change of use of this site and the local authority is very supportive of having this National Centre on its patch.

It was never going to be sustainable to find and buy a site the size of Barkston Heath (600 acres) as our attempt to buy Laws Land Farm (just over 100 acres) flagged up the cost of pursuing something of that size as an outright purchase.

[John F]

Posted by cymaz on 15/10/2016 13:41:38:

 

With all the controversy over the EASA wrecking model flying.....to quote Dave Phipps " In their current form ( prototype rules) , the proposals represent a serious threat to model flying as we know it which I cannot understate".

Surely you meant to say "with nothing better to do some people created a right fuss over the EASA proposals and thus spread rumours and nonsensicle statements that predicted doom with absolutely no factual content whatsoever. What will the BMFA do in light of such a fabrication?"

Edited By John F on 15/10/2016 22:00:19

[cymaz]

Bureaucrats drafting regulations is always a reciepe for disaster for a minority. Yes, the numbers of model fliers in Europe is a minority, 1/2million fliers in a population of 510million... Though ,not a great supporter of the NFC, I  hope that these EASA proposals don't wreck it.

Edited By cymaz on 16/10/2016 07:25:28

Edited By cymaz on 16/10/2016 07:27:04

[Engine Doctor]

Erlog mentions the possibility of a resident club at the proposed NFC in his last post .I have no problem with a resident club at the NFC should it become a reality ; however I feel they should pay a realistic rent for the use of the site as other clubs have to and not be subsidised by every other BMFA member . It certainly is doable and hopefully our annual meeting " The Nats" can be secured for the future. 

[Colin Leighfield]

There's probably a more realistic threat of WW3 now than there's been for some time and that would put the kibosh on our model flying. Therefore, in perspective, I'd say don't get carried away with what EASA are doing, keep it all in perspective and carry on regardless. Let's get the NFC up and running asap.

We can't deny the fact that selling drones of any sort with FPV capability that allows the operator to fly long distances beyond point of control observation creates the opportunity for deadly activity. ISIS/ISIL are using them to kill people already. There's got to be some sort of control on this and it needs to apply at, for starters, at point off sale, i.e. what you can buy and who can buy it. There's a legitimate good case for commercial and industrial drone operation, but it probably needs to be licensed. Keeping the flying freedoms that we have now seems to depend on retaining the model within the visual range of the pilot, whether FPV or not. I can certainly live with that and I hope that's where it finishes up.

Renegades will always find ways to work outside the system, as they do with guns, but I don't think anyone would suggest that we shouldn't have gun control laws, look at the USA. We cannot deny the fact that freely available FPV drones are potentially more destructive than any normal pistol or shot-gun. It's a simple fact.

[Cuban8]

Posted by Engine Doctor on 16/10/2016 09:14:21:

Erlog mentions the possibility of a resident club at the proposed NFC in his last post .I have no problem with a resident club at the NFC should it become a reality ; however I feel they should pay a realistic rent for the use of the site as other clubs have to and not be subsidised by every other BMFA member . It certainly is doable and hopefully our annual meeting " The Nats" can be secured for the future.Â

So what's a realistic rent and would the income be worthwhile? Say 150 members paying £100 annually (not including insurance) that's fifteen grand, so not exactly a king's ransom.

Edited By Cuban8 on 16/10/2016 10:36:32

[Peter Jenkins]

Posted by Engine Doctor on 16/10/2016 09:14:21:

Erlog mentions the possibility of a resident club at the proposed NFC in his last post .I have no problem with a resident club at the NFC should it become a reality ; however I feel they should pay a realistic rent for the use of the site as other clubs have to and not be subsidised by every other BMFA member . It certainly is doable and hopefully our annual meeting " The Nats" can be secured for the future.Â

Erfolg is wrong on this point. Just look at the published information on the new leased site and the powerpoint presentation. Nowhere does it say that it is it dependent on the income from a resident club as even an option.

Erfolg there is no need to be rude and sarcastic about the BMFA Council - "If they have difficulties I suggest that one of them descends from ivory tower and dains to speak to clubs who presently rent field a field on lease. In short it should be a non issue."

All Council members are members of Clubs and are well aware of the issues associated with running Clubs. Rather than vilify them, you might just cut them some slack for examining and agreeing to this new option to find a way to fund a National Centre. With all the information that has been published, I think you are stoking disinformation with what you have posted.

If you haven't read the latest information from the BMFA, to which I have linked, please take the opportunity to do so and don't be misled by ill informed and casually insulting comments - they might be fun but they are not true and only serve to confuse the existing situation. Better still, and if you are able to, come to the BMFA AGM in November and I'm sure that there will be a presentation on the latest situation regarding the NFC. You can then ask questions and listen to the answer from a properly informed person. If you can't attend the AGM then I'm sure there will be a release of the latest information on the NFC. Note that it is intended to have the Phase 1 work complete for the Centre to open in Spring 2017 - not so far away.

[Keiran Arnold]

On a lighter Note some picture of Buckminster Logde as an equestrian Centre

[Erfolg]

Peter

I know of one club Chairman who offered to make his experience available, in the areas of both purchasing land, at typical market rates and also a good many years experience of negotiating and obtain lease terms for model flying.

Apparently he was rebuffed, listening to him. Of course there are two perspectives, to any story.

You know i could be offended.

The idea of renting the NFC to a club, was only that, an idea.

You may be surprised that i do think the present proposals are potentially viable. In that the BMFA could afford and potentially produce a viable site. It all depends on how realistic and ambitious the project is in both the short and long term. I do however see the need for the project to be self financing, to be fair to the wider membership.