BMFA News

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Colin Leighfield]

That's fair enough Percy. It's just that I don't see my ability to get there or not as being the factor that decides whether or not it's in my long-term interests. There are other consequences from this and also I hold the view that it should be run in a way that makes it self-financing, or even make a positive contribution. I don't want to see it become an expensive albatross.

If you can continue flying in a way that suits you and you don't think you need to be a member of BMFA who's to say you're wrong? It's a free world. My judgement might be wrong on this one for all I know. It's just what I think, that's all. I'm no genius.

[Erfolg]

Colin

I think you are mistaken in believing that the CAA will negotiate as such with the BMFA.

They will listen and consider all "stake holders" views, which could well include the LMA, if they are not presently included. That is listen, not necessarily act upon those views.

If the CAA decides for what ever reason there must be a registration scheme, I would imagine that they would invite representations form all bodies that they deem to be suitable. Under such circumstances, I expect and would urge the CAA via my MP (Graham Brady) to ensure that no organisation be allowed to exploit the requirement. beyond running a register.

[Colin Leighfield]

Erfolg, actually I don't think that I disagree with that, negotiate was a bad choice of word. However, when they take views into account they will certainly weigh them for the size of the group that they represent. We might not be huge in the national context, but in the comparatively small world of aviation organisations we aren't tiny. If CAA does decide to create a register I will be amazed if they don't look to the accredited associations for administrative support. How are they going to know who is an Aeromodeller and who isn't for contact purposes? They will have a big enough problem anyway dealing with all of the mavericks (no offence intended) who go it alone on everything and are completely isolated. Look at the numbers of totally disconnected individuals buying multi-rotors from Maplins, on-line etc. As far as many of them are concerned they are buying toys and have no sense of responsibility or obligation, let alone aviation, ANO etc.

You might urge your MP but unless you have a sizeable cohort of local voters joining you in a big petition I'm not sure how much difference you will make. You might get a soothing letter.

[Erfolg]

Having spoken with Graham, I do not think it would sit easily with him for any group/organisation to advance there position by attaching preconditions or privileges in being a member, whilst undertaking a task on behalf of the government. I am pretty certain that he would expect that the CAA would only appoint an organisation where a clear dividing line between any register and the operations of the group, such that any surpluses from the registration scheme cannot be passed/transferred into the other activities.

My opinion is contrary to your own in that I see the LMA as being potentially far more experienced in the implementation and monitoring of such schemes. As an organisation they appear to have an exemplary record with the accreditation and inspection schemes for large models. Yep, the LMA has a lot going for it.

Just to be clear I have no interest in large models, nor the LMA, other than a casual, but interested observer.

My main fear is that between a NFC and a expensive registering schemes, that aeromodelling as a hobby will become history. The thought of a legacy for future generations could well become to be seen as wishful thinking, if a register and a over ambitious NFC come to pass.

I do agree that aeromodellers as a catholic group would benefit from a organisation that represents most if not all disciplines of aeromodelling. It just seems that the BMFA needs to concentrate on just that, representing modellers, rather than having ambitions such as a NFC, reduce the junkets for the boys, and letting if not abetting the competition flyers, wag the membership dog, via an antiquated administrative tech groupings and voting structure.

[John F]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 25/05/2016 23:28:50:

OK John, if this analysis exists - where is it? Why isn't it public domain? After all there is no question of commercial confidentiality here - there is no competition - well not yet anyway!

And if it doesn't exist - which I believe is the case - then why the hell not? You ask me to give them time to complete such an analysis,...they have had over a year! This is the second time they have taken us to the brink of apparently entering a contract - so don't you think such an analysis is just a tad overdue?

Finally you challenge me saying I cast doubt on the their competence? Yes I do - that is my opinion. What is it based on? Its based on fiascoes like the Nats; its based on the evidence that, despite the fact the 95% of their membership is hobby RC, their focus is entirely elsewhere; its based on the evidence of the pages and pages of pictures of the annual "black tie bash" in which people none of us have ever heard of are lauded and which indicates that "they" have absolutely no idea whatsoever just how irrelevant that is to the overwhelming majority of the membership!

No, you can stick with them John if you wish, that is your privilege - but I will simply store all this ready for the "I told you so" - that will only give me marginal pleasure - in 5 years or thereabouts when they come knocking for the money - because I personally am completely sure they haven't thought this potential "train crash" out!

This is my final contribution on this, as I think the debate is simply going round in circles now. Others will have to make their own mind up - I know which way I see this initiative going.

BEB

I know you said that this is your final contribution but I must respond to a couple of bits.

You ask where is the proof that they actually have a plan? Where is the proof that they do not? A double negative does not count as proof - just because you have not seen a plan does not mean that there is none to be had. Also the details are still work in progress are they not? Why release a plan that is currently being discussed?

So a black tie bash is proof of incompetence? Come on, really? Is this the black tie bash that was on 21 November? I can't find the pages and pages of photos.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? All there is here, and I am not talking exclusively about your posts BeB, is a lynch mob who have decided that the BMFA are most definitely guilty. What of? Well, by the sound of things - everything!

I am not a staunch supporter of the BMFA. I believe the cost of membership outweighs the benefits and could do with some competition from another provider. I would like to see fly ins accept other insurance companies and not just the BMFA; they have far too much in the way of a monopoly and the clubs are just as guilty accepting only their membership.

We need that competition but to damn them for wanting a vision of a National Flying Centre, that we voted in favour of, then a steady stream of ever increasing grief over it because it was not one member one vote, or the meeting was on a Wednesday, or the place they chose was 10 miles further away then someone is not happy with or a plethora of other little issues that folk are gripping onto as a life raft upon which to continually cast their objections?

Come on. Can't folk just fly instead of complain and hope someone comes along to offer us another choice of whom to ally with?

[Colin Leighfield]

Erfolg. I respect the LMA and they do a good job. But it is a single interest group with 5% of the membership numbers that BMFA has. A dream to run with the ability to have a single focus and a comparatively small number of like-minded people to deal with. To say that proves they have the competence to take on a much wider responsibility leaves me scratching my head. I can't believe that they want to anyway, their own web-site makes reference to the role of BMFA and their is no evidence that they see themselves as competitors. Why make life more difficult?

I would say that BMFA is trying to represent all modellers and having to live with the fact that in doing so some of the smaller interest areas can be accused of receiving disproportionate attention. They have a long history and tradition that goes all the way back through SMAE and I am pleased that they try to maintain it. To accue them of "junkets" and also your other criticisms are opinions you are entitled to but I don't think that you are correct. Nothing is perfect but overall, they have my support and I won't get into this "slagging-off" process because there are real people at the end of this and some of the accusations against them are too personal for my liking.

What's more my own personal, emphasise personal, opinion is that the idea of a national centre has a lot of merit and should be properly explored. Some of the responses that I read are very narrowly based and don't sem to have any wider vision. Whether I will be happy with what eventually comes out of this remains to be seen, but I'm not going to join in this sniping at individuals in the BMFA in the meantime. We should wait and see what the fully developed project proposals are and then voice our opinions. The key thing is that criticism should be constructive and there is too much that is sadly not of that nature.

That is enough from me, I'm leaving the discussion now.

[Peter Christy]

I have to say that I have sat here open-mouthed with dismay at many of the opinions expressed in this thread. The BMFA is NOT perfect, and it never will be if everyone just sits around slagging them off on a forum that has nothing to do with the BMFA!

If you are unhappy with the way the BMFA is being run, then stand for office! I did this some years ago in order to get the constitution amended so that every BMFA member got a vote in the elections, rather than it being delegated to clubs.

I have seen a number of people that I regard as "senior statesman" on this forum stating their experience at managing projects like the NFC. Well, if you think you can do a better job, stand for election!

As others have pointed out, many posts are filled unopposed, so it really is not that difficult to get elected. The BMFA relies heavily on volunteers to function, and I'm sure the experience claimed by many of the armchair critics on here would be welcomed by the BMFA's administration.

Its no good spouting your complaints here. All it will do is generate a lot of hot air (see the previous 7 pages of this thread)! If you are really interested in either stopping or supporting projects like the NFC, then stand for election so that you can make an effective contribution to the future.

I will not be contributing further to this thread. It is a waste of time.

--

Pete

[Willyuk]

Well said Pete, that sums it up nicely for me too.

Al

[Colin Leighfield]

Exactly. Over and out.

[Andy Meade]

As above - way too much negativity and criticism. Well said Pete.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Over and out was after the vote count at EGM fellas.

One man/woman vote is still a work in progress though.

John

[stu knowles]

Could this eight page whinefest be really over?

stu k

[MattyB]

I guess so - it appears those of us with legitimate concerns/questions about a project that will be initiated without a published plan have been given the standard "You had your chance at the EGM, now wait quietly or join the BMFA committee if you want change" response beloved of NFC supporters. Having already tried to engage with the BMFA regarding governance changes through their standard channels and had little success I will pass on option 2; the experience did not suggest reform was possible "from the inside". ~Besides, for those of us who work full time and have young kids it's untenable to participate in a committee requiring a 200 mile round trip - they would need to start doing virtual meetings as is standard in modern business.

PS - I am glad the EU referendum campaigning is not following this system, otherwise those who are for "remain" would presumably have to stand as MEPs before they could express their opinion, whilst "leavers" would all need to crowd onto Boris' battle bus to obtain the right to speak their mind!

[The Wright Stuff]

I do casually wonder if the one member, one vote system will result in a new national facility called FlyingCentre McFlyingCentreFace...

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by MattyB on 27/05/2016 14:14:38:

I guess so - it appears those of us with legitimate concerns/questions about a project that will be initiated without a published plan have been given the standard "You had your chance at the EGM, now wait quietly or join the BMFA committee if you want change" response beloved of NFC supporters.

Not necessarily the case, Matty. I expressed my reservations fully in the previous correspondence and still remain unconvinced on the basis of what we have been told. However, the EGM was held constitutionally and the vote was to go ahead - by a healthy margin. If this didn't reflect the views of the average club member then I'm afraid that was due to good old apathy. I emailed the whole of our club membership and talked about the matter at the field and went to the EGM knowing the feelings of those who had expressed any opinion. Perhaps not all clubs felt as strongly on the matter - the number of votes cast on behalf of club members was a fraction of the membership total - something in the 10 - 15% region if I recall correctly but I'm sure at least 50% (pessimistically) of the membership live within a two to three hours drive of Nottingham - for a one off event of such importance couldn't more clubs have made the effort?

Surely your club representative should be the one to talk to initially - then you should be able to get your club majority opinion heard - the system is nowhere near perfect but the only way to change it is to address the problem at source - trying to get anything changed by grumbling at the field or via the forum is a non-starter. I believe that Edlesborough, where the South Midlands area meetings are usually held isn't so far from you so if your club isn't represented you, or a like minded clubmate could perhaps give it a go! (no, I'm not our rep and have no position with the BMFA other than an ordinary member but ours does attend on our behalf regularly).

[MattyB]

Posted by Martin Harris on 27/05/2016 17:42:11:

...Surely your club representative should be the one to talk to initially - then you should be able to get your club majority opinion heard - the system is nowhere near perfect but the only way to change it is to address the problem at source - trying to get anything changed by grumbling at the field or via the forum is a non-starter. I believe that Edlesborough, where the South Midlands area meetings are usually held isn't so far from you so if your club isn't represented you, or a like minded clubmate could perhaps give it a go! (no, I'm not our rep and have no position with the BMFA other than an ordinary member but ours does attend on our behalf regularly).

As I stated above I have already tried the defined channels re: governance reform. Despite my area backing the view that change was required especially to ensure country members could vote we never got a response from the person on the BMFA council who was supposed to be leading the initiative. I will not therefore be wasting any more of my time trying to push water uphill.

Edited By MattyB on 27/05/2016 18:05:22

[Erfolg]

The congress of the USSR was constitutionally correct, it just did not match the aspirations of the average Soviet citizen. In the case of the USSR neither was the system viable in the long term. although it took many years to collapse.

There is a problem with the BMFA. in that it is not only resistant to positive changes, to reflect the 21st century, it believes there is a need ti know, before any information is clearly and concisely presented to members.

Listening to other members at regional meetings, they have other issues as to the running of the BMFA.

Mattyb has identified one of the issues, any one who raises genuine concerns is castigated as being negative, and so forth. It probably says more about the those berating than the berated. How can it be so radical to ask for information to form a opinion, having very legitimate queries.

Edited By Erfolg on 27/05/2016 21:16:37

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Cheer up lads.

John

[John F]

Posted by Erfolg on 27/05/2016 21:13:35:

 

There is a problem with the BMFA. in that it is not only resistant to positive changes, to reflect the 21st century, it believes there is a need ti know, before any information is clearly and concisely presented to members.

Listening to other members at regional meetings, they have other issues as to the running of the BMFA.

Mattyb has identified one of the issues, any one who raises genuine concerns is castigated as being negative, and so forth. It probably says more about the those berating than the berated. How can it be so radical to ask for information to form a opinion, having very legitimate queries.

Edited By Erfolg on 27/05/2016 21:16:37

Asking for opinion is one thing and seeing as the questions are on things that are happening right now; info would be given once there is info to give. Once a plan is in place then you'll be told of the plan!! Moaning that you're not told of the plan is just silly. Why should they tell you when they've no details to give?

On another note is it not just plain arrogance to keep insisting on details on something that they are doing? Would it not be better to let them create the plan and get their ducks in order before you cast them into the fire?

There's also a whole lot of finger pointing and accusations being thrown but no actual substance.

For example stating, with all confidence, that the BMFA is resistant to change. How is the BMFA resistant to change?

Lots of opinions on how the BMFA are out of touch but not one single shred of proof, yet the inclusion of multi rotor info and safe flying of with additional rules for example, is evidence to the contrary, which is conveniently ignored.

Some people just quote a black tie event as proof of feeding the upper echelons therefore ignoring us, but no one actually states what the black tie event actually was!

Edited By John F on 28/05/2016 08:21:16

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

...or the fact that, as far as I'm aware (and hope), the participants pay for the privilege.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Thought you wanted the thread to end ?

Change ? Why's a man have to get involved to get one man/woman a vote ? Why's the one man/woman vote not allow ALL the chance to vote on what was a big issue ? no vote allowed for over a 1/4 of the membership.

I was at the EGM, I believe/hope this is being looked at, not a lot of point Country members being at meeting so some may be unaware, we did get an earful from Country members for not allowing them a vote, things evolve over time and change is normal, we appear to have left some folk behind. Put it right, we may need the backing of these people if we're gonna build something worthwhile. I know the idea of people having a vote don't sit well with some of you but that's just the way I see it. United we Achieve...sounds good eh. Or do's the thought scare some ?

John

[Guvnor]

My god these arguments are pathetic. This is a hobby about flying model aeroplanes... Go out and get on with it...!