LMA v BMFA insurance

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

We could single a few things out and stop doing them and save money, we could knock the NFC on the head and save money there. The £33 is not what gets us worked up at times is it ? not seen the price tag as a bone of contention myself.

We've never needed the magazine more than we do at present, given the moaning we've done about lack of communication in recent years.

Black tie dinner ? i don't care what colour tie folks wear, enjoy your meal for me, don't forget to leave the staff a tip

John

[Martin Dance 1]

It puzzles me why quite so many forum members, both on this and other forums, get quite so agitated about the cost of BMFA membership, the cost of insurance and the printed BMFA News. The annual cost for an adult member is £33. That's about 1/3rd of the price of a Seagull Boomerang trainer kit about the same as a mid priced 40A esc and a lot of mid specification servos come in at around that price. So the sub is a small fraction of most peoples average modelling spend. Yet feel it quite in order to whinge endlessly.

The BMFA News is a journal of record. In it are reports of the activities of its members whether they have just got their ;A cert or have become a world champion. It records and reports how our hobby is faring in the larger world, note the amount of effort being expended trying to moderate, with some success, the EASA proposals caused in the main by commercial business selling products to those who aren't aware of the possible consequences of their activities and certainly couldn't care less about it as long as the profits keep rolling in. The insurance is excellent value for its scope, just try equalling it as an individual buying in the market.

The NFC when completed will present a first class image of a sport/hobby often seen as stupid old men playing with toys in a wet and or windy field. Sad, but hey they're harmless.

Stop whinging about our national body and perhaps support its aims!

[Cuban8]

I don't believe many of us deliberately set out to undermine the BMFA and/or its aims just for the sake of it. There are legitimate arguments that deserve an airing.

[John F]

Many have concentrated on the print cost of the BMFA News, which is a red herring really as the cost of creating the content is the most expensive part. The costs of printing and distribution is tiny in comparison. Don't forget too that you need to factor in the cost of setting up the e-distribution too.

This has been brought up on ebook forums for years where people don't like paying the same price as physical books with no desire to understand what constitutes as a cost. There are plenty of evidence to show that the cost of printing only adds 8% or so to the final cost of a publication.

Some have stated that they're funding black tie dinners yet they conveniently do not wish to research, or do not wish to believe, that if you want to go to a BMFA black tie dinner you fill out the form and pay for the dinner.

Some folk are angry at having to pay £33 for an £11 insurance, but you're not just getting insurance; you're buying membership that works hard to support you and your chosen hobby.

Roll on the spring so people are not as bored as they get to building and flying instead.

[Cuban8]

I'm certain that having a few extra pages of news and photos on the existing BMFA website isn't going to cost anywhere near 150K

Edited By Cuban8 on 18/01/2017 14:56:10

[John F]

Just having a "few extra pages of news and photos" would hardly cut it as a suitable alternative. We do that here in build blogs!

Members would moan that they have to go and download what used to be sent to them so to provide members with a copy of what they used to get in print form you would have to email it out.

You could probably save some cash but it would hardly slash the £150K you're saying it costs to produce annually as printing is not the main cost.

[Geoff Jackson]

I pay £33 a month for my car insurance, I dont moan because its essential and the law. Id cheerfully pay £33 a year to the Bmfa just for insurance, for the peace of mind when my 72 inch petrol powered missile is hurtling round the sky. Lets get real guys, insurance is a must in these days of litigation. Everything else is a bonus and like breakdown cover we pay and hope never to have to use it. The NFC will be there, a bit like Goosedale was, if I fancy a visit although age may be against me.

Bit like EU referendum, its happened, stop moaning and lets get on with it, enjoy the flying!

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Peter Christy]

Good point, Percy! I seem to recall that at one time, most kits and models sold used to include an application form for the BMFA, along with some bumf explaining its purpose. Perhaps this is something that could be usefully re-instated!

Regarding the NFC, over the years we seem to have lost a number of major events that used to promote our chosen hobby. The Sandown Symposium was one, and I fear the Nationals may now have gone the same way. Both of these were major events that people travelled from all over the country to attend, and we lost them because the venues were outside our control. Maybe the NFC will provide something similar to Sandown, where manufacturers can show off their latest wares. The downturn that the hobby has suffered in recent years needs addressing, and the NFC might just do it. Certainly Goosedale never seemed to have problems finding enough events, and that was done for profit! I don't see why the BMFA shouldn't succeed like Goosedale did.

I would certainly agree that there are things within the BMFA that need addressing. Nothing made by man is ever perfect! And if you think there is a problem with country members being disenfranchised, you might want to look at the situation in the South West! Since I've retired down here, I've discovered - to my horror - that the whole of Devon has been without any proper representation for years! And I'm not talking about individual members here, but whole clubs!

So yes, there are things that need fixing. But the means of fixing them exist. And the benefits - to me - far outweigh the things that are wrong.

--

Pete

[ChrisB]

Posted by Roger Price 1 on 17/01/2017 23:54:04:

There are many pertinent points raised in this topic which have value but there seems to be a theme that the BMFA does nothing for us but provide insurance and attend black tie dinners. As a Club we have received numerous assistance from the BMFA in regard to flying sites, legal advice and provision of club speakers over the years. Where would we be with the CAA, the European model representatives and the current proposals for restricting the use of models without having a national body to represent us? It all costs money and all members reap the benefits. Not many posts refer to the hundreds of occasions where clubs have benefited from BMFA advice. I dread to think what the price of insurance would be if we had to negotiate it individually without a national body setting out the parameters for safe flying. All this for less than the cost of a cup of coffee a month. A bargain.

I'd echo Rogers comments that the BMFA, when needed is there to support and directly assist clubs and their members with a range of issues! Personal experience also confirms this!

CB

[Geoff S]

Posted by Geoff Jackson on 18/01/2017 16:00:18:

I pay £33 a month for my car insurance, I dont moan because its essential and the law. Id cheerfully pay £33 a year to the Bmfa just for insurance, for the peace of mind when my 72 inch petrol powered missile is hurtling round the sky. Lets get real guys, insurance is a must in these days of litigation. Everything else is a bonus and like breakdown cover we pay and hope never to have to use it. The NFC will be there, a bit like Goosedale was, if I fancy a visit although age may be against me.

Bit like EU referendum, its happened, stop moaning and lets get on with it, enjoy the flying!

Goosedale was brilliant. That was where I attended my first ever model show. It's only 20 miles from where I live and in 1995 (after retirement) when I was learning to fly I cycled there and had lessons from Norman Hunt and rode home. An hour in the air and 40 miles in my legs made a great day.

Sadly it was badly managed and failed for reasons I'm not entirely clear about. Hopefully the NFC won't suffer similar problems.

As I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread. My annual Cycling UK (formerly CTC) subscription is around the same cost as the BMFA (actually I think it's more but it's paid by direct debit and I can't remember) and provides similar benefits - ie insurance and a bi-monthly magazine. However, like the BMFA for aeromodelling, it has direct links to government and lobbies for cycling. Without it cycling would be worse off just as aeromodelling would be without the BMFA. To deny its worth seems to me to be mean spirited and the criticisms are often made by people who have no experience of the hard work volunteers do to keep hobby/sports on even keel.

I've served on sailing, motor cycle and cycling club committees in the past as well as editing a national cycle club magazine and I know how hard it is. I know it's an old cliche but it really is like a swimming swan - serenity on the surface and legs going like billy-oh underneath.

Geoff

[Graham Chadwick]

Just to clarify my own views,

I DO NOT object to the fair membership fee at the present level.

I do however object to the insurance fee being set at 3 times the price it actually costs the BMFA. Its not relevant you perceived value, its the real cost we are talking about. (charge the cost £11+ £5 administration fee ) Dose that sound fair to you?

I do think the annual cost to OUR club of the magazines is ridiculous in these days of the internet. (Don't be patronizing about older members, we are not all sat mumbling to ourselves listening to the home service).

I do think the National flying sight is a vanity project that will only be a money pit of no benefit the 99.9% of our membership .

And lastly I would like the BMFA to be like some of the other clubs I am a member of and work to benefit its members with the negotiation of group discount for the membership, AND THEN PASS THESE BACK TO US, NOT TREBEL AND THEN TELL US THIS IS OUR ONLY COMPULSORY SUPPLIER .

These are my views and I do not claim to speak for anyone else. I am allways very suspicious of those claiming to speak for others, or for me.

 

Edited By Graham Chadwick on 22/01/2017 14:29:14

Edited By Graham Chadwick on 22/01/2017 14:32:10

[Peter Christy]

Geoff: From what I heard at the time - and I have no idea if this is accurate information or not - Goosedale closed following a disagreement with the local council over planning permission for some boating lakes!

Graham: I'm sorry, but I just don't follow your reasoning! You ARE only charged £11 for the insurance! The rest of it is your membership fees, and pays for the running of the BMFA.

A vote was taken many years ago to make insurance included with BMFA membership.

Although much of the work of the BMFA is undertaken by volunteers, there is a small core of salaried staff in a small office building in Leicester. The staff have to be paid, as does council tax, maintenance, etc on the property. How would you propose to run such a specialised organisation without full time staff? Would YOU be prepared to undertake all those roles as a volunteer for no reward?

Oh, and by the way, the reason we get the insurance so cheaply is because the BMFA *have* negotiated a very good deal for its members.

There is nothing to stop you sorting out your own insurance arrangements if you want to. You just won't be able to fly at BMFA affiliated events or clubs. But there are quite a lot of non-affiliated clubs out there.

Indeed, there is nothing in law compelling you to have insurance at all, though I would suggest that to fly without it would be criminally irresponsible.

I'm sorry, but I simply can't follow your logic!

--

Pete

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Not only down to negotiation we get a better price for insurance, the numbers play a big part in it.

John

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Peter Christy on 22/01/2017 15:40:12:

There is nothing to stop you sorting out your own insurance arrangements if you want to. You just won't be able to fly at BMFA affiliated events or clubs. But there are quite a lot of non-affiliated clubs out there.

And you still hold its not a closed shop - incredible! - "the BMFA way or no way"!

BEB

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

Posted by Graham Chadwick on 22/01/2017 14:25:54:

Just to clarify my own views,

I DO NOT object to the fair membership fee at the present level.

I do however object to the insurance fee being set at 3 times the price it actually costs the BMFA. Its not relevant you perceived value, its the real cost we are talking about. (charge the cost £11+ £5 administration fee ) Dose that sound fair to you?

I do think the annual cost to OUR club of the magazines is ridiculous in these days of the internet. (Don't be patronizing about older members, we are not all sat mumbling to ourselves listening to the home service).

I do think the National flying sight is a vanity project that will only be a money pit of no benefit the 99.9% of our membership .

And lastly I would like the BMFA to be like some of the other clubs I am a member of and work to benefit its members with the negotiation of group discount for the membership, AND THEN PASS THESE BACK TO US, NOT TREBEL AND THEN TELL US THIS IS OUR ONLY COMPULSORY SUPPLIER .

These are my views and I do not claim to speak for anyone else. I am allways very suspicious of those claiming to speak for others, or for me.

Edited By Graham Chadwick on 22/01/2017 14:29:14

Edited By Graham Chadwick on 22/01/2017 14:32:10

As a point of order the BMFA does not sell insurance, it's a members association which costs £33 for senior members, insurance is simply one of the many excellent benefits of being a member. The "ridiculous" cost of the magazine is about £4.40 per member in total for the 6 issues, getting rid of the magazine would then require many other items to be posted out so possiby no saving at all by getting rid, as an aside it is a huge tick in the "plus" column as far as the CAA is concerned that we have a regular publication that gets posted to all members.

[Peter Christy]

BEB: No one is forcing you to belong to the BMFA. You are quite free to sort out your own arrangements if you choose.

--

Pete

[PatMc]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 22/01/2017 15:56:16:

Posted by Peter Christy on 22/01/2017 15:40:12:

There is nothing to stop you sorting out your own insurance arrangements if you want to. You just won't be able to fly at BMFA affiliated events or clubs. But there are quite a lot of non-affiliated clubs out there.

And you still hold its not a closed shop - incredible! - "the BMFA way or no way"!

BEB

There's nothing in Peter's post that descibes the BMFA as operating or being a closed shop !

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Think the doors will get a lick of paint and stronger locks before long myself.

John

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I'm struggling to understand why you see the LMA as an appropriate organisation to join unless something particular has set you against the BMFA Percy.

As a specialist organisation, the LMA has - and no doubt will continue to - provided an excellent service to its members, administering the large model scheme and providing dedicated venues to fly them from. But the fees are largely similar and they are not orientated towards "club sized" models, where the BMFA provides support and is seen as the representative body by the authorities who provide and administer the legislation affecting the majority of us. Whilst the BMFA do hold a well publicised annual dinner - which seems to be the focus of many dissenting comments, it's a tiny consideration in the greater picture and if people are willing to give considerable amounts of their time freely, I don't resent them having a little shindig once a year much of which comes out of their own pockets, I believe.

If all you want is insurance, is a couple of pounds really enough to start chipping away at the foundations of the organisation with a track record of gaining advantages for aeromodellers (not just their members) and credibility with the authorities? I wonder what the LMA will do for you and has anyone asked if they really want an influx of general modellers who will, no doubt, start clamouring for more relevant attention in years to come when the novelty of "cheap" insurance wears off...

One thing I've often wondered is why insurance isn't optional within the LMA, given that many of their members are also BMFA members - does it make sense to have 2 almost identical policies from the same underwriter in force at the same time, or does the LMA insurance provide some sort of extra cover for large models?

Edited By Martin Harris on 22/01/2017 19:42:31

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Over 20kg?

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Don't get your point here Martin, i don't fly comps yet i'm in BMFA and it's one of it's primary objectives that they support it... so i joined for other benefits.

Same applies to LMA perhaps, i know lots of lads who're members but don't fly at shows nor own above 20kg...they joined for other reasons and benefits.

John