LMA v BMFA insurance

[ChrisB]

To all those that moan and groan about either the BMFA or LMA, just remember that the hobby we do is exactly that, its a hobby.

Its done by choice for enjoyment and with spare money. If you can't afford or don't want to afford to pay 63pence

a week for the BMFA and/or 57pence a week for the LMA then perhaps you should consider whether this hobby is for you?

The larger of the two associations, the BMFA, with 800 ish clubs and 36000 ish members, a permanent salaried staff, national insurance, pensions etc ..i.e. its their livelihood, plus rent, rates, etc of the office and provision of club services such as mediation, planning, school and youth group talks and recruitment etc FOR FREE, do you really object to paying 42pence a week over and above the insurance element?

Come on..have a word!

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[PatMc]

Is LMA membership without their insurance available ?

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

People such as Matty, Percy, John, Iquon, myself and others have raised issues we have with the BMFA - none of us have ever raised the issue of the subscription - and we have said this more than once. But despite this BMFA-Apologists keep bringing this issue up, whilst simultaineously, it seems to me, failing to address the real matters we raise.

Can we once and for all state:

Our problems with BMFA concern issues of structure, organisational democracy, governance and accountability. Not the cost!

And for raising these legitimate questions we are misrepresented and labelled "moaners"! Well that's one way of answering us I suppose,....

BEB

[cymaz]

See, "what has the BMFA ever done for us"

[PatMc]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 22/01/2017 21:22:19:

People such as Matty, Percy, John, Iquon, myself and others have raised issues we have with the BMFA - none of us have ever raised the issue of the subscription - and we have said this more than once. But despite this BMFA-Apologists keep bringing this issue up, whilst simultaineously, it seems to me, failing to address the real matters we raise.

Can we once and for all state:

Our problems with BMFA concern issues of structure, organisational democracy, governance and accountability. Not the cost!

And for raising these legitimate questions we are misrepresented and labelled "moaners"! Well that's one way of answering us I suppose,....

BEB

The title of the thread is "LMA v BMFA insurance", perhaps you should start another thread covering the issues that concern you.

[Stephen Smith 14]

Don't get it, read most of this thread that started as a bmfa vs LMA insurance and has deteriorated into a let's belittle the bmfa. Perhaps the negatives could go and start there own club, association or what ever sort there own insurance and stand up for there hobby at local national and international leval, after all no ones holding a gun to your heads, then perhaps they would be to busy to post on this thread and it could get back to what the title says

Edited By Stephen Smith 14 on 22/01/2017 22:21:21

Edited By Stephen Smith 14 on 22/01/2017 22:22:15

Edited By Stephen Smith 14 on 22/01/2017 22:23:25

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by Stephen Smith 14 on 22/01/2017 22:20:22:

Don't get it, read most of this thread that started as a bmfa vs LMA insurance and has deteriorated into a let's belittle the bmfa. Perhaps the negatives could go and start there own club, association or what ever sort there own insurance and stand up for there hobby at local national and international leval, after all no ones holding a gun to your heads, then perhaps they would be to busy to post on this thread and it could get back to what rthe title says

Edited By Stephen Smith 14 on 22/01/2017 22:21:21

Edited By Stephen Smith 14 on 22/01/2017 22:22:15

I take it you never read the opening post then

[Stephen Smith 14]

Can't read

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by PatMc on 22/01/2017 21:42:00:

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 22/01/2017 21:22:19:

People such as Matty, Percy, John, Iquon, myself and others have raised issues we have with the BMFA - none of us have ever raised the issue of the subscription - and we have said this more than once. But despite this BMFA-Apologists keep bringing this issue up, whilst simultaineously, it seems to me, failing to address the real matters we raise.

Can we once and for all state:

Our problems with BMFA concern issues of structure, organisational democracy, governance and accountability. Not the cost!

And for raising these legitimate questions we are misrepresented and labelled "moaners"! Well that's one way of answering us I suppose,....

BEB

The title of the thread is "LMA v BMFA insurance", perhaps you should start another thread covering the issues that concern you.

We've tried that! And anyway - I was simply answering a repeated repsponse that its about the money - it isn't! That's a red herring!

BEB

[LMA Dave]

Posted by PatMc on 22/01/2017 21:12:17:

Is LMA membership without their insurance available ?

If you are a BMFA member then no as that offer is not available to LMA members from the BMFA it is as simple as that. As it has been stated time and time again you have to be a BMFA member to be in a BMFA affiliated club, and as some one has stated there are around 800 clubs affiliated to the BMFA. If you are not in one of the 800 clubs and don't fly at any BMFA clubs, then its up to you who you get insure with.

PS... On the large model theme, which as also been thrown up. I will state again, you don't have to have or be interested in an over 20kg model to be a member of the LMA, we don't fly these models every time we go flying. Most of us if not all of us fly so called club size models (whatever size that is) normally. I manly fly small electrics.

[PatMc]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 22/01/2017 22:41:28:

Posted by PatMc on 22/01/2017 21:42:00:

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 22/01/2017 21:22:19:

People such as Matty, Percy, John, Iquon, myself and others have raised issues we have with the BMFA - none of us have ever raised the issue of the subscription - and we have said this more than once. But despite this BMFA-Apologists keep bringing this issue up, whilst simultaineously, it seems to me, failing to address the real matters we raise.

Can we once and for all state:

Our problems with BMFA concern issues of structure, organisational democracy, governance and accountability. Not the cost!

And for raising these legitimate questions we are misrepresented and labelled "moaners"! Well that's one way of answering us I suppose,....

BEB

The title of the thread is "LMA v BMFA insurance", perhaps you should start another thread covering the issues that concern you.

We've tried that! And anyway - I was simply answering a repeated repsponse that its about the money - it isn't! That's a red herring!

BEB

Personaly, I disagree with the NFC & how the decision that there was a mandate for it was reached but frankly a number of posts in this thread strike me as being no more than BMFA bashing without any real logic behind them.

[PatMc]

Posted by LMA Dave on 22/01/2017 22:58:18:

Posted by PatMc on 22/01/2017 21:12:17:

Is LMA membership without their insurance available ?

If you are a BMFA member then no as that offer is not available to LMA members from the BMFA it is as simple as that.

Thanks for your reply, Dave. Perhaps I'm being thick but I'm afraid I'm puzzled by it.
Are you saying that a BMFA member can't join the LMA unless he or she takes the LMA insurance but a non-BMFA member can join without taking the LMA insurance ?
Or must all applicant take the LMA insurance as part of LMA membership ?

[LMA Dave]

Posted by PatMc on 22/01/2017 23:27:15:

Posted by LMA Dave on 22/01/2017 22:58:18:

Posted by PatMc on 22/01/2017 21:12:17:

Is LMA membership without their insurance available ?

If you are a BMFA member then no as that offer is not available to LMA members from the BMFA it is as simple as that.

Thanks for your reply, Dave. Perhaps I'm being thick but I'm afraid I'm puzzled by it.
Are you saying that a BMFA member can't join the LMA unless he or she takes the LMA insurance but a non-BMFA member can join without taking the LMA insurance ?
Or must all applicant take the LMA insurance as part of LMA membership ?

Hi PatMc, sorry for the confusion, No the current stance is any BMFA member will have to pay the LMA joining fee which incudes the insurance, as is the same for the LMA member joining the BMFA, if you don't belong to any BMFA club I meant you where not restricted to being a BMFA member so you could just join the LMA if you wanted too. Hope that make sense.

[PatMc]

Thank's for clearing that up, Dave.

In effect the LMA & BMFA have similar policies on the inclusive insurance to all members.

[LMA Dave]

Posted by PatMc on 22/01/2017 23:46:34:

Thank's for clearing that up, Dave.

In effect the LMA & BMFA have similar policies on the inclusive insurance to all members.

Identical

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by john stones 1 on 22/01/2017 20:30:49:

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

 

It was meant to be more in the way of questions than making any point, John - just trying to understand the role of the LMA in model flying and reasons why a "normal" model flyer (if there is such a thing!) might feel they are an appropriate organisation to join - their website does state prominently on its home page that "Its members are interested in the designing, building and flying of large model aircraft".

Percy's reply and a bit more digging on the LMA site do suggest that the definition of a large model in this context is >7kg (which I regard as a larger "club" size) rather than the >20kg that might seem the obvious one - there again, many Ebay adverts define a 42" span model as enormous...

 

 

Edited By Martin Harris on 23/01/2017 00:04:04

[Martin Dilly 1]

Just on a point of accuracy, the LMA is surely a misnomer. I fly quite large models, F1A free-flight gliders actually; they span around 2.3 metres but weigh about 430 grams (14 1/2 ounces or so in old money). It's about time for a re-launch of the LMA with a more accurate title, the Heavy Model Association, for that's surely what they are really all about, isn't it?

[Graham Chadwick]

I have clearly got myself in a into a spiral of my own confusion..

Will you all please disregard my comments re insurance/membership fees

It can be embarrassing to admit you are wrong but even more so to say that you have talked a load of tripe!

Sorry all.

[John F]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 22/01/2017 21:22:19:

Can we once and for all state:

Our problems with BMFA concern issues of structure, organisational democracy, governance and accountability. Not the cost!

 

Have you, or anyone else, actually formulated a letter or email with all your grievances and sent it to the BMFA?

They are very good at replying and not dodging questions.

Edited By John F on 23/01/2017 08:00:19

[Peter Christy]

Graham,

It takes a big man to make a confession like that!

Respect!

--

Pete

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Yes John - issues have been raised through more formal channels. John Stones in particular has raised such issues with the BMFA. I'll let John speak for himself, but in summary (as I understand it) John raised the issue of Country Members effectively being disenfranchised by the organisation. He was told that the matter was being looked into. There almost a year went past, with no response. When the issue was raised again the response given was that it had been considered and any change rejected because to give representation to Country Members would give them more say than club members!! This of course is a pathetic response - what it amounts to is "the democratic representation of club members is inadequate, the democratic representation of Country members is non-existant. But we can't fix the second without exposing the faults in the first, so we're going to do nothing". And because of the ancient creaking governance system of the Association they can get away with that - matter closed. "No you will not have modern democracy in this Association - end of".

This is an example of why it is so unhelpful when people say "don't just knock the BMFA, propose change through the system" - the fact is you can't implement any change those already running the institution don't want! The governance system is designed in such a way as to stop that very thing being possible!

Am I and others like me just "knocking the BMFA"? No I don't believe so. It gives me no pleasure to criticise them. I'd much prefer we had a modern dynamic and fully democratic representative body - but we don't. For the the good of hobby, for the good its members and ultimately for its own good the BMFA needs to modernise its representative system, its decision making machinery and its governance to be fit for purpose in the 21st century.

To see what I mean just consider one single aspect among many - the representation system. We can all understand where the current system came from. Designed 40-50 years ago, in a time when communications where much poorer than now - no internet etc. - then representation by club was a sensible system. It has serious drawbacks - its effectively a "block vote" system - a mechanism widely discredited in many other areas in the last 30 years and rightly so. However, at the time the BMFA was set up and given its limited resources, it was the only real viable option. But, and this is the point, today that isn't true anymore and it hasn't been for some time. Other institutions have modernised, abandoned the inadequate "block vote" and, via systems such as e-voting, have brought greatly enhanced representation, democracy and accountability to their organisations allowing simple and fair "one member, one vote" systems on major issues.

How can aspiring to this and asking why our institution is so reluctant to embrace this be seen as "knocking it"? Surely in this day and age it's a reasonable position? The fact is the BMFA is stuck in the 1970's in terms of it democratic procedures. That's not good. What is worse is its continuing defence of that position. What is even worse again is listening to its own inadequately represented members actually defending it in that position! Turkeys really do vote for Chrsitmas!!

Some have suggested that this thread is only about LMA insurance verus BMFA insurance, I think that is to draw an artificial boundary. The reason we are discussing the relative positions of the BMFA and the LMA is because increasing numbers of BMFA members are "jumping ship" because they will no longer tolerate the democratic deficit implicit in the way the BMFA is constituted and the organisation's complete lack of willingness to address it.

Look, I don't want to see the BMFA hurt. I want to have a modern, strong, representative body. I also recognise that it already does lots of good things. Has it occurred to any of you who treat us with hostility, label us as "moaners" and "whingers" even suggesting that we leave and go elsewhere that maybe its the organisation's best friend that tells it the truth it doesn't want to hear? Possibly, by closing your eyes to the problems, it is you that are the greatest long term risk to the BMFA? All organisation need "critical friends" - people who challenge the status quo. They particularly need them when they are as out of time and season as the BMFA is at present.

BEB

[John F]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 23/01/2017 09:44:51:

John raised the issue of Country Members effectively being disenfranchised by the organisation. He was told that the matter was being looked into. There almost a year went past, with no response. When the issue was raised again the response given was that it had been considered and any change rejected because to give representation to Country Members would give them more say than club members!! This of course is a pathetic response

If a Country Member could vote individually and Club members vote through the club on a proportional basis then Country Members do indeed get a stronger vote. I would not call that a "pathetic" explanation but rather an indication of the reality of what is currently available.

Whilst the "block vote" system may well be flawed just because they have not done what you want and kept to keeping clubs involved as a members' representative then, in your eyes, it is wrong?

Our own UK General Election system is similar and whilst it is "one person one vote" it only goes to determine the constituency seats. The US has something broadly similar which explains why someone with a few million more votes still does not get to the top job.

Seeing as this is currently still going on it is not exactly discredited. It is not perfect but it is what it is.

Is this not just a matter of seeing the world in your terms and wanting change instead of understanding what is possible?

Many older members, for example, still do not have a computer or the internet. Three members I know ofonly attend our club to fly, the club attending to their needs. If you have a one member on vote system then not only is the club involvement eroded but people who have supported the BMFA for many decades are ignored if the old fashioned, more expensive, Royal Mail options are not used.

I would offer that challenging the status quo is all well and good, healthy and necessary, but only so far as the individual accepting the answers that are offered and checking their own understanding instead of saying that the answer is "pathetic" and sticking to their own theories.

Edited By John F on 23/01/2017 10:25:09

[Peter Christy]

Well said BEB! And how refreshing to see a thorough and dispassionate analysis of the situation for once.

Although I regularly defend the BMFA, I have also accepted that there are aspects of its organisation that need reviewing, and I too would dearly like to see it become more democratic. Big strides were made a few years ago, with the introduction of "one member, one vote" for elected officials. I had hoped, at the time, that that would result in the spread of that process throughout the BMFA. Sadly, it appears to have stalled.

Making it a fully democratic system would also solve another problem, of which I have become aware since my retirement to a rural area. The area in which I now live has had no representation even for clubs for a number of years now. Surely, for an organisation that insists that the clubs are its members, dis-enfranchising a whole county is even worse than the dis-enfranchisement of country members!

However, it would be unwise to under-estimate the scale of the task. It will not be as simple as waving a magic wand and changing matters overnight. Large chunks of the articles of association will probably need re-writing, as well as all the existing mechanisms for actually running the organisation on a day to day basis. And no matter how carefully this is done, there are bound to be unintended consequences.

But none of that is an excuse for not making a start, and anyone who stands for election on such a ticket will certainly get my vote!

--

Pete

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Peter Christy on 23/01/2017 10:30:28:

Making it a fully democratic system would also solve another problem, of which I have become aware since my retirement to a rural area. The area in which I now live has had no representation even for clubs for a number of years now. Surely, for an organisation that insists that the clubs are its members, dis-enfranchising a whole county is even worse than the dis-enfranchisement of country members!

Perhaps a case for some slightly more radical thinking here - I can understand why it's not easy to get representation from areas such as yours - yes, travelling expenses can be claimed but not everyone would commit to travelling hundreds of miles to Leicester on a regular basis. In this day and age, despite John F's experience, almost everyone has access to a computer and very little effort would be needed to provide a videoconferencing system - or in the case of real dinosaurs or the odd rural location without adequate broadband, an audio link (all this potentially saving money in the long run) to allow full national representation at Council.

In terms of OMOV, I don't believe it can (or should) be applied to day to day running of the BMFA where the present system allows the mechanism to make operational decisions relatively quickly but the NFC debate highlighted its deficiency in members feeling properly consulted/represented on major issues. I was at the EGM, heard the chairman state quite clearly that he felt that the system was flawed and express his desire to overhaul it at an early juncture. I also believe (but obviously cannot prove) that the majority of ordinary members would have rejected the motion in a OMOV consultation - although the present leasing arrangement might well have been received more enthusiastically!

BEB - I read your words above with a sense of awe, in how you have thoroughly encapsulated the whole subject of representation. I don't agree with every word but I'd like to think that it reaches the eyes of the whole of the BMFA council where it might provide food for thought - there are several contributors here with the relevant connections!

 

Edited By Martin Harris on 23/01/2017 11:32:00