BMFA subs increase.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[CARPERFECT]

Tom Sharp 2. Nobody has said the insurance is going up, that`s the point. what they have said is, the bmfa might not get the £35000 rebate back, because of the number of claims, plus falling membership numbers, plus they lost money last year, so the members will have to pay more. The bmfa budget is about £1.2 million, of that about £380,000 insurance. £250,000 staff wages. then the big bit £600,000 spent on other things, This is the bit that needs trimming to match the income, The Chairman`s statement to all the ill feeling about the raise in fees says they are about £20,000 short, but asking for £4 = about £140,000

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by David Mellor on 13/09/2018 18:21:47:

Once you understand that point, you can see that the only practical way of reducing the overall burden of insurance cost (if that is what you want to do) is to reduce the probability of impact damage - by parking cars further away.

Edited By David Mellor on 13/09/2018 18:30:18

OK I understand the logic of this - but surely it misses the obvious point? Surely an even better solution is to reduce the likelihood of people flying into cars in the first place?

In my club we have the flightline (with the pilots' box), then 10m or so behind that we have the pitts and 20 or so metres behind that we have the cars. These are less than the BMFA guidelines - and less than many are talking of here, but the arrangement is forced on us by the geography of the site. So you might think, not a promising situation. All of the airspace behind the flightline (pilots' box, pitts and cars) is strictly outside the flying zone.

I fly quite a lot - I'm there often - I can honestly say I can't remember the last time someone flew behind the flightline, let alone behind the pitts towards the cars. It just doesn't happen, except very rarely. When it does happen, even a small encroachment, attracts shouts of "Eh no flying behind the flightline" or "no overflying the pitts" etc. And the "sinner" is left in no doubt they have "infringed".

OK, of course it can happen, the occasional equipment failure might provoke it, but as I say its very rare. I don't think my club is special, but are there clubs where overflying these areas is not so frowned on? Is encroachment into this space more frequent elsewhere? Because if it is so it needs to be dealt with - it's dangerous! -and if is not then I don't understand where all these incidents are coming from?

BEB

[CARPERFECT]

Very much the same in our club. we park the cars some 40 yards from the flight line and the pits are in between, so all flying is done in front of the pits and cars. I am one of two safety officers in our club. my friend does weekdays and me weekends, Any member who fly`s near the pits is told so , we also have two roads near our field, and we do not allow people to over fly them either, In the ten years i have been a member nobody has crashed into or near a car. In the road and in the field over the road yes, Even me about 4 weeks ago, when something started to go wrong with the plane/radio, so i crashed it on purpose so as to not let it fly away, as the only control i had was engine and elevator . New Transmitter bought , and a new plane lol

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[CARPERFECT]

Have a look at our site layout. at www.brighousemac.co.uk the click on Flying Site, and scroll down to the bottom

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[andyh]

Posted by Steve J on 14/09/2018 07:10:35:

The two biggest items in the budget after insurance and staff costs are c. £160k for the BMFA News ...

I really think it's long past time for BMFA News to be distributed electronically by default, with maybe a separate subscription for the hard-copy version. For ~15% of the annual expenses to be going on something that I suspect goes into most members' recycling bins - or worse, general waste bins - unread where an essentially free method of distribution exists seems wasteful & anachronistic.

[Nigel R]

That's pricey for sure. I'd vote for an electronic version to vastly reduce cost. Presumably a chunk of that £160k goes toward actually creating the content, which wouldn't change. But physical print costs are high and we could vastly reduce them.

" The Chairman`s statement to all the ill feeling about the raise in fees says they are about £20,000 short, but asking for £4 = about £140,00"

Presume (!)

£20k short for the coming year

£?k in deficit for this year, maybe last year as well

£? projected deficit for forthcoming years

If I proposed £4 raise I'd expect it to get knocked back. Perhaps they expect a £2 raise and £70k extra, which more realistically fills the budget void.

I'm speculating without facts though.

[avtur]

Posted by andyh on 14/09/2018 09:00:52:

Posted by Steve J on 14/09/2018 07:10:35:

The two biggest items in the budget after insurance and staff costs are c. £160k for the BMFA News ...

I really think it's long past time for BMFA News to be distributed electronically by default, with maybe a separate subscription for the hard-copy version. For ~15% of the annual expenses to be going on something that I suspect goes into most members' recycling bins - or worse, general waste bins - unread where an essentially free method of distribution exists seems wasteful & anachronistic.

A lot depends on the mindset of the readership, there's no doubt at all about how the financial numbers stack up and in some peoples minds it is a 'no brainer' as the saying goes. I'm an active member in two other special interest clubs, both motoring related, both have had the discussion about distributing their respective mags electronically. The idea was swiftly thrown out by both clubs. (one club 200 members the other over 10,000). A lot of people like their paper mags and for all that a magazine 'can' be published electronically in many peoples minds there is a lot to lose with electronic distribution

It's a difficult one, would be interesting to hear the thoughts of the of the forum owners as they have a foot in both camps, I think it may have something to do with the demographic of the membership, it is quite obviously the case in the motoring examples I'm thinking of.

Edited By avtur on 14/09/2018 09:46:51

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

I wouldnt be too sure that going electronic only for the BMFA News would save much, if anything at all. Also you need to consider what we lose. If we work on saving the whole ?160k (which you wouldnt anyway as ther will always be some costs even on an electronic version only) it works out at about 75p per issue per member including postage costs. However the BMFA are obliged to send various items to all members (AGM notices etc), every year and this is done via the BMFA news. Otherwise it would be posted documents when you consider you cant send an A4 sheet of paper for much less than ?1 the BMFA news is a bargain.
Also and probably more importantly the CAA consider the fact all members get a direct hard copy mailing 6 times a year as a very very good thing and 75p an issue is worth every penny for that alone.

As to most going in the bin unread, if you read online posts you could easily get that impression. However in many ways online fora and social media are naturally biased against printed media and certainly in my experience in face to face discussions doing club talks and other interactions In my opinion most are at least skim read if not read cover to cover.

There is still a significant number of members we dont have an email address for, also a significant number we do who still prefer printed anyway so personally I dont (as yet) see any savings but perhaps more costs by going part printed and part online via opt out.

Having said all that for 75p every 2 months its an absolute bargain even if for nothing else that the CAA/DFT consider it a very very very good thing.

[Steve Dunne]

" Impact probabilities are an exponential function of proximity - the nearer a thing is the more likely you are to hit it."

At my club's site, the pits line is 30 yards from the flightline, and cars are lined up against the fence some yards behind that. (The pits line -> flightline is a very useful distance for range checking!).

The only three fairly recent instances I can recall where an aircraft crashed behind the flightline were all well behind the cars - and beyond the road.
There is usually height involved when control is lost, and therefore some ground distance covered before touchdown...

Steve.

[John Tee]

Carperfect, Lokking at your site rules I assume it is electric or 4 stroke i/c only plus gliders? do you have another site for helis and m/rotors. Only one site mentioned

John

[Erfolg]

I am not convinced that there is any pressing need to save money, beyond normal good practice.

The increase as indicated, is not excessive, in itself, with the proviso, we all have our provisos.

In my case, there is resistance to any increases related to international competition, £60k is quite generous, for a select group. The idea of extending the coverage as recently suggested is not one that fills me with enthusiasm. The support of free meals to some at association (bow tie ) events. Again recently proposed. That the NFC stands alone, independent of the main finances.

As for the Insurance claims, it seems that the issue, can, and should be managed to a level which is de minimis, with respect to cars.

The magazine whilst not perfect to me, is OK. Remembering that all contributions are voluntary with no financial reward. I also like the tactile feel of a book or a mag. My dislikes are reports of competitions, with detailed results. If they must have them, they need to speak to Alex Whitaker, to avoid the tedium of how round one went and oh, how bored and sleepy I am now feeling.

[Nigel R]

Thanks for continuing to comment on the thread Andy.

If good reasons beyond simply "having a circular" are present to maintain the paper copies, and more pertinent to this discussion, savings would be minimal as you would need some stuff to be distributed by post whether a mag went with it or not, it seems more a no brainer to keep it going as is.

There will always be stuff in there of little or no interest to you, such is the way when it has a diverse bunch of subjects to round up. I doubt many of the free flight guys are particularly interested in the IMAC column, for instance. On the whole I would say the content of the mag is about right. There is a broad church of contest interests to report on, general club activities, several regular columns contributed by on-the-ground punters off their own bat, announcements and so forth.

[Lima Hotel Foxtrot]

My word, this thread has gone off piste. I suggest that this thread is closed and that a specific new thread started to address the discussion of BMFA and other organisations insurance.

[Don Fry]

I think the concept of worrying about a plane hitting a car parked behind the pits is strange. In my twisted logic if I am standing behind the pits, even by one centimetre, I don't have to worry about injury. That is someone else's task to keep me safe. Planes don't reach the pits.

If you can't fly to this standard, don't fly, unsupervised. If you plane does the mythical lost signal, sort out a failsafe to bring it down quicker.

If your insurance costs are up because cars and models are being hit in safe areas, you are on the waiting list to kill someone.

Isn't the "A" achievement scheme about demonstrating a robust theoretical and practical knowledge of safety on a standard club field..

[The Wright Stuff]

I ask once again (though I'm beginning to suspect my posts are invisible):

do we actually have any statistics that say the number of cars being hit is increasing in a statistically significant way?

If not, why are we squabbling about it?

Small number statistics can be influenced by a great many factors. For all we know, it could just have been one really expensive car that got hit. The difference between mean and median is instrumental when drawing conclusions. Or it could be that car insurance companies are becoming more insistent on following up liability, rather than just paying out.

Edited By The Wright Stuff on 14/09/2018 12:51:15

[Peter Beeney]

T. W. S. I don’t think we have any figures or statistics as yet anyway, but what we do have is a general statement from the BMFA saying that there has been a significant increase in claims for members car crashing into other members vehicles or expensive aircraft in the pits area. Which I have taken to mean there has been a significant increase in insurance claims. (Plural).

And then because we may not get the refund these claims have in fact been met.

I’ve done r/c aeromodellling on a regular basis now for a number of years, I started to attempt radio flying in the sixties with McGregor and the homemade TerryTone receivers. Fortunately I just missed the valve operated gear and the 45 volt HT batteries! Overhaul I guess I’ve seen and heard about most situations but crashing into a car or an expensive model in the pits is one that’s so far escaped me. So my first thought was ‘ What are the Safety implications in this? Or subconsciously inverting that perhaps - What are the Danger implications in this?

Then trying to get a better handle on it I thought that because the BMFA membership figures have remained stable for a number of years the routine procedures will have probably also remained relatively stable. Including the number of insurance claims. But I really can’t think that the standard of flying has deteriorated that significantly, particularly in view of all the training aids there are available today, so I agree entirely with BEB when he says “I don't understand where all these incidents are coming from?”

Perhaps not prudent to comment further, but as I said before, I think my friend thought the car damage figures might have been slightly artificially high years ago.

Not particularly squabblin’ hopefully, just sayin’

PB

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Cuban8]

For me, the peace of mind that the insurance provides, whether it's the general public's or another club member's property, or worse, that might be damaged, is I believe, worth far more than what we pay at the moment. I don't welcome a rise in BMFA subs, but let's be realistic about how the cost of our third party cover or the indeed the full BMFA sub sits with other modelling expenditure - it's a very small, almost insignificant proportion IMHO.

As for the BMFA mag and its cost- well, it's easy to carp at it and I for one find probably half of its contents of no real interest to me, despite the articles being well written by enthusiastic correspondents. The comments about not going paperless with the mag are fair enough, but of course simply posting the mag out doesn't necessarily mean people will bother reading it. If it simply ticks a CAA box and puts us in their good books, that's fair enough, but fewer and fewer people (not just the young I might add) rely on traditional communication and have embraced the on-line alternative. Both of my clubs (over 200 people) rely on email and website communications and have posted very little out in connection with club business for several years.

[kc]

Previously Andy Symons responded to my comments with " There hasnt been any non aeromodelling events at the NC that has meant it has been closed to members"

The BMFA website showed (when I checked in August ) that Buckminster was closed for a private event on 18th August. So what event was on the 18th August? Was it a private aeromodelling event which ordinary BMFA members could not attend?

[CARPERFECT]

John Tee, We have a very small site so do not have Helis or m/rotas, We have 54 members and this works fine for us, We have roads to two sides and a house just down the lane 150 mts away

[John Tee]

No problem just wondered

john

[kc]

If it only costs 75 pence for the BMFA magazine then why do other aeromodelling magazines cost about 5 pounds 50? Is it economy of scale? Cutting out the newsagent? Paying the authors less? It's smaller than most magazines but still contains a lot of info.

There seems to be something wrong with Britain's economics - BMFA mag cost 75 pence for the magazine and postage, while if we buy something from a British shop the postage alone is rarely as low as 75 pence usually much more. But if we buy aeromodelling items from China the cost of postage is much less - a propellor or something similar can cost less than a pound for prop and postage. Yet all these items come through my door from the same postman!

Some costings seem wrong!

 

Edited By kc on 14/09/2018 19:31:03