BMFA subs increase.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Bob Cotsford]

If there is a significant rise in insurance claims and a large number are for damage to fellow club members property then I'd say that someone is taking the wee and abusing the system, either deliberately or through negligence. If you park close to the flying area then you should sort out the cost of damage between flyer and car owner, after all you are going against the BMFA recommendations. If models are damaged, then the guilty party should shell out. I'm not so sure that the insurance should really cover clowns behaving badly.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Raised my own eyebrow as well, hard to judge without knowing the details, BMFA would be looking into it though.

I get labelled a moaner at our club (no laughing in the background), we have an unload/load point at the side of the pits, deal is do it promptly then move your vehicle to the car park, bone idle and stupid have problems abiding by it.

Edited By john stones 1 on 11/09/2018 15:46:43

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Bucksboy]

It’s £4 a year extra. Heavens, let’s worry about something important.

[avtur]

Posted by Martin Harris on 11/09/2018 14:57:58:

.... e.g. £39.99 appearing substantially less than £40 to many people at a glance. ....

"Substantially less" ... hmmm, I'm not sure, I think most people these days would look at £39.99 and see £40

I agree that everyone will have an affordability threshold in their own minds but I think we're all much more savvy consumers these days than to be influenced by the old '99p' trick.

[Christopher Long 1]

Competition?

Let us look at those organisations that are covered by the CAA exemption from the 400ft height limit and who worked hard together to get that exemption for us.

BMFA: Current annual membership fee £34 – £25 Million pounds of insurance cover.

LMA: Current annual membership fee £30 (to join) £20 thereafter – £25 Million pounds of insurance cover. Hardly “almost 50%” of the BMFA subs when joining - a bit nearer if you remain a member.

SAA: Current annual membership fee £29.00 – ‘Membership shall be open to all Scottish nationals and aero modellers resident in Scotland. – So that limits who can join. There is insurance mentioned but the cover level is not mentioned on their website. Again hardly “almost 50%” of BMFA subs.

FRVUK: Current annual membership fee £19.99 – Insurance as quoted from their website “£5m public liability insurance for all of your RC flying (excluding turbines and engines over 40cc). The insurance covers all electric flying at home or in Europe and flying on MOD land.
Yes at last the oft quoted! “almost 50%” of the BMFA subs, allowing for the possible rise of £4 next year – but for much reduced insurance benefits and confusion over what is covered, as it excludes turbines and engines over 40cc, but then says insurance covers all electric flying etc…… So hardly ‘a like for like’ comparison!

I can only compare the figures based on this year’s figures as the BMFA subs have not yet been voted on and approved and who is to say that the other organisations mentioned won’t increase their subs for next year as well?

When I look at the facts instead of the hyperbole spouted by those with an anti BMFA axe to grind, I come to the conclusion that even if the BMFA subs were to rise by £4 then it is a small increase to pay for an organisation that has done a good job so far (with others ) to protect our hobby. Less than the increased cost of filling your average car with fuel a couple of times (or even once!)!!

Edited By Christopher Long 1 on 11/09/2018 16:39:12

[Alan Gorham_]

Just to be completely accurate, it is £30 a year to join the LMA. If you are a renewing member then it is currently £20 for annual membership.

Totally agree there is no like-for-like comparison going on here.

[Christopher Long 1]

Thanks Alan for the correction, not made clear on the LMA website - post corrected!

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Paul Marsh]

The BMFA is a business. A business has to account for its actions. Costs, both fixed and variable have gone up, the insurance broker it is affiliated to has increased their fees, added to that the staff need to be paid - they have lives to lead as well, and also deserve a pay review every-now-and-then.

The fees have gone up, tough, everything has, fuel, food, insurance. This is called Inflation. 12% is less than real inflation at the moment.

The flying site at Buckminster is likely to be under a different business model and the accounts are not liked to BMFA, as they are likely to be 2 separate companies to protect each other.

[Alan Gorham_]

This is a totally futile road for the discussion to go down. The LMA has around 2500 members, runs no competitions, does not run an open national flying site, does not have a flight sim trailer, does not run the annual "Heavy Lift" challenge - STEM project, does not offer flying site advice - all of which the BMFA does.

Therefore it is easier for the LMA to administer it's affairs with small volunteer core of committee and guardians.

What do you think the net effect of a mass defection of BMFA members to LMA be? The need for a small number of employed office staff perhaps, plus office premises and equpiment? Would that be free or would it result in the subs going up to match?

It is obvious to those of us who are members of both the LMA and BMFA that the insurance policy offered is to identical terms, so make your choice and live with it, but don't think that the BMFA charge £14 more for nothing, because that is not true.

[Dave G]

"The fees have gone up, tough, everything has, fuel, food, insurance. This is called Inflation. 12% is less than real inflation at the moment."

What planet are you on? 12% is not anywhere near the inflation rate.

£2.00 increase is a fair rise and I would not expect that to be a problem within our club.

[Paul Marsh]

BMFA-Financial-Update

Edited By Paul Marsh on 11/09/2018 18:24:15

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Paul Marsh]

Whatever it is, I believe it has to be done, if you don't you go out of business. Simple as that.

Give an example of an item of food price: Kitekat 6 cans cat food used to be £2.65 a year ago, now, it is £3.23. Worked out at just over 15% increase...

[Alan Gorham_]

The LMA organise shows as money makers. The BMFA cover the cost of administering competitions. So there's a fact for ya.

My comment about the LMA field not being open is that it is only able to be used by negotiation by LMA members, whereas the BMFA site is open for use by BMFA members. hopefully that clarifies things for you.

You haven't addressed any of my other points with new "facts" so I'll assume they stand as facts.

The LMA membership is cheaper than the BMFA membership, but it is a moot point that the LMA insurance is cheaper. It may well be by the odd pound as there may be less perceived risk from 2500 policy holders vs the 35000 the BMFA has.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Well all's going well so far then, I worried for nowt.

Don't consider the BMFA as a business myself, it's more than that, reasons given for the proposed increase are clear, comparisons between associations are pointless, good that there's choice though, and there's the AGM if you disagree.

BMFA has helped our club 3 times this year, plus the work on the new regs done for us, no grumbles from me.

[Peter Beeney]

The gentleman that told me about the car damage did have access to the facts and figures and although he never disclosed any information, or even make any serious comments really, he did infer that he thought that the claim figures were artificially high; and this was around 1980. I’ve no idea how the system works now but back then for small claims at least the insurance just paid out on demand.

Regarding the car parking, our procedure is slightly different. We line the vehicles end on adjacent to the back of the pits area, backed up or forward facing, whichever suits. This started when I was flying at a site in the same circuit with full size gliders. The instructors there were overall in charge of proceedings and they liked to see us all lumped together in one place rather than wandering about all over.

So we justify this for the same reason, there are no bodies ever traipsing between the pits and a remote car park. No one has ever had any issues with this, indeed I’m sure that all are happy to be able to unload and reload with an absolute minimum effort; and happy pilots always help to maintain a permanently relaxed atmosphere. Another problem I have is wondering that if a remote car park is considered to be a safer area than the pits then why are the pits not in this area? Surely personal safety should be the first consideration?

Staying with safety matters a very important point (for me) is the fact our car park now doubles as a something of a safe area. If a model goes out of control and a warning is shouted then all persons can take refuge by ducking down between the cars. I’d much rather the model doesn’t hit anything but if it has to be then a car is much preferable to a human being. By a few hundred percent just for a start. Even the insurance company would consider it to be first choice, I’m sure. It’s not infallible of course, the model could still hit you but it does lessen the chances.

I have thought occasionally we should practise this because then folks might have a sub conscious reflex if they’ve done it before; and with the latest revelations from the BMFA in J Stones 1’s OP tomorrow might not be a moment too soon……

Incidentally I’ve never seen a model hit and damage a car.

PB

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Bodies traipsing and safe areas are difficult topics, the field size, how it's set up, and other factors play a part, conversation could be very long and some fields being deemed not fit for purpose, not black and white is it ?

Not to mention aircraft being where they ain't supposed to be.

[Peter Jenkins]

I had hoped that once people had left the BMFA they would stop carping about it at every opportunity - it's getting very boring you know!

[Erfolg]

Increases in membership fees must be a concern, however the increase is relatively modest and the total cost is not something that will break the bank for most.

I am perhaps more concerned at this point about the decline in total numbers. I had anticipated that there would be an increase in membership as a consequence of some aspects of the CAA changes. I did think that the increase would be a temporary blip. Until now I had been reasonably assured that the previous years decline was just noise, using jargon. It seems that the BMFA now believes that the decline could be a trend.

Assuming that there is a trend which is something like being inversely proportional, then we could be looking at periodic increase that do not correspond to general inflation values. If that were the case, there is more likely to be an accelerating decline in membership.

I am not at all sure if that would have an impact on the finances and viability of many clubs, particularly where they rent fields, although it could.

I am assuming that the NFC has its funding and financing clearly separated from the BMFA membership. That there is no cross funding or support via the general membership, as was promised (as I understood the situation). On that basis it could well be that the future of the NFC could be assured by non model flying events and usage. Which for me would be a paradox for me, as I never believed that it could be viable as a stand alone enterprise, never mind having a more assured future.

We certainly are living through a period that there are many changes, where high street retailers are struggling with business models that do not work as they have done in the recent past, That retail landlords are having to accept that the rents that they once could expect are in many cases in decline.

For years I used to pass a Dolly Blue Works and a small number of Bobbin Mills on my way to work. Non went bankrupt although they planned there way to closure. The Dolly Blue works is now luxury flats, one of the Bobbin Mills is now a Museum. I thought that this fate was happening to our hobby, although I had thought, not in my life time. The general reduction of LMS, magazine titles, in conjunction with there being no sizable model kit type producers in the UK, had increased my concerns. On the other hand I saw the cost effective CNC Laser cutting equipment and 3d printing changing the shape of modeling supplies particularly in the UK, keeping modeling activities alive and well, for some time. Albeit as a cottage type industry and keen hobbyists.

Yet the reasons given for the BMFA subs increase, seems to potentially indicate a negative trend, if there were a continued annual or bi annual increase could threaten the present BMFA business model. Where all the threats to seek other bodies for insurance etc, could become a reality. Particularly as the CAA sees at least one as having equal standing, for their purposes, as the BMFA.

On that basis the increase, in itself is not a great concern, the reasons given, could be.

[cymaz]

 

Great that the NFC is for the people near enough to use it, but, investing a lot of time and effort in a project and then 2 years later admit the membership is going to drop is alarming.

I don’t suppose these membership forecasts where in the budget plan. Can someone remember?

I still don’t mind paying extra for the insurance.

Edited By cymaz on 12/09/2018 06:21:36

[Nigel R]

All activities and hobbies have a peak of interest, as I understand it.

The cool new flying thing is drones.

Otherwise, fpvuk would never have happened.

On other forums away from this hobby, threads are started asking "what beginners drone". Rarely is there anything relating to fixed wing or traditional helicopter stuff.

Eventually we will be like steam enthusiasts I suppose. On the plus side there are still a lot of those around.