BMFA subs increase.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

It's a big discussion with no easy answer, are there clubs who park close and have never made a claim, will your field allow safe parking whatever that is, are committee men now gonna erect catch fencing every morning, be a long thread sorting this one I suspect.

[Bruce Collinson]

Once again I find myself largely agreeing with Steve Dunne (and thanks again for the soldering iron SD!).

Isn't the practical solution to increase the excess under any head of claim against another BMFA member or his/her car or other property whilst at the flying site? Most sites would apparently struggle to impose a 100 m rule; we certainly would.

I don't know what the excesses are currently but increasing to say £500 for claims of this nature would probably get rid of 90% of property damage claims.

BTC

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Peter Beeney]

I’m a little concerned here that the safety element in all of this seems to be missing at the moment. The nonchalant statement: ‘there is a good chance this year we won't get the refund, due mainly to significant increase in claims for members crashing into other members vehicles or expensive aircraft in the pits area.’ looks like just a pretty bald reason for increasing the subscription in this context but if I take it at face value, which I have to at the moment, then it reads as if model are almost routinely crashing into cars (wherever they are parked) and pits areas. This is rather a common political get-out manoeuvre nowadays; “ We’re short of money.. again ..so we’ll now have to charge you even more..”

Hopefully there may be an explanation re. safety forthcoming in the near future. I feel that if I were in any way skeptical about it at all I would be a bit suspicious and would be inclined to prompt some sort of an investigation.

I’m not particularly concerned about a £4 increase either, although going too far too fast might just trigger a spiral of diminishing returns. On the other hand, another political trick might be to set the demand high and then on the day reduce it somewhat to create a feeling of relief. We shall see…

I wonder with regard to the falling numbers if in part the BMFA might have identified a steady decline in the number of younger members joining over time. This is apparently happening in just about every other other older and established pastimes / hobbies. Newer activities are taking over; and perhaps with some hindsight it will be seen in the future as being on an exponential curve. If so, then this might be difficult to divert or reverse. I was once told that the average age of BMFA members was 57… …and rising. If the average looks of our mob are anything to go by I’d say that might be a trifle optimistic…

However, despite our general well weathered demeanour we don’t have any problems with multi-rotors or helicopters or indeed anything else. Just get out there and fly it! We even have a little car track, this is for use when it’s a bit wet or windy, but it gets a bashing anyway. Worth more than five good laughs a minute.

If the pits area, 30 metres away from the operational runway and in the strictly strictly dead air, is considered to be safe enough for pilots to congregate why exactly is it not considered safe enough for cars? Which are only inert objects after all: and if that nonchalant statement above really is a straight line then it doesn’t really seem to matter now where you park and pit.

The casual sign-off -‘ Take care ’ - really does now seem to have a certain ring about it at the moment…

Take care

PB

[Erfolg]

The figure of 100m I guess was pulled out of the air, so as to present a generalised picture.

As has been suggested, a smaller distance and a specific relationship could be more useful and practical. Perhaps the figure should be at 90 degrees from the position of the operatives flying location, behind the designated flight line. Then values from say 10m up to 100m could be considered, considering the practicality and consideration of the order of risks, relative to distance etc.

I am still of the opinion that quads pose a very real conundrum. Ideally the BMFA would really like to represent them, their membership would represent inclusivity of model aircraft in all their forms, also there would be extra income. The downside is that there is a proportion of quad operators, who are operating irresponsibly, in many different ways, also the expenditure in supporting the group could be greater than the income from them. The BMFA image could become tainted, that is in the mind of the media and regulator, if quads continue to act in disregard to laws and regulations.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

I consider the pits a danger area for pilots, my advice is keep your wits about you whilst in there, and yep I've moved out the way sharpish a time or two. Rule is don't fly behind the flight line, the rule doesn't always work.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

Just to clarify. Carperfect is neither Ian Pallister or Keith Lomax but bas simply copied tbe text of the notice on the BMFA website.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Nigel R]

Re, age of BMFA, quads conundrum, I generalise - but:

Quads are, well, they're what the younger people are doing.

Fixed wing line of sight, well, that's what the older people are doing.

BMFA - and us, our clubs - either welcomes them and figures out a way to fit them in - somehow - with open arms or dies, slowly.

Perhaps that is at a level above us at our clubs, with entirely separate quad clubs running race circuits on their own sites sharing a common organisation to represent us. Or shared field use, at different times. Quad slots, heli slots, fixed wing slots, within the club. I don't know what. But I honestly believe the cross section of flyers represented by FPVUK would be an asset to the BMFA clubs. The guys joining FPVUK have already passed the bar of figuring out that insurance is a good thing, and having a body to represent is a good thing, and are natural fodder for forming and populating clubs.

The "rogue flyers" will always be a problem. But in a few years, drones, they won't be the Christmas gadget to have, something else will be, and their fashion star will fade, and then the "rogue flyers" will be fewer. How many rogue flyers are there now, with fixed wing stuff?

As for the insurance issue. Putting expensive stuff away from the flightline/pits is a complete no brainer, so why don't we do it? Our club has the use of two fields and everyone still parks immediately right next to the strip.

[Erfolg]

Just to clarify, I do not think there is an issue with the present perceived image of the BMFA. My concerns are with respect to the future. Making an assumption that the present reports of issues with Quads continues with the apparent disregard for Laws and Regulations, it is more than probable that anyone closely associated with the devices will be seen as ineffective and so on.

One of the major differences between the BMFA and commercial and even many voluntary organisations is that we rely on co-operation of the members. It is not a Command and Control structure. Much is done by voluntary efforts. In the area of safety, much has been achieved by a soft handed approach or is that slowly, slowly, catchy Monkey. If there is a real issue with car parking, persuasion is perhaps the most effective way?

As for our age profile, I hope to continue to get older, rather than shift the distribution diagram to the left. Why are young people not joining us? Well, I can answer that, the sound barrier has been broken, aircraft are common, also very few people make anything, we are not even encouraged to repair anything. Legislation prevents householders undertaking the most simple of tasks. Electrical goods come with a moulded plug. Many (could include me) can not replace a washer in a tap. On the other hand, quads, are for the bad boys and girls, for the video gamers (which is me, space invaders). One thing is for sure, the future is hard to predict from here> I was a keen road cyclist, in the days when middle and old aged men did it. Trendy people were Mountain Bikers. As a group we were as good as dead, totally lacking in credibility. We were law abiding. Today, after success in the Velodrome, Classic Road Races. Now the roads are full of top end racing road bikes, with youngsters perched on top, young men and woman. There is a difference though, they own the roads, rules and regulations not for them, from going through red traffic lights, riding recklessly. Who knows what the future does hold for us?

[Nigel R]

Youngsters always know better than to follow the rules.

[Cuban8]

I remember Manny publishing some comments from insurance claims forms that he'd received and IIRC, the causes were silly and avoidable (batteries flat, dead stick landing, blinded by flying through the sun etc - you know the sort of thing, at least these issues can be addressed by good preparation and maintenance of equipment, sensible layout of flying sites and so on. Genuine equipment failure is so rare these days and with 2.4Ghz the old risk of getting shot down and causing mayhem by someone not using the peg board properly is history, so we should be getting better and not worse.

None of us are perfect, but I think it's fair to say that if insurance claims are on the up then we all need a reminder to watch our step - individuals and clubs alike, and I expect something will be said along these lines in the upcoming BMFA mag (which we all read, of course ). Raising subs because of dearer insurance might just focus attention where it's needed.

[The Wright Stuff]

As I've said already, without more information than any of us have available at present, you CANNOT equate 'higher total value of awarded claims' with 'more accidents'.

You just can't. It's bad statistics.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

I agree with C8, I expect Chacksfield ? will be having a chat with us.

[The Wright Stuff]

...bad statistics...

[Nigel R]

"so we should be getting better and not worse."

Maybe my club is just rubbish for safety. But what I predominantly see is, when I'm at a busy session, is this: guys get their model out, switch on and chuck it in the air.

I could count on one hand the times I've seen anyone but me doing a range check.

Let alone actually checking the servos are screwed in and linkages connected and the hinges not falling out.

Or the U/C properly secure.

RX pack checker? Don't make me laugh.

Equipment failure happens all the time with this level of prep.

To be fair, there are some members in my club who operate airframes of such shiny (and expensive) perfection I have to assume they are actually be doing some maintenance and pre-flights.

[Edited for language - BEB]

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 13/09/2018 21:58:21

[Piers Bowlan]

If it is indeed true that increased payouts are being caused by members cars being damaged, then the solution is simple;- members cars are not covered any more and they will have to claim off their own insurance in future (going forward - I hate that expression!).

Setting a 100m 'exclusion zone' would be unworkable as it would be unenforceable and difficult to prove whether a vehicle was parked 'too close'. We know that modern cars are very expensive to repair, both in materials and labour costs. It might have been nice to have the peace of mind of this BMFA cover in the past but times change. Make sure your car is adequately insured, drop your 'gear' off at the pits, before parking it where you think it less at risk (the choice is yours of what you consider that to be). Nobody will force you to carry your model stuff to the pits but for your own sake, just don't park your car where it is most vulnerable.

PS. I only fly from remote hillsides miles from parked cars, least of all my own. I want reduced BMFA subs as I am so low risk!!

Edited By Piers Bowlan on 13/09/2018 17:09:57

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Cuban8]

Let's not forget that we are required by law to not "recklessly or negligently operate our models so that they are a danger to persons or property" (paraphrasing, but you can look up the full text). If simply chucking a model into the air and then hoping for the best, god forbid, results in a serious injury, quite apart from car damage, where would that leave the pilot after an investigation or inquest?

I did jury service at a coroners' court some years ago and it opened my eyes to many things not least "hoping for the best" or making allowances for others to not act foolishly when a fatal accident had happened. They'd tear you apart if you were in the wrong, no matter what excuses you'd come up with, as I saw in one particular case. I really don't think that the rise in cost of our insurance is a major show-stopper for us, but given how we've been under the spotlight recently from the authorities, the cleaner the sheet we keep, the better.

[Peter Beeney]

I’d have thought that the expression ‘due mainly to significant increase in claims’ was fairly unambiguous. I’m reading this to mean that there has been an increase in the number of claims made; and the wording immediately before this is certainly implying that these claims have been payed out as well. So perhaps the question should be ‘Why is this increase happening?’ Or maybe a touch more succinctly ‘To what extent are these accidents actually assessed and evaluated? Hopefully Manny might go some way to answering this (for me) in the forthcoming Chacksfield Chat.

If an Insurance Assessor came to our site on a General Inspection and we explained the situation I’m pretty sure we would fall within his field of acceptability. The parked cars increase the pits area in total by about 30%, at a guess. But everything is now consolidated in one small area; and compared to the size of the surrounding countryside that we fly over this is a very small percentage indeed. Also in common with all other clubs there is a strict no go zone between the runway and the pits. With the best will in the world the odd transgression can happen, this would be subjected to some banter, such as ‘Red card called’. But it’s always accepted as accidental, there but for the grace of God etc… If it was considered to be deliberate the club as a whole unit would decide on any further actions. If any previous record was also taken into consideration this would get a clean bill of health too.

Sure there is some occasional indifferent flying and maintenance but any crashes always happen in the flying area and are no danger to anyone; this may well be a sort of universal situation perhaps; I’m sure we act more or less as others do.

I only know of one insurance claim, sometime in the early eighties. A building leapt into the air and smote a model between the wing bolts, dislodging 3 tiles in the process. The modeller paid £80 for them to be replaced and the BMFA reimbursed this by return. I don’t know of anyone that’s had any car damage inflicted by a model. So how often is any sort of insurance claim happening; is it frequently or rarely? Again perhaps we may get an insight to this soon.

PB