BMFA SUBS

[Stephen Smith 14]

Its not the cost but the % increase that's worrying, and please don't keep saying it's a bargain. What has changed so drastically from last year to force such a high % increase.

[Martin Dilly 1]

Maybe some who are querying the percentage rise in subs. don't actually read their BMFA News, or perhaps it has escaped them that the rise in drone use has had a potentially disastrous effect on our sport.

Have they any idea of the amount of work that has been put in nationally and internationally over the past two or three years, largely by BMFA CEO Dave Phipps, to minimise the impact of pending legislation on 'orthodox' model flying? Maybe they imagined it all happened by magic, or got done by some mysterious benevolent 'them'. The meetings that have been attended, the papers that have been produced, the lobbying that has taken place, the surveys that have been made, the dozens of flights to various European cities for more meetings, the discussions with the European Aviation Safety Agency, with Europe Air Sports and with the Civil Aviation Authority. The European Model Flying Union has been formed to coordinate all this, with Dave as its first chairman, and I simply don't know how he has the eneergy to do it all.

Would the whingers care to put a price on all this? I happen to think the sport of model flying is worth preserving; without the work done by the BMFA, assisted by the LMA, BARCS and the SAA, I think you'd find your flying would be looking pretty different, if indeed you'd be flying at all.

[flight1]

Yes it's they % increase is the telling factor , if you look back at council tax the same thing started to happen and look at it now. lets not get caught in 'it's only a pound syndrome' cause you can bung them my way it soon add up and i'll have a big grin to boot.

[Callsign Tarnish]

It's a bargain.

[Levanter]

What rule is there that says it has to be a % increase anyway. Why the wailing and gnashing of teeth? The increase is £4 for heaven's sake.
The question could also be asked what might be expected in the coming year and budgeted for in a sensible manner.
Do we pay with percentages or do we pay in actual pounds I ask myself?

Martin
It is a good question but the first to know if there was a trend in inflated or fraudulent claims would be the insurance underwriters. As a marine surveyor I am frequently working for insurance companies verifying claims and serious anomalies can usually be found quite easily. People mostly back down when they suspect they have been rumbled. Small claims are generally just paid out because to investigate would actually increase the costs but there is a cross-over where the benefits of scrutiny start to apply. Interesting to see if Andy S is able to provide some information and how claims are managed.

Levanter

 

Edited By Levanter on 19/11/2018 22:50:47

[conrad taggart]

Posted by Callsign Tarnish on 19/11/2018 19:51:10:
If the biggest thing to worry about in your life is ?4 then you have a pretty good life.

This has been done to death already. Insurance is expensive, so was the purchase of the national flying site and I can't imagine the mag printing costs have gone down year on year.

I spend that every morning on a coffee. The BMFA does a lot for us. Be grateful and move on.

Please don't tell me what to do or even suppose what I worry about - this thread isn't about that. I didn't say the BMA do not do good work, I was simply making the point that a 12% rise - in anything - is relatively significant and yes costs do go up but generally relative to inflation . So you would expect 8%+ more in benefits in real terms. You would also expect any organisation to make efficiency savings or become better at what it does.

Reading this thread please show me where it has been "done to death " - I can't see much evidence of it or an actual explanation or justification for a 12% rise. Why should anybody be grateful for a 12% rise in anything - would you be grateful for a 12% rise in your coffee?

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

4 quid for a coffee ? show off.

[cymaz]

BMFA subs are like fuel. We all moan about the price but we all need it and there’s not much we can do about it.

[Andy Meade]

Posted by conrad taggart on 20/11/2018 00:31:01:

Reading this thread please show me where it has been "done to death " -

209 posts here

[Keith Lomax]

For those looking at the increase as a percentage, I'm afraid it is not that simple.

The budget is set on the basis of starting with what we plan to spend, and then dividing by the expected number of members.

There are a number of factors that have contributed towards this:

- The loss of the insurance rebate has been discussed above and elsewhere;

- Fewer new members joined in 2018, and this trend is expected to continue;

- a deficit in 2017/18 and a likely one in 2018/19, covered from reserves but these should be replenished.

 

Keith Lomax

Honorary Treasurer

Edited By Keith Lomax on 20/11/2018 08:54:28

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Cuban8]

Is it such a good idea to have damage to models as part of the insurance cover, if claims are becoming more common?

Yes, I want to be protected against causing injury to people, cars, houses, livestock, crops etc but they're all fairly low risk and I can think of very few cases in over forty years of being in the hobby (cars being the most risky). The insurance gives great peace of mind, in the unlikely event of the worst happening, and a huge claim for damages could then easily wipe out all of your assets, were they not suitably covered.

If you want your models covered against a third party causing damage to them (on the ground) then perhaps that's something that should be organised separately by the individual.

% rises can be argued either way, depending on what point one is trying to make. It always makes me laugh when economists moan about whacking great % rises (usually anything around the 5% mark) in workers' wages and especially when on minimum wage. 100% of not a lot, is still not a lot.

Edited By Cuban8 on 20/11/2018 10:51:07

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Levanter]

Cuban8

Another good question. Perhaps if members wish to insure their models it should be an optional extra to the third party cover that is so crucially important and clearly a lower risk (although the individual claim amount could be very high).
The additional premium would pay for the additional risk without affecting those who don't want it. The premium could be based on an agreed valuation on individual models if they are of high value or a blanket value (a bit like household contents cover) as an alternative.
An extra administrative costs should of course be covered in the additional premiums.
This would help eradicate inflated or fraudulent claims as the cover would have automatic limits.

Slight topic drift I know.

Levanter

[Callsign Tarnish]

Posted by conrad taggart on 20/11/2018 00:31:01:

Why should anybody be grateful for a 12% rise in anything - would you be grateful for a 12% rise in your coffee?

Actually the price of my morning coffee did go up earlier this year. Nothing bad happened. There were no protests outside or people at the till demanding to know the breakdown of why it had increased. That was the new price and there were two choices, either accept it and pay up or vote with your feet.

What irks me is that there has been many years where the membership fee didn't increase, no one openly thanked the BMFA, they just carried on. Maybe this is just bringing us into line with where we should have been, I can't say as I'm not close to the detail. What I do know is that by any measure this is an expensive hobby, £4 is a drop in the proverbial ocean and is still value for money in my view. We needed a new national site and that was delivered, we needed representation on the new 'drone laws' and we got that too. Models are trending towards bigger and more expensive so when one goes in people are more likely to claim as it's not just a Wot 4 that can be written off. We all want the good stuff but then moan when we have to pay an extra £4 per year.

I think some balance and perspective is needed here....

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

Posted by Levanter on 20/11/2018 11:01:32:

Cuban8

Another good question. Perhaps if members wish to insure their models it should be an optional extra to the third party cover that is so crucially important and clearly a lower risk (although the individual claim amount could be very high).
The additional premium would pay for the additional risk without affecting those who don't want it. The premium could be based on an agreed valuation on individual models if they are of high value or a blanket value (a bit like household contents cover) as an alternative.
An extra administrative costs should of course be covered in the additional premiums.
This would help eradicate inflated or fraudulent claims as the cover would have automatic limits.

Slight topic drift I know.

Levanter

it's not the models that are insured. As members we are insuring ourselves against financial loss in the event a third party makes a claim against us for damage to their property or themselves. It matters not what was damaged, whether a model aircraft, car, house etc.

If any individual suffers a loss due to the actions of another and that other can be shown to be liable in some way than the party who has suffered loss is entitled to make a claim.

Edited By Andy Symons - BMFA on 20/11/2018 11:33:34

[Andy Meade]

Posted by Callsign Tarnish on 20/11/2018 11:20:33:

Posted by conrad taggart on 20/11/2018 00:31:01:

Why should anybody be grateful for a 12% rise in anything - would you be grateful for a 12% rise in your coffee?

Actually the price of my morning coffee did go up earlier this year. Nothing bad happened. There were no protests outside or people at the till demanding to know the breakdown of why it had increased. That was the new price and there were two choices, either accept it and pay up or vote with your feet.

What irks me is that there has been many years where the membership fee didn't increase, no one openly thanked the BMFA, they just carried on. Maybe this is just bringing us into line with where we should have been, I can't say as I'm not close to the detail. What I do know is that by any measure this is an expensive hobby, £4 is a drop in the proverbial ocean and is still value for money in my view. We needed a new national site and that was delivered, we needed representation on the new 'drone laws' and we got that too. Models are trending towards bigger and more expensive so when one goes in people are more likely to claim as it's not just a Wot 4 that can be written off. We all want the good stuff but then moan when we have to pay an extra £4 per year.

I think some balance and perspective is needed here....

All of this

As the saying goes - 12% of..umm.."next to nothing" is still "next to nothing", and I'm para-phrasing there 

Edited By Andy Meade on 20/11/2018 11:34:48

[Cuban8]

Posted by Andy Symons - BMFA on 20/11/2018 11:33:07:

Posted by Levanter on 20/11/2018 11:01:32:

Cuban8

Another good question. Perhaps if members wish to insure their models it should be an optional extra to the third party cover that is so crucially important and clearly a lower risk (although the individual claim amount could be very high).
The additional premium would pay for the additional risk without affecting those who don't want it. The premium could be based on an agreed valuation on individual models if they are of high value or a blanket value (a bit like household contents cover) as an alternative.
An extra administrative costs should of course be covered in the additional premiums.
This would help eradicate inflated or fraudulent claims as the cover would have automatic limits.

Slight topic drift I know.

Levanter

it's not the models that are insured. As members we are insuring ourselves against financial loss in the event a third party makes a claim against us for damage to their property or themselves. It matters not what was damaged, whether a model aircraft, car, house etc.

If any individual suffers a loss due to the actions of another and that other can be shown to be liable in some way than the party who has suffered loss is entitled to make a claim.

Edited By Andy Symons - BMFA on 20/11/2018 11:33:34

Just trying to get a handle on this.............are we saying that, for instance, a flyer would claim for the loss of his model (his property) because of a mid-air collision, if it appeared that negligence was the cause by the other party, and legal action was taken, which was subsequently won. The other party's losses being covered by BMFA insurance.

All very nasty, I agree, but whereas most of us just accept such a risk as part of the hobby and it's likely that some private arrangement is usually agreed and a few quid might change hands, in the case of a very expensive model costing many thousands, in the case of a big scale jet or whatever, - I'm not sure that an "I'm so sorry old boy" would be enough.

Edited By Cuban8 on 20/11/2018 11:58:37

[Nigel R]

Agreed no quibbles here still good value as far as I'm concerned.

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

Posted by Cuban8 on 20/11/2018 11:55:42:

Posted by Andy Symons - BMFA on 20/11/2018 11:33:07:

Posted by Levanter on 20/11/2018 11:01:32:

Cuban8

Another good question. Perhaps if members wish to insure their models it should be an optional extra to the third party cover that is so crucially important and clearly a lower risk (although the individual claim amount could be very high).
The additional premium would pay for the additional risk without affecting those who don't want it. The premium could be based on an agreed valuation on individual models if they are of high value or a blanket value (a bit like household contents cover) as an alternative.
An extra administrative costs should of course be covered in the additional premiums.
This would help eradicate inflated or fraudulent claims as the cover would have automatic limits.

Slight topic drift I know.

Levanter

it's not the models that are insured. As members we are insuring ourselves against financial loss in the event a third party makes a claim against us for damage to their property or themselves. It matters not what was damaged, whether a model aircraft, car, house etc.

If any individual suffers a loss due to the actions of another and that other can be shown to be liable in some way than the party who has suffered loss is entitled to make a claim.

Edited By Andy Symons - BMFA on 20/11/2018 11:33:34

Just trying to get a handle on this.............are we saying that, for instance, a flyer would claim for the loss of his model (his property) because of a mid-air collision, if it appeared that negligence was the cause by the other party, and legal action was taken, which was subsequently won. The other party's losses being covered by BMFA insurance.

All very nasty, I agree, but whereas most of us just accept such a risk as part of the hobby and it's likely that some private arrangement is usually agreed and a few quid might change hands, in the case of a very expensive model costing many thousands, in the case of a big scale jet or whatever, - I'm not sure that an "I'm so sorry old boy" would be enough.

Edited By Cuban8 on 20/11/2018 11:58:37

Liability is very hard to prove in those cases.

Edited By Andy Symons - BMFA on 20/11/2018 12:04:55

[Martyn K]

I do wonder whether there is some case for a member to take some responsibility for their actions in a 3rd party claim (i.e. where they are the 3rd party).

For example whether there is increased risk due to poor pit management, the pits and car park are too close to the flight-line etc. Pits area is too small, insufficient space, whether there is sufficient facilities to secure models, whether taxiing from the pits to/from the flight line is permitted.

A bit like jamming your car into a tight parking spot and then complaining when someone dings your passenger door because the driver of the adjacent car didn't have space to open his own drivers door.

It's all about risk analysis, nothing grand, but just taking a sensible look around before you get you multi thousand pound model out of the cotton wool protected environment where it currently resides.

Martyn

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

I think we do consider risk analysis, consequences would be much worse if we hadn't. It's a hobby with risk involved, it's a hobby with a variety of fields involved, are we going to call for fields that reach a certain criteria before allowing flying there ? all must park, set up to an agreed standard, impossible.

Fees went up £4, BMFA gave the reasoning, I'm O.K with it. Allow folk to comment without the usual us n them stuff.

[Martyn K]

I wasn't suggesting that John.

What I was suggesting that you may think twice about flying something precious if the weather isn't suitable but you may not consider the pits area in the same way. Ultimately, its the pilot's choice but in the event of an accident, you may kick your self for not considering the pits environment in the same way as the flying environment.

Personally, £4 pounds isn't a problem to me either and I voted in favour at the AGM

Martyn

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Wasn't having a pop Martyn, we are individuals, stuff happens, rather not pay an increase but a fair case was made for it (in my opinion).

[Cuban8]

So, I take it that if liability was proved, the guilty party would be covered by insurance, if they were sued for the loss - provided that they were acting lawfully at the time. That in itself might be open to legal argument or interpretation. Agree, a legal mine field and certainly an unlikely scenario, but it's good to know how things stand.

Edited By Cuban8 on 20/11/2018 15:03:00