BMFA Future

[cymaz]

Right before I  start, no derogatory comments or insults, this is from grass roots members....

 

Having seen the new Articles of Association published by the BMFA, I’m saddened that the members may have to pay  the directors from the cost of legal action. 

 

There is  grass roots discontent in parts of the South West as to why we should keep paying to the BMFA for insurance. 

The LMA provides cover and the Proficiency Test is excepted at most public displays.

If you are a normal club flier who rarely, if at all, flys anywhere else, why should you have BMFA insurance and not a different policy

 

https://www.dronecoverclub.co.uk/insurance

[Frank Skilbeck]

I'm a bit lost are the members saying they don't want insurance through the BMFA and just have a separate BMFA membership without insurance, say £15 and then buy the dronecover insurance for £29.95? Or do they just want to fly at their club without BMFA membership, i.e. CAA flyer ID and no article 16 exemptions plus no protection for the club officers.

 

The clubs don't have to be BMFA affiliated, this should be a membership decision, if enough members voter for it then they can accept alternative/no insurance, but who then polices who flies with article 16 exemptions and who doesn't, plus the club officers would have to accept that they have no association protection should anybody take action against the club.

[Jon H]

I am confused. 

 

Members (of the bmfa??) have to pay the directors (of the bmfa i assume?) to protect them from (i assume this is what you meant?) legal action... 

 

What legal action? 

 

There is clearly a bunch of missing information here.  

 

 

 

 

[Alan Gorham_]

This sounds like some kind of anti-BMFA rant, but I can't work out what the OPs point is. 

[Denis Watkins]

Committee members of local BMFA Flying Clubs

Can be named and held liable in law

And they too have legal protection cover through BMFA Insurance

 

 

 

 

 

[Ron Gray]

2 hours ago, cymaz said:

Having seen the new Articles of Association published by the BMFA, I’m saddened that the members may have to pay  the directors from the cost of legal action.

Like others I can’t understand what you are trying to say.

 

2 hours ago, cymaz said:

There is  grass roots discontent in parts of the South West as to why we should keep paying to the BMFA for insurance. 

The LMA provides cover and the Proficiency Test is excepted at most public displays.

That is for your members to decide if they want move away from an association who did the most in all of the negotiating around the ‘drone’ issue.

 

2 hours ago, cymaz said:

If you are a normal club flier who rarely, if at all, flys anywhere else, why should you have BMFA insurance and not a different policy

Why would you not want BMFA insurance?

[Ron Gray]

2 minutes ago, Denis Watkins said:

Can be named and held liable in law

For what? (I’m interested in this as it’s coming up to club committee membership!)

[PeterF]

Drone cover club insurance limited to below 7kg model weight and flight below 400ft. Quite restrictive. It appears it is flyer only insurance. As a club officials I am happy that I am covered by the BMFA insurance also covering me acting as club Secretary. We also get club cabin contents insurance. If you are going down non BMFA club route these are things that need to be purchased separately. Personally I would not want to be a club official without insurance in place for club officers.

[PeterF]

1 minute ago, Ron Gray said:

For what? (I’m interested in this as it’s coming up to club committee membership!)

For example if a member is climbing over a stile that is the clubs and the stile collapsed and the member was injured, the member would have a claim against the club and its officers. Most clubs are not limited companies where the directors are not personally liable. The BMFA insurance covers the club officers.

[Denis Watkins]

9 minutes ago, Ron Gray said:

For what? (I’m interested in this as it’s coming up to club committee membership!)

 

Twice in my club membership Ron, the then Chairman was named on court documents raised by the Local Council

1. To evict that club. ( succeeded by providing alternate site )

2. To curtail flying times to operate over 2 days per week on another flying site. ( they succeeded )

 

The Club chairman was covered for legal costs.

 

[Peter Christy]

Speaking as another South-West member, I'm pleased to see the BMFA finally dragging itself into the 21st Century. Its a process that is long overdue, IMHO.

 

Of course, with any major overhaul of "Articles of Association", there is always the risk of unintended consequences, but I believe taking no action at all involves even bigger risks.

 

It is not uncommon for any organisation to take out insurance to protect its officers from legal liability. As Denis has pointed out above, club officers enjoy a degree of protection under BMFA insurance, and I don't see why top level officials should not enjoy the same protection.

 

I suspect that part of the problem that Cymaz's members perceive is that, for over a decade, the Devon portion of the SW Area has been completely non-functional. Now that it is finally being restored to normal operation, local members are becoming aware of the upsides and downsides again.

 

As has been pointed out above, no club is compelled to be affiliated to the BMFA, nor is any model flyer required to be a member. However, most seem the believe that the advantages considerably outweigh any disadvantages. The biggest advantage that I see is having a strong and professional organisation to represent our interests against creeping legislation.

 

We cannot expect the BMFA to win all its battles on our behalf, but we would be a LOT worse off without the protection that the BMFA offers.

 

Just my 2p worth.

 

--

Pete

 

[Jon H]

As we all seem confused by the op we should probably let him clarify his point before we head too far down the rabbit hole

[Wingman]

Relevant legal info - https://www.accountancywales.com/social-clubs/faqs/constitutional/unincorporated-associations-liability-of-members-officers-and-trustees/

[Ron Gray]

1 hour ago, Jon - Laser Engines said:

As we all seem confused by the op we should probably let him clarify his point before we head too far down the rabbit hole

Yes and no! The matter of insurance was raised by the OP and further posts point out that there is an element of cover under BMFA insurance which is not necessarily the case with other insurances. Being clear about the risk of liability associated with being a club official makes this insurance important! Then we get into what sort of things that club officials may typically be held to account over (my question above). I can see that club debts are one thing also ensuring that club property is ‘safe’ but what about if an ordinary member fails to carry out his duty (Article 16 - reporting an incident)? Are the club officials then held to account?

Edited November 2, 2022 by Ron Gray

[Andy Stephenson]

5 hours ago, cymaz said:

Having seen the new Articles of Association published by the BMFA, I’m saddened that the members may have to pay  the directors from the cost of legal action. 

I haven't read the constitution but I'm fairly certain this only covers litigation that may arise from their duties as directors of the BMFA and is entirely reasonable. In any business (which the BMFA is) the directors could be liable if there is legal action against said business. They would be mad to take on any such responsibility without such cover and again it's entirely reasonable that we should pay for this out of the subs.

[Mr.B.]

I assume Cymaz is referring to this section of the Articles or Association as recently circulated by the BMFA ahead of the AGM.  I see nothing untoward here.  We can't expect the BMFA officers to represent us and work on our behalf but deny them finical protection.

 

6.4.2. Insurance
6.4.2.1. The Board may decide to purchase and maintain insurance, at the expense of the Society, for the benefit of any relevant Director in respect of any relevant loss.
6.4.2.2. In this Article:
6.4.2.2.1. a "relevant Director" means any Director or former Director of the Society or an associated company;
6.4.2.2.2. a "relevant loss" means any loss or liability which has been or may be incurred by a relevant Director in connection with that Director's duties or powers in relation to the Society, any associated company or any pension fund or employees' share scheme of the Society or associated company;
6.4.2.2.3. and companies are associated if one is a subsidiary of the other or both are subsidiaries of the same body corporate.

 

Also

 

6.4. Directors' Indemnity and Insurance
6.4.1. Indemnity
6.4.1.1. Subject to Article 6.3.1.2 6.4.1.2 a relevant Director of the Society or an associated company may be indemnified out of the Society's assets against:
6.4.1.1.1. any liability incurred by that Director in connection with any negligence, default, breach of duty or breach of trust in relation to the Company Society or an associated company;
6.4.1.1.2. any liability incurred by that Director in connection with the activities of the Company Society or an associated company in its capacity as a trustee of an occupational pension scheme (as defined in Section 235(6) of the 2006 Act);
6.4.1.1.3. any other liability incurred by that Director as an officer of the Society or an associated company.
6.4.1.2. This Article does not authorise any indemnity which would be prohibited or rendered void by any provision of the Companies Acts or by any other provision of law.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Think Cymaz is asking why buy BMFA rather than LMA insurance ?

Insurance cover for officials, yep fair enough, are the LMA officials not also covered via their own policy agreement ?

 

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

1 hour ago, Ron Gray said:

Yes and no! The matter of insurance was raised by the OP and further posts point out that there is an element of cover under BMFA insurance which is not necessarily the case with other insurances. Being clear about the risk of liability associated with being a club official makes this insurance important! Then we get into what sort of things that club officials may typically be held to account over (my question above). I can see that club debts are one thing also ensuring that club property is ‘safe’ but what about if an ordinary member fails to carry out his duty (Article 16 - reporting an incident)? Are the club officials then held to account?

I think that one was covered in one of the A16 discussions Ron, by BMFA (AS), responsibility for adhering to A16 lies with the pilot, usual caveat of it being in clubs rules to do so.

[Ron Gray]

Thanks John I couldn’t find it plus I’m not sure if it covered what happens if an individual doesn’t report and his identity isn’t known.

[cymaz]

It seems Mr B has a reasonable explanation....I'm happy with that. And yes, grass roots members have been asking questions about why have insurance just with the BMFA if there are other insurers around. 

Would anyone not shop about for car or house insurance??

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Can't see a problem with people discussing alternate insurers, our clubs done it. We always reach the same conclusion though, yes we might save a few quid but our best interest and future lies within the BMFA.

[Frank Skilbeck]

16 minutes ago, cymaz said:

It seems Mr B has a reasonable explanation....I'm happy with that. And yes, grass roots members have been asking questions about why have insurance just with the BMFA if there are other insurers around. 

Would anyone not shop about for car or house insurance??

Yep, but you want to make sure you had the same cover, having car insurance which was only valid if you were driving below 30mph wouldn't be a lot of good.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I believe I'm correct in stating that the majority of the SMAE [BMFA] directors are unpaid volunteers - the majority being area or technical committee delegates.  There seems to be an impression that the SMAE is a money making business but in reality, the "shareholders" are the member clubs and no dividends are distributed.  All "profits" are reinvested into maintenance and protection of our hobby/sport .

 

Would anyone expect these people to expose themselves to potential financial ruin?

 

The small band of paid employees appear to work very hard - often unsociable hours and very likely working beyond their official remit and sometimes available for comment outside office hours.

 

 

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

2 hours ago, cymaz said:

It seems Mr B has a reasonable explanation....I'm happy with that. And yes, grass roots members have been asking questions about why have insurance just with the BMFA if there are other insurers around. 

Would anyone not shop about for car or house insurance??

It's worth remembering you are not buying insurance with the BMFA, you are joining a membership association which has many benefits, just one of which happens to be the very best available liability insurance for recreational model aircraft flying.

 

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

1 hour ago, Martin Harris - Moderator said:

I believe I'm correct in stating that the majority of the SMAE [BMFA] directors are unpaid volunteers - the majority being area or technical committee delegates.  There seems to be an impression that the SMAE is a money making business but in reality, the "shareholders" are the member clubs and no dividends are distributed.  All "profits" are reinvested into maintenance and protection of our hobby/sport .

All the directors are unpaid volunteers with the exception of the CEO. The BMFA is non-profit making with budgets tightly controlled.