Does your club allow lone pilots?

[David Ashby - Moderator]

I've just removed a posting that was clearly designed to be inflamatory. Gentlemen be good now. 

[Vecchio Austriaco]

Flying alone is allowed in our club, but I personally like to chat and to learn/criticise/teach  something from/to the others. It's just more fun!

 

Safety issue: The more there are the more dangerous it's going to be...

The number of accidents on our field is very low, I just remember a case where sombebody got hit on the hand by his own prop. Happened also to me some 25years ago - prop went through the finger nail. Learned my lesson and use gloves now... 

 

VA

[Erfolg]

I will confess to be the one with the provocative posting.

 

I will try and phrase the point in a less jocular manner whilst maintaining the main thrust.

 

Many years ago I worked for a GOCO, where there was a unfortunate death. This death occurred as a result of the second person seeking help and assistance after an accident.  It was decided that persons should not work in isolation or pairs. There should be 3. If a serious accident/injury/illness were to occur, the second would maintain vigilance with the person, the third would summon help and co-ordinate rescue operations, until  specialised assistance took over. This seemed a very good idea, until the contractors stated that they agreed in principal but the contract had to be amended to reflect the additional costs and burdens of operating in such a manner. At this point that it was noted that there had also been a fatality of an employee, which was none work related, that occurred with 5 present. A reassessment resulted in a decision that the  minimum of 2, was to be maintained, but additional means of summoning help had to be available. The rael dilemma was that individuals often worked in a office environment, late into the nigh, by themselvest. In this instance it was deemed acceptable as long a routine was established so that building security were aware and monitored contacted the individual on a regular basis. It was also noted that the security also often worked in isolation.

 

For me the real point of all this, is that when it comes to money, eventually a line has to be drawn. The need for additional company is as much dictated to what practical help they can be, also in what form it should be implemented.

 

In my opinion, when flying, the real dangers are to the individual. Two members will not stop crashes etc. If you have a heart attack a second person could summon help. Yet if you decide that you are prepared to accept the dangers or risk. Preferentially perhaps mitigating the risk of lone flying by taking a mobile, telling some one where you are going.

 

The real risk is no greater, than saying going for a lone walk. Yes deaths have occurred. But as a safety expert recently stated, contrary to popular opinion in the H&S industry all risk can not be removed from all aspects of living. I have been at home now for about 6 hours bymyself (other than our cat), undertaking DIY, in my case, in common with millions of others today. We are often working and living alone.

 

As some see those who question H&S as irresponsible, I find it equally inflammatory to be told that any questioning is irresponsible and inflammatory.   

 

 

[David Turner]

I'm with you, but perhaps, a little more extreme.

 

I don't care what the personal risk is. The point is...it's personal risk.

 

It has nothing to do with the club, the Council, the BMFA or anybody else.

[Myron Beaumont]

David

Exactly - Personal risk

This thread has brought back so many personal memories as I have spent my whole life pushing way beyond the normal boundaries. Too many to bore you with now (unless you really want to know ? )& guess what -I've even got photos to prove it all "

The main point is that I did it all ALONE for 62 years.

I could write a book but don;t have the time or the paper

Myron R Beaumont ( formerly Wusza )

[Tony Campbell]

Flying in groups will never prevent accidents from happening. In fact, just to be argumentative, you are more likely to be injured as a result of someone elses 'accident', and the more people present, the more likely it is to happen.

Yes, of course, should you be injured to the point of not being able to summon help yourself, a flying buddy would be available to assist.

 

I may very well be injured by something stupid I do when alone, but how would I be able to claim against, or sue the club because I injured myself doing 'whatever', with my own equipment?  Fortunately, my own club has no such rule, and long may that continue.

[flytilbroke]

On this occassion I agree with David Turner. I also agree with Myron in that I have spent a lot time "on my own", out in boats, out with a Firearm on the shore, on the Hill/s and fields. More recently, Flying Models! Even after those activities the worst I have expierienced was at my OWN BACK DOOR.

 

No one is reponsible for my action other than me, and this includes the committee members of any of my flying clubs. There may indeed be fairly rare local responsibilities which precludes lone flying.

 

A point of order..... No one on a club committee can enforce thier will on members without the collective agreement of the members. Unless, crunch time, the members do not turn up in sufficient numbers at AGM to outvote the "clique"

 

Mainly there is seldom any genuine reason why one should not fly alone.

[Andy Symons]

No harm in questioning H&S we all know the H&S culture has gone too far, however club members should not be allowed to pick and choose which club rules they decide to stick to, every club I have experience of has the rules democratically voted on. If someone has a problem with a particular club rule for whatever reason they should abide by it until it is changed assuming thats what a majority of club members want, or exercise their right to leave the club and go fly elsewhere.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by wesley pumpkinhead on 14/12/2009 14:31:58:

this is why i shall never join an rc club! A1 certificate? Ha! health and safety has nothing to do with these rules and certificates, it all comes down to one thing - control.

 

health and safety is about common sense, not rules. if someone flies "dangerously" at a club and shows a lack of consideration for others safety then ban them. you don't need rules to do that.

 

 I'm generally in agreement with your post but I'm afraid that in this day and age, the one thing you do need in a club is rules, if you want to ban someone!  Unless you can show that someone has wilfully disobeyed a reasonable rule and been given adequate warnings then a club is on very sticky ground should it arbtrarily terminate or refuse renewal of membership.

 

Maybe this could be seen as justification for your disdain of club membership but I can whole-heartedly say that joining my club has introduced me to a great set of friends with common interests (and some uncommon ones!) and the banter and atmosphere amongst us makes an already absorbing hobby vastly more rewarding.

 

I've flown alone on occasions when I wanted to test something, practice something or just got the opportunity for a quick fix  but there's only a fraction of the fun and every time, after a few flights I've felt there was something missing and been ready to pack up and go home.

 

I've been very careful on these occasions but I'm not stupid enough to think I can't make a mistake and injure myself.  I've had the odd encounter with props over the years - thankfully nothing requiring qualified attention, but on not one of these times have I ever set out with any intention of being less careful than usual...

 

Like all worthwhile things in life, you balance the risks and make a judgement - a skill that the "safety culture" is fast removing from people as they grow up in these days of formal risk assessments and finding someone else to blame when things go wrong.

Edited By Martin Harris on 14/12/2009 20:57:49

Edited By Martin Harris on 14/12/2009 21:00:20

[birdy]

After reading all this, what it seems to boil down to is weather the ability to fly alone is worth sacraficing for the added safety (or danger in other opinions) of  a second person. It seems to me that in general people agree that if you hurt your self it is your own silly fault, and that you should take precaustions to try and be safer weather alone or not. The question then is should your club make you sacravice the ability to fly alone? I personally say they shouldn't, but that is my oppinion. Everyone is entitled to their own.

[Tim Kearsley]

As the O/P in this thread, the other thing I ought to mention is that in my club, the situation is perhaps slightly unusual in that the flying field is about 15 miles from where the majority of members live.  Hence many only fly once per week or less, on the club's main flying day (Sunday).  Conversely, I am lucky and live about two miles from the patch and can therefore pop up if I have an hour or so to spare.

 

It's the members who are unlikely ever to find themselves even wanting to fly on their own who are trying to stop it for everyone.  Selfish?  Possibly, but their stated reason is that they believe the club will be sued if a member has an accident and thus fear the ensuing bad publicity will lead to the farmer throwing them off the field.

 

I thought that if you signed a disclaimer then you LEGALLY had no comeback, but a few vocal members at the AGM even maintained that such a disclaimer "isn't worth the paper it's written on".  I know little about matters of law, so I can't argue, but it seems a strange situation if that really is the case.  Why then do we sign ANY document?

 

Anyway, I didn't intend to set off such a lively discussion, but I have found the contributions most interesting.  Until the club rules that flying alone is banned I shall continue to do so!

 

Cheers,

 

Tim.

 

[Erfolg]

I think "Flyintibroke" has it.

 

Ensure that club cliques do not implement, by what ever means, their wishes. Particularly if they are contrary to the majorities wishes.

 

If the rule makers state that it is a BMFA requirement, perhaps it is time for the club to find other insurance, or for the BMFA to change thier position. If that is what it is.

 

If I am required to fly in pairs as a minimum by a club, I will do what the SMAE used to carp about. I will go my own way. Freedom of thought and action, within the laws of this land are what I and many others treasure.

 

Erfolg

[Ultymate]

I've made a vow to myself that should I sever a couple of fingers whilst flying alone and am unable to summon help, I shall before I bleed to death, plant said fingers in the earth to form a "gesture" to the world I am about to depart

Don't take life too seriously no-one gets out alive

Edited By Ultymate on 14/12/2009 21:17:47

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Erfolg on 14/12/2009 21:13:01: 

Ensure that club cliques do not implement, by what ever means, their wishes. Particularly if they are contrary to the majorities wishes.

 

Don't all members' clubs hold AGMs?

 

In our club's case, the committee may well implement a new rule during the year but all new rules are ratified at the next general meeting.  If a rule is too contentious then it's open to a small number of members to call an EGM - and if no-one is interested in challenging/defending the rule they can't complain if those that make the effort to turn up vote the other way!

 

It's called democracy...

 

 

 

Edited By Martin Harris on 14/12/2009 21:36:29

[wesley pumpkinhead]

Posted by Erfolg on 14/12/2009 21:13:01:

I think "Flyintibroke" has it.

 

 

If the rule makers state that it is a BMFA requirement, perhaps it is time for the club to find other insurance, or for the BMFA to change thier position. If that is what it is.

 

 

Erfolg

 

 

 

according to what they told me last year, the BMFA Insurance will cover you whether you fly at a club, a registered BMFA Flying site, or anywhere else. (of course the BMFA strongly advise against flying at any site not approved by themselves). it is a public liability insurance that covers the person flying against injury to anyone else or their property, so the issue of whether you are flying alone or not does not come into it. (however, i think their policy for new flyers is that the clubs liabilty insurance will cover that person for 3 days, provided they fly at all times supervised).

 

 

with regards to Martin Harris's comment, you are right, and i do not believe there should be NO rules. (i felt the particular phrasing of my comment  was necessary to illustrate my point about this type of rule).

[Erfolg]

Martin

 

I thought that Democracy is "the political orientation of those who favor government by the people"

 

The above version works very well in Switzerland and other smalls groups. In my opinion clubs are small.

 

I call it Democracy. I do not need to be told what to think! 

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Tim,

 

Like you I really don't understand your club's fear of being sued. To sucessfully sue someone you would have to establish that someone else (in the club) was negligent or responsible for your accident. Now, if your accident was a result of tripping over the mower because proper storage facilities weren't provided - then you might have a case. But its hard to see how the club could be held responsible for an straight forward flying related incident which, if it is anyone's "fault", can only really be your own!

 

The whole disclaimer thing is a red herrring I think. The point I think your clubmates are refering to in saying that the disclaimer is 'worthless' is that in law you cannot sign away your rights. So you can't absolve someone else of their legal responsibility for your safety. But, as the question of their responsibility for your safety doesn't really come up - see first para - then as I say this is a irrelavance. They are not responsible for your safety except by virtue of their own actions - and as by definition they are not there, they can't have any actions which influence you!

 

The BMFA position to be fair to them is that they still insure you (3rd party) if you fly alone. All they say on the matter is that they don't recommend it - fair enough, that's one position. But they are not stopping it!

 

I think your road is to "fight your corner" in the AGM and make sure as many "ordinary" members go to the AGM and vote as possible. If the "we are liable" argument comes up then cite a case like the one above - and good luck!

 

The only caveat on this has to be of course, certain clubs may be under restrictions from the land owner - in which case its a separate matter. But you haven't suggested that is the case at your club.

 

BEB

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Erfolg on 14/12/2009 22:08:23:

Martin

 

I thought that Democracy is "the political orientation of those who favor government by the people"

 

The above version works very well in Switzerland and other smalls groups. In my opinion clubs are small.

 

I call it Democracy. I do not need to be told what to think! 

 Sorry Erfolg but I can't see what point you're making.  Was I telling you how to think - or advocating telling you how to think?  I'm advocating sensible "draft" rules being endorsed by the collective membership and if that ain't democratic, I've no idea what is!

[colin watson]

further to postings regarding min 2 persons or min 3 persons when i worked as a walking guide and ski guide in the alps the minimum number in a party should be 4 persons i.e 1 injured, 1 to render aid and stay with the injured person, and two to fetch help incase they got lost in other words hold each others hand. the guiding was always on marked paths and ski runs. this was to cover me against insurance claims and mountain safety rules. for my own free time i would walk or ski solo often in more dangerous places just let others know were you expected to be. but all hobbies are more fun with like minded people i had my best days walking and sking with friends.

as for those that don't want to fly in a club its not just safety i go for the banter. with common sense solo flying is fine just don't get complacent take extra care

[Andy Symons]

Posted by Erfolg on 14/12/2009 21:13:01:

 

If the rule makers state that it is a BMFA requirement, perhaps it is time for the club to find other insurance, or for the BMFA to change thier position. If that is what it is.

 The rule makers are the club members, so I assume you mean

"If the rule proposers state that it is a BMFA requirement, perhaps it is time for the club to find other insurance, or for the BMFA to change thier position. If that is what it is."

 

In which case point out to those rule proposers that it isn't a BMFA requirement and flying on your own will have no affect on the inusrance whatsoever, it is simply a recommendation, recommended for sensible reasons, but up to clubs to decide for themselves if they want to follow it in the usual democratic way that clubs decide these sort of things.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited By Andy Symons on 14/12/2009 23:13:44

[Andy Symons]

 (of course the BMFA strongly advise against flying at any site not approved by themselves).

 No they don't, they don't go out approving flying sites, they issue guidelines as to how a flying site should be laid out if at all possible. Clubs, in general, take the guidelines on board and adapt them to their particular situation

[wesley pumpkinhead]

i was referring to this email from last year (which i can't believe i actually managed to find just now):

 

"Most clubs are BMFA affiliated, ours is, so if you join our club we organise your insurance for you.

To prevent someone with no experience from causing a problem we ask all new members  to demonstrate their abilities before we sanction them to fly solo.
 

BMFA Insurance will cover you wherever you fly, but of course you should only fly at approved flying sites."

 

that was from the chairman of a flying club in Croydon i think. if it's not the BMFA that approve the sites, then who does?

Edited By wesley pumpkinhead on 14/12/2009 23:40:36

[Allan Bowker]

God bless Timbo, I'm with you on this one.

 

My club allows solo flying as long as you have passed the club proficiency exam.

 

I can't stand jobsworths trying to wrap the country in cotton wool, for gods sake, leave us sensible people alone. If something happens, then we alone are responsible for it and will face whatever music is going to play.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Hi Wesley,

 

Obviously i can't comment on a quote from a dialogue I don't know the full background on, but as far as I know Andy is right. The BMFA do not "approve" flying sites. They give guidelines on good practice regarding how they should be laid out and inform us of the requirements of the ANO (which would be instrumental in your own assessment of whether a particular site is suitable or not) - but that's all.

 

BEB

[wesley pumpkinhead]

i think my question to him (the club chairman) was regarding the BMFA insurance, and what kind of cover it provided (in particular would it only cover me if i was flying at a club).

 

i'm sure you know more about the BMFA than me, so i can only imagine that when he said "approved flying sites" he was refering to flying sites approved by clubs (based on guidelines provided by the BMFA, as you have just stated).

sorry for the confusion (even if it was all mine).

 

maybe i should have wrote: "(of course the BMFA strongly advise against flying at any site not approved by a BMFA registered club)."

Edited By wesley pumpkinhead on 15/12/2009 00:41:26