By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more

Member postings for Keith Lomax

Here is a list of all the postings Keith Lomax has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.

Thread: BMFA NAtional Centre website launched
22/03/2017 15:58:28
Posted by Dickw on 22/03/2017 12:47:03:

He just means that even those within the BMFA organisation running BMFA organised competitions will also have to pay for their events, and will not be subsidised by others.

Some people might have expected otherwise.


Thanks Dick - Pretty much spot on. Nobody is exempt from paying for their use of the site.

22/03/2017 12:03:41

I don't know if usage charges were specifically stated previously but that has always been the intention, and would have been mentioned if asked. I doubt anybody will have assumed otherwise. That was certainly part of the information provided to the Council Members, who include the Area Delegates.

There will be a daily usage charge as well. The idea is that the centre income at least covers operational running costs so that the wider membership is not subsiding those who happen to live close enough to make more use of it. Even BMFA technical committees will be charged to book a flight line to hold a competition.

21/03/2017 10:55:53

Yep, there has never been any indication of if/when a tarmac runway would be provided in any of the materials distributed since the Buckminster site was announced - they go to the end of phase 2.

We have always said that later developments will depend on the availability of funding. This could come from donations, sponsorship or usage of the centre - there are no plans at present to increase subscriptions to pay for this (and as Treasurer, I hope that there never will be). The grass runway, however, should be a very good one.

20/03/2017 11:27:39
Posted by Erfolg on 17/03/2017 18:41:07:

I can only applaud the initiative.

I see that the Universities challenge is headed that way, not as sure, as i have always been less than convinced that east of Leicester is the best location, for many things. But hey, many universities, or should that be the students, do enjoy a good week end at the bar and why not.

As long as it is made to pay, great.

Assuming it is made a viable venue,I am looking forward for a similar resource in the Northern powerhouse. After all a good part of the English population is located in this belt.

Any way, well done.



I understand that Leeds is considered to be part of the Northern Powerhouse. Buckminster is closer to Leeds (97 miles) than to the centre of London (105), which virtually the same as Manchester (108) and only slightly less than Liverpool (128). The population of London is similar to that of the NPH. Even Southampton (176) is the same distance away as Newcastle. Britain's second largest city is less than 70 miles away.

Edited By Keith Lomax on 20/03/2017 11:53:07

Thread: Dihedral question
06/02/2017 10:11:27

Isn't the lift on the wing perpendicular to the leading edge? If that is the case then whether or not a wing has dihedral depends on the angle between the two leading edges, so the information given at the start of this post is not sufficient to decide.

Thread: London Model Engineering Exhibition - Where are all the planes ?
30/01/2017 16:04:15

Building on Kc's and Martin Dilly's comments ...

I attended the Model Engineering Exhibition from around 1990 to 2000 (give or take a year at each end).

The show was "owned" by the Society of Model and Experimental Engineers (great source of confusion between SMEE and SMAE), and they ran it jointly in conjunction with MAP / Nexus in those days.

I attended two or three at Alexander Palace, then it moved to Olympia, and from the second year there we gained the second hall exclusively for flying (which included indoor control line team race, heli flying, indoor aerobatics and free flight - there were so much exhaust fumes in the atmosphere it was probably inflammable).

Throughout that time it ran from the last Sunday in December (or the last bank holiday if Christmas fell at the weekend) until the first Saturday in January. A lot of the trade stands relied on the fact the friends and family of the independent shop owners had long Christmas breaks from work and could either man the stand or backfill in the shop. It was seen as being the place to go and spend your "Christmas money".

Then the owners of Olympia decided to not only increase the hire cost of the venue (one of the SMEE committee said that they wanted £1 million per day) but also to knock down the car park to build flats.

It moved back to Alexander Palace, but the traditional week was no longer available and it was held for a couple of years over a three or four day long weekend in early December. The traders couldn't rely on their supporting staff, and the prices went up so many of them boycotted it. As I understand it, the show as we then knew it ceased to be.

In parallel with this, the London Model Engineering Exhibition was held at a different time of year in North East London (Pickets Lock). I never went but the BMFA started to take a stand there at about the time that the MEX moved back to Ally Pally.


Edited By Keith Lomax on 30/01/2017 16:05:56

Thread: BMFA Country Members
20/01/2017 15:16:10
Posted by Peter Christy on 20/01/2017 14:47:37:

I spent some time as an Area rep on the Area Council. Our area always held a meeting before any council meeting, where we would go through the agenda, and I would be instructed how to vote on each topic. It was always understood that should new facts come to light at the Council meeting that shed new light on the matter, I was at liberty to vary my vote, but that I would then have to justify that change at the next meeting.

I think I only had to change my vote once (maybe twice - its a while ago now!), and each time my actions were approved by the area retrospectively. But it was a matter of trust. They trusted me to vote on their behalf, and I had to respect that trust.

Any rep who loses the trust of his constituency won't last very long!



.. and unless the vote at Council was unanimous, it was only your honesty that informed your area that you had voted otherwise than as instructed because the minutes only record the numbers.

20/01/2017 15:12:51
Posted by Martin Harris on 20/01/2017 14:18:20:

That's quite true Keith, and I think John has summed it up rather well!

I have to say that the drawback of the proxy vote system in the context of a meeting where issues are debated is perfectly illustrated by your experience. While I applaud your integrity, how can a club mandate you to vote without listening to any new facts or arguments presented at the meeting - why have a meeting if this isn't the reason? I have certainly opposed the idea of proxy voting at our club AGMs for this very reason.

I agree, and that was one of the compelling arguments against changing the voting to individual members - if AGM and EGM votes were on this basis then we would need to hire an arena to accommodate the potential attendees, or most would be voting by proxy, neither situation is any better than the current position.

20/01/2017 12:02:53
Posted by Martin Harris on 20/01/2017 11:07:24:

Is there any way to check how my club's vote was cast? I haven't seen a breakdown of the voting published anywhere - were the individual votes recorded in any official document (Keith, Andy, Peter - can you answer this?) so the membership of my club could be in blissful ignorance that they might have been misrepresented had I gone the other way.

No, the votes are only tallied for the number of votes carried, we do not record the individual votes cast.

In my case, as well as my own, I was also carrying five proxies. Three of them voted one way and two the other. I did queue up on both sides and cast the votes as I had been asked to do, but there would have been no way for those clubs to know if I had done so. It was down to my integrity and conscience.

In relation to your 51/49 divide of opinion, have you considered the third option - "don't know or care". I suspect that in most clubs this will be the majority in a split along the lines of 11/10/79 (or even 1-0-99?) for most subjects.

Thread: LMA v BMFA insurance
17/01/2017 13:57:16
Posted by Pete Willbourn on 17/01/2017 12:16:08:

one or two people mentioned "Why" ??

With our club it goes back years and years , When some of us were Smae , Map and "covered by our house insurance".

The covered by "my house insurance" bothered us as a club because it was so wooly and we were never sure the members were Really insured ,So we made the simple rule to join the Bmfa for its insurance , any other benefits were a "bonus " we lost the odd member but 99% enrolled .

As we fly on private ground , the landlord needed proof of insurance and this was the easy way out , and still is after many years


Going back about 20 years, the house policy that I had at the time included cover. When I looked into it the liability was £20k. At the time the BMFA cover was, I think, £2m.

17/01/2017 11:49:19

Just to give you all an update regarding the filing of the accounts at Companies House (CH).

They were sent by post in December, but not loaded by CH to their website. A second set was sent last week together with the proof of postage for the first set, which has been accepted by CH and is now uploaded - with no penalty charge.

I was told that, unfortunately, they do not accept a scanned PDF electronically - if you wish to upload electronically you apparently have to retype the accounts into their form, which is not a practical solution.

12/01/2017 10:24:51
Posted by john stones 1 on 11/01/2017 17:42:54:
Posted by Gary Manuel on 11/01/2017 17:30:17:

BMFA are generally doing a great job as far as I can see. I'm happy to pay the current subs - especially with what's looming.

They just need to listen to their members re proportional representation and move into the current century to get the full support and respect of the members.

Am I right in thinking that the officials get more than one vote? If so, this further multiplies the odds over normal members who only get a a small fraction of a single vote. The fraction being the reciprocal of the number of members in the club. As for country members, well they are totally disregarded in an unfair manner.

Surely the officials can see that it is in everyone's interest to move towards one man one vote? They might just need to work a little bit harder though, in getting their point of view across to members prior to important votes. If this had been done for the NFC for example, everything would have been settled now with no disgruntled members.

That's my point of view and rant over.

I believe fellows have 5 votes if a card vote is called ?

The BMFA got it's point of view across re NFC at your club, you played a part in ensuring it.wink and communication has improved i think.

OMOV ? yep me too on big decisions.


Yes, that is right, Fellows (of whom there are around 30 still alive) get 5 votes on a card vote at a general meeting (EGM or AGM). Other "officials" only get a vote at these meetings only if they are also representing a club, so may have no vote at all.

Prior to OMOV being implemented for the annual elections, Fellows also used to get 5 votes in those.

The rationale behind this is that the constitutional membership of the SMAE Ltd is the clubs and fellows. As a club needs a minimum of five members to affiliate, and clubs get one vote for each affiliated member, this gives a fellow the same voting power as the smallest clubs.

In practice, this has minimal effect because card votes are very rare, and then even if all fellows participate in the vote and all vote the same way, they still only have the same voting strength as a large club.

In other circumstances:

- at Area meetings, votes are only cast by clubs (one vote per club irrespective of size) and fellow get no vote unless they are representing a club (and even Area officers only get a vote if representing a club).

- at BMFA council meetings, it is one vote per member of that council, irrespective of whether or not a fellow. However all members of Full Council must be either a fellow or a member of a club

- at Technical Committee meetings it is one vote per member of that committee.

11/01/2017 16:03:22

I joined in 1988 or '89 and membership included insurance then.

The chairman at the time had been in post for around ten years when I took up my first post on Council in '90 or '91.

She told me that the decision to widen the insurance to include club cover and to make SMAE membership compulsory was a decision that she had led - which would suggest very early '80's. At the time, the SMAE was struggling. A lot of clubs had the minimum five affiliated members and many "non-affiliated" members, so the few who paid the membership fee were propping up the rest. At the time, subscriptions were reduced from (I think) £12 to £5. There was a lot of scepticism, many people thought it would be the end, but membership numbers increased massively to more than cover the drop.

SMAE Ltd adopted the trading name British Model Flying Association in 1989.

Edited By Keith Lomax on 11/01/2017 16:07:30

11/01/2017 09:52:46
Posted by Rob Buckley on 10/01/2017 20:07:20:

I was trying very hard not to get dragged into this, but seeing as an elected official of the BMFA is making inaccurate statements about LMA insurance I need to make a public correction.


LMA insurance includes club committee cover. As we only have 2 clubs (and aren’t in the affiliated club market in ‘competition’ to the BMFA) that’s not an issue for most.

LMA insurance (as all our members will know as it’s printed on their membership card insurance summary) is worldwide

LMA insurance includes crown indemnity


LMA insurance has no excess payment on liability claims

LMA insurance includes member to member cover

LMA insurance includes free travel cover for modelling trips

Many thanks for this, and I apologise for my error, I was misinformed. I tried to edit that out of my post, but do not have an edit button (perhaps the forum software locks it after a period of time, because I can edit this one). 

Edited By Keith Lomax on 11/01/2017 09:56:52

Thread: BMFA Country Members
10/01/2017 16:41:06
Posted by iqon on 10/01/2017 16:26:09:

What percent live to far away to vote !!! that should also be addressed......If anybody is up for the challenge...

one man one postal vote..wink

Considering that the AGM is held near Coventry - pretty close to the geographical centre of the area of representation (England, Wales and Northern Ireland), and that we usually have representation from Kent, Devon, Lancashire, Durham, South Wales, and Belfast, and virtually everywhere in between, I would say that nobody is too far away to vote. We also allow proxies.

10/01/2017 16:36:09

There has also been criticism in this thread of the status apparently afforded to "Fellows". These are individuals who have been recognised by the AGM for considerable service to the SMAE. I think there are currently around 30-35 still alive, of whom around half still play some involvement in the running of the Society. Around Eight are currently members of Council (including three out of nine members of the Executive). The rest are stalwarts of Area and/or Technical committees.

These individuals are entitled to five votes, but only in the event of a card vote at a General Meeting (which are rare; I can remember three such in all of my years of involvement). Even if all Fellows are present (or have sent proxies), and all vote the same way, then collectively they have the same voting strength as one large club.

FYI - the card votes that I can remember are the EGM in 2015; one time around 2012 when there was a proposal from the floor for a larger increase in subscriptions than I had proposed; and one in the mid 1990's that was a vote of no confidence in the elected officers of the day.

10/01/2017 16:19:31

To address the issue of Country members and voting ...

If you look at the AGM minutes of an association such as the National Trust, who I believe have around 100,000 individual members and no comparable club structure, the majority of the votes cast are done in advance via proxy, which completely invalidates any discussions at the meeting. Total votes cast is in the region of 20%. You could conclude that most members don't care about the running of the organisation, they join to get access to visit the numerous properties. Not dissimilar to why many of our members join.

Even for a decision as significant as the National Centre, where clubs were consulted and lobbied to either attend or send proxies, total turnout was only about 20% of those entitled.

At a typical SMAE AGM we have 100 to 150 clubs represented. Of those, I suspect that they fall into three categories:

- those where the delegate has consulted his club members and discussed the upcoming proposals to garner their opinions

- those where the delegate has consulted his club committee and discussed the upcoming proposals to garner their opinions

- those where the delegate has consulted nobody and votes as he sees fit

I have no statistics available, but my guess is that the latter is probably the majority. When I was a club delegate and tried to involve them, my club used to say "you know about the BMFA, you decide".

10/01/2017 15:52:21
Posted by Rich2 on 08/01/2017 19:32:00:

Thanks for taking the time to post Peter. Interesting that the accounts for 2016 are now overdue at Companies House, and more importantly the Mem & Arts require that the accounts are audited. I've checked back three years and the accounts have not been audited. Even though the directors report refers to the auditors - there is no auditors report attached to the accounts. And I would expect with a £1m turnover, the accounts should be audited.

Edited By Rich2 on 08/01/2017 19:32:31

The accounts were approved at the AGM in November. The late filing could be because the Company Secretary unfortunately passed away in December, however I understood from the CEO that it had been done - could be a backlog in processing at Companies House.

With regard to the audit, there are effectively two sets of accounts for legitimate reasons. The Statutory Accounts as filed on Companies House website are "truncated accounts" filed under the Small Companies Exemption regulations (under £5m turnover), which don't require an auditor but do include the auditor's comment as an "Independent Accountant". The more detailed accounts are contained in a "supplementary document" that is normally available from the AGM page on the BMFA website - however due to an error the accounts to 2015 were posted, and I have asked the webmaster to correct. The correct versions, however, were sent to the clubs before the AGM.

The Auditor who is appointed is a properly qualified and registered accountant (*). He reviews both the statutory accounts and supplementary document in detail each year in exactly the same way that he would if we were a larger company with a statory requirement to audit. Due to the diligence of our Accounts Manager, and oversight by the Council, the auditor has been satisfied with the documents as prepared, and it is several years since he has identified any discrepancies (which were down to minor recording errors, not fraud or control issues).

The accounts are also audited periodically by HMRC, which due to the nature of our activities is much more thorough than would be for a traditional business with comparable turnover. Again, they are always satisfied.

On top of that, whilst I am not a qualified accountant, I am an internal auditor with twenty seven years experience spread across four companies (currently employed by a multi-billion turnover financial leasing company), and I review the SMAE accounts before they reach the auditor.

(*) this is not the place to discuss the subtle differences, but there is a huge overlap between "accountants" and "auditors", such that for most purposes the terms are interchangeable. Most independent accountants are auditors and most auditors are accountants.

Thread: LMA v BMFA insurance
10/01/2017 13:32:20
Posted by Graham Chadwick on 09/01/2017 11:17:34:

I am totally shocked. If it is true that our BMFA insurance only costs £11 and we pay £33 this is scandalous. I naively thought the BMFA was working for me' on my behalf, to support me in my chosen pass time. But if this is correct then the BMFA is taxing me 200% on a closed shop insurance. Closed shop by not recognizing other identical insurance. This is like driving to your country boundary and being told they don't recognized your insurance and you have to re buy the identical policy to drive there.

I pay a membership fee to the BMFA and am incensed at being taxed by their 200% insurance tax.

Please tell me I have have been missinformed or misunderstood this situation. Or SHAME ON YOU BMFA.

Edited By Graham Chadwick on 09/01/2017 11:54:34

This is wrong on so many levels.

The accounts (which ARE AUDITED), show the different things on which BMFA spends the money received from membership subscriptions. In various ways these activities support either all or different disciplines of model flying. It is not a tax on insurance. As Andy mentioned above, a lot of it is spent supporting clubs and fliers in relation to flying field issues. What about the staff required to administer the membership of 35,000? A lot of it is spent liaising with authorities (CAA, National Trust, MoD, EASA) to ensure the continued freedom to fly.

There are no "identical" policies available from elsewhere. Both the LMA and The SAA have similar insurance, but neither include the club committee and landlord cover that is inherent in the BMFA insurance. They also have different personal accident policies.

I can't speak for other aspects of the LMA and SAA policies as I don't have sight of them, but do they include worldwide geographical coverage? Do they include Crown Indemnity (required if you fly on a MoD site)? Do they have an excess payment on liability claims, and if so how much? Do they include member-to-member cover (if you damage another member's car with your aircraft)?


On another point posted above, Country members have never had a vote at the AGM (or EGMs if called). It is only in the last 15 years or so that CM's have even had the opportunity to vote in BMFA elections (but that depends on having enough volunteers required to contest the posts, all of which are re-elected every two years).

06/01/2017 10:43:26
Posted by CARPERFECT on 05/01/2017 23:35:21:

Does anyone know or has seen the BMFA accounts for how much the insurance premium is. I remember reading somewhere that the insurance was only about £14 per member. the rest of our money went into the BMFA coffers. If thats true the the LMA must be making a bit as they do not do much for general modeling. But they may pay a higher premium per member than the BMFA

The accounts are available for all to see.

Try here ...


Click on "Accounts - Supplementary" in the search box at the bottom. This is actually the previous year's accounts, and I have asked the webmaster to upload the correct document so it should be fixed soon. However the amounts don't change much. Total insurances (in the Appendix 1B Membership costs) amount to about £11 per member.

Or you could look at the budget for 2017-18 which is the same thing looking forward.

The rest doesn't go "into BMFA coffers" - it is used to cover all aspects of supporting Model flying in the UK (including recently lobbying the EU on behalf of all model fliers in Europe in conjunction with some of our peer organisations abroad).

Although the insurances are provided by the same broker and underwriter, they are not the same policy. The BMFA insurance includes the club committee indemnity (as mentioned above) but also landlord indemnity. The club equipment policy is a recent addition. The club cover recently covered an expensive legal battle in support of a club with a "nasty neighbour" problem.

Email News - Join our newsletter

Love Model Aircraft? Sign up to our emails for the latest news and special offers!

Latest Forum Posts
Support Our Partners
Skip Model April
TJD Models
Gliders Distribution
Advertise With Us
Latest "For Sale" Ads
How many plan-built models have you made or started in the last year?
Q: How many plan-built models have you made or started in the last year?

 5 to 10

Latest Reviews
Digital Back Issues

RCM&E Digital Back Issues

Contact us

Contact us