412 forum posts
BMFA handbook item 13.2 layout of RC flying sites
|john stones 1||18/09/2018 14:52:12|
10425 forum posts
I married her Dave.
|Martin Harris||18/09/2018 22:54:59|
8671 forum posts
The BMFA handbook only gives guidance to "best practice" and recognises that it cannot apply in all cases. Parking 100m away from the pits/flight line is simply not possible at our site due to its topography - in fact the pits and car park lie adjacent to the most frequently used runway. This has been the case for the 36 years since the club bought the site and no-one has ever been able to find a better layout, despite much thought being put into the subject.
Madness, I hear some of you muttering, but we have a strictly enforced no fly zone and, probably more significantly, a 3m high chain link fence separating the flying area from people and vehicles.
1918 forum posts
To be fair the last set of accounts did show separate figures for the NFC financials; the NFC spending last year was clearly visible. My point was that the NFC is not a separate financial entity; it is functionally and financially a part of the BMFA, so there is no hard financial firewall between it and the business as usual accounts. It also seems to rely on the same team that run the association day to day for it’s overall governance and management, bolstered by the volunteers on the ground of course.
466 forum posts
The accounts show a £10,000 support donation both last year and this from the BMFA funds to the NFC
|Paul Marsh||26/09/2018 10:56:56|
3647 forum posts
Maybe next year, if members try and avoid silly accidents, such as cars getting damaged, a rise next year won't happen. Accidents do happen, but launching a model over a car is asking for trouble..
Problem is that the rise is due to BMFA members submitting claims, as said in the BMFA Mag, one claim was for a prestige vehicle over £15,000. and as a result the £30k NCD might not be forthcoming...
Simple, really. Take it on the chin, and for 2019 take extra care and think before doing something or sending a claim off if it isn't necessary - as all will suffer later on.
1918 forum posts
I am pretty sure that was budgeted in the original projections for phase 1 rather than being new money, but because the BMFA have taken down the old presentations around the phased funding from the site it's impossible to know for sure.
|Nigel R||26/09/2018 11:29:40|
2927 forum posts
Good to see a decent write up of what's going on with the insurance in the current BMFA news.
"My point was that the NFC is not a separate financial entity; it is functionally and financially a part of the BMFA, so there is no hard financial firewall between it and the business as usual accounts."
Seems like it could be a separate registered company?
11235 forum posts
No one can complain about anyone giving a donation to the NFC. IMO that is really great, as it does show that its supporters are putting their money where their mouth is. Good for them.
I do not wish to go into detail why I think that it is important that the finances and charging regimes is important. That is beyond I know from personal experience that, where the finances are not transparent, and the charging regime for staff is not clear cut, it is a recipe for an entity to be operating at a loss, whilst apparently more than paying its way.
I now have my BMFA news, having read the relevant section, i am non the wiser. although i am guessing that is the intention, beyond the concept that we all can do better, by considering more rigorously what we do.
Once upon a time, when i was a project manager, safety was very much part of my way of thinking. Why, at work, accidents cost time (just dealing with the aftermath), often money. When younger I saw it could on occasion ruin lives. The concept of safety becomes a way of life, at home, out walking, doing DIY, it is a given. It seems that this may not be the case in all walks of life.
In my case at the flying field, my take offs are away from the club house, the car park, the pit area. I fly small models, for others it is not that simple, as their models rocket from one end of the strip to the other, parallel to all these issues, as their models are bigger and have a longer run to lift of. The same operation, yet necessity, requires more consideration of the risks and how to mitigate them.
However I am not as yet perfect, as i recently was reprimanded, as my horizontal figures of "8" had the model flying towards me at the cross over point. If I altered my flying pattern, the point where the model flies towards the flight line occurs at the outer part of the figure, where often the potential for danger is often less, or issues managed easier.
I do remain disappointed that there are any number of claims. Particularly to members models, in my case, I would accept that it is a risk, that my model will eventually be destroyed, I really would not even try and claim. Car damage is for me different, and other than a freak accident, I expect that the clubs parking regime would ensure that other than an exceptional event, could not realistically occur.
Please login to post a reply.
Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!