RCHA Membership Declined :-(

[millerman]

This is a shame as I would have happily taken out membership/ insurance again as I did this year but my club does not support it so I had to go bmfa :0( sorry Stuart by full respect for all your efforts :0)


Sent from my iPhone using crapatalk

[Mark_T]

"If RCHA insurance was accepted as an equal and accepted at all events and competitions regardless of who sanctions it, would you choose BMFA or RCHA???

This still isn't the right question and I'd guess it is not the reason for a lack of people signing up either.

The original problem and the real question is 'what would it take to get clubs to affiliate to RCHA?'

Until you solve that one it really doesn't matter what individuals would prefer as there doesn't seem to be enough of them outside the clubs.

Convert the clubs and the members come automatically. If you don't get the clubs then even if you might anser that you would choose RCHA if it was accepted as equal, you'll still end up joining BMFA as long as your club remains affiliated to them.

[Captain Crash]

I see your point Mark, my question would be to include the fact that if your club was a BMFA affiliated club but it could still accept your RCHA insurance to fly, i realise this is never going to happen which is why the whole situation is bollocks and resistance is futile.

Different thing but where i live in Hull we can only use Karoo(Kingston Communications) as a broadband provider as they own the telephone network in the area.

They too get around the Monopolies commission thing by saying that they will allow any other firm to bring braodband to the city and will happily rent them lines, of course at an exhorbitant price which would put them out of the running on price but because they will still allow them they get away with it and they provide a **** poor service but where else can you go

[frog]

I would still not choose RCHA over BMFA I am afraid as I also fly fixed wing. There aren't that many heli only clubs about and I don't want to fork out for two memberships every year. With BMFA one membership will cover me at as many clubs as I want to join. Currently I am in 3 clubs but pay BMFA just once. If my club went RCHA it would just be doubling up expenses.

[Mark_T]

i realise this is never going to happen which is why the whole situation is bollocks and resistance is futile.

It doesn't feel futile, it just has to be approached carefully.

Talk of monopolies is misguided though, it is the club that takes the decision to affiliate not BMFA forcing people to join and we have ample examples of other routes to insurance if you really want them.

The affiliation approach cuts both ways though, you only have to provide clubs with a better alternative and then you too get to have all the members of an affiliated club.

Let's build up the RCHA into something bigger and better then come back to this again, but with a persuasive and comprehensive offering that comes from an organisation that has already proved itself and the result could be very different.

[waveydavey]

As always Mark, nice words mate.

[Smoothound]

I would still not choose RCHA over BMFA I am afraid as I also fly fixed wing. There aren't that many heli only clubs about and I don't want to fork out for two memberships every year. With BMFA one membership will cover me at as many clubs as I want to join. Currently I am in 3 clubs but pay BMFA just once. If my club went RCHA it would just be doubling up expenses.

Point proved

[MedinaMan]

Me too. It says non flying membership, but at least we are supporting RCHA.

[pchristy]

Sorry to have been "out of the loop" for a few days, but family matters have had to take priority over Xmas, and I've been away from home as a result!

Back at work now, and chance to try and catch up....

Regarding BMFA/LMA/SAA inter-operability: This isn't really my area, but I seem to recall that they all get their insurance via the same brokers and companies. This makes it very easy for them to make reciprocal deals. Don't take my word as gospel on this, because its only something I've come across peripherally, but its what I believe the case to be.

Once you start using an alternative broker and or insurance company, it takes a LOT more work to ensure compatibility. This is probably why Stuart had a hard time getting a reciprocal deal. The effort involved would have cost a lot of money. Were I in the BMFA shoes (and I had nothing to do with this, and don't know what their negotiating stance was!) I would have said "Its you that wants compatibility, its up to you to pay for the necessary research!"

This seems a fair and logical position to me.

BTW - as an aside - its *probably* NOT a good idea to have both lots of insurance! Each insurer will try and get the other to pay out, and you'll end up in the middle of interminable squabbles! I believe its actually illegal to do this with cars (or was, at any rate), and its probably a bad idea in principle for anything else!

I've never criticised Stuart for his efforts, nor would I. I too have had things happen that got me thoroughly p***ed off with the BMFA. The difference is that I chose to try and work from within the BMFA system to sort out the things I felt were wrong. I didn't manage to fix them overnight, but patience has paid off, and some of the BMFA's fundamental procedures are now a lot more open and transparent.

I would suggest that its far more effective to work on improving what we already have than to rip everything up and start again from scratch!

And to answer one or two of Stuart's other points: Yes you are right. The BMFA doesn't know how many pilots fly 3D, F3c, scale or whatever. But neither do you! You may know how many *RCHA* members fly each discipline, but how many of the UKs heli pilots are RCHA members?

I do agree that the BMFA should make more effort to carry out an analysis of the interests of its members, and did suggest this at Council meetings. I think they realise that this would be useful info to have, but what they will do about it remains to be seen. I've stepped down now, so I'm no longer in a position to pursue it. Anyone here want to take up the challenge? I'm guessing not!

WaveyDavey: Re the Club cover - that was based on information I was given some while ago. Its possible the position has moved on. If your club has received assurances from BMFA HQ, then go with that advice. I know the AHA was advised otherwise, which is why we are unable to accept RCHA insurance at Charmouth. However, Charmouth is a "public" event. Club events may come under different rules. Not my field of expertise, so all I can advise is ask HQ, and go with what they say!

Oh, and Merry Xmas and Happy New Year everyone!

[heavyg]

is this really about insurance or the bmfa wanting total control over all events etc,,

one body in total control makes policies to meet its it own ends, any affliate or rival clubs etc would detract from this process !! just my opinion
now ready to be flamed lol

[davew]

is this really about insurance or the bmfa wanting total control over all events etc,,

On what basis do you base this assumption? The BMFA have not, as far as I can see, tried to take control of any events?

There is no compulsion to purchase insurance from the BMFA or for any club or event to do same. Is there?

Insurance is a sensible option but you are totally free to purchase it from where ever you wish, aren't you? The RCHA was providing adequate insurance cover and would have continued to do so if the numbers could have been made to add up.

Has the BMFA ever moved to apply pressure to close down or restrict the activities of the RCHA?

one body in total control makes policies to meet its it own ends, any affliate or rival clubs etc would detract from this process !! just my opinion
now ready to be flamed lol

The BMFA is an association owned by its members as as such SHOULD be making policies to meet its own ends, shouldn't it?

[LipolyGone]

There is no compulsion to purchase insurance from the BMFA or for any club or event to do same. Is there?

Insurance is a sensible option but you are totally free to purchase it from where ever you wish, aren't you?

Not quite right as you have no choice if the club down the road is affiliated to the bmfa then you are compelled to purchase bmfa insurance.
This is where the bmfa have been quite shrewd as they can pass off the
Monopoly as the fault of the clubs as it was there wish to become affiliated when the affiliation carrot got dangled infront of them.

[davie]

you do have the choice you dont need to join the club at the end of the day you need insurance to fly at a club if that club has affiliated its self to a specific insurance body that is the clubs doing not the insurance company , we in scotland have to join the saa to get insurance as the child protection laws are slightly different up here no one complains about it if another came along with the same or greater cover etc unless my club decided to change to it why would i bother to change i am happy to go along with what my club decides is best for us and at the end of the day thats what counts what is best for my club if the new proposed insurance is so good why didnt it get the minimum 500 members why in stuarts post did he say that if in future he would make shure the insurance would meet the criteria need to be approved quote"So we will work on what we know is the right direction as for all to benefit and in time the choice to decide on who your insured with will come around again when we have atleast the minimum required. " that to me says it wasnt up to the standard needed to be allowed at events run by other insurers at the end of the day you do have a choice if you want to fly model helis at most events and clubs you need insurance with the suitable cover

[frog]

It might help to explain why the alternative is better? Right now BMFA give a magazine through the door, insurance for all disciplines to fly at a club and on public land, a handbook, an acheivement scheme for all disciplines and help and advice from them by phone should you want it.

What exactly is it that RCHA provides that is better than BMFA? I'm not talking about theory like 'because it's for helicopters' or 'because BMFA is old school' I am talking real tangeable benefits to the RC hobbyist that can't be had from BMFA?

[LipolyGone]

A forum for one
Thats a real tangible benefit for starters.
The Bmfa pulled all their forums deeming them more hassle than they were worth. Forums are important in this socialy networked world we now live in. So why do the Bmfa not offer us its members a forum? Why does the Aha, the body tasked with upkeeping our interests as heli fliers ask publicly via this forum for there own sub forum?