RCHA Membership Declined :-(

[Tom Burgess]

For a heli only club, I guess the only hurdle would be for the RCHA to gain enough interest nationally and be able to provide the cover. The issue of cover at events would still need to be addressed but IMO that is not the key problem here.

The main problem I see as a club secretary is telling the plank flyers, mostly older (no ageism intended), that instead of rejoining the BMFA like they have been doing for 10 years plus, they need to join the RCHA. It would go down like an (insert pun here)....

[frog]

I'm here on HeliAddicts and I am not in the RCHA, is the plan to lock out members of this forum if they don't join RCHA so that it becomes a membership benefit? This forum was here before RCHA and although Stuart runs both, is this now owned by RCHA?

I'm just playing devil's advocate here as the benefit of joining RCHA is not immediately clear either on this forum or the RCHA website and that could be a reason why people have not chosen it.

[LipolyGone]

I dont think we do ourselves any favors by trying to hang onto the shirt tails of the bmfa & its ageing membership. We need our own organisation that controls our own interest as rotary winged enthusiasts. My club untill recently only allowed static exhibits of helicopters at the site. It was only due to me kicking up a stink that got the rule temporarily changed. The club is affiliated to the bmfa, so do the bmfa condone this type
of discrimination against helicopters?
This club on two occasions got grants to improove facilities & this ruling was never questioned once!

[frog]

So you think the BMFA should dictate to it's clubs what their individual rules are? Even if the members want otherwise? A club is there to serve the interests of it's members - as you found out the members need to question any rules they are not happy with. The BMFA handbook does not say that clubs must not allow helicoters to fly. Lots of clubs have rules about what can and can't be flown, the rules came about when members wanted them.

[Pitman]

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?

Does that mean that all the annoying google spam ads, which have NOTHING to do with RC helicopters, are helping to fund the RCHA?

[LipolyGone]

I think a no helicopters rule should be frowned upon. Any club that makes that sort of rule shouldnt get funding end of. I fly all diciplins & am a country member of the bmfa but its only been since flying helicopters that socialy I have felt like a lepper. Its only since flying helicopters that i've needed to use the bmfa insurance & that let me down big time also with no support for the victim & only support for the club member who damaged my vehicle. The bmfa insurance scheme isnt so perfect & you will only find out how bad it is when its too late.

[davie]

the only thing i see the insurance asking is that safety rules are applied and the flying areas are of sufficient size and lay out is to the best benefit for safety after all they are the ones that pay out when it goes wrong , as to changing things to a " more modern way " that is down to the clubs to do that not the insurance company the insurers provide the cover and a basic rule of flying no more no less, the only was to change how you fly or how your club flys is by voting it through your clubs agm

[pchristy]

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.

The BMFA pulled the forums because of personal abuse between members that was threatening to end in legal action against the BMFA!

I voted against closing the forum down. The problem was that it was managed by volunteers, and the volunteers were no longer prepared to put up with the abuse they were receiving. In the absence of any other volunteers to take over, the question became moot.

So yes, they were more hassle than they were worth!

This forum is relatively well behaved (thank heavens!), and allows even those of us who have fundamental disagreements to discuss them and argue in a civilised fashion.

However, the gap between that and what happened at the BMFA is vanishingly small. The number of visitors here is a lot less than the BMFA, so it is easier to keep a lid on disputes when they arise. But don't for a minute assume that if such a dispute got out of hand, and Stuart was threatened with legal action that could end in bankruptcy, he wouldn't close it down in the blink of an eye! And I, for one, wouldn't blame him!

But to get back to the topic, I am genuinely saddened that Stuart didn't get the support he needed. I do not agree with what he did, but at least he did SOMETHING! And in this day and age that is an event to be treasured!

[LipolyGone]

Does that mean that all the annoying google spam ads, which have NOTHING to do with RC helicopters, are helping to fund the RCHA?

I would sooner have the annoying non heli related banners than not have this website. I dont know if revenue from them helps fund the Rcha
I seriously doubt that it does.

[davew]

I would sooner have the annoying non heli related banners than not have this website. I dont know if revenue from them helps fund the Rcha
I seriously doubt that it does.

If it doesn't, why does Stuart have them?

The whole site seems to be plastered in advertisements which I have have to assume is the price we pay (in addition to subs) for having the forum facility?

BTW, does the RCHA publish its accounts?

[LipolyGone]

I guess people do realise rcheliaddicts & RCHA (radio controlled helicopter association) are two different things. They are linked only by their founding member Stuart. Petes right tho in that Stuart shoupd be commended for atleaet trying to bring about change. Lets get this thread back on topic & agree that in general the RCHA will be a good thing for this sport if managed properly.

[Paulice]

Lets get this thread back on topic & agree that in general the RCHA will be a good thing for this sport if managed properly.

Why not think of RCHA as a club?
we are nearly all in a flying club, If RCHA was a club and you become a member even if your with BMFA and your local flying clubs,
The more people back the RCHA the faster it will grow and advance in it's functions, More meetings, funflys, and other activities like the grading system, competitions and so on.
For £14 each it won't break the bank, but will help Stuart to build the RCHA into something we can all use and gain from.

[davie]

for talking sake if i did treat it as a club being in scotland what do i get for my money , im not knocking the idea but with money at a premium for most people what can you offer me that ive not already got ?

[heavyg]

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



As a direct pressure NO.........indirect MMMM!!
So you think the BMFA should dictate to it's clubs what their individual rules are regardless of what type of model flown.

and if there is no truth in my statement, why is BMFA against any RCHA affiliation... anyway we ALL fly for fun so why do we need to have just one route

I maybe barking up the wrong tree here, its just my view and please dont take any offence davew as it is in no way meant

[LaurenceGough]

well i still going to fly and the bmfa can stick their membership/insurance up their ass.

This is my stance but I know I will be paying a lot more than I have if I end up hitting something/someone no matter how unlikely that is.

29 quid for the BMFA too, oh well. Is there any way to pay online??? Cheque?? What is this the 80's