BMFA & LMA insurance, why do i have to have both?

alan cantwell wrote: I didnt mean you Chris, i ment the BMFA representative, i just put it wrong, in a bit of a rush, sorry, anyway, point is mute, no-one seems interested, the BMFA have clubs sown up, i have insurance that i am told is every bit as good as the BMFA insurance , i detest paying twice,

It may or may not be every bit as good for the individual, I really don't know, so I wouldn't like to comment on that. However affiliation brings the extras that clubs and their principles (committee, landowners, trustees etc etc etc need) for that all club members have to be BMFA or SAA members. Unfortunately the LMA members rejected the possibility of reciprocal insurance agreement.

When you join a club you make a choice, if you don't want to be a BMFA member you don't join a BMFA affiliated club. Again it's a matter for the clubs and there members to decide whether to affiliate or not. They are not forced to. However when you look at the very real benefits and extra support available it's a no brainer in my opinion. That was my opinion when I first joined a club back in 2000, was reinforced when I first went on a club committee, (2002 I think) and now as the BMFA club support officer and seeing (and dealing with) the club issues that come in on a daily basis, from simple matters right up to High court matters (theres one ongoing at the moment) is further reinforced. In my view it is essential that clubs have that support and thats what we give.

The chopice is still down to the clubs and it's members though.

Garry Pollard wrote: If that is the case Bogbeagle, I cannot see the point unless you are a lone flyer. Only then, I feel, would it make economic sense.

Garry

I fly with a healthy bunch of guys, but we don't even discuss insurance. Some are members of the BMFA ... others aren't.

I've found that I can still attend fly-ins, using my FPVUK insurance. I do check this, in advance, though.

You're probably right about the economics, though. From that point of view, it's hardly worth the trouble. I think that Alan C just doesn't want to be associated with the BMFA (reading between the lines, here) ... but, he does want to preserve his own property against third-party claims.

Its not the money, why do folk think its always about the money? its about two organisations not getting there acts together, and one association putting sanctions on by insisting on affiliation, all or none, or cover may be affected, why should this be? if the cover is the same, if commitees are protected, then why should the 2 not be used its wrong, and members of the LMA who dismissed the chance to pursure it i despair at, still, as chris says, its a small amount of money, so, sod the principles, carry on paying, soon, it will be like the strangle hold the AMA have over clubs in the U.S.

The term cartel seems to spring to mind here.

I might add here, that the LMA did indeed seek to amalgamate the 2 insurances, it was the members that could not be bothered,

That was very silly of them Alan, "can't be bothered" but they didn't have to do anything except agree to the amalgamation.

I raised the question at the second AGM I attended tonight, and got an identical answer as I recieved at the first one last night

Garry

from what i remember of the LMA vote on this the main reasons were that people were confused about how it would work in reality, whilst seeing the benefits there was also trepidation about the application and the majority seemed to favour paying the extra few pounds to avoid any confusion, perhaps it needed a better explanation prior to the AGM so that members fully understood the proposal rather than been given the choice to make within a few minutes of being told about it,

2p supplied

chris

Last year there was a bit of confusion caused by the BMFA and Insurance. The LMA and the SAA along with the BMFA pulled out all stops to resolve the issue. It did however leave doubt about how the organizations could work together. So I agree with Chris.

You know, i agree with Chris as well, perhaps next year,