Posted by Graham Bowser on December 19, 2005 at
20:44:34:
Having led and worked on sporting activity committees in the past I am
reluctant to be critical of what is the end result of a lot of hard work by
people who are not only fortunate enough to be able to give the time they do
but do so willingly when they could of course be doing other things. However as
there seems to be the need for someone to kick off the debate following Roger's
email, the general feeling that it would have been a good idea to ask for ideas
before the plan was developed and the counter accusation of "reds under
the beds". I think we could start with the following as points for
discussion.
Operational Emphasis
BMGC is a small club funded by relatively
low membership fees and a lot of money from Day Trippers of one variety or
another. Without these trial lessons and expedition visits our club would not
be able to function as it does for the price we pay. I read the proposals as
being that the c'tee has considered the "operational emphasis" of the
club as being to concentrate on developing post solo pilots, to keep the club
at about the numbers it is now so as to avoid problems that excess numbers
would bring on a small airfield and to continue to generate revenue through the
day trippers. I for one totally agree with this. Given that we have a common
need to get the "Tourist Pound" through the door it would be might be
a good idea to try to spread the workload of dealing with these day trippers
more evenly spread across the club perhaps by encouraging more members to become
Basic Instructors (assuming that the BGA put on enough courses to cope with
demand) and to help those willing to do so by heavily subsidized preparation
training (in return for a commitment of post course activity).
Moving on to Cross-Country Training.
I emailed Robbie last week a link to the
BGGC Ridge Training page which includes a syllabus which takes pilots on a two
seat/lead and follow/solo program of increasingly difficult cross country ridge
tasks. This is an excellent development at that club and if we were able
replicate a similar style for BMGC it would make many of us better pilots. PS
Look in your logbook and see what you did on 21st July. A stranger passing up
the Cymdu valley that day via Tal and Hay Bluff and back down the valley was on
a 420k ridge run out of Nympsfield which extended to Camarthen. (Want a copy of
the trace ? email me and I will send you a copy). Whilst my little wings might
not extend to such a task I am very much in favour of proactive CC training in
the club to help us become more confident and adventurous. Such training costs
money/resource - I think that the committee needs to know if there is general
support for these being expended in this way or indeed great opposition.
Surrounding Fields.
We will always be hostage to any seller,
they don't need to read the plan to know that those fields have an enhanced
value to us. Whilst "nice" to own these given the slope and Green
roads could they really be put to practical use within any likely budget the
club could afford?
Members Wish List
Given the intention to create a 5 year plan
I agree that members should have been invited (prior to the development stage)
to present their "wish list" for the club and their rationale of what
those wishes would do for the club. Had I been asked here are my inputs they
would have been as per above plus
1. Make it practical to rig and take off on
those many days in late autumn/early spring when the wind is good but the
ground is sodden.
Money spent on this objective would enhance the club through
Greater attendance at the club in those
periods
Greater revenue through more flying activity (members and trial lessons)
Less wear/tear on club aircraft, particularly the tug. (seeing the tug
straining against a bogged down K13 was not a pretty sight)
What is needed, ?
Hardstanding in front of the trailers. I am
told that Shobdon have bought lots of the stuff the RAF use to put on the
ground at tactical Harrier sites for this very purpose. Don't know the detail
but have seen it used for Harriers in varied conditions and it "seems to
work"
A "hard track" for the first 100m
of take off track to NE and NW
A "hard track" for towing out
gliders from the hangar/trailer line to the take off points
Affordable - no idea - but that's what
member ideas are for, spark debate about desirability, cost and cost
effectiveness
2. Buy a permanent fix to the cattle grid at
the entrance. It won't make us any money but bit will save a car wheel falling
through it one day
Hopefully someone will vehemently disagree
with something I have said as that is the sure way to get some form of debate
going
Graham
__________________
Posted by Peter Saundby on December 20, 2005
at 10:10:53:
In Reply to: Kicking off
the debate posted by Graham Bowser on December 19, 2005 at 20:44:34:
Some facts. I did the costings for the
Committtee on surfacing. The plastic reinforcement, incidently developed for the
Soviet Air Force and manufactured in Poland costs £1500 / 100 Sq M. A concrete
hard standing is about £3,500 / 100 Sq M and we would need several hundred Sq
M. Last year we lost 5 days flying when the airfield was too soft to operate
but the conditions were soarable, although there were many other days when
operating was messy but practicable. The aluminium tracking used by the RAF has
not been costed but was considered as expensive when I was serving, the minimum
area was always laid out and it was recovered after temporary use. It covers
and kills the grass. Nevertheless the Committee has spent some £2,500 of your
money on improving the field drainage.
It was the view of the Committee after considering runway reinforcement that a
private owner hangar would contribute more to total flying at less cost because
of greater opportunity to make use of short flying periods. This has been
confirmed by the experience of the Borders Club at Milfield. When suggestions
are made, it would be helpful if they could be accompanied by costings,
otherwise a Committee member has to do the work. Details of the plastic
reinforcement can be found on the web at: www.perfo-uk.com
Plans have to be initiated, and any club member could have started this ball
rolling. I fact I did, kicking off the debate, unsolicited, and as an ordinary
Club member rather than as a committee member. It has generated a debate but
the criticisms seem to relate more to methodology than outcome. The only
serious question, to which we do not know the answer, related to the exact
boundaries of our property. I entirely agree with the thoughts on cross country
flying. it is more than 20 years since I as a duty instructor briefed the first
500 Km to be flown from the site. This problem was addressed both in my first
draft and the final version. We need an advanced two seater which will match in
performance the single seaters owned by members.
More enterprising cross country flying is required and this was part of my
plan, a part which has excited very little comment. An advanced two seater
would match the performance of single seaters owned by club members. Initially
I suggested a second hand Janus and this triggered the Committee into
investigating the possibility of a grant, an investigation which unfortunately
proved fruitless. For the moment we have taken the opportunity loan of the
Silene which, while not ideal, is better than the Ka13s. Our real problem is to
find club instructors with the competence to teach cross country flying and who
can spare time during the week. Ideally we would enter members in regional
contests.
Our club is active for both week-day and week-end flying, therefore we have two
different patterns of operational emphasis. Courses are planned for the
week-day periods and this is when most trial lessons should take place.
Certainly we are part of the tourist industry and this is reflected by our
Country membership. There are just too few members living locally to support
the club on our present scale. In terms of flying hours, we are a major BGA
club but with a minimal and overloaded local membership. Who do you think
supports the club on week days, or when the Tug is due for a fifty hour
service?
The question of land acquisition is driven by two factors. Our airfield is just
big enough for operational purposes, we do not have enough space for car
parking, camping, glider trailers and similar purposes. Secondly, for economic
factors within the farming community, more land is likely to come on the market
in the next few years than in past decades. We need to preserve our position
and could not risk having our operations compromised by hostile neighbours. For
land acquisition there is often a short window of opportunity and so the Club
needs to decide in advance what is essential and what might be desirable. The
current basic value of farm land is £100 / 100 Sq M. Quotes are being sought
for the replacement of the cattle grid but it may not be cheap.
We are a small club, we have limited resources. When something is proposed, it
should be the responsibility of the proposer to develop their proposal. Please
do the detailed work needed to refine and cost your proposal. Never assume that
it can be done by someone else. Courses on specific flying activities can be
desirable. but what we really need is a volunteer to run the course. It is not
what the Club can to for you, but what you can do for the Club.
Regards, Peter.
__________________
Posted by Graham Bowser on December 20, 2005 at
11:02:32:
In Reply to: Re: Kicking
off the debate posted by Peter Saundby on December 20, 2005 at 10:10:53:
Thanks for your reply.
One of the limiting factors for many of us is the pressure of having to work
most days, the others is being so far from the site and the needs of the
family. I thought I could help the club by becoming a BI (as it is obvious that
more are needed to spread the workload) and despite applyibg in July was told
the October course was full. Considering the BGA see the development of new
instructors as essential to the future of the sport I found it surprising that
they only run two courses a year. I have put my name down for next Octobers
course
As for costing surfaces etc and cattle grids, it really does need someone with
spare time to be able to do this. However in considering a 5 year plan it
really should be open to members to suggest ideas and for the membership to say
if they see any of these ideas as important/essential/not needed. If the ideas
have been looked at before then of course this can be communicated.
Graham
________________________
Posted by Malcolm Lassan on December 23,
2005 at 15:38:26:
As a very recent new member who has yet to
find the time and weather to have a check flight I am not sufficiently familar
with operations to add to that converstaion however I do have some observations
with my "fresh eyes" which I submit.
Firstly I think the committe should be congratulated for their efforts and
their commitment to trying to make the club better for us all - the members,
therefore any and all my coments are forwarded with that in my. Secondly I
think we need to seperate those items which justifiably form part of the plan
and others which are really, day to day matters but no less important. Without
doubt the cattlegrid and alike are very important but not really part of the
plan, I hope it will not take 5-years!!
The 5-year plan may be broken down further into Infrastructure (the airfiels
buildings etc) and Operations (airfield use and the flying). Perhaps that is
too simple but probably serves the purpose here.
Infrastructure.
1.Yes, I would be very happy to put my glider in a hangar and I would use it
much more if I did, we do however need the land and at this time, as I
understand it, the land is not available. This is not to say it should not be
included in fact I feel that this a a must item at this stage. Over 5-years who
knows but we do need to be ready to take advantage so should we have an
acquisiton account? I doubt we could keep our interests in any land secret no
matter how much we try, so the price will inevitably be higher than for
agricultural use, lets therefore budget on that basis.
2.It seems to me that the over-riding factor in the growth devlopment of the
club is the restriction on one tug. I guess this is an insurmountable problem?
3.How much we improve the airfiels itself really need to be related to the
usage, one tug is there any real benefit to be gained beyond that already in
hand?
Opearations.
1. It seems to me that the number of launches possible in any day is going to
be limited by the tug arrangements and the physical size of the site. The
marketing has seemed to concentrate on duration per flight year around; dont
change a winning formula unless there is a better plan.
2. Following on from (1) above, we could do much more to add value to the
flying experience and the Graham's thoughts on "ridge running" needs
preparation on it's structure and implementation. I do not doubt the same
applies to wave operations.
3. Really the question is, " How do we see the site being used within the
5-year period, I doubt that there would be no change with or without a plan. We
need to influence the direction of the change - the vision.
In General.
In my experience, we must be sure that we focus on the "vision"
rather than be project orietated seeking specific solutions to perceived
problems. We all feel much more comfortable when operating objectively in
"project mind." The problem is that "project mind" creates
conflicting solutions, winners and losers, without necessarily expoloring the
wider opportunities. I thought the committeee were objective in taking the
wider view and avoiding "solutions."
It is essential to outline the reasons for the 5-year plan. What are we trying
to achieve are those objectives achievable and what enabling route(s) are be
necessary. For example, Do we seek to have the same size of club in 5-years
time but be more comfortable, better equiped etc? Are we trying to increase the
size of the club? What are the flying objectives? There are plenty of questions
which, with a consensus, will inevitably provide direction and focus. The
commitee must have explored the vision perhaps they could share with us those
thoughts?
I am a willing volunteer if I can assist in any way.
Posted by Mike Knell on December 23, 2005 at
19:02:54:
Talgarth is a wonderful site and I am only a
Country Member - so I hope that you do not mind my contribution to your debate.
Trial Lessons. The ridges are wonderful and
you can fly on many days. I don't believe that a glider better than a K13 would
give potential pilots a better impression of gliding. Would a K21 do a better
job for training or for the initial experience? I don't think so.
Airfield. You have a problem with water in
the winter. Most take-offs are from the gate or the gap in the hedge. The area
from the tree to the gate is well used for towing, rigging and for takeoffs.
This is why you have put in the drainage. If this drainage is not completely
effective, you could consider.
* Move the road, from the gate to the
Clubhouse, as close to the hedge as possible
* Move the trailers close to this road
* Make a concrete, or hardcore, base for the trailers, the rigging area, the
grid and the takeoff area. There would be no mud and the initial launch would
be on a firm base. Share the cost between the members and the trailer owners.
______________
Posted by Don Puttock on January 04, 2006
at 08:24:24:
In Reply to: 5 YEAR PLAN
posted by Mike Knell on December 23, 2005 at 19:02:54:
I would like to comment on the 2 seater
question. The trainers have several functions to perform, and to a large extent
the strategy will determine the full range.
It is true that the weight of the ASK13 is
an advantage when launching in light winds or on wet ground. Based on insurance
costs being proportional to aircraft value, this element of the running cost is
also lower.The ASK 13 is also very easy to land in a relatively small field.
Maintenance costs are however high, and the
ASK13 is unable to meet all our training needs. The 2 major areas are spin
training and x country training.
The ASK 13 has an extremely limited
allowable cockpit weight range, which means only the correct combination of
pilot and instructor is permitted to spin; we have some pupils who (for weight
reasons)are not permitted to spin with any of our instructor team. If the
strategy is to include training, then the ASK13 is less than satisfactory.
As a X country trainer, the ASK 13 is
possibly OK up to silver distance but not really suitable beyond that. Again
our strategic plan is key to determining the aircraft performance we need.
There are of course many other factors as
well, but I believe I have pulled out the 2 key problems related to the ASK13 and
the future of BMGC. For these reasons I think replacement 2 seater should be on
the agenda.
Don P
5-Year Plan
Posted by
Roger Hurley on January 01, 2006 at
19:14:17:
Peter
Saundby's reply to Graham Bowser finally gives some useful background into the
committee's thinking as it prepared its 5-year plan. This is the stuff we all
should debate. It's great we're talking about the future - apathy is a terrible
thing.
Peter
says 5 flying days were lost last year, and many more were messy, due to the
soft field. I think this rather understates the muddy field problem, since when
ground conditions are horrible many owners don't want to get their gliders out,
and don't turn up at all, even though flying did take place. I didn't want to
get the Capstan out of the hangar on quite a few days, because it would have
got so filthy. As Graham Bowser suggests, it's likely that the true loss of
launches, and flying, is much greater than portrayed. Using the airfield on
these muddy but flying days cuts it up badly, which means it takes much longer
to recover. There is the issue of wear and tear on the club aircraft as well.
Poor field conditions also mean we routinely need a more powerful tug (see
later), and the effect that the wet field has on visiting club expeditions and
trial lesson visitors (potential members) cannot be good. Letting the place get
like Glastonbury won't necessarily attract younger people!
There are
tried and tested means of protecting the grass for under £7/m², less than half
the cost that Peter has suggested. Reinforcement meshes can be laid over the
existing turf (grass grows thru) and are good for car park loads, and even HGV
access routes (as used by BB National Park). These present no planning permission
issues. A 4m x 200m airstrip would cost less than £6,000 using one such system.
There are cheaper ones, and many others, all for a lot less than the
"Perfo" solution Peter mentions. A similar but lighter duty mesh
'hard-standing' in front of the trailer rack would cost about £1,200 - or
£40/trailer space.
A 'hard'
strip secures use of the field whenever it is flyable. Wear and tear on the
club equipment is reduced, and we could also review our tug requirements (see
later). Private owners would not be put off by the mud, and neither would
visitors.
The
5-year draft plan heavily emphasises a perceived threat to our boundaries and
the need to buy up adjoining land to secure those boundaries, and to prevent a
neighbour from e.g. 'planting trees to obstruct our approaches'. The club has a
long established use and any such insoluble threat is low risk, and not
precipitate. We could not honestly justify buying even a few hectares at
"ransom-strip" prices (perhaps £15,000 per hectare?), if it ever became
available (which it may not), on the basis of this low-level threat.
The
committee says it wants to buy land to construct a private owner's hangar, on
the basis that not having to rig private single-seaters would considerably
increase the amount of flying and the club's income from it. A hangar for just
ten gliders would be a building of at least 800m2 (18m x 45m) and with
double-sided external manoeuvring space the minimum field area required amounts
to 4,000m2 of appropriately sited reasonably flat land. Let's say just part of
one of the south fields could be bought (none of the others are really viable)
- the bridle way (right-of-way/green lane) would have to be crossed by rigged
gliders which means grubbing out two 20m long hedges, which we don't own, and surfacing
part of the public lane. A hangar of that huge size would undoubtedly present
some planning difficulty in the National Park and, more importantly, would
impact upon any other more generally beneficial 'development' that the club may
want to seek permission for either now or in the future.
Ten
owners have recently been asked to subscribe £12,000 each to construct a
Milfield style hangar at Nympsfield. For a Talgarth private hangar, including
land (and the other costs) it's surely a capital cost of at least £150,000. The
committee says this project would be self-financing - how? And how much
additional flying income (only aerotow charges) would the club coffers be
guaranteed from the ten gliders in a private hangar? Would all those owners be
there flying much more and, as the plan says, "generating substantial
extra revenue" for the club? And if the field remained muddy? Even if this
project cost BMGC nothing at all, and took up no committee time or effort, the
knock-on effect on future club development plans cannot be ignored. At some
point for example, we may want to build additional hangarage for club owned
gliders or tugs. A private hangar would benefit only a few members, their
gliders would still need trailer spaces, the immediately full hangar would be
sterile and there would be little likelihood of being able to build another, so
these owners would forever be the favoured few. If owners occasionally don't
have time to rig, then hangared club aircraft are there for them to fly, and
those do earn good money for the club.
An
alternative means of generating more revenue from the trailer rack gliders
would be to charge an annual rental of say £500 but include 20 aerotows in that
fee (not exceeding 2000'!). That would certainly incentivise owners to fly
more, guarantee the club's revenue, and dis-incentivise only those whose
gliders come out on rare occasions - which is fair I think, with trailer space
limited and at a premium.
A
fundamental policy proposed in the 5-year plan and Mission Statement is that
advanced training should be the priority and not basic training. Advanced
training (and I mean post-solo development in the broadest sense) should be a
key strength, but so too should basic training. The plan asserts that the basic
training we provide is too expensive because it is all aerotow - which is
complete nonsense. Our long flight times make basic training very effective and
competitively good value overall. Cheaper aerotows (or basic training
packages?) would improve value further. Course based training also uses weekday
off-peak time and keeps the club equipment utilised and earning at these times.
Various reasons are given why we cannot attract newcomers, e.g. that no
population centres are close by, and yet our one-hour travel time catchment area
is huge and populous! Newcomers are the future of the sport and we simply have
to generate our own, and younger ones at that. We should focus on how to do
this, rather than announce our disinterest in it. Our plan certainly cannot
rely principally upon other clubs visiting us for advanced training.
I suggest
that our "mission" should be - to become one of the best training
centres in the country, from trial lessons and basic instruction, right through
to being a hub site for advanced ridge and wave, and cross-country development.
This is what will continue to subsidise and develop our unique club flying,
especially at week-ends.
The
informal consensus seems to be that the club should not grow excessively, and I
support that view. The plan also asserts that BGA targets call for 13% growth
in numbers year on year, which is just plain wrong! The BGA's strategy tasked
clubs with trying to grow their memberships by 13% on average over the 3-yr
period 2003-2006. It is quite likely that BMGC will achieve this, if anyone
cares to do the arithmetic. That apart, we do have an obligation in the
National scheme of things, it would be very selfish to say we don't, and we
should try to grow, in a controlled and sustainable way.
With ongoing improvement in the field, fleet and facilities, I believe the club
could quite comfortably grow over time to 40 gliders on site and say 160
members. This represents significant financial growth.
A
widening range of training opportunities, together with gradual growth in the
core membership, does necessitate ongoing improvements in the facilities and
the field, all of which benefits the whole membership, and not just a few. I
have suggestions to improve the facilities and the field layout - sketch plan
to follow (don't know if I can post that here though?? - perhaps Mark can
advise?).
Despite
the committee's suggested role for BMGC - mainly advanced training - it
proposes to keep two ageing K13's with no plan to replace either during the
next five years. The 40-year old K13 design is outdated, they are becoming
impractical and expensive to maintain, and re-sale values are falling. To fit
with our "advanced training" mission the committee proposes at some
undefined point, buying a high-performance two-seater, a DG1000/Duo Discus etc.
A recently offered 11 year old Duo sold for £58k, a new DG1000 would be rather
more. Is there really a steady supply of club members and visitors willing to
pay £100 or more for a two-hour advanced cross-country training sortie? In this
5-year period I believe we should sell both K13's (while they are still worth
something) and replace them with glass two-seaters that have good performance,
plenty good enough for cross-country training, without being so expensive that
no-one will want to hire one. If we intend to spend c.£65k, I propose we buy
two good-performance multi-role gliders (that fit in the hangar, and are not
too heavy), rather than one big high-performance advanced training glider that
may turn out to be an expensive under-used white elephant.
Peter
Saundby mentions that more enterprising cross-country flying is needed, but
points out the lack of interest generated by the idea. This suggests there is
not much club demand for training to achieve that goal! Bringing our own
ab-initios through a complete system, and conducting cross-country training as
a hub establishment (both of these weekday functions), together with some
expansion of our base membership, may re-ignite the more adventurous attitude
that existed once. The purpose of cross-country development should not
primarily be aimed at turning out competition pilots - advanced ridge and wave
cross-countries are as challenging and satisfying as any competition, and
demand high degrees of skill! I believe that moderate performance affordable
glass 2-seaters are what we need to fulfil these multi-role profiles. K21 type
performance is perfectly adequate. Peter also suggests that none of our
instructors are either competent or willing to teach cross-country skills. As
one of the six TAL FullCats I know that's not true. I have offered to run short
mid-week courses in the summer, and I'm sure a number of our rostered
instructors are competent and would do the same if presented with the
opportunity in a structured environment. Single seat lead-and-follow type
training is also invaluable and fun. This does mean we either have to actively
develop our volunteer instructors and keep them current at an advanced level,
or buy-in the skills.
One of
BMGC's key weaknesses is its reliance on the single Pawnee tug. We really need
a back-up tug to guarantee the launch facility and supplement it if possible,
and we ideally need an aircraft that is cheaper than the Pawnee to buy,
operate, and maintain. A hard strip would open up other aircraft choices, and
there are a number of recent PFA permit-to-fly types already available that,
coupled with modern electronic ignition, fuel-injected, water-cooled and quiet
engines, could fulfil the tug role. I have been investigating this for some
while now, and expect to progress over the next few months. Review, and (if
possible) replacement of our Pawnee should figure in the current 5-year plan,
and we ought to aim at having a second tug as soon as practicable.
As part
of a strategy that, over time includes significant capital expenditure and
controlled growth, a full review is needed of the Club's stance regarding VAT
registration. At present the club is being artificially constrained through a
desire to avoid VAT registration, even though our Treasurer sees benefits in
it. The substantial input tax on most of these capital purchases could be
reclaimed, mitigating the real cost impact considerably.
The
Planning Permission the Club originally obtained perhaps no longer wholly meets
our operational needs, and we should not shy away from negotiating some of the
terms again. To do this, the "master plan" that underpins and drives
our current 5-Year strategy must be a grand plan of interlinked components that
together constitute the overall objective of the membership. Any disjointed or
piecemeal development of the site would inevitably jeopardise our ultimate aim.
Finally,
for me something struck a chord when Peter Saundby replied to Graham Bowser's
debate kick-off (both posted here) and said in his last paragraph that
"......it should be the responsibility of the proposer to develop their
proposal. Please do the detailed work needed to refine and cost your
proposal." Maybe so, but ideas and suggestions being put forward for
general debate will often mean that one member's particular speciality or
expertise can contribute to the development, refinement, or costing of another
member's idea which is much better than all of us working away individually. A
lot of hard work has clearly gone into the 5-Year Plan - but none of the ideas
in it are developed, refined, or costed
___________________
Posted by
Peter Saundby on January 02, 2006
at 18:58:27:
In Reply
to: 5-Year
Plan posted by Roger Hurley on January 01, 2006 at 19:14:17:
Dear
Roger
Would you please let me have the names of manufacturers of reinforcing meshes
together with their web sites.
Some of the points that you raise were considered by the Committee, and some
are a matter of opinion. The safeguarding of the site by land purchase is a
matter of risk assesment, but there is evidence that much neighbouring land is
likely to come on the market in the next few years and this drove our plan.
What is the evidence for your sanguine view that there is no risk. Do you know
who the new owners will be? Are you aware of the problems of the Essex Club?
Our hangar acquired cheaply would be an excellent lambing shed.
At one time the Club [strictly Derrick] operated a Rally Tug but it came to
grief. While the Pawnee is old technology, it is a robust agricultural airplane
and at present we have the Neath Tug as back up. What do your researches
indicate as the best future tug?
A reinforced runway only 4M x 200M would make little difference to aircraft
getting dirty, it would only permit initial take-off. We have, with some
overlap, three runways 50m x 400m or 300m. Also aircraft rigging areas.
How many of our instructors hold a Gold 'C' or better and have flown in
contests? That was my consideration.
We wrote a five year plan in retrospect for the WDA which ended in 2008. My
original draft was intended to run from 2008 to 2020. My concern was that we
had no two seater to match the single seaters owned by members, therefore could
not provide adequate training. Originally I suggested a second hand Janus.
I am not convinced by the argument for lower performance trainers, a Ka21 is
not competitive and offers few advantages, but some disadvantages [weight] over
a Ka13. Lasham have returned to Ka13s. Diminution of value is an advantage.
Regards, Peter.
_______________________
Posted by
Peter Saundby on January 03, 2006
at 18:13:00:
In Reply
to: 5-Year
Plan posted by Roger Hurley on January 01, 2006 at 19:14:17:
Following
was sent to the Committee - (posted with author's permission) in response to
Roger's posting
Subject:
Comments by Roger H
Dear
Committee
The major
challenge apparent in this document publicised by Roger H [and Graham B] is
that they put a greater priority to improving the surface than safeguarding the
site. When I drafted the first plan I was concerned by the fact that the owners
of all our neighbouring fields were in their 70s and that their properties
might come on the market at short notice. While the reinforcement of the grass
surface is always an open option for a later date, any opportunity to purchase
land is likely to be a 'once only'chance.
A hostile
occupant of Troed-yr-Harn or Rhôs who succeded in stopping, or making
uneconomic, our flying operations would gain from being a sole bidder at the
inevitable auction of our fixed assets. I cannot agree with the opinion of
Roger H that this is "low risk". We should be conscious of the
problems of the Essex Club where a barrister purchased adjoining property and
has since been directing his considerable legal expertise to stopping the
flying operations.
Agricultural
values are about £10K a Hectare, but some return would result from grazing
leases. Our airfield is 11.5 Ha of which some 3.5 Ha is a minimum operating
area, less than the area that we now keep mown in summer. Even at the price of
£7/mSq cited by Roger [and he has not yet substantiated that figure] to
reinforce the grass in our operating area would cost £245K.
At my
figures using 'PERFO' it would be £525K. I cannot agree that a strip of 4 x 200
m is adequate for flying operations and stability problems can arise at the
edges of small but heavily used reinforced areas.
It is a
sensible idea to include a number of free [or a credit for] launches together
with a higher trailer parking fee. The same principle could be applied to the
two 'T' hangars and private aircraft in the hangar, and thiswould encourage
utilisation. An administrative complication is that we would need an aircraft
account with the syndicate sorting charges out among themselves.
Land
purchased to protect our approaches can also be used for trailer parking or
private owner hangarage although planning permission is needed for the latter.
Contrary to what Roger states, I am sure that the hedges are our property, as
is half the green lane. I had previously suggested planting hedges along our
existing wire-fence boundaries for both safety and environmental reasons. This
could be a trade-off with the BBNP for any gap creation.
Price has
to be related to what the market will bear and the building costs of a
private-owner hangar were estimated at £8K a place. Paying the building cost
could purchase a 25 year lease after which it will revert to the club and be
available for annual letting. No capital expenditure would then fall on the
club. A cost of £8K a place suggests an annual rent at 10% of £800 pa, rather
more than we currently charge for private aircraft in the hangar, albeit that
they have some club usage. If we were to add land costs, the price will come
nearer to the £12K being asked by Nympsfield. What are our members be prepared
to pay? Roger is contradictory in that he both contests the high charge, and
then infers that this would be a privileged group. Presumably the Committee
would sanction inter-member sales and a market in unexpired leases would
develop.
All the
glass fibre two seaters [Ka21 and the like] are about 100 Kg heavier than the
Ka13s and would suffer greater operating limitations without offering much
advantage, at least until the grass operating areas are reinforced. For our
members I argued that the Club should operate an advanced two seater to match
the single seaters already owned. I had thought of a second hand Janus at about
£30K. By competence to teach cross country, I was looking at those of our
instructors with Gold 'C' or above and competition experience. Lead and follow
can be done within present resources. The Committee has previously identified
the vulnerability of our single Pawnee Tug and the implications accepted.
Perhaps Roger could be more explicit on the recent 'permit to fly' types that
could do this task.
Roger suggests 40 gliders on site and 160 members. We must be nearly at that
level already.
Could
Anne supply the figures. Roger may be right on VAT, but much of our current
expenditure is repayment of loans on which tax is not recoverable.
The Committee is concerned to avoid disjointed and piecemeal development, and
this was a major river of the plan. Every planning application automatically
opens the opportunity for renegotiation, but it also opens our activities to
potential objectors. My view is that we should be wary of opening that
'Pandora's box' without a pressing need so to do.
Regards,
Peter.
_____________________-
Posted by
Anne Crowden on January 04, 2006
at 09:22:07:
In Reply
to: Re:
5-Year Plan posted by Peter Saundby on January 03, 2006 at 18:13:00:
Current membership is 166, 57 of which are full members and the rest country.
(A number
of country members are 'regulars' and in effect full - I could
go through the lists and make an educated guess about those numbers if
required).
Number of
trailers - 38 plus club trailers. (Obviously some are taken away in winter).
__________________
Posted by
Graham Bowser on January 04, 2006 at
20:50:04:
In Reply
to: Re:
5-Year Plan posted by Peter Saundby on January 02, 2006 at 18:58:27:
Peter,
You seem
VERY keen on land acquisition. If we can buy adjoining land it is a good idea
in principle if a reasonable rental yield can be achieved but it will not
benefit us at all if we get an aggressive neighbour buying nearby residential
elements. These types of people will not wait 15 years for trees to grow and
block our aerial access, they will attempt to use the courts to ground our tug
on the grounds of noise nuisance. (Remember the case of the Silencing of the
Church Bells!) As for building hangars, it would be a miracle if we got planning
permission to do so and if we did I dont believe enough people would pay
£12,000 for the pleasure. Whats more it would heighten the potential profit for
your feared "asset strippers" who might try to close us down to get
our even more substantial assets on the cheap.
Anne says
we have 38 trailers - will nearly a third want to pay £12000? Perhaps the
numbers should have been considered earlier in the process before making this
central to the plan. Spilt milk but at least this BB bought out a very salient
fact that saves us heading up a blind alley.
In my
humble (people never mean that when they write it do they)opinion, having now
seen the arguements I believe that we should forget the pipe dreams, or at
least consign them to the "nice to do at some time if ever we are
able" paragraph and concentrate on a plan 100% devoted to enhancing the
current and future flying/training experience at BMGC. As has been suggested
already perhaps the best way to end up with the best plan is to find out what
the membership actually want its club to do and be, just ask the membership
directly "what would make TAL even better for you and potential
members?".
Graham
----------------------------------------
Posted by
Roger Hurley on January 04, 2006 at
22:09:22:
In Reply
to: Re:
5-Year Plan posted by Peter Saundby on January 02, 2006 at 18:58:27:
In reply
to Peter Saundby's posting of 2 January.
I have
brochures and samples of the reinforcing meshes to give to the committee. Some
of these are in use for grass airfield reinforcement. Price wise, the more you
order the bigger the discount, e.g. more than 500m2 and it would be less than
£5/m2. A 4m x 200m strip deals with the launch point and heaviest use zone, and
the acceleration part of the take-off run. Two strips, NW and W, would be my
choices. More area or alignments can easily be added since the mesh is just
pinned down and the grass grows through it. I've already mentioned
trailer/rigging areas, using a lighter duty and cheaper mesh. I'm sure these
steps will improve cleanliness, increase utilisation of the field, and reduce
wear and tear on the aircraft.
As far as
risk assessment is concerned any neighbour complaint is likely to be about
noise or frequent overflight. Buying up all of the surrounding fields would not
solve that problem; we could never buy a big enough buffer zone. The Essex club
also could never have bought enough adjoining land to protect themselves. First
is to try to be as demonstrably neighbour friendly as possible, and maximise
our role in the local tourist and leisure offering. In case a neighbour might
turn against us we should ensure that our planning permission is robust in the
local and supra-local arena, make sure it fits our needs and reinforce it if
necessary.
I'm
alarmed at Peter's suggestion that the proposed member's hangar is going to
pretend it's a lambing shed! That's a sure way to jeopardise any future
planning application and perhaps even our very existence, once the Planners
find out, which they inevitably will. So far the committee has not declared how
a private members hangar is to be funded or its monetary contribution to the
club finances?
The Neath
tug is not something we can rely on. It costs £75 each time we call it over,
earns us nothing for each launch it does, and disappears when Neath wants it
back. It's also fearsomely noisy (see above). Our own Pawnee needs regular
expensive away maintenance. There are a number of PFA Permit-to-Fly candidate
aircraft that have potential as tugs. Some of these types are already being
used as glider tugs in Europe which bodes well. As I said, my investigations
continue and I expect to progress over the next few months.
Peter's view,
on gliders and their roles, is full of contradictions? On the one hand he does
not want lower performance trainers, but wants to keep K13's? On the other hand
a K21 is "not competitive" - in what sense? And a Janus at 360kg
empty is not too heavy (or too big), but a K21 at 360kg is too heavy?? The last
Janus I saw advertised was a 1983 model for £39,000, the last K21 I saw was a
1994 model for £27,000.
Peter
asks how many of our instructors have Gold 'C' or fly in competitions. To my
mind that's irrelevant - instead ask how many of our instructors successfully
fly cross-country? For lead-and-follow x/c training we also have a collection
pundit pilots who could fulfil that role
______________________
Posted by
Roger Hurley on January 04, 2006 at
22:15:45:
In Reply
to: Re:
5-Year Plan posted by Peter Saundby on January 03, 2006 at 18:13:00:
In
response to Peter Saundby's 3 Jan mail to The Committee (copy posted here).
As
mentioned in my reply to Peter's personal (2 Jan) email to me, both now posted
here, the threat of a malevolent neighbour cannot be circumvented through
buying-up adjoining land - the club simply could not buy enough land to make a
difference. The issues a neighbour could use would likely be noise, or frequent
over-flying (or the alleged resultant effects of those), or if we could be
shown to be operating outside of the limits applied to our planning permission.
In reality a non-abutting "neighbour" half a mile or more away could
have a go at us, and we obviously cannot buy everything. If a next-door
property did ever come onto the market it is true that there might be a
one-time chance to "buy-the-farm" (any unfortunate American slang
association unintended!) but it would be the whole farm, not just the parts of
it that we "want", and we could not afford to buy the whole farm, and
the next one, and the one after that, etc, etc. See also the points in my reply
to Peter's 2 Jan mail, posted here.
Reinforcing
the grass field immediately improves utilisation of it, through increasing the
usable days. No-one is suggesting reinforcing the whole of the operating area,
or anywhere near the cost Peter has postulated. If we were to put down a tarmac
runway it would only be 4m wide and as long as we really need for a take-off
run. Initially I costed out a 4m x 200m strip at £7/m2. I suggest we should
reinforce two take-off runs that size, areas at the trailer rack, and areas
adjacent to the club hangar. We can do as much or as little as we want at any
one time, and can easily increase the area addressed at any later time. The
cost for the quantities involved in the areas I am now suggesting would be less
than £5/m2, due to bigger discounts. These materials are tried and tested and
currently in use for grass airfield reinforcement.
Regarding
land purchase: - Ah, now we have it, as Peter says "land purchased to
protect our approaches can also be used for trailer parking or private owner hangarage".
Protecting our approaches is discussed above. We already have space for all the
trailer parking we're ever likely to need, so more land is about a private
owner's hangar. There is as yet no substantiated case for a private owner's
hangar that could house only a quarter of the private gliders on site. The
Draft 5-Year Plan published by the committee says that "the extra revenue
generated by a self-financing (sic) PO hangar could be substantial". To
put this claim in perspective, in terms of contribution to the Club's gross
profit, less than 10% of the total gross profit comes from private owner's
aerotows. If a quarter of the private owners (of which I am one) on average
TRIPLED (wildly optimistic I'm sure!) the number of their aerotows taken due to
being private hangared, their contribution to the Club's gross profit would
increase to just 14% of total gross profit. In real terms this is an increase
in of just over £3,000 ! Not "substantial" at all, actually
insignificant.
Peter
accepts that with field improvement glass two-seaters offer advantages,
therefore this is clearly what we should do. Since 80% of the Club's gross
profit is derived from training (including trial lessons) and club
single-seaters, and since this is really what funds everything else, our focus
should be on the training fleet, and the early post-solo fleet. There is no
evidence whatsoever that we need to invest a huge sum in a very advanced
high-performance two-seater. Medium performance cross-country capable
two-seaters are what we need to fulfil our training role.
As I have said previously, there are a number of PFA Permit-to-Fly candidate
aircraft that have potential as tugs. Some of these types are already being
used as glider tugs in Europe which bodes well and my investigations are
continuing.
If we
have already achieved almost 40 gliders on site then clearly we have space for
more. As far as the total membership is concerned, Anne's confirmation that we
have 57 full members and 109 country members gives pause for thought. Peter
accepts that the VAT issue is relevant to our expenditure. However,
"repayment of loans" is a Balance Sheet item and does not fall to
Profit & Loss. As far as future expenditure is concerned VAT is very
relevant.
Peter is
concerned about opening the Pandora's Box of a planning application whilst
agreeing that a planning application would be needed for a private owner's
hangar. In fact,renegotiating of our planning application maybe what protects
our very existence.
_____________________________-
Posted by
Mark Fisher on January 05, 2006 at
00:29:32:
In Reply
to: Re:
5-Year Plan posted by Peter Saundby on January 03, 2006 at 18:13:00:
This is my first posting on the board, and I hope my comments will be seen as
constructive, and will feed into Committee thinking.
In reply
to some of the points so far:
THREAT FROM NEIGHBOURS (real threat or not?)
============================================
undoubtedly there is a possibility that the surrounding fields may change hands
at some stage, but it is a matter of opinion as to how much of a risk this is.
If fields go on the open market it is true we do not know who will buy them.
But buyers will certainly be aware of the existence of the airfield and its
established use.
There are
laws relating to established use, these could work to our advantage. No-one in
the club currently knows where the conveyancing documents for the purchase of
the airfield are, so I suggest professional legal advice would help inform the
club as to the real nature of the risk here.
Can
someone brief this bulletin board with the facts surrounding the ESGC problem?
I for one find it hard to believe that a farmer would buy some of these rough
hill farming fields with the sole aim of shutting down the gliding operation.
They are more likely to complain about the noise than plant a forest on the
edge of the field. In that case we would not be able to buy enough land to
cover the area affected by the noise...!
If the
club is to be convinced otherwise, a Risk Assessment report should be produced
and discussed. If not, members will not be able to distinguish real from
perceived threats.
In any
case according to the Plan: "agreement has been reached that the club will
be contacted first if land does become available in the future" So what
more needs to be done now?
Oh yes,
we need to find some money...!!
PRIVATE HANGAR
==============
The recently released stats are interesting. They show clearly that private
glider flying forms a relatively small part of club income. The draft Plan
asserts that the extra flying generated by the PO hangar (because no rigging
required) "could be substantial". Some extra income certainly, but a
small increase on an already small source of income.
Regarding
access by rigged gliders across the green lanes: ownership of hedges is
obviously an issue but there is no point us discussing it among ourselves, the
facts need to be ascertained from land registry, conveyances etc. Legal advice
again.
But in reality, We do not have the land and it is not for sale. If an owner
dies, the whole farm will be up for sale possibly by auction or it will pass on
to the family. They might not want to sell us just the fields of our choice.
Peter
touches on the link between these 2 issues: ("Land purchased to protect
our approaches can also be used for ... private owner hangarage").
It is to
be hoped that the desire by a few members to build a privately syndicated
hangar in an adjacent field does not give undue priority to the aim of securing
land for protection of the flying.
I am
opposed to the private hangar partly because it will create a two tier club,
but mainly because it will take valuable Committee effort and energy away from
other more important issues.
PLANNING
PERMISSION (PP)
===================
Peter's reluctance to open a Pandora's Box is sensible. But the PP required for
the hangar will open this up anyway. Gaining PP for a private hangar (by no
means a certainty) might preclude other developments that might be of more
benefit to the club in general, such as extending the clubhouse or building a
tug hangar. Re-negotiating our rights before we need to build anything might be
to our advantage.
GLIDERS
=======
K13s are OK for general training, but we do need something better for XC
training and ridge training eg to the Beacons. We used to have a glider (the
IS-30) which fitted this role very well. There is definitely an issue about
spin training. Buying a glider that readily spins (the Puchacz) is in my view a
bad idea because it is not the sort of thing we should be using for close hill
soaring. there may be a temptation for the P2 to slow down near the hill, due
to instinctive pulling up in lift or incorrect perception of attitude when
flying along a rising ridge. The K13 is more forgiving in this regard.
-____________________
Posted by
ken b on January 12, 2006 at 11:47:32:
In Reply
to: Re:
5-Year Plan posted by Mark Fisher on January 05, 2006 at 00:29:32:
Taking
again the point of replacement 2 seaters.
We do
urgently need a machine that can be spun legally with the cockpit weights we
normally encounter.
Preparation
for my Ass Cat revalidation was greatly hindered and much delayed by not being
able to spin our K13's.
There are
a lot of heavies in this club, me included, but even flying with a lightweight
instructor, all that could be attempted was no more than 'incipient spin' with
an instant recovery to stay legal.
I can
tell you now that this is most unsatisfactory preparation, whether for our new
pilots or for instructor preparation.
Spinning
is exciting and dangerous, the former if you have been prepared for it, the
latter much more so if you haven't! What a shame that we offer good training
but not all of the syllabus.
I don't
want to get involved with arguments with BGA Technical about whether non-
aerobatic includes or excludes spinning, that is for better brains than mine.
What I do need is that the glider is un-ambiguously judged safe and that the
spinning I do has no weasel clauses that allow the insurer to duck out of
responsibilities.
If we are
to offer pilot training we must have a machine that can be spun at the cockpit
weights that we normally encounter.
There
seems to be a 'bogeyman' view of the Puchatz which precolours discussion on
training 2 seater types. It has big control serfaces and will spin readily under
control, it will also recover readily for the same reasons. It has less safety
margin in that it can be readily operated 'nearer the edge' than other 2
seaters and needs the respect that comes from proper type conversion and
maintained currency.
It is worth rembering that Mike Ashton had a Puchatz as his private glider.
Some demon glider then!
The K21
is not a spinning machine unless you are very clever but would serve admirably
for other training.
There are
others two seaters and they each have the merits and limitations.
We should try to have unprejudiced view of what is needed. Few of us are
experts on everthing. We have an excellent CFI and should be guided by him.
Have you
noticed what I am doing-- getting down to detail.
For all that the lofty and flexible ( i.e.vague ) Strategic Plan is lauded, and
detail resisted, in the end we all end up in the detail justifying our own
arguments. The devil is in the detail!
So Mr
& Mrs Committee, please can we have more specific details of the options
and what and when we plan to achieve.
Ken
Posted by Graham Bowser on January 05, 2006 at
09:22:35:
This BB has bought out a number of very
significant matters, not least the fact that we are in fact a commercial
organisation "selling" BMGC services which it seems accounts for 80%
of turnover, mostly to outsiders.
We only have 57 FULL members but between us
we own 38 gliders (probably highest ratio in the UK) but we dont generate
enough reveue ourselves to cover even our basic costs
The main lesson learned is that our future
actually depends totally on continuing to provide a "product" and
"environment" that others want to pay for the use of. This does
indicate a greater urgency toward improving the existing facilities (field,
equipment and instruction) in order to develop further the training avialble to
all at TAL rather than devoting time to luxuries (PO hangar) which are probably
not economically viable anyway.
We obviously have a lot of unused potential
in this area (for an excellent marketing piece about Wales as a training area
see http://www.pilotnotes.org.uk/journal.html#mex )
Perhaps we should be asking Don P as our CFI
and full time instructor to outline how he thinks the club should move forward
in developing its potential.
Graham
Posted
by Don Puttock on January 05,
2006 at 09:37:46:
The subjects discussed so far are all
important, but they do only represent a small part of the strategic planning
that needs to be done. I have posted this question in an attempt to broaden the
discussion. My own rules of debate allow any ideas without ridicule or personal
challenge---ideas trigger more, a dumb proposition can inspire someone to
produce a very good one.
My question is this:-
I would be interested to hear views from
members on the facilities we have today, and what strategic moves we might make
in the future.
By facilities, I am referring to
buildings---design and presentation, airfield--size and
configuration--Information systems (Notams weather etc), Communications (radio
and telephones)Eating (Kitchen arrangements) Accommodation , meeting social
needs, meeting training needs. Quite a wide subject.
I believe these subjects are important
because they will impact on how well we do in the future. We all ready know
that the lion share of our hard cash comes from visitors, training, and trial
lessons.
Just to get you thinking, I could point out
some dilemmas we have today.
Toilet faciliies.
Cost if heating v building design.
Kitchen Facilities---Hygiene v public use
Camping/ overnight facilities.
Field access
Public safety v freedom to roam
Lecture facilities
Notice boards--how user friendly are they?
First impressions--are they important, can or should we improve them?
Hangar space
Trailer Parking for visitors and members.
I could go on, but I think these are enough
to make the point.
______________________
Posted by Mark Fisher on January 05, 2006 at
21:35:11:
In Reply to: Airfield
Facilities posted by Don Puttock on January 05, 2006 at 09:37:46:
Don - Just a few comments on this to help
get the ball rolling in this new direction...
I agree the items so far discussed are only
part of the picture, and I like the way you define a good debate. Certainly
defensive responses and personal attacks are not productive to the development
of a good strategy.
A defensive management is not even going to
recognise a good idea if the priority is to resist change at all costs or stick
to agendas that do not have popular support among the members.
The items you mention, although important on
a day to day basis, are not (I suggest) things we need to stress individually
in a Strategy document. The vision/strategy should result in improvements in
these areas. As Malcolm Lassan said in another posting that the state of cattle
grid is very important, but it should not need to be specifically mentioned in
a 5 year plan.
I think improvements in the things in your
list will flow from a strategy.
It has also been suggested that looking into
specifics can put the club in a project mentality mode - quick fixes for
specific problems, and I think this is very true. Too much concentration on
these things can make us think we are doing well, but can forget the real
issues.
These details are like the deckchairs on the
Titanic. The direction of the ship is what we need to be discussing. Now I am
not suggesting we as a club are heading for the metaphorical iceberg, just that
we need to pay some attention to the steering.
To follow that through, you mention "first impressions" I was talking
to someone the other day about this on the airfield.
The clubhouse is not very welcoming, let's
face it... neither door looks like a main entrance. To get in you usually have
to go up the concrete ramp, and you then have to walk past the toilets and
negotiate a pitch black corridor before you get to the nerve centre of the
clubhouse. It would be great to have the club name above the main entrance
(which should be the other door anyway). And some good signs to direct people
to the right building and the right door.
But these are the project details. I am not
criticising anyone here by the way, it is just an example. (I know it all takes
effort to do and that we rely on volunteers, who are largely unthanked for what
they do)
The point is that if the Strategy says that
we will pay attention to the external appearance of club facilities so that
they are attractive and welcoming to the visitors and members of the public
that generate so much of the income that allows private owners to enjoy the
freedom of the skies. The details will follow.
The general targets form part of a strategy,
the actual tasks involved in achieving them do not.
Mind that iceberg...!!
_______________________
Posted by Graham Bowser on January 06, 2006 at
10:18:11:
In Reply to: Re: Airfield
Facilities posted by Mark Fisher on January 05, 2006 at 21:35:11:
Agree wholeheartedly.
The people are friendly but the place as a
structure is hardly "welcoming" in the true sense. Indeed I would say
it is intimidating to most visitors and even to gliding visitors probably
appears a bit of a pit inside.
If the club existed only to service its own
57 members, well its up to all of us what standards we want for our home, but
having clearly identified that BMGCs existence depends totally on its
"external sales" for its survival then we have to develop our 5 Year
Plan around a business plan which enhances those sales by making TAL a clean
welcoming place in every sense with quality infastructure which will encourage
return visitors and allow us to create an ongoing revenue from exploiting the
uniqueness of our site by generating more training revenue during the weekdays
throughout the year.
It is clear that the main emphasis has to be
on generating reliable ongoing extra income during non peak periods (weekdays
other than in the expedition season) as a first priority and this requires
expediture on the infastructure needed to achive this as a main priority.
______________________-
Posted by ken b on January 14, 2006 at 17:35:43:
In Reply to: Airfield
Facilities posted by Don Puttock on January 05, 2006 at 09:37:46:
More kitchen space with two functional areas:
One for proper food preparation where
eventually we might consider employing a caterer or cook, as at most
established clubs and in particular for or visitors
a second area for those members who bring
food to heat or reheat, make drinks, toast sandwiches etc.
The existing kitchen is just too small.
More space for briefings, for teaching and
for visitors to wait in comfort.
Elsewhere I have proposed the rear of hanger leanto for a classroom, overnight
accommodation and ablutions. This could free a lot of space in the existing
clubhouse building.
We need access to the club house which is
not via the windy, exposed doors that exist now, or otherways we need some
storm porches around the doors or better still some sort of conservatory.
See also my earlier note on the Tug Hanger
for which I believe we already have planning permission, and which would
integrate well with all the above suggestions
I would rate these developments as much more
important than a members hanger.
Ken
_____________________
Posted by ken
b on January 06, 2006 at 19:05:15:
My concern is that this is supposed to be a long term strategic plan, not one
that is redesigned from the ground up each time a different committee, with
different views about how to proceed, is elected. Some long term if we have to
chop and change it after each AGM!
Taking Peter's point that we should trust
them or replace them as the committee, is I suppose no more than I would have
expected.
Unlike Peter, I don't think that he or the committee has the perfect answer for
the perfect future, well meaning though they be.
The committee is elected to serve the
members, not in isolation by dictating what will happen, but by consulting the
members and then devising a plan that has majority acceptance. It is the
majority acceptance that will provide a stable and well found long term plan
that we can all work to.
To put it in the modern, (possibly not very
modern) management speak - if the membership feel that they 'own' the plan they
will work much more to the success of that plan, than if as now, it is being
imposed on them in isolation.
It really is a cop-out and a rather arrogant
one I feel, for a committee member to suggest 'if you don't like what I do you
can replace me at the next election' How much nicer if we had compassionate
consultation and dialogue. Both sides would feel much better about it, I am
sure, and the outcome would be a plan we could all support.
Happy new year to you all, I will be up as
soon as my back will let me.
sincerely
Ken
__________________
Posted by Roger Hurley on January 06, 2006 at
19:13:59:
In Reply to: strategic
plan posted by ken b on January 06, 2006 at 19:05:15:
Hear hear Ken,
What you have to do now is say what you like about the draft 5-year plan, what
you do not like about it, what ideas and suggestions you have for the Club's
position in the scheme of things, and how to assure it's survival and
development over that term. Your ideas will lead to other ideas and that's how
we progress to an exciting consensus that we can all "own" and get behind.
Hope the back gets better soon!
Roger
_________________
Posted by ken b on January 07, 2006 at 23:19:59:
In Reply to: strategic
plan posted by ken b on January 06, 2006 at 19:05:15:
This plan is too vague, it is just aims. I need some specific objectives with a
timescale attached. I need to know what and when we plan to achieve.
My desires are:
Proper club accomodation for members with a
bunkhouse and decent showers / lavatories. Behind the hanger is space for a
lean to extension which could accomodate this. It could also have a proper
classroom.
The Talgarth Hilton really is disgusting.
Many of our members come some distance, we must make it easy for them to stay.
The argument that we would deprive local traders and diminish our standing in
the community is wearing a bit thin. I don't want to spend £25 a night for
accommodation when I have consecutive duty days.
A hanger for the tug and a motor glider away
from the main hanger with dedicated maintenance and stores facilities. This
would free up more space to expand the club fleet.
I am told that we cannot have access to the
hanger from the clubhouse for insurance reasons associated with fire risk.
Remove the tug and remove the limitation.The clubhouse would benefit. Access to
the various parts could be made from within the hanger avoiding the worst of
the weather and the ridiculously long and wastefull corridor absorbed into the
larger rooms the clubhouse needs.
The club needs a motor glider, for contray
to the committee, I believe we should be undertaking training from ab initio
upwards. Much circuit and approach work could be accomplished in this along
with ridge familiarisation. Whether this is the Falke or another capable of
both tugging and training.
It has been mentioned elsewhere that we
should not be afraid to renegotiate our planning limitations. We are a
succesful local industry bringing much wealth into the this community, this is
one of our strengths and should be used to support our planned development.
Good relations with our neighbours are necessary, but on an equal basis,
sometimes I get the feeling we have good relationships by not asserting our
rights and by being too submissive.
The bad weather limitations of the site need
to be addressed early. Full credit should be given to Clive and his helpers for
the work so far, but more is needed. On many a good flying day members stay
away when they expect the field to be too muddy. These are lost opportunities.
We need a long term plan to clean up the runways and rigging areas. We also
need a wash down area for aircraft with proper drainage. The area by the trough
gets badly poached.
The club fleet needs updating. We must move
on from the K13's.
Good that the plan intends getting another Junior, but could we do with
something with more performance? A progression route? And while we are at it a
cheaper to fly and ultimately disposable K6 should not be dismissed so lightly.
These matters need discussion.
The members hanger idea appeals and I would
like to participate but it needs to be carefully thought out. I would like it
to work but I suspect it won't. I am very concerned that this development would
take the focus off the real needs for all the club members. It would after all
be a facility open only to a few.
I would also like to see proper facilities
provided for caravans and camper vans. Not a great earner in itself but it
would generate more income from flying and certainly make life more pleasant
for pilots if their other halves were happier about coming to the field.
I really am sorry if the committee considers
my input threatening or unneccessary but I think we all have something valid to
contribute. I want to participate.
Ken
__________________
Posted by Graham
Bowser on January 07, 2006 at 00:23:22:
It is wrong for a member of the committee to
send private emails in response to entries on this BB and then cite "lack
of time" for failing to post the reply here where all can see it.
Labelling those who bothered to make input
as a nucleus of discontents is more than "dissapointing". Ideas and
feedback were asked for and given by a few but given the instant rubbishing of
early postings it is not suprising that many have shied away from raising any
ideas whatsoever. Hardly the way to foster any sense of ownership or belonging.
The discussion has been very
educational,actually revealed the nature of the real areas which need to be
addressed for the financial security of BMGC and has been very revealing about
who actually holds the reins. End result? Discontent where non existed before.
_______________________
Posted by Graham Bowser
on January 08, 2006 at 19:47:57:
This may sound off the wall but should we be considering a Turbo for a
higher performance 2 seat training ship ?
It is clear that members' flying depends on revenue from outsiders. If
simple expedition visitors don't actually make us that much money and if we
decided to significantly enhance BMGCs position as a Ridge/Wave/Mountain
training site offering serious courses (March to October) which could generate
significantly more revenue without affecting that which already exists would it
not make sense to have a thermal in the boot so that the training can stay in
the air that much longer, and go further in search of better conditions
(remember airtime = money) with no fear of inconvenient retrieves ??
Guess the questions are; would the increased revenue cover the increased
costs and make a good profit, would its existence make it easier to generate
more sustainable course demand / income?
Don't be scared off, post a reply - I've been assured that most of the
committee actually welcome the input.
_________________________-
Posted by Mark Fisher
on January 09, 2006 at 12:45:58:
In Reply to: Make The New 2 Seater A Self Sustainer
????????? posted by
Graham Bowser on January 08, 2006 at 19:47:57:
Now we are getting into proper brainstorming!!! Yes it sounds a radical
idea, I wonder if anyone has thought this one through before? It had not
occured to me.
I think it is an idea that should be pursued, definitely. There will
always be someone willing to strangle any idea at birth, but we really should
look at both sides before we dismiss anything.
Now we know the areas where club money is generated, we should look at
all ideas that could help increase that activity.. And this could be one of
them.
Some sort of rough analysis would be useful, with numbers attached. Any
takers?
____________________-
Posted by ken b on January 14, 2006 at 17:08:09:
In Reply to: Re: Make The
New 2 Seater A Self Sustainer ????????? posted by Mark Fisher on January
09, 2006 at 12:45:58:
We have difficulty some days, in some
directions when the field is bad, launching heavy gliders.
It would seem to me that the extra weight of
tehself sustainer might make matters worse.
Most sustainers don't have self starters,
for as far as I know, so we couldn't use the glider's engine to help push the
launch. (The skill levels and dangers also concern me)
I think Peter is right, for different
reasons. In this case we need to buy more field to get these heavy gliders off.
Sorry about your fireworks but we need to be
objective.
Ken
_____________________
Posted by Don Puttock on January 17, 2006
at 12:47:06:
In Reply to: Make The New
2 Seater A Self Sustainer ????????? posted by Graham Bowser on January 08,
2006 at 19:47:57:
If it were possible to achieve, a motor
glider with good X country performance would be an extremely useful tool.
It could potentially allow the club to
complete X country endorsements for all pilots in the Southwest (no other club
owned and managed facility exists in the SW). It would allow advanced training
in both navigation and cross country flying.
There are a few hitches.
It would need to have a sensible take off
weight.
We can only operate one motor glider from the site under present planning
conditions. We already have a motor glider on site.
It would need to affordable.
Instructors would need training.
I am sure the "hitches" could be
kept to a minimum.
I have no personal experience or knowledge
of the types available. Does anyone know of any suitable aircraft?
Don P
__________________
Posted by Martin Pingel on January 10,
2006 at 11:16:17:
seeing that this BB seems to be turning into
a bit of a wish list I thought I'd put mine forward:
1. Weather always to be 3/8ths with a
cloudbase at 7000ft and 5kt thermals.
2. Glider to be rigged and prepared for flight by dedicated ground crew on
arrival at site.
3. Free aerotow to whatever height.
4. Recovery crew at the ready in case of land out, who could also clean my car
whilst waiting.
5. Free beer at end of flight.
6. Glider cleaned, de-rigged and batteries on charge for next day.
7. Membership fees to remain the same!
Pretty reasonable stuff - what do you think?
_________________
Posted by Clive Micklewright
on January 11, 2006 at 09:03:58:
In Reply to: Wish list!
posted by Martin Pingel on January 10, 2006 at 11:16:17:
Martin---you forgot the relaxing massage of
all your aching bits that get stiff when confined. It is good to see a new name
on here.What are the views of the majority of members that have not contributed
yet? Roger has been encouraging contributions and as a member [rather than a
committee member] I would personally like to see more inputs.I am sure members
are checking comments and have views--lets have them shared. I believe the
committee manage a difficult job reasonably well and at least have had the
foresight to attempt to map our future. Strategic direction rather than fine
detail is required.There must be thoughts out there on the work so far so
please contribute so that we can all see what members think.Looks like a
cracking day even at 9am. I can see the windsock from my office-and expect to
hear old gazpa later!--very frustrating!
______________________
Posted by Roger Hurley on January 13, 2006 at
19:42:19:
These are the stats returned to the BGA. I
know, I know - lies, damned lies and statistics - do your own analysis!
|
Year ending 30 Sept |
Full Flying Members |
Private Gliders |
Temp Members |
|
1999 |
68 |
24 |
187 |
|
2000 |
77 |
38 |
193 |
|
2001 |
45 |
26 |
171 |
|
2002 |
77 |
30 |
205 |
|
2003 |
79 |
32 |
447 |
|
2004 |
77 |
37 |
310 |
|
2005 |
57 |
38 |
400* |
The Club pays a levy to the BGA based on
Full Flying Members (FFM), regardless of whether or not one of our FFM's is
also a FFM at another Club. Our Country Members are by definition principally
members at another club which means the other club will pay the BGA levy, and
we will not.
The 2005 data is as mentioned by Anne in an
earlier posting, where it is also established that we have 109 Country Members.
*The 400 temporary members is my own estimate based on the number of trial
lessons flown. All of the 2005 numbers are preliminary and the detail may
change I guess.
It looks as though a proportion (perhaps
20??) of our 2004 FFM's, who were also FFM's at other clubs, chose the cheaper
route of TAL Country Membership in 2005 reducing their individual subs by
two-thirds. On the other hand, overall there appears to have been a big
increase in Country Members but, surprisingly, no increase in flying
attributable to them, and no increase in flying at all? The finances, more
specifically the revenues, when set against these stats might make for
interesting reading and key deductions that should be applied to a future plan.
I'm sure we can post at least a rough-cut of these here - be patient and our
Treasurer may succumb.
Discuss.
______________________
Posted by Don Puttock on January 17, 2006
at 12:21:36:
In Reply to: Statistics......groan.....
but read anyway! posted by Roger Hurley on January 13, 2006 at 19:42:19:
Roger
I am not quite sure what point you are
making? Looking at the stats, I can see nothing surprising, but I am probably
missing the point.
There is a history to country membership, it
is a development of reciprocal membership that offers reciprocal members the
opportunity to pay a one off annual fee instead of daily membership. This does
increase the number of launches because a visitor has already paid his
membership fee (a sunk cost in accountancy speak)and so he does not need to
factor it into his decision to fly.At one time (in Dereks days) the only
revenue the club might see was the reciprocal membership fee---launch fees went
to Derek then.For this reason we never entered free reciprocal arrangements.
The migration to country membership is not
really surprising, and although the members who have migrated down pay a third
of previous charges, the club revenue is reduced my significantly less because
we dont pay the BGA levy. In the scheme of things the revenue reduction is
small, and in my view offset by the greater willingness to take a launch on
less interesting days.
Are you
suggesting that this strategy be changed?
SECTION B:
Feedback received by Email and not posted on the Bulletin Board
From
Robbie Robertson 5 Oct 05
I talked
today to Brian Brown at Borders GC re their hanger and here are some of the
snippets he gave me... may be worth remembering!
No action
required at this stage but some thought provoking figures here ... makes our
charges look very high!
Robbie
PS They
do 2500 launches per annum and say they need to have 3 tugs on site to
manage!!!!
*****************************
From Peter Saundby 6 October 05
Dear Robbie
In my original 12 year draft plan I did
propose a private owner hangar on the lines of the one at Millfield and
I have previously suggested that a hangar could be capitalised by selling
25 year leases for the cost of construction, say about £8000/slot on my
reckoning. This is £320 pa, but if the Club has to capitalise with borrowed
money, 10% on capital or £800 would be a commercial rent without taking land
costs into account. Maintenance also has to be considered. We are unlikely to
obtain any grant and there were special circumstances which applied to the
relocation at the Borders. Typical commercial rents for
hangarage are charged at Bicester at £1000 - £1200 a year for powered
aircraft much smaller than a glider. Our charge of £500 pa is low, but we do
impose conditions relating to Club use. With all club assets, any
trading of leases must be with the consent of the club. When a glider is
accommodated, there is also some associated parking space needed for
the trailer and this implies an inclusive charge.
Allowing members to draw lots for a
subsided asset is not good commercial sense.
We might with profit reserve spaces for
Club owned single seaters and then sell hangar space to visiting two seaters or
other large gliders. Our nightly charge of £10 equates to £3,650 pa.
Regards, Peter.
GLIDER STORE
[Borders GC] (Attachment from Peter saundby re Millfield Hanger)
As reported in S & G,
Apr – May 2005. Vol 56 No 2.
Overall dimensions:
88 M x 18 M
11 bays each of 8 M x 18 M
= 144 Sq M.
Side door openings 7.8 M x
2.3 M.
Construction costs at
Milfield:
Grant: £ 93 K
Club: 1/3 £
46.5 K
Site Preparation + 20% £ 35
Total £174.5
K
Cost per bay £
15.9 say £ 16 K
Building
cost /Sq M £ 111.00
Operating revenues:
@ Two gliders per bay
Capital cost per glider £
8 K
Rent @ 10% £
800.00 pa
Options for fund
raising:
1. Applications for
grants:- unlikely.
2. Sell a 25 year lease
for £ 8 K per glider.
3. Bank loan and rent a
glider space at £800 pa.
Questions?
What space have we at
Talgarth for construction?
How many members would
pay, capital or rent?
Therefore how many bays?
********************************
From Martin Pingle 8 Nov 05
Robbie
I think that the mission
statement and actions to achieve it are all very positive and I would like to
congratulate everyone on the committee for agreeing on a realistic and sensible
plan. So often committee's can go off on tangents that don't reflect the
views of the members at large, but on the whole I think you've got it right.
There are a few minor
points that you may want to consider for inclusion, if it's not too late and if
we can afford it:
1. Tarmac the car park
area and access road up to the cattle grid (this would prevent a lot of the mud
and muck getting into the club house, and make the club more presentable).
2. Install a hardstanding
area with drain and soakaway for washing down gliders.
Regards
Martin
*******************************
From Tony Crowden 21 Dec 05
Hi Robbie,
If nothing else Roger Hurley's email has done some
good if only to reminded me to provide comments on your 5 year plan.
Firstly I would like to say thanks for the enormous amount of work you and
the committee have put in over the years. Not a lot of club
members realise that the club doesn't run itself and its taken a huge
amount of effort by the committee to get where we are now.
I agree wholeheartedly with the majority of the
plan but I would like to raise a few points itemised below:-
BMGC Mission Statement. I
personally would like the club to keep expanding slowly (definitely not as much
as 13% p.a.). We should concentrate on training peculiar to our site,
e.g. ridge and wave soaring. Air experience flights should be encouraged
as a source of revenue for the club and enable the club to run 7 days a week
(we couldn't do that with expeditions and club members alone). We
have the advantage that we control when the A/Es are scheduled to
fly which evens out the glider utilisation.
Site Security I completely agree with your
views on trying to buy the fields to the East and West of the airfield.
If we can't buy the fields would it be possible to get an agreement
with the farmers to keep the airfield approaches free of trees or would it
be better to keep it on an informal basis?
As a passing comment on the SWOT Analysis.
The reputation of Talgarth among other gliding clubs is not as ideal as
you think it is, in fact it's split into to camps. One half think
its a great place to fly, but the other half say the airfield is too small
and too dangerous to fly from!
Ref Site Extension 6.2.1
This field is of no value to us except as addition space for a private
hangar. Therefore, if the field is purchased with a view to building a
private hangar the cost of the field should be borne by the individuals who
want the hangar.
Ref site Extension 6.2.2
This field is of value to the club as a whole therefore I agree it should
be purchased out of club funds if the opportunity arises.
Two Seaters Getting a high
performance fragile two seater glass glider would be a disaster in the Talgarth
environment. Yes I agree it would be nice to have a glass two
seater in the club fleet but it needs to be less "high
performance" and more "high damage resistant". In
addition, any glass 2 seater would have to be able to be used through out the
winter quagmire period. NB We have two glass two seaters on loan to the
club at the moment. Up until last weekend the Silene hadn't been flown
for two months and although the Puchhcz is used more often but
neither has been cross country. Yes, I know its not been cross
country weather but have the committee considered what the break even
utilisation cost will be on a one of these machines?
Single Seaters There is
absolutely no point in replacing the K6CR with another Junior. Two
different types of glider give early solo pilots the chance to compare
one against another.
Finally a couple of extraneous points I think you
should consider:-
I understand the committee is about to
spend thousands of pounds adding buildings on to the back of the
hangar. As this is going to be a significant expenditure I think it
should be included in the plan.
The "T" hangar problem should also be
addressed as part of the 5 year plan as they each take up 8 trailer
spaces. If you want to encourage expeditions to come to Talgarth you need
to take action as soon as possible to free up additional trailer parking
spaces.
Regards,
Tony.
From
Peter Saundby 18 Jan 05
Dear
All,
Roger
Hurley has sent to Clive a package concerning airfield reinforcement.
The
company has a web site www.fleximas.co.uk/ but they are a distributor
for
the parent manufacturer 'intermas' a Spanish company also with a web
site
but I had difficulty in obtaining further detailed information.
The
material is available, in two grades, a heavy and a light grade. The
heavy
duty mesh is supplied in rolls 2m x 30m but other roll sizes are
available.
It is called Fleximas HDPE Grass Protection Mesh. The lighter
mesh,
Feximas Grass Reinforcement Mesh, can be supplied in widths up to 4m.
Samples
have been sent.
The
published costs are £345 per heavy duty roll but Roger was quoted £240 a
roll,
presumably in view of the large quantity envisaged. All the prices are
less
VAT. This works out at either £5.75 or £4.00 per msq + VAT. To which
must
be added the pins, 1 every 2m at £44 per 100. Say another 10%, but
about
a third of the price of 'Perfo'.
The
advertised uses are for overflow car parks etc. One potential difficulty
is
that they state that traffic has to be kept off the area until the grass
has
become fully established with the mesh. They also advise setting it out
in
spring.
Roger
has only proposed two relatively small 4 x 210m take-off strips and
limited
other areas. As a tug pilot I found the 6m wide strip at Aboyne
narrow
enough. One can only just see the edges from the cockpit of a
Chipmunk
and this mesh will disappear from sight.
I
will leave the package in John's letter rack because we need his opinion
as
civil engineer. It is suggested that this be an agenda item for the next
Committee
meeting. One possibility would be for us to reinforce an area used
for
car parking. This would provide experience prior to committing to a
large
expenditure.
Regards,
Peter.
Participation
As you are aware I am one
of a group who felt that the Club Members should have been consulted directly
before the plan took shape. The next
best thing has been the Strategy Bulletin Board. I believe a huge number of good ideas have come out of the
Bulletin Board, and the Committee would do well to give these ideas careful
consideration even if the members do not send them directly to the committee as
instructed.
We need to involve members
in strategy and the running of the club. A statement to this effect should be in the
Plan.
The Plan as it stands
makes some very good points but also misses some things in my view.
We have an opportunity to
reshape the club is a way that will enhance its standing in the British gliding
scene and benefit members at the same time.
We can become a
"centre of excellence" and we can sell this product at a premium to
the benefit of regular members.
The SWOT analysis starts off well, but quickly loses its way. The Plan lists a few Strengths and
Weaknesses but the Opportunities and Threats are not even listed in the
table. A proper SWOT would have a table
with all 4 sections.
Field protection
On the topic of Threats, I
think the emphasis on threats from potential hostile neighbours is over stated,
and the proposed solution does not stand up to scrutiny. We can't adopt a policy of buying up land to
protect our interests because we simply could not buy enough. In any case the most likely threat is from
those complaining about the noise rather than from trees grown on our
boundaries. We cannot buy everywhere
within earshot.
The Private Hangar is an issue which would also need some land and I
think those who want the hangar are allowing the idea of buying up surrounding
land to protect the flying to be influenced by the need for land for the
Hangar. I do not think there are enough
members willing to fork out something like £12000 rather than rig their
gliders. It is a lot of money to find
and would represent a huge project for the committee. I believe it is a nonstarter, but if it is left in the Plan it
can only be as a possible option because in fact we do not have the land and it
is not for sale anyway.
If the Hangar is seen as
an "opportunity" within the analysis, it should be properly costed
out together with the details of the benefits to ordinary members .
I
am currently opposed to the private hangar because it will take valuable
Committee effort and energy away from other more important issues.
Fleet
The fleet needs updating
but I think there is room still for the K13s.
A cross country capable 2 seater would be good for training and of
course we need to tackle the problem of spin training. This is best left as an open statement in
the Plan, and it can be interpreted and implemented in the light of what
becomes available on the market.
Analysis of our funding
The recent stats need to
be extended with figures attached. From
an initial look at these it seems that trial lessons and the sale of airtime to
visitors and on courses are the main source of funding. Private members launch fees are a very small
part of the whole picture.
These are the areas to
concentrate on. To be credible some
financial analysis and projection needs to be included in the PLAN.
Field surface improvement
This is an area that needs
to be investigated. The PLAN is not the
place for too much detail on this - it
should be stated as a desirable direction to improve the launch rate
Tug expansion
This is something that
needs expert analysis. We could have 2
tugs, we could have PFA type tugs. We
could have a separate hangar for these to keep them safe. Having one is clearly risky. It is also old and newer technology should
at least be investigated.
Financial analysis and
projection for this would be useful if we have some figures. Otherwise it can be stated in general terms
in the plan.
Training
Pre solo training
especially in the form of courses, is a great money spinner, and it can happen
mainly in the week, so it impacts less on weekend flying by members. The club needs to rid itself of the delusion
that we are a gentleman's flying club or a club just for experienced
pilots. The club needs the money and
the instructors need the experience.
Size of Club
we should pay attention to
BGA targets. We have to play a part in
keeping the sport alive. The statement
about 13% per annum in the draft PLAN is
misleading and wrong. It must be
replaced with the actual wording of the
target which is to have "10000 full flying members by the end of
the period 2003 to 2006" This
equates to approx 13% over 3 years. As
it stands it merely promotes a commonly held misconception.
Basically I think the club
cannot expand forever, so I am in agreement with what the plan says here. In am very concerned that the ratio of
country member to full members is about 2:1.
This is unhealthy because the
company is open to a hostile takeover.
VAT policy
I believe we should stop
this cheap country membership idea. It
is selling the club cheaply. We can
command a higher price. The VAT
avoidance tactics are a red herring.
Being in the VAT club would give us the power to recoup VAT from future
purchases, maybe even very large ones like a tug.
It has served its purpose
and now is the time to bite the bullet.
Do a SWOT analysis and you will see opportunities as well as threats...!
A warm welcome to Talgarth!!!
We need to improve the
clubhouse and make it welcoming to visitors.
It is our shop front. At the
moment it is a pit.
Web site
we can and should use the
internet to our advantage. Look at what
Cambridge have done with booking training.
This is an excellent move.
Mark Fisher
30 Jan 2006
***********************************************
E
mail from Mike Codd dated 31 Jan 06
Robbie
I think you know, but just to
confirm...I believe the draft strategy is sound and only needs
tweaking. It positively reflects the committees' desire to safeguard
and develop BMGC. The feedback generally supports this viewpoint. It
has raised some interesting ideas. I thought Tony Crowden in
particular made some sensible points. Below are my
additional thoughts on proposals already contained in the strategy,
plus my reaction to new proposals from the members' feedback:
Site Security / Expansion
Absolutely agree that as a priority we should
be ready to buy the the fields to the East or West (undershoot field)
of the airfield, if they come onto the market.
Initial figures for the private owners
hangar indicate it won't be cheap, but if there's sufficient interest I'd
like to see it pursued.
Fields to the East or South of the
airfield seem to be the only practical options for siting a private
owners hangar.
We need to carefully consider access across
the green lanes and through hedges, from both legal and practical
viewpoints.
Fleet Development
2 Seaters:
I remain to be convinced that an advanced 2-seater
is a viable investment for us....
Our mission statement rightly focuses
on advanced training. One might deduce we need to invest in a
high performance 2 seater, BUT there seem to be all kinds of serious drawbacks:
High capital and operating costs + utilisation no better than our
current K13's = No financial justification. Plus fragility, take-off
performance from a wet airfield in winter etc.etc...
We need a 2 seater with significantly better
performance than the K13's, without the above drawbacks. Until we identify
something suitable, lets keep the K13's.
Also, surely K13's are quite adequate for advanced
training in wave and ridge soaring techniques, plus instrument
flying.
Finally, BGA soaring courses offer access to
advanced X-country flying training.
Single Seaters:
Don't replace the K6. Keep it along with the
Junior. It gives early solo pilots the opportunity
to compare different types.
Could we consider a high-performance single seater
e.g. a 2nd hand Discus? Benefits could include: A higher take-up on the
club flying scheme, the possibility for lead-and-follow X-country
training, participation in competitions, and the chance for more early
solo pilots to obtain good badge flights.
Motor Gliders:
Having access to a motor glider would be a very
valuable asset to our club. For cross-country endorsements, and
navigation and field landing training exercises.
The strategy/committee should comit to explore this
further.
Airfield Improvements
Airfield Reinforcement: On the face of it a
"nice to have." Basically I'm sceptical, not least because of the
very qustionable payback. Trial it with caution.
Tarmacing the car park: I'm not convinced. Mud
comes into the clubhouse from the airfield. What diffence will a tarmaced
car park make? Better to look at trailer slots.
Glider Washdown Facilities: Not
convinced. What's the problem with a bucket & brush/sponge?
Trailer slots idea from Martin Brock looks
interesting, and definitely warrants further consideration. No need to mow
around trailers in Summer and less wading in mud in Winter are the key
benefits.
Regards
Mike (Codd)
****************************************************************************************
E mail from Clive Micklewright dated 31 Jan 06
Robbie—I actually ENJOYED the meeting last night!!
Seems like we have a team who can debate and arrive
generally at a consensus.
Pity Marks comments came in so late but I guess you
will incorporate what you can.
For my part—I had read EVERY word of the pack you
circulated—thanks.
My comments are;
More emphasis on basic training—seems to be a
theme—instructors want the experience. Improved training for cross country and
advanced training—I like the idea of stating that we aim to become a “centre of
excellence”—let`s say it!!
General comment on “airfield improvements” to be
included [e.g.better rigging area, glider washing area, possible reinforcement
of runways]
Scrap the private hangar idea—very little support
Please include the strategy of further land
acquisition—I still believe there is a strategic and developmental benefit to
purchasing or leasing certain adjoining fields. The idea of an acquisition
account is worth consideration.
Further work needed on a second/replacement
tug—general statement?
Bearing in mind that if we continue as we are we
may generate only about 100K profit over the next 5 years-a comment about this
being a relatively small amount and the need to spend it wisely with perhaps
post strategy some form of prioritisation may help.
I would like to see a comment about a scheme to
encourage new young local members.
A structured approach and initial informal
discussion with National Park planners re site development-2 tugs –extra motor
glider etc.
Clarify once and for all the VAT position
Conservatory extension to clubhouse?
Tarmac car park
Future plan for site—caravan location/parking/
camping/trailers etc
A comment about future prioritisation dependant on
income may be of use within the document.
That’s enough from me—Thanks for all your patience
and hard work.
If there is anything I can do—shout
Cheers Clive