RC Model Reviews

RCModelReviews wrote:
With that in mind, and given that they're almost totally ignoring the two fastest growing aspects of the hobby (parkfliers and FPV), I strongly suspect that it won't be long before an alternative to MFNZ appears on the horizon.

Any group that offered to act as a unified voice for parkfliers and FPVers would likely get a lot of members.

MFNZ's role may well become one of organising contests for those who fly non-RC models and preserving the status-quo, rather than promoting the hobby.

MFNZ has cash reserves of almost quarter of a million dollars -- yet they have done virtually nothing (apart from attend a few airshows) to promote the hobby and all my proposals to boost the hobby here in NZ have met with nothing but excuses as to why it's too hard or nobody has time.

Now is probably a good time to get the ball rolling, if I could afford it (always the biggest hurdled for us all and no joke I have looked into it) a move to NZ get a job and help deal with this.

Get a few clubs together and sue MFNZ for pro rata of their assets (250k and bugger all spent on promo except within the fraternity ). Failing that, approach the Minister for sports & Recreation (assuming you have one) for a donation/funding to establish a body and home ground. I was involved in something similar for a pistol club some 30 years ago and it wasn't hard (in Aus anyway). A couple of nationally and internationally recognised persons proved to be the catalyst.

If you're worried about the insurance cost have a look at the audited statement for MFNZ last financial, $13k divided into how many members = how much per year . Then look at the conditions, $1000 excess......... Most household insurances come with reasonable liability cover (if you don't own a house, apply this under contents insurance). Next, if the CAA had a reasonable set of rules that covered aspects of model flying what need would there be for a group like MFNZ.

No dissrespect to Bruce but I would like to find input from others who attended or at best someone post the minutes on the MFNZ web site for all to see. MFNZ paid out some $16k last year for "secretarial services" you have to ask yourself the question "what for" if it is going to take weeks to post the minutes.

The silence and action of MFNZ is very p_ssweek, no thought for the future of the sport only a select elitist few trying to protect their self proclaimed turf.

A closed society can not survive unless it brings in new "money", MFNZ does not appear to be doing that in any form, they just shoot people who go outside the fence. Reminds me of a social experiment involving 4 monkeys and a banana (if anyone needs an explanation I'll post it here).

It's not even my country but, am I angry f#%king oath I am.

Just had a quick look at the MFNZ website.

What is the go with this Wing Badge Scheme? An unofficial licence to obtain so that one can fly unsupervised??

I fly small models in parks. Di I need a wings badge for this?
Council is currently working on a policy relating to park flying and is likely to include a restriction on weight , size , power and type of model such that it minimizes the risk of injury or damage as a result of an incident for this sort of model

How come MFNZ have all of a sudden decided to implement this policy at short notice?
The policy was advised in 2009 when the new member’s manual was released

I'm up for helping to start an alternative organisation. I'm able to offer web space, mailing list and domain name registration and management for any such alternative.

Okay, so I have been bored waiting for spare parts and decided to dig around looking for any info on SWMAC and the "situation".

Looked for anything on the MFNZ AGM (held 21/7?) and Google found this for me. I have underlined the parts of greatest concern, I have also deleted a few words which can identify the source, I felt that it would be detrimental to their position.

"Everyone had to sign in with their club and member number, I just left that blank. D___ C___ (an ___ flyer) who is an MFNZ club member was also there. I’m not sure I was supposed to be there but I was not asked to leave. There was a roll call on the agenda but that was not done.

Rather surprisingly a motion was proposed before they started that recording the meeting was to be prohibited, interesting in view of the potential issues with SWMAC.

In discussion after the Chairman’s Report D___ C___ asked a question re insurance and _____________ and this was deferred till General Business. I asked a question about the number of insurance claims made in the last year, the answer was 1 that was under the excess and was resolved between the parties involved. The insurance cost for the year was $14k odd. There was discussion about raising the fees $5 to $67pa sighting increased postage and insurance. This was surprising given that MFNZ has a contingency fund of some $250k earmarked for undefined future activities.

A motion was proposed to re-elect the current councilors en-mass, this was passed. I’m not sure if councilors are elected or appointed but the constitution was amended to allow MFNZ to dismiss councilors if required.

____________ was raised in General business, it was kind of thought that based on the US and Australian organizations experience with _____ they were better to avoid the area due to the minefield of shared use and insurance. Not to mention the problem of dealing with multiple councils. D___ C___ asked if his MFNZ insurance was valid at LEP, he was told definitely not. SWMAC was brought up but no real discussion resulted or any explanations of the events, not surprising.

Rex Kenny gave an interesting talk on UAVs and touching on many CAA activities, SWMAC was raised again with Rex expressing his dismay at trial by YouTube, again not much real dialog. I asked a question of Rex regarding the regulation of 2.4GHz transmissions that are conflicting with activities at LEP, the answer was there was not much that can be done about it but there are 2 inspectors active in the Auckland area that monitor RF transmissions. 2.4GHz is very much “anything goes”. "

Anyone expecting great things to happen at the AGM regarding SWMAC/NZJet/MFNZ etc etc got a load of sheep dung.

MFNZ is a closed shop, lethargy rules pointless fighting any further.

I have also read that MFNZ are "actively" talking with the SWIM committee to get them flying again.........hmmmmmmmmmm...thats right Bruce is not on the committee THAT'S why they are talking

There are some 2,400 members of MFNZ I just can't fathom that many people being so lethargic at the same time.

cynr100 wrote:There are some 2,400 members of MFNZ I just can't fathom that many people being so lethargic at the same time.

Heh, being a Kiwi myself I can fathom it

The term "Baaaaaaaa" comes to mind...

drg964 wrote:

cynr100 wrote:There are some 2,400 members of MFNZ I just can't fathom that many people being so lethargic at the same time.

Heh, being a Kiwi myself I can fathom it

The term "Baaaaaaaa" comes to mind...

Is that Baaaaaaaa Humbug?

Just askin

Hallmark wrote:Is that Baaaaaaaa Humbug?

Just askin

That's a good way of putting it...

I would just go out and fly.What are they gonna do?throw you in jail?prosecute you?Then the questionable actions by the council and mfnz would be brought out in the open.Would they risk that?I somehow doubt it.

cynr100 wrote:This was surprising given that MFNZ has a contingency fund of some $250k earmarked for undefined future activities..

I've intentionally not read this thread, as I didn't like the sound of it at all... as a sort of allegiance I feel towards Bruce I made time, so now I have read it all. What a C.F. - I really, really detest this type of thing... it brings out the worst in me.

1. With that sort of coin in the hands of chuckle-heads, I hope NZ has some rigorous accountability laws in place, so that that money doesn't disappear thru the cracks on "undefined future activities", or past ones for that matter. The money belongs to the members, including the paid up members of SWMAC if the fees were paid to MFNZ, for the supposed insurance if nothing else.

2. I'm of the opinion that this supposed insurance is a raw deal... seems highly overpriced, with lots of escape clauses for the insurance company. As mentioned previously in this thread by another... any examples of the insurance company actually paying out?

3. I liked the 3 News feature & the way they presented it… good one guys.

Quotable quotes by council representative Mr. Roger Fisher (incorrectly labeled in a super as being a club member) in the 3 News feature -

@ 03:11 “We want to be open and talk to them…” to the club, he means. I guess that's council-speak for 'serve em a trespass notice'.

@ 3:27 reporter asks them what did the members do wrong – “we haven’t got those details yet”. He then starts waffling about safety! If “they” don’t have any details of what the members did wrong, what’s this about safety? Oddly he then starts talking about “incidents which showed up on a You Tube thing” @ 4:08.

@ 03:34 “We’ve shut it down (the club) in the mean time until they are sorted out.”

@ 4:12 “where they flew ahh one of their model aircraft into the side of a building and destroyed it which I hadn’t been aware of”.

@ 4:23 “it was only a small aircraft but it went umm across the world… on You Tube… didn’t look good.”

4. Does anybody know of a link to the FPV video that was on the MFNZ's web site?

5. Good luck Bruce and the rest of the club.

"4. Does anybody know of a link to the FPV video that was on the MFNZ's web site?"

It was removed shortly after it was suggested that maybe they were breaking not only CAA but MFNZ rules.

I'll link this forum topic so if you have time on your hands you can dig further into this pile of dung:

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=1847