View active topics

(LMSC members can login to see more options)

Club and BHPA Schools Agreement?

We are re-structuring the forums, so that all topics will appear here, rather than being split up into the various different areas. The advantage of this is that it will be easier to navigate; and topics with the most recent posts will appear at the top of the list.

Club and BHPA Schools Agreement?

Postby Roy Dade » Thu Oct 01, 2020 8:46 pm

Dear All

Just thought I’d throw a suggestion out there before proposing it to the LMSC Committee meeting in Oct.

Given that we are seeing increasing pressure on sites it crossed my mind whether the club shouldn't have a written agreement with BHPA schools?

I would suggests it covers which sites were available for training, tandems, guiding and commercial pilot development plus details on fees payable to the club and landowners etc etc.

At the very least I think we should ask our two schools to let members know when and where they are operating?

I cant imagine it would add up to more than a page and the benefits would be total transparency on our relationship, some sensible separation from commercial activity and
Improved safety by warning pilots where training is taking place on any flying days?

I’d just like to thank Mark and Mick for explaining to me how and where they operate but I think it deserves to be available to all members. In fact there is more on Marks website about where he trains than on our own?


Roy Dade
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 6:00 pm

Re: Club and BHPA Schools Agreement?

Postby Roy Dade » Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:03 pm

Club / Schools Agreement Proposal to the Committee


As an LMSC club member I am concerned that the loss of Sarn will lead to congestion at Corndon (N-NNE) which is also an agreed training site. It is in everyone’s interest to de-conflict training with club members and visiting pilots.


Obviously we need to work in close harmony with our local BHPA schools however in an age of litigation I suggest we need to define our separation by having an agreement covering the commercial use of our club sites.

I think it is also worth reminding ourselves that while BHPA liability insurance provides legal protection to members, club officials and schools it does not indemnify them from prosecution, case in point the Dunstable Coaches. Neither is cover unconditional, the Tech Manual also states “Deliberate or reckless contravention will lead to loss of cover” so I suggest it makes sense that we, the Club, do what is reasonable given the risks.

An agreement could define any conditions the club might want to place on site use such as compliance with the BHPA Technical Manual and Club Site Rules. It might also define:
• which sites could be used, for what purposes
• lay down other conditions such as seasonal restrictions, notification of flying, limits on numbers of students and types of commercial activity (training, courses, tandem flights or guiding).

It would be worth adding relevant detail in the Site Guides for ease of access but a stand alone agreement would have the same effect as the conditions placed on members and visiting pilots.

Following some research I have discovered that the line taken by the BHPA is that Schools are responsible for school activities however the Tech Manual states that Section 2 Chapter 1 212 d) "Site sharing requires effective and constant liaison with other users". The lead responsibility falls to the Site Resident, our Club. I wouldn't see this agreement amounting to a lot of detail or result in major changes to where flying takes place or when. It might become a standard for review at AGM for membership approval?


I propose an agreement would help in a number of ways:

• Mitigate the risk of accidents by de-conflicting club and school flying.
• Further protect the BHPA, our club, schools and pilots from litigation. (We all pay the insurance premium)
• Protect our sites from overcrowding; in the air, on take off and in the car park.
• Strengthen club democracy by allowing members to have their say on site use by schools.
• Reduce the burden of responsibility on the Sites Officer by broadening the decision on site use.

If we do nothing:

• We are more likely to see flying accidents, litigation, increased insurance premiums, site crowding, site loss and disenfranchised members.
Roy Dade
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 6:00 pm

Return to All topics

Please note: forum postings represent the views of the individuals, not of the LMSC. Posts which insult or libel others will be deleted.