How Sensible Regulations Become Absurd

Dear Reader

We’ve all encountered those rules—well-intentioned as they may be—that seem practically pointless in certain situations—especially when we believe we’ve used our common sense. We come across plenty of such rules in our hobby as well. For example, there’s a model airfield with a prescribed maximum flight altitude of less than 100 meters that hasn’t been flown over by an aircraft since the Wright brothers, or models being weighed at F3P competitions because the rules stipulate a weight limit of 300 g (!). Only the (brain-)dead were heavier! I’ve even seen meticulous noise measurements being taken at an F3A competition right next to the highway—presumably the judges had turned off their hearing aids. Here, too, the letter of the law always takes precedence over common sense and the courage to make decisions appropriate to the situation. It must be a special kind of pleasure to spend days and nights before FAI World Championships going to great lengths to measure the models—right down to the interesting task of determining the area of an elliptical wing— even though the FAI regulations have long since abolished such requirements in favor of random spot checks during competitions—which is, in any case, more realistic and holds national federations accountable for ensuring that models comply with the rules.

When rules and laws are enacted immediately in response to specific incidents, this is always accompanied by our desire for safety and a fear of doing something wrong. An organization does not want to take responsibility and passes the buck to the next—usually higher—authority. This overlooks the fact that no collective can prevent mistakes or violations of laws and regulations by individuals. If an organization—even a powerful federation—were to claim during negotiations, for example with a regulatory authority, that its members would never fly their models near a helicopter, that they would never violate this or that altitude restriction, or that they would never fly farther with video goggles than the model remains visible to the naked eye, then this would be absurd, if not a lie. Ultimately, we can and must appeal solely to our members’ personal responsibility: Let us always conduct ourselves at the airfield in such a way that we do not grossly violate the operating regulations or even risk official intervention—up to and including the closure of the airfield. However, our associations must also show backbone. The fault does not always lie with us model aviators, and those higher up in the hierarchical ladders of professions, government agencies, and clubs do not always demonstrate more professional behavior as they rise in “rank.”

Sincerely,
Emil Ch. Giezendanner

The opinions expressed on this page by the editor—as well as by other authors of this issue—do not necessarily reflect the official position of the SMV. Readers can find official association announcements in the “SMV” section.