When Regulations Hinder Progress

Dear Reader

Rules, regulations, and laws are intended to create a relatively level playing field and provide equal opportunities for individuals, both in everyday life and in the world of sports. The fact that this cannot always be achieved completely is inherent in the nature of things—or rather, in human nature itself. The myriad temptations and attempts to gain even a small advantage for oneself are almost limitless; taking it a step further would lead to criminal activity. In sports, unfortunately, more and more massive doping networks have come to light in recent years—the ugliest face of a sport that is far too dependent on the financial support of sponsors. The rule—which, unfortunately, is still not discussed enough—is this: The more money that flows into a sport, the more its independence is at risk.

Fortunately, model aviation has so far been spared the dubious blessing of large financial contributions. However, forces are at work today—especially on the international stage—that are dividing model aviation into two categories: On the one hand, a sport that’s more appealing to spectators, designed to attract sponsors and generate revenue; and on the other, the idealistic approach, which I’d like to briefly call “sport for sport’s sake”—where the motivation stems from the joy of the activity itself, whether for one’s own satisfaction or in competition with others. The world of international model aviation is largely overseen by the International Aeronautical Federation (FAI), whose Commission for International Aeromodeling (CIAM) is responsible for updating the regulations. Unfortunately, this rather bureaucratic work can also hinder technical progress. For example, RC glider pilots—with and without strings—fear electronic innovations such as variometers, stabilization systems, etc., more than the devil fears holy water. A similar situation can be observed in the F3A scene regarding gyros. Meanwhile, RC electric glider pilots have a long tradition of using electronic systems and view a ban on such technology as a step toward becoming a museum piece. Our youth are growing up with all these innovations, and miniaturization also makes enforcement nearly impossible. Well, ultimately, everyone must be convinced of their own rules. Things only get uncomfortable when one “faction” tries to impose its views on the other, so to speak. Anyone who seeks to hinder technical progress with rigid rules should also have to take responsibility for it—especially when the sport’s appeal to the younger generation is waning.

Best regards

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.