Morison
Posts: 97
Joined: 2/3/2005
From: Calgary,
AB, CANADA
Status: offline
|
OK, I was not wanting to pend time wading into this debate - but hey, it's a personality flaw I have.
What some seem to forget is that the FAI has laid the groundwork for most of the safety and competition rules we use on a national basis. The fact that there isn't an FAI RC Combat category, adn the fact that RC combat (scale in particular) is having huge arguments over rules is not a coincidence.
Without a doubt, the FAI is less relevant in north america, where we typically have two rule sets to adjust to, that are pretty similar for the most part. In Europe, however, when you can and will travel to a handful of countries to compete in a season, a unified rule-set is the best course of action ... hence the 'everyday value' and importance of the FAI.
There is also little doubt that in Canada we are entrenched in our own rule-sets, and generally are in sync with the AMA. Even though the rule-sets we follow owe their roots and general direction to the FAI rules ... many don't see a reason for belonging.
Membership benefits to the association are well beyond the ability to enter teams in world championships, but are definitely not tangible. Yes, affiliation with the FAI DOES give MAAC some legitemacy when dealing with the government (and yes, Transport Canada does consult with MAAC on issues pertaining to model aviation.)
Our fees to the ACC are not at all a simple matter of telling them what we'll pay (although we managed to do that a while ago) ... the ACC budget is $40,000 per year, with most of that (I believe) going to the FAI in membership fees. even if we were to successfully argue that our membership fees should reflect only the FAI pilots ... the formula that the FAI uses to set a country's fees wouldn't change, and that FAI budget would still be $40,000 - and we'd likely still end up paying the lion's share because we typically field the highest number of competitors each year.
(this discussion raises an interesting question, however, of what would happen to our country's FAI competitors if the ACC failed?)
The other issue at hand is the principle of changing the nature of an organization without regard to the origins of the club.
Let's say that a glider pilot joins a pylon racing club, because the field is great for gliders during the week when there aren't any pylon guys at the field. Word gets out, and more glider guys join the club because the work shift work and can make it out to the field mid week when it is available. Over time, some electric flyers hear about the club, and work out a field sharing agreement and grab some of the week days for electric flying.
eventually, the majority of the membership is not interested in pylon racing, and at an AGM manages to pass a motion banning all competition on the club field in order to open up the weekend days for the gliders and electrics.
Does this seem right to you?
On one hand, yes, majority rules is a good principle to work with, however ... in this case you have members joining a club KNOWING that the club has a set our purpose of promoting and participating in pylon racing. They join the club because they decide that they get what they need from the club, even if they are not after the same 'end.' Fundamentally changing the purpose of the club, in this type of situation, is morally wrong. This is no different that the non-competitor pushing MAAC leave the ACC/FAI - that is at the core of what MAAC is all about.
_____________________________
Keith Morison
Publisher
|
Printable Version
All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> M.A.A.C. >> RE: FAI 
RE: FAI - 
lol.