For as long as I can remember, it has been fashionable to 'knock' the SMAE. What I have never been able to understand is why the people who complain cannot seem to grasp the fact that it is themselves that they are criticising!
Take the case of the competition license, which was abolished at the last AGM. A common complaint heard in the past was that "the SMAE is run by and for competition flyers". Run by them yes, because they are the only ones who can be bothered to get up off their backsides and do something.
For competition flyers? Well, they used to pay an extra �10-00 a year for the privilege - but not any more! Four years ago my SMAE subs cost me �15-00 per year; I now pay �6-50. This is logic?
Another common complaint is, "where does all the money go?" Any long-time SMAE official can only laugh bitterly and say, "what money?" Any one of them dare not think just how much of their own money they have spent on your behalf.
Anyone reading this could be SMAE Chairman in a couple of years or so; if you think you can do better - go ahead. In case you have not got the point yet - the SMAE is the sum total of its members. If you are a member you have no right to complain; if you are not a member - mind your own business.
Personally, my feelings are that the SMAE subs should be whatever is required to make the Society viable and hang the drop in membership. There will always be a hard core of responsible flyers who will join regardless of the cost. These are the very people who already subsidise the SMAE by performing duties for which they will never have their full expenses reimbursed. This includes team members, delegates, council members, etc.
Ah yes, and who was it who voted out the competition license and started us on a fresh slide towards bankruptcy - why the non-contest flyer who found it was too expensive to enter a contest, of course!
This same state of muddled thinking appears to be rife in other parts of the model universe too. All the important(?) decisions about model flying throughout the world are made by the FAI, or more specifically the model section of that body, which is known as CIAM. This holds an annual plenary session, in Paris, to consider rule changes, etc. These must then be approved by another session known as the CASI (the mind boggles) and then, finally, by the General Congress (GC?). Don't get confused now - the procedure is CIAM - CASI - GC. OK?
The GC is held in November, while CASI meets in February and June, so the CIAM used to meet in December. This meant that there was a one year delay between CIAM rule changes and their imposition. However, there is also a four year rules 'freeze' in effect which ends in 1988. Immediate changes can only be made for safety reasons, or 'clarification' (useful word that).
At the December 1984 CIAM meeting it was decided that the year delay was too long (with a four year rule freeze?) and the CIAM meeting was moved to April. One effect of this brainwave was that we lost a European Championships for Pylon this year due to the Czechs being told to bring it up at the next CIAM - which was too late! The move caused other complications and some people thought it highly likely that the December date might be reinstated, but no, the decision was made.
So, surprise! surprise! at the April 1986 CIAM meeting it was announced that the GC had decided that there was no longer a four year freeze and that rule changes could be approved directly by CASI for immediate use.
OK, we now have rule changes made in April and approved in June for application (presumably) the next year. Yes, but we could change the rules in December, approve them in February and use them immediately, couldn't we?
It's nice to know it is not just a British trait!
April in Pari-i-i-s, here comes a Charli-i-i-e!
We have been rather on the 'heavy' side so far this month so lets see if we can lighten things up with a true story.
A long time ago (in a galaxy far away?), when the only reliable form of remote control utilised two lines, a friend was flying a diesel powered combat model in a local park. This was suffering from a common malady of diesels in those days in that the compression lever tended to unscrew itself in the air, resulting in power coming on in short bursts with a longer and longer time between them.
Under these circumstances the motor would run for ever and the control handle was passed back and forth between us to relieve the boredom. Being more adventurous, I indulged in some low power aerobatics which eventually led to the model being flown around inverted with about two bursts per lap which meant that there was insufficient power to recover.
The owner of the model had, meanwhile, sat down in the middle of the circle and lit up his pipe (tobacco variety - not tuned).
I had decided that the time had now come to 'ditch' the model inverted, but as I did so the motor gave one last burst which was terminated with a thud by contact with the ground. There was a curious buzzing noise of increasing volume followed by a loud thwack and a cry of "'kin 'ell" from below me.
I looked down to see a disbelieving modeller clutching the bowl of his pipe in one hand with the disconnected stem still in his mouth. Beside him lay one broken off blade of a nylon propeller!
We are constantly reminded of the dangers of nylon propeller blades being 'thrown' by a motor but we rarely consider the implications of what might happen after contact with the ground.
Have you seen the light and given up smoking yet 'Haggis'? If you are out there and reading this, I'd love to hear from you.
There was a young lady of Ealing
whose husband hung planes from the ceiling.
While gazing one night
at this wonderful sight
she said, "Dearest, they give me a headache".