The Federation works for its members!

Season 20194 December 201910 min read

Reply to the ULMaG editorial “Who is the Federation working for?”
https://www.ulmag.fr/index.php?lire=edito/edito_aff.php

Dear Miguel,

In your November editorial, you challenge the reader by asking “whom does the federation work for?”. You report on the meeting of the “Vieux Deb’s” association held in November, on the theme “Where is the federation heading?”. That meeting brought together about twenty people, including five from the federation and not two (two elected members of the Board of Directors, one national technical director, two representatives of the regional committees). It resulted in a largely one-sided report by the association, whose talking points you relay. Perhaps it is time to set the record straight?

Microlight-aeroplanes and regulations

Among the subjects raised in no particular order, you mention the new regulations of July 2018. I do not wish to come back in an allusive way to such a complicated subject, which has caused a great deal of ink to flow, but I challenge anyone to show that these regulations undermine our freedoms or penalise any form of flying. Looking around the European regulatory environment, one realises how lucky we are to have preserved and encouraged this framework. In two years we have managed to secure the future of our regulations. France's election to head the EMF is a sign of this new influence. Whether people like it or not, these regulations are very widely accepted, pragmatic and preserve what is essential. They may still evolve towards greater simplification.

On the “microlight-aeroplane” trend, we must first acknowledge that it does not date from July. Magazine covers and the last few years of the Blois microlight show are not representative of the machines in our hangars. We have 30% of paramotors feeding every kind of flying, a lively second-hand market, and new machines that remain affordable if one wishes: the market depends both on customers and on what they are shown. The lesson of our European experience is that wherever classes have been split, the dynamic is negative. Here again, one cannot develop this remark in three lines. But I am confident that ULMaG will also get its information from the Federation, all the more so when it is being called into question. Everyone's opinions will be informed and balanced by opposing views.

On flight safety, we will see the trend over time, but our principles are simple: no fatalism, no extra regulation. Let us avoid shortcuts and the “why don't they just…” chatter of the squadron bar. The equation “microlight-aeroplanes” = “new regulations” = “accidents” is incorrect. Conversely, how do we explain that there were sometimes more than 30 deaths a year 20 years ago? If there is a subject that calls for perspective, a cool head and collective work, it is this one. If there is a subject that has mobilised energy and resources for two years, it is this one. One example: Return to Flying (REV) in 2018: 180 flights, REV in 2019: 600. The DGAC has agreed to undertake (with the BEA and with us) a study on “20 years of microlight safety”. Nobody has all the answers. Our recent trends are good, and that is not just chance. We will talk about it again, but without shortcuts.

The medical

On the medical question, I believe ULMaG has perfectly understood the federal policy. The no-contraindication check on first taking out a licence is already long-standing and well accepted. The introduction of the QM Sport at the start of 2019 understandably threw some people. But those who have understood the philosophy of this questionnaire have grasped that not only does it not undermine our freedoms, it is also intelligently designed. It coherently protects us from the aeronautical medical examination. Without this approach from the Ministry of Sport, our system would have changed long ago, including for those who strut around outside the federal framework and have never done anything to preserve our freedoms. Here again, let us look at what has happened in Europe.

It is a mistake to associate the Ministry of Sport with competition alone. Training, health, and the development of flying and of airfields are essential issues. The subject is delicate and has required a great deal of collective work over the past two years. It allows us to build a strong relationship in the context of the overhaul of the sports movement. To take account of some people's comments on the questionnaire, we have simplified the attestation as far as possible when taking out the licence for the coming season. For a year now, a passionate microlight enthusiast, a faithful companion of our shared history, has been very active on this subject. Despite hours of explanation, he is not convinced and is very fiery online. That is how it is. He has never, however, called into question the quality of the work we have been doing for two years.

The radio

In the editorial, ULMaG also refers to the Federation's “submission” to authority, among other things. It is good to be so nuanced. But it is all wrong. The October editorial refers to the radio text published in July. That text was a complete piece of miscasting, totally unforeseen, including by most DGAC departments. The perfect example of what not to do: no preparation beforehand, plenty of inconsistencies in application. The Federation said so. What is it doing? We are waiting for the texts of the new microlight theory test, for early spring 2020, which will redefine radio skills from the ground up. The published text formed part of the effort to give microlights access to controlled airfields, a long-standing subject that ended up getting lost over time. In the meantime, you simply need to contact the Federation in case of a shocking, shaky or incomprehensible situation. It is a bit crude and easy to speak of submission. The world, fortunately, is not so binary. One has to listen, understand, negotiate, propose and report back. That takes time, sometimes violent conflicts, but always respect. So it is not a relationship of domination that structures relations with the DGAC, but a clear-eyed partnership. Not to see, too, the good fortune we have in Europe of having such an administration is the blindness of spoilt children. A historic blindness, because it is the DGAC that made microlighting possible from the very beginning.

The lack of democracy

ULMaG mentions the distance of the Board of Directors from the regional committees. That is very funny. Two years ago we decided to involve the regional committees closely in the governance of the Federation, notably through a large joint Board of Directors alongside the usual meetings of regional committees and Boards of Directors, as well as monthly executive board meetings, which did not exist before. The last large committee took place a fortnight ago and was unanimously appreciated by all for the quality of the work and the choices made.

There is indeed one regional committee president who spends his time running down our work in a style all his own; he is a doctor of discord. I am confident in the long run: nobody listens to him any more. The web is his outlet.

Some people talk about democracy at every turn, but when it comes to counting, there is nobody there! It is not enough to puff yourself up behind a screen or to speak loudly in front of half a coach, saying “some clubs here or there” or “more and more” to bend the reality of things, mistaking a stream for a tsunami. Elections are regular, the annual reports are approved with more than 90%, the many clubs present ask questions and we answer. Some stand for election. Others are elected. Of the 20 elected members of the Board of Directors, 6 are women and 2 are under thirty. Throughout this year 2019, there have been numerous meetings of instructors, club leaders and committees. Where are the divisions? There is debate, there is discussion, but the feedback is largely positive, or else it really is “Tintin in the Land of the Soviets” in lots of corners of France, with an overwhelming majority of members lulled to sleep by the narcotic federal word.

It would also be good to change the old demagogic refrain about the grassroots and the top, the real country and the legal country, the France of below and the France of above. We are happy to sacrifice our time and energy on plenty of subjects, but we would not have so much support and such momentum if we were just a team of arrogant, pretentious “traitors”. My principle is not to make personal attacks but to try to bring teams together around widely shared projects. That is called Federating. It takes quite a lot of energy. I do not like testosterone-fuelled governance, or sterile controversies that lead nowhere.

Of course people have the right to disagree, but we need to impose a few simple rules on ourselves: do not call people to account without checking with those directly concerned; do not fall into the sometimes hurtful easy option; accept the rules of democratic life that apply to federations.

I have long appreciated ULMaG, and if I am taking the time to reply, it is because I am attached to it at a time when the aeronautical press is changing a great deal, when social networks give more importance to the video of a cat falling into a swimming pool than to listening to simple, widely shared principles, expressed publicly and with respect for difference.

The spirit of the age likes easy information, and confirmation bias where you only listen to those who already think as you do. By headlining “Who is the Federation working for?”, the implication is that we have sold out, but to whom? To the DGAC? That shows little knowledge of our relations. To money? One is allowed to laugh. To aeroplanes? Speak freely about it with the president of the FFA, who is also a friend, but with whom we have frank relations. To whom else might we be sold? The CIA? Big business? The Illuminati? Paranoid suspicion always stimulates the imagination, but it rarely gets things moving. On the other hand, when you know a little about the ins and outs of our movement, certain postures are not without irony.

Let us also avoid the crude tricks about the “historic channel” guardian of the temple. The expression should give pause for thought to anyone with a sense of history. The history of microlighting belongs to everyone. It is a bit of a shame to capture this heritage in a sectarian approach, hitting out at the Federation while building a mausoleum to Dominique Méreuze: traitors and the golden age, the true and the false, a B-movie western with its censors and its scapegoats. The script is sometimes baroque when you know the actors' past. If we had let certain people who were only driving for themselves run the Federation after Dominique's death, we would be sitting on the side of the road with our hazard lights on! And besides, if we were so cut off from the world, why would 5 officials have come to a meeting of 15 people?

So there you are, dear Miguel, a healthy clarification. I also know that on plenty of subjects you are in tune with us: Blois in 2021, the delegation of the microlight theory exam, the paramotor world championships in the Paris region, the flight safety and training policy, and so on, and that we have plenty to do together, each in our own role. I also know that you are not one to attack individuals, but your standing and professionalism sometimes feed less nuanced debates and invective. The problem is not disagreeing but listening to each other beforehand rather than hurling anathemas afterwards. It was necessary to rebalance things a little so as not to let people say just anything for free.

For two years now there has been a whole, deeply committed team, made up of elected officials, support staff, employees and committees, serving our members. There are clubs, commercial organisations, active supporting partners and ordinary pilots, generally happy with the policy being followed. As soon as we identify a problem, we try to solve it or take it into account; there are also plenty of projects and a deep renewal of the teams. That, I believe, is what a very large majority of members appreciate. Plenty of things can be improved, but systematically running things down is flying on the back of the power curve.

I will not play ping-pong on social media; I would rather mobilise people to build.

Who does the Federation work for? For its members! At the beginning of December, there are 15 360 of them.