Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

KeithHallsten(at)quiknet.
Guest

Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 6:53 pm Post subject: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation

This was just posted to another list I watch, & may be seen at:



Mr. Ernest Christley posted the following to http://www.flyrotary.com/.  It

may be of interest to

EAA'rs disappointed with the current state of the organization.

=============================



Following the lead of a fellow member of the Dyke Delta Yahoo group,

Bernie, I sent the editors at EAA an email explaining why I was not

renewing my membership. It looks like Bernie and I either spoke to

soon, or our actions are finally having the intended effect. I'll not

argue the point either way, but I got some news through the grapevine

this weekend that is very encouraging concerning the EAA.



The editor of Sport Aviation has been fired.



Now, I hate to see anyone lose their job, but here is how I understand

the situation. The guy took a job editing what should be an intensely

hardcore aviation publication, and he didn't have so much as a PP-SEL.

It appears that he had no interest in flying airplanes, and even less in

building one. He was in the wrong place. That's sad; both for him and

the EAA membership. Over the past year, EAA membership dropped 20%.

Sport Aviation content was cited most often as the reason. That is sad;

both for him and the membership. He is being replaced. I wish him luck

in finding a position better suited for him, but the bigger issue for

EAA members (past and present) is why he was replaced.



The board of directors saw the 20% drop in membership and started asking

why. Have you seen the makeup of the board? Sport Aviation printed the

nominees for the next year a couple months back. There weren't but a

couple that had ever worked on an airplane, and I believe only one

nominee that had ever built anything. The rest were bean counters and

management types, with a couple academics thrown in. While bean

counters and management types are both necessary and useful, I think it

wouldn't be that hard to find a few that had built at least one airplane

and would know what is wrong with the EAA's focus. Instead, they, being

bean counters and management types, do what bean counters and management

types do. They look at spreadsheets and charts and try to draw a

picture of reality from the summarization. Spreadsheets and charts

leave out a lot of data and twist reality all to easily. Until the

membership started dropping, they assumed everything was hunky-dory, and

all the talk about losing focus was just background noise. Now the

moaning has risen to a roar. Members are leaving.



So, we've punched them in the nose to get their attention. It is time

for a come to Jesus meeting where we calmly and clearly explain what the

problem is. If you've left the EAA without an explanation, please send

a quick email to editorial(at)eaa.org and state why you left. Just a few

polite lines so that they will know. If you're considering not renewing

your membership, let them know that. If you've tried to make your voice

heard before, but feel you were rebuked, please try again. I believe

the microphone is turned your way now. If you know someone who is

trying to fix the EAA from the inside, please mention their efforts so

that the board will have insiders to turn to for advise.



It's not often that an organization as large as the EAA will see one in

five members drop out in a single year. This is an historic opportunity

to set thing straight. The people in charge will be paying attention

like never before. It may be that the editor will just be a scapegoat,

and it will be back to business as usual in a few months. I think it

more likely that the board is genuinely concerned, but they just don't

understand. If we speak up and the situation is the former, then we can

say, "We told you so" next year when the membership drops another 20%.

If the situation is the latter then speaking up now will help draw back

the 20% that left and insure that they stay.

It is my opinion that the problem with the EAA is that the leadership

has forgotten why we are building airplanes. It is NOT, by any means,

simply to have an airplane. The analysis has been done all over the

place, and everyone agrees it would be more economical and less labor

intensive to get a second job, buy an airplane now, and be in the air

immediately. *WE* as builders know that. We're not stupid...DANG-IT!

The reason we build airplanes is....get this....PRIDE!



Plane (har-har) and simple. We want to say, "I built that." We want to

compare our workmanship to the guy on the next row, and marvel at the

simplicity/uniqueness/complexity/workmanship of the guy on the next.

The more bolt-on, manufactured goods are added, the less pride is

involved. The more the leadership has forgotten that PRIDE is the

driving force and been lured astray by advertising dollars from

manufactured goods, the more they've eaten away at the heart of the

organization. Now, I've got nothing against manufactured goods, or

their advertising. There are some parts of my project that I just had

no interest in making, wheel hubs, for example, so I chose to buy those

off the shelf. The problem is that I often get the feeling from the EAA

organization that my project is lessened by it not being a kit, or by me

making my own strobes or marker lights. If I'm building out of pride,

and you look down your nose at me for building...well, that's just a

punch in the gut, and I don't really care to be around you. You can't

go around punching your members and expect them to keep coming back.



Ernest Christley

winmail.dat

Description:

Download

Filename:

winmail.dat

Filesize:

9.13 KB

Downloaded:

251 Time(s)

echristley(at)nc.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 7:37 pm Post subject: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation

Keith Hallsten wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   This was just posted to another list I watch, & may be seen at:



 Mr. Ernest Christley posted the following to http://www.flyrotary.com/.  It

 may be of interest to

 EAA'rs disappointed with the current state of the organization.

 =============================

   

I open my big mouth to much.
	




-- 

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in 

a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, 

thoroughly used up, totally worn out, with chocolate in one hand and wine in 

the other, loudly proclaiming 'WOO HOO What a Ride!'"

--Unknown

berkut13(at)berkut13.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 7:42 pm Post subject: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation

(sigh)



As you and the others likely know, the "grapevine" seldom can be relied upon 

for accurate dissemination of news.



I looked at the published, audited financial statement for EAA.  It compares 

the most recent audited years ending February 28, 2006 and 2007.  While the 

report does not give the number of members, it does show the revenue from 

membership dues (same rate for both years (at) $40).  There was a $143,667 

increase in revenue in 2007 over 2006.  Based on that, it seems membership 

increased.  For membership to have dropped by 20% in the last year, the 

membership dues revenue would have to show a decrease of more than $1.2 

million.



As for Mr. David Hipschman, he is still listed as the Editor of Sport 

Aviation magazine in the August issue.  Even if he is leaving, there is no 

way to know if he was fired.  I also looked up David Hipschman in the FAA 

database - he is a PP-ASEL for three years now and lives in WI.



It may still be a good idea to suggest that members write EAA with their own 

ideas for change or improvement of the organization, but I'm not sure that

we can take the so-called "change" as a given - or the validity of this 

email for that matter.



James Redmon

Berkut #013  N97TX

http://www.berkut13.com

---

jindoguy(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 8:52 pm Post subject: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation

Golly gosh, everything printed on the internet isn't always true? I'm shocked, truly shocked. Maybe Elvis really is dead.



Rick



On 8/22/07,  berkut13(at)berkut13.com (berkut13(at)berkut13.com) <berkut13(at)berkut13.com (berkut13(at)berkut13.com)> wrote:[quote] --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <berkut13(at)berkut13.com (berkut13(at)berkut13.com)>



(sigh)



As you and the others likely know, the "grapevine" seldom can be relied upon 

for accurate dissemination of news.



I looked at the published, audited financial statement for EAA.  It compares

the most recent audited years ending February 28, 2006 and 2007.  While the

report does not give the number of members, it does show the revenue from 

membership dues (same rate for both years (at) $40).  There was a $143,667

increase in revenue in 2007 over 2006.  Based on that, it seems membership

increased.  For membership to have dropped by 20% in the last year, the 

membership dues revenue would have to show a decrease of more than $1.2

million.



As for Mr. David Hipschman, he is still listed as the Editor of Sport

Aviation magazine in the August issue.  Even if he is leaving, there is no 

way to know if he was fired.  I also looked up David Hipschman in the FAA

database - he is a PP-ASEL for three years now and lives in WI.



It may still be a good idea to suggest that members write EAA with their own 

ideas for change or improvement of the organization, but I'm not sure that

we can take the so-called "change" as a given - or the validity of this

email for that matter.



James Redmon

Berkut #013  N97TX 

http://www.berkut13.com

---

gmcjetpilot

Joined: 04 Nov 2006
Posts: 170

Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 6:08 am Post subject: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation

I went through, I'm unhappy with Sport Aviation magazine, a 

few years ago. This is not new or just in the last year. Actually I 

thought I saw some improvement last year and earlier this 

year. When I wrote a while back, the EAA replied, incl Tom P. 

I was upset about the "fluffy" articles that where like ads and 

short on facts; I was also unhappy they dropped the Cafe 

Foundation Org group and their articles. I was told they 

where too technical. They also asked me to write articles. 

Clearly month to month they are desperate to get content.

 

They do need contributors, you and me, to write articles. To 

be fair, putting out a magazine to a bunch of eccentric hard-

core crazies like us, who actually build planes we fly, can't 

satisfy everyone. (Note: this tongue in-cheek sarcasm.) 

Seriously EAA has a lot of folks with wide interest. 

   

  The guy who claimed/implied he  was behind the shake-up, if 

that is what happen, I assume is an alternative engine rotary 

guy? Clearly Sport Aviation and their one alt engine article 

every 12-18 month would not make that crowd happy. The 

wide interest of members aside, your membership in EAA 

should be more than just the magazine.

 

 

As far as membership, the magazine is the main benefit 

people see. I can see some dropping because they don't 

read the magazine. However ALL print media is having 

problems, INTERNET and FREE VAST CONTENT.

 

-Internet has long out paced the detailed content of any 

monthly general EAA magazine could ever hope to match by 

a huge factor. 

 

-Gas prices are high and people getting out flying

 

 

The EAA does a lot of stuff behind the scenes on behalf of 

the experimental aircraft community. You really don't think 

AOPA will push for kit planes, when they lobby 

and  represent certified manufactures, corporate and non-

scheduled commercial operators. Sure there's common 

ground, but AOPA is not really orientated to our niche of GA. 

EAA is all we have. They do a lot and they don't blow their 

horn like AOPA. Not an AOPA put down, AOPA has its place 

and we need more power on Capital hill for sure. Bad 

magazine or not I'll stay a EAA member.

 

I have 20 years of EAA articles ripped from issues over the 

years, lots of good stuff. They should print monthly 

electrical, structure and general build/maintenance articles, 

not one or five every year, total. Again they need continent, but 

the Tony B. days are long gone. I suspect they don't want to 

pay for content. From their Tax return the Mag cost them a lot.



As far as the editor firing, an expert pilot or plane builder 

might know planes but not make a great editor either. Sure 

the editor should have a clue. It's like many  businesses 

where a good technical guy gets promoted to 

management, a line Captain becomes Chief 

pilot, once competent technical guys, now are mediocre 

managers and bureaucrats. Much a do about nothing.

   

  George RV-7



   [quote][b]

echristley(at)nc.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 7:24 am Post subject: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation

gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   The guy who claimed/implied he was behind the shake-up, if

 that is what happen, I assume is an alternative engine rotary

 guy? Clearly Sport Aviation and their one alt engine article

 every 12-18 month would not make that crowd happy. The

 wide interest of members aside, your membership in EAA

 should be more than just the magazine.



I neither claimed or implied that I was behind the shake-up.  I did 
	


claim and imply that dropping membership was behind the shake-up.  My 

facts may be very much in error.  Time will tell.



I am a rotary guy.  The one article they publish concerning alternative 

engines once every 12-18 months is generally full of error, bias and 

broad-based silliness.  They search out one commercial entity that has 

done the most advertising without searching out any of the other players 

that may actually have a larger impact.  That's what makes that crowd 

unhappy.  Just like wire pushers are unhappy about articles on 

electronics that ignore basic, simple ideas, and spouts ridiculous noise 

about having to get replacement components from the original batch used 

to manufacture a device.  We are unhappy that the magazine that is 

supposed to be representing an educational organization is full of nonsense.



You state, "the magazine is the main benefit people see."  Everyone I've 

ever talked to agrees on this.  Wouldn't it follow that the directors of 

the organization would realize this, and make sure that the main benefit 

was actually a benefit?  If they need articles, why do they not request 

them, right there in the magazine?  How about a few lines of text to 

refer would-be authors to set of directions on the Internet for how to 

submit an article?  If they're doing something behind the scenes, then 

use the magazine to tell the members what's happening, instead of 

printing another press release about an unaffordable jet engine that is 

to big for any of the planes we're building.  (Do any of us really care 

that Diamond Jet is meeting certification criteria?)  I can't believe 

the EAA leadership is to dense to see something so obvious, which leaves 

me with only one explanation.   They don't care.  In the same way that 

TV broadcasters don't really care if I enjoy the show, as long as I sit 

for the commercials, the EAA leadership doesn't care.



Well, that's fine.  They don't have to care about my sensibilities.  If 

they have some nefarious "behind the scenes" activity going on, then 

they need to tell me about it.  Until they do, I refuse to be the beaten 

wife that repeatedly returns to an abusive home.  The EAA is not a 

monopoly and never will be "all we have".  It's just what we've settled for.

jindoguy(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 9:51 am Post subject: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation

Ernest, These things happen and I am sympathetic. I, too, have little use for "Martha Stewart Flying". I always complain each time I re-up that although the form as many reasons for "Why are you joining/renewing?", not one of them is "I am building an airplane". 

On the other hand, My EAA membership has paid for itself many times over whether I am renting a car from Hertz or the $1000 of discounts I've gotten from the various schools I've attended over the last year. 

 Every once and a while, they do print an informative article. They are few and far between, but it does happen.

As far as their coverage of alternative engines, I'll paraphrase William Randolph Hearst, "Freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns one" as "the accuracy of any article in any publication belongs to the man who wrote it."  

Write that article and I, for one, will be happy to read it.



Rick



On 8/23/07, Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com  (echristley(at)nc.rr.com)> wrote: 	  Quote: 	
		  --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ernest Christley < echristley(at)nc.rr.com (echristley(at)nc.rr.com)>



gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com (gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com) wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   The guy who claimed/implied he was behind the shake-up, if

 that is what happen, I assume is an alternative engine rotary 

 guy? Clearly Sport Aviation and their one alt engine article

 every 12-18 month would not make that crowd happy. The

 wide interest of members aside, your membership in EAA

 should be more than just the magazine. 



I neither claimed or implied that I was behind the shake-up.  I did
	


claim and imply that dropping membership was behind the shake-up.  My

facts may be very much in error.  Time will tell.



I am a rotary guy.  The one article they publish concerning alternative 

engines once every 12-18 months is generally full of error, bias and

broad-based silliness.  They search out one commercial entity that has

done the most advertising without searching out any of the other players 

that may actually have a larger impact.  That's what makes that crowd

unhappy.  Just like wire pushers are unhappy about articles on

electronics that ignore basic, simple ideas, and spouts ridiculous noise

 about having to get replacement components from the original batch used

to manufacture a device.  We are unhappy that the magazine that is

supposed to be representing an educational organization is full of nonsense. 



You state, "the magazine is the main benefit people see."  Everyone I've

ever talked to agrees on this.  Wouldn't it follow that the directors of

the organization would realize this, and make sure that the main benefit 

was actually a benefit?  If they need articles, why do they not request

them, right there in the magazine?  How about a few lines of text to

refer would-be authors to set of directions on the Internet for how to 

submit an article?  If they're doing something behind the scenes, then

use the magazine to tell the members what's happening, instead of

printing another press release about an unaffordable jet engine that is 

to big for any of the planes we're building.  (Do any of us really care

that Diamond Jet is meeting certification criteria?)  I can't believe

the EAA leadership is to dense to see something so obvious, which leaves 

me with only one explanation.   They don't care.  In the same way that

TV broadcasters don't really care if I enjoy the show, as long as I sit

for the commercials, the EAA leadership doesn't care.

 

Well, that's fine.  They don't have to care about my sensibilities.  If

they have some nefarious "behind the scenes" activity going on, then

they need to tell me about it.  Until they do, I refuse to be the beaten 



	


-- 

Rick Girard

"Ya'll drop on in"

takes on a whole new meaning

when you live at the airport.  [quote][b]

Jerry Cochran

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 111
Location: Wilsonville, OR

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:02 am Post subject: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation

If I want to find out all about general aviation, I read AOPA's magazine,  which has good content usually. To learn about the latest bizjet or how to  fly IFR back east in the dead of winter in a Cessna, I flip thru "Flying" at the  newstand. 

  

 Experimental Aviation? Just can't wait for the next issue of "Kitplanes",  lots of really good content, often from  names familiar to us, like  Stein.

  

 EAA's "Sport Aviation"? Says it all  right on the cover..."The  Magazine of Recreational Aviation". Looks like an appeal to a broader audience  than just a few scraggly experimenters... Just like Oshkosh has morphed  into.

  

 OK, got that off my shoulders...

  

 Jerry Cochran

  

 In a message dated 8/23/2007 11:58:58 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  From:    <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>

Subject: Re: Shakeup at    EAA Sport Aviation



I went through, I'm unhappy with Sport Aviation    magazine, a 

few years ago. This is not new or just in the last year.    Actually I 

thought I saw some improvement last year and earlier this    

year. When I wrote a while back, the EAA replied, incl Tom P. 

I was    upset about the "fluffy" articles that where like ads and 

short on facts;    I was also unhappy they dropped the Cafe 

Foundation Org group and their    articles. I was told they 

where too technical. They also asked me to write    articles. 

Clearly month to month they are desperate to get  content. 	
 <snip>

 

  



Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

walter.fellows(at)gmail.c
Guest

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:41 am Post subject: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation

Let's be fair now and not forget the great t-shirts and bomber jackets they sell for your ride in the B-17. And all of the US taxpayer supplied jet fuel for the endless F-15 flybys while we are trying to hear the forum speakers attending the forums at OSH. I heard a rumor the CEO has flies an EAA sponsored P-51 for promotion, I hope that is just a rumor (can anyone shed light on this?) 



On a more serious note, we seriously need EAA's help for representing the OBAM aircraft interests before congress and the administration. There seems to be a lot of sentiment among the established aerospace companies to severely limit the scope of the amateur builder's rights. Also, I still find the EAA forums and weekend workshops to be excellent value and put on by really dedicated and capable people. My suggestion is that we continue to support them but work to remove a lot of the mindless corporate professional management thinking that has crept in there. 

On 8/24/07, Jerry2DT(at)aol.com (Jerry2DT(at)aol.com) <Jerry2DT(at)aol.com (Jerry2DT(at)aol.com)> wrote:[quote]      If I want to find out all about general aviation, I read AOPA's magazine,  which has good content usually. To learn about the latest bizjet or how to  fly IFR back east in the dead of winter in a Cessna, I flip thru "Flying" at the  newstand. 

  

 Experimental Aviation? Just can't wait for the next issue of "Kitplanes",  lots of really good content, often from  names familiar to us, like  Stein.

  

 EAA's "Sport Aviation"? Says it all  right on the cover..."The  Magazine of Recreational Aviation". Looks like an appeal to a broader audience  than just a few scraggly experimenters... Just like Oshkosh has morphed  into.

  

 OK, got that off my shoulders...

  

 Jerry Cochran

  

 In a message dated 8/23/2007 11:58:58 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com (aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com) writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  From:    <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com (gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com)>

Subject: Re: Shakeup at    EAA Sport Aviation



I went through, I'm unhappy with Sport Aviation    magazine, a 

few years ago. This is not new or just in the last year.    Actually I 

thought I saw some improvement last year and earlier this    

year. When I wrote a while back, the EAA replied, incl Tom P. 

I was    upset about the "fluffy" articles that where like ads and 

short on facts;    I was also unhappy they dropped the Cafe 

Foundation Org group and their    articles. I was told they 

where too technical. They also asked me to write    articles. 

Clearly month to month they are desperate to get  content. 	
 <snip>

 

  



 AOL.com.



  [quote][b]  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List http://forums.matronics.com  [quote][b]

nuckollsr(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 9:06 am Post subject: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation

At 09:41 AM 8/24/2007 -0700, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  On a more serious note, we seriously need EAA's help for representing the 

OBAM aircraft interests before congress and the administration. There 

seems to be a lot of sentiment among the established aerospace companies 

to severely limit the scope of the amateur builder's rights. Also, I still 

find the EAA forums and weekend workshops to be excellent value and put on 

by really dedicated and capable people. My suggestion is that we continue 

to support them but work to remove a lot of the mindless corporate 

professional management thinking that has crept in there.


	


    Astute observation. I've dropped my EAA membership and no

    longer write for SA for reasons cited in the past. However,

    in spite of what ever EAA is or is not, how does one replace

    OSH?  I attend that event not to promote (or badmouth) EAA

    but to meet folks who gather there annually. I've attended

    many a regional fly-in that produced zero or a tiny fraction

    of return on investment for the $time$ expended compared to

    a few days at OSH.



    EAA's inarguable value is the opportunity to network with folks of

    like interests. We could endlessly debate whether or not the organization

    has lost the vision of the founding fathers. However, I'll suggest

    the organization has little or nothing to do with the vision of those who

    make the annual pilgrimage to aviation's Mecca.



    Bob . . .

AV8ORJWC

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 9:51 am Post subject: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation

Bob, your contribution is unmistakable here and from your days writing

EAA articles I hold you in high esteem.



EAA however, has clearly found a new and enlightened profitable path.

Politic, Posturing and Self Promotion. I have heightened my enjoyment of

OSH each year by just digging in with Warbirds and enjoying the view.

They, the EAA Board, has been clearly absent as Phil Boyer has

ceaselessly pounded the drum for relief from User Fees, while Tom tells

us Marion Blakely is our friend.  EAA makes a small fortune on OSH and

rightly so, they decide where their money goes.  The EAA is right now

co-sponsoring a committee entering its second secret year, made up of

the FAA and the wolves guarding our hen house.  Can anyone inform me of

what the EAA is doing to protect individual kit builders against user

fees and clean the Hen House of corporate Build To Suit operators who

are driving a wedge through Owner Built and Maintained aircraft rules?



The group I affiliate with is getting older and older (faster than the

calendar) and the cost to sustain is getting more and more difficult to

hang onto.  It is all about Quick Build and selling more kits regardless

of the individual builder.  I love Young Eagles but let's see a marked

increase in pilots certificates issued under 30, joining he active

ranks.



Those with money make the rules.



I continue paying my EAA dues but am not about to concede they are

headed a direction that is in the best interest of the individual

builder.  If they were listening, they would post the secret iterations

from within the 51% committee, wouldn't they? You would think the

committee should represent the builders and not the kit manufacturers.



John - nearing VNE and 60.

Do not Archive



--

mlas(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 12:52 pm Post subject: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation

As to you Bob, astute observation as well!  If it wasn't for OSH I don't

think I would be doing much with the EAA.  I will always support the EAA

for their interests into homebuilt aviation but the future for us

homebuilder's looks to be about Money.  I agree OSH is a great value for

everyone in aviation.  It is a much better value then Sun & Fun for

example.  I'm 44 and have 3 experimental airplanes (credit to the EAA of

days gone bye).  But today's EAA is just a wanabe competitor to AOPA

(with a lot of improvement needed).  The last big thing I can remember

the EAA doing that was important to real EAAers was the auto fuel STC.  

Mike



--

gmcjetpilot

Joined: 04 Nov 2006
Posts: 170

Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 5:26 am Post subject: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation

 	  Quote: 	
		  From: "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net (mlas(at)cox.net)> 

Subject: Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation 

But today's EAA is just a wanabe competitor to AOPA. 

Mike

Not sure where you are going, but I did a 

little study of AOPA and EAA and what they 

actually do for experimental amateur built 

and flown planes.

Just for clarity AOPA is a lobby group and 

represents manufactures and small non-

scheduled commercial operators, as well as 

individual private operators (allegedly). 

  EAA is non profit and therefore can't lobby 

but they do a lot of legal work clarifying 

the FAR's. If you ever had a DAR tell you 

that your RV-7 needs an A&P sign off because 

the engine is from a certified aircraft, you 

will appreciate what they do.

  Since the AOPA is aligned heavily with 

manufactures of  certified aircraft and the 

aviation business, the needs of experimental 

aircraft is not a priority for them. The EAA 

is all we have and they are best suited to 

protect our niche of the aviation world. 

There are common goals and interest between 

AOPA and EAA, who do work together some 

times, but not always.

  In California, LA area an airport banned 

experimental aircraft (tried to) and the Las 

Vegas FSDO tried to restrict experimental's 

from a huge block of air space. Behind the  

scene the EAA solved the issue. Unlike the 

AOPA the EAA did not blow their own horn. 

They like to take a quite approach and not 

embarrass the FAA. They where successful 

in both cases.

  EAA is not immune of criticism. This topic 

went around the RV-list. The main complaint 

I had in the past was the magazine was 

dummied down and they dropped the Café 

Foundation org  reports. I was told they 

where too technical for most. They have done 

better in the last year or so, but if you 

want technical info, go to the internet, 

which has replaced most topical print media. 

"Contact" magazine is more technical for the 

real experimenter and tinkerer.

  EAA's SA magazine does need contributors. If 

you have an idea for an article write it, they need 

content. Many past articles where "fluff" and seemed 

more like advertisement propaganda than fact.

EAA does many things to protect experimental 

plane rights, building and use of  airspace, fighting 

made up interpretations of the FAR's by DAR's and 

FAA inspectors.

  If you have a question about AD compliance, 

required equip or TSO'ed requirements for 

experimental aircraft, they have brief on it 

for members.

  The EAA tax  records are public record. Not 

surprising on about $30 mil revenue, 

expenses where almost exactly $30 mil, thus 

non-profit. Not a surprise.

  Tom Poberezny makes $418,000, about 

1/2  million in total compensation a year as 

CEO of the EAA. That seems in-line with CEO 

salaries I suppose, for a $30 organization..

  Airventure does bring in lots of money but 

also cost a lot of money to put on. 

  The magazine is a huge expense on the budget. 

I guess all the color pictures? 

  Dues are the big revenue stream.

  The P-51 thing is very old news. It was about his 

dad, Paul, EAA founder and former CEO. There 

was some blow-up I recall about his P-51 

time being paid for by the EAA. That was 

resolved and I recall Paul retired soon 

thereafter. Paul's still on the payroll and 

makes about $80k or $160k a year? 

   EAA's tax return looks normal to me; the board 

of directors are all volunteers. They spend a 

lot on office space and professional services.

  My EAA membership is based on more than the 

magazine and Airventure. They do have good 

programs like young eagles, and the local 

chapters are also a nice thing. If you are active 

in building and flying experimental aircraft the 

EAA is valuable. I have talked to EAA legal 

a few times and they know their stuff, surprisingly 

better than the FAA. There are some old bones 

in the FAA closet that they try to pass as facts.

Of all organizations, EAA does the most to protect 

our  incredible freedom to build and fly planes we 

make with our own hands. Forces constantly are 

trying to re-write and restrict those freedoms. EAA 

is doing the most of us specifically, IMHO.

To be fair AOPA is  the only real lobby group on 

capital hill that is representing our "special interest". 

Of course we can always write our DC politicians 

directly. May be we should start a quasi political 

group of all experimental aircraft builders/ owners. 

That would be a good sized voter block. The 

economy of the kit plane business and all the support 

and part companies is substantial.

  Cheers George EAA member since 1985

   [quote][b]

walter.fellows(at)gmail.c
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 6:36 am Post subject: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation

Thanks very much for the clarification.



On 8/25/07, gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com (gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com) < gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com (gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com)> wrote:[quote]>From: "Mike" < mlas(at)cox.net (mlas(at)cox.net)> 

 	  Quote: 	
		  Subject: Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation 



But today's EAA is just a wanabe competitor to AOPA. 



Mike

  
	


Not sure where you are going, but I did a  

little study of AOPA and EAA and what they 

actually do for experimental amateur built 

and flown planes.

  

Just for clarity AOPA is a lobby group and 

represents manufactures and small non-

 scheduled commercial operators, as well as 

individual private operators (allegedly). 

   

  EAA is non profit and therefore can't lobby 

but they do a lot of legal work clarifying 

the FAR's. If you ever had a DAR tell you  

that your RV-7 needs an A&P sign off because 

the engine is from a certified aircraft, you 

will appreciate what they do.

   

  Since the AOPA is aligned heavily with 

manufactures of  certified aircraft and the 

aviation business, the needs of experimental 

aircraft is not a priority for them. The EAA 

is all we have and they are best suited to 

protect our niche of the aviation world. 

 

There are common goals and interest between 

AOPA and EAA, who do work together some 

times, but not always.



  In California, LA area an airport banned 

experimental aircraft (tried to) and the Las  

Vegas FSDO tried to restrict experimental's 

from a huge block of air space. Behind the  

scene the EAA solved the issue. Unlike the 

AOPA the EAA did not blow their own horn. 

They like to take a quite approach and not  

embarrass the FAA. They where successful 

in both cases.

   

  EAA is not immune of criticism. This topic 

went around the RV-list. The main complaint 

I had in the past was the magazine was  

dummied down and they dropped the Café 

Foundation org  reports. I was told they 

where too technical for most. They have done 

better in the last year or so, but if you 

want technical info, go to the internet, 

which has replaced most topical print media. 

"Contact" magazine is more technical for the  

real experimenter and tinkerer.

   

  EAA's SA magazine does need contributors. If 

you have an idea for an article write it, they need 

content. Many past articles where "fluff" and seemed  

more like advertisement propaganda than fact.

   

  

EAA does many things to protect experimental 

plane rights, building and use of  airspace, fighting 

made up interpretations of the FAR's by DAR's and  

FAA inspectors.

   

  If you have a question about AD compliance, 

required equip or TSO'ed requirements for 

experimental aircraft, they have brief on it 

for members.



   The EAA tax  records are public record. Not 

surprising on about $30 mil revenue, 

expenses where almost exactly $30 mil, thus 

non-profit. Not a surprise.

   

  Tom Poberezny makes $418,000, about 

1/2  million in total compensation a year as  

CEO of the EAA. That seems in-line with CEO 

salaries I suppose, for a $30 organization..

   

  Airventure does bring in lots of money but 

also cost a lot of money to put on. 

  The magazine is a huge expense on the budget.  

I guess all the color pictures? 

  Dues are the big revenue stream.



  The P-51 thing is very old news. It was about his 

dad, Paul, EAA founder and former CEO. There 

was some blow-up I recall about his P-51  

time being paid for by the EAA. That was 

resolved and I recall Paul retired soon 

thereafter. Paul's still on the payroll and 

makes about $80k or $160k a year? 

   

   EAA's tax return looks normal to me; the board 

of directors are all volunteers. They spend a 

lot on office space and professional services.

   

  My EAA membership is based on more than the  

magazine and Airventure. They do have good 

programs like young eagles, and the local 

chapters are also a nice thing. If you are active 

in building and flying experimental aircraft the 

EAA is valuable. I have talked to EAA legal  

a few times and they know their stuff, surprisingly 

better than the FAA. There are some old bones 

in the FAA closet that they try to pass as facts.

   

  

Of all organizations, EAA does the most to protect  

our  incredible freedom to build and fly planes we 

make with our own hands. Forces constantly are 

trying to re-write and restrict those freedoms. EAA 

is doing the most of us specifically, IMHO.

   



To be fair AOPA is  the only real lobby group on 

capital hill that is representing our "special interest". 

Of course we can always write our DC politicians 

directly. May be we should start a quasi political 

group of all experimental aircraft builders/ owners.  

That would be a good sized voter block. The 

economy of the kit plane business and all the support 

and part companies is substantial.

   

   

  Cheers George EAA member since 1985

 

    	  Quote: 	
		  



ronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

k" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">

http://forums.matronics.com

=========== 	


[b]

bakerocb

Joined: 15 Jan 2006
Posts: 727
Location: FAIRFAX VA

Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 6:51 am Post subject: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation

8/26/2007



Hello George, You wrote: "EAA is non profit and therefore can't 

lobby.....skip......"



I agree with the content and thrust of your defense of the EAA (copied 

below), but I assure you that being a not for profit organization does not 

prohibit that organization from lobbying. Washington DC is infested with 

such organizations -- I used to work for one.



There may be some gray areas regarding what one considers "real lobbying". 

Real lobbyists are required to register and file reports, but "concerned 

cititzens" are not -- semantic games may be played.



'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and 

understand knowledge."



--------------- RESPONDING TO ---------------



Time: 06:26:32 AM PST US

From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>

Subject: Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation



 	  Quote: 	
		  From: "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net>

Subject: Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation



But today's EAA is just a wanabe competitor to AOPA.



Mike


	


Not sure where you are going, but I did a

little study of AOPA and EAA and what they

actually do for experimental amateur built

and flown planes.



Just for clarity AOPA is a lobby group and

represents manufactures and small non-

scheduled commercial operators, as well as

individual private operators (allegedly).



  EAA is non profit and therefore can't lobby

but they do a lot of legal work clarifying

the FAR's. If you ever had a DAR tell you

that your RV-7 needs an A&P sign off because

the engine is from a certified aircraft, you

will appreciate what they do.



  Since the AOPA is aligned heavily with

manufactures of certified aircraft and the

aviation business, the needs of experimental

aircraft is not a priority for them. The EAA

is all we have and they are best suited to

protect our niche of the aviation world.



There are common goals and interest between

AOPA and EAA, who do work together some

times, but not always.



  In California, LA area an airport banned

experimental aircraft (tried to) and the Las

Vegas FSDO tried to restrict experimental's

from a huge block of air space. Behind the

scene the EAA solved the issue. Unlike the

AOPA the EAA did not blow their own horn.

They like to take a quite approach and not

embarrass the FAA. They where successful

in both cases.



  EAA is not immune of criticism. This topic

went around the RV-list. The main complaint

I had in the past was the magazine was

dummied down and they dropped the Caf

Foundation org reports. I was told they

where too technical for most. They have done

better in the last year or so, but if you

want technical info, go to the internet,

which has replaced most topical print media.

"Contact" magazine is more technical for the

real experimenter and tinkerer.



  EAA's SA magazine does need contributors. If

you have an idea for an article write it, they need

content. Many past articles where "fluff" and seemed

more like advertisement propaganda than fact.

EAA does many things to protect experimental

plane rights, building and use of  airspace, fighting

made up interpretations of the FAR's by DAR's and

FAA inspectors.



  If you have a question about AD compliance,

required equip or TSO'ed requirements for

experimental aircraft, they have brief on it

for members.



  The EAA tax records are public record. Not

surprising on about $30 mil revenue,

expenses where almost exactly $30 mil, thus

non-profit. Not a surprise.



  Tom Poberezny makes $418,000, about

1/2  million in total compensation a year as

CEO of the EAA. That seems in-line with CEO

salaries I suppose, for a $30 organization..



  Airventure does bring in lots of money but

also cost a lot of money to put on.

  The magazine is a huge expense on the budget.

I guess all the color pictures?

  Dues are the big revenue stream.



  The P-51 thing is very old news. It was about his

dad, Paul, EAA founder and former CEO. There

was some blow-up I recall about his P-51

time being paid for by the EAA. That was

resolved and I recall Paul retired soon

thereafter. Paul's still on the payroll and

makes about $80k or $160k a year?



  EAA's tax return looks normal to me; the board

of directors are all volunteers. They spend a

lot on office space and professional services.



  My EAA membership is based on more than the

magazine and Airventure. They do have good

programs like young eagles, and the local

chapters are also a nice thing. If you are active

in building and flying experimental aircraft the

EAA is valuable. I have talked to EAA legal

a few times and they know their stuff, surprisingly

better than the FAA. There are some old bones

in the FAA closet that they try to pass as facts.

Of all organizations, EAA does the most to protect

our  incredible freedom to build and fly planes we

make with our own hands. Forces constantly are

trying to re-write and restrict those freedoms. EAA

is doing the most of us specifically, IMHO.

To be fair AOPA is the only real lobby group on

capital hill that is representing our "special interest".

Of course we can always write our DC politicians

directly. May be we should start a quasi political

group of all experimental aircraft builders/ owners.

That would be a good sized voter block. The

economy of the kit plane business and all the support

and part companies is substantial.

  Cheers George EAA member since 1985

cjensen(at)dts9000.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 7:40 am Post subject: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation

Yes, yes.  It's not lobbying...the EAA would just be informing and

educating the Legislator's about the issues.  Actually, it would be

educating the Legislator's staff.  Congressmen don't know

anything...they are lead around by their nose by their staff.  The only

other uses of their nose is to sniff out photo opportunities and to

sniffing the prevailing wind of opinion.  Fortunately, they are always

positioned upwind of themselves so the odor is tolerable.



Chuck Jensen



--

jindoguy(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 8:32 am Post subject: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation

Chuck, You forget the politician's use of his/her nose to pack the rectal cavity of campaign contributors and lobbyists. 



Rick



On 8/26/07, Chuck Jensen  <cjensen(at)dts9000.com (cjensen(at)dts9000.com)> wrote:[quote]--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" < cjensen(at)dts9000.com (cjensen(at)dts9000.com)>



Yes, yes.  It's not lobbying...the EAA would just be informing and

educating the Legislator's about the issues.  Actually, it would be

 educating the Legislator's staff.  Congressmen don't know

anything...they are lead around by their nose by their staff.  The only

other uses of their nose is to sniff out photo opportunities and to

sniffing the prevailing wind of opinion.  Fortunately, they are always 

positioned upwind of themselves so the odor is tolerable.



Chuck Jensen



--

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum