EAA Mission & Vision Statements

[Kyle Boatright]

These are quoted from the EAA's website:

EAA Mission – "EAA is dedicated to serving all of aviation by fostering and encouraging individual participation, high standards, and access to the world of flight in an environment that promotes freedom, safety, family, and personal fulfillment."

EAA Vision – "Responding to its members needs and society at large, EAA will have expanded beyond current activities and developed new programs to be widely recognized as the premier aviation association in the world. As a result, EAA will have a significantly larger membership made up of traditional core interest groups, as well as new members representing varied aviation interests. Improved and increased individual participation and volunteerism will exist among all members and their families. The organization and its management are structured to enhance the culture, quality, and credibility of EAA and its activities, as well as the organization’s continued growth."


Does anyone know when these statements were updated? They are very much in-line with the new magazine content.

[KDoersom]

Maybe one of us should start a new aviation association the AAA Affordable Aircraft Association. I joined EAA because they seemed to have more of it than AOPA, now not so much.

[Kyle Boatright]

Maybe one of us should start a new aviation association the AAA Affordable Aircraft Association. I joined EAA because they seemed to have more of it than AOPA, now not so much.

It would be better to change the organization's current direction. There is a lot of good in the EAA, but it is moving (IMO) in a direction that is surprisingly disconnected from the organization's roots.

[Chad Jensen]

I don't know the answer Kyle, but I'll see what I can learn this week about it.

[melndav]

It would be better to change the organization's current direction. There is a lot of good in the EAA, but it is moving (IMO) in a direction that is surprisingly disconnected from the organization's roots.

I agree. Change is inevitable, but the new direction as well as the new management sure scares me about our future. Many discussions here about how to "meet the needs of the majority of the membership and appeal to a broader range of members...." In an effort to reach everyone I am concerned we are leaving those who made EAA what it is behind. I can't help but wonder how long it is before we drop the "experimental" in EAA all together "to better represent the mission of our association to grow ALL areas of aviation....."

[Bill]

What's the point of having a second AOPA? The mission statement of AOPA is "The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), a not-for-profit individual membership association, effectively serves the interests and needs of its members as aircraft owners and pilots, and establishes, maintains, and articulates positions of leadership to promote the economy, safety, and popularity of flight in aircraft.


We preserve the freedom to fly…"

The EAA mission statement in the original post sounds like a rephrasing of AOPA's to me. I'm a member of both, but if they're duplicating their purposes for existence, why should I pay for two when one will do?

[steveinindy]

moving (IMO) in a direction that is surprisingly disconnected from the organization's roots.

Maybe that's just the natural progression of an organization oriented towards a type of technology as the original generations die off and take their focus on their era's type of that technology with them. I mean, we do have a historic side to the EAA but the last time I checked this wasn't the HAA (Historic Aircraft Association) or the US Ultralight Association (USUA) or the Light Sport Aircraft Association (LSAA) or the Modified Car or Lawn Mower Engine Powered Aircraft Association (MCLMEPAA). It's a big enough group to be all inclusive but you'd never guess it by the attitudes of a lot of folks on this forum who seem to think that those things are all the EAA should be focused on.

Hey, if they want to take people's money in exchange for a few articles about thinks that didn't come out of someone's garage, hey it keeps the "experimental side" funded. I find it rather humorous that the same folks that gripe about articles about TBM-850s or whatever it was are the same ones who get all drool covered when there's an article with glossy pictures of FIFI or some P-51. Last time I checked those where neither built in someone's workshop or "affordable" by anyone but a multi-millionaire's standpoint. The only difference between those and a TBM-850 is about 60 years. So would articles about the first generation of Learjets be OK? I mean, they are after all historic.

So if we want to get back to talking only and featuring "affordable aircraft", let's ground Aluminum Overcast and the Trimotor, stop inviting the P-51s, FIFI, the Air Force F-16s, C-5s, C-17s, F-22s, the guy who does the night airshow in the Twin Beech and all of the other expensive toys that most of us could never get our hands on to Oshkosh. I mean, after all....these aren't what the EAA is all about according to the posts on this thread. Why give so much emphasis to things that came out of commercial factories? Apparently, that's not what Mr. Poberezny envisioned....

[/sarcasm and soap box rant]

[Frank Giger]

Steve,

EAA Mission – "EAA is dedicated to serving all of aviation by fostering and encouraging individual participation, high standards, and access to the world of flight in an environment that promotes freedom, safety, family, and personal fulfillment."

Emphasis mine.

I'm looking at the non-experimental stuff to be a means to an end - to best serve the namesake of the organization the tent must be large.

Take the money from Lear and use it to defend (Lobby Congress) the guy who built his own plane on a budget to have access to airspace, no user fees, and protection from unneccessary regulation and I have few gripes.

Stipulating that aviation has always been (and always will be) expensive, trying to make it accessable to the greatest number of people should be the primary driver. And that means homebuilt and simple single engined spam can aircraft for the bulk of us.

Centering efforts on twins and turbines with cockpits that make the Space Shuttle blush with envy is hardly promoting access to the world of flight.

[dewi8095]

[QUOTE=steveinindy;9334] I find it rather humorous that the same folks that gripe about articles about TBM-850s or whatever it was are the same ones who get all drool covered when there's an article with glossy pictures of FIFI or some P-51. Last time I checked those where neither built in someone's workshop or "affordable" by anyone but a multi-millionaire's standpoint. The only difference between those and a TBM-850 is about 60 years. So would articles about the first generation of Learjets be OK? I mean, they are after all historic. [QUOTE]

An all too accurate analogy for us critics. Steve, not being overwhelmed with experimenters' attitudes, frequently sees things more sharply than some of us. Experimenters, however, do their best to replicate the experience of flying those aircraft out of their price range by building look-alikes. The replica trend is very evident in the WW I era aircraft. Who knows, maybe someone will be building scaled down TBM-850s down the road.

Don

[melndav]

Maybe that's just the natural progression of an organization oriented towards a type of technology as the original generations die off and take their focus on their era's type of that technology with them. I mean, we do have a historic side to the EAA but the last time I checked this wasn't the HAA (Historic Aircraft Association) or the US Ultralight Association (USUA) or the Light Sport Aircraft Association (LSAA) or the Modified Car or Lawn Mower Engine Powered Aircraft Association (MCLMEPAA). It's a big enough group to be all inclusive but you'd never guess it by the attitudes of a lot of folks on this forum who seem to think that those things are all the EAA should be focused on. So if we want to get back to talking only and featuring "affordable aircraft", let's ground Aluminum Overcast and the Trimotor, stop inviting the P-51s, FIFI, the Air Force F-16s, C-5s, C-17s, F-22s, the guy who does the night airshow in the Twin Beech and all of the other expensive toys that most of us could never get our hands on to Oshkosh. I mean, after all....these aren't what the EAA is all about according to the posts on this thread. Why give so much emphasis to things that came out of commercial factories? Apparently, that's not what Mr. Poberezny envisioned....[/sarcasm and soap box rant]

But that IS where we should be focused. That and a number of other areas that aren't represented anywhere else. EAA was founded because there were no real organized resources for homebuilding. Over the years Warbirds, Antiques, Aerobatics, and Ultralights were slowly brought into the fold for similar reasons. There simply were not any other groups of like minded people to share knowledge and information in those areas of aviation. In an effort to cater to everyone, EAA has forgotten that, while on a huge scale, it is basically a niche organization. It's not that those of us in that niche aren't interested in IFR proceedures, corporate turboprops, and GPS systems; most actually are, it's just that we can already go to so many other places to get the information. It's kind of comical that the TBM article touched such a nerve with folks, but it serves to illustrate the point perfectly. A strikingly similar article on the TBM-850 appeared in the May issue of Flying, and I doubt that anyone had anything negative to say about it. Simply stated, that's what Flying writes about. That and IFR proceedures, GPS systems, etc. Outside of the occasional news blurb it's so rare that homebuilts, P-51's, the Tri Motor, Aluminum Overcast, or FIFI ever appear in the print of Flying, AOPA, or Pro Pilot because those organizations know the target audience of their readers just as they know the interests of their membership in the case of AOPA. They don't write about those things because folks go to EAA and Kit Planes, The Experimenter, and, in the past, Sport Aviation for that type of media. I wonder what the reaction would be if Pro Pilot ran an article about a Volksplane......