EAA Direction (split from website feedback thread)

[Rod Hightower]

As a 24 year EAA member, I have enjoyed tremendous dialogue with fellow members through the years on a wide range of topics from the AirVenture airshow content, the aviation economy and even to key aviation issues of the day. But throughout that time, there have been two topics that seem to remain constant. One is "AirVenture has become too commercialized". the second is "EAA has forgoten the E". Many of you know that Paul and I work closely together and communicate frequently. And Paul himself will tell you he has been hearing the same two "complaints" since the early days. He will also tell you that he has learned more about people over the years than he has learned about airplanes. Which is one of the reasons that Paul has always believed that EAA welcomes aviators and enthusiasts of all types and interests. At EAA we still believe that, and probably always will.

Trying to fracture and divide members by seeking support for your particular position on a topic never strengthens an organization, it can only harm it. So I offer two questions for some to think about. First - If you love the organization, why would you try to harm it? Second - What is your plan for the solution to your issue?

Finally, I'll even offer a suggestion on how you may more effectively "change things". Perhaps you should gather a group of those that share your viewpoint as passionately as yourself, draft a letter to me, our senior leadership team, or even our board of directors, that outlines your key issues and prescribes a plan to solve those issues. You are always welcome to Oshkosh to present that plan, and I'll make sure that the entire senior leadership team is present. Or, we can come to your location, either way works for us.

Thank you for being part of the world's most dynamic aviation organization. An organization that grows participation in aviation by inspiring people to fly, build, restore, volunteer and outreach. And one that welcomes all who have a love of aviation.

Rod Hightower

[Bill Berson]

I joined EAA about 38 years ago, but have recently dropped my membership. My comments on this and other forums were meant to strengthen EAA, not harm. First you say that dividing members to seek support for a particular position is harmful to EAA and in the next paragraph suggest that we do just that by forming a group.

My suggestions were carefully crafted and submitted on this forum to Chad and everyone. I feel the situation is hopeless because EAA does not let members vote on anything. As mentioned, Paul has had this growth policy since the early days, why would anything change now?
Why should I form a group? The effort is likely to be ignored, since Paul has total control of EAA.
As President of EAA, this is your primary job. (to define EAA's direction)

good luck,
Bill Berson

[Bob Meder]

Rod -

To your point, I have to agree, but I would like to broaden it somewhat. It's not just EAA, but all of general aviation needs to pull together. This would include all of the alphabet groups; EAA, along with AOPA, NAFI, SAFE, Women With Wings, etc., etc. It saddens me to see people denigrate one group or another in aviation, when there truly is room for all.

As I don't have any good statistics for this, I can only talk about the issue on a personal level. I get just as excited at seeing a friend's Stearman take flight for the first time in four years after a major restoration (as I did this past weekend) as I do at seeing another friend's Lancair come together, finding another friend's Voisen Bomber replica at Oshkosh, as I do watching a 747/P-51/Connie/Cessna/Piper/Beech/RV-anything/Glasair/you-name-it take off or land. In particular, my own greatest satisfaction is seeing a pilot, at any level, in any aircraft, whether it's my student or another instructor's, pass a check ride.

The notion that there are "factions" of any kind in aviation pains me. I commute between two cities (in the back of 737's) and hang out and instruct at several airports in both of these locales. There seems to be a general divide between the home-builders and the certified aircraft pilots; and each airport's community likes to talk about "those guys" at the airport across town. Does it really have to be this way?

I don't know the answers. I wish I did. I do know that we are a dwindling community and that we had better think, hard and fast, about how we can support each other before we lose something magical that we have in this country.

[steveinindy]

Does it really have to be this way?

Sadly, given human psychology, probably. People have a natural tendency to think their "stuff" doesn't stink as much as a member of another "group". One of my friends used to say that 99% of murders, wars, genocides, fistfights, racist beliefs, family feuds and other negative aspects of society arise from one or more parties involved in each of those taking themselves way, way too seriously given the circumstances.

[Jeff Point]

Rod,

Welcome to the forums, glad to have you aboard. It’s good to see that more of the senior leadership folks are participating in this forum. Allow me to address a couple of your points that I disagree with.

Trying to fracture and divide members by seeking support for your particular position on a topic never strengthens an organization, it can only harm it. So I offer two questions for some to think about. First - If you love the organization, why would you try to harm it?

I do not accept this premise. Just because some of us believe that, as you say, the E in EAA is being de-emphasized, does not mean that we are trying to fracture and divide. Quite the contrary, a little intra-agency competition can be good for an organization. As an example, a few years ago the Antique/ Classic folks undertook to build some new facilities for their group, and by doing so (in spectacular fashion) they increased the visibility and presence of their group, at the same time “raising the bar” for the other groups. At least partially in response to this, the Warbird group has made some excellent improvements to their area. It is not exactly a tit-for-tat, but this sort of competition between groups in an organization (if handled properly) can be good for the organization. We as the homebuilders have watched this go on for a few years, and have some plans of our own to improve our facilities, but more about that in a moment.

EAA has recently come out with a new mission statement, to “grow participation in aviation.” I will submit to you that no single segment of EAA has done more to grow that participation than the homebuilders. True, big, expensive and exciting airplanes like the Dreamliner, Concorde, and Harrier are what tend to draw the general public to our airshow. Pilots and pilot wannabees (not meant as a derogatory term) like to drool over P-51s and Staggerwings, and this is what draws many of them to the show, and this has driven the emphasis on Warbirds and A/C over the years, leading to the creation of separate divisions for these groups. However, while many EAAers are Warbird or Antique enthusiasts, the fact is that most of these aircraft are beyond the reach of most EAA members. Homebuilts, on the other hand, represent an attainable dream. The average EAA member has the means, should they put their mind to it, to build and fly a homebuilt in whatever form. Homebuilts represent the straightest bridge between the dream of flight and the realistic goal of flight.

Well over 30,000 homebuilts have been completed and flown. We know that these airplanes tend to fly more hours per year than the average privately owned Cessna or Cherokee. This results in a lot of gas sales for FBOs, participation in local fly-ins, and Young Eagles being flown. The large number of homebuilts have given rise to businesses and entire industries to support them, and these firms turn around and buy full page adds in Sport Aviation, which is read by members who are potential homebuilders, thus perpetuating the cycle. In the same way that the velocity of money results in a dollar circulating around the economy many times, the completion of a single homebuilt aircraft has a ripple effect on all of aviation. In this way, we the homebuilders are really driving participation in aviation, and I will put this record up against any of the other EAA divisions. If EAA is serious about growing participation in aviation, then they should do what they can to encourage homebuilding.

To address the second part of your challenge:

Second - What is your plan for the solution to your issue?

You suggest that we form a group and present a written plan to you. Such a group already exists, and such a plan has been created. The Homebuilt Aircraft Council was created to represent the interests of the homebuilders to the management, given that we do not have our own EAA division. This group is staffed with some enthusiastic, talented, passionate members. For the last couple of years the council has worked hard at developing plans to improve both the facilities and the activities in the homebuilt area on the convention grounds. Our area is frankly an embarrassment and has become even more so as the other areas have made improvements. I’m fortunate to serve on the site planning committee which has spent the last two years developing a comprehensive plan to make big improvements to the physical facilities on the grounds; aircraft parking and camping, amenities like food, shower and restrooms, aircraft displays, commercial exhibits and homebuilding- centered activities like the workshops. We have identified funding sources for some of our plans and are working on others.

Our goal is to raise the level of the physical facilities in the homebuilt area to the world class level of other areas of the grounds, not only to improve the lot of the existing homebuilders, but to make it more inviting and appealing to the potential homebuilders, the “dreamers” who come to the show every year. A survey some years back identified about a third of EAA members as homebuilders, and another 10-15% who would like to become homebuilders, and it is this 10-15% that we need to reach out to and embrace. Added together, homebuilders and wannabees approach 50% of the membership, and a much higher % of “core” members.

This plan has been presented to the leadership team and the board of directors. It seems that, for a number of reasons, the brakes have been applied to most of the ideas that we put forth. In your post you challenged us to come up with a plan and present it. My response is that we have already done this, and my challenge back to you is to help us implement the plan as it was presented, or to work with us to identify ways to tweak the plan to make it workable. There are real, identifiable needs in the homebuilt area of the grounds, particularly in the areas of aircraft parking and camping and our plan addresses these.

[Chad Jensen]

I joined EAA about 38 years ago, but have recently dropped my membership. My comments on this and other forums were meant to strengthen EAA, not harm. First you say that dividing members to seek support for a particular position is harmful to EAA and in the next paragraph suggest that we do just that by forming a group.

My suggestions were carefully crafted and submitted on this forum to Chad and everyone. I feel the situation is hopeless because EAA does not let members vote on anything. As mentioned, Paul has had this growth policy since the early days, why would anything change now?
Why should I form a group? The effort is likely to be ignored, since Paul has total control of EAA.
As President of EAA, this is your primary job. (to define EAA's direction)

good luck,
Bill Berson

Bill,

I think you've missed Rod's point in the forming of a group. He isn't talking about division of members here. He has asked that a group of like-minded folks within EAA to come together to form a letter of resolution to your key issues and offer suggestions and solutions to him. That isn't to say he is suggesting factions within the membership.

[cluttonfred]

I generally agree with the opinion that EAA is moving, perhaps irretrievably, from being a grassroots aviation organization to being, as someone put it so well, "an airshow with a magazine." What is EAA doing to promote aviation in schools? When is the last time EAA sponsored a design contest or released plans in installments in the magazine? What about EAA scholarships for flight training?

Anecdotes and personal impressions aside, I can't think of a more objective source of data on the state of U.S. light aviation than checking the FAA registry. If you go here http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/ and click on "Recent Registrations" and sort by date you can see the new entries in the FAA database, both new aircraft (factory and amateur built) and re-registrations of older aircraft. SPORT AVIATION, the magazine, and EAA generally should reflect the balance you see there. If 90% of the sport-type aircraft are delta wing trikes, then that should be the focus. If 90% are turboprop Lancair IVPs, then so be it. Going through just the first 100 on the list, putting aside the business aircraft and airliners, you will still find quite a variety of aircraft of interest to the various EAA communities. Here are a few that jump out at me:

Maule M-5 (an older bushplane)
Aeromot AMT-200 Super Ximango (motorglider registered to a Sherrif's Department)
RANS S-9 (homebuilt aerobat)
Air Creation ARV Tanarg (delta-wing trike)
Vans RV-7A (of course)
Quicksilver Sport II (still going)
American Champion 8KCAB (a classic)
Quad City Challenger II (another tried and true ultralight all grown up)
Albatros DVA-1 (NZ-made replica for Kermit Weeks)
Stits SA-7D (how's that for a classic homebuilt?)
Piper PA-12 (a ragwing Piper is always good)
Grumman AA-5A (a Cheetah with the Jime Bede connection)
Powrachute Airwolf 912US (powered parachute)
RANS S-12 (high wing pusher kitplane)
Helicycle (homebuilt single-seat helicopter)
Sonex (John Monnett has left his mark)
and plenty of older Cessnas, Pipers, etc.

That's just a snapshot, one day, but a magazine and an association with that kind of diversity would be just fine with me. Imagine the above spread among a couple issues as the table of contents? IMHO, that's what sport aviation is really all about.

Cheers,

Matthew

[Bill Berson]

Bill,

I think you've missed Rod's point in the forming of a group. He isn't talking about division of members here. He has asked that a group of like-minded folks within EAA to come together to form a letter of resolution to your key issues and offer suggestions and solutions to him. That isn't to say he is suggesting factions within the membership.

As a non-member at this time, I don't see how I can contribute within EAA.
But if I get an Airventure 2012 weekly pass in the mail soon, I will offer to serve on an EAA/SportAviation Direction forum panel. Maybe even be the moderator if you want.

I like Airventure, and attended the past three years, but had no plans to go this year.

My complaints are strictly the content of Sport Aviation. (and a bit of EAA's advocacy with the FAA rules)

Bill Berson
172 Haada Laas rd
Port Townsend WA 98368

[cluttonfred]

I should add that I am still an EAA member and have no immediate plans to change that, though I am concerned that I am seeing less and less of the principles and practices that really attracted me in the first place. I have recently joined another organization that has kept its focus on lighter and less expensive aircraft and especially on plans-built aircraft. Here, for comparison with SPORT AVIATION and as food for thought, is a link to recent covers and tables of contents of LIGHT AVIATION, the magazine of Britain's Light Aviation Association (LAA, ex-PFA). Now if I can only get them to stop putting those extra letters in the words. ;-)

[Bill Berson]

As a 24 year EAA member, I have enjoyed tremendous dialogue with fellow members through the years on a wide range of topics from the AirVenture airshow content, the aviation economy and even to key aviation issues of the day. But throughout that time, there have been two topics that seem to remain constant. One is "AirVenture has become too commercialized". the second is "EAA has forgoten the E". Many of you know that Paul and I work closely together and communicate frequently. And Paul himself will tell you he has been hearing the same two "complaints" since the early days. He will also tell you that he has learned more about people over the years than he has learned about airplanes. Which is one of the reasons that Paul has always believed that EAA welcomes aviators and enthusiasts of all types and interests. At EAA we still believe that, and probably always will.

Trying to fracture and divide members by seeking support for your particular position on a topic never strengthens an organization, it can only harm it. So I offer two questions for some to think about. First - If you love the organization, why would you try to harm it? Second - What is your plan for the solution to your issue?

Finally, I'll even offer a suggestion on how you may more effectively "change things". Perhaps you should gather a group of those that share your viewpoint as passionately as yourself, draft a letter to me, our senior leadership team, or even our board of directors, that outlines your key issues and prescribes a plan to solve those issues. You are always welcome to Oshkosh to present that plan, and I'll make sure that the entire senior leadership team is present. Or, we can come to your location, either way works for us.

Thank you for being part of the world's most dynamic aviation organization. An organization that grows participation in aviation by inspiring people to fly, build, restore, volunteer and outreach. And one that welcomes all who have a love of aviation.

Rod Hightower

I am back from Arlington 2012, where I presented a tent forum about building, designing and flying motorgliders and other affordable options. A few minutes were spent at the forum collecting comments about EAA's direction. Also, I interviewed EAA types everywhere on the grounds. Some members and former members.

The consensus seems to be EAA has headed in the wrong direction, especially the content of Sport Aviation (not much sport content, mostly GA).
Several people said Kitplanes was better. One guy said Sport Aviation is high quality (I agree) but had mostly the wrong content, too much like AOPA.

I don't understand why Rod Hightower is not getting this message directly from members he meets. Perhaps members are afraid to speak in person. I know that I was afraid to approach Tom a few years back and offer my thoughts directly, when I saw him standing near me at OSH. What Tom did to grow Airventure and EAA was truly amazing and expressing some criticism is hard to do.

But the idea that continued growth of EAA (by absorbing AOPA types) will promote growth in the aviation population, should be reconsidered. It is the lack of growth of private aviation in general, and especially affordable personal aviation that concerns me, not so much the future of EAA itself.

I did not gather a group, as suggested by Rod, but I will continue to gather thoughts and opinions.