Where is Sport Aviation going?

[novipilot]

Maybe the reason for the change is that EAA will replace AOPA as the premier GA organization. Ever since Fuller took over AOPA I see them as becoming a political machine, similar to the national rifle association. Every letter is "the sky is falling send us money now" so that the AOPA can schmooze with the politicians. I see Rod Hightower as what AOPA leadership used to be, dedicated to flying, and enjoying his time in the sky, and I see EAA evolving as a GA organization rather than just a homebuilders / warbirds organization.

[David Dean]

For those that miss what the EAA and "Sport Aviation" use to be, THe Sport Aviation Association (www.sportaviationassociation.org) is back up and running under the leadership of Ed Fisher. It does not intend to compete with the EAA, but add to it by providing an additional place for those of us that appreciate grass roots aviation. It needs our support. It was originally start up by Paul Poberezny, went dormant for awhile, and recently came back to life under Ed Fisher's initiative and Paul's support.

[MADean]

"...the membership ecompasses those who fly IFR a lot, fly very expensive aircraft, and have the means financially to do so." - Tex Sonex

By what percentage, I wonder. Enough to warrant the majority of the magazines space? Seems to me it's the money, not the members, that EAA is listening too as fo late.

[Tex Sonex]

"...the membership ecompasses those who fly IFR a lot, fly very expensive aircraft, and have the means financially to do so." - Tex Sonex

By what percentage, I wonder. Enough to warrant the majority of the magazines space? Seems to me it's the money, not the members, that EAA is listening too as fo late.

The rest of the thought was... "Yet, I doubt seriously, they are the majority." My point, exactly. Pilots who routinely fly IFR are perhaps EAA members in greater numbers than they once were, but I think they are still a small percentage.

[Joe LaMantia]

Interesting conversation! Here's a few thoughts about EAA and its' "identity"; I would agree that the ground work of the organization was and still is homebuilding, it's at the core of EAA, but as mentioned the vast majority of "homebuilders" buy and build kits. Kits started out as plans with a box of materials and maybe a couple of pre-fabrications, this evolved into what we have today. As the clock moved forward from the 1950's to the 1980"s we saw a lot of growth in EAA and interest in aviation. Somewhere in the early 90's the pilot population began to shrink, do initially to the aging of the WWII population which had a larger percentage of pilots in the general population then present. A lot of changes and forces at work over the past 20 years have impacted EAA and it's membership. Fuel prices, and the general state of the world economy affect everybody. In my previous post I mentioned that the Sept issue of SA had 57 advertisers listed in the publication, one of the biggest changes and thrusts of the organization is AirVenture, which is a huge opportunity for the aviation business community to show and sell their products. While AirVenture is a "fly-in", that is not where the $ comes from....thank you Ford, GE, and Honda to name a few. There has always been a segment of the aviation community that is well-off financially, Howard Hughes comes to mind as an example. Given that times change and aviation is global means that markets get bigger and growth takes place outside the US as well as here. So we, get a new situation regarding managing any organization. I'm not taking a good or bad position on this, it's just a different playing field today then it was a few years ago.

There's a lot of changes impacting aviation as a market segment and a community, Flying magazine has lost a lot of readership and some long time contributors have left their staff to join other publications. A lot of joint ventures and outright purchases of long standing names in aviation to "off-shore" investors. AirVenture really brings in the general public and provides a big opportunity to sell "stuff", EAA has changed, it's bigger has a stronger voice and is more diverse. Human nature dislikes change, and as we get older we have even less tolerance in that regard.

Joe

[rosiejerryrosie]

And here's a radical suggestion! It grows out of a feeling that I have had for a while that was recently reinforced in a conversation with an airport owner just recently. As we were talking, he shared his experiences in talking with folks about the EXPERIMENTAL Aircraft Association and the looks he gets from the uninitiated when he mentions EXPERIMENTAL. The looks says, "You want me to let my kid fly in someone's science project???". Any thought ever been given to changing the name of the organization?

[Joe LaMantia]

Whoever said "What's in a name?"! How about a new thread to see how the folks out in "airport bum land" will respond to a new name. Here's my thought "NRDAA", Not Really Dangerous Aviation Association.


Joe

[martymayes]

And here's a radical suggestion! It grows out of a feeling that I have had for a while that was recently reinforced in a conversation with an airport owner just recently. As we were talking, he shared his experiences in talking with folks about the EXPERIMENTAL Aircraft Association and the looks he gets from the uninitiated when he mentions EXPERIMENTAL. The looks says, "You want me to let my kid fly in someone's science project???". Any thought ever been given to changing the name of the organization?

Paul Poberezny tried to get a reg change to allow the experimental markings to read "sport" or "custom." Never went anywhere.

I don't see a problem with the name of the organzation.

[Eric Witherspoon]

And here's a radical suggestion! ... "You want me to let my kid fly in someone's science project???". Any thought ever been given to changing the name of the organization?

I already started that thread. Not sure if it was on this version of the forums or the previous one. You want to poke the ant hill with a stick - start this idea as a separate thread. Conclusion - even if "Experimental" brings up some incorrect connotations to those on the outside, the vast majority of people on the inside have real problems with the thought of changing the government-selected word for our carefully crafted replicas of proven designs.

I think there could be some worthy distinction between creating your own, unique, never before seen, flown, or tested creation vice carefully following published manuals and plans to create a replica of something that has been thoroughly tested (and I don't mean ELSA). But others see them all as Experiments, and forever more shall be so. The distinction of not being certified to FAR 23 shall not be messed with!

Of course it would be complicated. Probably TOO complicated. What "falls under" the new "Custom" category? How much of a deviation from published plans is too much? Would such a change really only be taking ELSA to bigger, faster levels (must use the same switches, same lights, same radios, same air vents, etc, or it's back into E-AB with it!)

Can I select my own instruments, use my choice of tires, add an autopilot - where's the line? Or do you propose to throw out E-AB entirely! Then we get into the "be careful what you ask for" part of the argument - multiple in-process FAA / FSDO inspections, licensed engineers to approve any deviations from the documentation... Don't mess with what we have! It's pretty darned free already, and if someone won't ride in it because the government says we have to put a big "EXPERIMENTAL" label on it, then too bad for them!

So Jerry, if you can dig up my previous thread, and get through the battle documented therin, you might conclude that yes, it is too radical a suggestion. Sorry.