Where is Sport Aviation going?

[jrollf]

With today's tecnology there really is no need for Poxy voting. We could easily have a secure online quorum to place votes directly by members. If a large enough portion of members truly want to change the voting system they can start revoking their proxy vote permissions. If enough of the membership does this, then voting board would not have enough proxy ballots to reach an official quorum and voting would come to a halt. This would require a pretty large organized effort on behalf of the membership to work.

Just my two cents :-)

[Tex Sonex]

.... Been an EAA member for 41 years. The most recent issue of SA imoressed me with the quality of the writing, overall. Seems more professional writers who are aviation types are contributing and the difference shows. As to the article selection, I have to agree with those who say, it's too much like FLYING or AOPA magazine. Like another person said, some articles I consume, but many, I pass right by. EAA's roots are in the homebuilding movement. Of course homebuilding has come a long way since EAA was begun. The days of scrounging for parts and materials have almost been totally replaced by popping open the crate of a kit. EAA has also changed is a result of our own success. Now, as a major aviation community, the membership ecompasses those who fly IFR a lot, fly very expensive aircraft, and have the means financially to do so. Yet, I doubt seriously, they are the majority. I think the organization and the editorial staff of SA would do well to look at just, "Who is EAA?" nowadays. I'm sure they are trying to maintain a delicate balance between the high-rollers of aviation and the folks in the cheap seats. It's really a marketing question. It's very hard to give your customer what he wants if you don't know who your customer is.

If Experimenter is going to take the place of what SA used to be.... doesn't that tell us SA isn't what it used to be? If that's the case, why try to hybridize SA into a one-size-fits-all magazine? Make Experimenter the size of SA and make SA just another FLYING magazine for turboprop/IFR/half-million dollar spam can pilots.

[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.