Spending time with family was the excuse the ousted CEO at my previous company used when he was fired. It's industry speak for "I got canned and wish to make a graceful exit".
Spending time with family was the excuse the ousted CEO at my previous company used when he was fired. It's industry speak for "I got canned and wish to make a graceful exit".
Ryan Winslow
EAA 525529
Stinson 108-1 "Big Red", RV-7 under construction
Oooh, I wrote that Pelton had fake B.S. and M.S. degrees in Aerospace Engineering from Hamilton University and my post was DELETED! So much for an open forum. Well, read the article here: http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?d...4-7b2da56dc1db
If Jack Pelton has fake degrees which he purports to be real, how can he be trusted and why should he be a part of the EAA?
No, your post was deleted because you directly called him a liar. That's a personl attack, and everyone should know by now that they're not allowed here, period.Originally Posted by Jimbabwe
Hal Bryan
EAA Lifetime 638979
Vintage 714005 | Warbirds 553527
Managing Editor
EAA—The Spirit of Aviation
So the ex CEO of a Jet airplane company now runs EAA?
Not much has changed.
I know nothing about Jack and wish him well.
But can you imagine if Bill Lear had been appointed CEO of EAA in 1965?
Again, airplane manufacturers running EAA is a direct conflict of interest. EAA members need leaders that will fight against the agenda from jet manufacturers and airlines ( who mostly want us to stay out the way, especially ultralights).
But Jack is welcome to explain how he can advocate for ultralights and low cost home-builts (without $15,000 ADS-B, etc., etc....)
There have been some comments about Sport Aviation as an indicator of broader changes in EAA. I felt I needed to chime in. Overall, I like the changes in Sport Aviation (overall). If that is an indicator of broader changes in EAA, then I guess I like that too. There seems to be something in each issue that appeals to me, often more than one thing, and often for more than one reason. Now the down side, which is an indicator of cautions we must keep in mind with change. For a long time now, there has been little difference between Flying and AOPA Pilot. Even the covers are the same and I often forget which one I am reading (and I am not THAT old...yet.) Some years ago, I found it difficult to justify keeping both subscriptions. Then Lane Wallace came in to Flying's staff and brought a breath of real touch the sky and look at the ground flying. I decided to renew. Then her style started conformed to the model of everything else in Flying -- and out of touch with the "weekend pilot." (Thankfully, she seems to have returned to her earlier passions since coming to SportAviation). Before I could drop my subscription, Martha Lunken came on board. I keep my subscription to Flying for her. (This is long but bear with me.) I always looked forward to reading Mac in Flying (but I flew a Baron, then) but I do not see how he fits in Sport Aviation. OK, now where I am going with this? Sport Aviation needs to appeal to the broad interests of General Aviation: real, grass roots pilots and aviation enthusiasts of all types, while guarding against becoming just another aviation advocacy group. It must keep a particular character, which may be different than the one it had 20 years ago, but one that stays consistent with that spirit. The Chapters will keep that going -- and there is nothing else like it (with respects to the CAF). But we need to keep the Chapters going. We also need to talk with each other. That is why Sport Aviation is important, it allows the experimenters, the warbirds, vintage flyers, and the rest to inform one another about the great community we are all part of and share ideas about our common passion. That is why EAA is important.
Rod Hightower left for whatever reason. I wish him well. Jack Pelton is taking us through transition and we need to work with him, however we can, in whatever capacity we have, to make that transition successful and keep EAA growing, changing, while remaining the same in its essential. It is about the people.
Sorry for being so long-winded.
Even if it isn't true, So What, An A&P certificate doesn't make you a great mechanic and a aerospace engineering degree doesn't make you an good Engineer. There is a lot of talent on the airfield at Oshkosh by those without degrees and certificates. Furthermore, If you were to search the Biographies of many prominent inventors and and notable engineers in aviation you would find they lack a formal education. All I can say is Jack was a member of EAA and Chapter #1 long before he ever joined Cessna and he is one of us. I havn't seen Jack's EAA number but I would bet it is a low number.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-80863924.html no real formal aeronautical education. Much like his mentor, John Northrop, he was a self-trained draftsman,
http://www.nationalaviation.org/northrop-john/
During his long career at Douglas, Heinemann designed more than 20 combat aircraft, primarily for the U.S. Navy, including many that became legends in aviation history. His designs included:
- SBD Dauntless dive bomber
- A-20 Havoc light bomber/attack aircraft
- A-26 Invader light bomber/attack aircraft
- A-1 Skyraider attack aircraft
- A-3 Skywarrior bomber
- A-4 Skyhawk light bomber
- F3D Skyknight night fighter
- F4D Skyray carrier-based fighter aircraft
- Douglas Skystreak and Douglas Skyrocket research aircraft
Last edited by RV8505; 10-24-2012 at 06:59 PM.
RV8505, you are missing my point. I agree that certificates don't make the man or the woman. I agree that a lack of a formal education does not prevent one from being a great inventor, leader or engineer.
However, there are many fields and professions in which misrepresenting one's credentials are grounds for suspension from professional practice and sometimes even criminal prosecution. Unfortunately, management is not one of them.
What is your point? Rod is gone, Our organization is in a state of chaos, I don't know if your intent is to push the EAA over the edge or you have a personal ax to grind with Jack as a possible former Cessna employee. Jack was appointed and it is what it is. Your remarks aren't really doing anything more than adding to the turmoil. That article came out in 2004 and whatever Jack supposedly did or didn't do, Cessna believed in him enough to keep him around 7 years. If you know anything about corporate America that is a long time.
So what?
I believe there is a huge difference between being talented / self-taught and claiming a questionable credential. What if an A&P / IA signed off *your* annual and turned out to be unlicensed? What if you applied for a job using real credentials and someone with higher degrees from a diploma mill got the job? Would you feel cheated?
Read these:
http://investor.textron.com/phoenix....271&highlight=
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_J._Pelton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_University
After I read the above articles, I think Mr. Pelton should explain to the membership his degrees from Hamilton University and the circumstances under which these were awarded. There may be a very good explanation. Then again, maybe not.
I say let's give the guy a chance. He's had decades of experience in aviation and wasn't voted in as EAA Chairman of the Board or temporary CEO because of his degrees or lack thereof. He earned the position through a lengthy, successful career. I've never met him, but I have spoken to people who know him first hand and who believe he will be an excellent fit for EAA. I hope they are right.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote