No more Chad?

[EZRider]

This is very disappointing news. He was a real EAA asset and was a positive face and force for the organization.

[RV8505]

I believe we should give Chad's own words the creedance due rather than speculative stuff going on here. His words suggest that he believes he was wrongfully dismissed and that this event is far from being a fait a complis. In reading between the lines as well there is more here than work related.

I agree, They should have talked to Chad and got the OK before they even started these threads. The man is trying to get his EAA job back and I am sure this is not helping. It's not to cool to plaster your friend's employment status on the internet. It is going to be on the internet a long time and a savy Human resources person will find it when & if he has to seek other job opportunities. We know the EAA will say nothing so unless Chad communicates his story all we have is speculation.

[Bob Collins]

I believe we should give Chad's own words the creedance due rather than speculative stuff going on here. His words sugest that he believes he was wrongfully dismissed and that this event is far from being a fait a complis. In reading between the lines as well there is more here than work related.

For the record, I didn't start this thread until Chad had already posted about his dismissal on the Van's Air Force board.

There are two separate issues here. One is Chad's particular circumstances. That's a private employer-issue. I have little interest in the particulars.

The second issue is the state of the EAA direction to bring the homebuilder/amateur community higher into the organizational consciousness. I care about that.

[esjacoby77]

The second issue is the state of the EAA direction to bring the homebuilder/amateur community higher into the organizational consciousness. I care about that.

I tend not to post on threads of this nature, but I think Bob has it right. The EAA leadership often seems to forget what the "E" stands for. Chad seemed like he was working hard to turn that around. Not knowing the details about Chad's departure, I do hope EAA's management will reconsider. If EAA's emphasis starts, once again, shifting further away from experimental/amateur/homebuilt, I see no need to maintain a membership.

[Floatsflyer]

This gets curiouser and curiouser. This is a statement from EAA as reported on Avweb:

EAA spokesman Dick Knapinski said Jensen's dismissal was a "personnel situation" that he could not discuss but he added that EAA is talking with him about another role within the organization. "We're hoping to keep him involved somehow," Knapinski said.

Can't make out what this implies, wouldn't even attempt to. But in the world of employer/employee dismissals, this kind of statement usually only occurs in the professional sports area.

[Bill Greenwood]

I am not a homebuilder, though I was a partner in one in the past. I think homebuilding should be part of EAA, not the main part or the whole part, but perhaps 20%.

I an interested by and like many types of general aviation, as long as it is sport aviation, and by that I mean aviation for fun. I have almost no interest in reading about IFR flying in a G5 or having my ears blasted by new military jets at EAA, whose main feature is how much they cost taxpayers, and how irrelevant they are for most pilots. Some expansion or change of focus for EAA over the years is normal and welcome.

So my endorsment of Chad doesn't have anything to do with favoring one segment of EAA over another, just that he seems to be a nice guy and the kind of employee EAA needs and should want at headquarters.
And along with the airplanes, it is the people that you meet and know through EAA that make it special.

[rwanttaja]

This gets curiouser and curiouser. This is a statement from EAA as reported on Avweb:

EAA spokesman Dick Knapinski said Jensen's dismissal was a "personnel situation" that he could not discuss but he added that EAA is talking with him about another role within the organization. "We're hoping to keep him involved somehow," Knapinski said.

Can't make out what this implies, wouldn't even attempt to. But in the world of employer/employee dismissals, this kind of statement usually only occurs in the professional sports area.

With the comment about trying to keep him in the organization, two things come to mind: Either EAA management felt he was ineffective (a ludicrous thought) or he managed to tick off someone that the EAA wishes to mollify... a board member, a co-worker, or advertiser.

Ron Wanttaja

[Floatsflyer]

With the comment about trying to keep him in the organization, two things come to mind:.... or he managed to tick off someone in aviation that the EAA wishes to mollify.

Ron Wanttaja

If "politics" played a role here I hope EAA investigated thoroughly and gave Chad the opportunity to explain his side of any alleged contraversy. However, I'd be skeptical because when it comes down to a big bucks supporter, sponsor, advertiser, exhibitor, or participant versus loyalty and support to an employee, the latter will always end up holding the short end of the stick no matter the outcome of such an investigation. It becomes a whitewash with the parties involved that hold the power and influence just wanting the situation to go away quickly.

[Victor Bravo]

I think homebuilding should be part of EAA, not the main part or the whole part, but perhaps 20%.

I an interested by and like many types of general aviation, as long as it is sport aviation, and by that I mean aviation for fun. I have almost no interest in reading about IFR flying in a G5

how irrelevant they are for most pilots.

Some expansion or change of focus for EAA over the years is normal and welcome.

I beg to differ with Mr. Greenwood. Homebuilding is the foundation, and heart, and lifeblood of EAA. Homebuilding should be 20% of AOPA, and 80% of EAA. The issue of "relevance to most pilots" is now even more in favor of homebuilding and classic/antique aircraft than any other segment of aviation. 30-40 years ago, the choice of buying a new Cessna/Piper/Beech, versus building an airplane of your own, had pros and cons on both sides. Today, homebuilding or a restored antique is the ONLY choice for a large majority of the potential aircraft owners. New Cessnas, even a basic 172, are essentially irrelevant to the vast majority.

The direction, both business-wise and mission-wise, that EAA has been going is just not working for a large number of longtime, loyal, dedicated members. This is "the writing on the wall" I've seen myself at Oshkosh and all the way back home in Los Angeles. While Chad's employment is technically not anyone's business on an HR level, it does serve as a perfect opportunity for the membership to initiate a discussion on EAA's changing priorities... a discussion that EAA HQ really ought to be listening to.

EAA might very well be correct in its desire to reach out to the other segments of GA, as a path to becoming the home-base organization for all of aviation. Go for it, that is actually a worthwhile goal, so long as it does not minimize, marginalize or dilute its focus on the core membership that built the organization. That's what the "Rank and file" is upset about... being downgraded to "just another" part of EAA, with no seniority or priority. Making EAA the home of Beech Baron and TBM owners as well as Volksplane owners is fine and dandy. However, bringing in Mac McClellan, to make Sport Aviation as irrelevant as Flying had become, is not the answer. NO offense to Mac.

My idea on that (magazine) subject is that maybe EAA needs to print another magazine called General Aviation, or Professional Aviation, or Turbine Aviation... which Mac should rightly be in charge of. But having major feature articles on the TBM and SR-22 and this year's King Air invade and encroach on the core topics that made Sport aviation relevant to the average EAA member caused me to cringe. Let Sport Aviation remain the leading magazine for non-professional sport pilots and their airplanes,a nd then make a separate magazine for the pilots and owners of high-dollar and corporate aircraft that EAA is trying to "reach out" and broaden its appeal to.

So in my opinion, the "Expansion and Change" Bill mentions may well be worthwhile, or necessary for survival, but EAA has addressed this in a way that has alienated many of the most loyal and lifelong members who built this organization. My strongest point is that the expansion and change could have, should have, been handled in a manner that did not disenfranchise such a large number of members.

A prime example of this problem would be if Ron's guess is correct... that Chad managed to pi** offan advertiser or some other bigwig. Although I have not met or worked with him, apparently the value that Chad has brought, and how much his efforts meant to a lot of members, should possibly count for more than keeping any one advertiser "mollified".

[Bill Greenwood]

Victor, you have apparently misread and misunderstood part of what I wrote, and by only quoting part of one of my sentences it has the effect of misquoting me.
So let's try again.

I did not write that homebuilding was irrelevant to most people, that phrase went with the sentence about modern military jets.

And if you don't think 20 % is enough part of EAA for homebuilding that is your opinon. But I sure don't think it should be 80% or even the majority, any more than I think U L or Acro should be 80%.
And the way to find more about this is for EAA to do a real survey of all members, maybe even all vistors to Airventure to see what they prefer. It doesn't have to be lenghty, but it does need to cover all of us, not some narrowly selected minority.

And you missed the real essence of what I was trying to covey, which was that my support of Chad was becasue I thought he was a good representative for EAA, not because he was pushing for my pet segment of EAA over some other or all other segments.

As for as Turbine Aviation, well as an AOPA member I can and do opt out of that segment of their magazine, and I agree that if they or EAA made an entirely separte magazine for this ,then Mac would be a good choice for editor.

Personally a writer I like is Mark Phelps, who I have flown with, and who was a pretty cool pilot one day when we had an emergency.