F'in eh!Originally Posted by Brent
F'in eh!
Well... I don't agree with Tom, but that's a bit harsh. Just because he feels that the new changes don't really make a major difference doesn't mean he's a shill for the EAA.
Heck, people have accused ME of being a shill for the EAA. I suspect it's no more true for Tom than it is for me.
The survey is interesting, but the fact is, that sort of thing generally draws the "anti" crowd. It's in no way scientific. Most people who believe the changes don't matter probably aren't that passionate about it, and are ignoring the threads.
The basic fact is, EAA has applied right-hand torque to the canine: This was a panicked implementation of a new policy; it sounds like some lawyer type claimed that EAA was in a huge liability and had to solve the problem FAST. As the saying goes..."You want it bad, you get it bad." There are better approaches they could have taken...in fact, with an unwarned, draconian implementation with no coordination, one could probably say they picked the worst. They've apparently compounded it with unannounced changes that mean that folks don't know WHAT the current requirements are.
They've apparently not thought out the impact on AirVenture as well...will the same requirements apply to volunteers THERE? After all, children are present. AirVenture is tough enough to run *now*...what'll it be like if 25% or 33% of the volunteers refuse to serve?
When your computer or other electric device get this hosed, there's only one real solution: Turn it off, and turn it back on again.
I'd suggest that EAA immediately suspend the Young Eagles program, and rescind all the policy letters and registration. Work with the YE coordinators, Chapter presidents, and the membership to find a solution that meets legal requirements. Maybe it'll end up where it is now. But at least the membership will feel that their organization *involved* them, rather than treated them like paid employees instead of the willing volunteers they are now.
And folks, I'm just as against this policy as many of you. But perhaps we can calm down the rhetoric. Let's discuss policy, not personality.
Ron Wanttaja
Mark, I don't appreciate your name calling. I am not a sour grapes person but a long standing EAA MEMBER who has spent much time and effort supporting EAA values. You should apologize for making personal attracts on your fellow EAA members.
Today the Board of Directors of our Chapter reluctantly voted unanimously to suspend all YE activity. We had events scheduled in April and May to fly over 70 participants. As Board members we no longer feel comfortable accepting liability for the program when the YPP rules are so onerous and specific. Our Chapter will not endorse YE events or support individual members providing flights in our name until we are convinced we have no liability this program seems to impose on us.
Being an an officer of a Chapter seems now to have much more legal liability. If any of our members break any of these very specific and impractical restrictions, we have no protection. This is not a risk that should be imposed on chapter officers. It will be difficult to find people willing to expose themselves to the additional personal liability this program imposes on Chapter leaders.
IF you are able to hold a Young Eagles Rally, with enough different volunteers to not exceed the 4 hours at a time... you are in a much bigger, or better supported chapter than our current. Unfortunately, for us to hold a Rally, not only means that those that help out work the four hours, the pilots are pretty much flying non-stop for that same four hour period.
hmmm loop hole option .... hold 3 hour Rally's 3 times per year. ;-)
Bryan
Your statement just provided evidence to lawyers that you are conspiring to abuse children.
Well, I've had an engine failure with YEs aboard. Two of the three sets of parents waited at the site much longer than was necessary (I spent some time with the State Police helping him fill out the accident report) to thank me for bringing their kids back safe. Got a nice letter from the YE office thanking me for not killing any young eagles.
Still didn't answer why you are a fanboy of the new program. I can only surmise that you have a personal interest somehow.
1996 Quad City Challenger CWS w/503 - Sold
1974 7ECA Citabria - Sold
1986 Pitts S1S
The groundhogs came out today and saw their shadows. That means 6 more weeks of EAA silence.
This issue and our Forum discussion has made the Aero News Network.
Article link:
http://www.aero-news.net/GetMoreFrom...9-a3aa1685685d
You're right about the unscientific nature of the poll, but "Sour Grapes" is the wrong metaphor. If you recall your Aesop, the fable is about a fox who wanted some grapes hanging overhead, but couldn't reach them. He then claimed the goal wasn't worthwhile (the grapes were probably sour, anyway). Not the case here...most of the people complaining about the policy change have been supporting YE for years.
This is more like the goose who laid the golden eggs. EAA's taking a knife to the volunteers have been providing the "eggs" in the form of their time, aircraft, and avgas, which has the result of making the supply dry up.
While the poll is unscientific, we can see how much this has upset members by the number of people joining the EAA forums to participate in this discussion. Note the low posting-count for many of them. These people have apparently joined the Forum specifically over this issue, and most of them are expressing dismay regarding the new policies.
Ron Wanttaja
Posting Permissions
