What is the purpose of EAA?

[cluttonfred]

The Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) has grown and changed over the years, merged with other organizations, and certainly means different things to different people. Homebuilt, vintage, ultralight, aerobatic, and warbird enthusiasts all have their place.

One thing that strikes me is that there seems to be less emphasis on homebuilding and restoration today then when I first became an EAA member 25 years ago. I don't want to rehash old threads about the spectacle of Airventure, the editorial line of Sport Aviation or the ups and downs of EAA chapters, but it seems clear that the organization's focus has changed.

I recently contacted the EAA Library and asked for copies of the organization's charter. I received the original and revised articles of incorporation from 1955 and 2013. It's interesting to compare the two and see what EAA declared as its purpose then and now.

1955
Article 3. The purposes shall be
(a) To encourage the development of any type of aircraft by individuals through experimentation and home engineering.
(b) To foster closer fellowship through the exchange of idea of mutual interest, and to be fraternal in character.
(c) To aid in reducing the cost of homebuilding and experimentation through cooperative buying.

2013
ARTICLE THREE. PURPOSES

This corporation is organized and shall be operated exclusively for educational, scientific and/or charitable purposes and, to the extent consistent therewith, shall:

(a) Cooperate with and assist governmental agencies in the development of programs relating to aviation activities.

(b) Promote and encourage aviation safety in the design, construction and operation of all types of aircraft.

(c) Promote and encourage grass roots efforts relating to aviation research and development.

(d) Promote and encourage aviation.

What do folks here, as EAA members, think of these changes to the stated purpose of EAA?

Cheers,

Matthew

[Bill Berson]

In one of the 1970's Homebuilders column by Paul Poberezny, he said it simply:
"Designing, building and flying for fun".

The issue was that EAA was to promote flying for fun, not transportation.
He didn't want fun flying rules and costs etc. all lumped in and associated with general aviation. That was the essence of EAA then.
Todays EAA is fully general aviation.

[Frank Giger]

Well, let's look at the size and scale of each organization then versus now:

ARTICLE THREE. PURPOSES
This corporation is organized and shall be operated exclusively for educational, scientific and/or charitable purposes and, to the extent consistent therewith, shall:
(a) Cooperate with and assist governmental agencies in the development of programs relating to aviation activities.

Paul and his merry band of airplane nuts in the basement would never have such hubris to write something down like that. But he didn't shy away from it once the organization had the size to get the moxie to walk into a Senator's office.

And when it comes to developing regulations or rules impacting homebuilt aircraft, the EAA isn't just an organization to speak to with expertise, it is THE organization of expertise to involve.

(b) Promote and encourage aviation safety in the design, construction and operation of all types of aircraft.

As Experimental Aircraft became more popular and the numbers increased, the goal of just having folks build their own airplanes to having them build better ones was natural.

(c) Promote and encourage grass roots efforts relating to aviation research and development.

Yep. It's not the EAA in Oshkosh that make the EAA work. It's the local chapter. If the EAA is failing, we, the builders and members, are to blame. However, the big advances in E-AB's have been at the lowest levels, not some think tank workshop the EAA might try and develop.

(d) Promote and encourage aviation.

Don't see a problem with this. I don't know how many folks who fly spam-cans have told me that they'd consider building their own airplane after looking at mine and some others.

So I don't have a problem with it.

[Floatsflyer]

Matthew and Bill have succinctly set out the EAA differences and purposes then and now. Organizations, like people, institutions and companies evolve and change to varying degrees over time in accordance with needs, requirements, partnerships, economic needs, societal changes and cultural shifts.

What is also very interesting to observe is how Oshkosh has changed over the same period to be a reflection of the Articles then and now. From a personal anecdote, I first went in 1981 and my recollection is at least 80% all homebuilts and related. I am not a E-AB builder type but I went because I knew it was the place to be if you were a pilot and just loved being around airplanes. My memory says Cessna and Piper were the only conventional GA that had outdoor exhibits. There were very few true kit companies then exhibiting, primarily plans built with some prefab components available and lots of exhibitors selling everything aviation from soup to nuts. I remember vividly being quite impressed with the Christen Eagle airplane-in-a-box and all the components neatly organized, bagged and labelled and some vacuum sealed. My greatest moment that year was meeting and talking to Pappy Boyinton who had a hangar booth selling his book. All these many years later I must say that I enjoy the entire breadth of displayed aviation as constituted now from ultralights to warbirds. I also must say I don't need an air show every day.

[cluttonfred]

I appreciate both of your comments and agree completely that the organization has to evolve over time. What concerns me most is that homebuilding has disappeared entirely from the 2013 articles. That seems very problematic for an organization that still calls itself the Experimental Aircraft Association. EAA can join other organizations like AOPA in promoting general aviation broadly (though that's not why I belong to EAA) but those other organizations do not focus on homebuilding. If EAA does not focus on promoting homebuilding as its primary mission, who will?

[Mike M]

... What concerns me most is that homebuilding has disappeared entirely from the 2013 articles. That seems very problematic for an organization that still calls itself the Experimental Aircraft Association.... If EAA does not focus on promoting homebuilding as its primary mission, who will?

Yep.

[Bill Berson]

I appreciate both of your comments and agree completely that the organization has to evolve over time. What concerns me most is that homebuilding has disappeared entirely from the 2013 articles. That seems very problematic for an organization that still calls itself the Experimental Aircraft Association. EAA can join other organizations like AOPA in promoting general aviation broadly (though that's not why I belong to EAA) but those other organizations do not focus on homebuilding. If EAA does not focus on promoting homebuilding as its primary mission, who will?

Homebuilding has been a very small part of EAA’s Sport Aviation content since about 1970.
I think it's up to you and me to design and bring homebuilts or ideas to Oshkosh. I was thinking of bringing my experimental engine that is mounted on my trailer. Seems like the EAA thing to do.

[Floatsflyer]

What concerns me most is that homebuilding has disappeared entirely from the 2013 articles.

Agreed specifically. But Article 3 (b) and (c), while not direct, specific, precise and pre-meditated, could be interpreted to be broad enough in scope to include homebuilding. At the same time, however, it certainly does raise the critical question why EAA chose to diliberately exclude any words or phrasing like homebuilding, experimental, and home engineering. At the end of the day, that's a question to be asked of and answered only by Jack Pelton.

[djenders]

I appreciate both of your comments and agree completely that the organization has to evolve over time. What concerns me most is that homebuilding has disappeared entirely from the 2013 articles. That seems very problematic for an organization that still calls itself the Experimental Aircraft Association. EAA can join other organizations like AOPA in promoting general aviation broadly (though that's not why I belong to EAA) but those other organizations do not focus on homebuilding. If EAA does not focus on promoting homebuilding as its primary mission, who will?

To answer your direct question, no one! EAA really is the only organization that people can turn to for home building.

What I really think you are asking is if EAA's primary focus should be home building? It is clear from my time working at HQ that it's an internal struggle as well. How does the organization balance what it used to be vs. what it is.

More so, is EAA an airshow or is it an organization? It's a difficult question to ask and answer because everyone has their own opinions but the facts pretty clearly state that the organization is driven by the revenue of AirVenture. That's not to say that members don't see benefits in home building ad education because of it, but without that economic engine I wonder if EAA would be little more than a bunch of old guys grabbing coffee in a hangar every weekend.

All of the industry numbers are terribly concerning, and while everyone wants to point at costs being a deterrent to being a pilot and owner of a plane it's clear that awareness and education are the bigger issues.

I could riff on this for days. It's amazing to zoom out and see just how much it has grown – on the foundation of inclusion, a key belief of Paul's. It would be more accurate to describe EAA as a loose group of niche aviation communities.

But, for an organization rooted in home building and experimental it's sad to see that it hasn't necessarily driven that thinking forward. The Founder's Innovation Prize is an attempt, but where is the truly big thinking? What about a set of plans for a truly affordable aircraft that could be driven by the partnership from kit companies? Something that anyone could build in months vs. years?

Or what about embracing what experimental means in alternative fuel (electric), drones, or technology that disrupts the industry? I just don't think you are going to see that from an organization that is more focused on being a care taker of the brand / mission vs. pushing it forward.

It's not easy to manage and balance what might have been with what might be. But for too long the organization has meandered between both and now finds itself somewhere between pockets of excellence in the organization and daily mediocrity. It's sad to see...

While the yearly financial success of AirVenture is something to be proud of and point to, if you were to judge EAA's success on the statements of purpose (from the original charter in 53 or now) I think it would score pretty low.