Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41

Thread: What is the purpose of EAA?

  1. #21
    If EAA continued to be a club of home-builders only, it would be a very small club indeed, and shrinking every year.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    1,609
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark van Wyk View Post
    If EAA continued to be a club of home-builders only, it would be a very small club indeed, and shrinking every year.
    In all the years that the mission statement never changed this group called the EAA grew to be what we know it today. I agree the mission statement should have been left alone. Only one reason to change it. That would be to change what the EAA is really about and the mission they stand for.

    Tony

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    FA40
    Posts
    767
    Quote Originally Posted by djenders View Post
    ...The average age of our members is way too high...
    Ah, yes, average age is way too high. When I walked in to my first EAA meeting (after being a national member almost a year) I looked around and decided buying a $300 Life Membership was stupid because the organization would be dead and buried in ten years or less. That was 1972.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Clarklake, MI
    Posts
    2,461
    Quote Originally Posted by djenders View Post
    The average age of our members is way too high.
    I know a guy that will change the date on birth certificates for $25. Completely undetectable to the untrained eye!! He might be open to group rates?

    Good point though, aviation jobs are getting hard to fill because the pipeline ran dry.

  5. #25
    Joda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Oshkosh, Wisconsin, United States
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by rwanttaja View Post
    I think, basically, what we're looking at is the type of evolution that accompanies any sort of social activity initially designed for a special interest group......
    Absolutely fantastic post Ron, and spot-on. Organizations need to evolve. Nothing stays the same. If it does, it dies. A friend of mind used to say "you gotta keep moving ahead, because if you're not moving ahead you're standing still. And if you're standing still you're falling behind, because everyone else is moving ahead." That's the way the world works. And when it comes to the "big tent" that is EAA, both Paul and Tom always asked "who do you tell not to come."

    Sure, we all (or at least all of us who were there) lament the passing of the "good old days", but if the organization never changed and evolved it would have gradually died, and where would be be then?
    Cheers!

    Joe

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    1,609
    Quote Originally Posted by WacoJoe View Post
    Absolutely fantastic post Ron, and spot-on. Organizations need to evolve. Nothing stays the same. If it does, it dies. A friend of mind used to say "you gotta keep moving ahead, because if you're not moving ahead you're standing still. And if you're standing still you're falling behind, because everyone else is moving ahead." That's the way the world works. And when it comes to the "big tent" that is EAA, both Paul and Tom always asked "who do you tell not to come."

    Sure, we all (or at least all of us who were there) lament the passing of the "good old days", but if the organization never changed and evolved it would have gradually died, and where would be be then?
    The US constitution comes to mind. We amend it but never change it. The same should hold try for the EAA's missions statement...IMHO

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Hilo, HI
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by 1600vw View Post
    The US constitution comes to mind. We amend it but never change it. The same should hold try for the EAA's missions statement...IMHO
    How do you mean? The amendments absolutely change the constitution. It starts out right in Article I with the "three fifths" clause being removed by the 14th amendment.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    1,205
    Change that supports and grows the original mission of grass roots aviation for the "little guy" would be a proper course to the future, no question.
    But EAA Sport Aviation has become a copy of Flying or AOPA magazine and is now the exact opposite of the original promoter of grass roots. I am only speaking of Sport Aviation now. Just look at the covers of past 12 issues and compare with the 60’s and 70’s.

    Now Oshkosh is a completely separate matter. The big tent works fine for the Oshkosh Fly-in because each attendee picks what they want. Oshkosh is only one week a year and mostly for those near Wisconsin.
    But 99% of the innovators around the country or world could never get to Oshkosh yet relied on Sport Aviation as a source of engineering data and inspiration to do something local.
    I was an EAA member for decades before I ever got to Oshkosh. All I had was the magazine to read (and reread).

    Sport Aviation was the only alternative to Flying and AOPA magazine which was for the rich. (Everybody knows only the rich are pilots or airplane owners, right?)
    What good is today's Sport Aviation magazine to the young innovators of today that can't get to Oshkosh?

  9. #29
    cluttonfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    World traveler
    Posts
    457
    I am glad to see that I have sparked some honest discussion and I now get Ron's "Three Stooges" porpoise jokes. ;-)

    One thing that I'd like to put out there is that if EAA has become driven by the circus that is Airventure, stuck in a vicious circle of needing to be big to support the big event and needing the money from the big event to be big, that can be changed. I don't mean abandon the event, I suggest scaling back the size of EAA to be less dependent on the revenue and then contracting out to a for-profit event management company to run the show. EAA would still take a percentage as a fund-raising tool, but they wouldn't have to actually run it and could spend the rest of the year focused on the members and actual goals of EAA.

    In terms of actually focusing on the members, I'd love to see some of the time and effort now spent on Airventure directed instead to many small, regional fly-ins, perhaps each with a homebuilt/vintage/ultralight/warbird/aerobatic (pick one) focus. I would also like to see more direct sponsorship of design competitions and awards (remember the "best new design" awards?) for aircraft and useful products for members. EAA could even offer little grants to individuals and small companies to encourage the development of niche products to serve homebuilders, restorers, aerobats, etc. Pete Plumb's O-100 engine comes to mind, as do some of the low-cost Arduino-based DIY instruments, or any number of small shops still providing parts and service for antique planes and engines.
    *******
    Matthew Long, Editor
    cluttonfred.info
    A site for builders, owners and fans of Eric Clutton's FRED
    and other safe, simple, affordable homebuilt aircraft

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Marietta, GA
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Berson View Post
    Change that supports and grows the original mission of grass roots aviation for the "little guy" would be a proper course to the future, no question.
    But EAA Sport Aviation has become a copy of Flying or AOPA magazine and is now the exact opposite of the original promoter of grass roots. I am only speaking of Sport Aviation now. Just look at the covers of past 12 issues and compare with the 60’s and 70’s.
    Before I began my RV-6, I'd find copies of SA on FBO tables and flip through them in a disinterested way. Then, I started the RV project and SA gained huge importance because of the inspiration provided by the stories and the technical help shared in the pages. Now, other than a few pages specifically set aside for technical stuff, you're right - it is indistinguishable from Flying. Instead of being project or member driven, the format is column driven, just like Flying. Pretty much, Mac recreated Flying Magazine under a new title. And now they both stink. I long for the day when almost every issue had a lengthy article or two on recent Grand Champion aircraft and their owners/builders...

    So, I say - kick out the columns, bring back the stories focused on aircraft and their owners/builders. At least the magazine will be a unique product that doesn't share the same space with Flying, Plane and Pilot, etc...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •