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