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.

[rwanttaja]

The porpoise of EAA....
http://www.wanttaja.com/porpoise.jpg

Ron "Look, it's flying!" Wanttaja

[cluttonfred]

The porpoise of EAA....
Ron "Look, it's flying!" Wanttaja

OK, I'll bite, please explain the porpoise joke. And I think that's a dolphin.

[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.

[rwanttaja]

OK, I'll bite, please explain the porpoise joke.
Note the wording of the title of this thread. "What is the porpoise of EAA?"


And I think that's a dolphin.

It's an EAB porpoise, without a TC, it can't be called a dolphin.

Ron "Everybody's a critic" Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

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.

You take a bunch of folks vaguely interested in, say, medieval times. One year, they go out and set up a couple of tents and camp like the goode olde days. Next year, a group of them decide to include a combat tournament. More people get interested and show up. The year after THAT, they realize that a couple of open pits for cooking aren't enough, so in come food vendors. Girfriends/Boyfriends of the participants, not being THAT into the medieval stuff, complain about Trees #1 through #3 and using hay sheaves for TP, so the organizers contract with a porta-potty company. Geeze, we need someone to plan parking, too....

Ten years later, "Arthur's Magic Weekend" has evolved to "Renfair Londunium," with jousts, tournaments, bar-be-que stands, showers, and a bunch of vendors that sell self-coiling hoses, car floor mats, and magic chamois.

And in the middle of it stands one old guy in an ill-sewed jerkin, chain mail made of pop-tops, pointy shoes, and wearing a sad frown, remembering the good 'ol days when they just camped and had fun. He probably even posted a picture of a dolphin wearing a knight's helmet....

We've seen the same thing with EAA. The problem is (if one can really describe it as a problem), EAA over-reached itself. It added additional features and programs that got to depend on the annual income from AirVenture, and now, it's hooked. It *can't* scale back to a "homebuilders organization" without eliminating a lot of these features and programs...and, for the most part, we don't really want them to. Sport Pilot and BasicMed took a lot of lobbying, and the kind of staff and support EAA needed for those just wouldn't have been supportable with a hobby organization.

EAA started out operating solely with volunteers, but that sort of thing can only be taken so far. Now, it's in the Red Queen's Race; it takes all the running they can do just to stay in the same place. Homebuilders are the first child; they think they're special until Pater and Mater crank out another half-dozen or so kids. They're still loved, but can't help wondering if some of the emphasis is gone....

Ron "Yoiks, and away!" Wanttaja

[djenders]

EAA started out operating solely with volunteers, but that sort of thing can only be taken so far. Now, it's in the Red Queen's Race; it takes all the running they can do just to stay in the same place. Homebuilders are the first child; they think they're special until Pater and Mater crank out another half-dozen or so kids. They're still loved, but can't help wondering if some of the emphasis is gone....


Agree with your well worded story! :)

The volunteer picture is extremely scary. There is no way the organization survives without an influx of young volunteers in the next 5 years. You can't have 60 year olds out there every spring and summer getting the site ready. And if you transitioned to paid workers, the sheer amount of people needed immediately breaks the financial model.

[Sam Buchanan]

Ron, in the words of the great American philosopher, Junior Samples, you just spit up a bib full. Perhaps the best description of the evolution of a special interest group that I've seen in a while :)

[DaleB]

I hereby nominate Ron's post for "Most Awesome Post of the Day".

[Floatsflyer]

Ten years later, "Arthur's Magic Weekend" has evolved to "Renfair Londunium," with jousts, tournaments, bar-be-que stands, showers, and a bunch of vendors that sell self-coiling hoses, car floor mats, and magic chamois.Ron "Yoiks, and away!" Wanttaja

Hey Sir Lancelot, you forgot ye ole mattresses and recliners.

[Floatsflyer]

The volunteer picture is extremely scary. There is no way the organization survives without an influx of young volunteers in the next 5 years. You can't have 60 year olds out there every spring and summer getting the site ready. And if you transitioned to paid workers, the sheer amount of people needed immediately breaks the financial model.

No, it's not scary at all. Yes, Oshkosh needs volunteers, lots of them. My info is that people are lined up a 1000 deep to volunteer. Yes, you can have 60 year olds(and much older) out there every spring and summer because every few years there's a whole new crop of 60 year olds to replace the predecessors.

It's the like having birthdays. Statistics show that people who have the most live the longest.(Larry Lorenzoni)

[djenders]

No, it's not scary at all. Yes, Oshkosh needs volunteers, lots of them. My info is that people are lined up a 1000 deep to volunteer. Yes, you can have 60 year olds(and much older) out there every spring and summer because every few years there's a whole new crop of 60 year olds to replace the predecessors.

It's the like having birthdays. Statistics show that people who have the most live the longest.(Larry Lorenzoni)

I very much disagree with you, and have seen the numbers. The average age of our members is way too high. And we don't have a younger crop to replace them. Hence the efforts by HR to drive college-aged volunteerism. In any given year you are talking about thousands of volunteers to make AirVenture happen between weekend work parties and everything during the week of the convention.

If there is anything that can single handedly bring the organization to its knees, I would say it's this. AirVenture would immediately become unviable.

[Floatsflyer]

I very much disagree with you, and have seen the numbers. The average age of our members is way too high. And we don't have a younger crop to replace them. Hence the efforts by HR to drive college-aged volunteerism. In any given year you are talking about thousands of volunteers to make AirVenture happen between weekend work parties and everything during the week of the convention.

If there is anything that can single handedly bring the organization to its knees, I would say it's this. AirVenture would immediately become unviable.

If at some time in the near or distant future, EAA Inc feels as you do and believes Oshkosh could be jeopardized by a paucity of volunteers, all they have to do is eliminate the requirement of being a member to volunteer and place a full page ad in the Oshkosh Times(or whatever it's called) and other surrounding city papers calling for volunteers. The relationship between EAA and the people of Wisconsin is so positive, the response would be beyond overwhelming.

[Mark van Wyk]

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

[1600vw]

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

[Mike M]

...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.

[martymayes]

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.

[Joda]

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?

[1600vw]

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

[lutorm]

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.

[Bill Berson]

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?

[cluttonfred]

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.

[Kyle Boatright]

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...

[djenders]

If at some time in the near or distant future, EAA Inc feels as you do and believes Oshkosh could be jeopardized by a paucity of volunteers, all they have to do is eliminate the requirement of being a member to volunteer and place a full page ad in the Oshkosh Times(or whatever it's called) and other surrounding city papers calling for volunteers. The relationship between EAA and the people of Wisconsin is so positive, the response would be beyond overwhelming.

Having worked inside those walls I can tell you that time is (almost) now, and the ads to call on volunteers don't result in overwhelming support.

[cluttonfred]

I agree with one caveat. There is nothing wrong inherently wrong with columns as long as they focus on homebuilding or vintage/warbird restoration or aerobatics or ultralights. Look at the incredible legacy that Tony Bingelis left behind, for example, or John Thorp's series of articles on building the T-18, or Bob Whittier's columns over the years. Yes, we could do with more in-depth looks at particular planes and projects focused on the person/people who actually did the building/restoration/design work (not just paid for it), but the right columns can also have an important place.


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...

[Mark17]

Interesting topic and I've enjoyed reading people's different takes. When I think of EAA, I think of community, encouragement, innovation, education, brotherhood and some of the best memories I have with my family. My Dad and I have been coming since 1990. In all that time I don't think the purpose has changed- it's all about family. Everyone who walks through the Brown Arch has aviation running through their blood. Whether you have 30,000 hours under your belt or you're being pushed in a stroller- we all have a common interest. EAA has worked extremely hard to support, protect, nurture and foster that interest. That was true when I first attended Oshkosh and it's still true today. It's our role as community members to continue to spread the word, take kids flying, share our experiences and do whatever we can to grow aviation. EAA is truly a magical organization. I'm proud to be a part of it.

[Bill Berson]

I agree with Kyle, monthly staff columns and no member or outsider technical articles is a big problem.
A columnist cannot reasearch a highly technical subject every month.
Bob Whittier probably took a year to reasearch his fabulous three part series on the "The Engine Situation". Bob Whittier was a manager that wrote occasional well reasearched articles based on actual experience as an aircraft mechanic.
Bingelis had a monthly column but he was an exception. Tough to find anyone like him.
Both solicited letters from members for ideas and input. Especially Bob, who was deaf and loved letters. (I wrote to him)

Paying staff columnists to make up flying stories each month is the sign of a lazy publisher.
The articles should be aircraft centered, not flying centered. Other magazines are pilot centered.
People that buy airplanes can read Flying magazine for flying articles.
People with no airplane need airplane design articles and the how to build or restore articles. DIY articles.
There is only about 100,000 private airplanes left in the U.S. and shrinking. Something must be done soon.

[lnuss]

If EAA were ONLY for people who actually build experimental aircraft, I'd drop it in a heartbeat. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy articles about construction techniques, about the aircraft folks have built and want to show off, about PIREPS on homebuilts, and more, but I don't have the patience to build such an aircraft even though I love the aircraft themselves, and I'd certainly not trust going up in something I'd built. But when you build an airplane, it's likely you'll want to fly it, too, and articles about flying technique, political shenanigans related to aviation, new equipment available for pilots, as well as aircraft, and much more should also be appropriate. Renovating older aircraft should be just as welcome as scratch, plans and/or kit-built craft.

So the current balance of articles I see in SA isn't bad, though it's certainly not the kind of publication that has EVERY article appealing to EVERY reader -- a compromise, in other words, trying to cover a broad range of interests. For those who think SA is "just like Flying" note that the recent changes in Flying have me debating about dropping my subscription because they've gone more and more in the direction of making it difficult to tell the articles from the ads, unless you carefully scrutinize each page -- they seem to want pretty instead of functional.

So though I have very little actual flying time in a homebuilt (lots of time in Cubs, Stearmans, Citabrias, gliders, etc.), I'm one who is thankful that EAA welcomes a broad spectrum of aviation afficianados, whether pilot, builder, on-looker or...

And OSH is a great place to go, lots to admire and learn about and enjoy.

[djenders]

As discussed earlier, a troubling sign that EAA is still short volunteers for AirVenture and looking to hire.

http://fox6now.com/2017/05/18/eaa-looking-to-hire-600-for-airventure-oshkosh-2017/

[Floatsflyer]

Dennis, not every available job or job title is or is meant to be a volunteer position. The jobs in your attachment are clearly NOT volunteer roles. The line up for interviews will be around the block.

[keen9]

Local young adults (probably some summer college students too) have filled the types of jobs listed every year that I've been to OSH. That's not concerning.

[djenders]

Dennis, not every available job or job title is or is meant to be a volunteer position. The jobs in your attachment are clearly NOT volunteer roles. The line up for interviews will be around the block.

If only that were true. Unfortunately volunteer numbers say otherwise.

[Sara Nisler]

If only that were true. Unfortunately volunteer numbers say otherwise.

Well except these jobs have been paid seasonal hires for many years, so I don't think this argument is a relevant one as an indication of any volunteer issue at AirVenture.

[Bill Berson]

Getting back to this threads title question, here is an answer from 1956. As stated on the cover of Experimenter:

6434

Some covers said "designing and Homebuilding"