WIX Archives

Long and boring...

Posted by bdk on Tue Jan 28, 2003 03:05:49 PM

In reply top Re: Follow the money... (What, me a cynic?) posted by Adam Smith on Tue Jan 28, 2003 12:08:44 PM

: Jim, neither the EAA or the EAA Aviation Foundation (which
: operates the flying airplanes) is a corporation as most p
: eople understand the word. They are both 501c3 non-profit
: organizations with a non-profit mission and structure.

Please don't blame Jim for that diatribe, those were my comments (Brandon). The EAA is a corporation, and acts like one (which is not a bad thing in most cases, just less fun!).
:
: You are correct that EAA is a broad-based organization wit
: h many different aviation interests across its 170,000 mem
: bers, and lots of things on its mind. I think your charact
: erization of the organization is very narrow and would enc
: ourage others to visit www.eaa.org to form their own concl
: usions about what EAA is and does, and whether or not the
: organization performs a valuable service to aviation.

I never said that their organization had no value to aviation. Quite the contrary. But the EAA's focus has changed dramatically over about the past ten years- and their magazine (Sport Aviation) is now very boring... just like Flying Magazine or Sport Pilot. I think that EAA has targeted a new demographic. Instead of trying to attract the already committed aircraft enthusiast, they are trying to appeal to the masses to get new people interested in aviation. I think that there was even a move afoot at one time to change the organization's name to "Sport Avaiation Association" in an attempt to flee the word "Experimental" which they saw as a negative (not politically correct) in attracting the general public.

I have been an EAA member since 1976 and a WOA member since 1992 and have gone to Oshkosh (I refuse to call it "Airventure") 15 times to date.
:
: Flying historic airplanes - and giving ordinary people the
: chance to ride in them - is a very important part of the
: mission of the EAA AirVenture Museum. However it is not so
: mething that can be done without regard to cost. Believe m
: e, flying old airplanes is not a profitable business, it r
: equires a subsidy. If insurance costs rocket and the econo
: my takes a downturn, this is not something a non-profit is
: immune from.

I think that is the point I made about the B-17 being of more value to the EAA as a flyer than the P-51.
:
: I would like to know more about this 'inner circle'. The E
: AA that I know welcomes volunteers in all aspects of its f
: light operations, and regularly puts out the call for new
: volunteers.

Yes, as a new member/volunteer, you will go right to the cockpit based solely on your flight credentials, won't you? :-)

I know that if you volunteered they would happily put you work. What you don't see is all the bickering that goes on amongst the volunteer hierarchy. There are more politics amongst the volunteers than you might imagine. I know one person who has volunteered at EVERY convention since the first one at Rockford, and a couple of others who have never missed a convention since they were born (one even had his daughter born AT the convention), so I know some people who have dealt with this first hand. Some are willing to put up with it, others aren't.

On a more general note, I think that the EAA has made the same transition that the NHRA and SCCA made in the mid-1970's. They have gone from a strictly amateur/enthusiast based organization to one with a corporate mentality. All these organizations go there eventually (if well enough managed), it is part of their life cycle- they mature. They become bery impersonal and insulated. I still go to Oshkosh, but it isn't all that it once was. It just isn't as much fun as it used to be.
:
: : Well, I suppose that there isn't exactly a shortage of P
: -5
: : 1's around, especially during the airshow. it seems that
: a
: : ny flying airplane would be a bother to the EAA (or most
: m
: : useums for that matter) unless they can generate revenue
: i
: : n excess of expenses (like selling lots of seats on each
: B
: : -17 flight and corporate sponsorship). Remember, the EAA
: i
: : s a corporation, not (supposedly) a playground for the i
: nn
: : er circle to enjoy flying warbirds at the members' expen
: se
: : . Warbirds are only a small part of what EAA is about. V
: er
: : y few of EAA's planes fly, other than those that produce
: r
: : evenue or can be justified through exposure (advertising
: ).
: : The EAA has other things on their mind like Sport Pilot
: C
: : ertification and collecting revenue from all those new b
: us
: : iness jet startups they are hawking (publicizing) incess
: an
: : tly...
: :
: : EAA is no longer a labor of love to the founders (in my
: op
: : inion), it has gone corporate (big time). EAA used to be
: a
: : bout experimenting, now it is about building mass produc
: ed
: : unassembled aircraft (kits). EAA has its place in histo
: ry
: : and still does much for general aviation, but it has lo
: st
: : much of its charm.
: :
: : That being said, it is indeed a shame that P-51 may neve
: r
: : fly again. Maybe they wouldn't notice if I substituted a
: f
: : iberglass replica???? :-)
: :
: :
: : : : What happened to "Keep 'em Flying"
: : :
: : : The XP-51 I can understand...but the others?

Follow Ups: