What makes the EAA tick?

[Stealth Pilot[_4_]]

the discussions on the airsport mag format have tickled up an old
question.

why is the EAA structured the way it is? is it something to do with
american tax law?

why is it that in a nation of 250 million the EAA president's name has
always been Poberezny? Why the dynastic succession?

As an australian the EAA has always seemed more of a slick corporation
than an actual Association. Or is there something to the Ferengi
lifestyle that we across the pond have missed.

Stealth Pilot
downunda.

[Ron Wanttaja[_2_]]

Stealth Pilot wrote:

> As an australian the EAA has always seemed more of a slick corporation
> than an actual Association. Or is there something to the Ferengi
> lifestyle that we across the pond have missed.

[waves hand across monitor]

These are not the homebuilders you've been looking for.

Ron Wanttaja

[Scott[_7_]]

Stealth Pilot wrote:


>
> As an australian the EAA has always seemed more of a slick corporation
> than an actual Association. Or is there something to the Ferengi
> lifestyle that we across the pond have missed.
>
> Stealth Pilot
> downunda.

Personally, I think when Paul was running it, it was more of a "family"
of aviators. Since Tom took over, it SEEMS geared toward highbuck stuff
and "glitz" as someone else mentioned in a different thread. I still
get a kick talking with Paul (and he even remembers my name when I bump
into him at Oshkosh or other fly-ins). I called him once to ask about
some Corben stuff and we chatted for about 45 minutes on the phone...he
wasn't too busy to take time to tell me all about what I had called to
find out about :)

Scott

[Stealth Pilot[_4_]]

On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:13:44 +0000, Scott >
wrote:

>Stealth Pilot wrote:
>
>
>>
>> As an australian the EAA has always seemed more of a slick corporation
>> than an actual Association. Or is there something to the Ferengi
>> lifestyle that we across the pond have missed.
>>
>> Stealth Pilot
>> downunda.
>
>Personally, I think when Paul was running it, it was more of a "family"
>of aviators. Since Tom took over, it SEEMS geared toward highbuck stuff
>and "glitz" as someone else mentioned in a different thread. I still
>get a kick talking with Paul (and he even remembers my name when I bump
>into him at Oshkosh or other fly-ins). I called him once to ask about
>some Corben stuff and we chatted for about 45 minutes on the phone...he
>wasn't too busy to take time to tell me all about what I had called to
>find out about :)
>
>Scott

that really is what these associations ought to be. friends enjoying
aviation.

Stealth Pilot

[Stealth Pilot[_4_]]

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 23:26:57 -0800, Ron Wanttaja >
wrote:

>Stealth Pilot wrote:
>
>> As an australian the EAA has always seemed more of a slick corporation
>> than an actual Association. Or is there something to the Ferengi
>> lifestyle that we across the pond have missed.
>
>[waves hand across monitor]
>
>These are not the homebuilders you've been looking for.
>
>Ron Wanttaja

I know that surname should warn me but honestly I have no idea what
you are saying.
could I have the brail version? maybe that will make sense.

Stealth Pilot

[[email protected]]

On Jan 29, 12:02*am, Stealth Pilot > wrote:

> why is the EAA structured the way it is? is it something to do with
> american tax law?


> Stealth Pilot

I think it has more to do with building a money making empire.

"It may interest you to learn that almost exactly one-third of EAA’s
160,000 members consider themselves to be homebuilders." from:
http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2009-12_homebuilders_update.asp

What are the other two thirds of the members? Magazine collectors?
===================
Leon McAtee

[Jim Ham]

Stealth Pilot wrote:
>
> the discussions on the airsport mag format have tickled up an old
> question.
>
> why is the EAA structured the way it is? is it something to do with
> american tax law?
>
> why is it that in a nation of 250 million the EAA president's name has
> always been Poberezny? Why the dynastic succession?
>
> As an australian the EAA has always seemed more of a slick corporation
> than an actual Association. Or is there something to the Ferengi
> lifestyle that we across the pond have missed.
>
> Stealth Pilot
> downunda.
The EAA is a non-profit organization under US law. A non-profit is just
like any other corporation except that its excess (read profit) has to
be retained and can't be distributed to shareholders. There is no limit
on compensation for employees. The EAA has a board of directors that run
the organization. Under Paul and perhaps under Tom they seem to have
just rubber stamped what Paul/Tom want to do. I'm sure that if one was
involved in the organization it's not that simple, but it sure looks
that way from the outside. I believe that most of the board are
appointed. Some are elected from the membership.

The EAA's "product" is services to its members. This encompasses a lot
of stuff, including lobbying in Washington, the magazines, the
convention, technical and business help for chapters, etc. It's not a
member-run organization, but members can and do influence what goes on.

Paul was/is a very genial guy and seemed to care a lot about his
members. At the same time one did not want to be in the way of the
organization. As an example he was ruthless in his treatment of farmers
who owned land adjacent to the convention grounds in Oshkosh. One thinks
along the lines of benevolent dictator.

Chapters are different. The national continues to try to keep all the
chapters in line with the national. Some chapters will even accept
members who do not pay dues to the national.

Just my opinion, of course...

Jim

[vaughn[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
On Jan 29, 12:02 am, Stealth Pilot > wrote:

>What are the other two thirds of the members? Magazine collectors?

People who just like to visit the Oshkosh airshow, people who dream of being
pilots/homebuilders someday, people in the "biz" who wish to sell stuff to
homebuilders, pilots who dream of being homebuilders someday.

And who knows? Some might be folks just like me: Pilots who just want to learn
more about their airplanes and want to be in the know about what others are
inovating in the field of light aircraft..

Vaughn

[stol]

On Jan 29, 11:30*am, jim ham > wrote:
> Stealth Pilot wrote:
>
> > the discussions on the airsport mag format have tickled up an old
> > question.
>
> > why is the EAA structured the way it is? is it something to do with
> > american tax law?
>
> > why is it that in a nation of 250 million the EAA president's name has
> > always been Poberezny? Why the dynastic succession?
>
> > As an australian the EAA has always seemed more of a slick corporation
> > than an actual Association. Or is there something to the Ferengi
> > lifestyle that we across the pond have missed.
>
> > Stealth Pilot
> > downunda.
>
> The EAA is a non-profit organization under US law. A non-profit is just
> like any other corporation except that its excess (read profit) has to
> be retained and can't be distributed to shareholders. There is no limit
> on compensation for employees. The EAA has a board of directors that run
> the organization. Under Paul and perhaps under Tom they seem to have
> just rubber stamped what Paul/Tom want to do. I'm sure that if one was
> involved in the organization it's not that simple, but it sure looks
> that way from the outside. I believe that most of the board are
> appointed. Some are elected from the membership.
>
> The EAA's "product" is services to its members. This encompasses a lot
> of stuff, including lobbying in Washington, the magazines, the
> convention, technical and business help for chapters, etc. It's not a
> member-run organization, but members can and do influence what goes on.
>
> Paul was/is a very genial guy and seemed to care a lot about his
> members. At the same time one did not want to be in the way of the
> organization. As an example he was ruthless in his treatment of farmers
> who owned land adjacent to the convention grounds in Oshkosh. One thinks
> along the lines of benevolent dictator.
>
> Chapters are different. The national continues to try to keep all the
> chapters in line with the national. Some chapters will even accept
> members who do not pay dues to the national.
>
> Just my opinion, of course...
>
> Jim- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

My .02 cents worth..

I am a lifetime member of the EAA.

Do I agree on every thing they do... Hell No.

For instance. Last year at Oshkosh, and yes it will always be Oshkosh
to me, not Airventure. A few big wigs from Ford Motor Company strolled
through the Zenith Aircraft booth and stopped to look at my plane,
which was displayed in the ZAC booth to showcase the 801 model line.
The Ford VIP's seemed nice enough till they saw I had a Ford V-8
installed in it, to which they promptly suggested that "exploring the
alternative engine route using a Ford engine" puts a big liability on
their image and they said right out no one should ever use their
products in aircraft applications..

I stood there for a minute as they wandered off and gathered my
thoughts and within eyesight on the booth I was standing was the Ford
exhibit with very large letters saying Ford embraces the EAA and what
it stands for. It was a damn good thing Tom or Paul didn't walk up at
the moment or would have been pretty rude to them for picking their
premier sponsor who had no interest in what the EAA really should
stand for.. EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT ASSOC... geez.

Does the EAA do everything right... no

Is there another game in town that even comes close to meeting the
needs of homebuilders, No, and they know it too, ;<(

Off my soapbox .................................................. ....
and now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Ben
www.haaspowerair.com

[Copperhead]

On Jan 29, 1:14*pm, stol > wrote:
> On Jan 29, 11:30*am, jim ham > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Stealth Pilot wrote:
>
> > > the discussions on the airsport mag format have tickled up an old
> > > question.
>
> > > why is the EAA structured the way it is? is it something to do with
> > > american tax law?
>
> > > why is it that in a nation of 250 million the EAA president's name has
> > > always been Poberezny? Why the dynastic succession?
>
> > > As an australian the EAA has always seemed more of a slick corporation
> > > than an actual Association. Or is there something to the Ferengi
> > > lifestyle that we across the pond have missed.
>
> > > Stealth Pilot
> > > downunda.
>
> > The EAA is a non-profit organization under US law. A non-profit is just
> > like any other corporation except that its excess (read profit) has to
> > be retained and can't be distributed to shareholders. There is no limit
> > on compensation for employees. The EAA has a board of directors that run
> > the organization. Under Paul and perhaps under Tom they seem to have
> > just rubber stamped what Paul/Tom want to do. I'm sure that if one was
> > involved in the organization it's not that simple, but it sure looks
> > that way from the outside. I believe that most of the board are
> > appointed. Some are elected from the membership.
>
> > The EAA's "product" is services to its members. This encompasses a lot
> > of stuff, including lobbying in Washington, the magazines, the
> > convention, technical and business help for chapters, etc. It's not a
> > member-run organization, but members can and do influence what goes on.
>
> > Paul was/is a very genial guy and seemed to care a lot about his
> > members. At the same time one did not want to be in the way of the
> > organization. As an example he was ruthless in his treatment of farmers
> > who owned land adjacent to the convention grounds in Oshkosh. One thinks
> > along the lines of benevolent dictator.
>
> > Chapters are different. The national continues to try to keep all the
> > chapters in line with the national. Some chapters will even accept
> > members who do not pay dues to the national.
>
> > Just my opinion, of course...
>
> > Jim- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> My .02 cents worth..
>
> I am a lifetime member of the EAA.
>
> Do I agree on every thing they do... Hell No.
>
> For instance. Last year at Oshkosh, and yes it will always be Oshkosh
> to me, not Airventure. A few big wigs from Ford Motor Company strolled
> through the Zenith Aircraft booth and stopped to look at my plane,
> which was displayed in the ZAC booth to showcase the 801 model line.
> The Ford VIP's seemed nice enough till they saw I had a Ford V-8
> installed in it, to which they promptly suggested that "exploring the
> alternative engine route using a Ford engine" puts a big liability on
> their image and they said right out no one should ever use their
> products in aircraft applications..
>
> I stood there for a minute as they wandered off and gathered my
> thoughts and within eyesight on the booth I was standing was the Ford
> exhibit with very large letters saying *Ford embraces the EAA and what
> it stands for. It was a damn good thing Tom or Paul didn't walk up at
> the moment or would have been pretty rude to them for picking their
> premier sponsor who had no interest in what the EAA really should
> stand for.. EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT ASSOC... geez.
>
> Does the EAA do everything right... no
>
> Is there another game in town that even comes close to meeting the
> needs of homebuilders, No, * * *and they know it too, ;<(
>
> Off my soapbox .................................................. ....
> and now back to your regularly scheduled programming.
>
> Benwww.haaspowerair.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I had no desire to join the EAA until last year when they started a
return to grass root's avaition and e-magazines, This lead to my
becoming a member. The Ford "suit's" you encountered were not the
norm, other's would have been deeply embarassed. Ford engineers,
factory workers, marketing and others whould have been thrilled to see
what you'd done with their product.

[Paul Dow (Remove CAPS in address)]

I went to the chapter leader weekend workshop last fall. Paul is really
upset about this succession process and the disagreement within the
board. He talked with the group around the fireplace at the lodge, and
it got pretty intense. Not an angry intense, but hurt feelings in that
the direction of the organization is slipping away from what it was. I
gathered that he wants to retain the comradeship the members have in the
organization. He wants it to be a bunch of people who have the common
interest of aviation, not a bunch of aviators who are only interested in
the machines.

It looks like at that time he was taken out of the selection process,
but he may have veto power (or a strong yes/no say on who is selected.)
Take a look at that letter he wrote for Christmas. To me, part of it
reads as a good bye letter.
http://www.eaa.org/chapters/newsletter/0912_php_greetings.pdf

With the issues last summer, it looks like they want someone to be
President who is an existing member. Last month, the chapter Presidents
got a letter from Tom asking for recommendations. I know they feel that
chapter members are among the most active and loyal members, so that's
probably why they sent looking to the chapters.

It could be an interesting next few months for the organization.

Scott wrote:
> Stealth Pilot wrote:
>
>
> Personally, I think when Paul was running it, it was more of a "family"
> of aviators. Since Tom took over, it SEEMS geared toward highbuck stuff
> and "glitz" as someone else mentioned in a different thread. I still
> get a kick talking with Paul (and he even remembers my name when I bump
> into him at Oshkosh or other fly-ins). I called him once to ask about
> some Corben stuff and we chatted for about 45 minutes on the phone...he
> wasn't too busy to take time to tell me all about what I had called to
> find out about :)
>
> Scott
>

[cavelamb[_2_]]

Paul (P) WAS the heart and soul of EAA.

[Peter Dohm]

"cavelamb" > wrote in message
m...
> Paul (P) WAS the heart and soul of EAA.

In a lot of ways, he still is.

The way I read the letter, he also made some excellent points about the
members, through the chapters, making themselves heard in the overall
decision making process--rather than just grumbling in small groups. It's
ok to grumble; but work it around to something that you can actually work
for.

Peter

[RST Engineering[_2_]]

On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:30:40 -0800, jim ham >
wrote:

>. I'm sure that if one was
>involved in the organization it's not that simple, but it sure looks
>that way from the outside. I believe that most of the board are
>appointed. Some are elected from the membership.

Having run for the Board four times now, I think I can shed some
light. On its face, the Board members are all elected. However, after
coming up with several thousand proxy votes on my own by newsgroup and
email means, I can tell you that EAA will elect who they damned well
please. They have several tens of thousands of proxy votes and the
"elections" are foregone conclusions for whoever EAA wants on the
Board. If you know that going in, all you can hope for is that by
showing a strong grass roots support, you can convince EAA to shovel
tens of thousands of their proxies your way. And that ain't going to
happen unless you are willing to play the political game.


Jim

[vaughn[_2_]]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> They have several tens of thousands of proxy votes and the
> "elections" are foregone conclusions for whoever EAA wants on the
> Board.

Thanks. That validates my long-standing practice of not automatically mailing
in those proxies.

Vaughn

[jan olieslagers[_2_]]

RST Engineering schreef:
> EAA will elect who they damned well please.

No surprise there - that's how democracy works, and keeps on working.
What still baffles me is that some people will absolutely make democracy
the only viable system, imposing it as _the_one_solution_ on any poor
blighters they find in trouble. But that's a political discussion, I
suppose, off-topic here.

BTW glad to hear from you Jim, still got your soldering iron hot?

[RST Engineering[_2_]]

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:52:17 +0000, jan olieslagers
> wrote:

>RST Engineering schreef:
>> EAA will elect who they damned well please.
>
>No surprise there - that's how democracy works, and keeps on working.
>What still baffles me is that some people will absolutely make democracy
>the only viable system, imposing it as _the_one_solution_ on any poor
>blighters they find in trouble. But that's a political discussion, I
>suppose, off-topic here.
>
>BTW glad to hear from you Jim, still got your soldering iron hot?


Never cooled down.

Thanks,

Jim

[Stealth Pilot[_4_]]

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 14:46:31 -0800, RST Engineering
> wrote:

>On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:52:17 +0000, jan olieslagers
> wrote:
>
>>RST Engineering schreef:
>>> EAA will elect who they damned well please.
>>
>>No surprise there - that's how democracy works, and keeps on working.
>>What still baffles me is that some people will absolutely make democracy
>>the only viable system, imposing it as _the_one_solution_ on any poor
>>blighters they find in trouble. But that's a political discussion, I
>>suppose, off-topic here.
>>
>>BTW glad to hear from you Jim, still got your soldering iron hot?
>
>
>Never cooled down.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Jim

I often wondered how you went in those elections Jim.
I always voted for you.

I left the EAA when I heard that the EAA had refused to lend support
to the Canadians who were taking advantage of the Canadian Owner
Maintenance legislation and were being refused entry into america so
that they could fly to Oshkosh.

one of the dumbest EAA stupidities ever.

Stealth Pilot

[Bug Dout]

RST Engineering > writes:

> Having run for the Board four times now, I think I can shed some
> light.

Or not.

> They have several tens of thousands of proxy votes and the
> "elections" are foregone conclusions for whoever EAA wants on the
> Board.

Or they don't want an abusive hot-tempered idiot in an organization that
must work by cooperation....sore loser-man.

[stol]

On Feb 3, 9:41*am, Bug Dout > wrote:
> RST Engineering > writes:
> > Having run for the Board four times now, I think I can shed some
> > light.
>
> Or not.
>
> > They have several tens of thousands of proxy votes and the
> > "elections" are foregone conclusions for whoever EAA wants on the
> > Board.
>
> Or they don't want an abusive hot-tempered idiot in an organization that
> must work by cooperation....sore loser-man.

Hmmm...
Is this the same "organization" that must work by cooperating with
their premier sponsor Ford Motor Company, who detests having one of
their products used in an Experimental aircraft ???.

Sounds like they need to call it the Certified Aircraft Assoc.

And for you half assed comment. It appears the Experimental Aircraft
Assoc needs some hot tempered idiots on the board to staighten out the
mess they have woven. I don't know Jim but he sure seems to be one who
could get things done. My .02 cents worth.


Tailwinds
Ben
www.haaspowerair.com