Who is EAA? (was Oshkosh gate...)

[RST Engineering]

John ...

That's a question that I've been mentally rasslin' with for a few years now.
Who **is** the reason for the EAA? Is it JUST Experimentals as the name of
the organization implies? Are the warbirds a part of it only because the
founder of EAA flew warbirds or are they an intrinsic part of it due to the
nature of keeping a beast flying for which there are no readily available
parts?

Are White Knight and Spaceship One a part of it? You can say that they are
experimentals with some assurance, but is it "experimental" in the sense of
"homebuilt"? I think not. Several hundred thousand hours of engineering
and craftsman time and several million dollars in development costs take
them a bit out of the "homebuilt" category. But to argue that they aren't
part of EAA is to disregard Burt Rutan's deep roots in the soil of Oshkosh.

The RV lines had a few visitors in 2003 but the C5A nose to nose with the
AN-24(?) had hundreds of thousands of visitors, most of them EAA members.
Do we discount having attractions like these at Oshkosh simply because they
are not experimental in the least?

To bring it down to a personal level ... I've never built an airplane. I've
only flown in a couple of experimentals. Yet a steady progression of
Cessnas from the 170 (straight) through the 172E to the current 182A have
made a 33 straight year pilgrimage to Mecca On The Winnebago. Am I really
not entitled to be the reason for the EAA?

I am not trying to pick a fight. For obvious reasons I really want to
know --- who IS the reason for the EAA?

Jim
EAA 86698



After all, who
> really is the reason for the Experimental Aircraft
> Association????
>
> John

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yet a steady progression of Cessnas from the 170 (straight) through the
> 172E to the current 182A have made a 33 straight year pilgrimage to Mecca
> On The Winnebago.

A straight Cessna 170? What's that?

[RST Engineering]

The original ragwing 170, not an A or B model.

Jim




"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
>
> A straight Cessna 170? What's that?
>

[Jim Burns]

Maybe not "who" but "what is the reason" and I think that answer is
different for different people, but for me, an EAA member who will also
never build an experimental airplane, and who also has only flown in a few
experimental, the answer is TO DREAM.

To dream about what is possible. To dream about new ways to produce
improved results. To dream what hasn't been dreamed about by anyone else.
To see and hear about other's dreams. Non of the great experimental
aircraft would be reality without those initial dreams dreamt by the people
behind them. Also non of the great production and military aircraft would
be reality without the initial dreams behind them.

So maybe the "who" are the dreamers. Dare to dream.

Jim Burns

[W P Dixon]

Interesting Points Jim!
I think you have hit the nail on the head for the reason alot of folks
are getting turned off by the EAA. I know when I pick up a mag about
Experimentals I want to see how-to's .....not the buy this 40G kit and paint
by numbers. But a tradesman sharing his knowledge for people willing to
learn . I want to read about Homebuilt aircraft and not the latest gadget
from Cirrus.
As for the warbirds, I think maybe they do have a place because of the
lack of available parts. But shouldn't the main topic of the warbirds be"How
we had to fab our own replacement parts?" , instead of the WOW just look at
the pretty old fighter? I don't mind restoration projects, because Lord
knows sometimes as much goes into them as building a plane. Alot of times
building a plane is exactly what you are doing! ;)
But sometimes when I have read the EAA mags it seems there is more about
piloting then building. I think real homebuilders get just as much enjoyment
out of the building process as they do the flying. The flying is the reward
for the fun of labor and effort in building.
I know liability and all that would not let it happen , but wouldn't it
be great if the EAA mags would have articles about building a homebuilt with
the plans as well, like the old MI mags used to do? That would be
HOMEBUILDING!!

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

[Jon Woellhaf]

Jim Weir asked, "Who **is** the reason for the EAA? Is it JUST
Experimentals as the name of the organization implies?"

Perhaps the name should be changed to Everything Aviation Association.
That's my interest, at least.

Jon

[Blueskies]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message ...
> Interesting Points Jim!
> I think you have hit the nail on the head for the reason alot of folks are getting turned off by the EAA. I know
> when I pick up a mag about Experimentals I want to see how-to's .....not the buy this 40G kit and paint by numbers.
> But a tradesman sharing his knowledge for people willing to learn . I want to read about Homebuilt aircraft and not
> the latest gadget from Cirrus.

Are you a tradesman willing to write an article? Finding folks with the knowledge is tough; finding ones willing to
write alo is tougher!

> As for the warbirds, I think maybe they do have a place because of the lack of available parts. But shouldn't the
> main topic of the warbirds be"How we had to fab our own replacement parts?" , instead of the WOW just look at the
> pretty old fighter? I don't mind restoration projects, because Lord knows sometimes as much goes into them as building
> a plane. Alot of times building a plane is exactly what you are doing! ;)

I don't recall the last time I saw an article in Sport Aviation about a specific warbird, let alone about a restoration
of one. There have been a number of articles about exhibition class experimantal aircraft; bought and paid for by the
owner with very little detail about the actual buid - as you say the WOW factor...

> But sometimes when I have read the EAA mags it seems there is more about piloting then building. I think real
> homebuilders get just as much enjoyment out of the building process as they do the flying. The flying is the reward
> for the fun of labor and effort in building.

There are quite a few articles these days about welding, structural design, electrical connections. Not a whole lot of
meat to them tho'. I think a multi issue build along sort of articlee would be good...

> I know liability and all that would not let it happen , but wouldn't it be great if the EAA mags would have
> articles about building a homebuilt with the plans as well, like the old MI mags used to do? That would be
> HOMEBUILDING!!
>
> Patrick
> student SPL
> aircraft structural mech
>

Interesting comment about the liability issue. I suppose they to try not to be too specific because some will most
likely try and come along and say "That's what Sport Aviation said to do!"

Dan D...

[W P Dixon]

Hey Dan,
Well I am not much of a writer, but I am willing to help anyone who asks
for it as far as my skill as a metalsmith. I think to be able to write for
the mag , one should be able to write better than myself. But if asked I
would probably give it a try.
And yep the whole liability thing BLOWS! It would really be nice to have
a homebuilt airplane covered from the plans thru the building process.
Drawings right there in the mag!!! Wouldn't that get a new person interested
if he saw all that in an issue?
To tell the truth I do not recall the last article I read of a warplane
either, because I wouldn't read it ;) My warplane remarks pertained mostly
to the warplanes at EAA events and such,...just the WOW factor! I'd much
rather see how they actually did the restoration in a mag ..especially if it
takes the alloted space of a Cessna story or some such. And heck, I love
seeing the old warbirds myself! But like Jim I have to think where it all
fits in to Experimental and Homebuilt aircraft.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "W P Dixon" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Interesting Points Jim!
>> I think you have hit the nail on the head for the reason alot of folks
>> are getting turned off by the EAA. I know when I pick up a mag about
>> Experimentals I want to see how-to's .....not the buy this 40G kit and
>> paint by numbers. But a tradesman sharing his knowledge for people
>> willing to learn . I want to read about Homebuilt aircraft and not the
>> latest gadget from Cirrus.
>
> Are you a tradesman willing to write an article? Finding folks with the
> knowledge is tough; finding ones willing to write alo is tougher!
>
>> As for the warbirds, I think maybe they do have a place because of the
>> lack of available parts. But shouldn't the main topic of the warbirds
>> be"How we had to fab our own replacement parts?" , instead of the WOW
>> just look at the pretty old fighter? I don't mind restoration projects,
>> because Lord knows sometimes as much goes into them as building a plane.
>> Alot of times building a plane is exactly what you are doing! ;)
>
> I don't recall the last time I saw an article in Sport Aviation about a
> specific warbird, let alone about a restoration of one. There have been a
> number of articles about exhibition class experimantal aircraft; bought
> and paid for by the owner with very little detail about the actual buid -
> as you say the WOW factor...
>
>> But sometimes when I have read the EAA mags it seems there is more
>> about piloting then building. I think real homebuilders get just as much
>> enjoyment out of the building process as they do the flying. The flying
>> is the reward for the fun of labor and effort in building.
>
> There are quite a few articles these days about welding, structural
> design, electrical connections. Not a whole lot of meat to them tho'. I
> think a multi issue build along sort of articlee would be good...
>
>> I know liability and all that would not let it happen , but wouldn't
>> it be great if the EAA mags would have articles about building a
>> homebuilt with the plans as well, like the old MI mags used to do? That
>> would be HOMEBUILDING!!
>>
>> Patrick
>> student SPL
>> aircraft structural mech
>>
>
> Interesting comment about the liability issue. I suppose they to try not
> to be too specific because some will most likely try and come along and
> say "That's what Sport Aviation said to do!"
>
> Dan D...
>

[Montblack]

("W P Dixon" wrote)
[snip]
> Well I am not much of a writer, but I am willing to help anyone who asks
> for it as far as my skill as a metalsmith. I think to be able to write for
> the mag , one should be able to write better than myself. But if asked I
> would probably give it a try.


You know what you want to say (you have the experience) ...find someone who
will help you say it. Find yourself a good editor.

With e-mail and Word Perfect, it's a snap.

Mom edits scholarly Catholic books, reference books, encyclopedias, etc. She
says she enjoys working with the professors, scholars, and other (sometimes)
brilliant researchers. Problem with many of them is - they can't write.
Punctuation? Fuhgetaboutit.

Many would-be editors cut their teeth working on small hometown newspapers,
church newsletters, etc. You should be able to find yourself a good editor
with little effort. (They love working at home ...on the side ...per page)

Good luck, let us know when you're published :-)


Montblack

[W P Dixon]

Seems like that would make the editor the writer ,huh ? :)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech


"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
>
> Mom edits scholarly Catholic books, reference books, encyclopedias, etc.
> She
> says she enjoys working with the professors, scholars, and other
> (sometimes)
> brilliant researchers. Problem with many of them is - they can't write.
> Punctuation? Fuhgetaboutit.
>
> Many would-be editors cut their teeth working on small hometown
> newspapers,
> church newsletters, etc. You should be able to find yourself a good editor
> with little effort. (They love working at home ...on the side ...per page)
>
> Good luck, let us know when you're published :-)
>
>
> Montblack
>

[RST Engineering]

No, the writer is the one that comes up with the ideas and expresses them in
a manner that is somewhat understandable. The editor puts them into a form
that is consistent with style, grammar, and punctuation.

Both are absolutely necessary to the process; if you can find both of them
in one individual, you've got a rare bird indeed.

Jim


"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> Seems like that would make the editor the writer ,huh ? :)
>

[Jay Honeck]

> That's a question that I've been mentally rasslin' with for a few years
> now. Who **is** the reason for the EAA? Is it JUST Experimentals as the
> name of the organization implies? Are the warbirds a part of it only
> because the founder of EAA flew warbirds or are they an intrinsic part of
> it due to the nature of keeping a beast flying for which there are no
> readily available parts?

Jim, as you know, I tend to get emotional about EAA. I love the
organization with all my heart, but would gut parts of it with my bare
hands, if I could.

Without EAA it's doubtful that my life would have taken the turn(s) it
has -- all of them good. I've attended the fly-in for 23 consecutive years,
have visited the museum often, use their website weekly, read their email
updates every couple of days, and have belonged to two local chapters.

When I was a wannabe pilot (for, like, the first 35 years of my life) EAA
filled the void between "want" and "ability." I lived vicariously through
all the performers and exhibitors at OSH for all those years, and read the
magazine voraciously each month. EAA kept my dream of flight alive, when
nothing -- and no one, not even me -- believed that I would ever achieve it.
For that, I owe EAA my life -- almost literally.

On the other hand, from a business standpoint, they have repeatedly
disappointed me. They are completely inflexible with what is and isn't
allowed at the fly-in, to the detriment of their members, and what they
charge to get on the grounds prevents many small businesses from getting a
toe-hold. Their corporate side completely dissed us when we first opened,
when I contacted them about offering EAA members a discount at our aviation
theme hotel. They didn't even reply, at first -- and when they *did* reply
it was with almost complete and utter disdain. For some reason my
willingness to GIVE their members something was met with a "who gives a
****" attitude that has left a bad taste in my mouth to this day.

Although I continue to offer my fellow EAA brethren the discount, fool that
I am. :-)

Who is EAA? My God, if it had been limited to only home-builders, as some
here would suggest, I'd still be walking the streets instead of soaring in
the clouds. If the articles in Sport Aviation were all about bucking rivets
and building elevators, my interest would have faded away long ago. As
much as I love building things -- my main hobby before flying was
wood-working -- I have NO interest in spending the next 5 years of my life
in an unheated hangar every night, watching my friends flying off to their
weekend getaways. After wasting my first 35 years on the ground, looking
up, I have NO intention of spending any more time than necessary on terra
firma. Life is about flying for me, now.

So who is EAA? I suspect there are an awful lot of guys like me out there,
who love flying, owe EAA an un-repayable debt of gratitude -- yet will never
build an airplane. (And let's not forget the small -- but vocal! --
minority of women pilots out there. Mary would NEVER have learned to fly
without EAA's annual dose of Oshkosh excitement .) Should they be
excluded?

Perhaps the question isn't who is EAA, but rather, where do you want to take
it as a director? If you want EAA to grow and prosper, you're going to
have to take the "Big Tent" approach, IMHO, and welcome ALL aviation
enthusiasts. Each of us brings something to the table that can be used by
other members, whether it's extra hands at a fly-in breakfast, writing
articles for the newsletter, or the knowledge of how to install wing ribs
properly.

If, on the other hand, you want it to be exclusive -- literally -- to
homebuilders, be prepared for the organization to shrink dramatically. In
our chapter(s), only 10 - 20% of the members ever touched a tool, so the
clubhouse might get a bit lonely without the rest of us around.

Without that other 80%, could EAA support the museum? Could EAA support
Airventure? Clearly, I believe, the answer is "no" -- and I would hate to
see those two things go.

My children already dream about OSH every winter, Jim, just like we do --
and I want it to be there for them. Please be careful what you do with our
beloved organization. It's a living, breathing thing that could be easily
harmed -- or killed -- by taking the wrong approach.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[RST Engineering]

Jay ...

I understand that absolutely and completely, which is why I asked the
question in the first place. Before I go down some road that is anathema to
an interest group(s), I wanted validation of my thought process. That is
what is happening here ... I heard some say that the reason for the
organization was "experimental", as in the first word of the name. I wanted
to understand if the majority of the lurkers and posters here thought that
was, in fact, the case. If that WAS the case, I would have thought
seriously about withdrawing from the race because I believe, as you, that
the tent should be enlarged to accomodate all who want to fit in, and not
shrink to only include those chosen few who have had the good fortune and
skills to personally build their path to the sky. I am one with Lyndon
Johnson in that he wanted everyone inside the tent [spitting] out than
outside the tent [spitting] in.

I also believe that there should be some sort of breeder reactor for new
aviation businesses -- local government calls it an "incubator". Whether
that is some reduction in the space rent for the first year of display only,
or a special section set aside for the newcomers, whatever. I remember
vividly RST's first venture into the commercial tents (yes, they WERE tents
back in those days) and knowing full well that if we didn't sell as per our
forecasts that we would be out of business before we got back home. I
further believe that to diss a business out of hand that wants to offer the
membership some sort of a special deal isn't my way of winning friends and
influencing people.

I'll post my platform in these ngs in the next couple of days.

Jim



> My children already dream about OSH every winter, Jim, just like we do --
> and I want it to be there for them. Please be careful what you do with
> our beloved organization. It's a living, breathing thing that could be
> easily harmed -- or killed -- by taking the wrong approach.

[RST Engineering]

I hope that you also include the sistren

{;-)


Jim

>
> Although I continue to offer my fellow EAA brethren the discount

[Jay Honeck]

>> Although I continue to offer my fellow EAA brethren the discount

>I hope that you also include the sistren

You betcha!

I've tried to advertise a "Ladies-Free" night at the inn, but Mary keeps
taking the sign down...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Smitty]

In article >,
"RST Engineering" > wrote:

> John ...
>
> That's a question that I've been mentally rasslin' with for a few years now.
> Who **is** the reason for the EAA? Is it JUST Experimentals as the name of
> the organization implies? Are the warbirds a part of it only because the
> founder of EAA flew warbirds or are they an intrinsic part of it due to the
> nature of keeping a beast flying for which there are no readily available
> parts?
>

No need to wrestle with that question. The EAA, like all good
organizations everywhere, has a mission statement:

"EAA - the Experimental Aircraft Association - is dedicated to serving
all of aviation by fostering and encouraging individual participation,
high standards and access to the world of flight in an environment that
promotes freedom, safety, family and personal fulfillment."

"all of aviation" pretty much answers the question.

I'd personally rather have an organization that is restricted to
homebuilding. I joined my local chapter, found it attended by about 50
members, and learned that none of them are building an airplane. I'd
rather sit on a park bench and chat with two actual builders than sit
around listening to WWII stories. But, I wasn't around to vote when EAA
drafted its mission statement.

[Ken Finney]

"Smitty" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "RST Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > John ...
> >
> > That's a question that I've been mentally rasslin' with for a few years
now.
> > Who **is** the reason for the EAA? Is it JUST Experimentals as the name
of
> > the organization implies? Are the warbirds a part of it only because
the
> > founder of EAA flew warbirds or are they an intrinsic part of it due to
the
> > nature of keeping a beast flying for which there are no readily
available
> > parts?
> >
>
> No need to wrestle with that question. The EAA, like all good
> organizations everywhere, has a mission statement:
>
> "EAA - the Experimental Aircraft Association - is dedicated to serving
> all of aviation by fostering and encouraging individual participation,
> high standards and access to the world of flight in an environment that
> promotes freedom, safety, family and personal fulfillment."
>
> "all of aviation" pretty much answers the question.
>
> I'd personally rather have an organization that is restricted to
> homebuilding. I joined my local chapter, found it attended by about 50
> members, and learned that none of them are building an airplane. I'd
> rather sit on a park bench and chat with two actual builders than sit
> around listening to WWII stories. But, I wasn't around to vote when EAA
> drafted its mission statement.

FWIW: I've been to three different EAA chapters. One had about 20 people
in attendance, and probably 8 planes under construction. Another had
probably 40 people with zero planes under construction. The third had at
least 60 people, and at least 20 planes under construction.

[Ernest Christley]

Smitty wrote:
>
> I'd personally rather have an organization that is restricted to
> homebuilding. I joined my local chapter, found it attended by about 50
> members, and learned that none of them are building an airplane. I'd
> rather sit on a park bench and chat with two actual builders than sit
> around listening to WWII stories. But, I wasn't around to vote when EAA
> drafted its mission statement.


I'm with Smitty. I stopped going to the local chapter meetings. There
just wasn't anything there that would help my project along, and I found
the constant 'oohs' and 'aahs' over expensive commercial planes and big
metal military equipment a little hard to stomach. I haven't noticed
very many other builders there the few times I have gone.

Not to discount Jay's sentiment, but the EAA has become an aviation glee
club, but I want to play ball, not sit on the sidelines. I'd be happy
if the biggest flyins still had only one tent, if that. Small tents
with normal people telling how they create airplanes with limited
resources. The cheering section isn't needed, or desired.

The high-dollar tool vendors with their glitzy overproductions are also
optional. Hell, anybody can create a masterpiece with enough money to
spend on tools. It takes a special type of person to create a perfect
bend with a couple 2x4s and a few door hinges.

The airshows? Distracting and purposeless, except to demonstrate a
building technique or design. As they are...pure useless fluff.

But, heh. That's just me.

--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[jsbougher]

Jay, as a long time lurker, I have to agree with much/most of what you
said. EAA allowed me to live vicariously for many years before I could
afford to start building. I too read every magazine cover to cover.
While I've managed to start a project, regular 2 year moves due to my
career + children have put it on hold. On the other hand, I have
finally reached the point where I can afford to own and fly a plane and
am the proud owner of an experimental that was lovingly created by
someone else. I understand others feelings - let it be for builders
only. That said, I hope they understand that the great mass of us who
have not started/completed a project admire and respect them for their
accomplishment and that the EAA lets us support what we all feel is a
wonderful sport. I'm a big tent proponent and believe that it allows
us to foster and support the dreams of the many and the reality of the
few.
Jeff

Jay Honeck wrote:
> > That's a question that I've been mentally rasslin' with for a few years
> > now. Who **is** the reason for the EAA? Is it JUST Experimentals as the
> > name of the organization implies? Are the warbirds a part of it only
> > because the founder of EAA flew warbirds or are they an intrinsic part of
> > it due to the nature of keeping a beast flying for which there are no
> > readily available parts?
>
> Jim, as you know, I tend to get emotional about EAA. I love the
> organization with all my heart, but would gut parts of it with my bare
> hands, if I could.
>
> Without EAA it's doubtful that my life would have taken the turn(s) it
> has -- all of them good. ...
>
> My children already dream about OSH every winter, Jim, just like we do --
> and I want it to be there for them. Please be careful what you do with our
> beloved organization. It's a living, breathing thing that could be easily
> harmed -- or killed -- by taking the wrong approach.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"