SSA as a division of the EAA?

[Greg Arnold]

The recent history of the SSA suggests that neither its Directors nor
its employees have done a very good job of handling the SSA's business
aspects. However, the SSA apparently has done quite well handling the
soaring aspects, which includes badges, records, contests, talking to
the FAA, etc.

This suggests that the ideal model for the SSA might be an affiliation
with a larger organization that could handle the business aspects, while
the SSA (or it successor) handled the soaring aspects. Basically, the
SSA could "contract out" its financial and management matters, while a
few employees at the SSA could put out the magazine, process badge
requests, etc.

I have looked at the EAA webpage, and am unclear about the
relationship between the EAA and its Divisions and Affiliates
(Aerobatics, Vintage, Warbirds, and National Association of Flight
Instructors). Are these basically autonomous organizations that are
listed on the EAA webpage, or are they solely run by the EAA, or are
they somewhere in between?

There have been some opinions on this forum that affiliation with the
EAA or AOPA would not be in the best interests of the SSA. That may be
true, if affiliation is compared to an independent and well run SSA.
However, in the real world, soaring pilots don't seen to do a very good
job of running the SSA. Therefore, the real choice may be between a
dysfunctional but independent SSA, and a functional SSA that has given
up some of its autonomy to the EAA or AOPA. Looked at in that way,
affiliation may be something that should be considered.

[[email protected]]

Greg Arnold wrote:
> The recent history of the SSA suggests that neither its Directors nor
> its employees have done a very good job of handling the SSA's business
> aspects. However, the SSA apparently has done quite well handling the
> soaring aspects, which includes badges, records, contests, talking to
> the FAA, etc.
>
> This suggests that the ideal model for the SSA might be an affiliation
> with a larger organization that could handle the business aspects, while
> the SSA (or it successor) handled the soaring aspects. Basically, the
> SSA could "contract out" its financial and management matters, while a
> few employees at the SSA could put out the magazine, process badge
> requests, etc.
>
> I have looked at the EAA webpage, and am unclear about the
> relationship between the EAA and its Divisions and Affiliates
> (Aerobatics, Vintage, Warbirds, and National Association of Flight
> Instructors). Are these basically autonomous organizations that are
> listed on the EAA webpage, or are they solely run by the EAA, or are
> they somewhere in between?
>
> There have been some opinions on this forum that affiliation with the
> EAA or AOPA would not be in the best interests of the SSA. That may be
> true, if affiliation is compared to an independent and well run SSA.
> However, in the real world, soaring pilots don't seen to do a very good
> job of running the SSA. Therefore, the real choice may be between a
> dysfunctional but independent SSA, and a functional SSA that has given
> up some of its autonomy to the EAA or AOPA. Looked at in that way,
> affiliation may be something that should be considered.

The problem I have with this is the "E" in EAA, which stands for
"experimental". I own and fly an experimental category glider, but many
in the SSA do not, including ALL of the commercial operators. The EAA
has no interest in this segment of the soaring community.

Tom Seim
Richland, WA

[Greg Arnold]

wrote:
> Greg Arnold wrote:
>> The recent history of the SSA suggests that neither its Directors nor
>> its employees have done a very good job of handling the SSA's business
>> aspects. However, the SSA apparently has done quite well handling the
>> soaring aspects, which includes badges, records, contests, talking to
>> the FAA, etc.
>>
>> This suggests that the ideal model for the SSA might be an affiliation
>> with a larger organization that could handle the business aspects, while
>> the SSA (or it successor) handled the soaring aspects. Basically, the
>> SSA could "contract out" its financial and management matters, while a
>> few employees at the SSA could put out the magazine, process badge
>> requests, etc.
>>
>> I have looked at the EAA webpage, and am unclear about the
>> relationship between the EAA and its Divisions and Affiliates
>> (Aerobatics, Vintage, Warbirds, and National Association of Flight
>> Instructors). Are these basically autonomous organizations that are
>> listed on the EAA webpage, or are they solely run by the EAA, or are
>> they somewhere in between?
>>
>> There have been some opinions on this forum that affiliation with the
>> EAA or AOPA would not be in the best interests of the SSA. That may be
>> true, if affiliation is compared to an independent and well run SSA.
>> However, in the real world, soaring pilots don't seen to do a very good
>> job of running the SSA. Therefore, the real choice may be between a
>> dysfunctional but independent SSA, and a functional SSA that has given
>> up some of its autonomy to the EAA or AOPA. Looked at in that way,
>> affiliation may be something that should be considered.
>
> The problem I have with this is the "E" in EAA, which stands for
> "experimental". I own and fly an experimental category glider, but many
> in the SSA do not, including ALL of the commercial operators. The EAA
> has no interest in this segment of the soaring community.
>
> Tom Seim
> Richland, WA
>

I doubt if the EAA would distinguish between a glider with and without
an "experimental" placard. The EAA already is affiliated with the
National Association of Flight Instructors, and there is nothing
especially "experimental" about that organization. There also is the
EAA Young Eagles program, which encourages young people to fly, with no
emphasis upon experimental aircraft.

[Frank Whiteley]

Greg Arnold wrote:
> wrote:
> > Greg Arnold wrote:
> >> The recent history of the SSA suggests that neither its Directors nor
> >> its employees have done a very good job of handling the SSA's business
> >> aspects. However, the SSA apparently has done quite well handling the
> >> soaring aspects, which includes badges, records, contests, talking to
> >> the FAA, etc.
> >>
> >> This suggests that the ideal model for the SSA might be an affiliation
> >> with a larger organization that could handle the business aspects, while
> >> the SSA (or it successor) handled the soaring aspects. Basically, the
> >> SSA could "contract out" its financial and management matters, while a
> >> few employees at the SSA could put out the magazine, process badge
> >> requests, etc.
> >>
> >> I have looked at the EAA webpage, and am unclear about the
> >> relationship between the EAA and its Divisions and Affiliates
> >> (Aerobatics, Vintage, Warbirds, and National Association of Flight
> >> Instructors). Are these basically autonomous organizations that are
> >> listed on the EAA webpage, or are they solely run by the EAA, or are
> >> they somewhere in between?
> >>
> >> There have been some opinions on this forum that affiliation with the
> >> EAA or AOPA would not be in the best interests of the SSA. That may be
> >> true, if affiliation is compared to an independent and well run SSA.
> >> However, in the real world, soaring pilots don't seen to do a very good
> >> job of running the SSA. Therefore, the real choice may be between a
> >> dysfunctional but independent SSA, and a functional SSA that has given
> >> up some of its autonomy to the EAA or AOPA. Looked at in that way,
> >> affiliation may be something that should be considered.
> >
> > The problem I have with this is the "E" in EAA, which stands for
> > "experimental". I own and fly an experimental category glider, but many
> > in the SSA do not, including ALL of the commercial operators. The EAA
> > has no interest in this segment of the soaring community.
> >
> > Tom Seim
> > Richland, WA
> >
>
> I doubt if the EAA would distinguish between a glider with and without
> an "experimental" placard. The EAA already is affiliated with the
> National Association of Flight Instructors, and there is nothing
> especially "experimental" about that organization. There also is the
> EAA Young Eagles program, which encourages young people to fly, with no
> emphasis upon experimental aircraft.

Actually, the SSA's affiliation is/was here http://www.naa.aero,
including reciprocal board members. The NAA is the national aero club
and recognized by the FAI. The NAA had long ago delegated soaring
competition and badges to the SSA. Due to some concern with some of
the fees being imposed by the NAA, I believe the SSA was taking steps
to become the FAI recognized US national body for soaring. If you
review the SSA Board and Excomm minutes, I think you'll find that the
SSA is/was working in that direction and the NAA web site points back
to the SSA as a air sports group.

I've wondered why something like the USSA, United States Soaring
Association, hasn't been suggested long ago, with organizational
divisions and publications; sailplane division, hang glider division,
parasail division, etc. EAA has specialty magazines for subgroups, and
most are quite good. However, there was recently a merging of HG and
PG types under the USHGA amid much apparent derision, especially
concerning powered paragliders invading foot launch sites.

Frank Whiteley



Frank Whiteley

[Shawn Curry]

Greg Arnold wrote:
> The recent history of the SSA suggests that neither its Directors nor
> its employees have done a very good job of handling the SSA's business
> aspects. However, the SSA apparently has done quite well handling the
> soaring aspects, which includes badges, records, contests, talking to
> the FAA, etc.
>
> This suggests that the ideal model for the SSA might be an affiliation
> with a larger organization that could handle the business aspects, while
> the SSA (or it successor) handled the soaring aspects. Basically, the
> SSA could "contract out" its financial and management matters, while a
> few employees at the SSA could put out the magazine, process badge
> requests, etc.
>
> I have looked at the EAA webpage, and am unclear about the relationship
> between the EAA and its Divisions and Affiliates (Aerobatics, Vintage,
> Warbirds, and National Association of Flight Instructors). Are these
> basically autonomous organizations that are listed on the EAA webpage,
> or are they solely run by the EAA, or are they somewhere in between?
>
> There have been some opinions on this forum that affiliation with the
> EAA or AOPA would not be in the best interests of the SSA. That may be
> true, if affiliation is compared to an independent and well run SSA.
> However, in the real world, soaring pilots don't seen to do a very good
> job of running the SSA. Therefore, the real choice may be between a
> dysfunctional but independent SSA, and a functional SSA that has given
> up some of its autonomy to the EAA or AOPA. Looked at in that way,
> affiliation may be something that should be considered.

Has anyone knocked at EAA's or AOPA'S door to see if they'll have us?
What do we have that they might want? Sure thousands of new members
(those that aren't already members). What else?
Just curious.

Shawn

[Greg Arnold]

Shawn Curry wrote:

>
> Has anyone knocked at EAA's or AOPA'S door to see if they'll have us?

Not yet. The bad news came out just a few days ago.

> What do we have that they might want? Sure thousands of new members
> (those that aren't already members). What else?

Whatever they get from their existing members, I would suppose. Money,
increased size, more clout, etc.

> Just curious.
>
> Shawn

[snoop]

I have. Shawn, about a year ago, I started a thread on this exact
subject. As it progressed I visited with the folks at EAA, who
expressed their feelings about the relationship between our soaring
world and theirs as a very positive one. The EAA has it's different
divisions, Warbird, Antique, Classic, and the infrastructure to support
it. And all those members who want to try something different.
The only problem was at that time they too were going through a "where
are we heading" problem themselves and bringing the SSA/EAA together,
would have been low priority. Plus the majority of posters here were,
as you can read from the thread, very pro SSA. For cheap entertainment
I think I'll go back and reread it myself.
I've paid my last $65 to SSA. I'm rejoining EAA !
snoop

Shawn Curry wrote:
> > Has anyone knocked at EAA's or AOPA'S door to see if they'll have us?
> What do we have that they might want? Sure thousands of new members
> (those that aren't already members). What else?
> Just curious.
>
> Shawn

[snoop]

Shawn, that thread is "Revisiting Declining Membership, started on Dec
31, 2004. Regards

snoop wrote:
> I have. Shawn, about a year ago, I started a thread on this exact
> subject. As it progressed I visited with the folks at EAA, who
> expressed their feelings about the relationship between our soaring
> world and theirs as a very positive one. The EAA has it's different
> divisions, Warbird, Antique, Classic, and the infrastructure to support
> it. And all those members who want to try something different.
> The only problem was at that time they too were going through a "where
> are we heading" problem themselves and bringing the SSA/EAA together,
> would have been low priority. Plus the majority of posters here were,
> as you can read from the thread, very pro SSA. For cheap entertainment
> I think I'll go back and reread it myself.
> I've paid my last $65 to SSA. I'm rejoining EAA !
> snoop
>
> Shawn Curry wrote:
> > > Has anyone knocked at EAA's or AOPA'S door to see if they'll have us?
> > What do we have that they might want? Sure thousands of new members
> > (those that aren't already members). What else?
> > Just curious.
> >
> > Shawn

[Shawn Curry]

snoop wrote:
> Shawn, that thread is "Revisiting Declining Membership, started on Dec
> 31, 2004. Regards

Thanks, I'll look it up too. I knew it was discussed some time in the
recent past (around the computer scandal time I thought).


Shawn

[[email protected]]

Greg,
EAA I don't know about. AOPA is a strong advocate for general
aviation. That might be a good fit for SSA. Strength in numbers.

Dean

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Greg,
> EAA I don't know about. AOPA is a strong advocate for general
> aviation. That might be a good fit for SSA. Strength in numbers.
>
> Dean

Perhaps a better union would be with the Hang Gliding/Paragliding
Association....

[Eric Greenwell]

Shawn Curry wrote:
> snoop wrote:
>> Shawn, that thread is "Revisiting Declining Membership, started on Dec
>> 31, 2004. Regards
>
> Thanks, I'll look it up too. I knew it was discussed some time in the
> recent past (around the computer scandal time I thought).

I believe the reason it's associated with the computer fiasco is the SSA
got a lot of "guidance" from the EAA, which had acquired the same or
similar system before the SSA. I recall our director being very
disappointed with their advice.


--
Note: email address new as of 9/4/2006
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

"A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org