An open letter to Tom Poberezny

[[email protected]]

http://www.john-ross.net/osh2.htm

[RST Engineering]

Oh, you guyz gotta read this. It is (you should pardon the expression) a
hoot(er). The hell of it is, he might just have more than a grain of truth
in it.

Jim

--
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today."
--James Dean


> wrote in message
oups.com...
> http://www.john-ross.net/osh2.htm
>

[Matt Whiting]

RST Engineering wrote:
> Oh, you guyz gotta read this. It is (you should pardon the expression) a
> hoot(er). The hell of it is, he might just have more than a grain of truth
> in it.

I've seen guys desperate for a date do some weird stuff, but this ranks
right up there!

Matt

[Rich S.[_1_]]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> Oh, you guyz gotta read this. It is (you should pardon the expression) a
> hoot(er). The hell of it is, he might just have more than a grain of
> truth in it.

I believe I have a tear in my eye. That is so . . so . . REAL!

Rich S.

[Stuart & Kathryn Fields]

I sincerely hope this is a joke. At least part of it. I agree that theEAA
posture about the Young Eagles has been focussed on the quantity of people
flown. I wonder if anyone has done a follow up to see just how effective
that thing is in generating aviators. I mean would those aviators
attributed to the Young Eagles program been aviators anyway? Did the Young
Eagles program really change the direction of some individuals? I don't
doubt that there were some examples of this but what kind of effectiveness
is involved. What is the ratio of actual re-directed individuals to the
total number flown.
On the other issue raised by Mr.Ross, If EAA expands Oshkosh much more to
non-aviation things, like jet powered trucks, Ford cars, Honda generators,
John Deer Tractors and now Hooters and some kind of dating game business?
I've already asked them to consider relinquishing the title Experimental
Aviation Association as they need to rename it more appropriately. The focus
of Oshkosh has been trending away from the experimental side of the EAA.
Also the magazine has lost some meat even though it has gotten bigger. One
year, I think it was 2005, the Oshkosh video sold by EAA did not even
mention experimental aviation, with the exception of some Rutan space flight
data. It did not mention the awards, it only had some Mooney and Piper
aircraft at Oshkosh mentioned. Besides there are a bunch of experimental
aviation nuts that would like to use that title. EAA and its title is a bit
like the US and its constitution. We got it but it doesn't mean what it
used to anymore.

--
Stuart & Kathryn Fields, Publishers
Experimental Helo magazine
P. O. Box 1585
Inyokern, CA 93527
(760) 377-4478 ph
(760) 408-9747 publication cell
(760) 608-1299 technical cell
www.experimentalhelo.com
www.vkss.com


"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> RST Engineering wrote:
>> Oh, you guyz gotta read this. It is (you should pardon the expression) a
>> hoot(er). The hell of it is, he might just have more than a grain of
>> truth in it.
>
> I've seen guys desperate for a date do some weird stuff, but this ranks
> right up there!
>
> Matt

[Peter Dohm]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> Oh, you guyz gotta read this. It is (you should pardon the expression) a
> hoot(er). The hell of it is, he might just have more than a grain of
truth
> in it.
>
> Jim
>
> --
A grain????

He has hit the nail squarely and firmly on the head, and seated it securely
with a single stroke!

Peter
(Actually the Tri-Motor is a bit over-the-top;but, what the heck...)

[John Kimmel]

RST Engineering wrote:
> Oh, you guyz gotta read this. It is (you should pardon the expression) a
> hoot(er). The hell of it is, he might just have more than a grain of truth
> in it.
>
> Jim
>
John Ross has posted to RAH. He has many, many fans, including many
people who follow this newsgroup. Google him to find out more. Try
"John Ross" + "Timothy McVeigh" and see how many hits you get.

--
John Kimmel


I think it will be quiet around here now. So long.

[Peter Dohm]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 08:16:30 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >Oh, you guyz gotta read this. It is (you should pardon the expression) a
> >hoot(er). The hell of it is, he might just have more than a grain of
truth
> >in it.
>
> Yes.
>
> Many (starting with PJ O'Rourke) have expounded on Babe Theory.
>
> http://www.willisms.com/archives/2005/03/more_on_the_bab.html

Although the OP seemed to extrapolate the Babe Theory to the Sit-Com level
and beyond, he did make a couple of very valid points, with which I
wholeheartedly agree:

1) We need more households where aviation is a highly regarded activity
and if that means that aviation events should also function as Meet Markets;
then I really don't see a problem. We will merely be making the events a
little more enjoyable, the refreshment vendors will sell more sandwiches and
lemonade, a few more aircraft (and parts and plans) will be sold, and there
will more aviation oriented families--even if they came there together.
IMHO, all of those and more are good things.

2) Young Eagles is just plain silly. I have been critical of the age
group definition from the start, and have stated in my local chapter that
the ages should be 16 through 25 instead of 8 through 17. Needless to say,
that has not brought any agreement from my peers. However, my rationale is
simply that 16 is the age at which medical certification can be issued, and
therefore 16 is the age at which one can solo. Actually, there are probably
some credible arguments for 15 or 18 as well; but the point is that most of
the 8 through 12 year olds will find plenty of other interests before they
can return for flight instruction and a single short flight will not remain
that memorable for that long.

BTW, I realize that Flying Start is supposed to exist for the ages of 18 and
over; but I really think that the Young Eagles format would have more long
term success in the older age gorups.

Peter
Just my $0.02

[stol]

On Jun 23, 1:52 pm, "Stuart & Kathryn Fields" > wrote:
> I sincerely hope this is a joke. At least part of it. I agree that theEAA
> posture about the Young Eagles has been focussed on the quantity of people
> flown. I wonder if anyone has done a follow up to see just how effective
> that thing is in generating aviators. I mean would those aviators
> attributed to the Young Eagles program been aviators anyway? Did the Young
> Eagles program really change the direction of some individuals? I don't
> doubt that there were some examples of this but what kind of effectiveness
> is involved. What is the ratio of actual re-directed individuals to the
> total number flown.
> On the other issue raised by Mr.Ross, If EAA expands Oshkosh much more to
> non-aviation things, like jet powered trucks, Ford cars, Honda generators,
> John Deer Tractors and now Hooters and some kind of dating game business?
> I've already asked them to consider relinquishing the title Experimental
> Aviation Association as they need to rename it more appropriately. The focus
> of Oshkosh has been trending away from the experimental side of the EAA.
> Also the magazine has lost some meat even though it has gotten bigger. One
> year, I think it was 2005, the Oshkosh video sold by EAA did not even
> mention experimental aviation, with the exception of some Rutan space flight
> data. It did not mention the awards, it only had some Mooney and Piper
> aircraft at Oshkosh mentioned. Besides there are a bunch of experimental
> aviation nuts that would like to use that title. EAA and its title is a bit
> like the US and its constitution. We got it but it doesn't mean what it
> used to anymore.
>
> --
> Stuart & Kathryn Fields, Publishers
> Experimental Helo magazine
> P. O. Box 1585
> Inyokern, CA 93527
> (760) 377-4478 ph
> (760) 408-9747 publication cell
> (760) 608-1299 technical cellwww.experimentalhelo.comwww.vkss.com
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > RST Engineering wrote:
> >> Oh, you guyz gotta read this. It is (you should pardon the expression) a
> >> hoot(er). The hell of it is, he might just have more than a grain of
> >> truth in it.
>
> > I've seen guys desperate for a date do some weird stuff, but this ranks
> > right up there!
>
> > Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I am going with his ideas to a point. I agree the Experimental
Aircraft Assoc was formed to perpetuate the concept of someone being
able to create his or hers own plane. After attending Oshkosh last
year the whole show looked more like the " certified" aircraft assoc.
My plane has an alternative engine in it and the EAA treats us like
second class citizens. That is exactly the reverse of what it was
founded on. Now I am told this years young eagle flights are to be
flown in certified planes only, no experimentals allowed. They have
lost their direction for sure.... Of course this is just my opinion..
And I didn't even stay in a Holiday Inn express last night. <G>

Ben
www.haaspowerair.com

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote

> 2) Young Eagles is just plain silly. I have been critical of the age
> group definition from the start, and have stated in my local chapter that
> the ages should be 16 through 25 instead of 8 through 17. Needless to
> say,
> that has not brought any agreement from my peers. However, my rationale
> is
> simply that 16 is the age at which medical certification can be issued,
> and
> therefore 16 is the age at which one can solo. Actually, there are
> probably
> some credible arguments for 15 or 18 as well; but the point is that most
> of
> the 8 through 12 year olds will find plenty of other interests before they
> can return for flight instruction and a single short flight will not
> remain
> that memorable for that long.
>
> BTW, I realize that Flying Start is supposed to exist for the ages of 18
> and
> over; but I really think that the Young Eagles format would have more long
> term success in the older age gorups.

Aviation Explorers has a much better chance of growing new pilots, and has,
in the unit I formerly participated in. I know of at least two of the
young'uns that I used to camp with, that now are pilots, and I think there
are a few more in various stages of lessons.

Aviation Explorers, for those that I have not converted <g>, is a part of
"Learning for Life," which is a loose part of Boy Scouts, without the
uniforms.

They are the ones that push the planes in homebuilt show planes area and
Area 51 at OSH, and those over 18 also take a hand in flagging in traffic on
four of the seven or eight major taxiway intersections off of 18/36 at OSH
during the last weeks of July.

We NEED more of these units started. Can you help in making that happen?
It really is not all that difficult to do!

http://www.sportys-catalogs.com/ltf/more/youth/exploring/exploring.html
http://www.learning-for-life.org/exploring/aviation/main.html
http://www.aviationexploring.org/news/index.html
Bradley Bormuth (in link above) won top pilot honors, from the unit I was
active in.

--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Morgans" > wrote

> We NEED more of these units started. Can you help in making that happen?
> It really is not all that difficult to do!
>
> http://www.sportys-catalogs.com/ltf/more/youth/exploring/exploring.html
> http://www.learning-for-life.org/exploring/aviation/main.html
> http://www.aviationexploring.org/news/index.html
> Bradley Bormuth (in link above) won top pilot honors, from the unit I was
> active in.

One more link, I wanted you all to see, is the link to a site that is about
the Aviation Explorer's base camp at OSH. It provides a built in, big-time
goal, for the youngsters, all year long!

http://www.aviationexplorerbase.com/

[Peter Dohm]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote
>
> > We NEED more of these units started. Can you help in making that
happen?
> > It really is not all that difficult to do!
> >
> > http://www.sportys-catalogs.com/ltf/more/youth/exploring/exploring.html
> > http://www.learning-for-life.org/exploring/aviation/main.html
> > http://www.aviationexploring.org/news/index.html
> > Bradley Bormuth (in link above) won top pilot honors, from the unit I
was
> > active in.
>
> One more link, I wanted you all to see, is the link to a site that is
about
> the Aviation Explorer's base camp at OSH. It provides a built in,
big-time
> goal, for the youngsters, all year long!
>
> http://www.aviationexplorerbase.com/
>
>
Thanks Jim, that's great info.

[Paul Dow (Remove Caps in mail address)]

I believe Paul Poberezny did try to start a new organization that was
more true to the experimental aircraft purpose, the Sport Aviation
Association. http://www.sportaviation.org It looks like it didn't
succeed though. I'm not sure why. Maybe lack of publicity, maybe just no
critical mass to get it off the ground.

Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:
> I've already asked them to consider relinquishing the title Experimental
> Aviation Association as they need to rename it more appropriately. The focus
> of Oshkosh has been trending away from the experimental side of the EAA.
> Also the magazine has lost some meat even though it has gotten bigger. One
> year, I think it was 2005, the Oshkosh video sold by EAA did not even
> mention experimental aviation, with the exception of some Rutan space flight
> data. It did not mention the awards, it only had some Mooney and Piper
> aircraft at Oshkosh mentioned. Besides there are a bunch of experimental
> aviation nuts that would like to use that title. EAA and its title is a bit
> like the US and its constitution. We got it but it doesn't mean what it
> used to anymore.
>

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> http://www.john-ross.net/osh2.htm
>

Hey! Are you telling me that they don't have the Miss/Mrs. EAA Contest any
more?

Gee, you don't go for 30 years, and look what happens...

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Peter Dohm]

"Paul Dow (Remove Caps in mail address)" > wrote in
message ...
> I believe Paul Poberezny did try to start a new organization that was
> more true to the experimental aircraft purpose, the Sport Aviation
> Association. http://www.sportaviation.org It looks like it didn't
> succeed though. I'm not sure why. Maybe lack of publicity, maybe just no
> critical mass to get it off the ground.
>
Very true, and I am amoung the many who intended to join; but never got
around to it.

Peter
Part of the problem, for which I am sorry.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:55:00 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
> wrote:

>"Paul Dow (Remove Caps in mail address)" > wrote in
>message ...
>> I believe Paul Poberezny did try to start a new organization that was
>> more true to the experimental aircraft purpose, the Sport Aviation

it did start and was gaining members.

>> Association. http://www.sportaviation.org It looks like it didn't
>> succeed though. I'm not sure why. Maybe lack of publicity, maybe just no
>> critical mass to get it off the ground.

I think it was more of a cross purposes with the basic orginization.
IIRC They did have one meeting, maybe two at Osh that were well
attended some years back

>>
>Very true, and I am amoung the many who intended to join; but never got
>around to it.

I think I could probably come up with some history with a bit of
diggin into my archives. I know a number who were charter members.

>
>Peter
>Part of the problem, for which I am sorry.
>
>

[Scott[_1_]]

I got in several years ago and thought it was GREAT! I really miss the
SAA...

Scott
Corben Junior Ace (EXPERIMENTAL)

Peter Dohm wrote:

> "Paul Dow (Remove Caps in mail address)" > wrote in
> message ...
>
>>I believe Paul Poberezny did try to start a new organization that was
>>more true to the experimental aircraft purpose, the Sport Aviation
>>Association. http://www.sportaviation.org It looks like it didn't
>>succeed though. I'm not sure why. Maybe lack of publicity, maybe just no
>>critical mass to get it off the ground.
>>
>
> Very true, and I am amoung the many who intended to join; but never got
> around to it.
>
> Peter
> Part of the problem, for which I am sorry.
>
>
>

--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 08:03:52 -0700, wrote:

>http://www.john-ross.net/osh2.htm

First, at least at our airport I see the Young Eagles program
producing young pilots. No, it's not a high percentage, but it's
created a noticeable increase in activity with probably about 15 or
more new, young pilots from the program. Properly done it's also been
a boon to educating the community and parents to aviation.

Even in today's climate we still get fence hangers and are building
a picnic area adjacent to the terminal building where people can bring
their families to watch the airplanes.

Although it irked some in the local program, those of us with 4 place
planes often encourage parents, or at "a" parent to go along. We've
probably gained another 10 or so pilots along that line and the city
sees us in a far different light than back when the neighbors wanted
to close the airport. OK, so the neighbors who built new, half
million dollar homes off the end of 18 would still like to see us
gone, but their voices have been drastically muted.

So I disagree with him as to how he sees the Young Eagles Program in
it's ability to get young people interested in aviation and influence
both parents and the community. At least in out community it has had a
very positive effect.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 26, 9:41 am, "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 08:03:52 -0700, wrote:
> >http://www.john-ross.net/osh2.htm
>
> First, at least at our airport I see the Young Eagles program
> producing young pilots. No, it's not a high percentage, but it's
> created a noticeable increase in activity with probably about 15 or
> more new, young pilots from the program. Properly done it's also been
> a boon to educating the community and parents to aviation.

SNIP

> So I disagree with him as to how he sees the Young Eagles Program in
> it's ability to get young people interested in aviation and influence
> both parents and the community. At least in out community it has had a
> very positive effect.

Were these young eagles at the upper end of the age cutoff? Because
of the many YE flights I have seen & done, none under 16 had any
continued aviation involvement.

JR

P.S. My piece was done as humor, but as many have noted, there was no
small amount of truth contained therein...

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article . com>,
wrote:

> On Jun 26, 9:41 am, "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 08:03:52 -0700, wrote:
> > >http://www.john-ross.net/osh2.htm
> >
> > First, at least at our airport I see the Young Eagles program
> > producing young pilots. No, it's not a high percentage, but it's
> > created a noticeable increase in activity with probably about 15 or
> > more new, young pilots from the program. Properly done it's also been
> > a boon to educating the community and parents to aviation.
>
> SNIP
>
> > So I disagree with him as to how he sees the Young Eagles Program in
> > it's ability to get young people interested in aviation and influence
> > both parents and the community. At least in out community it has had a
> > very positive effect.
>
> Were these young eagles at the upper end of the age cutoff? Because
> of the many YE flights I have seen & done, none under 16 had any
> continued aviation involvement.
>
> JR
>
> P.S. My piece was done as humor, but as many have noted, there was no
> small amount of truth contained therein...

Where I live, we have merged the Wright Flight (www.wrightflight.org/)
mentoring program for middle schools with YE, using YE as a reward for
completion of the Wright Flight goals.

Our Chapter leaders (EAA288.org) have been in contact with EAA on ways
to improve the YE program.

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 08:16:30 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:

<http://www.john-ross.net/osh2.htm>

>Oh, you guyz gotta read this. It is (you should pardon the expression) a
>hoot(er). The hell of it is, he might just have more than a grain of truth
>in it.
>
>Jim

I had a chuckle reading the part about weighing candidate wombs to
make sure they're under 135lbs. I'm thinking of a Soup Nazi scale
monitor...

<136lb woman steps off scale> "No free admission for you! You should
have thought about the future of homebuilding before eating that last
donut."

<134lb woman steps off scale> "Hey you with the brush cut and the
wallet chain, not so fast!."

:-)

Wayne

[Ken Finney]

> wrote in message
...
>
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 08:16:30 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> <http://www.john-ross.net/osh2.htm>
>
>>Oh, you guyz gotta read this. It is (you should pardon the expression) a
>>hoot(er). The hell of it is, he might just have more than a grain of
>>truth
>>in it.
>>
>>Jim
>
> I had a chuckle reading the part about weighing candidate wombs to
> make sure they're under 135lbs. I'm thinking of a Soup Nazi scale
> monitor...
>
> <136lb woman steps off scale> "No free admission for you! You should
> have thought about the future of homebuilding before eating that last
> donut."
>
> <134lb woman steps off scale> "Hey you with the brush cut and the
> wallet chain, not so fast!."
>
> :-)
>

The funny thing is, I see women like he was wanting all the time at aviation
events; they are called "house keepers". When you divorce them, they keep
the house.

I know one woman who is quite proud of herself, that she had cleaned out two
pilots, and is working on her third.

[Peter Dohm]

>
> The funny thing is, I see women like he was wanting all the time at
aviation
> events; they are called "house keepers". When you divorce them, they keep
> the house.
>
> I know one woman who is quite proud of herself, that she had cleaned out
two
> pilots, and is working on her third.
>
I can't quite decide whether that is funny ... or not.