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.