Sun'n Fun Used to Be the Gathering of the Good Ol' Boys of Flying

In article ,
" jls" wrote:

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 08:59:21 -0500, " jls"
wrote:

Now this is the kind of response from a little parasite who's a gutless,
weaselly insider and knows how it all works, including how to turn a
ragged
out Cessna into an award-winner.

Hmmmm....I would have thought this was a GOOD thing. He also built an
RV-4
(Do a Google Groups search on "ARSA Fighter").

If any of you don't know who Whizzmire
is, you ought to study him a little cause he bears watching.

Uggg, Ed is hard enough on the eyes just to glance at, much less
stare at. :-)

He likes to appear in photo-ops with EAA bigwigs...

I know Ed pretty well, and I don't recall ever seeing a picture of him
with
any "EAA bigwigs." But he is a member of the EAA Homebuilder's Council,
so
his picture has probably appeared in the EAA magazines. Also, he
volunteers as a photographer at Oshkosh, so you certainly might see him
around events where bigwigs are involved.

I've known Ed for a number of years, and we were both members of Chapter
441 here in Seattle. I don't think I've *ever* heard him "drop a name."
The most you ever heard from him along those lines was, "I'll bring it up
at the next Council meeting."

But wait...wait...I think I *do* recall seeing Ed in a photo of EAA
bigwigs. I originally thought it was a lens flare, down at the bottom of
the image, but it could have been sunlight reflecting off the top of Ed's
head! :-)

and he knows how to pull many of the ropes to advantage himself,
including trying to hide what they're doing this year at Sun'n'Gouge.

Why would he do that? AFAIK, he had no connection to the Fly-In, though I
don't doubt that he volunteers there like he does at Oshkosh. With that
experience, he might have a little more insight into the problems and
difficulties of putting on an event this large.

Ron Wanttaja

OK, Ron, so you're both in the same chapter but my experience with him, as
opposed to experience with you, is decidedly negative. He argues
contentiously, like a stickler, without authority ( and most of the time
without good sense) and appears to be a self-interested toady without much
of a moral code. If he's your archetypal ombudsman for EAA, then imho the
organization could do better.

If he has authority or a cite which shows the rule at Sun'n Fun forbidding
backpacks has been rescinded then he should publish a link. He didn't say
ANYTHING about the ban on ice chests. By banning ice chests, that means
they're gouging, pure and simple. And despite your defense of the little
weasel, I say he's toadying. Many of the people hereabouts have discussed
the ban on ice chests and are not attending this year. I'm not either. If
enough people boycott the sonsabitches enough to hurt their pocketbooks and
embarrass them a little, they'll stop that foolishness.

Banning ice chests at Sun'n Fun in the name of security is not for
safety --- it's a gouge.



IMHO, "jls" is WAY out of line here! I have known (and wworked with Ed)
for the last 20+ years abd have NEVER seen Ed exhibit the
characteristics "jls" attributes to him.

Granted, Ed may have a penchant for keeping ducks, and his taste in
airplanes and music leave something to be desired, but Ed IS
well-imformed and usually knows what he is talking about.

As for Ed's moral code, I doubt that you will find a person whose
standards are higher.

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 13:37:00 -0500, " jls" wrote:

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message

I've known Ed for a number of years, and we were both members of Chapter
441 here in Seattle. I don't think I've *ever* heard him "drop a name."
The most you ever heard from him along those lines was, "I'll bring it up
at the next Council meeting."

OK, Ron, so you're both in the same chapter but my experience with him, as
opposed to experience with you, is decidedly negative. He argues
contentiously, like a stickler, without authority ( and most of the time
without good sense) and appears to be a self-interested toady without much
of a moral code. If he's your archetypal ombudsman for EAA, then imho the
organization could do better.

Well, back when they were first forming the homebuilt council, Bob Warner
met me and asked if I was interested. I pointed out that I was a bit
controversial (this was at the height of the RAH-15 stuff) and might not be
a good pick. I was quite happy later when they named Ed to the council; he
has a better background and temperament for it than I do.

My experience with Ed obviously differs from yours. My interaction with
him has been primarily personal, not professional. But I recently got an
email from one of his students (Ed referred him to me regarding experiences
getting a medical waiver for one-eyed flying), and the student was a real
fan of his.

And I guess I'm just confused by your claim that he's "toadying" to SnF.
Someone toadies in hopes of gaining some favor from the individual or
entity involved. I just don't understand what Ed would have to gain with
such a tactic. He's gainfully employed 2,000 miles from Florida, so he
doesn't need a job. He gets free admission already as a KITPLANES writer.
The most he might expect is a free meal voucher.

Banning ice chests at Sun'n Fun in the name of security is not for
safety --- it's a gouge.

Well, I'd like to hear Sun-N-Fun explain that, myself. Places like movie
theaters and sports arenas ban the items, but a two- or four- hour event in
an air-conditioned auditorium with seating is quite a bit different from a
multi-day outdoor event in 90 degree weather. I've brought backpacks to
Oshkosh and would have been moderately upset if I had been denied entry
because of them. If viewing areas are overcrowded, an ice-chest ban makes
sense, but I suspect that isn't the case at SnF.

As far as banning them for security reasons, it's a damned-if-you-do,
damned-if-you-don't sort of situation. In the post-9/11 world, public
events are taking the most secure route...but, too often, the major driver
is money rather than a desire for a safer venue. It's like the
banner-towing issue; the TSA could implement any level of security approval
necessary, but the open-air-stadium folks don't want them approved at all
because they don't get a cut of the money paid for banner advertisements.

I don't know the SnF staffers, so I can't take a guess at whether they're
driven by security or avarice. But I tend to believe the old saying,
"Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity." :-)

Ron Wanttaja

Charlie England wrote:

Ed Wischmeyer wrote:

'Taint now. Get ready to have your wallet plucked. And that rule

about

ice chests and backpacks, that's so you'll not be bringing in your beer

at

$5 a sixpack from the supermarket down the street. You'll need to buy

it

at $4 per beer and $10 per hamburger on premises.

A fool and his money are soon parted. But, hey, you'll get a 5% discount

on

your avgas on the way down.


Whiner! and the rule about backpacks has been rescinded. Backpacks may,
however, be subject to inspection for security reasons.

Ed Wischmeyer
If the Founding Fathers hadn't whined (and then acted) we wouldn't have
such a great country.

(If a lot of people hadn't started whining loudly about the backpack
restriction, it would still be in effect.

If we don't whine a lot more, we will continue to lose our freedoms to
move about & maintain our privacy.

Charlie

Well said!

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 13:37:00 -0500, " jls" wrote:


"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message

I've known Ed for a number of years, and we were both members of Chapter
441 here in Seattle. I don't think I've *ever* heard him "drop a name."
The most you ever heard from him along those lines was, "I'll bring it up
at the next Council meeting."

OK, Ron, so you're both in the same chapter but my experience with him, as
opposed to experience with you, is decidedly negative. He argues
contentiously, like a stickler, without authority ( and most of the time
without good sense) and appears to be a self-interested toady without much
of a moral code. If he's your archetypal ombudsman for EAA, then imho the
organization could do better.


Well, back when they were first forming the homebuilt council, Bob Warner
met me and asked if I was interested. I pointed out that I was a bit
controversial (this was at the height of the RAH-15 stuff) and might not be
a good pick. I was quite happy later when they named Ed to the council; he
has a better background and temperament for it than I do.

My experience with Ed obviously differs from yours. My interaction with
him has been primarily personal, not professional. But I recently got an
email from one of his students (Ed referred him to me regarding experiences
getting a medical waiver for one-eyed flying), and the student was a real
fan of his.

And I guess I'm just confused by your claim that he's "toadying" to SnF.
Someone toadies in hopes of gaining some favor from the individual or
entity involved. I just don't understand what Ed would have to gain with
such a tactic. He's gainfully employed 2,000 miles from Florida, so he
doesn't need a job. He gets free admission already as a KITPLANES writer.
The most he might expect is a free meal voucher.


Banning ice chests at Sun'n Fun in the name of security is not for
safety --- it's a gouge.


Well, I'd like to hear Sun-N-Fun explain that, myself. Places like movie
theaters and sports arenas ban the items, but a two- or four- hour event in
an air-conditioned auditorium with seating is quite a bit different from a
multi-day outdoor event in 90 degree weather. I've brought backpacks to
Oshkosh and would have been moderately upset if I had been denied entry
because of them. If viewing areas are overcrowded, an ice-chest ban makes
sense, but I suspect that isn't the case at SnF.

As far as banning them for security reasons, it's a damned-if-you-do,
damned-if-you-don't sort of situation. In the post-9/11 world, public
events are taking the most secure route...but, too often, the major driver
is money rather than a desire for a safer venue. It's like the
banner-towing issue; the TSA could implement any level of security approval
necessary, but the open-air-stadium folks don't want them approved at all
because they don't get a cut of the money paid for banner advertisements.

I don't know the SnF staffers, so I can't take a guess at whether they're
driven by security or avarice. But I tend to believe the old saying,
"Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity." :-)

Ron Wanttaja

There are other old sayings & principles that apply as well. Occam's
razor is one. As you mentioned, other festivals began denying ice chests
long before 9-11 purely as a revenue generating technique. The promoters
of airshows are just catching up with other festivals in their revenue
generating techniques. 9-11 just makes it easier to sell as 'necessary'.

Charlie

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

Well, I'd like to hear Sun-N-Fun explain that, myself. Places like movie
theaters and sports arenas ban the items, but a two- or four- hour event in
an air-conditioned auditorium with seating is quite a bit different from a
multi-day outdoor event in 90 degree weather. I've brought backpacks to
Oshkosh and would have been moderately upset if I had been denied entry
because of them. If viewing areas are overcrowded, an ice-chest ban makes
sense, but I suspect that isn't the case at SnF.

As far as banning them for security reasons, it's a damned-if-you-do,
damned-if-you-don't sort of situation. In the post-9/11 world, public
events are taking the most secure route...but, too often, the major driver
is money rather than a desire for a safer venue. It's like the
banner-towing issue; the TSA could implement any level of security approval
necessary, but the open-air-stadium folks don't want them approved at all
because they don't get a cut of the money paid for banner advertisements.

I don't know the SnF staffers, so I can't take a guess at whether they're
driven by security or avarice. But I tend to believe the old saying,
"Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity." :-)

Ron Wanttaja

On the SNF website, the statement "Coolers, backpacks, bicycles,
scooters, in-line skates and skateboards are not permitted on
convention site" is repeated in several places including the sections
dealing with camping and aircraft camping. To me, a policy banning
coolers for fly-in campers is unacceptable.

I have never flown in and camped by my plane at SNF but I have at
Oshkosh. For me, one of the pleasures and benefits of flying in and
camping by my plane at Oshkosh is being able to bring all the food and
beverage I need for the four or five days I stay there. That would be
impossible (for me at least) without a cooler and daily access to ice.
Oshkosh allows campers to have coolers, and ice is available from
private and site vendors (1).

If SNF is going to ban coolers for campers and/or not have daily ice
for sale at a reasonable price then I will not fly to SNF to camp.
Such restrictions would put too much a cramp on my camping style. I
expect many of my fellow campers would agree, including these folks,

http://www.airplanezone.com/Oshkosh/...02/page12.html

I agree with Charlie England, the SNF blanket cooler ban is revenue
motivated and the events of 9-11 just make it easier to sell as
"necessary". I can accept such a cooler ban for daily gate attendees
(of which I might be one this year). SNF will find, however, that
such a policy applied to fly-in campers is self-defeating. I predict
the policy will not last.

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

1: Oshkosh implemented a "cooler permit" policy (something I've never
quite understood) in 2001. This was before the insanity of 9-11 and
five years after the Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta. The "cooler
permit" is a sticker (no fee as I recall) that is to be placed on your
cooler. What is the purpose of the cooler permit? Has anyone ever
obtained a cogent official explanation for the Oshkosh "cooler permit"
policy? I keep my cooler in my tent anyway, out of site of potential
Oshkosh Cooler Permit Police.

From: Bob Fry


Amen, brother. The Declaration of Independence: One of the Great
Whines in History, right there with the Magna Carta.

Not to pick a nit here, but I believe the Magna Carta only applied to male
peers, not the common man or woman.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: Bob Fry


Amen, brother. The Declaration of Independence: One of the Great
Whines in History, right there with the Magna Carta.

Not to pick a nit here, but I believe the Magna Carta only applied to male
peers, not the common man or woman.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Magna Carta is a product of the "whining" of the nobles to the king that
they were entitled to a number of unalienable rights in writing guaranteed
by the courts, but the rights were gradually extended to the common folk.

(B2431) writes:

Amen, brother. The Declaration of Independence: One of the Great
Whines in History, right there with the Magna Carta.

Not to pick a nit here, but I believe the Magna Carta only applied to male
peers, not the common man or woman.

Well, sure. Ya gotta start somewhere. Before that, it was just
whatever one guy wanted, King John.

In article ,
" jls" wrote:

If any of you don't know who Whizzmire
is, you ought to study him a little cause he bears watching.

If anybody doesn't know who "jls1016ns" may be, the reversion to
juvenile (and really stretched) insults based on combining a name with a
body function gives it away. Even if the completely undeserved
vituperation didn't. Latchless Larry, c'mon down, and we'll pray that
you might be healed. Or saved. Or take up golf.

The last time I visited the official website I
clearly read that ice chests and backpacks were PROHIBITED

There was a discussion here in RAH, and someone, I believe it was Roger
Halstead, called and they told him the backpack ban was dropped. But --
as Ed said -- backpacks are subject to search, which to me trips the
WAFWOT meter, but lots of women of both sexes are "security" oriented
these days, and if they DIDN'T have TSA-style brain-deads do searches,
there'd be an outcry by all those not nannied enough.


cheers

-=K=-

In article ,
" jls" wrote:

Many of the people hereabouts have discussed
the ban on ice chests and are not attending this year. I'm not either. If
enough people boycott the sonsabitches enough to hurt their pocketbooks and
embarrass them a little, they'll stop that foolishness.

Fine, don't attend.

I don't think the organisers will notice.

The people that seem to suffer from attempts to drive the attendance
down, whether it's you, or whether it's a certain publisher's well-known
dispute/vendetta which has lasted about as long as the suit in Bleak
House, are the guys trying to introduce new stuff, and all the mom and
pop shops making a good product for a thankless, tiny constituency that
will cavil and cheat and gouge themselves.

I have never printed a word of it, but I've heard some pretty amazing
stuff from vendors about how some guy tries to shave them on a deal. Or
about the 90% of the people in the booth who are tyre kickers and
sharpshooters, but who will never, ever, buy or build. But they smile
and explain and tolerate know-it-alls, because somewhere in that booth
is one of the five or six customers they need to keep the doors open
till the next show.

FWIW I have raised the issue with said publisher. If ever there was a
case for constructive engagement, this is it.

cheers

-=K=-