James Maher wrote:

The EAA felt that the Homebuilt review was important enough that it was made a part of the airshow and we flew 26 aircraft under the airshow waiver.

So the EAA felt that the people who built the EAA deserved a bone. How quaint.

I spoke with some of the vendors who usually flew their aircraft in their showcase and they were very upset that they were not allowed to fly this year. Especially since they paid a high price for their static displays.

So let 'em be upset. They contracted for a static display. They got a static display. I don't see companies getting upset because they paid for a billboard at the ball stadium but didn't get special attention at the halftime show.

I’ve also heard that many of the Warbird owners decided to boycott airventure this year because the EAA decided that they would no longer comp them for their fuel cost as they have done in years past.

Good. If they don't have enough pride in what they've built to pay for their own gas like everyone else, good riddance....wait a minute...they didn't build them? Then what is experimental about them, and why was the EAA paying for their gas in the first place? The only question I have is do you think we could convince the jet-powered outhouse to go wherever it is that the warbirds are now going?

For those who have complaints about the EAA there are several avenues that you may use to have them addressed. There is the Homebuilt council whose charter is to represent the homebuilders within the EAA. This was formed seven years ago and continues to champion the homebuilder’s agenda. There is an EAA staff member, Charlie Becker, who also represents the homebuilders at the EAA. If you belong to a local EAA chapter this is another avenue to address concerns within the EAA.

You see, there's the rub. It has presented itself as an organization that represents homebuilders. Turns out, it's an organization with a group of homebuilders fighting for representation. My complaint with the EAA is that they don't provide me with a service. When I'm spending my money, I'm the number one consideration. They've choosen to be a 'big tent' organization, but the problem with the 'big tent' mentallity is that you stand the chance of forgetting why you started building a tent in the first place. The vendors who can afford the expensive static displays and the guys selling kits have lots of money to spend, and get a lot of attention in return. Me, if I'm going to spend my money, I need support building an airplane so that I can stand beside it on the flightline, point to each piece and say, "I made that." But advertisers don't make much money when people do that, so instead we get articles about painting a Cessna pink. (Damn, I know they want to increase female participation, but that one was just stupid.) Yes, I do believe the dumbing down of SA goes beyond liability. Uncle Tom knows which side of the bread holds the butter, and that side prefers advertisements for kits vs articles describing how to cheaply make your own in an afternoon.

The point I am trying to make is you can sit on the sidelines and complain like so many are prone to do, and make excuses why you don’t wish to participate, or you can get involved like others do and try to change things to what you wish them to be.

Or I can let 'em have it, take my money and go play somwhere else. Find an organization to take my money that is interested in supporting me. That will change things to what I wish them to be much quicker. I don't see a need to fight for recognition. If they choose to switch the game to something I care to play, maybe I'll come back some day.

--         ,|"|"|,              Ernest Christley       |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===----    Dyke Delta Builder      |
       o|  d  |o        http://ernest.isa-geek.org  |

--
Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/