Following the lead of a fellow member of the Dyke Delta Yahoo group, Bernie, I sent the editors at EAA an email explaining why I was not renewing my membership.  It looks like Bernie and I either spoke to soon, or our actions are finally having the intended effect.  I'll not argue the point either way, but I got some news through the grapevine this weekend that is very encouraging concerning the EAA. The editor of Sport Aviation has been fired.

Now, I hate to see anyone lose their job, but here is how I understand the situation.  The guy took a job editing what should be an intensely hardcore aviation publication, and he didn't have so much as a PP-SEL.  It appears that he had no interest in flying airplanes, and even less in building one.  He was in the wrong place.  That's sad;  both for him and the EAA membership.  Over the past year, EAA membership dropped 20%.  Sport Aviation content was cited most often as the reason.  That is sad; both for him and the membership.  He is being replaced.  I wish him luck in finding a position better suited for him, but the bigger issue for EAA members (past and present) is why he was replaced.

The board of directors saw the 20% drop in membership and started asking why.  Have you seen the makeup of the board?  Sport Aviation printed the nominees for the next year a couple months back.  There weren't but a couple that had ever worked on an airplane, and I believe only one nominee that had ever built anything.  The rest were bean counters and management types, with a couple academics thrown in.  While bean counters and management types are both necessary and useful, I think it wouldn't be that hard to find a few that had built at least one airplane and would know what is wrong with the EAA's focus.  Instead, they, being bean counters and management types, do what bean counters and management types do.  They look at spreadsheets and charts and try to draw a picture of reality from the summarization.  Spreadsheets and charts leave out a lot of data and twist reality all to easily.  Until the membership started dropping, they assumed everything was hunky-dory, and all the talk about losing focus was just background noise.  Now the moaning has risen to a roar.  Members are leaving.

So, we've punched them in the nose to get their attention.  It is time for a come to Jesus meeting where we calmly and clearly explain what the problem is.  If you've left the EAA without an explanation, please send a quick email to editor@eaa.org and state why you left.  Just a few polite lines so that they will know.  If you're considering not renewing your membership, let them know that.  If you've tried to make your voice heard before, but feel you were rebuked, please try again.   I believe the microphone is turned your way now.  If you know someone who is trying to fix the EAA from the inside, please mention their efforts so that the board will have insiders to turn to for advise.

It's not often that an organization as large as the EAA will see one in five members drop out in a single year.  This is an historic opportunity to set thing straight.  The people in charge will be paying attention like never before.  It may be that the editor will just be a scapegoat, and it will be back to business as usual in a few months.  I think it more likely that the board is genuinely concerned, but they just don't understand.  If we speak up and the situation is the former, then we can say, "We told you so" next year when the membership drops another 20%.  If the situation is the latter then speaking up now will help draw back the 20% that left and insure that they stay.


Ernest

PS.  I tried hard not to do this, because I don't want to taint what anyone else feels is, if anything, wrong with the EAA;  but, I can't help myself.  Stop reading here if you don't care about my ranting ....






































It is my opinion that the problem with the EAA is that the leadership has forgotten why we are building airplanes.  It is NOT, by any means, simply to have an airplane.  The analysis has been done all over the place, and everyone agrees it would be more economical and less labor intensive to get a second job, buy an airplane now, and be in the air immediately.  *WE* as builders know that.  We're not stupid...DANG-IT!  The reason we build airplanes is....get this....PRIDE!

Plane (har-har) and simple.  We want to say, "I built that."  We want to compare our workmanship to the guy on the next row, and marvel at the simplicity/uniqueness/complexity/workmanship of the guy on the next.  The more bolt-on, manufactured goods are added, the less pride is involved.  The more the leadership has forgotten that PRIDE is the driving force and been lured astray by advertising dollars from manufactured goods, the more they've eaten away at the heart of the organization.  Now, I've got nothing against manufactured goods, or their advertising.  There are some parts of my project that I just had no interest in making, wheel hubs, for example, so I chose to buy those off the shelf.  The problem is that I often get the feeling from the EAA organization that my project is lessened by it not being a kit, or by me making my own strobes or marker lights.  If I'm building out of pride, and you look down your nose at me for building...well, that's just a punch in the gut, and I don't really care to be around you.  You can't go around punching your members and expect them to keep coming back.