# oh, no! eaa membership expiring!

Discussion in 'Hangar Flying' started by lurker, Jan 20, 2012.

### Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

1. Jan 24, 2012

### cjensen

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Apr 21, 2005
Messages:
149
1
Location:
Oshkosh, WI
This is something that has never been developed, and I'm almost speechless as to they why the organization has never sought out this information. We are working on means to gather the info out there. The best I have to offer at this point, is the registrations at AirVenture. But even that is flawed because the data is somewhat skewed toward cross country airplanes and more local low and slows. The list is dominated by RV's, and I suspect that would be the answer even without hard evidence.

How long ago was this? Can you send it to me? cjensen@eaa.org

There are people that want this type of article, but I can tell you that it's very much a minority. BUT, that's not to say that it won't get published or the attention it deserves. It interests me a lot too...

2. Jan 24, 2012

### Hot Wings

#### Well-Known MemberHBA Supporter

Joined:
Nov 14, 2009
Messages:
6,437
2,343
Location:
Rocky Mountains
If you have any complaint about the lack of technical or other articles to suit your fancy, write one (or make the suggestion and myself or someone else will)

I've actually been working, when time allows, on a home built aviation related article in an area where I think I have something to offer. Up until this thread popped up I hadn't even considered submitting it to the EAA for publication. They are that far off my radar when it comes to Experimental aircraft. At this point I'd liken such a submission to tossing stones into a flood swollen creek in the hopes of changing it course.

3. Jan 24, 2012

### SVSUSteve

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Aug 21, 2007
Messages:
3,890
938
Location:
Evansville, Indiana
Then where the heck were you planning on publishing the article?

My opinion has always been that if one is not willing to work to fix something, then perhaps there is no reason for them to speak up.

4. Jan 24, 2012

### Hot Wings

#### Well-Known MemberHBA Supporter

Joined:
Nov 14, 2009
Messages:
6,437
2,343
Location:
Rocky Mountains
Then where the heck were you planning on publishing the article?

Tailored for Kitplanes. At least they still speak homebuilt.

My opinion has always been that if one is not willing to work to fix something, then perhaps there is no reason for them to speak up.

I am spending a fair amount of time trying to promote and enhance aviation, particularly safe and affordable aviation. I'd like the time and resources to do more.

When it comes to trying to get the EAA back to it's homebuilding roots - at some point you run the risk of doing a very good imitation of Don Quixote.

5. Jan 24, 2012

### N111KX

#### Member

Joined:
Apr 19, 2011
Messages:
24
3
Location:
Atlanta, GA USA
Wow, so much negativity in a "recreational" forum. Your way or the highway, heh? You guys are great motivators for the newbies, I'll bet.

First off, the editor never read the article because he did not want to see it. It was never sent. So, who knows if there is a "compelling pitch" or not? He was not interested in a shortened version or he would have told me so. I just read somewhere something about "seeking content". Oh, well.

Are you joking when you use the word "mundane"? Has your aircraft stall behavior changed since the 5, 100, 1000 hour mark. That would make a riveting story. Is there no other room in a magazine to read about people that actually like to get out and see some sights and have a little adventure on the road? Turning the page is quite easy. I practice it often when I get to the stick force gradient articles.

And the "formation" part meant that there were two HOMEBUILTS flying together, not BARONS. I was not trying to be "special" but hey, my buddy was there in his HOMEBUILT and to not mention him after flying 4200 miles together would have been akward. I should have written "accompany", I guess.

I almost forgot this was the internet when I started typing today.

Last edited: Jan 24, 2012
6. Jan 24, 2012

### SVSUSteve

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Aug 21, 2007
Messages:
3,890
938
Location:
Evansville, Indiana
I find them to be useful for maybe 2-10% of the articles they put out. The rest have nothing to do with anything of interest to me (builder stories, etc) or is the same repetitive ads and other filler over and over.

For example, take the March issue:
Special Report
Repetitive filler.

Filler.

Not useful.

Fluff.

Not useful to me, but it might be to others.

Fluff

Useful

Maybe useful.

Filler.

Potentially useful, assuming they actually talk about certified parts this time around....

Probably useful....

Not interesting so far as I can tell.

If I wanted this, I'd spend time here or on EAA forums.

Filler.

Filler.

Interesting.

Filler.

Filler.
I would imagine that this is about the same breakdown that a lot of folks on the other side of the fence feel about Sport Aviation and I feel the same way about it too...but I'm willing to do something to at least try to change it.

I've yet to come across a non-technical publication (as in peer reviewed journal) where more than maybe 25% or so is actually interesting or potentially useful.

Glad to hear it.

I think the problem is that the minority of folks who are pissed off are simply not happy that their definition of "homebuilding" isn't what is popular. Not saying that this is the case with you, but it seems to be the same problem that one runs into with any diverse group: you get a lot of people who are tolerant and then you get a few who dig their heals in and can't see past their own wants and desires. For one, I'm with Paul on the stance that it's big enough for everyone and we are all stronger if we stand together than if we take this approach:
<br>

Last edited by a moderator: Mar 20, 2019
7. Jan 24, 2012

### Toobuilder

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Jan 20, 2010
Messages:
4,471
3,274
Location:
Mojave, Ca
I'll speak only for myself when I say that I know what I want to see in an organization, and when that organization changes, then yes, I have a right to be unhappy. It's not fair to expect me to change my interests just to go with the flow, is it? I'm certainly not expecting anyone to change theirs. I'd LIKE my old EAA back, that's all. I have come to realize that is not going to happen, so I simply "turned the page" and dropped my membership. I'm simply offering the reasons why... If that comes off as "negative", that's certainly not the intent.

First off, I use my airplanes a lot, and I even flew the RV-8 from California to OSH (in formation) with another RV this past summer. Pretty boring stuff, actually. Hours on end of flying straight and level, paying too much for gas, and eating bad food. The only thing more boring would be reading about someone else doing it. Fortunately, I had an autopilot, so it freed up my mind to daydream about modifications to make the airplane faster. So even while actually living the "adventure", my brain is hard wired to "technical". As you say, it takes all types...

...And those "types" started the EAA.

8. Jan 24, 2012

### SVSUSteve

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Aug 21, 2007
Messages:
3,890
938
Location:
Evansville, Indiana
OK. I don't recall you mentioning that it wasn't sent. You just said they rejected it because it was too long. When you say things like that, the freelance writer in me says "Oh, he must have submitted it and it was rejected.".

So did you even contact them? If so, you made a pitch. Whether it was compelling or not is not possible for me to decide without reading your pitch. However, if you were told not to submit it, then chances are it was not a a compelling pitch.

Did you ask? I have a lot of friends who are editors and they seldom ever take that tack unless the person has something really spectacular.

Yeah, I figured as much because most folks that engage in formation flying (outside of those actually trained to do so such as airshow and military pilots) tend to be homebuilt pilots. It's kind of an "occupational hazard" of sorts for our hobby. Not sure if why but most Baron pilots seem to have little desire to emulate Maverick and Iceman during their flying. Hell, I don't want to fly a Baron but if anyone gets close enough to be "in formation" with my aircraft, I'm taking their tail number down and making some phone calls when I land.

You missed the point that a 4200 mile trip isn't any more interesting to the average reader whether you do it in a Sonex, an RV, a Baron, a Piaggio or a trike. It's just not a big deal anymore to most people. Personally, nothing puts me to sleep more quickly than some news story about how so and so did such and such and it's so exciting because they were flying. I've told Richard Branson to his face that I thought his balloon flights were technically interesting but the idea of some rich dude floating around was about as exciting as watching paint dry. Hearing about some homebuilder's vacation trip is no different than going to dinner at someone's house and being forced to listen to them as they go through their vacation slides.

Yes, just as there is room for the articles about things that aren't Pietenpols and Sonexs. I'm not saying we should not have stories about what you can do with homebuilts but I was simply pointing out that either your series of flights was not nearly as exciting as you make it out to be or you at very least botched your pitching of the story. Nothing more or nothing less.

You want stories of grand and not-so-grand adventures. I want how to articles about all sorts of stuff that allows me to design and build the aircraft I want. Other folks want to reminisce about their youth by reading about the history of homebuilding and how to build aircraft that have been around since my great-grandmother was a young woman. We can all have that if we work together and stop grandstanding.

Just because your article didn't make it, it doesn't imply that any sort of conspiracy to quash such articles is taking place. I've got roughly a dozen articles to my credit on a variety of topics (including three currently in press or undergoing peer review) and I can assure you that I have had at least one rejection from every magazine that has published my work. I think two of those rejections involved instructions on how to improve my submission to get it published and those both came from an editor with whom I have had a long lasting friendship due to a shared professional background.

9. Jan 24, 2012

### N111KX

#### Member

Joined:
Apr 19, 2011
Messages:
24
3
Location:
Atlanta, GA USA
^^^Wow, just wow.^^^^

This is Iceman, Maverick, grand adventurer, butt-hurt because his story was quashed, not exciting, rejected, boring, full of fluff, exicted by Grandma's stories, without a pitch, signing off for the evening.

You all are killing me...

10. Jan 24, 2012

### Dana

#### Super ModeratorStaff Member

Joined:
Apr 4, 2007
Messages:
8,674
3,051
Location:
CT, USA
One thing to consider about Kitplanes magazine: It's sold on the newsstand as well as by subscription. I don't know what the proportion is, but while I've never subscribed to it I leaf through it if I see on a newsstand, and if it looks interesting enough, I buy a copy. As such, the article selection is doubtless different, to attract a casual reader.

-Dana

One thing about liberty, lots of people do things I wouldn’t pay for, and more power to them. It’s when they want to do it with my money that I get concerned.

11. Jan 25, 2012

### BBerson

#### Well-Known MemberHBA Supporter

Joined:
Dec 16, 2007
Messages:
12,177
2,393
Location:
Port Townsend WA
I think I have beat this issue to death already, here and at the EAA forum.
Much has been learned about EAA from your recent comments, and thanks for that. The most telling key fact is that Paul Poberezny approves of the growth and transition to GA that we see.
I think Paul has total control, either directly or with the appointment of select leaders. It is not a democracy.
And my thoughts and opinions about the direction of EAA will probably be mostly ignored.

Thanks for your efforts, good luck.
Bill

12. Jan 25, 2012

### Aircar

#### Banned

Joined:
Feb 20, 2010
Messages:
3,567
367
Location:
Melbourne Australia
This discussion is more about the personal motivation to be in aviation and interested in particular design than whether the EAA has "lost it's way " --EAA is being judged against each or our personal criteria as much as whether it should change in it's own best interests (the old cartoon about what the "ideal" aircraft as seen by the stressing group (a few massive I beams bolted together) the undercarriage dept (a massive double bogey retractaing gear with vestigial wings and fuselage) the engine group (huge engines on a tiny wing ) etc etc comes to mind-- can't please everybody .

Personally I would be happy with a nice self launching sailplane but I realize that the market for such a thing is miniscule and -having decided that I do know how to make a fully viable type of vehicle that could ,if built, ease the burden and improve the quality of life for millions of people -AND create jobs for many now unemployed --and know what that means --I ask myself if I have the right to do nothing with it (and decades of fighting laws that stopped any chance to do it on ny own country but knowing that the US is the most feasible home for it --do I go to the Chinese knowing how much that could add to the present difficulties.

Focussing on frippery and the "silvertail " complex shown by the barons of Detroit turning up in executive jets to beg for public alms might show how out of touch some people have become.

My point was that I had gone WAAAYYY out of my way to track down those designers that seemed logically to have the most by a long margin to offer to the 'typical' person interested in aviation who might need to justify his buying or building an aircraft to the wife or bank manager on a better basis than just satisfying a boyhood desire to emulate a world war two Ace or to even a two place hot rod or something that might be of occasional highly constrained use but very high cost nonetheless.

President Paul made the occasional editorial plea for the better aircraft that would not just -in his words ,- be a 'hangar queen for 95% of the time' -- Dan Zuck ended his book with a description of a family holiday by air from the West to east coast of the US including visting the Carlsbad caverns and meteor crater in Arizona en route to the Capital and all the sorts of things that people do when on holiday by car but doing it without days spent on bland interstates -- and doing things that he thought would appeal to everyday people unable to do such things in the limited time available to working families-- and the owner could bring his flying car home to do maintenance on it rather than have to pay a high priced mechanic out at the airport (SUSV seems to see some virtue in being unable to take your flying machine off airport or to have a choice of maintenance shops by being able to ..) Robert Fulton demonstrated his 1940s level flying car be driving to Broadway shows and even took it to England on tour -- showing some practicality beyond the usual 'hangar queen' -- Molt Built the Aerocar before there was an experimental category free of certification and no established homebuilding movement so the barriers were much greater and it was the cost of certification demographics as much as anything that caused that generation of flying cars to be stillborn. ( The 1947 crash of the whole light aircraft industry followed by the switch to produce war planes for Korea, Convair (Convaircar) pulled out then -even Cessna was rationed )

There has not been any substantial effort put into this field since and this is surely an indictment of an organization seeking to expand small aircraft use -- what other type of aircraft could match the potential and what other type has had as little support from EAA? --warbirds,antiques,aerobatic etc all got wall to wall coverage.

13. Feb 20, 2012

### bmcj

#### Well-Known MemberHBA Supporter

Joined:
Apr 10, 2007
Messages:
12,963
4,899
Location:
Fresno, California
First of all, I am a staunch supporter of both EAA and AOPA, though I associate myself more with EAA (at least the "old" EAA). I too would like to see the EAA return more to its roots. I do think that both organizations do good things for aviation.

That being said, a number of people here have indicated that the EAA is beginning to look more and more like AOPA when it caters more to the higher dollar kits and production aircraft. Is it possible that, at the same time, AOPA may be looking more like EAA?

Bruce :ermm:

14. Feb 20, 2012

### Vigilant1

Joined:
Jan 24, 2011
Messages:
4,150
1,877
Location:
US
From the bigger perspective, none of us should care at all if EAA puts on glitzy airshows, coddles the warbird set, snuggles up to producers of $100K airplane kits, etc. So what? All of that is fine if they enhance their value to homebuilders (e.g. technical references, classes, a re-invigorated Experimenter magazine with reporting/articles on subjects of real use to homebuilders, etc). It's entirely unrealistic to believe that if they rid Airventure of the heavy iron that all the acreage would be filled with tents and workshops. If EAA can make money running a brothel, a racetrack, or any other thing I wouldn't care if they did it, as long as the businesses were run competently and the proceeds were put to use to help homebuilders. Just as there's nothing wrong with a college having a great football team if it serves to enhance other sports programs and academics at the school. But if the priorities get reversed, as they seem to have become at EAA, and the profitmaking is coming at the expense of the prime mission rather than in service to it, then there's cause for concern. Airventure gets bigger, but Experimenter magazine and it's great content gets sidelined. 15. Feb 21, 2012 ### delta ### delta #### Well-Known Member Joined: May 27, 2011 Messages: 1,949 Likes Received: 196 Location: Brookside Utah I enjoyed the latest issue. When Paul chimes in I feel there's a master at the helm and the world is right whether it's that way or not... Rick 16. Feb 21, 2012 ### millerdvr ### millerdvr #### Active Member Joined: Aug 14, 2010 Messages: 29 Likes Received: 1 Location: Missoula, MT Thought I would throw my$.02 worth in here.

I grew up reading my fathers Sport Aviation magazines and in fact I was the first to get my hands on them when they arrived, I knew precisely the day they would show up and looked forward to thumbing through the pages. Those days the E in EAA was what it was all about.

I am also tired of seeing the same cookie cutter "kit" planes, how about a bit of plansbuilt thrown in there, maybe that will spark a bit more interest in the scratch built market and keep some of the suppliers of plans/kits from closing their doors?

Lets not lose sight of what we are all involved with. The EAA is still called the "EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT ASSOCIATION", not the "general aviation with a bit of emphasis on the little guy who cannot afford six figures on an aircraft so he is forced to build one association"

Chris Ingram

17. Feb 21, 2012

Joined:
Aug 21, 2007
Messages:
3,890