|
|
Here are a few constructive ideas, not saying they're good ideas, but at
least it's not just venting.
1) EAA published content should be specific to the audience and I
should be able to tell them what type of content I'm interested in
receiving. I don't care at all about the latest Sonex or RV-10 news
since I'm building from plans. I do care about engines, avionics, etc.
If they provided granular categories and allowed us to choose the
content we're interested in that would be great. It happens in other
industries (computer, engineering, etc.) so I'm sure the EAA can pull it
off.
2) I have sent requests to have the EAA rethink the arrangement of
booths at the Airventure airshow. They're truly scattered all over the
place. An example is the Bearhawk booth. It's a plans or kit built
plane and it's litteraly as far from the "Homebuilders Corner" as you
can get without crossing a fence. The chaos and size of the event makes
it impossible for a casual observer to get a feel for what's really
available.
3) I've suggested that they create an ORGANIZED homebuilt parking area
at the EAA Airventure and reserve a spot and standard placard for each
type of plane available in plans or kit form for free. The owner of the
plans or kit has the responsibility to confirm that they can provide an
example of that plane in that spot for the duration of the show or a
certain number of days. I believe this is the only way we will ever see
plans built planes having a "booth" at Airventure.
4) The EAA has claimed that they're morphing into an organization that
wants to build excitement about flying. Their approach and base
assumption is simply wrong. If you're a pilot and you tell people
you're a pilot most people (men in particular) will say "cool, I wish I
could fly/own a plane... BUT" and that's where the EAA has lost touch.
What they fail to grasp is that man's fascination with flight is alive
and well, BUT they simply can't afford it. Cost is the single biggest
factor that prevents people from flying. You don't need to build
interest in flying. It's already there. The EAA needs to aggressively
fight to bring down the cost of learning to fly and building an
airplane. A cost reduction task force would be a very welcome addition.
They can begin by focusing on unnecessary regulations at the FAA,
degrees of certification, owner maintenance categories, caps on
litigation and outrageous insurance policies especially for
manufacturers.
5) The EAA makes little effort to build communities, preserve knowledge
and exchange information within its membership. The idea that the
people interested in rotary engines have to go to a Yahoo group
initiated by a Lancair guy (no offense intended) AND that all of the
wonderful content of that group is not made available to other EAA
members who might be interested in alternative engines is sad and wrong.
If the average EAA member is lucky they'll see an article every 18
months or so on rotaries. It would make sense if the EAA tied into
groups like this and built a mechanism along with a set of standards for
adding information to the collective EAA knowledge base. Sort of like a
Wikipedia of EAA knowledge. If someone decides to start building a
rotary engine six years from now, everything that's been discussed on
this group is lost. I know archives are searchable but it's not grouped
by "cooling issues" or things like that and it's certainly not
summarized or rated so you end up wading through tons of irrelivent
info. The person just starting out has to start completely from
scratch. Likewise, if that person is building a biplane and actively
participating on the biplane forum, they could still really benefit from
some of the wiring, avionics and other discusssions from the other
groups.
6) I don't see the EAA offering any incentive to be "experimental." It
would be nice to have a task force set up to find ways to encourage
experimentation in a way that benefits other EAA members. Lots of ideas
here, but it really depends on the task force. The main idea is that if
I happen to build an engine mount for a Mazda 20B rotary engine to fit
in an RV-10, maybe there's a way that the EAA can help create, post or
sell drawings of it. Maybe there's a way for people to look at it,
improve it, rank it, etc. Maybe there will be four engine mounts and
mine got a five stars while the others got three stars. Maybe there's a
kick back to the original creator or the design. I dunno, but as a
builder it's nice to see what others have built and not have to think up
everything on my own.
7) I'd like to see the EAA provide better services to the builders and
the local chapters. They can look at what some local chapters have done
and work to standardize those programs nationally so each chapter
doesn't have to go through the effort of setting these things up. (Web
sites, tool exchanges, etc)
There's more but lunch is over. Good luck and happy flying!
Dwayne
-----Original Message-----
From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On
Behalf Of randy echtinaw
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 10:57 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Homebuilding
Gentlemen,
I sent a letter to the EAA after Oshkosh voicing my displeasure with
a few things. Shortly afterwards I received a letter from a Mr.
Knapinski inviting me to address the Homebuilders Council who work at
setting the future course of the EAA in this area. Shortly after that I
received a letter from the editor of Sport Aviation magazine. I belong
to biplaneforum.com website which is over 250 people building
wood-tube-rag aircraft - true homebuilders. I posted the letters there
and asked for some direction in composing a letter to the EAA that would
explain how we felt and what we needed as a now "minority"
group of EAA'ers. Many members posted my request on other sites and many
replies have been received. We are in a "brainstorming" session
currently taking all ideas/complaints and trying to formulate a cohesive
response to the EAA. With your permission I will be posting your replies
there minus your names, email addresses, etc. only as food for thought
for others. If you care to read the complete thread you will find it at;
http://biplaneforum.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=902&PN=1
I am very interested in all opinions pro and con but with complaints
I would also like constructive criticism. If you would like to post on
the biplaneforum.com site it is a free sign up to do so. You can read
anything there without being a member but must sign up to post. If you
would rather send your thoughts to me feel free to do so. (I have been a
member of this site for a couple of years and am building an Acro Sport
1 with an RX-8 Renesis engine.) If you wish to continue the conversation
here, again, I would like to post your thoughts to the forum without any
links to you personally.
Thank you,
Randy Echtinaw
rjechtinaw@toast.net
On Sep 7, 2007, at 9:23 AM, Ernest Christley wrote:
> Harold Kovac wrote:
>> *Sorry about the rant, but as I was shredding the membership renewal,
>> I felt the compulsion to get it off my chest. *
>> * Harold Kovac *
>
> Harold, it's painful isn't it? Feels like losing an old friend.
>
> May I suggest that you don't just shred the membership renewal, but
> send an email letter to the editor to let them know that you did it
> and why.
>
> --
> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
> Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/
> flyrotary/List.html
>
--
Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub:
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
|
|