> The presence of a certified aircraft on the cover of "Sport Aviation"
> magazine has again generated much discussion about the EAA, its name, its
> direction and its publications. Some background and some thoughts follow.
>
> There was serious discussion back in the late 1960's or early 1970's about
> changing the name to be more representative of the Association's
> membership. (Most members were not homebuilders; we were pilots flying
> Aeroncas, Ercoupes, Pipers, Cessnas, Waco's etc.) The name that got the
> most discussion and consideration was "Sport Aircraft Association." The
> homebuilders took pride in designing and building "Experimentals," and the
> name was not changed.
>
> Tom P. has a strong background in sport aviation and has an impressive
> competitive aerobatic and airshow background, but he is not a homebuilder.
> Neither are most of the members. My only complaint with the current focus
> in EAA that it mostly ignores builders and is too focused the commercial
> aspects of Airventure. And I can tolerate that, because it builds the
> organizational and financial base necessary for effective sport aviation
> advocacy.
>
> The EAA has done lots of good for all of non-airline aviation. AOPA has
> done much, too, but is more focused on high-end commercially built
> personal aircraft. There are many who would deny us that freedom, and/or
> tax us out of existence, so I believe that we need both to continue their
> advocacy for private / personal aviation in the USA. That alone makes the
> annual dues a bargain to me.
>
> Someone mentioned that EAA is no longer needed now that they have been
> successful in getting the FAA to establish the Sport Aircraft and Sport
> Pilot categories. That thinking is short sighted. There remains a need to
> continue to support Sport Aircraft / Pilots, defend it against the
> inevitable attacks that will come from the fatalities and highly visible
> accidents that will happen, to reinforce the "consensus standard" approach
> to "certification," and to advance the category to include Cessna 120's,
> 140's, 150's, and 152's, a whole host of Pipers, Citabrias, Pitts, etc.
>
> Is the EAA perfect? Absolute not. Is it the best thing in existence for
> sport aviation? It is. Do we need it? Definitely. Can it improve?
> Certainly. Is it reassessing its role and focus? Yes. Is Airventure still
> worth attending? Yes. Am I concerned about who will take over when Tom is
> no longer in charge? Yes. Do I have a suggestion for those who complain
> about the quality of articles, the absence of good "how to" articles, the
> focus of articles, or the direction of the association? Yes. Stop
> criticizing , get involved, and make a difference.
>
> Byron J. Covey
>
> EAA 36946