EAA membership

[russfarris]

I've been an EAA member since 1991, also in the Vintage/Antique/Classic
division since then as well. Sport Aviation magazine used to have many articles about old airplanes, but in recent years that has changed. It's almost all on homebuilts (ahem, experimentals) and I find myself getting very little out of it. Even the maintenance articles are written on a very basic level.

I think the Vintage/Classic magazine has also run out of steam, starting after they ran that fascinating feature on my 170! They are re-running articles from 20 years ago, with outdated information.

It's renewal time; I'm debating dropping EAA memebrship, at least for now.

How many of you guys are members? Is it just me, or is it getting harder to justify spending 76 bucks a year? Russ Farris

[blueldr]

After a number of years, I finally came to the conclusion that the EAA is a very greedy big business run by a few people for their own financial gain.

[Iceman07]

A couple of years ago, before I bought my 170, I joined EAA. I didn't really mind the magazine, but it really was too much home-built for my taste. I also had a subsription to "Flying"

Then I bought my 170, and I knew that I needed to join TIC170A, so I did. I had also grown tired of "Flying" (Way too many articles about airplanes that I can only dream about ever flying, much less owning) so, I dropped "Flying". I then joined AOPA. I am ashamed to admit that after flying for 35 years, this is the first time that I have joined AOPA.

I find that AOPA is much closer to my interests than EAA. The magazine tends to have articles about stuff that matters to me, and I appreciate the political side of AOPA.

I dropped my EAA membership.

[rupertjl]

I'll play devil's advocate here, but EAA stand for Experimental Aircarft Association, so they should be skewed to the homebuilders a little more than most in my humble opinion. I like anything aircraft related so I don't mind reading Sports Aviation. But to each his own, good thing is it's a yearly membership and you can always not sign back up. One thing to consider, if you do go to Oshkosh for the fly-in and you stay for a few days, the membership pays for itself in non-EAA ticket price difference.

v/r,
Jud

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

I understand all the sentiments expressed here. I've had BLs feeling since the second year I joined 15 years ago.

I rarely read any of the airplane magazines I get since I've needed glasses to read. I just don't enjoy it and I never liked to read to begin with. If there was an option I'd opt out of at least the AOPA mag if not both.

Bottom line I belong to these organizations for one reason and that is their lobbying power with government agencies as well as a pool of expertise to call upon if I wanted answers to aviation questions I might have from time to time. I look at the expense of joining these organizations in a similar light as my aircraft insurance. It's a necessity I can't afford to be without.

At this point I believe as long as I'm active in aviation I'll be a member of the AOPA and the EAA. In fact belonging to these organizations might be at some point, long from now I hop, the only aviation activity I'm involved with.

[Bill Hart]

Bottom line I belong to these organizations for one reason and that is their lobbying power with government agencies as well as a pool of expertise to call upon if I wanted answers to aviation questions I might have from time to time. I look at the expense of joining these organizations in a similar light as my aircraft insurance. It's a necessity I can't afford to be without.

Bruce you hit the nail on the head. There was a time when I thought that all lobbyist were evil but now that I am a little bit older I see them as a necessary evil to protect my right do pursue my interest not only flying but some other hobbies that are on the endangered species list all so.

[jrenwick]

Bruce is right.

While I don't get very much out of the Sport Aviation magazine because I'm not a homebuilder, and I don't go to Oshkosh as much as I used to because it's become so impersonal and commercialized, we shouldn't forget what EAA does on behalf of all of general aviation.

In the '70s they did the work and proved to the FAA's satisfaction that most of our older airplanes can run on auto gas. I couldn't have flown my J3 to Alaska (legally) without that!

In 1979 or 1980, when the FAA was trying to bring a whole lot of airspace under positive control after the 1978 mid-air in San Diego, the EAA got about 10,000 of us to write personal letters objecting to it. (AOPA was part of that, but my impression at the time was that it was mostly EAA members that had spoken up.) As a result, we got fewer, smaller TCAs, and a transponder exemption for non-electric aircraft that allows me to fly my J3 close to home.

Most recently, EAA has given us the Light Sport and Sport Pilot rules that may allow me to continue flying my J3 longer than I otherwise could. My AME, who is on a first-name basis with the bosses in Oklahoma City, was dead certain that the brass would never allow medical self-certification for powered aircraft pilots. But they did, because of EAA's efforts.

AOPA does other things, just as important -- like providing vast amounts of information and services for GA pilots, keeping close relationships with the US legislators who can most influence aviation law, and right now, fighting user fees (again).

These two organizations are our strength in Washington; without them, the airlines, who (I believe) are coming to see GA as a threat to their business, would have their way with us. Without them, GA here could start to look like GA in Europe, which I've described a little bit elsewhere in the 170 forums. I think anybody who flies small, older aircraft should maintain membership in both organizations. Period. In our own self-interest.

Sorry for the lengthy message, but that's my story, and I'm sticking to it!

Best Regards,

John

[4-Shipp]

I think anyone who flies general aviation should belong to AOPA. Just think about where we would be post 9/11 if they were not doing what they do! I get a bit worn out by the "Phil Boyer Show" but I can live with that as long as they keep working for our interests.

I think the EAA does a lot of work to help us as well but it is not as visible as AOPA. I am disappointed that there is not a more united front in Washington between the two organizations. I see many indications of parallel and redundant efforts on issues by the two organizations. I get the feeling they don't really like each other all that well and that they don't play well together.

I enjoy the Sport Aviation mag but am annoyed that it costs an additional $30 bucks or so to get the Vintage AC mag. I would like to see an option from EAA to be able to choose which mag we get with our membership.

[Bobo]

Russ,

I have to agree that being a member of the EAA & APOA is necessary today to give them the strength(in numbers) to have as our(GA) voice
against the FAA. Just think if they(EAA & AOPA) were not formed then when the FAA decides to have a rule change not in favor of GA who would be there to fight for us. Strength is always in numbers.
While I agree with you the the EAA mag has become another 'Flying' mag
but you could be a VAA member only if you wish. Yes I know they are printing old articles but they are still enjoyable to read(I have forgotten what I read in 1977). I have been a member of the EAA & VAA since 1967 and 1973. This is just my opinion.

[n3833v]

I also belong to both for many of the same reasons. You also forget about the Young Eagles program for young people. The FlyIns with coordinated efforts of EAA members bring the opportunity to many young people who might not have a chance to fly otherwise. I fly many young people and you can't replace the feeling that you were a part of that experience.

The memberships are worth it.

John

[Metal Master]

A number of my Home builder friends and me who are all currently building some type of home built aircraft have discontinued the memberships to the EAA. Most of them state that the reason they discontinued it is because they only joined to get the magazine. I have never joined because I like the magazine sometimes and there are enough copies floating around at the airport that I see what I want when the opportunity presents itself. But it is not as good as it used to be.

On the other hand I feel about the same way about AOPA which I belong to. I get the magazines and all of the renewal notices which mildly drives me nuts because I think they are wasting $ better spent. I want some of the services AOPA provides. Mostly I would be better served if the magazine could be deposited in the trash directly from the Mail box. Although I do appreciate Steve Ells articles on Maintenance issues. Steve use to be one of the Techs at Cessna Pilots association. Which I think is one of the best investments for any one owning a Cessna airplane. For 43 $ last time I renewed I can get support and answers to any AD or service bulletin question I might have and if they do not have it they have researched for me.

But mostly I have so many magazine subscriptions that my wife complains. I have troubles keeping track of them all.
But my Favorites are:

JP magazine: Mostly about JEEPs
Cessna Pilots Association Magazine: About ? Cessnas
Fine Scale Modeler: About building detailed Models, I have over 1,000 unassembled kits
And My Most favorite: Cessna 170 Association Magazine; I can’t get enough

Least favorite AOPA: Just to much

I have four other subscriptions on unrelated stuff which is only moderately interesting to me.

Jim

[trake]

Russ is right, the EAA mags have gotten stale. So has AOPA PILOT. FLYING magazine is absurd. Is there a good mag about bush/grass roots flying [besides 170 News]?

[Dward]

If you want the VAA Magazine and membership but don't like Sport Aviation you can get a reduced rate by declining the EAA mag. It's a pretty fair savings. I get a fifty dollar reduction in my insurance cost for being an AOPA member but I would join anyway for the representation. AOPA Pilot doesn't have much for me with the possible exception of the "never again" column.

[4-Shipp]

Russ is right, the EAA mags have gotten stale. So has AOPA PILOT. FLYING magazine is absurd. Is there a good mag about bush/grass roots flying [besides 170 News]?

I have seen several rags at the local airports such as Southwest Aviator or similar. There is also an Oklahoma aviation paper that comes out once a month or so. These are pulp paper publications (news print paper vs glossy pages). Deffinately a regional and grass roots flavor to these mags. Take a look at the FBOs.

Can anyone help me with the names of some of these mags? I can't remember them all off the top of my head but I know there are at least 4 with circulation in north Texassss.

Bruce

[iowa]

i get all the above listed magazines.
i do get frustrated with flying.
do any of you remember my letter to the editor in 2001
about MR KING?

2/17/1


FLYING MAGAZINE
500 WEST PUTNAM AVENUE
GREENWICH, CONNECTICUT 06830

Dear Editor,

John King is to be respected for his contributions to general aviation,
but I took offence to his “Big Lie” article in the March edition of Flying.
His statement that small airplanes are dangerous is basically true, especially
when compared to airliners and automobiles. But to stand next to his
mult-million dollar Citation and scold us like errant school children
because we tell people that GA is safe, is, in my opinon, not right.

Compared to many other modes of motion, test flying, combat flying, hang gliding,
being an astronaut, etc., flying a small, mechanically sound airplane on a clear day,
by a current, competent pilot is relatively “safe”. And this is the approach I use to
inform people who are concerned about the safety of small airplanes.

I like what Bob Hoover says best, “Know your limitations and the limitations of your
airplane, and never exceed both”. This is the best risk management, and, believe
it or not, most of us “special, magnificent pilots” know this.

David R. Ahrens, M.D.
Guthrie Center, Iowa


iowa