Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 13:37:00 -0500, " jls" wrote:


"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message

I've known Ed for a number of years, and we were both members of Chapter
441 here in Seattle. I don't think I've *ever* heard him "drop a name."
The most you ever heard from him along those lines was, "I'll bring it up
at the next Council meeting."

OK, Ron, so you're both in the same chapter but my experience with him, as
opposed to experience with you, is decidedly negative. He argues
contentiously, like a stickler, without authority ( and most of the time
without good sense) and appears to be a self-interested toady without much
of a moral code. If he's your archetypal ombudsman for EAA, then imho the
organization could do better.


Well, back when they were first forming the homebuilt council, Bob Warner
met me and asked if I was interested. I pointed out that I was a bit
controversial (this was at the height of the RAH-15 stuff) and might not be
a good pick. I was quite happy later when they named Ed to the council; he
has a better background and temperament for it than I do.

My experience with Ed obviously differs from yours. My interaction with
him has been primarily personal, not professional. But I recently got an
email from one of his students (Ed referred him to me regarding experiences
getting a medical waiver for one-eyed flying), and the student was a real
fan of his.

And I guess I'm just confused by your claim that he's "toadying" to SnF.
Someone toadies in hopes of gaining some favor from the individual or
entity involved. I just don't understand what Ed would have to gain with
such a tactic. He's gainfully employed 2,000 miles from Florida, so he
doesn't need a job. He gets free admission already as a KITPLANES writer.
The most he might expect is a free meal voucher.


Banning ice chests at Sun'n Fun in the name of security is not for
safety --- it's a gouge.


Well, I'd like to hear Sun-N-Fun explain that, myself. Places like movie
theaters and sports arenas ban the items, but a two- or four- hour event in
an air-conditioned auditorium with seating is quite a bit different from a
multi-day outdoor event in 90 degree weather. I've brought backpacks to
Oshkosh and would have been moderately upset if I had been denied entry
because of them. If viewing areas are overcrowded, an ice-chest ban makes
sense, but I suspect that isn't the case at SnF.

As far as banning them for security reasons, it's a damned-if-you-do,
damned-if-you-don't sort of situation. In the post-9/11 world, public
events are taking the most secure route...but, too often, the major driver
is money rather than a desire for a safer venue. It's like the
banner-towing issue; the TSA could implement any level of security approval
necessary, but the open-air-stadium folks don't want them approved at all
because they don't get a cut of the money paid for banner advertisements.

I don't know the SnF staffers, so I can't take a guess at whether they're
driven by security or avarice. But I tend to believe the old saying,
"Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity." :-)

Ron Wanttaja

There are other old sayings & principles that apply as well. Occam's
razor is one. As you mentioned, other festivals began denying ice chests
long before 9-11 purely as a revenue generating technique. The promoters
of airshows are just catching up with other festivals in their revenue
generating techniques. 9-11 just makes it easier to sell as 'necessary'.

Charlie