Oshkosh gate admission on Sunday 24th?

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 00:43:08 -0400, Joe Camp wrote:

"Any of their free time"? Like, if I take 10 seconds out of my busy day and
pick up a piece of trash at the entry point, I should get free admission?

I can see EAA's logic. If they gave free admission for the current show, it's
quite possible that they'd have problems having enough volunteers towards the
end of the week. There'd be some of folks putting in 20 hours or so on the
setup weekend, then not doing anything at all during the main part of the show
'cause they already got their free ride.

Seems like their policy is aimed the right way; getting a group of folks who
come back and volunteer in later years. Volunteer in 2005, put your 20 hours
in, get free admission in 2006. Come in free in 2006, and while you're there
anyway, put in a couple hours per day volunteering so you can get free admission
the year after that, too.

None of these shows are possible without the volunteer cadre. I think EAA knows
that if they seriously start shafting them, the Board of Directors will be out
picking up trash themselves. :-)

I guess some of us value our free time more than others.

I certainly agree... which is why you don't often find me volunteering. I have
great respect for those who do, though. I've had free admission most of my
trips there, anyway. Those time that I haven't, I don't consider the admission
fees onerous.

How do you
figure that allowing a more generous policy towards volunteers is
shafting them?

I don't. My point is that if the *volunteers* think they are getting shafted,
they'll quit volunteering, and EAA knows that. It's fundamental economics...
restrictive policies trim the volunteer pool, overly generous policies mean less
folks paying their way. The trick is the find the proper "set point", and EAA
seems to have found a workable one.

Once I spend the time and money to go to an event like
Oshkosh, I want to roam around it freely to suit myself. But if I were
to volunteer my precious time there, I'd want more than to be given a
free pass for next years show, after working all week during the
present one.

See my "fundamental economics" comment above. At any give "set point," there
will be those who feel the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. Obviously, my "set
point" is probably at least as high as yours, since I don't volunteer, either.

You are way too protective of EAA's policies. What did
you do, appoint yourself their goodwill ambassador? regardless of the
fairness of their policies?

Snicker....

Ron Wanttaja

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 00:54:04 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:


"Joe Camp" wrote

I guess some of us value our free time more than others.

Laa-te-daa!

Once I spend the time and money to go to an event like
Oshkosh, I want to roam around it freely to suit myself.

Still plenty of time to do that, if you go and spend 2 or 3 hours per day,
working.

But if I were
to volunteer my precious time there, I'd want more than to be given a
free pass for next years show, after working all week during the
present one.

IMHO, you are missing part of the point. When you volunteer, you get to be
a part of it, that gives more satisfaction (to me) than you can imagine.
Shoot, I can't wait to go and work. That is part of the best part of the
week.

You are way too protective of EAA's policies. What did
you do, appoint yourself their goodwill ambassador? regardless of the
fairness of their policies?

Lighten up, huh? He has voiced his opinion, and you, yours. That is what
this is all about.

I like to volunteer; you don't, so don't! No big deal!


The idea of volunteering does not offend me at all. I have to admit,
after about 2 full days of walking the flightline and exhibition
buildings, I've had enough. And the idea of doing volunteer work from
that point on, I would find a welcome alternative. But I still don't
feel the EAA is generous enough in their repayment of volunteers.
I've talked to volunteers and was suprised how much the EAA makes them
work to get a pass. If a person puts in one full day of volunteering,
they should get a pass for the rest of the show. The volunteers are
still a small number compared to the regular attendees. The EAA is way
too tight with their money. Charging people that bring showplanes
admission is another issue. Warbird owners constantly report non-EAA
fly-in's paying for their fuel if they show up. The EAA however, pays
for no one's fuel, but instead charges admission. If the showplanes
didn't show up, there wouldn't be much of a fly-in. I'm boycotting Sun
'n Fun from now on. They've gotten too greedy.

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 09:55:52 -0400, Joe Camp wrote:

Warbird owners constantly report non-EAA
fly-in's paying for their fuel if they show up. The EAA however, pays
for no one's fuel, but instead charges admission. If the showplanes
didn't show up, there wouldn't be much of a fly-in. I'm boycotting Sun
'n Fun from now on. They've gotten too greedy.

The Seattle-area Warbirds group claim that since Arlington won't be paying
*their* fuel and hotel bills this year, they're not coming. They're having an
event at another airport on the same weekend.

Ron Wanttaja

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 07:52:41 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 09:55:52 -0400, Joe Camp wrote:

Warbird owners constantly report non-EAA
fly-in's paying for their fuel if they show up. The EAA however, pays
for no one's fuel, but instead charges admission. If the showplanes
didn't show up, there wouldn't be much of a fly-in. I'm boycotting Sun
'n Fun from now on. They've gotten too greedy.

The Seattle-area Warbirds group claim that since Arlington won't be paying
*their* fuel and hotel bills this year, they're not coming. They're having an
event at another airport on the same weekend.

Ron Wanttaja

I wasn't aware that Arlington had been paying those
bills.... IMHO, the Blackjack Squadron, flying RV4's,
RV6's, RV8's should be getting their gas paid first since
they are home built experimental aircraft. After all, who
really is the reason for the Experimental Aircraft
Association????

John

John ...

That's a question that I've been mentally rasslin' with for a few years now.
Who **is** the reason for the EAA? Is it JUST Experimentals as the name of
the organization implies? Are the warbirds a part of it only because the
founder of EAA flew warbirds or are they an intrinsic part of it due to the
nature of keeping a beast flying for which there are no readily available
parts?

Are White Knight and Spaceship One a part of it? You can say that they are
experimentals with some assurance, but is it "experimental" in the sense of
"homebuilt"? I think not. Several hundred thousand hours of engineering
and craftsman time and several million dollars in development costs take
them a bit out of the "homebuilt" category. But to argue that they aren't
part of EAA is to disregard Burt Rutan's deep roots in the soil of Oshkosh.

The RV lines had a few visitors in 2003 but the C5A nose to nose with the
AN-24(?) had hundreds of thousands of visitors, most of them EAA members.
Do we discount having attractions like these at Oshkosh simply because they
are not experimental in the least?

To bring it down to a personal level ... I've never built an airplane. I've
only flown in a couple of experimentals. Yet a steady progression of
Cessnas from the 170 (straight) through the 172E to the current 182A have
made a 33 straight year pilgrimage to Mecca On The Winnebago. Am I really
not entitled to be the reason for the EAA?

I am not trying to pick a fight. For obvious reasons I really want to
know --- who IS the reason for the EAA?

Jim
EAA 86698



After all, who
really is the reason for the Experimental Aircraft
Association????

John

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...

Yet a steady progression of Cessnas from the 170 (straight) through the
172E to the current 182A have made a 33 straight year pilgrimage to Mecca
On The Winnebago.

A straight Cessna 170? What's that?

The original ragwing 170, not an A or B model.

Jim




"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
news


A straight Cessna 170? What's that?

Maybe not "who" but "what is the reason" and I think that answer is
different for different people, but for me, an EAA member who will also
never build an experimental airplane, and who also has only flown in a few
experimental, the answer is TO DREAM.

To dream about what is possible. To dream about new ways to produce
improved results. To dream what hasn't been dreamed about by anyone else.
To see and hear about other's dreams. Non of the great experimental
aircraft would be reality without those initial dreams dreamt by the people
behind them. Also non of the great production and military aircraft would
be reality without the initial dreams behind them.

So maybe the "who" are the dreamers. Dare to dream.

Jim Burns

Interesting Points Jim!
I think you have hit the nail on the head for the reason alot of folks
are getting turned off by the EAA. I know when I pick up a mag about
Experimentals I want to see how-to's .....not the buy this 40G kit and paint
by numbers. But a tradesman sharing his knowledge for people willing to
learn . I want to read about Homebuilt aircraft and not the latest gadget
from Cirrus.
As for the warbirds, I think maybe they do have a place because of the
lack of available parts. But shouldn't the main topic of the warbirds be"How
we had to fab our own replacement parts?" , instead of the WOW just look at
the pretty old fighter? I don't mind restoration projects, because Lord
knows sometimes as much goes into them as building a plane. Alot of times
building a plane is exactly what you are doing!
But sometimes when I have read the EAA mags it seems there is more about
piloting then building. I think real homebuilders get just as much enjoyment
out of the building process as they do the flying. The flying is the reward
for the fun of labor and effort in building.
I know liability and all that would not let it happen , but wouldn't it
be great if the EAA mags would have articles about building a homebuilt with
the plans as well, like the old MI mags used to do? That would be
HOMEBUILDING!!

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

Jim Weir asked, "Who **is** the reason for the EAA? Is it JUST
Experimentals as the name of the organization implies?"

Perhaps the name should be changed to Everything Aviation Association.
That's my interest, at least.

Jon