Take Back the CAF

[EDowning]

Lynn wrote:

Well said Ed, how is your 3350 running? Hope its better than the others...

Fly safe..

Lynn,

Thanks for asking, the 3350 is running like a top. Uses 3/4 gallon of oil and hour and roars like a lion. I think most of the stuff in the other thread is more about how they are operated than the engine themselves. They do tend to be more reliable with the Aeroproducts prop, though, I have found the 3350 and warbirds in general to be just like dealing with the public, if you set your expectations low enough, you will seldom be dissapointed.

How are things with you?

Eric

[JDK]

For one that's not interested in the thread James, you sure have a lot to say about it.

More amazingly, I'm not getting paid for it either...

[Edward Sheetmetalhands]

[John Beyl]

Follow the link below. There are 22, 10 minute clips covering the entire subject from start to finish. Certainly there is enough information for one to draw a conclusion if emmotions are set aside and just the facts are analyzed. It may seem cold and hard but that's the world we are all forced to live in now. Regretably it's no longer a hand-shake world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AahsCTtA ... re=related

It's pretty obvious the Museum board made the decision to ignore the organizations by-laws, as well as state and federal laws, pertaining to the 501c3. They were warned on more than one occasion that what they had planned carried very serious legal and fiduciary implications for the CAF and they should not do it. It seems now it's more a case of sour grapes, semantics and personality conflicts.

In my opinion removing the offenders from their positions of power and insuring they never again have the ability to gain any such position of oversight again seems appropriate. Kicking them out of the CAF was extreme. That said, the offer has been extended to each of them to re-join and as far as I know, none have. Their loss and the CAF's loss as well.

Regards,
John

[Zachary]

Follow the link below. There are 22, 10 minute clips covering the entire subject from start to finish. Certainly there is enough information for one to draw a conclusion if emmotions are set aside and just the facts are analyzed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AahsCTtA ... re=related

Regards,
John

Thank you for posting this John. I for one wasn't aware of these videos, and wouldn't have known about them if not for this thread, even with all of it's good, bad, and ugly bits.

[LadyO2Pilot]

Thanks, John, from me also. Although some of the info was old news to me, watching the videos, when they first came out, was a learning experience and I appreciated the participation of those individuals from both sides.

There is a response to Graham Robertson's letter on the 'Take Back the CAF" website from a CAF Unit Leader. I have asked him to post it here also as Diane posted Graham's here. I hope he does but it is there on the other site for those interested in reading.

[Obergrafeter]

Got to jump in here Karen, as I am one who refuses to drink the Kool Aid. I really don't care which side is right or wrong but which side is telling the truth. So far it's hard to tell, but telling me the same lie over and over again doesn't make it true as one person thinks. The other glaring problem is the President telling me that it is wrong and painful to the organization by voting for anyone other than the hand selected members for General Staff. This just ain't the American way and I refuse to take that little slap in the face as being just for their cause. I have no idea as who the floor nominees will be , but don't tell me not to vote for them as being unacceptable. Heck who knows one might even be me LOL. One other mistake by SB is in his resume of one of the nominee committee members being a director of a competting museum. Oversite?? or a slap at us peons, what would a new member that has no knowledge of him think?

[LadyO2Pilot]

Ober....I never suggested to anyone how he or she should vote in an election...CAF or otherwise.

However, I do object to one sided discussions and this thread was started* as a rant by one who only came to WIX for that purpose. It died down finally and then that person once again posted a letter which is one sided. Doug rightfully declined to comment. But others want more discussion which is fine. I simply thought the response to Graham's letter was an example of how another CAF member felt and could and would add to the discussion. The inclusion of the link to the videos is also more information that WIXers can draw upon if they choose to look into the situation.

As far as voting, I have heard the plan for the nominations from the floor....so be it. I will vote my conscience at the time and if your name is there I will consider it as I will the others.

Edit - * sorry I went back to the beginning and thread was not started by the person I was thinking of.....but was perpetuated later.

Last edited by LadyO2Pilot on Fri Sep 10, 2010 4:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[K5DH]

This thread is like a traffic accident that you pass on the highway. You desperately try to avoid looking, but somehow you can't help it.

I hope it all works out for the best, whatever that is. I'm not a CAF member, so I don't have a clue. Which is fine with me.

Dean the outsider

[LadyO2Pilot]

I agree, Dean.....I wish I had continued driving by

[Rauhbatz]

By way of introduction Im a CAF member whose day job is to fix organizational problems not unlike the proceedings in this link...so Im looking at this from a purely unemotional business perspective. So fellow pilots please take off your goggles for a minute and give this look in that light

Fredrick Nietschze once said "...the reason the political battles are so fierce in academia is that the stakes are so small." My MBA captial finance advisor used this quote to describe the notorious level of infighting in most not-for-profit organizations.

The CAF is at a transitional tipping point where it will either become the best historical aviation operation in the world or shrink back to its former roots as a flying club. It can't stay where it is at as an org and expect to survive in its current form.

At the core there doesn't seem to be a problem with the airplanes or accident rates these days; more of a governance issue which is now becoming visible independent of the new CAF leadership; e.g. this conflict was inevitable no matter who is in charge. These governance challenges normally appear 12-18 months after a new leader arrives at an organization so this should not be a surprise to anyone familiar with fixing problems of this nature.

So let's say for a moment we had a magic wand and could remove Steve Brown tomorrow. The big question I have for fellow WIXer's is

"Then what?":

I think there are three outcomes:

A. Return to pure governance by committee without a central leader; relying on this worst possible governance model (look up the history of the Comet airliner) the CAF will start to shrink in size to where it will revert to being more of a club. That would not be a bad thing if that what the membership thinks shrinking is the direction the organization should go. The key problem is that if the CAF shrinks (it has a huge asset balance sheet) aircraft and assets would need to be liquidated to match the club-sized organization; I'd predict the CAF would shrink to 5-15 active flying aircraft at most as an outcome of this governance model.

B. Recruit a replacement for Steve that is more of an adminstrator with limited governance authority. This is a modified version of outcome A but with more overhead. The CAF would likely become a zero growth or slowly shrinking organization that would stabilize at around 10-25 flying aircraft.

+C Recruit a replacement for Steve that is another transformational leader; this person would likely need to come outside of the warbird community to steer the CAF towards a bigger future. They would have a track record of stabilizing and growing organizations that also makes the membership happy & proud. The downside with this option is that the CAF would be in organizational vapor lock for several months while a replacement is found.

My thoughts for consideration are:

+ Steve has made some much needed transformational changes in the CAF that were long in coming; selling off the B-23 and other dead iron, unifying the external look and feel of the CAF as well as challenging some of the traditional notions of how the CAF should not only survive and operate as an organization. He has made this progress without resorting to a level of "cleanup" that is more commonly found when a new leader arrives; e.g. firing 1/2 the leadership team.

+ The people that were let go from the CAF museum need to accept a key reality whether you are in a for-profit or not-for-profit organization; when you are fired you are fired. Move on to starting your own museum or do something else. Trying to get Steve fired is a waste of time that is not on your side.

+ This is not so much a "keep Steve" or "fire Steve" issue but more of what the CAF wants to be when it grows up. That direction of either growing to be the best historical aviation operation in the world or becoming more of a flying club determines what type of leadership the CAF needs. This would mean either Jack Welch comes out of retirement to run the CAF or put a pilot in charge of the flying club.

The next step should be on what the CAF wants to look like in five years; that drives the leadership decision.

[Bill Greenwood]

John Beyl's post seems to give a pretty good account. However, I don't really know much about the real truth, I haven't been all that involved in it as an insider and I haven't waded through all the info put out.
I do think that this is a fit topic for WIX, despite what some of those say who can't seem to stand an open discussion of anything they don't agree with. Doesn't mean I agree with Diane Fenner, or Doug's side, just that I think each can make their case without being censored.
CAF is certainly a public matter, it gets tax breaks, it raised funds among the public, it can't and shouldn't try to do this in secrecy.

When I came into warbirds, I was impressed with the CAF because they had some good pilots who had actually flown these planes in WW II, and some good airplanes. Most of all their airshows had some good flying. Much as I like EAA and Oshkosh, their airshows with the no acro and limited formation flying are pretty boring to see and sometimes fly compared to CAF. Some of the more fun and uninhibited people I've met were in CAF. There were some of the old guys that were not always friendly, if you were perceived as an outsider, and still may be. I recall once going to look at a P-47 that needed restoration. I asked to sit in it, and was refused by the old relic that was standing beside it in his uniform, and shooing away any of the young people that got near. I was a CAF life member, a warbird pilot and owner, though I don't wear a uniform, and though the P-47 was not my favorite I might have been convinced to be one of the sponsors. But the rude and stupid attitude of one of the members convinced me to just keep my money to spend on my own plane. I have heard others who have had the same experience.Contrast this selfish attitude with the CAF guys in Grand Junction who encourage the public to sit in their airplane and make a lot of money and friends in doing so.

I am not very interested in the shift in emphasis to some of the more common and more modern and less historic planes that make up part of the shows now. I realize that the public that appreciated the planes of WW II are getting older and some shift of emphasis may be inevitable.But for me, I just can't see a B-52 as the same as a B-17 or an F-4 as the same as a Mustang or Spitfire. Partly it is the war these planes are identified with, but also they just seem less personal than the older ones.

Steve Brown may have brought some needed publicity and salesmanship to the organization, even if he stepped on some toes in the process. I've known and like Joe Cowan for years and never before heard anything not positive about Hal Fenner.

[bluehawk15]

Don't take the CAF back, move it forward!

[FG1D Pilot]

Don't take the CAF back, move it forward!

I think you said what John and Raubatz did in fewer words and won the campaign slogan contest at the same time. Beautiful

[kpardon]

The CAF is at a transitional tipping point where it will either become the best historical aviation operation in the world or shrink back to its former roots as a flying club. It can't stay where it is at as an org and expect to survive in its current form.



The next step should be on what the CAF wants to look like in five years; that drives the leadership decision.

I have to agree with Rauhbatz’ post. Every CAF member I know, with the exception of a handful, is behind the current General Staff and Steve Brown 100%. I have a great deal of respect for past leadership and in no way want to diminish the contributions of those people, but anyone who has spent any time at all learning about the practices successful non-profit organizations use to seek bigger impact would clearly recognize Steve is moving this organization in a direction it badly needed to go.