The term "Angel Flight"

Today was a landmark day in Volunteer Aviation. Mr. Ed Boyer of Angel Flight America suffered an appeals defeat, 3-0 in his attempts to takeover the Angel Flight servicemark and prohibit others from using it. In fact, his use of the “Angel Flight” servicemark is junior to that of AF of Georgia, and both the cease and desist as well as the prohibition from use was reaffirmed unanimously today.

Mr. Boyer, though a promoter of volunteer aviation, did so with a mindset to NOT work with other estabilished independent organizations, in fact he at one time demanded that Lifeline would have to be merged into AF Midamerica. Now in looking at all of his published form 990s, he made a pretty good living doing this, one day per week (six figures).

In his career of such promotion, he even attempted to subvert ACA, the Air Care Alliance, packing its board until the organization died (none of the entities were in fact independent). When ACA survived and continued to list and be a clearing house for all of the small independent organizations, he founded "Air Compassion America", grabbing all the related web addresses and using the Blue and White Capital ACA logoes. He wasted many charitables' monies (mine included) in forcing us to get him to cease and desist.

Shame on you, Ed Boyer. Now perhaps volunteer aviators everywhere will be served with co-operativity by all organizations. Kudos to AF-Georgia’s Jeanine Chambers Biron and Bernadette Chambers, to not knuckling under. To AF-East, who continued to use the servicemark independently. And now on to the fundamental business of facilitating the volunteer pilot’s service to individuals in need of transport, for most of us simply want to serve and co-operate. But not you, apparently. The court sees you for what you really are.
 
Last edited:
Was the word "altruism" even in this Boyer's vocabulary? It doesn't seem so.
 
I don't believe in hell, but if I did I'd believe there was a special place there for people like this - who use the kindness and compassion of others to line their own pockets. Shame indeed.
 
I knew that there was a ruling due. I'm glad to see that he lost!
 
AF-Georgia is a good organization. I don't fly enough for them :redface:. Sure am glad they won, but sorry so much money had to be wasted fighting Mr. Boyer.
 
Does this mean that Angel Flight Central can go back to being Angel Flight instead of whatever that forgettable name was that they came up with after the original ruling?
 
Bruce, whose spin was that blurb based on?

I haven't seen the appellate decision (I will when I have a chance), but the suit was initially brought by AF-Georgia to stop other compassion groups from using the term.

I'm sure there were some significant politics surrounding the decision that are not reflected in the decisions themselves.
 
Well, I got a chance to read it. Not much difference from the trial court opinion.

As many of you probably know, what became "Angel Flight America" is actually a consolidation of local and regional AF groups, with the usual centralization vs local control issues.

AF-Georgia was an early user of the Angel Flight name, which it used in Georgia and a few neighboring states. As part of the general centralization/consolidation of Angel Flight AF-Southeast, which had started in Florida, expanded into adjoining states. AF-Geoprgia was one of those AF groups that resisted being brought into the fold and ultimately sued AF-Southeast and AF-America for using the name Angel Flight.

AF-Georgia won. The decision prohibits the use of the name Angel Flight by AF-Southeast and AF-America (which changed its name during the litigation and is the reason for the change in name in other parts of the country) in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and the Carolinas for any purpose other than using the "Angel Flight" call sign during flights.

How that will affect the use of Angel Flight in other parts of the country is a nice political issue that will have to be hashed out among the national organization and regional groups.

There was, btw, an interesting side issue - AF-America defended in part based on its federal registration of Angel Flight - a registration it received by assignment from Angel Flight West, which originally registered it. Citing misrepresentations by Angel Flight in the application, the registration was voided.

So back to Bruce's original post:
Today was a landmark day in Volunteer Aviation. Mr. Ed Boyer of Angel Flight America suffered an appeals defeat, 3-0 in his attempts to takeover the Angel Flight servicemark and prohibit others from using it. In fact, his use of the “Angel Flight” servicemark is junior to that of AF of Georgia, and both the cease and desist as well as the prohibition from use was reaffirmed unanimously today.
Click to expand...
I guess that depends on your perspective. The blurb could have as easily been written as
Today was a sad day in Volunteer Aviation. Angel Flight America suffered an appeals defeat, 3-0 in its attempts to have the Angel Flight name and logo recognized throughout the country by dedicated organizations banded together in a common goal. The cease and desist AF of Georgia obtained prohibiting others from use in certain parts of the county was reaffirmed unanimously today.
Click to expand...
BTW, my writing that was not taking sides. I have no idea of the politics that led to the lawsuit and I'm certainly in no position to say who was the good guy and who was the bad guy in this one.

Although, I can say that it's a sad day when humanitarian organizations have come down to the level of suing each other, whoever is in the right.
 
Boy am I confused now. I work with Angel Flight East. I was told they are not part of Angel Flight American and may have even had some issues with them. I know they coordinate a lot of flights with Angel Flight Georgia. :dunno:
 
AdamZ said:
Boy am I confused now. I work with Angel Flight East. I was told they are not part of Angel Flight American and may have even had some issues with them.
Click to expand...
Not surprising. As organizations grow, the politics and the turf wars start. But the politics tend to be in the organization. The way I figure it, so long as they do missions and pilots can fly missions when they are available, I really don't care about the petty squabbling, the egos, or whether the flights are by angels, with grace, or simple give people a lifeline.
 
AdamZ said:
Boy am I confused now. I work with Angel Flight East. I was told they are not part of Angel Flight American and may have even had some issues with them. I know they coordinate a lot of flights with Angel Flight Georgia. :dunno:
Click to expand...
Yes they did. Harry Morales was an independent thinking guy who didn't like overhead and paying a national office. His organization co-operated with everybody but did not pay obesiance to AFA (or fees to the National). Charitable dollars are too hard to come by. He ran a GREAT orgnaization and we worked with him. His orgnaization persists and prospers today.

Boyer's competing organization was Angel Flight Northeast.
To Compete with AF-Georgia rather than co-operate, he setup Angel Flight Southeast.
To compete with us rather than co-operate, Angel Flight Central.
To compete with AF Oklahoma, rather than co-operate, he setup Angel Flight South Central.
...get the drift?

We can't stand waste, either. And I can't stand corporatizing what is essentially an individual pilot activity- the smallest charitable is a single pilot taking someone someplace at no charge. When you are setting up to make six figures doing this, you are subverting the good will of men.

Sign me, Chairman of the Board, Lifeline Pilots, Peoria, IL 2003-2005
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
Not unless AF-Georgia lets them.
Click to expand...
AF Georgia has NEVER objected to another organization using the name (and still does not). It was only when Boyer told AF-G that they could not use the name, that they sued.

I spent a good deal of personal funds supporting ACA's effort to get Boyer to cease and desist subverting the umbrella group that AirCare Alliance is, as the funding of ACA is entirely from its directors. He tried to get control of ACA, failed, and then tried to subvert it.

The blurb was written by YOURS TRULY. Ed has made over $120,000 per year (one day per week...look up his form 990s, fourteen years running) by creating nesting organizations all of which he controls, including the 1-800 number (which today still goes to him), and subverting everyone else who maintains a volunteer organization. Hundreds of websites, too. Look at them all-different titles, cookie cutter setup.

I have been on several boards over 13 years and know his antics all too well. There is a sad time when good men volunteer their own monies to legal battles that would have been unnecessary, if he had not tried to crush all non-Ed Boyer organizations, including AF GA, AF E, AF OKlahoma, Lifeline, and a few others who stood alone against contributing more monies to his $120,000 per year.

He even duped the Feds into a grant (1.8 mil) for organizing a paper "national readiness volunteer" organization for Homeland Secuirty purposes. The 120 page outline document makes certain on every page that this is to be an Angel Flight America branded organization, and not to be extended to any coooperating organizations. Pricey Radios, etc. And of course, overhead to fund himself.

Funny. During Katrina, Lifeline had more volunteer ops in the area that they did. We didn't regulate the pilots, they went down there and did their thing nearly 24/7, thanks to Kevin, from Volunteer Pilots of PA.
 
Last edited:
eye-opening thread ... I never knew the back stories, but they're a sad, sad tale. Thanks for the info.
 
bbchien said:
..When you are setting up to make six figures doing this, you are subverting the good will of men.

Sign me, Chairman of the Board, Lifeline Pilots, Peoria, IL 2003-2005
Click to expand...

Unless you are truly providing added value. The smithsonian, red cross, and countless other entities rely on volunteers, but the values the paid staff bring justify their existence and their salaries. My comment isn't related to AF particularly, I just don't believe there's anything evil in getting compensated accordingly to what you bring to the work, even if that work is charitable in nature.
 
Tim my read of what Bruce is saying is that this was set up to benefit the individual and protect certain names so that it would protect his golden goose even if that golden goose was a pubic beneift organizaion.

No doubt we need top quality MBA type folks runing our public benefit organizations and they need to be compensated well to attract the most qualified and compete with the private sector.

I dunno I just read Bruces comments as this was a situation where the tail was wagging the dog so to speak.
 
Adam, I agree with Bruce in this situation. Just making the point that it doesn't apply to all situations (which his post didn't make clear, in my opinion).
 
It really ****es me off when an organization starts with all good intentions and then gets dragged down by a few folks who are either padding their own pockets or stroking their own ego. It's a freaking shame and it's the reason I've let my 20 year old membership to EAA lapse.

Hundreds of pilots are spending tens of thousands of dollars and their own time trying to help people who need it, and this is the crap going on behind the curtain? What a shame.

double sigh.
 
I'm going to be attending a health fair next week. I was going to be representing both LifeLine Pilots and Angel Flight Central. I admit that I'm starting to have second thoughts. I've done three legs for the former and one for the latter. I represented them both at the Clow Cavalcade of Planes last year. I'm starting to wonder if I should just deal with LifeLine Pilots!:dunno:
 
gprellwitz said:
I'm going to be attending a health fair next week. I was going to be representing both LifeLine Pilots and Angel Flight Central. I admit that I'm starting to have second thoughts. I've done three legs for the former and one for the latter. I represented them both at the Clow Cavalcade of Planes last year. I'm starting to wonder if I should just deal with LifeLine Pilots!:dunno:
Click to expand...
I wouldn't automatically do that. Despite whatever politics or personalities are at work, all the organizations do the work and do it well. And remember that when listening to Bruce, the chairman of the board of Lifeline, you are not listening to an unbiased reporter and there is no one here to tell the other side of the story (there almost always is one).

For example. Lifeline is just beginning to get missions in Colorado. Angel Flight has many. Would you deny patients flights because you don't like AF's internal politics? I know I wouldn't. IMO, that's just as bad as this sad fight over names and fundraising.
 
Last edited:
The bottom line is the pilots give to help the patients. Let the lawyers and such argue about the petty things. Does there need to be structure to help operate and arrange for the benefit of patients? Certainly. But, it seems far too many are forgetting why these organizations were created to start with.

This isnt' a hit on anyone other than someone who wants to attack or cause harm to those trying to benefit the patients. I don't see Bruce in that light at all. One of these days, I hope to be involved in one of these groups.
 
If facts are accurate, it sheds another light on volunteering for missions. While I do not want to deny missions to people who need it, why should my charity help line the pockets of a person who is making more than both my wife and I put together in a year.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I wouldn't automatically do that. Despite whatever politics or personalities are at work, all the organizations do the work and do it well. And remember that when listening to Bruce, the chairman of the board of Lifeline, you are not listening to an unbiased reporter and there is no one here to tell the other side of the story (there almost always is one).

For example. Lifeline is just beginning to get missions in Colorado. Angel Flight has many. Would you deny patients flights because you don't like AF's internal politics? I know I wouldn't. IMO, that's just as bad as this sad fight over names and fundraising.
Click to expand...

Bruce not only volunteers his time and aircraft on missions, he flies to drum up funds. The other guy just takes the funds.

As for not having Lifeline Midwest in Colorado, there could be a reason for that. ;)

The point is it's enough of a sacrifice for any individual contributor - pilots, donors, volunteers - that they shouldn't have to think that somebody is drawing a huge salary from their contributions.
 
mikea said:
As for not having Lifeline Midwest in Colorado, there could be a reason for that. ;)
Click to expand...
Lifeline Pilots (not Lifeline Midwest is a national organization that is centered in the midwest. Lifeline Pilots =is= in Colorado. I should know. I'm a member.

If you think I am attacking Bruce in any way, you think wrong. We all have our biases. "Bias" is natural, has nothing to do with good or bad. Ferisntance, here's my bias - whether by nature or experience, my bias is to not decide on right or wrong in a situation like this without hearing both sides.

BTW, I know very well what Angel Flight has become. "Executives" are well paid. Politics gets ugly. And even within Angel Flight, there are concerns about it. IMO, one of the reasons Lifeline is in Colorado is the defection of AF pilots.
 
Last edited:
Good Bias, Mark.

My tenure as Chairman was the first time in the history of Lifeline (operating since 1982) that a Chairman fired a director. I moved to resist any tendancies to become corporate, to remove indivduals who could not resist that tendancy, and to grow the organization either through fostering like minded independents or co-dependently with us. Our policy was and has been since, to work with them. "Codeshare" if you're a corporate dude.

After all, the SMALLEST and most important charitable organization is the individual pilot donating to the INDIVIDUAL in need. We need not waste millions. We need not waste one Dollar.

Many of the pilots who fly for our trips also fly for AF trips. That's GOOD. What's BAD is when the AF structure sucks dollars out ot the main focus- which should remain, worthwhile trips positively affecting people's lives.
 
Last edited:
All,

Currently, I'm not with any volunteer flight organization, but I'm shopping. What would be the options for a guy based in FL and wanted to contribute in the SE area? Goods/Bads.

Also, please comment about liability issues and release of liability.

Thanks....
 
Larryo said:
All,

Currently, I'm not with any volunteer flight organization, but I'm shopping. What would be the options for a guy based in FL and wanted to contribute in the SE area? Goods/Bads.

Also, please comment about liability issues and release of liability.

Thanks....
Click to expand...
Someone will have to give you information about what, other than AF, may be available in Florida. The AF Southeast (the good guy or bad guy in the case we've been discussing) web site is http://www.angelflightse.org/ You might find references to some other organizations at the Air Care Alliance web site at http://www.aircareall.org/listings.htm

AF, and other organizations, generally have patients sign waivers of liability but, like all waivers of liability, especially when there is a wide disparity of knowledge (patient, perhaps a child vs trained pilot), the degree to which it may be enforced will vary from state to state. I'm in Colorado, where waivers are probably enforced as much as in any state, and I wouldn't bet on this one being enforced.

So, your liability protection is pretty much your aviation insurance policy.

The good news is that your risk is pretty low. I'm no longer directly involved in the organization itself, but it may still be true that compassion pilots have a zero accident rate when on a mission (Bruce?). AFAIK, all of the organizations take the position that it is preferable that you cancel in case of any doubts about the safety of the missions and that you will never be called on the carpet due to a cancellation (this is something I personally stress when I do new pilot orientations for AF-West).

As far as I can tell, there is only one downside to a mission (other than the odd unappreciative patient): You feel guilty about how good it makes you feel.

BTW, I have the story of one mission on my web site. It was written by my Mission Assistant, a non-pilot: http://www.midlifeflight.com/stories/devyn.htm#start_story
 
midlifeflyer said:
...So, your liability protection is pretty much your aviation insurance policy.

The good news is that your risk is pretty low. I'm no longer directly involved in the organization itself, but it may still be true that compassion pilots have a zero accident rate when on a mission (Bruce?). ...
Click to expand...

Not on the mission but Peter Tomarken and his wife crashed flying to pick up a patient.
 
mikea said:
Not on the mission but Peter Tomarken and his wife crashed flying to pick up a patient.
Click to expand...
I know that there have been a few instances where there have been accidents by pilots either on the way to or back from a pickup/drop off. However unfortunate any accident, fortunately,those don't involve liability for injuring a patient. :fcross:
 
midlifeflyer said:
I know that there have been a few instances where there have been accidents by pilots either on the way to or back from a pickup/drop off. However unfortunate any accident, fortunately,those don't involve liability for injuring a patient. :fcross:
Click to expand...

Mark,

I can appreciate your comments and an accident can happen for what ever the flight was intended for, and I can't see how the purpose was the cause for any accident. It could have happened for a personal flight, business flight or just flying for breakfast. That's the risks we take.
 
i need to find an owner in central iowa with a good airplane who wants to do this kind of flying but doesnt have time to do the actual flying.

saw a lifeline pilot pick up an 8 yr old with cancer last week enroute to NY and it was just plain cool.
 
AFAIK, there has been One domestic event: it was a Lighthawk flight (at the time they were based in Rawlins, WY) and it was an environmental flight with a Washington State EPA official, a timber company exec, and a reporter. This was about ~2000 IIRC. The same organization had one go down in Central America the same year. Completely UNRELATED.

The counsel for the organization was Rick Durden, of AvWeb fame, who was on their board. He is now the Exec. Dir of that Volunteer Pilot Organization.

One of Lifeline's big expenses is a policy for events related to un-owned aircraft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top