PDA

View Full Version : What the heck is this???



Burtles
10-26-2011, 06:57 AM
Why is there a 7 page article about a TBM turboprop in my latest Sport Aviation magazine? If I wanted this I would subscribe to Flying or AOPA!http://www.sportaviationonline.org/sportaviation/201111/m3/Page.action?lm=1319599366000&pg=26

martymayes
10-26-2011, 01:06 PM
Why is there a 7 page article about a TBM turboprop in my latest Sport Aviation magazine?

Because 'A large number of EAA members own and/or fly those!' So says J. Mac.

Bill Greenwood
10-26-2011, 01:34 PM
Would anyone be surprised if there was an ad from TBM or some sponsor money from TBM involved? After all there isn't a lot of money involved on a small homebuilt.
And the pilot/author naturally wants to fly the big stuff and the latest and fanciest.

FlyingRon
10-26-2011, 02:09 PM
That and articles about flying for the airlines, stories and editorials about late model mooneys and bonanzas, SA is really deviating from anything related to their sport aviation roots (ultralights, sport aircraft, IAC, warbirds, vintage, homebuilts)...

cluttonfred
10-26-2011, 05:55 PM
I agree completely. The "deal" whe EAA discontinued some of the niche magazines like Experimenter was that SA wouldcontinue to represent those interests. It seems like the deal is off.

Bill
10-26-2011, 06:15 PM
Maybe they're just preparing us for the merger with AOPA.

propjock
10-26-2011, 08:05 PM
I agree, J Mac is not agood thing for EAA. Shilling for Socata is NOT what I joined EAA for. That and endless droning about flying across the country with my boyfriend's son is getting as old as it was at FLYING. I think it might be time for a new organization truly for home builders. These guys have little in common with the average home builder and are about as in touch with grass roots aviation as congress is with the country in general. They should have poached Peter Garrison, at least he's built something.:mad:

Chad Jensen
10-26-2011, 08:32 PM
I agree completely. The "deal" whe EAA discontinued some of the niche magazines like Experimenter was that SA wouldcontinue to represent those interests. It seems like the deal is off. Experimenter is alive and well, though it's online only, it is all homebuilt coverage all the time. It's a free subscription and we are working on moving it to more of an online magazine, rather than a newsletter. Check it out if you haven't already. Lots of great stuff there!
Maybe they're just preparing us for the merger with AOPA. This simply isn't going to happen...
I agree, J Mac is not agood thing for EAA. Shilling for Socata is NOT what I joined EAA for. That and endless droning about flying across the country with my boyfriend's son is getting as old as it was at FLYING. I think it might be time for a new organization truly for home builders. These guys have little in common with the average home builder and are about as in touch with grass roots aviation as congress is with the country in general. They should have poached Peter Garrison, at least he's built something.:mad:I always stress to members that are upset about the magazine that EAA offers so much more for the homebuilder than just the magazine. Hints for homebuilders, webinars, Experimenter, government advocacy (this is huge...), and Sport Aviation, although changing a bit, still has all the homebuilder content it has had in the past...there's just more additional content added. The flagship magazine has to appeal to the entire membership, and the current spread is covering all of it. There are lots of homebuilders on EAA Staff...I think you'll like some of the articles being worked on for future issues...

Chad Jensen
10-26-2011, 08:36 PM
Forgot the link to Experimenter...http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/

Frank Giger
10-26-2011, 08:58 PM
I for one embrace the inclusion of the vast number of EAA members who own three million dollar, six passenger turboprop aircraft.

For far too long this silent majority has suffered within the organization, toiling along in obscurity, wishing for a voice.

It is about time they are represented in the periodical that is the face of the EAA.

(They got it backwards - should have been seven pages about Russ' Camel and a two page blurb about some regional commuter plane)

Mike Switzer
10-26-2011, 09:13 PM
I wish experimenter was available in print form. I get the Experimenter emails, and when I get around to trying to read the articles half the time they wont load, or they take forever to load, and I give up.

Chad Jensen
10-26-2011, 09:27 PM
I haven't had this complaint Mike...interesting. We are hoping to move it to an online magazine or even PDF downloadable for reading on a mobile device offline. It won't go to print though...cost is way to high, and the success of this publication being online (almost 30,000 subscribers) means it will stay that way.

propjock
10-26-2011, 09:28 PM
Amen, Frank; It's all about the money.

Burtles
10-26-2011, 09:33 PM
It gets worse. Mac Mclelland has apparently described Burt Rutan to his staff as a "failure".

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?p=792874


Can I get my membership dues back?

propjock
10-26-2011, 09:38 PM
Apparently, the FLYING editorial arrogance is transferable.

Burtles
10-26-2011, 09:44 PM
You got that right propjock

Chad Jensen
10-26-2011, 09:53 PM
It gets worse. Mac Mclelland has apparently described Burt Rutan to his staff as a "failure". http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?p=792874 Can I get my membership dues back?We're still trying to figure out where this came from...an "anonymous" person put this out on VAF on Monday night. All I can say is don't believe everything you read on the Internet...it's not what was said.

cluttonfred
10-27-2011, 03:00 AM
To be fair, the TBM article is not all bad--if it had been just a two-pager celebrating Socata's 100-year history as the heir to Morane-Saulnier, with a sidebar on their latest and greatest creation, the TBM 850, I think none of us would be complaining. But a seven-page article on a multimillion dollar business aircraft--neither homebuilt, nor aerobatic, nor antique, nor warbird, nore even a general aviation type that mere mortals might rent on a weekend--has no place in an EAA publication titled and dedicated to "Sport Aviation." If this trend continues I think we will see a lot of negative reaction from the membership.

propjock
10-27-2011, 06:01 AM
We're still trying to figure out where this came from...an "anonymous" person put this out on VAF on Monday night. All I can say is don't believe everything you read on the Internet...it's not what was said.
"I have no recollection of that, Senator" You're right I don't believe everything I read on the internet. SA has just become the midwest branch of FLYING; of and by and for millionaires.

Mike Switzer
10-27-2011, 06:06 AM
I haven't had this complaint Mike...interesting. We are hoping to move it to an online magazine or even PDF downloadable for reading on a mobile device offline. It won't go to print though...cost is way to high, and the success of this publication being online (almost 30,000 subscribers) means it will stay that way.

Chad, for all I know it is Comcast's problem, but at any rate, the current setup for experimenter is totally un-useable for anyone who does not have a reliable high speed internet connection, which includes most anyone that lives in a rural area.

Mike Switzer
10-27-2011, 06:40 AM
I guess I don't understand why the Experimenter content isn't included in Sport Aviation anyway. Look at back issues, that is what the content of the whole magazine used to be. The magazine is going to print anyway, the cost of adding those pages each month is minimal, especially with the modern electronic format printing processes being used.

m796rider
10-28-2011, 10:22 AM
To be fair, the TBM article is not all bad--if it had been just a two-pager celebrating Socata's 100-year history as the heir to Morane-Saulnier, with a sidebar on their latest and greatest creation, the TBM 850, I think none of us would be complaining. But a seven-page article on a multimillion dollar business aircraft--neither homebuilt, nor aerobatic, nor antique, nor warbird, nore even a general aviation type that mere mortals might rent on a weekend--has no place in an EAA publication titled and dedicated to "Sport Aviation." If this trend continues I think we will see a lot of negative reaction from the membership.

I am with Mole 100% on this one. I used to keep back issues of Sport Aviation to reread and pore over. Now they go into the recycle bin a couple of days after I get them. Sport Aviation is in danger of becoming like every other "general interest" magazine I buy at the airport and leave in the seatback pouch when the flight is over.

smutny
10-28-2011, 10:33 AM
This is why I choose not to get the magazine with my subscription. In fact, the only reason I'm still an EAA member is because it's required to be one to be a member of the IAC.

Until the video archive was created with some focus on maintenance, the EAA portion of my membership had no value to me.

mikeno
11-14-2011, 09:09 PM
Experimenter is alive and well, though it's online only, it is all homebuilt coverage all the time. It's a free subscription and we are working on moving it to more of an online magazine, rather than a newsletter. Check it out if you haven't already. Lots of great stuff there! This simply isn't going to happen...I always stress to members that are upset about the magazine that EAA offers so much more for the homebuilder than just the magazine. Hints for homebuilders, webinars, Experimenter, government advocacy (this is huge...), and Sport Aviation, although changing a bit, still has all the homebuilder content it has had in the past...there's just more additional content added. The flagship magazine has to appeal to the entire membership, and the current spread is covering all of it. There are lots of homebuilders on EAA Staff...I think you'll like some of the articles being worked on for future issues...

Of the hundreds of thousands of EAA members around the world how many do you honestly believe are owners or even potential owners of the $3M TBM? What audience is JMac speaking to? You cannot logically argue that it was directed to the homebuilder, the warbirder, the antique/classic guy/gals, or the light sport crowd. Yes, there are alternate sources of information for special interests but Sport Aviation is the magazine of the EAA membership " flagship magazine has to appeal to the entire membership" and articles such as this are so far outside the interests of the membership that one wonders what the motivation was.

Kyle Boatright
11-14-2011, 09:39 PM
I finally got my hard copy of the November SA. In addition to the extremely out of place TBM article, there was also a bad article on Mac flying a Bell 47. This was accompanied by the cover photo of Mac in the left seat of the Bell 47. If you read the article, it is a flight report: "I this, I that, I something else". Mac needs to understand that the magazine isn't "Mac's World". His photo doesn't need to be on the cover, and he needs to write in the 3rd person - it ain't about him. If he wants to do a flight report on a Bell 47, great. Find one that someone drug out of a barn and restored. Make the story about the helicopter and the owner, with a flight test thrown in. The current direction of the magazine is horribly misguided.

Mike Switzer
11-14-2011, 11:12 PM
I finally got my hard copy of the November SA.

I still haven't got mine - but that is the norm for both EAA & AOPA - I get both of those the 3rd week of the month that is on the cover

Eric Marsh
11-15-2011, 07:47 AM
I am a member of the EAA because of my interest in experimental aircraft. My Tripacer may be a classic but if I want to meet other vintage certified aircraft enthusiasts I would expect to also join the VAA. I am a member of the Shortwing Piper Club. My certified aircraft interests are more or less covered by my AOPA membership. So in essence I am looking forward to information about experimental and homebuild aircraft in my EAA publications.

onpetree
11-15-2011, 09:10 AM
I really hate the new direction that Sport Aviation and EAA in general is taking... When President Paul created this organization he did so to help guide and promote the "little guy"... There are many reasons to build an airplane in one's garage, and not the least of which is cost of the craft itself! In the old days Paul Poberezny, Tony Bingelis, Jack Cox, Steve Whitman, etc etc... built EAA to inform, promote, encourage others that may be interested in home building their own aircraft. They always had safety in mind, but were NEVER afraid of liability incurred by printing "How to Guides" in Sport Aviation. Further, these guys and others promoted & protected aviation in Washington. I attended Airventure 2011. It had been about 25 years since I was last there for the fly-in. Back in the 80's one could sit on the flight line and watch the homebuilt's, one of a kinds, and Experimental's fly around the pattern. Announcers would expound the virtues of this or that design. One could learn a little about the aircraft & designer/builder. Later in the afternoon those aircraft were parked so that interested potential builders or just the interested could walk right up to them and have a look.This past summer NONE OF THIS happened... NO HOMEBUILTS flew in the pattern except those arriving or departing Whitman Field. The Fly-In was about War Birds & commercial interest. The very reason for EAA's existence is now largely ignored or merely tolerated. BIG MONEY is the theme now at Oshkosh and Sport Aviation. RIP Sport Aviation & EAA... maybe someone will begin again, and pick up the torch of the founders of the original organization. I understand economics as well as the next person, but MONEY is now the driving force behind EAA... It used to be Experimental Aircraft... It's a real shame.

Bob Dingley
11-15-2011, 10:02 AM
I may be naive, I thought the issues were mailed over a short time period. Burtles opened the discussion on Oct 26 and I get my copy on Nov 15. Good reason that I didn't know what the discussion was about for three weeks. I'm not complaining, just wondering. Anybody get theirs later than I get mine?
Bob

Eric Page
11-15-2011, 10:28 AM
Even allowing for the fact that self-selecting surveys, like this thread, are almost useless from the standpoint of producing statistically useful data, there's clearly a significant current of discontent among many EAA members concerning some of the recent items in Sport Aviation. This is the second multi-page thread on this topic -- a remarkable thing considering the age and member count of this forum.

Are the sentiments expressed here being discussed at EAA HQ meetings? Are EAA's leadership and SA's editorial staff being made aware of these posts, and of their growing number? What is the reaction, if any?

Are the things we're discussing here the result of scientific membership polling that indicates a desire for, e.g. ~$3M turboprop reviews? Or, are they being driven by the desires or "gut feeling" of one or more persons at HQ?

Lone Eagle
11-15-2011, 10:35 AM
Hope not , I'm a 50 year of AOPA and they are becoming a pain in the email.

Chad Jensen
11-15-2011, 10:37 AM
Are the sentiments expressed here being discussed at EAA HQ meetings? Are EAA's leadership and SA's editorial staff being made aware of these posts, and of their growing number? What is the reaction, if any?

Absolutely Eric! Many of the staff members follow the forums and the topics specifically relating to SA. You will see Hal and I here daily, but several other staffer's, including Directors and VP's participate in the forums when their schedules allow. It is being discussed, and the editorial staff and leadership is well aware of what is going on, and what is being said. I think December's issue of SA will be a welcome sway back the other way from what I've seen at this point.

Maybe the TBM article was a shot across the bow to the membership to see if there really was a pulse, I don't know, but if it was, I think we've opened up the lines of communication.

:)

Hal Bryan
11-15-2011, 10:38 AM
Are the sentiments expressed here being discussed at EAA HQ meetings? Are EAA's leadership and SA's editorial staff being made aware of these posts, and of their growing number?

Eric -

Forgive me for cherry-picking, but these are the two questions I, personally, can answer unequivocally, and that answer is absolutely and vehemently "yes." As for the others, beyond what's already been said, I'm hoping to get some of my colleagues in Publications to dive in here and join the discussions.

Regards -

Hal

Eric Page
11-15-2011, 11:14 AM
Cheers, guys! Thanks for the prompt and candid replies. I look forward to the Dec issue.

Mike Switzer
11-15-2011, 11:27 AM
Anybody get theirs later than I get mine?

I got mine today

Bugs66
11-15-2011, 12:29 PM
I finally got my hard copy of the November SA. In addition to the extremely out of place TBM article, there was also a bad article on Mac flying a Bell 47...

Looked like his hands were down by his side and feet on floor to me, on all photos including the cover shot. I found that hillarious.

Took me 5 minutes to read this month's mag. Skipped the TBM and Bell 47. Thumbs down. Thumbs up to Super Chub, Hands On, WOMB, Lauran Paine, pretty much the last 10 pages of the mag. And oh I wish I was there for the "50 years ago", what a time.

I wish we had Barry Schiff and Peter Garrison.

Barnstorm
11-15-2011, 01:06 PM
This thread and it's sister thread "Sport Aviation Magazine" are of keen interest to me.

I VERY much want to see how the EAA and the content editors handle this problem because an organisation I help manage has the exact same problem(s).

Problem 1. A percentage of sometimes highly vocal members see the org not as a club/group of aviation enthusiasts that promote aviation through world-class events, fly-ins, sponsor-ships, Young /Old Eagles, Museums, restorations, on-line tools with support, legal watch-dogging and activism but ONLY AS A MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTION.

Problem 2. An aging population that are unwilling / unable to see or understand the movement of the media world from PRINT to DIGITAL. Print "Pinch" has killed many great publications and organisations that have not been able to make this transition. Print cost and postage costs continue to go through the roof, internet media draws away the younger subscribers and the remaining pool of subscribers feel the cost of a $50 publication that now leaves little remaining revenue for any projects outside of the quickly dying print publication.

Problem 3. As online media continues to prove a better media for quick news, better responses to troubleshooting questions, many stories, photos, how to and help content is directed away from the print media leaving mostly "human interest" and high end photography as the last bastions for print content. Sensing this change even the print sticklers now complain about the print media content because the format is not covering the topics they once found in the pre-digital revolution days. Print editors to meet the financial needs of a print publication have to appeal to wider and wider audiences and even when 4 or 5 articles are "on topic" to the reader seeing a few "off topic" articles causes a sense of abandonment. Citing examples like "Kitplanes" where the organisation is not a pilot "org" but a publishing house, subscribers completely forget about all of the other benefits of the org (see problem 1) and don't understand why the org can't "be like them".

Ironically, as we see in these threads:

"Concerned Members" that are affected by Problem 1, then inspired by Problem 3, cancel their "subscription" (membership) in "Protest" thinking they are some how helping the org, as if non-participation is a valid form of communication when what they are doing is actually compounding Problem 2.

Thus they are contributing causes to the the change that upset them in the first place.

All that said.... Sport Aviation really does need to publish more GYRO articles! ;)

.

Karevoll
11-15-2011, 08:37 PM
Just got my magazine today.
And, yeah, jets and warbirds and anything costing more than a Honda Accord are of no interest.

av-mech
11-15-2011, 09:26 PM
I'm a long time "on again--off again" EAA member. I used to hit my "off" times because I got real pissed at what the EAA leadership seemed to be doing. By that I mean that I viewed EAA as a corporate, money gobbling machine that continually left the homebuilders behind. I joined about 1985 when I was a high school kid in central Indiana. Me and three of my buddies talked one of our parents into letting us take a car to Oshkosh and so we went, airplane crazed and bound for the greatest airshow ever!! Mind you that we went to a high school where there was an aviation program where we built a 66% scale Jap Zero, I had my picture in Sport Aviation, along with some other students for that build. You could not ask for kids more crazy about airplanes and especially hombuilt planes, it was in our blood. That first Oshkosh was everything I had hoped with homebuilts flyinging everywhere, a million things to see......we camped in pup tents in the area now occupied by Aeroshell square(or close). Over the years most of my friends wandered off to more lucrative careers but I stayed with aviation doing all sorts of jobs and eventually becoming an A&P and IA working in my own shop. Today I look at the EAA quite different than I did back in 1985, it's simply nothing like it used to be. Back then it was indeed still about homebuilts, today it's really not so much. I flew my Varieze to Osh this past year for the Rutan Salute, what a joke that turned out to be. They basically found time to squeeze Burt and a few of his planes in and that was it. Cancelled the flyby for those of us who showed up. Anyway, I used to quit EAA from time to time because of idiotic magazine articles like the socata one this past issue, fact is I finally signed up for the forum here just to get pissy about it. You guys at HQ got your heads stuffed clear up your A$%, thanks for leaving the rest of us low life hombuilders in the dust, you are delusional if you really think you a good connection with the average homebuilder these day's. J Mac...Go back to wherever you came from. I have no doubt that you are competent but you are not one of us. Why don't you go out and build something before you have the nuts to write for a mag that was founded on that exact activity!! Speaking of SA, you almost had me over the last year. I was really starting to like what you were doing but you have let me down as a member. This (Socata article) is not the content that belongs in this publication. I read somewhere that EAA has to appeal to a broad spectrum of the membership.........It is my observation that the broad spectrum is made up of people who build are interested in "EXPERIMENTAL AVIATION" HENCE THE NAME "EXPERIMENTAL AVIATION ASSOCIATION". I don't see a friggen experimental sticker on that Socata!

EAA---you have outgrown your shoes and like the current national debt, I don't see anyway it's ever going to turn around. Will I quit EAA again? No, as a matter of fact I recently became president of my local chapter and quitting would only let the leadership get away with it's crappy misdirected management of what used to be a very good and useful orginization. No I will stay, and maybe complain loudly with the hopes that it comes back in the direction of what it once was, what I joined in on back in the 80's.

Any of you that want to reply with some crap about printing costs, digital media, appealing to a broad spectrum etc... can stick it right in your ear, your nothing but excuse makers and enablers to those who have taken it away from us.

Sincerest Regards
Arnold Holmes
EAA 519850
TC 4476
Chap. Pres 534
A&P/IA
PP/TW
Varieze N80SH

pylon500
11-15-2011, 11:26 PM
OUCH
Wow, I was getting annoyed at all the articles about people building all the dime a dozen common kits, RV's, Zeniths, Rans etc.
I always look for people that are actually doing EXPERIMENTAL stuff, I used enjoy the odd one off's that appear in the magazine, and used to get 'Experimenter' till it was discontinued. :(
I know some of the one off's out there can be a bit rough, but it's a start, people are learning. :eek:
As an example, here's an airplane I built about 15 years ago;
1000
Never got around to writing an article, plus I'm in Australia.
One day maybe...
Arthur.

dewi8095
11-16-2011, 07:59 AM
Sounds like the dissatisfaction with SA is closely followed by AirVenture. Maybe there needs to be a national fly-in for experimentals, like the Rockford days. The biplaners recently found their salvation in Jim Clark who now organizes the annual biplane fly-in at Junction City, Kansas, after the Bartlesville, OK event folded.

Thank you Jim Clark for providing the venue for biplanes, both certified and experimental.

Freeman Field at Junction City, by the way, would be a great location for an experimental fly-in. Great central location and two well maintained grass runways, plus a hard surface one for those who like to hear the squeek of tires when landing. All we need is someone to put it together. Not an easy task though. Maybe a smaller start with a multi-state event. Does EAA still provide support for regionals like Copper State? I am unaware of anything in the midwest states that approximates an experimental event.

Don

Chad Jensen
11-16-2011, 08:14 AM
OUCH
Wow, I was getting annoyed at all the articles about people building all the dime a dozen common kits, RV's, Zeniths, Rans etc.
I always look for people that are actually doing EXPERIMENTAL stuff, I used enjoy the odd one off's that appear in the magazine, and used to get 'Experimenter' till it was discontinued. :(

Experimenter has been running online since January 2009...it's all homebuilt content, and if you haven't subscribed, I invite you to check it out. I know it's not a paper magazine, but it's really a good read. We are talking about ways to make it more online-reader friendly.

http://www.magnetmail.net/actions/subscription_form_ExAA.cfm

I know some of the one off's out there can be a bit rough, but it's a start, people are learning. :eek:
As an example, here's an airplane I built about 15 years ago;
1000
Never got around to writing an article, plus I'm in Australia.
One day maybe...
Arthur.
That is REALLY cool Arthur! I would love to hear more about it either on here (start a new thread) or give me an article about it for publishing in Experimenter...it has a mini turbine Porter look to it to me, and I'm intrigued!:cool:

Chad Jensen
11-16-2011, 08:22 AM
Sounds like the dissatisfaction with SA is closely followed by AirVenture. Maybe there needs to be a national fly-in for experimentals, like the Rockford days. The biplaners recently found their salvation in Jim Clark who now organizes the annual biplane fly-in at Junction City, Kansas, after the Bartlesville, OK event folded.

Thank you Jim Clark for providing the venue for biplanes, both certified and experimental.

Freeman Field at Junction City, by the way, would be a great location for an experimental fly-in. Great central location and two well maintained grass runways, plus a hard surface one for those who like to hear the squeek of tires when landing. All we need is someone to put it together. Not an easy task though. Maybe a smaller start with a multi-state event. Does EAA still provide support for regionals like Copper State? I am unaware of anything in the midwest states that approximates an experimental event.

Don
EAA supports thousands of events and fly-ins around the country through the Chapter network (some of them are quite substantial).

We attend and participate in most of the regional fly-ins like Copperstate, MERFI, SERFI, Golden West, Sun-N-Fun, and our development team even travels to the big one's like AOPA, NBAA, and EBACE, but our only supported major fly-in is AirVenture.

Give Ron Wagner here at EAA a call at 920-426-6122...he is always more than happy to talk to folks about this kind of stuff.

RENO
11-16-2011, 01:01 PM
I'm sorry, I just don't understand some of these comments. True, the EAA has it's roots firmly planted in the experimental aircraft movement which has allowed thousands of pilots to own, operate and maintain their own aircraft. True, the EAA continues to advocate for the common person who just wants to fly - what about LSA, ELSA, Young Eagles and numerous other programs that benefit each of us. Sure, I am a retired professional aviation owner/operator but I love all the freedoms that are now ours through the efforts of yours and my EAA. The issues which surround the purchase, construction, testing and approvals of our home builts are far from "grassroots" but are necessary nonetheless. EAA is soo much more than your Air Cam or my RV. Let's enjoy it all When was the last time YOU requested a column or story for our magazine/s? In short, if it's a garbage can and someone puts wings and a motor on it and it flies safely or a brand new TBM turbo, I say HOOHRAY for all of us!!! Just my 2 cents. I'll be quiet now.

Experimenter
11-19-2011, 09:52 PM
Hi guys, I have been an on-again, off-again member of the EAA. I had my intoduction to "real" flying by builder and pilot extraordin-aire, George Read. My first three years flying with George set the stage for what I do and enjoy today. I have been a modeler for more than 40 years and now, following my heart, I am building a Pietenpol, just as George recommended more than 25 years ago. BAck then the SA mag was awesome, I could learn about any kind of homebuilding from perusing it's pages and it meant a lot to me, it spoke to me. The forward movement of progress has also made the EAA a more commercial enterprise, and I believe, it has moved away from the origins, from the place of Bernie Pietenpol, Wittman, Corben and so many others that experimented and taught us how to build! As we speak, I am building a Pietenpol, I want and need a magazine that represents the small, garage working experimenter, that can build and get others involved in building their own personal machine. SA has no business publishing an article on the TBM or any other non-experimental, non-homebuilt, commercially made and regulated aircraft. I do not think the TBM has the placard "This aircraft is amateur-built and does not comply with Federal Safety Regulations for Standard Aircraft". It has not spoken to me in a long time...

Jose R. Soto

Kyle Boatright
11-19-2011, 10:00 PM
SA has no business publishing an article on the TBM or any other non-experimental, non-homebuilt, commercially made and regulated aircraft. Jose R. Soto

I think the umbrella needs to be much bigger than that. Antiques, Vintage aircraft, and Warbirds are interesting to aviation enthusiasts and should be represented in SA. But not factory builts that can be purchased off of the showroom floor.

akroflyer
11-20-2011, 02:50 PM
Anyone know when we can expect TBM kits or plans? can't wait to start building one!!! Articles like that are exactly why I dropped "flying" magazine. I had to look at the magazine cover to see if I was really reading "Sport Aviation"

Mike Switzer
11-20-2011, 03:06 PM
Oh Boy... I get flying magazine for the "almost for free" professional rate for people waiting around the office to read - the December issue showed up yesterday, it has a Pipistrel LSA on the cover and what appears to be an article on flying a Cub on skis - I'm wondering if I woke up in some kind of alternate universe. :rollseyes:

MrBill
11-20-2011, 07:00 PM
There seems to be a lot of opinions on the current direction of the magazine. (I'll keep my opinion silent for now). How about a quick survey of the masses to see if they are happy with the direction. Not a place to post opinions, but just a quick yes or no vote. Tally the votes, and then ask opinions based on the outcome of the survey.
Just an idea....

RATS
11-20-2011, 08:47 PM
Having read all of the posts on both threads, and found them interesting to say the least. It would appear that folks on both sides of the coin have made some good points, but in my opinion everyone has missed the real issues. The issues are this organization belongs to the membership, and the membership is growing. The roots of this organization are firmly planted in education, and that is the premises that our planes are licensed under. Why is it that the EAA is growing at such an exponential rate?

Let me apologize now for the length of this post. Everyone seems to be upset by what the editors of Sport Aviation are doing. The problem is not what they are doing, but it is what the membership isn’t doing. Remember they work for us, we do not work for them, and we are the ones paying membership dues. It is up to us what is published in the magazine for our organization, if you are not happy with it demand a change! Just like most of you, I am very unhappy with the direction of both the EAA and Sport Aviation and it is up to us to make our feelings known!

Secondly, education is what the EAA is all about! The reason that the FAA allows us to build and fly experimental/amateur built aircraft is for education and recreation! Where does the Bell 47 or the Daher-Socata fit into this? Both of those aircraft are without a doubt fine examples of their type, but not educational. This is just a case of the leadership not knowing what the reason for their existence is! The leadership needs to find the mission statement, read it and understand it!

Why is the EAA growing at such an exponential rate? There are several reasons for that. People that are interested in aviation are looking for a source that will provide them with information. Have any of you read Flying magazine, AOPA Pilot magazine or Kitplanes? You can no longer just walk up to a magazine rack and pickup aviation magazines, and when you can find them they all include those 3 million dollar aircraft that most of us couldn’t afford ever. A lot of the guys that are flying factory built planes with a type certificate, would like to build, but don’t know where to start. If we allow Sport Aviation to employ writers like J. Mac McClellan we will also lose all of the new membership seeking information about how to get started in the homebuilding/ experimental aircraft market.
So in closing, let’s take back our organization! We all need to contact everyone at headquarters and demand they return to education and recreation! The choice belongs to us the members, will we just set back and complain, or will we stand-up and be counted? The back of your membership card contains a toll free phone number, USE IT!

Steve Carruthers
EAA 399354

Eric Witherspoon
11-23-2011, 04:05 PM
Ok, we’ll forgive the recent “new direction” as perhaps a lack of better ideas from the membership. Here’s some of mine:

My favorite feature in the magazine is “What our members are building and flying”. Surely there can be more than 3 pages devoted to this, what purportedly is the very core of the whole organization’s existence? Maybe instead of 1 “expanded featured build” each month, make it two? Or maybe 2 pages for 1 build (that does something really different, really well, or provides a more thorough explanation / photos of what they have done) – but isn’t quite as “pretty” as the subjects of multi-page feature stories – the “real deal” as built in a real garage, in a real neighborhood.
Information on how to get started. Ok, this may re-cover some old ground – but to a new member, it may be just what they are looking for to get out of looking and into building. Maybe call it “the new builder” or something to indicate that it is specifically being set aside for the less experienced. Who can do the work? What are the requirements? You’ve got the idea to buy a kit, but what are the legal hoops to go through once you’ve got it put together? Inspections along the way? I know, on a forum it's easy to say: go to the FAA website, download AC20-27G and read it - but what does that mean in practical application?
Building on this idea (something I would be really curious about) – to draw from and provide for the worldwide membership – a series of articles along the same lines – what does it take to get your owner-built airplane certified and flyable AROUND THE WORLD (as in, what do various countries require). I’ve heard of extensive flight test programs (including having to hire professional test pilots), many-hour “Phase 1’s”, extensive engineering data submitted to professional engineering authorities, extensive test data… etc. This would give us (wherever we are) some perspective on how good (or bad) we have it in our part of the world. (This could turn into a recurring column that appears a couple times a year from now until the end of time…by the time you work your way around the world, where you started would need an update…) Are there countries that don’t allow homebuilts at all? What do people do about flying there?
Building on the “who’s who at HQ” column – how about “who’s who at the FSDO” or “who’s who in the Tower” – and even expand this to world-wide as well.
Behind-the-scenes at HQ – what’s the real story behind EAA not sponsoring regional events? Any reason that has to be passed by word-of-mouth, rumor, hearsay? Put it in print so we all get the same story. What other stuff might we want to know about how headquarters works, doesn’t work, or is working on that doesn’t make for a pretty press release?

Jim Clark
11-23-2011, 11:35 PM
Sounds like the dissatisfaction with SA is closely followed by AirVenture. Maybe there needs to be a national fly-in for experimentals, like the Rockford days. The biplaners recently found their salvation in Jim Clark who now organizes the annual biplane fly-in at Junction City, Kansas, after the Bartlesville, OK event folded. Thank you Jim Clark for providing the venue for biplanes, both certified and experimental. Freeman Field at Junction City, by the way, would be a great location for an experimental fly-in. Great central location and two well maintained grass runways, plus a hard surface one for those who like to hear the squeek of tires when landing. All we need is someone to put it together. Not an easy task though. Maybe a smaller start with a multi-state event. Does EAA still provide support for regionals like Copper State? I am unaware of anything in the midwest states that approximates an experimental event. DonThanks for the kind words about the National Biplane Fly In. I have to add that EAA Chapter 1364 presents this event but we couldn't pull this off without the insurance benefit offered to EAA chapters. EAA does a lot of things right, and like many of you I am concerned about some things I see happening. Let's all just keep the main thing in focus and promote affordable aviation. When was the last time we took someone flying?

Bugs66
11-29-2011, 11:32 AM
I posted a critical review of last month's magazine. However this month's is great! :thumbsup: Go figure! Credit where credit is due. Now for some consistency.

Here are my favorite aviation magazines to date: Air Classics, Flight Journal, SA, and Kitplanes.

Treetop_Flyer
11-29-2011, 11:41 AM
That and endless droning about flying across the country with my boyfriend's son is getting as old as it was at FLYING.

You're entitled to your opinion, though I actually happen to like Lane's articles. I've been enjoying reading about her journey with Connor.

As for the TBM article, I could take it or leave it, but I do know a number of EAA members flying light twins and turboprop singles. Does this relate to the core of what EAA is? Well...maybe not. But it's one article. Let's not be so quick to burn the staff at the stake. I thought the recent "Super Chub" article was really well done as were the "Lucky Duck" and "Raising the Bar" articles. Overall, I think Sport Aviation is one of the best GA magazines out there and continues to get better every year.

That said...member feedback is what makes that magazine what it is. So feedback away!!!

Jim Clark
11-29-2011, 06:36 PM
December was a great magazine. I really enjoyed the articles by Jeff Skiles, hope to see more of those.

Kyle Boatright
11-29-2011, 08:21 PM
I give the December issue a "C" at best. More realistically, a "C-".

The Voyager article was good. The Duck article was good too.

The how-to articles and "What our members are building" stories were good as usual.

But why is there a 7 page RV-10 Pilot Report? Ed Kolano published a 7 page "RV-10 Flying Qualities" article a few years ago. Heck, both articles were written about the *exact* same aircraft - same N number, same paint scheme, same everything. I love the RV-10, but there is no reason to run what was essentially a duplicate article after only 7 years. There are plenty of other interesting aircraft out there.

Mac's column on LPV would be far better material for another publication. His full page advertorial (page 14) for Sennheiser looks like a TBM-esque sell-out given the full page Sennheiser ad on page 33.

John King's simulator article was another subject that would be a better fit for another publication.

Lane's Cheetah columns were one of the best things in Flying. Not so in SA.

Jeff Skiles story of a trip to the great white north in an Arrow was uninspiring. It wasn't an adventure. It wasn't a how-to. It just didn't seem to have much focus.

But the big take-away for me is that we might as well rebrand the magazine to "Safer Flying". I counted 7 multi-page "How to fly better/safer" articles. The LPV article, the Simulator article, the "Never Again" article, the "Destination Unknown" article, Brady Lane's "You are here" article, the "Taxi Traps" article, and Mac's "Better Pilot" article - "A Warning Offer Not Taken". I'm all for flying safer, but how about limiting this content to an article or two a month? SA is supposed to be about fun flying - the people, places, and airplanes. It has become AOPA or Flying magazine.

I'm not happy at all with the direction of the magazine.

cluttonfred
11-30-2011, 02:10 AM
Here is the message I sent to EAA and I stand by it. And no, for me the December issue wasn't much better. Articles on non-sport aviation should be the exception, not the rule.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Matthew Long
Date: Saturday, November 26, 2011
Subject: Hello, Mac, EAA calling
To: editorial@eaa.org

I am shocked by the editorial changes I see in the November 2011 issue of Sport Aviation. Most of the articles by J. Mac McLellan--and there were a lot of them--had little to do with sport aviation: building, restoring and flying homebuilt, vintage, warbird, aerobatic and ultralight aircraft. I hope Mac will get the message. If not, then perhaps he is not a good fit for EAA.

Matthew Long EAA#XXXXXX

Frank Giger
11-30-2011, 03:24 AM
I'm going to defend the Safe Flying articles on the basis that no matter how one slices the data, experimentals have a higher incident/accident rate than commercially built ones of the same category.

Personally I think a large part of that is due to the pilot who builds his aircraft flying his aircraft more than the guy who wrote out a check, as he's more likely to be personally invested in it - and the type of flying the homebuilder does (shorter trips with more landings).

But I find it hard to complain about the organization that fosters the idea of people building aircraft trying to get them to fly them as safely as possible.

Kyle Boatright
11-30-2011, 05:56 AM
I'm going to defend the Safe Flying articles on the basis that no matter how one slices the data, experimentals have a higher incident/accident rate than commercially built ones of the same category.

Personally I think a large part of that is due to the pilot who builds his aircraft flying his aircraft more than the guy who wrote out a check, as he's more likely to be personally invested in it - and the type of flying the homebuilder does (shorter trips with more landings).

But I find it hard to complain about the organization that fosters the idea of people building aircraft trying to get them to fly them as safely as possible.

You're right, there is nothing wrong with articles about how to make flying safer. But the sheer volume of those articles overwhelmed December's edition. When I think of SA, I think of a magazine that has historically been about fun flying. An inspiring magazine about great people and their airplanes. There is nothing inspiring or fun about a barrage of preachy articles about how to fly safer.

Chad Jensen
11-30-2011, 08:41 AM
But the big take-away for me is that we might as well rebrand the magazine to "Safer Flying".
One, well two, big reasons for the safety articles is because our monthly surveys continually point to the membership wanting articles on being a better pilot and safety, as well as enormous pressure from the FAA to the EAB community to reduce the fatal accident rate. We did not meet the goal for fiscal year 2011, over by 3, and it's not something the FAA is going to back down on. Perhaps we'll label the December issue 'the safety issue'...I have no idea if that was the intent or not, but I thought the issue was a really good step in the right direction.

If the November issue was graded worse than a C-, and I assume it would be, then I take your grade for December's issue as a positive step.

CarlOrton
11-30-2011, 09:54 AM
Here is the message I sent to EAA and I stand by it. And no, for me the December issue wasn't much better. Articles on non-sport aviation should be the exception, not the rule.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Matthew Long
Date: Saturday, November 26, 2011
Subject: Hello, Mac, EAA calling
To: editorial@eaa.org

I am shocked by the editorial changes I see in the November 2011 issue of Sport Aviation....
I'd be interested in knowing what response you receive.

A few weeks ago, my wife (who is a member, btw..., and who has an obviously female first name...) sent an email to "editor" about an unrelated-to-this-thread topic. Also, her middle initial is "W".

His response called her "Mr. Worton". Talk about warming up to the membership.

Bill Greenwood
11-30-2011, 01:09 PM
I think Matthew has stated the case pretty well, short and succint.
As for safety articles, I am all for them. I think we need more not less. However I wish we could make the articles more relevant. For example there is an article in the MARCH 2011 issue which is dubbed the safety issue. It is about the dangers of jet formation flights. Now I am not a jet expert, have only had one brief flight in a Soko, other than just riding in a Lear or airliner. By the way , I thought the Lear was overrated, not good cabin comfort.
I am sure that military jet formation flights are very demanding and have the potential for fatal accidents, maybe even a history of fatal accidents. I know that a number of formation jet pilots have been killed, U S, Canadian, Italian, RAF, etc.
But that really is not much the case for us civilian warbird pilots. Very few of us fly jets and even less of us fly jet formations. For the most part that is not where the danger lies. The majority of fatal warbird accidents, ( by that I mean civilian warbirds like T-6 or P-51), etc, come from one realm,that of low altitude acro or manuevering . That is doing a roll or loop at too low a level to allow recovery from a mistake or just pulling too sharp a turn or pullup on a low fly by. Take this out and you solve about 70 % of the fatal accidents.
Many experts will tell you that the key is training, that if you train enough to be an expert then the danger vanishes. All those jet teams had lots of very high quality training, they could fly great, they could march in lockstep out to the planes with the short haircuts and the tight flight suits and all the patches,and could talk all the lingo in the briefing and the bar, and still a lot of them have been lost.
But we have very few real safety efforts aimed at this cause. There are some shows, EAA in particular that approach it by just not having any acro for their fly bys.That is one way, but not the only.
We have groups called FAST. It is suppose to stand for Formation and Safety Training. There is a lot of formation training and an enormous amount of red tape that has grown up around this. Lot's of experts to show pilots how to do it, some of it that their way is the only way, ( for instance wing rock signals are good, hand signals are bad). Some of it is silly to the point of almost being like a ritual of a cult. For instance, radio silence is golden, just like they did it over Germany in the big war. But we are not at war now, nobody is listening in the U S.
So lot's of formation dogma, some very good training, and some silly stuff.
BUT VERY LITTLE REAL SAFETY TRAINING, other than the formation stuff.
For example, many experts stress the preflight briefing, as if the more you talk the farther away the danger goes. And you may be sure all those jet teams brief on and on. Doesn't seem to make them invincible.
I have virtually never heard a briefer say, ok here are the 5 or 6 things you really want to know.And the mantra is to fly as briefed, I almost never have heard them say, ok here is the plan, but we've got 50 different planes of different types and maybe airlines or military flights also, and things may not go as planned, stay calm, safe and adapt.
If you want to look at fatal accidents is normal planes, Cessna, Piper, etc. most of them are bad weather related, not acro. Same type of pattern, one type of flying results in most of the fatal losses. So in civilian training we have the student spend hours doing almost meaninless touch and gos, but spend very little time on real world weather decisons.

martymayes
11-30-2011, 08:55 PM
One, well two, big reasons for the safety articles is because our monthly surveys continually point to the membership wanting articles on being a better pilot and safety,

So how does one access these "monthly surveys?"

Chad Jensen
11-30-2011, 10:12 PM
So how does one access these "monthly surveys?"They are completely internal, done by the marketing department. It's great info for the pubs department, but internal only.

Dana
12-01-2011, 06:21 AM
Hmmm, maybe that's another sign of the problem... that EAA needs a marketing department.

Chad Jensen
12-01-2011, 07:29 AM
Hmmm, maybe that's another sign of the problem... that EAA needs a marketing department.No need...we have a very good marketing team.

Dana
12-01-2011, 05:32 PM
No need...we have a very good marketing team.

I think you may have misunderstood my comment... I was wondering why EAA needs a marketing department at all? Or who the new target audience is?

Eric Witherspoon
12-04-2011, 12:53 PM
Why a marketing department? I can think of a few, not being involved in EAA marketing in any way:
1. To attract sponsors to Airventure. Why? So it's not just airplanes tied down in a field - not sure what all sponsors pay for, but sponsorship could go towards any/all costs that putting together such an event entails, as well as keeping down the gate charge for each attendee.
2. To attract companies to advertise in the magazine. Why? So they don't have to charge $10/issue to bring us 40-pages of black-and-white. Paying for all the contributors - authors - having to conduct interviews and collect information from around the world - probably costs more than just what is charged to the membership for the magazine itself. If you were a supplier in the owner-built airplane industry, how would you decide when a multi-thousand-dollar ad is worth the investment? I would expect that EAA has someone with the data to help with those kinds of decisions.
3. The obvious - to attract new members. One example that I can see is sponsorship of the forum tents at various regional fly-in events. Also sponsorship of the Sportair workshops. If you've been to one, it's pretty clear the money isn't being made there, but if an attendee becomes a builder and/or pilot... Someone has to get the word out as to the when/where/how to sign up for these events...
I'm sure there's more than that, and maybe the "marketing department" doesn't even do all of the above - but all of the above is needed.

Norman Langlois
12-04-2011, 08:34 PM
I have one more level of discontent with the magazine.
I am an experimental builder .I have never built an aircraft . I am not even a pilot yet.
But still out in my garage there is an aircraft. I became a member back when it was light sport magazine and contained information pertinent to my project . I felt abandoned by the EAA when the new class LSA came into being and The UL became neglected and slowly disappearing. And now vertically none existent in the issues. The UL's will not go away in spite of some of the GA component that wishes it. Experimentation is affordable in the UL level . And that is were so many of the future fliers really may come from. We need more UL article as well for this reader.
If the magazine needs articles of projects persons like me .May not know how to get their projects published ,or even if or when it would be appropriate to published.
My project has a thread in the forums but never been in the magazine. Point is why aren't there articles on experimental projects under construction ,Because nothing is proven, well nothing experimental will be until it flies . Is there a fear that an article may suggest an unsafe design component? I want to see how people are doing there projects.
I am privy to such a bad experience a very good internet friend as been killed this past month. With his 9th experimental Mark Stull of Texas was killed Nov. 16th while testing his new design. A sad day for me. I learned this only today. He had articles published in sport magazine.

Frank Giger
12-06-2011, 08:27 AM
Norman, they kicked up The Experimenter for us (it's online only) and use SA for "general consumption."

The LSA focus is simple - it's the new kid on the block, and writing about something new is what writers like to write about, and more importantly the kind of content editors need to keep any publication new and fresh.

The jet stuff was a trial (I'm guessing) to see if it generated interest. It did, of course, but not the kind they anticipated.

On training, I'd like to see more "near miss" sort of scenarios and how best to handle them. I fly in and out of a non-towered field, and have seen a lot of really potentially hazardous situations during pattern work. We've had twins flying Texas sized patterns, helicopters, Champs flying dime sized patterns, some guy coming straight in on an IFR route (and stating position by IFR references), a student on his second solo in a 172, and some joker going the wrong way around unannouced AT THE SAME TIME.

We worked it out between us and everyone got down without mishap.

I've had both panels of a CTLS go blank on takeoff. Forget partial panel - this was no panel! Thankfully I had a great instructor and after leaving the pattern got it rebooted, entered back and landed (bad backup batteries or something; they replaced them and it never happened again, though the owner wound up having the whole thing replaced in an upgrade).

Heck, I took a right off the runway during fast taxi and found myself on the grass next to it. I corrected the issue without wrecking (well, except for that poor runway light, which had a different opinion on the matter) by just taking off, coming around, and landing to survey the damage (small tear in the fuselage fabric). We did a big post-mortem and found a lot of interesting factors behind why it happened.

I'd also like to see more on personal minimums. I know that they're just that - personal - but it's a topic that I'm constantly evaluating. Keep them too tight and one doesn't grow as a pilot; bite off more than one can chew and it's hazardous.

MickYoumans
12-06-2011, 04:03 PM
I don’t want to make any negative comments about the current content of Sport Aviation. *Overall it is still a good magazine, even though I think they have lost some focus on what they are supposed to be about. *I will say that I would like to see more articles on experimental aircraft, from both the designers and the builder’s perspective. *After all, I thought that was what EAA was supposed to be all about. *Back in the 80’s it seemed there was always something new in the experimental world, especially when the foam and fiberglass designs came about. *It was so exciting each month to see articles showing what was being built by other EAA members and reviews on all of the popular home-built designs. *I love experimental aircraft, but I am forced to fly a ‘spam can’ because I simply don’t have the spare time it takes to commit to building an aircraft. *I think it would be a lot of fun, but very time consuming. *The last thing I would expect to see in an EAA magazine would be an article about a commercially built airplane unless it was a restoration project done by one of our fellow EAA’ers. *I have a Piper Cherokee so I go to the Piper Owner Society group for Piper related information, not EAA. *I’m also a member of AOPA and go there for general aviation, commercial aviation and safety information, not EAA. *Negative comments were made in a previous post concerning an article about a plane that was out of the affordability range of EAA’ers. *To me it is not about the amount of money an aircraft cost. *I can’t afford ‘Space Ship One’ but I think it DOES belong in Sport Aviation because it had its birth from the roots of experimental aviation. *The other expensive plane was purely commercial and has nothing to do with experimental aircraft. *I will continue to be an EAA member and get the Sport Aviation magazine, but I do miss the days when the magazine was really about experimental aircraft. *Even though I don’t see myself being able to build an experimental airplane, it is still fun to live vicariously through those that do.

Dana
12-06-2011, 04:36 PM
Mick, speaking of "what the heck is this", what's with all the asterisks in your posts?

MickYoumans
12-06-2011, 05:18 PM
I made the post with my iPad doing a cut and paste from a word processor and it threw all of the asterics in there. I have no idea why. Since the iPad does not have a real keyboard it is a bit slower to type on so I thought I would type my post offline then copy it to the forum. I love my iPad but it does have some quirks that are annoying.

Eric Witherspoon
12-07-2011, 04:35 PM
I love experimental aircraft, but I am forced to fly a ‘spam can’ because I simply don’t have the spare time it takes to commit to building an aircraft.

Mick,
What do you think builders DO with these homebuilts when we are ready to move on to something else? We SELL them. There's nothing that says you can't BUY the homebuilt of your dreams. Just check out Barnstormers.com under Experimental - there's a whole OTHER index there of dozens of homebuilt types just waiting for new homes...

Not sure how there is this concept that homebuilts can't be operated/owned by anyone but the builder. Used homebuilts can be the best bargain in aviation - higher performance for any given price point, don't have to use FAA-approved parts, and you can do all the work yourself (only catch is having to hire an A&P 1x/year to sign for the condition inspection).

Maybe need an article on where do homebuilts go once the builder decides they need to build something else...:D

Chad Jensen
12-08-2011, 09:11 AM
Maybe need an article on where do homebuilts go once the builder decides they need to build something else...:D
I like it!:cool:

ams
12-10-2011, 06:38 PM
I am glad that I'm not alone in the concern I have about the Mr McClellan's and Ms Wallace's columns. I do not read SA for information on certified aircraft or turbo twins - unless they are on a home built. I cancelled my subscription to Flying years ago because all I saw was turbo twins and fancy avionics that I could dream about, but had nothing to do with how or what I flew. That isn't me. In addition, Mr McClellan, in my humble opinion only, tends to sensationalize the article topics - these are good topics, but they read more like a tabloid article at times. Ms Wallace's columns have potential, within the realm of promoting flying, in general - but I think, again, in my humble opinion, the focus needs to be within the realm of SA and EAA members.

However, I do not want to be totally critical; I think that both Mr McClellan and Ms Wallace have valuable experience and information that they can share with EAA members. But they need to focus on the EAA.

Some ideas - off the cuff and they may not be practical or realistic - just free flow: How about having them work on a home building project? Mr McClellan could test fly different homebuilt kits/ plans built planes (Rather than certified aircraft). Maybe he could look at reducing homebuilt accidents, or discuss flight testing post build, or things to deal with while building that may reduce accidents post build (since there seems to be a focus on safety). Could Ms Wallace write about trips to fly-ins for experimental or antique aircraft, or maybe warbirds? Or "type" gatherings - biplanes, RV's, any gathering of homebuilts. Or trips with homebuilders - fly with them as they go someplace.

Both could interact more with EAA chapters and maybe get a better knowledge and feeling of what the EAA is and who the members are, and what we are doing, and then focus their writing to meet our needs, their current audience, not the audience they have been writing for. That may help them understand us, and then use the knowledge and passion for flying that they already have, but focus on EAA member needs and interests. Just a thought. I didn't read all the submissions - if someone else suggested this, apologies for the redundancy.

DB Windom
12-15-2011, 08:17 PM
I have to admit, that I, too, have lost interest in Ms. Wallace's never-ending cross-country saga. However, I am looking forward to Jeff Skiles column and stories in future editions. As a fellow airline pilot, I am always shocked when one of us can sucessfully write something longer than a flight plan that others want to read. He is a GREAT addition to SportAviation!

stolflite
12-31-2011, 11:03 AM
lost interest here also. just scanned through the latest sa(flying.aopa) and dumped in circular file. what a waste of ink and paper
people would tell me that airplanes are just for rich people and I would say oh no that is not true, get I was the one that needed the education. well I understand what they were talking about now.

Mike M
01-01-2012, 06:32 AM
may not be practical or realistic - just free flow

ok, keeping that disclaimer in mind, i offer no facts just opinions:

Lauren Paine was doing an excellent job on "color commentary" before Lane Wallace came aboard. Robert Rossier has been versatile and expert in the "watch out for this" category for years. Assigning a professional journalist to writing test reports on experimental aircraft when we have Ed Kolano available is like asking a dentist to do brain surgery. It appears the only reason Mac and Lane were invited to the table is that they are professional journalists. Perhaps as a result of their reputations in the publishing world, our magazine is expanding its appeal to advertisers, which of course is important to the bottom line. Honda Jet, Daher-Socata, and Hearing Help Express, they didn't get that ad space for free. Maybe if SA started carrying automotive test reports, home gadget reviews, quiche recipes, or hiking trips we could get even MORE people to join EAA?