Sport Aviation Magazine

[propjock]

You are more than welcome to complain about EAA to your heart's content - it's your right as a member, but when you start calling names you've crossed the line. Keep it clean folks! This has been a public service announcement from your friendly neighborhood moderator...

By the way; save your outrage for someone who believes you. Check out "jobti's" posting in the Red Barn Forum. Apparently any language is O.K. as long as your not critical of the EAA. This forum is not that big so don't try to plead ignorance. EAA staff would do well to lower their collective noses before they "stall".

[Zack Baughman]

By the way; save your outrage for someone who believes you. Check out "jobti's" posting in the Red Barn Forum. Apparently any language is O.K. as long as your not critical of the EAA. This forum is not that big so don't try to plead ignorance. EAA staff would do well to lower their collective noses before they "stall".

Just because I haven't seen jobti's post in the Red Barn does not excuse you calling EAA staff (or anyone else for that matter) names. Everybody else in this thread has managed to state their opinions and criticisms without resorting to name calling. I expect you to do the same. I have no problems with people being critical of EAA, as I said before, it's your right as a member. You crossed the line when you called people "pinheads."

[propjock]

Just because I haven't seen jobti's post in the Red Barn does not excuse you calling EAA staff (or anyone else for that matter) names. Everybody else in this thread has managed to state their opinions and criticisms without resorting to name calling. I expect you to do the same. I have no problems with people being critical of EAA, as I said before, it's your right as a member. You crossed the line when you called people "pinheads."

Yeah you already said that; my apologies for offending you.
But it does seem to me that this line you keep talking about resides wherever you need it at the time. I don't believe it is a coincidence that jobti's post was praising EAA staff.

[Hiperbiper]

As was said above; Sport Aviation has always been about Homebuilders and EXP flyers until now. If it continues to turn into another Plane & Pilot or Flying clone then I for one don't want or need it...
That's the great thing about the World Wide Web; I can go get any information I need through Forums, Chat rooms and blogs, SA was a great perk because it came with the membership in EAA. If EAA wants go down the path marked "All Inclusive" then don't be surprised when you loose what used to be considered you core group and become another AOPA, magizine and all.

Chris

[Hal Bryan]

Hi everybody -

This thread keeps bouncing back and forth between a valuable, impassioned, and absolutely necessary vehicle for member feedback about the magazine and EAA as a whole on the one hand, and a collection of personal attacks and conspiracy theory nonsense on the other.

Keep it useful and civil or you're gone, period.

Thanks -

Hal

[Clarke Tate]

The nature of the EAA organization and information delivery and document structure is so much different today. When I was trying not to get my father’s Sport Aviation wet, while reading that Tony Bingleis Piel Emeraude article, there was essentially Sport Aviation and possibly a mimeographed typewritten chapter newsletter to disseminate information. Today the good thing is the availability of information, even here on various EAA websites. This unfortunately leads to a very fractured record of what EAA is and what it may be decades in the future. I am sure Tony Bingelis had no idea writing about building his Emeraude would have any effect on a 7 year old many decades later; call that unintended consequence more than an anticipated goal. Sport Aviation is unfortunately tasked with a primary responsibility as the record of what this organization is and what it aspires to be hopefully many decades into the future. The unintended consequences of not realizing this and structuring the content appropriately, with this in mind, I find rather unsettling.

Information exists in the diverse aspects of EAA content currently available, might this mean folding Vintage, Warbird, and Experimenter content, or key content, into the primary publication? I am sure those members wouldn’t probably care for that. Sport Aviation was more tangibly a publication like that though; from the EAA XP-51 article when I was younger to articles on building Paul’s Pober Pixie, to a little known aircraft called the Glenn Beet’s special GB-1 (a design created by the welder of Lou Stolp’s products for many years and an article that would now probably be buried in Experimenter). Sport Aviation was diverse with a tangible builder restorer angle and yes even keeping up with what Tom, Gene and the Pobereznys were doing. Those days have passed and the organization is much larger. This is also not to say though that expensive projects were not showcased then, this is aviation! This does not mean that Sport Aviation does not have the responsibility of conveying an attitude closer to that past. The future archive for EAA members to search for information will be Sport Aviation; this same information is what will foster the potential EAA members of the future.

[Yellow Peril]

You're reasoning for the change in Sport Aviation is that so many members are GA oriented. I would guess that a huge percentage of Air Classics subscribers don't own a warbird but you don't see them changing the format. The core of EAA is homebuilts, vintage and classics, warbirds and light/ultralight. The magazine should reflect that not corporate turbo props.

[Joda]

So the actual builders like myself get an online newsletter but Warbirds, Classic and general aviation get nice slick magazines.

You need to remember that the Vintage, Warbirds, and IAC magazines come to their members at an additional cost. Those are separate divisions within EAA, with separate dues structures and separate budgets. If you want to get those extra magazines, you pay more. They also have electronic newsletters that any EAA member can get free of charge, but the printed magazine comes at an extra cost.

Which brings to this discussion the question; do EAA members who are specifically interested in homebuilding think the time has come for a separate homebuilders division, with it's own printed magazine? Would you be willing to pay an extra cost for this magazine, just like the Vintage, Warbirds or IAC members do? This idea has been discussed from time to time, but there has never been much horsepower behind it internally. Maybe it needs to be discussed more, both internally and externally. I'm not saying I'm for or against the idea of a homebuilder division, but if you want a dedicated magazine this is the only way it's going to happen.

Food for thought!

[Mike Switzer]

Which brings to this discussion the question; do EAA members who are specifically interested in homebuilding think the time has come for a separate homebuilders division, with it's own printed magazine? Would you be willing to pay an extra cost for this magazine, just like the Vintage, Warbirds or IAC members do?

I think I would, if the content was worth it. Personally, I prefer to read my magazines on paper, I spend too much time with a computer as it is. (plus paper magazines are easier to handle in the "reading room")

[Bill Berson]

You need to remember that the Vintage, Warbirds, and IAC magazines come to their members at an additional cost. Those are separate divisions within EAA, with separate dues structures and separate budgets. If you want to get those extra magazines, you pay more. They also have electronic newsletters that any EAA member can get free of charge, but the printed magazine comes at an extra cost.

Which brings to this discussion the question; do EAA members who are specifically interested in homebuilding think the time has come for a separate homebuilders division, with it's own printed magazine? Would you be willing to pay an extra cost for this magazine, just like the Vintage, Warbirds or IAC members do? This idea has been discussed from time to time, but there has never been much horsepower behind it internally. Maybe it needs to be discussed more, both internally and externally. I'm not saying I'm for or against the idea of a homebuilder division, but if you want a dedicated magazine this is the only way it's going to happen.

Food for thought!

No, the homebuilt magazine should not cost extra.
Sport Aviation, the magazine that comes with membership, should be all about homebuilts only (or at least low cost airplanes). If EAA wants to get into corporate jets and turboprop, then start another division for those interests.

Mixing everything into Sport Aviation is the problem.
Bill