Oh I agree, the content of Sport Aviation is significantly different from what it used to be. Yes, Kitplanes has more of what used to be in SA, that said, Kitplanes has the most screwed up subscription department of any magazine i have ever dealt with. (I went round & round with them since March over them saying my subscription was expiring this spring when it was paid thru September) And I have seen things published in Kitplanes that I didn't agree with.
Feel free to forward your copies to me. I know a few science teachers to give them to in order to help get kids interested in aviation.I stopped reading the thing when it shows up. Very litte seems relevant to me, a homebuilder.
Such as?And I have seen things published in Kitplanes that I didn't agree with.
That said, I have yet to encounter an aviation magazine that doesn't publish things that are not necessarily defensible from a scientific standpoint....often because the only data source used was the manufacturer or type club (read as "potential bias") or the opinion was based on supposition and/or tradition.
As a couple of others have pointed out, most hobby magazines rely on article submissions from readers... they don't have enough paid staff (if any) to write them. I wrote a couple of articles for Ultraflight magazine a few years back. The editors just format the articles and correct spelling or grammatical errors... and yes, sadly, sometimes introduce factual errors. Nor do they [generally] pay for submitted articles.
It would be worthwhile for SA to offer anybody who submits an article and gets it published a free year of EAA membership. That would give an incentive to put the effort (and it is a fair amount of work) into writing and submitting an article. The breadth of articles would increase, and the magazine would regain that slightly amateurish touch that made it appealing and "real" to the reader.
I'm going through the Sept. Issue now, and it does look like there's a decent size "Hands on" section. Mike Busch has some real good information in the magazine, and on the webinars.
I am disappointed that safety seems to be synonymous with reinforcing the "scary little aeroplanes" stereotype. The new I'll Never do That Again column seems to be a clone of Flying's I Learned About Flying From That column. NTSB reports are printed in many aviation magazines since they're easy content, but I think they have an adverse affect on someone considering taking up flying.
I was surprised to see a display in the AirVenture Museum with a display of scary I Learned About Flying From That articles, sponsored by Flying Magazine. I would think the reaction from someone considering flying in a small plane after seeing those would be to say that risking their lives isn't worth the benefit of flying.
We need to learn from the mistakes of others. We'll never know how many people now recognize that they're in a spiral after hearing what happened to JFK Jr., but I wonder if safety content could be presented as something positive, instead of emphasizing the consequences?
Last edited by PaulDow; 09-05-2011 at 07:38 AM. Reason: typo
Dana raises an interesting point. Why don't we contribute to Sport Aviation? Virtually every one of us has something useful to say--recognizing odd noises, knowing what increasing density altitude feels like, selecting the right engine, selecting the right kit, outfitting your garage, finding the right building partner, and so forth ad nauseum.
Come to think of it, some of us have enough expertise to ensure the accuracy and completeness of candidate articles. I wonder if our magazine or our club would be willing to handle the mechanics of a list of peer reviewers.
Richard Johnson, EAA #395588
No, it's reinforcing the idea that one should learn from the mistakes of other because you'll never survive trying to learn from doing all of them yourself. I guess if you want to view it the way you choose to, that's your prerogative, but that's not how I take it at all. However, if you want to see a real uproar, try taking the other tack to safety which is design improvements both on new and existing aircraft. The only time you'll ever see someone get more defensive is if you accuse a Republican politician of being gay.I am disappointed that safety seems to be synonymous with reinforcing the "scary little aeroplanes" stereotype.
As opposed to the daily reports on every local news program and in every local newspaper about the far greater carnage due to cars? Would you rather we gloss over the safety aspects of our hobby simply to bump up our numbers?NTSB reports are printed in many aviation magazines since they're easy content, but I think they have an adverse affect on someone considering taking up flying.
I agree there needs to be more positive reinforcement of the "This is how you handle X" or (even better) the "This is how you avoid Y" but at the same time, either we get the issue of getting away from the "original purpose of the magazine" or- at least judging by a lot of the opinions espoused here and by PM to me on this forum- we go back to having our heads in the sand and focus on the latest multi-million dollar restoration of a Mustang and tips and tricks for how to get an extra five knots out of your RV or Sonex. There needs to be a happy medium between the two.We need to learn from the mistakes of others. We'll never know how many people now recognize that they're in a spiral after hearing what happened to JFK Jr., but I wonder if safety content could be presented as something positive, instead of emphasizing the consequences?
Heck, they give me a lifetime membership, or just a free year's membership and pass to Airventure, I'll start writing a regular column for them on safety that actually goes beyond "So....there I was...."It would be worthwhile for SA to offer anybody who submits an article and gets it published a free year of EAA membership.
I will, for one, volunteer to do that if anyone would like me to.I wonder if our magazine or our club would be willing to handle the mechanics of a list of peer reviewers.
Steve, with the way you sit around and find snide little retorts to people's opinions, I doubt any submitted article would make it to publication after you tore it apart. Just keep sitting around and telling everyone how wrong we are...you seem to have that down pat. By the way, does Mac give you a stipend for every retort?Originally Posted by steveinindy
I guess I didn't fully elaborate that I also believe there's good lessons in learning from past accidents. I've found the information presented at FAASteam and AOPA Foundation seminars very useful. I also realize that not everyone lives In an area where they can go to so many presentations. I'm concerned that the scary stories in aviation interest magazines could be hindering new pilot starts.
I know the local newspapers will put a front page photo of an off-airport landing with no injuries, while a car crash that kills several people gets a couple of paragraphs deep inside. I may be wrong, but I don't think motorcycle, boating, or other recreation magazines cover scary or deadly issues related to their activities.
As Paul mentioned at this year's Homebuilder's Dinner, he would like to see a homebuilder's magazine again. As we've seen in the past, there wasn't enough interest to keep Expementer going the way Warbirds and Vintage groups do for their magazines. I wonder if the current electronic version could be issued in an e-book format instead of the email format that requires you to click to read the full article or get more information? I'm sure there would be complaints from people still using their Coleco computer with a dial up modem, but I think the Kindle/Nook/PDF group might like it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote