Cirrus in Sport Aviation

[Kyle Boatright]

A rant:

Why does SA bother to publish an article that:

A) Isn't appropriate for SA in the first place.

B) Is a near-duplicate of the cover articles in Flying and AOPA.

There are so many interesting and unique things in the Sport Aviation community, why, oh why, does the magazine waste useful feature article space on content members can get elsewhere?

It is maddening.

[kscessnadriver]

1) Who are you to say what is and isn't sport aviation. 2) Money doesn't grow on trees.

[steveinindy]

*sigh* Here we go again...

[Kyle Boatright]

I'm a dues paying member. Would you like to see a cancelled check or a credit card reciept?

Are you implying that this was a pay for play advertorial or feature article? If you believe that, do you think that's appropriate in a member magazine, especially if it isn't clearly marked as a paid ad?

[Floatsflyer]

I don't get your A) premise. What is it exactly that makes it an inappropriate article/subject for Sport Aviation? It is about "aviation" and it certainly is included in "sport" type flying. So what if 99% of us can't afford to buy one. I suspect that if a Cirrus cost $100K new instead of $600K, you wouldn't be so pissed off.

[martymayes]

Kyle: The beatings will continue until morale improves. EAA has to bring readers up their expectations.






thanks for making my day.

[kscessnadriver]

I'm a dues paying member. Would you like to see a cancelled check or a credit card reciept?

Are you implying that this was a pay for play advertorial or feature article? If you believe that, do you think that's appropriate in a member magazine, especially if it isn't clearly marked as a paid ad?

Is it a paid ad, probably not. But by running the article, is it more likely that Cirrus will advertise, perhaps. I'm just as much a dues paying member as you are, and I've got no problem with the article.

It seems to me that EAA is at as much of a crossroads as AOPA. AOPA has been driving the little guys off by what they are doing, and those are turning to EAA. But, the hard core EAA types, like yourself, don't want to share anything but a few Quicksilver ultralight and Vans articles.

[Bill Berson]

If you read the EAA mission statement, it does not mention factory new aircraft.
(at least it didn't last time I read it last year)

[Dave Stadt]

If you read the EAA mission statement, it does not mention factory new aircraft.
(at least it didn't last time I read it last year)

Through the decades, the organization expanded its mission to include antiques, classics, warbirds, aerobatic aircraft, ultralights, helicopters, and contemporary manufactured aircraft.

http://www.eaa.org/about/ to read the entire statement.

[Kyle Boatright]

. But, the hard core EAA types, like yourself, don't want to share anything but a few Quicksilver ultralight and Vans articles.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. I want SA to show the little, uncharted nooks of sport aviation. Research like the CAFE tests, restoration stories, stories about young people in aviation, interesting aircraft, record breaking flights, heck how about a preview of the remake of the Homebuilt Camping area at Osh? Very little of that is covered by Flying and AOPA, leaving the field wide open for SA to fill its niche.

But instead, I get essentially the same article delivered to my doorstep 3 different ways - AOPA, Flying, and SA. At least AOPA and flying have an excuse - the updated Cirrus is the only pseudo-new <$1M airplane they have to report on right now that is in their wheelhouse. SA rolling out duplicate content, especially that content, is a lost opportunity to the organization.