Makes perfect sense with spring (hopefully) just around the corner and flying season getting under way. Don't mind the safety reminder articles one bit.Originally Posted by rwanttaja
Makes perfect sense with spring (hopefully) just around the corner and flying season getting under way. Don't mind the safety reminder articles one bit.
Ron, as usual, your article was well written and informative.
I hope the new G3X installation goes well. ;-)
I apologize for omiting a key fact in my last post. The blowhard that wrote the 1972 FLYING article was also the pilot of the 310 that was lost 3 or 4 months later. No wonder Congress acted so fast. They had just lost two noted members in a dumb accident. Boggs was Cokie Robert's Dad. The FLYING article was read into the Congressional Record. We got ELTs in record time. The editors were slammed. FLYING (or any other) ever, ever strayed from emphasizing safety.
Bob
I don't read the current Sport Aviation. ( I skim sometimes).
I do read through the archives. From '53 to around 1985 is superb. And the stuff from John Roncz and Neal Willford from 90's and early 2000’'s. Just search on the author.
Wish they would also archive the Mary Jones Experimenters, I want to read them again.
Last edited by Bill Berson; 03-06-2014 at 09:13 PM.
Regarding the posts about the March issue having 17 pages of crash and burn contrasted with an earlier comment from me about making Sport Aviation fun and fighting with my kids over the copy. March's Warbirds Digest was also their safety issue…full of crash and burn. I STILL had to fight my 10 year old son for it -- him getting it before I did. The apparent conclusion is that a safety issue CAN be fun, NOT turn people off, and promote interest in aviation.
Admittedly an unscientific survey and the results with your own 10 year old boy may vary.
Yeah but how do you think the parents of other 10 year olds will view flying if they were to pick up and read that issue and don't know much else about aviation? If I give my copy of that magazine to my neighbors kid do you think their parents are going to be more or less inclined to let me take their kid on a young eagles flight after seeing all the safety / accident articles?
I dont' think this is just a sport aviation problem either. It seems like alot of the flying magazines have run out of ideas for things to write about so they start digging up NTSB reports and writing articles about the accidents to fill space.
Keith
In all fairness to the magazines, they do this to make the FAA happy. The folks at the FAA set annual safety "goals", like they can control Mother Nature and Murphy. The FAA then "persuades" the aviation organizations to publish and support those goals. Giving up one magazine issue a year is a tax that we pay to avoid more hassle. That said, there is some useful info in most of these issues.
Personally, I find the stories about "this guy screwed up and died", or "I really scared myself so don't be me" unpersuasive. When I speak about safety I try to tell folks how my many bad friends found themselves in a jam aloft and worked their way out of the grasp of Murphy or Mother Nature to make a safe landing, or at least a landing that they could limp away from. My belief is that explaining successful coping and aeronautical problem management techniques and strategies is a lot more useful to our peers than simple "don't fly there" messaging.
Best of luck,
Wes
Agreed.
But those safety or bad occurrence stories that you characterize as unpersuasive, I find valuable, thought provoking and an educational tool.
Here in Canada all licensed civil aviation personnel receive a quarterly DOT publication called The Aviation Safety Bulletin. It contains a myriad of safety tips, do's and don'ts, how to's and how to not's and detailed TSB Accident Reports with accompanying pictures and drawings. The Reports contain occurrence details, the findings, conclusions and recommendations so as to hopefully not repeat. Under the front page masthead of the publication are the words, "Learn from the mistakes of others, you won't live long enough to make them all yourself." I fully subscribe to this mantra and I gently encourage my intrepid pilot friends here to do the same.
This thread resonates for me. I want to relate a story. I have been an EAA member since the late 1970's, and I formerly read every issue of Sport Aviation cover to cover, often standing in front of my mail box. I saved every issue. A few years ago, after the magazine changed format and content, I enthusiastically opened an issue, and flipped through it without finding a single article that interested me. Out of disappointment, I wrote a lengthy e-mail to the "editor", explaining that Sport Aviation now read like a hybrid of Flying Magazine and AOPA Pilot, and that there seemed to be nothing in it that would appeal to the core constituency of the EAA: hombuilders, restorers and warbirders. I went on to venture the opinion that while Mac Maclellan was an excellent aviation journalist, he wrote from a perspective that was inappropriate to the EAA, and that he would alienate members. My note was quite strong in tone, but fortunately it was polite because...
...about two hours later I received a phone call from the Editor of Sport Aviation, Mac Maclellan. He thanked me for my e-mail, and went on to politely and articulately explain that EAA had made a decision to diversify from its core membership base. His argument was that EAA needed to grow into an organization that would represent all of general aviation if it was to survive, and that there wouldn't be enough homebuilders and restorers to keep EAA viable in the future. His attitude seemed to be that the EAA needed to grow beyond Paul Poberezny's initial vision, and that debate on the subject within EAA was effectively over. I hope I have represented his position accurately, because it was very gracious and considerate for him to call me.
I was a bit saddened by this "news". I am a homebuilder, a vintage aeroplane enthusiast, a warbird pilot and an inveterate airplane nut. The EAA was my community. This was where I could find kindred spirits. Personally, I enjoyed Jack Cox's version of Sport Aviation far more than the current incarnation. EAA's focus on growth is at the expense of some alienation of the core members, and I think that they realize it. After all, Mac is still writing for the magazine.
I'm still a member, and I probably will be for life. The EAA does a better job representing our freedom to fly than anyone else. There are still many kindred souls at Oshkosh with whom I can talk about my crazy passions. Nevertheless, EAA needs to reconnect with its own roots. Lets help them.
Rob Erdos
RV-6
Ottawa, Canada
Being a long time reader of Flying and a on/off again member of EAA since 1986 I have a few comments. Mac always requires his writers to be active pilots and aircraft owner - at least he did at flying. Flying is merely a shell of a magazine since he left - only the very high end bijets are selling so not much money available. At least he is a pilot/ owner - the editor of SA a couple years ago was only once a student pilot. I know the EAA mag of the 50s/60s were far more interesting to some because people had the skills and time to build a plane from plans. But not really possible for most these days. The real questionable GA org in my opinion is AOPA with its turbine division and until recently a fine wine club. So Hightower is gone - so be it- EAA is looking better to me under new mgt.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote