What the heck is this???

[Eric Witherspoon]

Ok, we’ll forgive the recent “new direction” as perhaps a lack of better ideas from the membership. Here’s some of mine:

1. 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.
2. 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?
3. 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?
4. 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.
5. 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]

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

Thanks 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]

I posted a critical review of last month's magazine. However this month's is great! 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]

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]

December was a great magazine. I really enjoyed the articles by Jeff Skiles, hope to see more of those.

[Kyle Boatright]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.