Sport Aviation Magazine [Archive] - Page 2

Barnstorm

11-12-2011, 12:02 PM

I don't agree. There are still a large number of scratch builders. There are over 2,000 members on "The Biplane Forum" alone. I have no idea how many others are out there but I'm sure this is a small percentage. Then add in the kit builders. That makes for a lot of Experimental Aircraft. There is enough to easily support a magazine, but EAA reaches much farther than just Homebuilding.

Neil, Members on a forum are hardly builders and certainly does not translate into paying magazine subscribers.

I am Vice President of the Board of Directors of the PRA and I can tell you from experience the average person has no idea about the work and expense that goes into producing a good paper magazine now days. I can tell you that 2000 members will not support a healthy magazine for long and I doubt that 25% of those 2000 forum members would become paying subscribers. Postage costs alone have skyrocketed and pushed hundreds of publications out of business. Have you noticed that the magazine racks at stores are now only 30% on average the size they were 10 year ago???

The internet is a much better source for "How To" information than any print publication can ever be. Print publications do best for "human interest" and adventure stories with great photography.

Even if you did manage to squeek buy with a builder only magazine what then? No funds would be left over for paying for the orginzing of events, legal rights watch-dogging, sponsorship and more.

If you want nothing more than a magazine about building, try Kitplanes, in which case you will be giving back nothing to the flying community with your "subscription".

What you get out of a SUBSCRIPTION pales in comparison to what you and our sport get out of a MEMBERSHIP.

It does not seem to be centered around
homebuilt airplanes anymore. I see more certified aircraft and adds than anything.
I will probably renew my membership this month, but if this trend continues I may not next year.

Steve, have you contributed photos, stories or information to the EAA publications?

You would drop your EAA membership just because you don't like the magazine?

This boggles the mind for me. Why do people think the EAA is just a publishing house?

Have you heard of the Oshkosh event? All of the restored vintage aircraft? The museum? The full time paid lawyers and experts that analyze the FAA and TSA BS and let us know about threats to our rights to fly, own and build aircraft in this country? What about the network of chapters and the support this gives to people learning to build fly and keep communities airport friendly? Young and Old Eagles... The list goes on and on.

There is MUCH MUCH more to the EAA than a paper magazine. I think the paper magazine is one of the least important benefits.

.

martymayes

11-12-2011, 05:20 PM

how did j'all enjoy the rest of the latest issue of FLYING/AOPAPILOT/BUSINESS&COMMERCIAL AVIATION (oh, yeah, sport aviation)? something about leopards and spots comes to mind right 'bout here.

Now, now, the new name for the publication is going to be "SportMacPilot"

Mike M

11-12-2011, 06:16 PM

besides, we need to "stay tuned" to see if Lane and Connor make it to Boston in the next issue.

Don

that's FUNNY, Don, thank you!

Neil

11-12-2011, 06:16 PM

Mr. Barnstorm, I think you should go back and read all my post as well as those of Steves as you are slightly out of context. I accept Sport Aviation as it is now (though I have to admit the Daher-Socata article is a strain on that acceptance) and I know full well the internet is a better source for information than any magazine with a 2 to 3 month lead time can hope to provide. Perhaps a home builders magazine would be difficult to produce at a profit today, but that is because of the internet, not lack of interest. The number of home built completions each year is greater than the time when Sport Aviation was a builder only magazine so I have to believe the builders are out there and there are always the curious that will become "experts" and never cut tubing. Also, more than ever before, the home building community has become more global bringing even more into the fold. I fully understand that the numbers for enrollment of a given site does not reflect actual builder numbers, but I also know there are many sites out there which only adds to the real numbers. Being involved with the PRA you should know, but I only suspect that with rotorcraft the numbers of those who join out of curiosity are likely a higher percentage than those of fixed wing aircraft.

I am the Founding President of EAA Chapter 836 which is nearing 30 years as a Chapter and most of the members are builders.

And incidentally, I have written articles that have appeared in Sport Aviation and Sport Aerobatics as well as many of the Acro Sport Newsletters.

Barnstorm

11-12-2011, 10:13 PM

I mean no disrespect Neil,

I think we are just talking past each other.

I agree that an article about the TBM turbo prop is unquestionably not what I would put on my list of top 500 aircraft I would expect to appear in a magazine with the title "Sport Aviation".

But then again I am biased toward Light Sport... ;)

I know that the EAA does membership surveys that ask what subjects you would like to see in the publications because I filled one out a few years ago.

I Like to believe that the EAA is doing a good job of reflecting what the overall membership wants and it seems that it is getting lots of positive feedback. From my experience another major influence is what stories are submitted and available to print.

I have seen quite a few of the "should be more builder/pilot" discussions end up making everyone unhappy and I don't think it has to be that way.

I got my first ride in a pressurized Lancair 2 years ago and until that time I had never realized Experimental aircraft kits would ever become so complex and advanced. With that in mind I can see the same contrast as anyone looking at this months issue and November 1961 issue with the Flut-R-Bug featured on the last page.

Clarke Tate

11-13-2011, 10:32 AM

My November 2011 Sport Aviation arrived yesterday.
:thumbsup:My favorite piece was the two pages on the Sopwith F.1 Camel.
It is short but that is what I like to read about.

I read the Bob Hoover interview. The Family That Builds Together and Keep It Light and I'll Never Do That Again (A bit like I Learned About Flying From That but this type of piece is good). I quickly skimmed the piece on Tom Poberezny and I'll go back to that tonight. The Advocacy Update and information regarding medical and legal advisory services was good in Member Central (EAA letting us know what is being done for members is important; don't be quiet about what you do for us!) I didn't like how the FAA even included an accident in Indonesia in our Homebuilt accident statistics! The highlights about Jim Koepnick. Rod Hightowers commentary. Brief news areas spread through the issue. Other items will possibly be read tonight, but appeared to be of less interest to me.

What did others like?

Dana

11-15-2011, 11:29 AM

pittscub

11-15-2011, 12:14 PM

I have been an EAA member since 1978. I have built 2 airplanes (Acro Sport II & Wag's Clip-Wing Cuby) from plans (scratch) and have loved the EAA lifestyle. I am afraid to report EAA Sport Aviation is no more, as we knew it. Now to get an article in Sport Aviation all you have to do is pay for it. With the big article on the TBM in the Nov 2011 issue and the past 2 SA covers having J Mac prominently on each... I regret to say I am going to quit EAA. Also I have read that J Mac has called Burt Rutan a failure, and wonders why anyone would want to read an article about him or any of his designs. I think I am done.

I used to love Sport Aviation, and would know the exact day it would arrive in the mail. I would wait patiently for each issue, and NO one could touch it without first washing their hands. I stored them in a special place in my home that I would refer to often. That all ended, a while back with the "new and improved Sport Aviation"... or the J Mac Gazette. Well guess what... I now throw them away, so why stay with an origination that has truly forgotten what the E in EAA truly means.

Good Luck!
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45137

Chad Jensen

11-15-2011, 01:28 PM

pittscub,

If you haven't seen the other two threads talking about this very issue, check them out...

http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?150-Sport-Aviation-Magazine

and

http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?639-What-the-heck-is-this

They are long reads, and I encourage you to read through them. I won't repeat all the info there, but I will say that it disheartens me to hear that someone is willing to give up a membership to EAA based on the magazine subscription. You're a long-time member, so you know as well as I do that it's so much more than the magazine.

That being said, the magazine is going thru a change, we all know that. It's in a state of limbo right now with content, and it will eventually find it's balance. November was a big swing toward the middle, and as you'll see in December, it's gonna swing back the other way. Mac has been in charge of two issues, October and November. The cover for November changed several times because of the tragedy in Reno. The voice of the membership is being heard, trust me.

I'd really hate to lose you as a member because of the magazine. Do you subscribe to Experimenter? It's all homebuilt's, all the time...

Also, the link you put in your post is based on a conversation taken wildly out of context, and it holds no water without substantiated proof.

As the homebuilder's guy at EAA, I can guarantee that the E is not forgotten...I wouldn't be here otherwise. :)

Barnstorm

11-15-2011, 01:31 PM

You know, the fact that this thread has run to 26 pages (so far) is indication that all is not well at EAA.

I've been an EAA member, off and on, since around 1980. Currently, I'm not. Why? The last time I was a member, I joined through an ultralight chapter and chose to get Experimenter instead of Sport Aviation. It had the kind of articles I like to see (my current interest is on the lighter side, but I've owned classics in the past and enjoyed SA too... back then. I let my membership expire when Experimenter was dropped and I saw mostly plastic Euro planes in its replacement. I occasionally see SA laying around the airport and I haven't seen much to motivate me to rejoin.

How many nonmembers or former members are you not even hearing from? People who would be members if EAA was true to its roots? And what percentage of EAA members join at Oshkosh, and how many of them actually renew?

Dana,

Do you see your EAA membership as a magazine subscription or as a organisation membership?
Your explanation for dropping your membership appears to state that the only value you see is in having a magazine with articles tailored to your taste.

Do you think an aviation community of builders and pilots are better served by having 24/7 online help to questions/problems with videos and webinars provided by multiple sources or by a letter mailed to an editor with a possibly of a short reply from an editor a few months later?

The content I think you are missing is still available, in a better format but online, not in print.

How many nonmembers or former members are you not even hearing from? People who would be members if EAA was true to its roots? And what percentage of EAA members join at Oshkosh, and how many of them actually renew?

As far as membership declines go..

Could you be mistaking a symptom for a cause?

When pilot populations decline (for reasons other than EAA editors) and the internet becomes a preferred content provider for younger builders and pilots this I think makes a predictable change in print publications, not the other way around, IMHO.

Here is a post I made in the "other" thread on this topic:

----------------------------------------------------------
This thread and it's sister thread "Sport Aviation Magazine" are of keen interest to me.

I VERY much want to see how the EAA and the content editors handle this problem because an organisation I help manage has the exact same problem(s).

Problem 1. A percentage of sometimes highly vocal members see the org not as a club/group of aviation enthusiasts that promote aviation through world-class events, fly-ins, sponsor-ships, Young /Old Eagles, Museums, restorations, on-line tools with support, legal watch-dogging and activism but ONLY AS A MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTION.

Problem 2. An aging population that are unwilling / unable to see or understand the movement of the media world from PRINT to DIGITAL. Print "Pinch" has killed many great publications and organisations that have not been able to make this transition. Print cost and postage costs continue to go through the roof, internet media draws away the younger subscribers and the remaining pool of subscribers feel the cost of a $50 publication that now leaves little remaining revenue for any projects outside of the quickly dying print publication.

Problem 3. As online media continues to prove a better media for quick news, better responses to troubleshooting questions, many stories, photos, how to and help content is directed away from the print media leaving mostly "human interest" and high end photography as the last bastions for print content. Sensing this change even the print sticklers now complain about the print media content because the format is not covering the topics they once found in the pre-digital revolution days. Print editors to meet the financial needs of a print publication have to appeal to wider and wider audiences and even when 4 or 5 articles are "on topic" to the reader seeing a few "off topic" articles causes a sense of abandonment. Citing examples like "Kitplanes" where the organisation is not a pilot "org" but a publishing house, subscribers completely forget about all of the other benefits of the org (see problem 1) and don't understand why the org can't "be like them".

Ironically, as we see in these threads:

"Concerned Members" that are affected by Problem 1, then inspired by Problem 3, cancel their "subscription" (membership) in "Protest" thinking they are some how helping the org, as if non-participation is a valid form of communication when what they are doing is actually compounding Problem 2.

Thus they are contributing causes to the the change that upset them in the first place.

All that said.... Sport Aviation really does need to publish more GYRO articles!

Zack Baughman

11-15-2011, 02:11 PM

All that said.... Sport Aviation really does need to publish more GYRO articles!

AGREED!!!!:thumbsup:

Zack the rotornut

Hal Bryan

11-15-2011, 02:59 PM

AGREED!!!!:thumbsup:

Zack the rotornut

Ditto. I need some encouragement to get beyond that .5 of gyro time in my logbook ... ;)

wyoranch

11-15-2011, 03:36 PM

Regarding SA I see it like this......
1) TBM articles do NOT belong in SA. And it is quite alarming that they (EAA - I guess in particular Mac) is losing focus of what their demographic is.
2) EAA is really missing the boat by (appearently) NOT combing these forums for ideas and topics.

I do have a question though. Does it seem that the TBM article was TOTALLY out of left field. Skipping the part of whether or not it belongs in the magazine. I am curious if a "donation" was made to EAA by TBM. IF so, I have no problem with it, just tag it like in other publications as a "special advertising section" and give us news and info that is relevent in addition to the ad.
I will always be a member, as I am optimistic that some of what I contribute goes to the "grass roots", what EAA was all about. Will I read the magazine? Probably not anymore as I am skeptical of the motivation behind some of the articles.
I just find so hard to believe that the powers that be are so far off the mark on what is important to us.
Rick

Clarke Tate

11-15-2011, 03:50 PM

Daher-Socata sponsored two Young Eagles in a trip to their Tarbes, France operation for example (Something Tom Poberezny discussed in the Sport Aviation with FiFi on the cover) and seems to be an active supporter of EAA. I personally would have preferred seeing a few more pages of that Camel project in the last Sport Aviation. I do thank Daher-Socata and other supporters such as Ford; with the climate in Washington I doubt we could lobby without corporate assistance of our organization. That sad realization about what drives some of the content. :-(

Barnstorm

11-15-2011, 03:56 PM

AGREED!!!!:thumbsup:

Zack the rotornut

Ditto. I need some encouragement to get beyond that .5 of gyro time in my logbook ... ;)

I am happy to help!

Just let me know!

.

Chad Jensen

11-15-2011, 04:12 PM

I do have a question though. Does it seem that the TBM article was TOTALLY out of left field. Skipping the part of whether or not it belongs in the magazine. I am curious if a "donation" was made to EAA by TBM. IF so, I have no problem with it, just tag it like in other publications as a "special advertising section" and give us news and info that is relevent in addition to the ad.
Rick
Here are the major sponsors of AirVenture...Daher-Socata is a Silver level sponsor. I have no idea what that level means, but they are a big contributor...

http://www.airventure.org/partners/sponsors.html

KDoersom

11-15-2011, 04:38 PM

Mark Cook is no longer the editor of kitplanes. Maybe EAA could make him an offer. He's has built a couple of homebuilts after all.

Dana

11-15-2011, 07:28 PM

Dana,

Do you see your EAA membership as a magazine subscription or as a organisation membership?
Your explanation for dropping your membership appears to state that the only value you see is in having a magazine with articles tailored to your taste.

Do you think an aviation community of builders and pilots are better served by having 24/7 online help to questions/problems with videos and webinars provided by multiple sources or by a letter mailed to an editor with a possibly of a short reply from an editor a few months later?

The content I think you are missing is still available, in a better format but online, not in print.

The magazine is important... it reflects (or should reflect) the mission of the organization. Online content is important too, nowadays (and EAA has some excellent online content), but it serves a different purpose. I go online to search for specific information, but in a magazine I want to see things I wouldn't necessarily have searched out, but are still interesting. For example, I don't fly a gyro and likely never will, but I can relate to (and enjoy reading!) an article on a homebuilt gyro, or the restoration of an antique biplane I'll never be able to afford. Ditto for an article on, say, building techniques I don't need now (or an advert for a product I don't need now) but file away for possible future use. I can't related to a pirep on a TBM, or review of the latest $30K avionics package. I'll read a magazine in different places, at different times, and for different reasons, than I would online content... in bed, or the bathroom, or on the bus, whatever.

Hmmm... it just occurred to me as I was typing this... online forums such as this one, or homebuiltairplanes.com (http://homebuiltairplanes.com), are probably replacing the chapters for many people.

Alan Carroll

11-15-2011, 08:41 PM

The magazine is important... it reflects (or should reflect) the mission of the organization.

This comment hits the nail on the head. Its not just another magazine, its the focal point of the organization and its members. If "reviews" of business aircraft must be included to help the bottom line so be it. Thinly-veiled advertising should not be presented as a lead article however; the layout of the magazine is a direct expression of the values of the organization.

Whether the information is presented in print media or electronically seems kind of irrelevant to this issue. The underlying question is whether EAA plans to continue to serve as the voice of the sport aviation community (however that is defined), or if they have a different direction in mind.

PaulDow

11-17-2011, 09:28 AM

As we all know, the International Experimental Aircraft Assoc. Fly-In Convention, now known as AirVenture (R) has some exhibits and attractions that aren't of interest to the historically traditional EAA member. At the convention, we skip over (and complain about) the things we don't want to see, such as the equipment and aircraft that have two commas in the price.

The magazine is changing the same way where I no longer read it cover-to-cover, but skip articles and advertisements that I have no interest in. The advantage to the magazine over the convention is that skipping over paper is much easier than walking half a mile to get from educational forums to vintage aircraft.

The change I'm accustomed to in the organization is from homebuilders to "The Leader in Recreational Aviation." It's the continued migration toward business, current-day military, and airline aviation that is making me skip pages. The question is how many pages am I going to be skipping, and how much walking do I need to do?

Barnstorm

11-17-2011, 09:43 AM

The magazine is changing the same way where I no longer read it cover-to-cover, but skip articles and advertisements that I have no interest in. The advantage to the magazine over the convention is that skipping over paper is much easier than walking half a mile to get from educational forums to vintage aircraft........
.......The question is how many pages am I going to be skipping, and how much walking do I need to do?

A well worded post Paul.

I am skipping those pages as well, but I have to admit, I do take in all aspects of aviation at Airventure, that is part of the appeal for me.

You are using Magazine in the singular. Do you know that "Experimenter" and one of my favorites "Light Plane World" are digital magazines that you get for FREE as an EAA member?

I don't think you would be skipping any pages when reading these and if you want them on paper you just have to hit PRINT.

.1105
http://www.eaa.org/images/newslet-homebuilders.gif
1106

Mike Switzer

11-17-2011, 10:20 AM

Do you know that "Experimenter" and one of my favorites "Light Plane World" are digital magazines that you get for FREE as an EAA member?

Which is fine & dandy if you are one of the less than 50% of the population that has a high speed internet connection.

I like experimenter, BUT, I am on Comcast cable (which is a significant improvement over dialup) and frequently the pictures & graphics will not load for me. I pity the poor guy trying to read it who is on a dialup connection because he lives out of town.

Bill Berson

11-17-2011, 10:30 AM

The magazine is important... it reflects (or should reflect) the mission of the organization.

Indeed.
But EAA does not always represent the mission of the homebuilder anymore, in my opinion. Instead, EAA has sided with commercial airplane manufacturers and has drifted from the original mission.
For example:
From the early 80's till 2004 it was possible to legally design and build a two- seat ultralight (with an EAA exemption) that did not require a pilot certificate or aircraft registration. This fact caused much interest and activity.
But EAA lost or gave up this exemption program in favor of the Light Sport program that clearly favors manufacturers, not homebuilders.

This is why the EAA mission should not have been diluted with competing general aviation interests.
Bill

Hal Bryan

11-17-2011, 11:08 AM

Mike -

First off, the issues you describe about pictures not loading in your newsletters doesn't sound like it's bandwidth related at all, especially since you're on cable Internet. I'd encourage you to please email us at webmaster@eaa.org to see if we can figure out what's causing the problem. We get, on average, 1 similar report every 6 months, and we can almost always find the culprit.

Also, there's a couple of things I need to point out:

First, broadband penetration in the United States as of last July was 77.5%, though I'm the first to admit that A) we don't have those numbers specifically for EAA members / newsletter subscribers and B) my guess is that the percentage could be lower across EAA membership specifically.

Second, as the newsletters are built, we actually measure download times at various Internet speeds - I just looked at one that's going out in the next day or so, and the projected download time on 28.8k dial-up is 5 minutes and 4 seconds - figure on just over half that time for the much more likely scenario of 57.6k dial-up.

5 minutes is a long time, no question about it. And you couldn't drag me back to the word of dial-up for anything. But clicking a link and then making a cup of coffee and coming back in a few minutes to read doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.

Cheers -

Hal

Mike Switzer

11-17-2011, 11:39 AM

Hal - I am pretty sure it is an issue with Comcast. I read most of the articles from the Experimenter that came out earlier this week with no problems, but I believe last week (or maybe 2 weeks ago) it wouldn't load completely, but I was trying to read it at 530pm. I am at the end of the Comcast line, I had to beg them to extend it the ~350 feet to get it in here.

At any rate, if it was a single downloadable pdf file you could set it to download no matter how long it takes & read it at your leisure.

Barnstorm

11-17-2011, 11:50 AM

From the early 80's till 2004 it was possible to legally design and build a two- seat ultralight (with an EAA exemption) that did not require a pilot certificate or aircraft registration. This fact caused much interest and activity.

But EAA lost or gave up this exemption program in favor of the Light Sport program that clearly favors manufacturers, not homebuilders.

Mostly wrong.

1. The EAA exemption was not so " it was possible to legally design and build a two- seat ultralight" the exemption was for TRAINING. The very fact that you described the exemption this way proves how flawed the system was. The vast majority were simply using this exemption to fly 2 place machines that should have been registered as Experimental Amateur Built aircraft. This abuse of the system was very dangerous for the uninformed passenger and the result became a big problem for legitimate instructors once Sport Pilot came out.

2. The FAA created sport pilot not the EAA.

3. The current situation with LODA's and training in Light Sport Aircraft IS UNACCEPTABLE, but that flaw was introduced by the FAA not the EAA and the EAA has been working very hard to have these issues corrected.

.

Barnstorm

11-17-2011, 11:53 AM

At any rate, if it was a single downloadable pdf file you could set it to download no matter how long it takes & read it at your leisure.

Mike,

You might want to try a Print-to-PDF software, many are free like this one: http://www.pdfforge.org/pdfcreator

. (http://www.pdfforge.org/pdfcreator)

PaulDow

11-17-2011, 12:27 PM

A well worded post Paul.

You are using Magazine in the singular. Do you know that "Experimenter" and one of my favorites "Light Plane World" are digital magazines that you get for FREE as an EAA member?

I don't think you would be skipping any pages when reading these and if you want them on paper you just have to hit PRINT.
Thanks for the compliment. I agree that Experimenter has a lot of information that I'm interested in. I should take a look at Light Sport. I'm not fond of the email format where we have to keep clicking to get the full article. I asked Mac about making an e-reader format for the electronic magazines when I saw him in Hartford last month. Hopefully there's enough interest, and not too much work involved, to make the adjustment.

Mike Switzer

11-17-2011, 12:32 PM

I'm not fond of the email format where we have to keep clicking to get the full article. I asked Mac about making an e-reader format for the electronic magazines when I saw him in Hartford last month. Hopefully there's enough interest, and not too much work involved, to make the adjustment.

I agree with this. (but a standard pdf, not a proprietary format)

Hangar10

11-17-2011, 01:02 PM

I would be in favor of that too... a PDF version. I don't really like web or e-mail based newsletters that I have to scan around or click different links to read a complete story. Occasaionally another site or story is referenced in the text, that is understandable, but for the bulk of every article to be located somewhere else... well, even printing to PDF leaves the reader having to come back to his computer to get the rest of the stroy, or running all over the place to print various pages.

Perhaps a PDF with a table of contents, maybe an interactive "In This Issue" that will jump to articles (or at least the page) when the title is clicked. This would simplify things for those that prefer to read on screen, but also make for a nicer print version. In addition, readers could easily save and archive issues that they find helpful.

markjohn

11-17-2011, 01:24 PM

I just found this thread and read through the whole thing after also being shocked by the TBM article in SA. Though the TBM article wasn't the first sign of the bad direction under Mr. McClellan. As somebody who has interacted with Mr. McClellan in the past I can say he is an alright guy. But to be very clear, he is most interested in business aviation. It is clear that after being fired from Flying he needed to find a way to stay connected to the business aviation world. With his reports from NBAA on the website, it is clear that he has found his avenue to allow him to continue in the bizav community. Unfortunately EAA should not be that avenue.

I am shocked to see EAA staff defending the concerns on this thread regarding the bizav focus under Mr. McClellan by repeatedly pointing out that 2/3 of the membership are not homebuilders. This is a TOTAL red herring. As many have stated, the reason those 2/3s joined EAA was because of what EAA offered, an alternative to other aviation organizations/publications. That is how EAA GREW its membership. Not by diluting its mission. You can grow your membership by offering something unique and interesting to people who want to be involved with an interesting and unique part of the aviation community.

Many analogies have been used, but to overdo it with another one...I subscribe to Vintage Motorsport magazine and belong to a vintage motorsport organization. I have never owned a vintage motorsport car. I probably never will. I joined and read the magazine because I am interested in the vintage motorsport world and like to read about it. I am guessing that if the magazine/organization did a poll, they would find that far more than 2/3s of their readers do not own a vintage motorsport car. Like me they drive an average car, maybe a sports car. But the magazine is not running stories about the new Toyota Camry or even the new Porsche Carrera. They know there are other magazines that cover that segment of the market and they stay FOCUSED on their mission and the reason people buy the magazine, vintage motorsports.

So please stop using the 1/3, 2/3 argument as justification for running stories about what you think the 2/3s flies. They came to EAA because it had a specific focus not covered elsewhere. If every organization simply surveyed their members and catered to what they had in common, every membership magazine would be about a house in the suburbs, testing minivans and sedans and talking about how to raise 2.3 kids. Because that's what the majority of their members represent.

And please get rid of Mr. McClellan before he spends any more of my hard earned EAA donations on flights to NBAA or stories that serve his own selfish reasons, and not the mission of the organization.

Bill Berson

11-17-2011, 01:48 PM

Mostly wrong.

1. The EAA exemption was not so " it was possible to legally design and build a two- seat ultralight" the exemption was for TRAINING. The very fact that you described the exemption this way proves how flawed the system was. The vast majority were simply using this exemption to fly 2 place machines that should have been registered as Experimental Amateur Built aircraft. This abuse of the system was very dangerous for the uninformed passenger and the result became a big problem for legitimate instructors once Sport Pilot came out.

2. The FAA created sport pilot not the EAA.

3. The current situation with LODA's and training in Light Sport Aircraft IS UNACCEPTABLE, but that flaw was introduced by the FAA not the EAA and the EAA has been working very hard to have these issues corrected.

.

The exemption allowed heavier pilots the option of flying a safer and heavier aircraft in solo flight. Just because the exemption intent was for training, did not prevent pilots from choosing a safer option, and so they did. EAA could have enforced the exemption better to restrict the passenger flights. But the fact remains that the exemption allowed a safer aircraft for solo flight. That was my point.
EAA strongly pushed Sport Pilot Rules, I know, I have been an EAA member off and on now more than 35 years.
Bill

Chad Jensen

11-17-2011, 03:35 PM

I am shocked to see EAA staff defending the concerns on this thread regarding the bizav focus under Mr. McClellan by repeatedly pointing out that 2/3 of the membership are not homebuilders.
You're putting words in our mouths here...no where have we defended anything regarding "bizav". All of this a bit of an overreaction to one article. Sure there have been articles on other GA airplanes, but the article that has created this buzz is obviously the TBM article (of which, believe or not, we have had a lot of good feedback on). I'm not saying that I like that it's there, just that there are definitely those that are interested in it, for some reason or another. It may have sprouted from advertising dollars, I honestly don't know, but Sport Aviation won't become a "bizav" magazine to suite Mac's needs. Mac is a good guy, as previously mentioned, and I truly think he is getting a good experimental education here.

Look, I could spoil everyone's surprise when the December and subsequent issues show up in your inbox or mailbox, but I won't...just be patient and let a the chips fall under the current change in the pubs division at EAA. I really honestly think you'll like what's coming. I'm not in charge, so I can't promise anything, but from what I've seen, and the rumblings of future articles around here sound really good to me.

Dana

11-17-2011, 05:58 PM

I agree with this. (but a standard pdf, not a proprietary format)

PDF works well on computer screens, but it truly sucks on small screens like ereaders or tablets. Ebook formats like kindle or mobi work much better... and that can be almost as good as paper.

Clarke Tate

11-17-2011, 09:16 PM

I have had a Flight International digital subscription for nearly six years for reading on my tablet PC. During that time it has gone from Zinio, to Newsstand, and very recently to yet another (Ceros I believe). I now save PDF files of Flight International to read on my tablet. This is great for archiving and much better than the proprietary Zinio that I truly disliked. PDF is also better than the issues of Aeroplane Monthly I have tried on the iPad. The pages flip very fancy on the iPad ,which I really like, but archiving will be problematic.

The PDF files EAA is creating of Experimenter and other online offerings are just fine for me!

Kyle Boatright

11-17-2011, 09:22 PM

I just found this thread and read through the whole thing after also being shocked by the TBM article in SA.

<Lots of great stuff snipped>

I don't think this is a personal issue (WRT Mac or EAA Staff), but otherwise your thoughts match mine exactly...

Kyle Boatright

11-17-2011, 09:41 PM

<snip>

All of this a bit of an overreaction to one article.

<snip>

So far this year, we've seen articles about light twins, C-182's, the TBM, certified avionics, a "Contrails" column about a people tube, multiple columns on Lane's endless trip in her Cheetah, and a "hands on" article about a guy doing a checkbook upgrade of his 1984 Bonanza. And those are the just the ones I can think of off-hand.

So, it wasn't one article. The TBM article was a defining event which caused a lot of people to recognize what has been happening for a while.

The thing people have to understand is that SA is the personification of the EAA and the touchstone which connects members back to the parent organization on a monthly basis. It isn't just about airplanes or transportation via airplane. It is about unique people, their interesting stories, and their incredible aircraft. Remove one or two of the elements, and the magazine's soul is gone.

By the way, I'm looking forward to the December issue.

markjohn

11-18-2011, 12:19 AM

Chad, sorry about putting words in your mouth. After rereading it, I realize nobody defends business aviation specifically. But I feel that more than one EAA staffer has justified recent stories by mentioning the different types of members in the EAA. I assume these numbers are from surveys. But again, I think you're defending changes based on data that isn't related to the changes. You mentioned looking at the north 40 to see the diverse types of aviation interests within EAA. But those people who park in the north 40 don't come to Oshkosh or read Sport Aviation to see Cherokee 140s or Cessna 182s (with all do respect to those owners, I picked those two aircraft as they are aircraft I have owned and flown to Oshkosh).

I think when you say things like, "Sport Aviation is no different, and in order to keep it going, there needs to be a spot in there for everyone. There is room for everyone. EAA is and always has been an organization that embraces all facets of aviation...just look at at the arrivals at AirVenture every summer" you miss the point. "Everyone" who is a member of EAA doesn't necessarily want to read about every type of airplane. That's why we have other outlets. Aviation Week if you're an industry type, AOPA Pilot for GA, Smithsonian A&S for historical stuff and thanks to Mr. McClellan, Flying for business aviation stuff.

You said, "the magazine is EAA's flagship, and as a flagship it has to include things all of our members are interested in." Correct! But I'm guessing many of your members are interested in fishing as well. So does your system justify featuring stories about the best bass boats?

If you were to survey the crowd at a NASCAR or F1 race you would find they don't drive the cars featured in magazines about those interests. And if you were to look at the "north 40" parking lots you would find minvans and sedans. But those people attend those events and read magazines about those cars because they are interested in NASCAR or F1.

Don't think that changing SA to the least common denominator, aka a little bit for every possible aviation interest is going to grow EAA. EAA grows because it offers something pilots cannot find elsewhere. And that is the aforementioned homebuilders, warbird enthusiasts and vintage/antique fanatics. SA was a place to see a little bit of everything found in EAA with a focus on homebuilding.

And like Kyle says, please don't talk down us by saying this is just an "overreaction" to one article. This has been brewing for several months with numerous articles on eaa.org, as well as multiple articles in the magazine as Kyle outlined. The TBM story was simply the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back because it was so far outside the EAA world. The fact is that Mac as director of publications appears to have a strong interest in continuing his interests rather than working for the members who make up EAA.

And who has such an ego as to have a picture of themselves on one of the first issues under his control?

Chad Jensen

11-18-2011, 09:15 AM

And like Kyle says, please don't talk down us by saying this is just an "overreaction" to one article.
My apologies...I would NEVER want to make any one feel as though they are being talked down to. My statement was based on exactly what you wrote, the one article that finally "broke the camel's back" to breakout threads such as this one.

I can see both sides of the story here...when I owned a Cherokee 180, and flew it to Oshkosh four times, I would read anything and everything I could get my hands on about Cherokee 180's. If it was in SA, I loved it. If it was in Flying, I loved it. But I also COMPLETELY recognize the fact that there are a lot of the membership that don't see it that way, and they want to read about anything and everything that isn't a Cherokee 180.

When an organization is as diverse as EAA is, there are so many people to please that will never be pleased because each one wants something for just them. We get letters and emails on both sides...people that hate the magazine, and people that love the magazine. I've seen emails from both sides this morning. We do survey each and every issue, and have done so since about April of 2008. The results of all those monthly surveys is where we are at with the magazine today. It's still gonna change...we will find the balance again.

Chad Jensen

11-18-2011, 09:18 AM

And folks, I am the Homebuilder guy at EAA... I LOVE EVERYTHING HOMEBUILT...seriously, I would as happy as a clam if all we covered was homebuilt airplanes. But I do recognize the fact that our membership does want to read about lot of different types and categories.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... the E in EAA has not been forgotten. I wouldn't be working here if it that were true.

Bill Berson

11-18-2011, 11:33 AM

I remember Jack Cox sometimes would write an article about a production airplane RESTORATION (classics only, no Cherokee 180) with information about the parts and rebuild process. I wasn't thrilled by this, but at least it had useful stuff.

Factory new aircraft were not covered because it was simply beyond the purpose of EAA. That policy has changed a few years ago, obviously.

Why doesn't EAA explain the mission? Is marketing factory new aircraft the mission of EAA now?
When Mac was hired, I heard Mac say (EAA podcast) that he was hired to talk about jets and factory airplanes. I think he said something about the Gulfstream 650 on that podcast.

For me, EAA should stick with low cost aircraft building or restoration. We all know aviation is in a death spiral and will not grow by promoting and advertising jets and turboprops or $500,000 piston homebuilts.
Chad, what is the EAA mission? (please don't say EAA must be open to everything)

pittscub

11-18-2011, 11:46 AM

While reading the posts here I was reminded of the time they ran a full page color photo of Paul Poberezny on his new Harley-Davidson. It was inside the magazine, and everyone went crazy complaining about that.

Now we have Mac MacClellan putting himself front and center on the PAST 2 covers. Outrages!

Please ship MacClellan back to FLYING where he belongs so I can continue to NOT subscribe to that goofy magazine. Dont make Sport Aviation into a clone of that goofy magazine!!!

I have renewed my EAA membership (member since 1978) and lets see where this goes.

Mike

martymayes

11-18-2011, 11:49 AM

But I do recognize the fact that our membership does want to read about lot of different types and categories.

Really? Do EAA members call and write in requesting articles about production turboprop and/or jet aircraft?

Zack Baughman

11-18-2011, 11:54 AM

Bill - you asked about EAA's mission. This comes directly from literature that was given to every EAA employee a few years back. EAA's mission is simply, "to share the spirit of aviation." This is done by: creating a community of members that share a passion for flying, building, and restoring aircraft and connecting those members to each other; providing reasons to fly and opportunities to participate; deliver resources that enhance participation; make flying more accessible and affordable; and protecting your right to fly and grow aviation.

Zack

Kyle Boatright

11-18-2011, 12:40 PM

And like Kyle says, please don't talk down us by saying this is just an "overreaction" to one article.

Just to keep the record straight, I don't think (and didn't write) that anyone is talking down to anyone else in these forums. I think this forum is an excellent feedback mechanism for the EAA. I'm sure the folks at the top are aware of the angst SA's direction is causing.

Bill Berson

11-18-2011, 12:54 PM

Thanks for the mission statement from a few years back , I don't see anything about supporting factory or commercial aircraft in that statement.
Maybe you could find and post what the current mission is.
Bill

Chad Jensen

11-18-2011, 01:14 PM

Chad, what is the EAA mission? (please don't say EAA must be open to everything)

Straight off of EAA's website...

EAA is a growing and diverse organization of members with a wide range of aviation interests and backgrounds. EAA was founded in 1953 by a group of individuals in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, who were interested in building their own airplanes. Through the decades, the organization expanded its mission to include antiques, classics, warbirds, aerobatic aircraft, ultralights, helicopters, and contemporary manufactured aircraft.

How does one describe an EAA member? Well, how does one describe the feeling of taking off into a stiff headwind? The answer: If you don't know, you'll just have to join us to find out. EAA members are what we like to call the "keepers of the flame." Sure, we love airplanes. We fly them. We fix them. We even build them. But it goes beyond that. It's about passion, camaraderie, that ol' can-do spirit, and a grassroots way of sharing our love of aviation with others. Whatever it takes to stand in the footsteps of Orville and Wilbur ... if only for a moment.

EAA enables you to share the spirit of aviation with the most passionate community of recreational pilots, builders, and restorers.

EAA is the only association that offers the fun and camaraderie of sharing your passion for participating in the flying, building, and restoring of recreational aircraft with the most passionate community of aviation enthusiasts.

Chad Jensen

11-18-2011, 01:22 PM

Really? Do EAA members call and write in requesting articles about production turboprop and/or jet aircraft?
I'm guessing here, but to answer your specific question, probably not. That's not what I'm saying though. Look, I don't agree with the TBM article being published, and that's okay. A lot of people have found it interesting. That's okay too. It's still an airplane, a cool one at that, and if you didn't like the article, flip the pages to next article.

No one is going to win this argument, and this thread could go on for years...literally. It was a bad choice to some, and a good choice to others.

Chad Jensen

11-18-2011, 01:23 PM

Just to keep the record straight, I don't think (and didn't write) that anyone is talking down to anyone else in these forums. I think this forum is an excellent feedback mechanism for the EAA. I'm sure the folks at the top are aware of the angst SA's direction is causing.
They absolutely are Kyle.

martymayes

11-18-2011, 01:23 PM

Straight off of EAA's website...

EAA enables you to share the spirit of aviation with the most passionate community of recreational pilots, builders, and restorers.

EAA is the only association that offers the fun and camaraderie of sharing your passion for participating in the flying, building, and restoring of recreational aircraft with the most passionate community of aviation enthusiasts.

How exactly does high $$$$ production turboprops fit in? Do EAAer's really purchase and fly those for "recreation?"

Chad Jensen

11-18-2011, 01:27 PM

How exactly does high $$$$ production turboprops fit in?
I would say it fits in with the inclusion of contemporary manufactured aircraft.

Do EAAer's really purchase and fly those for "recreation?"
Sure they do...I used to sell these things (when I worked for an FBO), and I know for a fact that about half of the guys that I did business with were EAA members, and had a HUGE interest in EAA and homebuilding...some of them even had projects at home, or completed a homebuilt airplane.

Bill Berson

11-18-2011, 03:21 PM

There seems to be confusion about the definition of "contemporary aircraft" here and at EAA.
I looked up contemporary in the dictionary and found 5 definitions including: 1. "of about the same age",or 2. "present time"

It would depend on how EAA chooses to define contemporary. For that, I checked the EAA Judges Manual and found:

October 2011
15

II. DEFINITIONS
A. Antique Aircraft
An aircraft constructed by the original manufacturer, or his licensee, on or before
August 31, 1945, with the exception of certain Pre-World War II aircraft models,
which had only a small post-war production, shall be defined as Antique Aircraft.
Examples: Beechcraft Staggerwing, Fairchild 24, and Monocoupe.
B. Classic Aircraft
An aircraft constructed by the original manufacturer, or his licensee, on or after
September 1, 1945, up to and including December 31, 1955.
C. Contemporary Aircraft
An aircraft constructed by the original manufacturer, or its licensee, on or after
January 1, 1956, up to and including December 31, 1970.

D. Continuously Maintained Aircraft
An aircraft with proof of construction by the original manufacturer, or his licensee,
which has received periodic maintenance, repair, recover, and/or replacement of
parts, but which has never been completely disassembled and rebuilt or
remanufactured to new or better-than-new condition.
E. Restored Aircraft
An aircraft with proof of construction by the original manufacturer, or his licensee,
that has been disassembled into its component parts, which were then either,
replaced, refurbished, or remanufactured to be equal to or as good as new
condition.
F. Customized Aircraft
An aircraft with proof of construction by the original manufacturer, or licensee,
which has been obviously modified from its original appearance. Such
modifications could include airframe structural changes, paint schemes, interior
and upholstery, instrument panel, or engine and cowling, etc.
G. Replica Aircraft
An aircraft constructed exactly to the original manufacturer’s plans, full size in
scale, but not constructed by the original manufacturer or his licensee.

So I remain confused about EAA's mission statement regarding factory new aircraft and especially factory new corporate aircraft that have no relation to sport or recreational aviation.
Bill

steveinindy

11-18-2011, 03:44 PM

certified avionics

And this in particular is a problem why? Some of us homebuilders actually WANT to use those because we figure if you're going to use something in an airplane, it should be actually held to the same standards as what is installed in a factory built airplane. Experimental status is, and this may come as a shock to some and a perceived slight to others, not an invitation to cut corners or try to save a few buck on construction. At least, that's how I look at it. I may very well be wrong, but then again if all things are equal with the "eh, it works" approach to construction, why do experimental aircraft have such a bigger issue with loss of engine power incidents and crashes (as an example)? I've had to pass on a lot of really nice looking and very functional avionics because of the manufacturers not having taken the extra step to achieve certification. In fact, there's a couple of those PFDs out there on the experimental market that if the companies ever get them properly qual'ed, I'd rip out the Garmin or whatever I end up installing in favor of.

I find myself flipping past articles or threads discussing the latest rehashing of cramming a car engine or suped up lawnmower engine into a plane because that has nothing to do with the aspects of homebuilding that interest me. Would it be too much to ask for those of you who are content with a non-certificated avionics, a Rotax or whatever to let those of us (admittedly a minority) to have our corner of the magazine for things like certificated avionics, turboprop engines, pressurization systems, etc. As for the NBAA bashing....guess what? I'm not building my plane to just scoot around Mudsuck International in pursuit of a hamburger or pancakes. It's being built to get me around for business. So I guess technically, I fall into "experimental business aviation". Also, we shouldn't be drawing lines in the sand. Anyone working to keep the FAA and Congress off the asses of the flying community should be our friend at least in the sense of the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" adage. Not to mention that when it comes to non-airport parties, the NBAA throws one hell of a shindig.

I do agree that a lot of the articles are kind of misplaced but I don't agree that it's a red herring to point out that two-thirds of EAA members are never going to wrench on an airplane. It's like my complaining that as a moderate Republican, I find all the grousing about gay marriage, health care reform, etc to be counterproductive when we have real problems to solve. Probably more than two-thirds of what passes for Republicans nowadays are distracted by these sideshows and so the Party is pandering to them because that's where the money is coming from. It's not right, it's not going to help us out in the long run, but it does me no good to get on a forum and whine about it. I take my vote and go elsewhere. If I were more proactive, I could write and complain to someone who could actually do something about the problem. In the case of SA, I think we all know how to get in touch with the EAA chain of command should our panties be sufficiently twisted. My letter was postmarked several months ago and expressed my belief that the magazine is big enough for all of us to have our own little "turf".

martymayes

11-18-2011, 03:45 PM

I used to sell these things (when I worked for an FBO), and I know for a fact that about half of the guys that I did business with were EAA members, and had a HUGE interest in EAA and homebuilding...some of them even had projects at home, or completed a homebuilt airplane.

Chad, you are confirming what everyone has been saying. The guys that own and fly high end equipment are EAA members because they are involved with homebuilts and/or other airplane projects. If they want to get the scoop on production turbine equipment, I suggest they will go to the reputable and expert sources for that type of information, like B/CA or ProPilot. I seriously doubt anyone is going to reference EAA Sport Aviation articles before they make their next bizjet purchase.

Sure they do...
Unless owned by Harrison Ford or someone else who has an income in the top 1%, I think it's absurd to suggest people own and fly production turbine equipment for "recreation." Clearly, 2/3 of EAA's membership does not fit that description.

steveinindy

11-18-2011, 04:01 PM

Unless owned by Harrison Ford or someone else who has an income in the top 1%, I think it's absurd to suggest people own and fly production turbine equipment for "recreation."

Two words: fractional ownership. I recall reading somewhere that less than 20% of production turboprops that aren't sold to Part 135 operations are sold to single individuals. Most of them go to a group of people who want it for short business or pleasure trips.:) Maybe it's a difference in defining "recreation". Some of us don't view bug smashing at 80 kts around the countryside as being a lot of fun and go for a turboprop for reliability and performance so we can get to places where we can meet our definition of recreation. If I wanted to take 8 hours to get to Jamaica, I'd go commercial.

Clearly, 2/3 of EAA's membership does not fit that description.

I'd say someone willing to shell out upwards of $100K to build a middle of the road homebuilt isn't exactly hurting for cash. Lancair seems to be doing pretty good business among the homebuilt crowd so would you be as upset to see a discussion of one of their pressurized more or less production turboprops that skirt the allowable limits for experimental certification in SA? It smacks of "It's not a 1100 lb taildragger with a mogas powered engine! Heresy! Burn the author at the stake!" I do agree that we should get back to the homebuilt side of things, but let's not start turning this into "Occupy Oshkosh"

martymayes

11-18-2011, 04:34 PM

Two words: fractional ownership. I recall reading somewhere that less than 20% of production turboprops that aren't sold to Part 135 operations are sold to single individuals. Most of them go to a group of people who want it for short business or pleasure trips.:) Maybe it's a difference in defining "recreation". Some of us don't view bug smashing at 80 kts around the countryside as being a lot of fun and go for a turboprop for reliability and performance so we can get to places where we can meet our definition of recreation.

Steve, if you buy a fraction of a turbine airplane, the odds are you will be riding in the back as a passenger when you jet off to your destination. Piloting the airplane is a whole different ballgame and even if you do sit up front you will be accompanied by a professional pilot. Insurance premiums discourage "recreational" pilots from flying expensive production turbine powered airplanes. I really don't think turbine fractional ownership fits anywhere under the EAA umbrella.

But, if I see an article in Sport Aviation about Mac in the hangar pulling a hot section inspection on the engine of his owner flown turboprop, I'll be sure to read it.
;)

Anymouse

11-18-2011, 05:10 PM

I think they should renegotiate Mac's contract in such a way that he MUST build something flyable in his garage; scratch or kit.

We'll see if his direction turns.

steveinindy

11-18-2011, 09:52 PM

Steve, if you buy a fraction of a turbine airplane, the odds are you will be riding in the back as a passenger when you jet off to your destination.
OK, fractional ownership was a bad choice of words because the term is co-opted by Part 135 crowd. You understand what I mean right? How many of you guys with your RVs or Sonexs co-own the plane with your buddy from the airport? Same thing applies to the basic end of the kerosene crowd. Having a professional pilot maybe the norm for turbofan ops, but not so much with lower end turboprops. You look at some of the Piper turboprops (and even King Airs to a lesser extent) that people buy for personal use. It's not normal for the owner of a Malibu Meridian to have a pilot on their payroll. They fly the damn thing themselves which in part explains the accident rate there associated, but let's not derail the conversation further.

Like I said, if you don't like what Mac's doing, actually complain in a way that's going to do something. Pissing and moaning on a forum isn't going to do much most likely.

kscessnadriver

11-18-2011, 09:56 PM

steveinindy

11-18-2011, 10:20 PM

Again, I go back to what I have previously said. It will probably step on some toes and hurt some feelings, but I feel its the truth. This whole thread is what's wrong with EAA today, and why if it continues down the path it's on, it will die. This is nothing but old guys sitting around, complaining that since it isn't exactly what the EAA was 30 years ago, it's wrong. Progress happens. Either accept it or get out of the way (or EAA may come to a crashing halt in a short time period).

I don't mean any disrespect to my elders who have brought us so far, but accepting it or getting out of the way is really the way to go. Either it will have voluntarily or involuntarily because of the inherently finite lifespans of all creatures, humans included. Things will never go back to being all about fabric aircraft or whatever it is exactly you guys are dreaming of from the "good ol' days".

That's the beautiful thing about experimental aviation. It's such a broad field that there is room for everyone. That's why I take the stance that instead of trying to cause trouble and run off all of us who aren't given an erection by the thought of building a RV-6 with an uncertified glass panel or the latest LSA, we need to come together and realize that our diversity is our greatest strength. I've learned more about aircraft design and construction from folks who have built planes I find too slow, too limited in payload, range or altitude or too lightly constructed for me to ever want to fly. It doesn't mean I don't appreciate what I have learned or what they have done. It's just that it's not my cup of tea.

There are not enough people of the "old school" mentality left to keep the EAA solvent. They rely upon the folks who are also members of the AOPA, NBAA and other alphabet organizations of aviation to help keep the lights on and AirVenture up and running. Berating that faction will not bring back the days when it was Paul and a bunch of his buddies meeting in a hangar or garage. The organization has grown and with growth comes diversity and complexity. Nothing more, nothing less.

In biology, there is what is called the Red Queen imperative. It's the idea that from an evolution standpoint, an organism has to run as fast as it can just to stay where it is. The name is derived from Alice in Wonderland and what Alice was told by the Queen. The same goes for organizations. If we try to force the group to backslide, it will result only in fracture and disdain which will cause the eclipsing of the Association by whatever group steps in to fill the gap. That might be a splinter faction (or several), another organization already in existence or something altogether new.

Whatever the result, if the EAA tears itself apart like a plane flown headlong into a thunderstorm, a vast wealth of knowledge, technical experience and a lot of friendships and partnerships will be lost even in the best of circumstances. I for one, refuse to stand idly by and watch that happen because of people with a narrow view of the organization or some sort of pathological fixation on creating some aviation equivalent of Leave It to Beaver which likely never truly existed in the first place. This organization and its benefits to the aviation community as a whole are too important to let petty disagreements destroy it. You want to talk about spitting or disgracing what the Pobereznys and their colleagues worked so hard to create? The destruction of the Association would be the last and fullest measure of disrespect to that legacy.

[/off soapbox]

Frank Giger

11-19-2011, 03:42 AM

Point of information!

Experimental status is, and this may come as a shock to some and a perceived slight to others, not an invitation to cut corners or try to save a few buck on construction.

Cutting corners and saving a few bucks on construction are mutually exclusive goals.

I've never met a homebuilder that cut corners - but every single one of them looks at how to make a safe plane at the lowest cost. Homebuilding is at its very core an effort to arrive at a product at a lower cost, mostly through the use of their own time as labor.

I may very well be wrong, but then again if all things are equal with the "eh, it works" approach to construction, why do experimental aircraft have such a bigger issue with loss of engine power incidents and crashes (as an example)?

You are very wrong.

One has to dig into the numbers to find out the truth, but the high wreck rate in Experimentals has a lot to do with order of ownership once past the test phase of flight.

Here's a prime example - my aircraft, which is a just-over-ultralight open cockpit WWI replica biplane, andwill have (ready to cringe) motorcycle engine with redrive pulling it through the air.

There are no suitable certified engines that meet the requirements of the aircraft.

Now then, I'm building it for me - a very tall 6'2" 180 pound pilot. Well, when one scales me up from 7/8ths scale to match the aircraft to 1:1, anyway. In reality, everything will be customized for my 5'7" 145 pound body. I will know every thing about the engine and redrive from installation to maintenance. The non-adjustable seat will be set for me. The non-adjustable rudders will be set for me.

Statistically, if I make it through the 40 test period I have no more chance of mishap than any other pilot of a GA single engine piston driven fixed gear aircraft when number of landings is normalized.

The problem comes from when I sell the plane. The next guy might not be close to my height or weight and skirt the CG one way or the other. He may not be aware of how to inspect a redrive or what maintenance to do on the airframe and engine. Danger, Will Robinson.

Worse is when that second guy sells the aircraft. He won't get the "lemme tell you about my baby" briefing the first buyer got. He may be wildly off of my size.

He may have never flown a short wheel based light tail dragger. He might not know that the brakes are only to be used at a very slow taxi speed, being put in place solely to hold the aircraft at start, runup, and to finish off a power off coasting at the hanger when done.

Add in the maintenance mystery. One does not consult an A&P to maintain a V-twin; one consults a motorcycle mechanic.

One thing we do a lousy job of in the aviation world is transition training. This isn't just with experimentals; lots of LSA's are getting creamed not because they're unsafe - it's because the guy who's used to his C172 hops into a CTLS without transistion. The wing loading and power bands are different; crosswinds are trickier, and the effect of flaps may be disconcerting.

On TSO'd instruments, we'll reach agreement pretty quickly once we define mission. If I were building an aircraft that I anticipated doing scheduled cross country or IFR stuff in I'd be right with you. What about a "putter around" plane that will probably never go over 4,000 AGL, faster than 60 MPH, and will only fly in "fun" VFR conditions at uncontrolled airfields?

In my aircraft about the only thing on the panel I'll be watching is the slip indicator, volt meter, oil temp and pressure guages with real interest. Glance at the altimeter when getting ready to approach an airport for landing.

Just like I do in the Champ, which is all nicely certified and TSO'd.

The supposition that the EAA should "pass" a third of its membership (homebuilders and restorers) to cater to a very tiny wedge (one percent, if we're going to be generous?) of the membership that has even partial ownership of a multi-million dollar turbine spam can is precisely what keeps this thread going....

I'll agree that it's "big tent" in the EAA. I'm as alien to the notion of the 100,000 dollar homebuilt with the TSO'd everything as you are of a 560 pound one seat no luggage compartment tube and fabric biplane. But I'll still drool over the fancy stuff of your plane (real corinthian leather!) and watch you grin as I get you to wear the flying helmet and silk scarf while sitting in mine!

[edit]

I'm a member of AOPA to protect the GA side of piloting.

I'm a member of EAA to protect the Homebuilder side of piloting.

On 99% of stuff they agree and work together. That's a good thing. When they disagree, my support goes to whichever benefits me the most!

And sometimes they fight dumb issues that shouldn't be fought.

When the organizations become too similar one of them is redundant. We see this in politics all the time. When given a choice between voting for a Democrat or a politician that sounds like a Democrat, people will vote for the Democrat.*

* Insert any political party, as it holds true regardless.

Jalsup

11-19-2011, 10:43 AM

I think they should renegotiate Mac's contract in such a way that he MUST build something flyable in his garage; scratch or kit.

We'll see if his direction turns.

This would actually be a pretty neat deal. I would love, as a condition of Mac's employment, for him to be required to fly something like a Flybaby, a Pietenpol, and do a Pirep on it. Also to build one would be great.

Again, I go back to what I have previously said. It will probably step on some toes and hurt some feelings, but I feel its the truth. This whole thread is what's wrong with EAA today, and why if it continues down the path it's on, it will die. This is nothing but old guys sitting around, complaining that since it isn't exactly what the EAA was 30 years ago, it's wrong. Progress happens. Either accept it or get out of the way (or EAA may come to a crashing halt in a short time period).

Not saying I like seeing TBM articles at all - I don't - but, this thread is one thing that seems "right" with EAA. We have 32 pages of bashing the editor-in-chief and the overall direction of the organization. Contrast that with FLYING magazine for a moment: There was an online letter to the editor type forum and an aeronautical engineer brought up some excellent points to counter-act one of Robert Goyers 1000 word ejaculations about the latest and greatest glass cockpit thing and how those were so much safer and technologically advanced aircraft were the greatest thing since sliced bread. This aero-engineer pretty much deconstructed Goyer (respectfully) within two paragraphs and I was extremely excited to see what Goyers response would be. His response - the excellent comment was removed. When the author of that comment, as well as a post I wrote a post that both said "Where's the post?" those were removed as well. So, at least the forum gives voice to the frustration and is not an example of what's "wrong" in my view - it's an example of what's still "right".

Bill Berson

11-19-2011, 04:26 PM

Since the EAA mission statement does not now include factory new aircraft of any kind, will EAA change the mission statement to include factory new aircraft?

And what percentage of SPORT AVIATION will be dedicated to factory new aircraft?
Bill

Jalsup

11-19-2011, 04:44 PM

One thing I'd like to see - and it was something that occurred with AOPA - is this. There was a controversy last year sometime with AVWEB pulling up AOPA financial information and publishing it - and getting some things wrong. Well, this caused an excrement storm on the AOPA forums with many members complaining of payrolls, etc. To his enormous credit, Craig Fuller got ON THE FORUM and addressed this things and rebutted some of the misconceptions of members. It turned the whole discussion around pretty much. It was great that he would do this.

Now, I'm of the opinion "Give Mac and chance". Not because I care about business av, or because I want to read about ANYTHING that doesn't have a tailwheel...but, in the interest of fairness, I always give people a chance. That's just me. That said, it would show a lot for Mac to show up on the forums and mix it up with us. Other EAA staffers are facing the wrath (to their credit) - I'd like Mac to come here and mix it up with us that don't want, can't afford, and have no interest in TBM's and other such nonsense. Let him state his vision and we can then engage him. Just a thought. If Craig Fuller can do it, so can Mac.

On a side note, I'm personally distressed. I had a subscription to FLYING but let it run out because I was tired of hearing Mac and then Goyer wax orgasmic about plastic airplanes with parachutes or the latest and greatest biz jet. The only thing I miss from flying is Martha. I quit AOPA because I was sick of reading about plastic airplanes with parachutes and bizjets. I joined EAA because I wanted to join Vintage, but also used to like Sport Aviation when I'd read my barbers copy. Now that I join EAA...I get articles by Mac about turbine powered airplanes. I'm afraid it is ME. I'm to blame - the minute I join EAA it turns into a gross hybrid of AOPA Pilot and FLYING. I apologize for that. I told the guys at the National Waco Club forum (One of the two GREATEST aviation organizations on earth) that if I saw an article in the newsletter about a replica AVN-8 (the tri-geared Waco) powered by a PT-6 and with a glass cockpit that I would set myself ablaze like a protesting Buddhist monk.

Mike Switzer

11-19-2011, 04:47 PM

I told the guys at the National Waco Club forum (One of the two GREATEST aviation organizations on earth) that if I saw an article in the newsletter about a replica AVN-8 (the tri-geared Waco) powered by a PT-6 and with a glass cockpit that I would set myself ablaze like a protesting Buddhist monk.

You gonna use 100LL or Jet-A?? :)

Jalsup

11-19-2011, 04:48 PM

You gonna use 100LL or Jet-A?? :)

In keeping with my vintage preference, I'm going to find some 80 octane!

steveinindy

11-19-2011, 05:35 PM

I've never met a homebuilder that cut corners

Try looking at the aftermath of the crashes of experimental aircraft? You'd be surprised how many aircraft have some manner of deviation from the original design. Most of them are minor but then again the point about

You are very wrong.

One has to dig into the numbers to find out the truth, but the high wreck rate in Experimentals has a lot to do with order of ownership once past the test phase of flight.

Or...that's the comfortable excuse that we tell ourselves. That doesn't explain why "loss of engine power for undetermined reasons" or "loss of engine power due to fuel starvation due to *insert mechanical issue with fuel supply system*" are more common in experimentals (even those still in the hands of the first owner) than in commercially built aircraft. It's not a pleasant realization, but instead of ignoring it and putting forward wishy-washy excuses without any technical data or evidence to back it up to try to make it easier to sleep at night when it came to my design I decided to avoid the potential issues that have plagued the homebuilt community. It's not that I think I'm smarter, better or more talented than the next guy out there. It's that I realize I'll never live long enough (or through) making all the mistakes myself so I try to learn from those who have gone before me.

Trust me, when it comes to "digging into the numbers", you are talking to someone who does it as a career.

I'm a member of AOPA to protect the GA side of piloting.

I'm a member of EAA to protect the Homebuilder side of piloting.

On 99% of stuff they agree and work together. That's a good thing. When they disagree, my support goes to whichever benefits me the most!

Agreed. That I could not have said better myself.

Here's a prime example - my aircraft, which is a just-over-ultralight open cockpit WWI replica biplane, andwill have (ready to cringe) motorcycle engine with redrive pulling it through the air.

There are no suitable certified engines that meet the requirements of the aircraft.

Which is surprising given the increasing size of the market. Personally, I'd take that as an argument not to build a scaled down aircraft especially given the marginal glide ratios of WWI aircraft even at full size. Rickenbacker once stated in a magazine interview that a power-off landing in a Neiuport or similar aircraft was akin to riding a barrel over Niagara Falls: you'd better hope luck is on your side. Each and to their own. I really like WWI replicas, but if I were building one, it would be full-size and I'd enlarge the cockpit opening to be able to wear a parachute.

Statistically, if I make it through the 40 test period I have no more chance of mishap than any other pilot of a GA single engine piston driven fixed gear aircraft when number of landings is normalized.

Well....there's a couple of issues with that argument.
1. "Normalizing the number of landings": We really don't have good and inherently valid data beyond best guesses at the number of landings the "average" plane (experimental or standard certification) does in a given year. Trying to skew the numbers to a "guess" is a good way to give a false sense of security.

2. All-cause risk vs. specific issues: I agree that the all cause risk and the specific cause risk (such as someone who botches putting in a fuel line or something like that) drops off somewhat once we get past the test period, I will state that even once we are past that, we still have a rate of engine loss of power issues (and a few others) that are above the other non-turboprop side of GA. It's not an indictment of experimentals. It's simply a hurdle to overcome. I look at it in the same way you look at scaling your design to fit you're 95% percentile frame: a challenge to work on.

The supposition that the EAA should "pass" a third of its membership (homebuilders and restorers) to cater to a very tiny wedge (one percent, if we're going to be generous?) of the membership that has even partial ownership of a multi-million dollar turbine spam can is precisely what keeps this thread going....

You missed the part where I said we all can have our little corners. Hell, to be quite honest, we don't even have to really talk to one another if that's what suits us. I don't believe that anyone should be run off, but I think the minority of folks with some Pollyanna view of the past and an almost pathological aversion to anything that doesn't fit it are endangering the one thing we do have control over so far as the EAA goes: the future. I've received a lot of PMs on here about folks not wanting to be part of the EAA or go to AirVenture because of the whining, bickering and grandstanding on threads like this one. It's not exactly productive. Like someone pointed out in the "do we need military jets at Oshkosh?" thread: The high-speed whizzbang stuff attracts people. Let's use it as a marketing ploy if nothing else. Then you get that kid or dad who came to the show (or bought the magazine) for the spam cans or the afterburner earsplitters to look at starting out in an RV or whatever. Instead of seeing it as an enemy or detraction, let's reign it in but still use it to our advantage.

One thing we do a lousy job of in the aviation world is transition training. This isn't just with experimentals; lots of LSA's are getting creamed not because they're unsafe - it's because the guy who's used to his C172 hops into a CTLS without transistion. The wing loading and power bands are different; crosswinds are trickier, and the effect of flaps may be disconcerting.

Agreed 100%. The fatal accident rate is also a bit higher because of in the interest of keeping the weight below the LSA cutoff, some of the first things to go are adequate structural integrity around the cockpit, seats that are designed to absorb force rather than transmit it to the spine of the occupant and several other issues that are beyond the scope of this discussion. It's not limited to LSAs as several of the standard commercial designs have huge issues with these problems and more, but if we want to move forward as a hobby there is more to new design or retrofits than getting a few more knots or a lower GPH rate. Injury biomechanics and crash survivability are my fortes so when it comes to discussing the particulars of engine issues, I know enough to get by but when it comes to occupant protection you're talking my language.

But I'll still drool over the fancy stuff of your plane (real corinthian leather!) and watch you grin as I get you to wear the flying helmet and silk scarf while sitting in mine!

Is that an offer for a chance to fly? ;)

I'm as alien to the notion of the 100,000 dollar homebuilt with the TSO'd everything as you are of a 560 pound one seat no luggage compartment tube and fabric biplane.

What's funny is that I'm actually kicking around the idea of designing an LSA after I get done with my current design. More to prove a point and as an academic exercise than anything else, but I don't have any specific aversion to them other than just not being my thing.

On TSO'd instruments, we'll reach agreement pretty quickly once we define mission. If I were building an aircraft that I anticipated doing scheduled cross country or IFR stuff in I'd be right with you. What about a "putter around" plane that will probably never go over 4,000 AGL, faster than 60 MPH, and will only fly in "fun" VFR conditions at uncontrolled airfields?

Likewise. The one thing I will never settle for though is an uncertified engine. That's a deal breaker. When it comes time to build my day VFR bug smasher, I'm going with Dynon avionics though. Love them.

You gonna use 100LL or Jet-A??

100LL or 80-octane. Why do you think I'm going with a turboprop more than anything else? Reduced risk of post crash fire secondary to the use of a kerosene based fuel instead of gasoline. ;)

Kyle Boatright

11-19-2011, 07:32 PM

I'm sensing thread drift.... ;-)

steveinindy

11-19-2011, 09:37 PM

I'm sensing thread drift.... ;-)
This thing had a direction to begin with? It seemed more like a bunch of uncoordinated whining from the word go. LOL Like I said....welcome to Occupy Sport Aviation. :P

Spindrift

11-20-2011, 10:23 AM

After reading all 32 pages of this thread, skimming over the posts that attempted thread drift, I find the discussion very interesting. I surfed over to EAA after reading the similarly passionate thread on Vansairforce.net. I'm not going to rehash the many good points made, but just add one more to the camp of not liking the direction SA has taken recently, especially the past two issues. I used to find SA my favorite aviation mag of the 4 I have subscriptions to (AOPA Pilot, Plane&Pilot, Kitplanes), but lately that is not the case. I travel frequently, and enjoy reading flying mags in the back of the tube when electronics are not allowed. I also pass them on to fellow passengers, either directly, or by leaving them somewhere (like the Skyclub) where they might inspire someone else's passion for aviation. I also flip through FLYING at airport newsstands, and rarely see anything that interests me enough to buy a copy.

Hopefully the shift for December that Chad mentioned is a good one. Some of the changes wouldn't have to be great to calm the uproar. Some ideas: an article on the history of Socata and the restoration of an early model, with a sidebar about the latest/greatest TBM 750. An article about how building a Mosquito ultralight helicopter inspired someone to step up to a classic Bell, or at least a sidebar about AB helicopters. A story about a memorable flight by someone other than JMac, or maybe, at least, his memorable experience of getting his TW endorsement instead of yet another IFR flight.

I don't mind some certified info sprinkled in, but the November issue was weighted far too heavily away from what makes EAA special/different. If that must be the direction, then give a discount to members who opt out of the magazine subscription but still want to support the many other great things EAA does to support aviation.

And please, Lane, wrap up the big cross country! I usually enjoy her writing, and have a copy of "Little Deuce Coupe" from years back on my bulletin board at work to give to people who ask about my RV, but this trip reminds me why I bought an RV instead of the Grumman Cheetah a CFI recommended as a "sporty plane" that would remind me of my MINI Cooper S.

-- bill
Portland, OR
RV7A QB sold pre-finish kit
RV7 purchased flying

Bill Berson

11-20-2011, 10:43 AM

Does EAA even need to respond to the members?
I say this because I know that each member has a vote in theory, but this vote is useless because EAA controls the majority vote with proxy. (I hate this proxy thing)

Would it be possible to send a message to the EAA Board of Directors?
Or is Occupy Oshkosh the only option? (last week of July, perhaps)
Bill

Bill

11-20-2011, 01:52 PM

Does EAA even need to respond to the members?

Bill

For an interesting perspective from Lee Bottom Flying Field on EAA and the SA / AOPA / Flying indistinguishableness, look at the November 13th entry "Controlled Flight Into Terrain" http://nordonews.leebottom.com on NORDO News. Pretty much parallels my thoughts on the subject.

Bill Berson

11-20-2011, 02:50 PM

Good one Bill, saved me the trouble of writing my thoughts.
It seems the plan to increase membership with General Aviation (North Forty) is working.

Is there any way to influence the Corporation? Or do we just need to grieve for the loss and look for an alternative?
Bill

martymayes

11-20-2011, 08:22 PM

martymayes

11-20-2011, 08:25 PM

I say this because I know that each member has a vote in theory, but this vote is useless because EAA controls the majority vote with proxy. (I hate this proxy thing)Bill

I never delegate my vote to someone else via proxy. I think it keeps folks on their toes when they know they can get voted out.

martymayes

11-20-2011, 08:31 PM

Or do we just need to grieve for the loss and look for an alternative?
Bill

Count me in.

steveinindy

11-20-2011, 08:49 PM

Count me in.

Best of luck with that idea there guys. The door's that way. *points*

kscessnadriver

11-21-2011, 03:02 PM

I call baloney on that claim, sounds like scare tactic to me. There is nothing to suggest that EAA is about to close up shop. Even with some crappy weather, attendance at AirVenture is not decreasing. As far as claiming change is needed, how about producing some scientific polling or data to back that up? Like it or not, the old guys sitting around are as much a part of this organization as anyone else. I wouldn't turn my back on them and I certainly wouldn't count them out.

Airventure isn't EAA, its just one event that EAA has. Airventure would survive with or without EAA, IMO. I'm saying the organization is dying, because quite frankly, how many members do you see joining under the age of 30? And how many are over the age of 75? You can't keep the organization membership steady or growing if you don't attract the younger crowd. Yes, EAA does the Eagle Flight program. But of those kids that get flights, how many actually end up being an EAA member?

I realize that the old guys are part of the crowd, and I've got no problem with that at all. I just feel that some of the old guys don't want the young guys as part of the crowd, because in general, the younger crowd has a significantly different idea of what they want EAA to be.There needs to be a blend of young and old, and I just don't see that happening with the way the organization seems to be ran.

I really liked the TBM article. Yes, I know most of you didn't like it, because it isn't about "sport aviation", but again, sport aviation in the US is dying, and without something different than the status quo, there's nothing to stop it.

steveinindy

11-21-2011, 04:14 PM

Chad Jensen

11-21-2011, 07:18 PM

Is there any way to influence the Corporation? Or do we just need to grieve for the loss and look for an alternative?BillThis forum is the best way to talk to HQ Bill. There are a lot of staff reading these forums and it's a fantastic way for us to get a pulse here and now of a sampling of the membership.This is all good conversation...

malexander

11-21-2011, 08:33 PM

December issue of Model Aviation (AMA) has an article of a guy building a Rotorway 162F. Full scale stuff in a model magazine?? What do you think, should we occupy?
I don't have a problem with big/expensive stuff in SA, BUT I'd like to see some actually affordable airplanes as well. Say, something that the average guy could actually afford. Not the $60K-$70K range. The age group we're wanting to entice/attrtact,(young folks/kids) for the most part, don't have anywhere near the funds to fly, build, or own what is usually seen in the magazines.
If we are really serious about young members let's put some Pietenpol, Baby Ace, etc. articles in SA and tell folks these airplanes can be built for as little as.......
I know that the general concensus is airplane=expensive. But I think we could "curve" that a bit if we tried.

Marshall Alexander

steveinindy

11-21-2011, 08:54 PM

If we are really serious about young members let's put some Pietenpol, Baby Ace, etc. articles in SA and tell folks these airplanes can be built for as little as.......

But how many 20-40 y/o folks who have grown up on computers etc are going to look at a Piet or a Baby Ace and go "Ooooh! That's neat looking! I want one." Not many is probably the answer because they look like a throwback to an age that simply doesn't interest most young people. It doesn't mean we should not give it a shot, but it does mean that we should not discount using a "bait and change their minds" approach. That or someone needs to come up with a sporty looking bug smasher than can be built for under $100K.

flyboycpa

11-21-2011, 09:01 PM

Ok, I'll chime in. I fly turbine a/c for a living (B737), and used to fly corporate jets before moving the 737. I LOVE turbine aircraft, but I do not feel that it is in the spirit of the Experimental Aircraft Association to use so much magazine space on them. Should I decide that I want to read about the TBM850, I'll go find the latest Flying, AOPA Pilot, or Plane & Pilot. While I realize that there are many members of the EAA that fly only certified aircraft (i.e., the North 40 crowd), I think our turbine interests [that are written about] should be limited to experimental, vintage, or classic models. If Mac McClellan wants "to get his jet on" and write about something, send him out to get some L-29/L-39/Paris Jet training. I certainly have no problems reading about something turbine, just make it relevant to our organization (Homebuilts, LSA, Ultralights, Warbirds, Vintage/Classic, or Acro).

Sam Swift
N3760K
Globe Swift GC-1B

flyboycpa

11-21-2011, 09:04 PM

Bill

11-21-2011, 09:23 PM

There's no swagger, no "sex appeal", etc to something that looks like that at least in the eyes of the under-30 crowd. If we get the "kids" in the door with the higher end of the spectrum, they will perhaps build something as a stop gap until they can afford their dream airplane

I don't believe that there's much "sex appeal" to the "higher end of the spectrum," which I presume means TBMs, Cessna Citation Xs, big Gulfstreams and Lear 60s. I've flown in all of these, except for the TBMs and I never felt the least bit of "sex appeal" emanating from any of them. Certainly, I, as an aerospace engineer, appreciated the engineering sophistication of these airplanes and enjoyed flying in them as a mode of transportation, but they did nothing to increase my pulse rate. A ride in Scaled Composites SpaceShipOne or a Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo, now that would increase my pulse rate to a dangerous level.

The high end of the spectrum, as well as part 25 aircraft, are carefully engineered to make flight as unexciting as possible (see AC 25-1390-1A for details on the analysis and quantification of how this is done). If we want to get a lot of younger folks interested, it won't be by taking them for a ride in a multi-million dollar spam can, except for those aspiring to be CEOs (I never got a ride in our CL-601 since that was reserved for the CEO:mad:).

If we really want the younger folks, we have to give them something aeronautical that is as exciting and up to date as programming massively parallel processors (GPUs) in CUDA or OpenCL.

steveinindy

11-22-2011, 12:18 AM

malexander

11-22-2011, 04:57 AM

Steve, the "bait & change their minds" is a sort of what I was thinking. After all, that's sort of what the computer industry has done. We started out with very simple, by todays standards, pagers, cell phones, computers. As technology came about, more sophisitcated equipment came along, folks said "I want one of those" so they found a way to afford it.
I think the younger generation has forgotten they have to crawl before they can walk.
I agree with flyboy, 100%.

Marshall Alexander

Frank Giger

11-22-2011, 06:25 AM

Right. "Kids these days" *shakes fist* aren't exactly as enthralled by the idea of a fabric covered Cub or a Pietenpol. Even at the age of 30, I find myself thinking of things like Pietenpols and such as an old man's airplane even though I know a lot of them are built by people closer to my own age. It's just the image they and similar aircraft convey. There's no swagger, no "sex appeal", etc to something that looks like that at least in the eyes of the under-30 crowd.

That's because they (Cubs, Pietenpols, etc.) are marketed completely wrong.

I'm in that targeted "young" demographic - or just outside it - and you know what got me fired up to get into aviation, building my own aircraft and the EAA?

Small, light, slow aircraft.

A C172 leaves me completely cold. It's a Buick with wings.

The Flight Design CTLS I trained in was a means to the end. Glass panel and high tech composites be damned - the plane is just a coupe to go from A to B, the equivalent of a Miata. But without the top down.

A better analogy would be that it's a set of skis, when what I want is a snowboard.

So I went with an open cockpit biplane - and then went one step further with a WWI replica - so that I can swoosh around at 1000 feet AGL and do lazy circles over the countryside.

While I'm waiting to complete the plane I'm building up hours in a Champ, and completely in love with the plane. This is flying! Forget getting to Point B - it is a means to an end at best, and grossly inefficient as a means of transportation. The journey is the destination.

Very few young people I know think of personally owned aircraft as a viable transportation option; emphasis on the pure fun and recreation for the sake of recreation aspects of flying and one will get much more traction. "That makes flying pointless." So what? So is 99% of every other hobby or sport.

"I don't have 100K," says the 20 something.
"Dude, build your own!" says the EAA member.

Or at least one that understands what the Experimental Aircraft part of EAA means.

martymayes

11-22-2011, 07:30 AM

Airventure isn't EAA, its just one event that EAA has. Airventure would survive with or without EAA, IMO. I'm saying the organization is dying, because quite frankly, how many members do you see joining under the age of 30? And how many are over the age of 75? You can't keep the organization membership steady or growing if you don't attract the younger crowd. Yes, EAA does the Eagle Flight program. But of those kids that get flights, how many actually end up being an EAA member?

I realize that the old guys are part of the crowd, and I've got no problem with that at all. I just feel that some of the old guys don't want the young guys as part of the crowd, because in general, the younger crowd has a significantly different idea of what they want EAA to be.There needs to be a blend of young and old, and I just don't see that happening with the way the organization seems to be ran.

I really liked the TBM article. Yes, I know most of you didn't like it, because it isn't about "sport aviation", but again, sport aviation in the US is dying, and without something different than the status quo, there's nothing to stop it.

Hey, you know what? General aviation is in a period of contraction. Pilot numbers are down, new pilot starts are down. Airplane deliveries are down. Accept the fact that it may not be possible for EAA to maintain steady membership growth. And so what? Does that mean you close up shop? No! Does that mean sport aviation is dying? NO! The spirit goes on. I think EAA should dust off Duane Cole's old book "This is EAA" reprint it and make it required reading for all EAA staff (and a lot of it's members). This place is quickly becoming a ship with no rudder and yes, you talk about the organization dying, it certainly will if there is no direction.

I'd rather be part of a small organziation of spirited people who understand what the EAA is all about than part of a large membership of sheep who think Mac and his mainstream aviation airplanes and ideas (re: BORING) are something to look forward to each month.

Guess I'm part of the "Occupy OSH 2012" crowd.

martymayes

11-22-2011, 08:03 AM

But how many 20-40 y/o folks who have grown up on computers etc are going to look at a Piet or a Baby Ace and go "Ooooh! That's neat looking! I want one." Not many is probably the answer because they look like a throwback to an age that simply doesn't interest most young people. It doesn't mean we should not give it a shot, but it does mean that we should not discount using a "bait and change their minds" approach. That or someone needs to come up with a sporty looking bug smasher than can be built for under $100K.

Most kids these days only know instant gratification. The notion that they will go into the shop to construct something that may take months or years to complete is laughable. They don't have the skills for that and have no interest in obtaining them.

Same is true to a certain extent with the hot rod crowd. Lots of old farts and not a lot of kids in hot rodding these days. The modern young "hot rodders" knowledge base consist of buying a production car then going to an accessory source or shop and choosing "performance items" from a menu like a fat muffler, glittery wheels and bolt on spoiler. Whoopee do. Interesting, the marketing strategy is that the builder is "expressing his individuality" by 'building' a car that represents his personality...lol, bolt-on accessories is not building in the fabricating, cutting and welding sense. There's not as much scratch building as there once was where the builder designs, engineers, fabricates and drives his own creation, the product of his imagination. Sport aviation is not the only activity where future generations might not understand their ancestors.

Aaron Novak

11-22-2011, 08:34 AM

Exactly my point. We can't keep shoveling the same old designs (or rehashings of the same designs) out there and expect to keep recruiting fresh folks with them.

BTW, I agree entirely that there is something nothing sexy about most airplanes. I honestly look at them simply as a good means of getting from point A to point B as well as an engineering challenge. As for flying, the only part I find fun are takeoffs, approaches and landings. Cruise flight- be it at 1000 AGL or FL330- is boring as hell (especially if you have an autopilot) which is why my interest lays mostly in minimizing the time from point A to point B. I know that is damn near heretical to say among people addicted to the act of flying (one of the crotchety guys in the local chapter won't speak to me because I admitted this once in his presence) but that's my take on it.

Steve,
Some people enjoy flying, some people enjoy using airplanes, some people enjoy building them, some people enjoy designing them. I think you will find that the reason that designs like the piet, flybaby, starduster, cub copy, etc etc were/are so popular, is simply because they are designs that can be achieved in a home shop. Honestly durring the convention I talk to a lot of people that are "building" their first, and those that are building some high zoot composite turbine blah blah blah, will never finish it. They like the looks of the design, the performance, but realize that they are in way over their head in many respects. Unfortunately that tends to discourage people from the whole homebuilding idea. Guys OUR age ( 30's ) are in exactly the same spot ( worse in some ways ) than the current " old timers " were when they were our age, starting the EAA organization. So the way I see it, the reason the organization has changed is to stay with a generation of builders/pilots as they got older, got more money, and more experience. If you want to attract young people to the hobby of building and flying, look at sport aviation when that group was its membership and target ( 30 years ago ). Notice that the designs, articles and subjects of discussion were around aircraft that performed well, and could be built by a typical family ( its always a family ordeal, or should be ) in a small hanger with a moderate tool investment, and in a timeframe that was achiveable and still allowed the family to have a life outside of aviation as well.

melndav

11-22-2011, 07:01 PM

But how many 20-40 y/o folks who have grown up on computers etc are going to look at a Piet or a Baby Ace and go "Ooooh! That's neat looking! I want one." Not many is probably the answer because they look like a throwback to an age that simply doesn't interest most young people. It doesn't mean we should not give it a shot, but it does mean that we should not discount using a "bait and change their minds" approach. That or someone needs to come up with a sporty looking bug smasher than can be built for under $100K.

The stories aren't just about airplanes, they are about airplanes and people. No doubt most folks enjoy reading about the latest and greatest out there, but the best stories are about the people and the journey that they undertake to produce a new homebuilt/warbird/antique, flying experience, new record, etc. It doesn't matter if you are reading about a Flybaby or a Citation, the human element is what truly makes a story memorable. Think about the last really good article you read in this or another magazine. This is something that has been slowly fading away from the pages of SA for quite a while now possibly because people won't or can't share their own stories easily. I think it all began about the time the Back Cover Painting was replaced by a full page (profitable) ad. I realize that progress is progress, but I would challenge anyone (especially the powers that be) to go into the SA archives and read ANY issue from the 70's, 80's, or early 90's (mostly Jack Cox years) cover to cover and then decide if we are on the right track or not. The problem is not misguided content, it's misguided soul....

KDoersom

11-22-2011, 09:17 PM

kscessnadriver

11-23-2011, 12:48 AM

I'm in that targeted "young" demographic - or just outside it - and you know what got me fired up to get into aviation, building my own aircraft and the EAA?

Small, light, slow aircraft.

A C172 leaves me completely cold. It's a Buick with wings.

The Flight Design CTLS I trained in was a means to the end. Glass panel and high tech composites be damned - the plane is just a coupe to go from A to B, the equivalent of a Miata. But without the top down.

Really? I'm 22, and I can say that the few people my age I know involved with aviation generally want nothing to do with low & slow, when it comes to aircraft. They want something that is new, with new technology and can squeeze every ounce of speed out of the engine. The younger crowd wants nothing to do with aviation these days, due to cost (primarily). Secondly, its because quite frankly, there is very little new innovation in aviation. Planes today are vastly similar to what they were when my parents were my age (25 or so years ago). Look what cars have done in 25 years.

Hey, you know what? General aviation is in a period of contraction. Pilot numbers are down, new pilot starts are down. Airplane deliveries are down. Accept the fact that it may not be possible for EAA to maintain steady membership growth. And so what? Does that mean you close up shop? No! Does that mean sport aviation is dying? NO! The spirit goes on. I think EAA should dust off Duane Cole's old book "This is EAA" reprint it and make it required reading for all EAA staff (and a lot of it's members). This place is quickly becoming a ship with no rudder and yes, you talk about the organization dying, it certainly will if there is no direction.

I'd rather be part of a small organziation of spirited people who understand what the EAA is all about than part of a large membership of sheep who think Mac and his mainstream aviation airplanes and ideas (re: BORING) are something to look forward to each month.

You're post makes no sense to me. First you start of by saying that GA is in a period of contraction, with the number of pilots down. But then you go on to say that sport aviation isn't dying, which is a contradiction. If GA is dying, then sport aviation has to be as well, no?

Regardless, the smaller EAA gets, the less pull it has in DC. So all it's going to take is one experimental crash that takes out some people on the ground, and congress will just decide to close the experimental game down, or structure it like Europe.

And who are you to say what is and isn't boring? A TBM-850 is a hell of a lot more exciting to me than something like a VP-1 Volksplane is.

Aaron Novak

11-23-2011, 08:45 AM

KDoersom

11-23-2011, 09:33 AM

Jalsup

11-23-2011, 02:03 PM

Just paged through the December Issue of Sport Aviaiton and it lookd like it is getting back on track. Still not sure what LPV approaches have to do with sport aviation but it is a step in the right direction. Lets keep it this way.

I agree with the LPV approaches - but I guess one of my hopes would be that Mac could broaden the knowledge base a little in some areas. I have no desire to fly IFR or fly a bizjet or anything - but I am very cognizant of the fact that Mac, with his experience, could help broaden the knowledge base about certain things. This would include things that may not seemingly be relevant to day/VFR operations, but little pieces of knowledge that can be extracted from an article may prove useful.

steveinindy

11-23-2011, 06:11 PM

The stories aren't just about airplanes, they are about airplanes and people. No doubt most folks enjoy reading about the latest and greatest out there, but the best stories are about the people and the journey that they undertake to produce a new homebuilt/warbird/antique, flying experience, new record, etc. It doesn't matter if you are reading about a Flybaby or a Citation, thehuman element is what truly makes a story memorable. Think about the last really good article you read in this or another magazine.

Honestly, most of the really great articles I have read recently had very little "human interest" aspects. At the risk of sounding quite frank, I find that things like the story of someone building an aircraft, etc is kind of boring. I'm reading magazines in this genre for the same reason I read professional journal articles: to learn something that is technically applicable. If I want to hear someone wax poetic about the building process for their aircraft, that's something I do over lunch or at very least over beers.

I think you will find that the reason that designs like the piet, flybaby, starduster, cub copy, etc etc were/are so popular, is simply because they are designs that can be achieved in a home shop

I'm not denying that. My point is that most young folks don't find the same thrill of puttering over their local cornfields at 70kts that their grandfather does. The point is that there needs to be a development of a design (or designs rather) that are easy to build and actually are good for something other than converting AvGas into exhaust.

The Flight Design CTLS I trained in was a means to the end. Glass panel and high tech composites be damned - the plane is just a coupe to go from A to B, the equivalent of a Miata. But without the top down.

Except a Miata is a lot faster, sturdier and handles a crosswind much better. The CTLS is a good means of getting from Point A to Point B...if you're not in the slightest bit of a hurry. It's a cute little plane but it's got the same problems all LSAs do.

Plus you cant tell me that a Pitts, Acroduster, Starduster, Acrosport, One Design, Tailwind, etc etc are not exciting, and they are all built with minimal tool investment from common materials, with skills easily learned for a cost under that of a used car.

Point taken but those still only apply to a small minority of pilots. Many of us lack the desire to do aerobatics makes those less than appealing. Personally, if the plane goes dirty side up (or even past 60 degrees of bank for that matter), something is wrong and all I want to do is correct it. A loop, spiral, spin or roll is not thrilling, it's just good news for Fruit of the Loom. ;) That said, strangely enough I do like practicing stall recoveries.

Also, to be quite honest, as an advocate for safety above all else, the idea of encouraging your average 20-something into an aerobatic aircraft is about the last thing I would do. Can they do it safely? Some of them, but think a little on the average poor judgment of most young people and then reconsider whether we need (from a PR standpoint if nothing else) the potential smoking hole that so often results from pilots who fail to think his cunning plan all the way through before beginning to execute it.

Still not sure what LPV approaches have to do with sport aviation but it is a step in the right direction. Lets keep it this way.

You know....expanding the ability of homebuilt aircraft to operate into a wider variety of airports in bad weather with a greater margin of safety. It doesn't apply to light sport aviation for obvious reasons but it does apply quite heavily to the RV, Lancair and other standard homebuilt audience. I haven't seen the December issue yet, but I am happy to hear about more useful articles.

I agree with the LPV approaches - but I guess one of my hopes would be that Mac could broaden the knowledge base a little in some areas. I have no desire to fly IFR or fly a bizjet or anything - but I am very cognizant of the fact that Mac, with his experience, could help broaden the knowledge base about certain things. This would include things that may not seemingly be relevant to day/VFR operations, but little pieces of knowledge that can be extracted from an article may prove useful.

See....this is the type of approach (pun entirely intentional) we need to take with Mac. We shouldn't immediately kick his butt to the curb but we should make him apply the vast amount of experience he has in a way that serves our various assorted- and at times disparate- ends. He's a smart guy, but just like the rest of us he filters his application of said knowledge through his own interests and desires. Pushing him out the door because he brings with him a flare for the turbine powered or the business side of aviation is a lot like someone refusing to respect Burt Rutan simply because he turned out composite aircraft instead of wood and fabric or tube and fabric models. Even if you don't like the particular aspects of aviation a person embraces, you can almost always learn something from their experience or education. There is not a person involved in this debate who cannot stand to learn something or does not have something to offer in return, no matter how much we might disagree on the "politics" of the EAA, its publications, its hiring policies and practices, its perceived direction or whatever else we decide to squabble over.

Not only so far as this thread is concerned, but with regards to a lot of threads here, I for one would like to see a little less bickering and "This is screwed up because I don't agree with it! ______ needs to be fired/keel hauled/burned at the stake!" threads and more actual discussion on building techniques. If we can't immediately get what we want out of the formal publications, why not start putting it up yourself on the forum? If we're really arguing for this solely as an educational and directional issue, let's actually acting like it. Fair enough?

pittscub

11-24-2011, 07:31 AM

melnadv quote - I realize that progress is progress, but I would challenge anyone (especially the powers that be) to go into the SA archives and read ANY issue from the 70's, 80's, or early 90's (mostly Jack Cox years) cover to cover and then decide if we are on the right track or not.

THIS is exactly right. melndav you are my favorite EAAer for a day! I can even help suggest a past issue; November 1978. Article about Ron Wojner (sp?) restoring his Aeronca Champ. Probably one of my favorite issues. I have read it several time over the years. (the entire issue) Sport Aviation at it best.

Mike Finney aka pittscub

WLIU

11-24-2011, 09:25 AM

To add an up note to this discussion, I'll check in and offer that I think that Jeff Skiles is a great addition to the magazine. Having been in places and situations similar to what he describes in this month's magazine, I think that he is doing a great job communicating the texture of the landscape and his experiences in the airplane(s).

Wes
N78PS

Frank Giger

11-24-2011, 11:58 PM

It would be a great article to have Mac lift his eyes four inches above the instruments and find out there are these big transparent panels all over the cockpit.

They're called windows. And they have nothing to do with computers.

Even better, have him fly no radio into an uncontrolled airfield. Look-see-avoid in a regular rectangular pattern with nobody to tell one what to do.

Does EAA have trauma therapists on staff? He might need one.

:P

Seriously, a much better issue!

I never gripe about How To Fly Better articles.

steveinindy

11-25-2011, 08:54 PM

Even better, have him fly no radio into an uncontrolled airfield.

I've always thought that given how light and inexpensive portable radios have become that there is no good excuse for not using one. Being stubborn is not a valid excuse.

Frank Giger

11-25-2011, 11:18 PM

I agree...but it would be interesting to read how Mac would handle piloting an aircraft rather than working a panel of an aircraft.

The point is that I wonder if that guy ever does anything but fly IFR.

How many pilots are actually IFR rated? How many current? How many GA aircraft are actually IFR capable as a percentage?

I find reading about piloting the Space Shuttle interesting. But maybe not in every issue of SA.

An article I'd actually like him to write - and I think he'd do it brilliantly - is how to handle traffic in an uncontrolled field that's actually got traffic. When one is in a Champ and there's a twin engine, a C172, a helicopter, and an ultralight all vying for landing it's interesting to sort it out between everyone. Plus some joker flying in without a radio AND going the wrong way.

Yep, been there and done that. Everyone got down safe.

On other articles, I thought it was great to leave the punchline to the headset review until the very end - a thousand bucks each! I hope he got to keep the review sets - they sure read like they were sweet.

steveinindy

11-26-2011, 12:49 AM

The point is that I wonder if that guy ever does anything but fly IFR.

What's wrong with that? If you're going point A to point B, it's the way to go especially if you're getting anywhere near crowded airspace. I've never understood the aversion some pilots have to talking to ATC.

How many pilots are actually IFR rated? How many current?

I asked a similar question at Oshkosh this summer and was told (by one of the FAA reps) that about half of pilots are instrument rated, but only about 2/3 of those maintain currency.

How many GA aircraft are actually IFR capable as a percentage?

I would wager most of the ones coming off the assembly line would be which would account for the biggest swath of the fleet. I don't think you're going to get accurate numbers among the homebuilts because of how much variability there is between even aircraft of the same model. It might be that when one flies low, slow and VFR that is what they think of as the most common representation of the fleet as a whole....kind of the reverse of what a lot of folks seem to be accusing Mac and his colleagues of. Both ends are not correct but are the most vocal out of the entire population which leads to threads such as this one.

Bill Berson

11-26-2011, 01:16 PM

Ok, I finally found what is happening with Sport Aviation. It is explained by Tom Poberezny in the August 2011 issue, page 6.

Tom says: " The template for the stories in Sport Aviation is EAA Airventure Oshkosh"

That explains everything, EAA will now report about anything that appears at Oshkosh, including business jets, Boeing jets, Ford trucks and Honda generators, I suppose.
Someone needs to update the expanded EAA mission statement on the EAA website.

(http://www.sportaviationonline.org/sportaviation/201108#)
http://images-cdn.dashdigital.com/sportaviation/201108/data/imgpages/90/0008_ifajmz_fg.png?lm=1317056230000

Frank Giger

11-27-2011, 12:02 AM

I asked a similar question at Oshkosh this summer and was told (by one of the FAA reps) that about half of pilots are instrument rated, but only about 2/3 of those maintain currency.

Maybe with all pilots - but when just those not holding a commercial license (Sport, Recreational, Private) are taken into account the number will surely plunge.

Heck, I wonder how many holding licenses are current to fly in any capacity (having had a flight review)? Great gobs of Private Pilots are letting their medicals expire and flying under Sport Pilot rules, which nixes IFR flight, so that throws the number down.

Of course I suffer from geographical bias - here in Alabama we have six public access towered airports in the whole state! Most folks are not flying IFR from and to uncontrolled airports.

If I were flying in the Northeast or in Southern California I bet I'd see a lot more folks sitting on the ramp getting IFR clearances.

Most cross country flying I see is VFR along the magenta line.

On the article - it's enlightening. I understand that Airventure is the EAA cash cow, and it's the tail that is now larger than the dog.

steveinindy

11-27-2011, 01:21 AM

If the problem is insurmountably large, why bother even complaining?

Frank Giger

11-27-2011, 06:00 AM

Internet validation of the self:

I complain; therefore I am.

kscessnadriver

11-27-2011, 11:51 AM

Maybe with all pilots - but when just those not holding a commercial license (Sport, Recreational, Private) are taken into account the number will surely plunge.

So what you're saying, is that a commercial certificate automatically precludes you from sport aviation. Ah, I get it now, maybe that's why I feel like this forum is so backwards these days.

steveinindy

11-27-2011, 05:07 PM

Bill

11-27-2011, 06:41 PM

So what you're saying, is that a commercial certificate automatically precludes you from sport aviation. Ah, I get it now, maybe that's why I feel like this forum is so backwards these days.

I don't see how one can reach such an interpretation from the post referred to. This interpretation is orthogonal to the original post, which just opined that a specific subset of the overall pilot population might have a different distribution of instrument rated and non-instrument rated pilots that the full set. This seems possible to me and it would be nice if we could get the raw data to apply a rational statistical analysis to see if this is accurate or not.

steveinindy

11-27-2011, 09:10 PM

This seems possible to me and it would be nice if we could get the raw data to apply a rational statistical analysis to see if this is accurate or not.

SOURCE FOR FOLLOWING DATA: http://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistics/civil_airmen_statistics/2010/
T (http://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistics/civil_airmen_statistics/2010/)otal number of pilots (including students, recreational and sport): 627,588
Total number of instrument rated pilots: 318,001 (63%)
Total number of commercial pilots: 123,705
Total number of ATPs: 142,198
Total number of Private pilots: 202,020
Private pilots with instrument ratings: 55,979 (so roughly a quarter of them)
Sport pilots: 3,682 (a very, very distinct minority of all pilots at 0.59% of the total pilot population)

Just for the sake of comparison and thoroughness, even if every single sport pilot in the US was an EAA member, that still makes them only 2% of the membership (assuming 160,000 members as stated on the EAA Wikipedia page).

Bill

11-27-2011, 11:07 PM

SOURCE FOR FOLLOWING DATA: http://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistics/civil_airmen_statistics/2010/
T (http://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistics/civil_airmen_statistics/2010/)otal number of pilots (including students, recreational and sport): 627,588
Total number of instrument rated pilots: 318,001 (63%)
Total number of commercial pilots: 123,705
Total number of ATPs: 142,198
Total number of Private pilots: 202,020
Private pilots with instrument ratings: 55,979 (so roughly a quarter of them)
Sport pilots: 3,682 (a very, very distinct minority of all pilots at 0.59% of the total pilot population)

Just for the sake of comparison and thoroughness, even if every single sport pilot in the US was an EAA member, that still makes them only 2% of the membership (assuming 160,000 members as stated on the EAA Wikipedia page).

Which shows that to a first approximation, the original poster was correct when he said, "Maybe with all pilots - but when just those not holding a commercial license (Sport, Recreational, Private) are taken into account the number will surely plunge." As show above (taken with a dose of salt since all of the tables include the word "Estimated" in their titles), it does, from 63 percent of the total pilot population holding instrument ratings to private pilots with instrument ratings (we can ignore Sport pilots and the few Recreational pilots since they, as such, don't hold instrument ratings) who only make up 8.9 percent of the total pilot population.

steveinindy

11-27-2011, 11:17 PM

But the bigger point is that those in the "I only want LSA discussions!" are still in the minority just like the people at the opposite end of the spectrum. I don't see why this has to be an "either/or" decision. There's room enough for everyone that makes up the EAA constituency and quite frankly, I'm as fed up about the few whining about things that don't interest them as they are about people talking or writing about those things. We're a big family and sure, we at this point are kind of like a family on COPS, but we need to stop bickering. Maybe we don't like the girl that our cousin is married too, maybe we think that Uncle Bob is compensating for something with that sup'ed up vehicle of his, but when it comes down to it we have to work together otherwise the "family" as a whole suffers.

I just find it funny that it's OK to ignore 8.9% of the pilot population over the wishes of a group that is estimated to be smaller in size.

Frank Giger

11-28-2011, 04:27 AM

My point wasn't that every pilot should fly under Sport Pilot rules; it was that most pilots (and from the EAA standpoint the focus has always been on PPL's, not Commercial pilots) fly for sport. As in recreation.

Which is primarily VFR.

I just don't believe that when Joe Average Pilot (who is a PPL) decides that he and the family are going to fly down to Panama City for a weekend at the beach that his first inclination is to fly IFR. Nope, he's going to watch the weather and if it's not VFR he's going to scratch the trip by air.

Indeed, the NTSB files are full of folks flying into IFR weather when they should have turned back.

To posit your theory it shouldn't happen, as they should just climb out of the soup, contact ATC, and go IFR (if that's a normal skill set).

Nor do I think IFR stuff should be banished from Sport Aviation. In the last issue it got a couple pages, which is fine by me; I'm not opposed to talking everything aviation! Where the gripes came from was when those things only tangentally related to General Aviation were the "tent pole" of the issue.

Similarly, I'd get annoyed if everything was LSA, and I'm a Sport Pilot! It's too small a subset of aircraft and NOT what the bulk of EAA members are flying. The four seat RV build or Cessna restoration interests me, as does the warbird stuff.

But the focus of the magazine - and the organization - should be on General Aviation in general and Experimental aircraft in particular if one were to take the original intent of the EAA to heart.

[edit]

Though I do think they should make Mac fly a short cross country from uncontrolled airfield to uncontrolled airfield and return with some touch and goes under daytime VFR conditions in a single piston driven reciprical engine aircraft with fixed landing gear using a sectional map.

To ease the shock, a C172 would be acceptable (since it's a non-LSA spam can).

Baby steps, as they say.

:)

steveinindy

11-28-2011, 05:44 AM

I just don't believe that when Joe Average Pilot (who is a PPL) decides that he and the family are going to fly down to Panama City for a weekend at the beach that his first inclination is to fly IFR. Nope, he's going to watch the weather and if it's not VFR he's going to scratch the trip by air.

Indeed, the NTSB files are full of folks flying into IFR weather when they should have turned back.

To posit your theory it shouldn't happen, as they should just climb out of the soup, contact ATC, and go IFR (if that's a normal skill set).
I would tend to agree with you.

Still, if I have a flight of more than 50 miles or so, I'm going to go IFR and I honestly and sincerely believe that the instrument rating should be part and parcel of the PPL standard. This is the case simply because- whether we like to admit it or not- as private pilots, a lot of us fly in what should be viewed as instrument conditions (not in the sense of traffic separation but otherwise) on a regular basis. It's called flying at night over rural areas. I don't think it's an absolute magic bullet for the VFR into IMC problem (I'm more or less building a career out of the questionable judgment of a subset of the aviation community) but it could be beneficial to give people more than a couple of hours under the hood before kicking them out on their own.

Though I do think they should make Mac fly a short cross country from uncontrolled airfield to uncontrolled airfield and return with some touch and goes under daytime VFR conditions in a single piston driven reciprical engine aircraft with fixed landing gear using a sectional map.

To ease the shock, a C172 would be acceptable (since it's a non-LSA spam can).

Why not just waterboard him? It would probably be more fun for all involved. ;) Once I progress beyond the point of being limited to lower end fixies, I'd almost rather dip my backside in brown gravy and then lock myself in a broom closet with a rabid wolverine high on PCP. Just not my thing and I can understand if it isn't Mac's either. To each and to their own. That said, the design after the one I am working on now is going to be an LSA. Not because I particularly want to build or fly one, but it's a good engineering challenge given the priorities I have in mind.

martymayes

11-28-2011, 07:31 AM

Really? I'm 22, and I can say that the few people my age I know involved with aviation generally want nothing to do with low & slow, when it comes to aircraft. They want something that is new, with new technology and can squeeze every ounce of speed out of the engine. The younger crowd wants nothing to do with aviation these days, due to cost (primarily). Secondly, its because quite frankly, there is very little new innovation in aviation. Planes today are vastly similar to what they were when my parents were my age (25 or so years ago). Look what cars have done in 25 years.

Lessee, we want high tech airplanes but flying is too expensive, no contradiction there. FWIW, airplanes have made a number of improvements in safety and reliability over the past 50 yrs and evolution will continue. There won't be many revolutionary changes because aviation doesn't work that way. A computer chip is not going to produce a magical speed increase. Future aviation performance advances will be takeoff and landing distances, ROC, cruising miles per gallon, min/max speed ratios. When someone can match Steve Wittman's 1930's homebuilt Buttercup in those categories, we will call that high-tech progress....lol.

Driving a car in no way compares to flying an airplane. If someone is convinced otherwise, they won't find much appeal in aviation.

You're post makes no sense to me. First you start of by saying that GA is in a period of contraction, with the number of pilots down. But then you go on to say that sport aviation isn't dying, which is a contradiction. If GA is dying, then sport aviation has to be as well, no?

There is a difference between shrinking and dying. I'm not concerned with the fact that aviation is shrinking but then my income doesn't depend on "the numbers." Contrary to the alarmist claims, the sky is not falling just because there are not as many active pilots.

Regardless, the smaller EAA gets, the less pull it has in DC. So all it's going to take is one experimental crash that takes out some people on the ground, and congress will just decide to close the experimental game down, or structure it like Europe. Do you have any evidence that such action will happen or is this just more alarmist claims? Certainly if that is true, there would be historical examples.

And who are you to say what is and isn't boring? A TBM-850 is a hell of a lot more exciting to me than something like a VP-1 Volksplane is. Well, when I joined 30 yrs ago, it was called the EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT ASSOCIATION, not the production aircraft association. I still fail to see where a TBM fits in.

martymayes

11-28-2011, 09:21 AM

I've always thought that given how light and inexpensive portable radios have become that there is no good excuse for not using one. Being stubborn is not a valid excuse.

Take your handheld radio flying in an airplane with an unshielded ignition and let me know how that works out for ya.

Bill Berson

11-28-2011, 11:03 AM

Steve,
EAA (Experimental AIRCRAFT Association) was formed to promote aircraft building and restoration. It was not formed as a pilot organization that primarily discusses flying. Flying and pilot stories is best left to the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. Hence the typical AOPA member is expected to be an aircraft OWNER or PILOT but not a builder or restorer or aircraft mechanic.

But EAA was formed for the builder, restorer and aircraft mechanic. EAA was not about the pilot and that is why it is called Experimental Aircraft Association and not Experimental Pilots Association. So in my opinion, this invasion of articles about piloting, IFR trips etc., are not appropriate for the main magazine. It should placed in another special interest EAA magazine if EAA needs to expand.

The main magazine from EAA should be about building and restoring aircraft. The focus of EAA should be affordability, and building and restoration is the best option for affordability. But an occasional article about a rich mans jet restoration would be appropriate because it is still a restoration.
Bill

Barnstorm

11-28-2011, 06:22 PM

Take your handheld radio flying in an airplane with an unshielded ignition and let me know how that works out for ya.Been there, done that.It is not so bad so long as you get a NEW, high quality hand held. ESP. With remote ant.

steveinindy

11-28-2011, 06:37 PM

Not to put too fine a point on it but, why would I fly in an aircraft like that to begin with?

steveinindy

11-28-2011, 06:41 PM

Flying and pilot stories is best left to the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. Hence the typical AOPA member is expected to be an aircraft OWNER or PILOT but not a builder or restorer or aircraft mechanic.

I agree. But people were arguing earlier for human interest stories. Honestly, I would love to see Sport Aviation be a technical methods magazine. Nothing makes me flip past an article faster than it being about someone's story of their airplane.

The focus of EAA should be affordability, and building and restoration is the best option for affordability

Then you're ignoring those of us who don't think that the bottom of the barrel as far as materials and methods is the best approach to save a few bucks. Remember, Lancair and the like stay in business for a reason.

Bill

11-28-2011, 08:45 PM

Then you're ignoring those of us who don't think that the bottom of the barrel as far as materials and methods is the best approach to save a few bucks. Remember, Lancair and the like stay in business for a reason.

Affordable does not imply "the bottom of the barrel" as far as I'm concerned. I'm building my experimental to be affordable, but will not be scraping the "bottom of the barrel" to do so. I bought the same quick-build kit as most others did. While I build, every once of weight and dollar of expense will have to earn its way onto my airplane. As the designer of the Ford Trimotor said, "The most important improvement that can be added to any airplane is a little lightness." I would add to that, the most important dollar on an airplane is the dollar unnecessarily spent.

Frank Giger

11-28-2011, 11:27 PM

Similarly, there are loads of things the owner of an aircraft (experimental or spam can) can do himself both in maintenance and restoration that will be identical to what a maintenance shop will perform.

I don't think the owner of an aircraft who decides to replace the fabric on his aircraft himself is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Nor is the guy who replaces the interior.

Steve, I think somebody has put in your head that experimental = shoddy and cheap.

If so, I recommend you actually look at a couple folks that are building aircraft and the attention to detail they're taking in the build. Heck, I think the RV guys probably spend more for their planes in building than if they'd of just written a check.

My own plane will be very inexpensive in aircraft terms - and it should be as a tube and gusset, fabric covered plane just over ultralight weight. It fits my flying desires and my wallet just fine; but it's not cheap by any means.

And yeah, the offer is still open when it's airworthy to have you come out and sit in it.

After I've put 100 hours on it I might even let you fly it!

steveinindy

11-29-2011, 01:54 AM

Affordable does not imply "the bottom of the barrel" as far as I'm concerned. I'm building my experimental to be affordable, but will not be scraping the "bottom of the barrel" to do so. I bought the same quick-build kit as most others did. While I build, every once of weight and dollar of expense will have to earn its way onto my airplane. As the designer of the Ford Trimotor said, "The most important improvement that can be added to any airplane is a little lightness." I would add to that, the most important dollar on an airplane is the dollar unnecessarily spent.

Points well said and appreciated. Although I would argue that the best dollar spent on an airplane is the one that keeps you safe but given my career path, there's a pretty glaring bias on my part regarding that. ;)

steveinindy

11-29-2011, 02:01 AM

Steve, I think somebody has put in your head that experimental = shoddy and cheap.

Not in the slightest. I see experimental aviation as the one aspect of aviation where the limits on development and advancement are pretty much limitless. However, I do tend to get a bit frustrated when we chase our own tails and accept a status quo that could be easily and readily improved (assuming there was a will among the pilots and builders to do so) make our experimental moniker somewhat of a misnomer.

If so, I recommend you actually look at a couple folks that are building aircraft and the attention to detail they're taking in the build. Heck, I think the RV guys probably spend more for their planes in building than if they'd of just written a check.

Amen to that. One of my friends here locally is building an RV and it's not inexpensive but then again it's a very middle of the road aircraft in terms of design. Not a bad design by any measure but at the same time- as with any design- there is room for improvement.

After I've put 100 hours on it I might even let you fly it!

Sounds like a plan. Are you designing this yourself or is it a version of an existing design?

Frank Giger

11-30-2011, 03:05 AM

Existing design! I'm no engineer!

I figure that anything big that is going to break will break in the first 40 hours....and the next 60 will be tweaking the trim, evaluating durability. I plan on doing a full prop to rudder inspection of the plane at the first 100 hour mark as well (taking the wings off, full check of wires, etc).

It's a double ride, Steve. I wouldn't let anyone fly my Nieuport 11 until they do a few landings in a Champ to warm up.

At any rate, I liked the last issue of SA....

steveinindy

11-30-2011, 06:08 PM

Existing design! I'm no engineer!

I'm not letting that stop me. I figure if I can weld, I can learn the other stuff I need to know. Besides, it gives me an excuse to go back to school. ;)

It's a double ride, Steve. I wouldn't let anyone fly my Nieuport 11 until they do a few landings in a Champ to warm up.

I'll have to get my taildragger endorsement too....I've never landed anything without a nosegear.

Mike M

01-25-2012, 07:30 PM

EAA (Experimental AIRCRAFT Association) was formed to promote aircraft building and restoration...EAA was formed for the builder, restorer and aircraft mechanic. EAA was not about the pilot and that is why it is called Experimental Aircraft Association and not Experimental Pilots Association. So in my opinion, this invasion of articles about piloting, IFR trips etc., are not appropriate for the main magazine. It should placed in another special interest EAA magazine if EAA needs to expand....EAA should be about building and restoring aircraft. The focus of EAA should be affordability, and building and restoration is the best option for affordability.

thanks for reminding me what the E in EAA stands for. it's on the front cover of the latest Sport Aviation magazine but once again, it's hard to tell from the table of contents or flipping pages that the magazine has much to do with experimental amateur built aircraft.

sportaviationonline.org/sportaviation/201202?folio=42#pg44
sportaviationonline.org/sportaviation/201202#pg38
sportaviationonline.org/sportaviation/201202#pg32

pages 42/43, 30/31, 36/38 are nice AOPA/FLYING/Plane & Pilot articles. all things to all people, oh and by the way remember to donate more money so we can fight user fees.

Mike McMains

01-26-2012, 07:49 PM

The original question is what should be the focus of Sport Aviation (& EAA). Bill Berson is right. Experimental Pilots Assn. is not the name of the organization & we don't really need two AOPAs, which is what EAA has strived to become. Homebuilts have become marginalized because that's not where the big bucks are. That's just reality, & it's not going to change. The 'EA" part of the EAA deserves to have a magazine just as the IAC, Vintage & Warbirds segment do, at least. That's not happening & the reason is money. Since the EAA leadership wants to be AOPA, it would make economic sense to merge with it. Then, why not call it what it is, "AOPA" or a new, appropriate name. This is the honest thing to do- call a spade a spade. Then maybe they could afford an EAA division, which could be about- yes, experimental aircraft.

Mike M

04-07-2012, 12:55 PM

[QUOTE=Mike McMains;10136]... Since the EAA leadership wants to be AOPA, it would make economic sense to merge with it. Then, why not call it what it is, "AOPA" or a new, appropriate name. This is the honest thing to do- call a spade a spade. Then maybe they could afford an EAA division, which could be about- yes, experimental aircraft.[/QUOTE

i would have agreed before i got the volume 61 number 4 copy of SA; now i'm not so sure EAA leadership knows what the heck they want us to become. with all the articles in this issue about how you have to practice all the time, how dangerous flying is, ditching, running out of gas, getting lost - do we really want to play this game any more? where are the articles on homebuilts and experimentals? oh, in the member's reports. written by amateurs, for amateurs. about the same number of pages as a good chapter newsletter. whoopie.

and honestly. a report on a couple of airline pilots getting SIC qual'd in the last example - the last example - of a classic passenger airliner? to what end? their own fun? or so we'd have a neat advertisement to read? "the Historical Flight Foundation offers flight experiences and even training toward SIC ratings, allowing you to join this dwindling and exclusive club..." exclusive club? did our dues pay for that? shouldn't advertising like that COST the Foundation? if Sully and Jeff paid all their own expenses, then sold the article to SA, fine, i withdraw my whine. if not, well........when do y'all pay for my DC-7 SIC training? i'll write a real nice article, promise. and i'll even take the photos for it myself, no extra charge.

Kyle Boatright

04-07-2012, 01:57 PM

i would have agreed before i got the volume 61 number 4 copy of SA; now i'm not so sure EAA leadership knows what the heck they want us to become. with all the articles in this issue about how you have to practice all the time, how dangerous flying is, ditching, running out of gas, getting lost - do we really want to play this game any more? where are the articles on homebuilts and experimentals? oh, in the member's reports. written by amateurs, for amateurs. about the same number of pages as a good chapter newsletter. whoopie.

Yep, another horrible edition of the magazine. Seemingly 50% of the magazine was devoted to safety topics which are covered in *every* other flying publication. I see no need to duplicate (and triplicate and quadruplicate) that content in SA. Two large columns were devoted to explaining why "New EAA" is much better than "Old EAA". I'm sorry, taking up valuable space that could have been used to inspire or eductate someone with articles that push the company line is another waste of space.

One thing I have figured out is that in the last year, SA has gone from being an article driven magazine to being a column driven magazine. If I want the same people's opinion's month after month, I'll subscribe to Flying, thanks. Sport Aviation is supposed to be about fun portion of aviation - the airplanes and the people. It isn't supposed to be a bully pulpit for the editor and a handful of columnists. Of course, it is much easier (and probably less expensive) to tell a half dozen people "Your column is due on the 1st" than it is to actually go out and do the work to find and write interesting articles.

Mike M

04-07-2012, 02:05 PM

Of course, it is much easier (and probably less expensive) to tell a half dozen people "Your column is due on the 1st" than it is to actually go out and do the work to find and write interesting articles.

duh. i never thought of that.

(no, i'm not making fun of Kyle. i really never thought of that.)

Mike McMains

04-08-2012, 01:47 PM

In the latest issue of Sport Aviation, the current leadership makes it clear that it believes the majority of EAA members and potential members want another slick general aviation magazine. That's a business decision we are not going to be able to change in this forum. However, I still believe that EAA owes it to the very name of the organization & the people who built it, to have a division/publication option for experimental aviation enthusiasts, just as IAC, Vintage, & Warbirds do. I think they would be surprised how many members would drop SA for this option. If they need a ready-made source, maybe they could make a deal with Kitplanes that would be profitable. A majority of our members do not build airplanes, but, given the choice, most would still want to be associated with those who do, over a generic aviation organization. I've belonged to AOPA since 1978 & EAA since 1980. I wish EAA didn't feel like it needed to compete for the same dollars with the same magazine format & content.

RV8505

04-08-2012, 04:10 PM

How would you feel if we had ( Unspecified number ) of pages dedicated to homebuilding in the current magazine? Rather than complain we should really talk about this in a constructive mannner and organize our efforts. Maybe we could get a another survey instituted to see if fellow members are intersted or we are the lone rangers. I enjoy the technical articles myself. We have had a really good discussion on aircraft grade hardware going on the forum and it would be great if we had some pictures to go with it.

Maybe, we could help guide the direction of what we would like to see in the magazine from the Forum.

( Question, Can there be such a thing as the Lone Rangers? :confused: )

Chuck

martymayes

04-08-2012, 05:28 PM

Aw you guys, the April issue was awesome! Pages 90-93 were great for reading, the remainder makes great bird cage liner!!

Kyle Boatright

04-08-2012, 05:30 PM

How would you feel if we had ( Unspecified number ) of pages dedicated to homebuilding in the current magazine?
Chuck

Chuck,

I'm a homebuilder, but the content doesn't have to be experimental IMO. It could be vintage, warbird, or any other intersting hands-on topic. That's what has more or less disappeared from the magazine, and for the magazine to retain its identity (as opposed to being AOPA-Lite or Flying Part Deux), the first person material needs to be 50% or more of the content.

RV8505

04-08-2012, 06:14 PM

danielfindling

04-08-2012, 06:15 PM

I think the April issue of Sport Aviation was one of the better issues. (some background for credibility- I am a member of EAA and AOPA, building ribs (slowly) for a Hatz biplane and own and fly a Cessna 140A. I first attended the Oshkosh convention in 1985 and have not missed one since 1997).

April's issue clearly reminded us of the mission statement of EAA and I like it. I also liked the emphasis on safety and hope for more articles on point.

So far a big thumbs up to EAA and it's leadership from this member on the changes at EAA.

Daniel Findling

Mike M

04-08-2012, 06:27 PM

Are you saying half of the magazine needs to be homebuilder stuff?

" the first person material needs to be 50% or more of the content."

what i understood Kyle to mean was, most of the magazine should be about hands-on stuff regarding aircraft building, rebuilding, or restoring. warbirds, antiques, experimentals, hands-on-aircraft info the majority of members can realistically emulate. not "i wrote a check THIS big and got THIS result" or "i had SO much fun flying" or "i got SO scared" or "you better watch out or THIS will happen". nor ads for certificated turboprops, nor nostalgia trivia schools. hands-on, members' aircraft.

if that's what Kyle meant, i agree.

Kyle Boatright

04-08-2012, 07:22 PM

Are you saying half of the magazine needs to be homebuilder stuff?

" the first person material needs to be 50% or more of the content."

Nope. First person could be "What I built, what I restored, what I developed, what I did with my airplane, etc." It could be experimental, warbird, ultralight, or even some interesting aspect related to a "modern" certified airplane. But it needs to be first person, about something a member did.

steveinindy

04-08-2012, 08:04 PM

So have you submitted your article yet then Kyle?

RV8505

04-08-2012, 08:05 PM

Did you fill out the online survey when the EAA was trying to find out the content the members wanted? Personaly I like the variety in sport aviation. I don't realy see the comparison between aopa and sport aviation.

However, I do see a need for more technical articles that wouldn't really fit into sport avaition anyways. Think about it how many poeple want to talk about screws and bolts. I like Paul P think we should have our own magazine like the warbird guys but he said there wasn't much interst in it and that's why it never happened. We just don't have the numbers and intrest. Sure as the sun rises I know as a former chapter president how hard it is to get members to write articles. Maybe the EAA has trouble getting good articles from members?

Mike Switzer

04-08-2012, 08:11 PM

Did you fill out the online survey when the EAA was trying to find out the content the members wanted?

I never knew there was an online survey about the magazine, so I guess they didn't advertise it very well. I bet the link was buried at the end of one of the email newsletters.

Mike Switzer

04-08-2012, 08:13 PM

I like Paul P think we should have our own magazine like the warbird guys but he said there wasn't much interst in it and that's why it never happened. We just don't have the numbers and intrest.

One of the biggest reasons I am a member is to get access to the old magazines online (the ones from back when they had technical articles and other informative articles about homebuilt aircraft)

steveinindy

04-08-2012, 08:17 PM

Maybe the EAA has trouble getting good articles from members?

That's exactly the problem from what I have been told. I have some revisions to make to my articles to try to help "fix the problem" such as it were.

I believe that the biggest problem is that we have a lot of people who like to hear themselves complain but aren't willing to actually man up and do something about those same issues. As my mother likes to point out: if you can't or aren't willing to do better, then you have only a limited right to whine about things.

Mike M

04-08-2012, 08:21 PM

I believe that the biggest problem is that we have a lot of people who like to hear themselves complain but aren't willing to actually man up and do something about those same issues.

hey, in addition to being members, we are customers here, too. customers whine.

Kyle Boatright

04-08-2012, 08:44 PM

So have you submitted your article yet then Kyle?

Nice jab, Steve.

To answer your question, no. There is/was nothing particularly noteworthy about my experience as a Tomahawk owner, an RV-6 builder/flyer, an (ongong) Aeronca restorer, or as someone who has built the ribs and center section for a Hatz Classic. I'm pretty much following in the footsteps of people who have already done those things and who were kind enough to share their experiences in Sport Aviation.

steveinindy

04-08-2012, 09:26 PM

Nice jab, Steve.

You kind of walked right into it. No offense intended.

There is/was nothing particularly noteworthy about my experience as a Tomahawk owner, an RV-6 builder/flyer, an (ongong) Aeronca restorer, or as someone who has built the ribs and center section for a Hatz Classic. I'm pretty much following in the footsteps of people who have already done those things and who were kind enough to share their experiences in Sport Aviation.

Well, what separates you from them? To someone who has never built something, your experiences would seem as unique as those who you say have told these things before. Guess what? There's nothing new under the sun. That goes for homebuilding when 99.99999999999999% of us are copying what has already been done (myself included). Every topical magazine is pretty much filled with rehashings of the same things over and over and over through the years because of the limits of what is actually happening. Yeah, there are minor changes from time to time but for the most part, it's the same crap over again whether it's an airplane magazine or one about cars or fishing and hunting or a medical magazine.

If one is going to complain that they aren't seeing stories about people building and then to have that person turn around and admit that "Yeah, I find the experience of building and restoring to be really mundane and probably not interesting enough to write about" is a bit of a non sequitur. I actually agree with you that for the most part, the quickest way to get me to not read an article is to make it about someone bucking rivets (as an example) unless they have something to teach about that process. I could care less about the fiftieth RV-6 at Mudsuck Regional Airport just as much as I get very little out of the umpteenth article about war birds.

hey, in addition to being members, we are customers here, too. customers whine.

Yeah, but when the "customers" are told why things are the way that are and there needs to be submissions of "human interest" stories or technical articles and the "customers" decide not to listen, then the problem becomes with the "customer" as much if not more so than with "business". One of the worst saying to ever enter into the American vernacular was "The customer is always right".

Frank Giger

04-08-2012, 11:27 PM

Actually, I was pretty pleased with the latest issue.

The weird:

Sully breaks the record for most Young Eagles taken up in a single flight. ;) I must say I rolled my eyes at the sight of an airliner on the cover, considering AOPA's magazine has a Kitfox on theirs this month.

An odd comment that autopilots can do approaches better than real pilots - which might actually be true if one isn't flying a left hand pattern in a Champ.

Brady's build used as an opinion piece about EAA direction. Wasn't expecting that.

The good:

Slip like you mean it article brought a big smile to my face and had me nodding in agreement while reading it. It's a replay of my own experience, including the right-slip-is-better-but-hardly-nobody-does-it advice.

Ron's article on Experimental Wreck Stats had me applauding; it's refreshing to read someone who knows how to actually write an information paper, starting with assumptions and methodologies used in data selection, having unique circumstances in raw data trends pointed out (and the caveats it brings to the fore), and then hedged conclusions on what the data means - it forces one to think on what it meant. I used to do that sort of stuff for a living, and it was nice to be able to clearly walk the dog in a stats article without a lot of questions.

The following article that drew conclusions from Ron's stats was on point and logical.

The article on running out of fuel....wow. Altitude causing air in the tank to expand and drain fuel in a baffled tank is something I hadn't even considered happening. Not a problem in the types of planes I fly currently, but who knows what the future holds? It's the sort of "oh by the way" information that might just have saved my life some day.

Automatic rough doesn't just happen over water; it happens over large forested areas that cover broken terrain. :)

steveinindy

04-09-2012, 12:14 AM

I must say I rolled my eyes at the sight of an airliner on the cover, considering AOPA's magazine has a Kitfox on theirs this month.

I haven't seen this month's issue yet, but I'm assuming it's that DC-6 or DC-7 prop airliner, right? How is that any less vintage (and therefore under the purview of the EAA) than a gaggle of warbirds or DC-3s or Cubs or anything else we will gladly let fall under our banner because of the "cool" or "vintage" factor? I mean, there's only one of them left flying in the entire world. That's a lot more interesting than a Kitfox of which there are what? Several hundred to a couple thousand? I guess I'm just more of a history geek than you Frank.

. I used to do that sort of stuff for a living, and it was nice to be able to clearly walk the dog in a stats article without a lot of questions

What did you do for a living just out of curiosity?

An odd comment that autopilots can do approaches better than real pilots - which might actually be true if one isn't flying a left hand pattern in a Champ.

That is rather odd. Unless you're in hard core IMC and shooting a coupled ILS to minimums (I know IFR talk here is a good way to be persona non grata because it's not what real EAA members do *tongue firmly in cheek*), why the hell would you have the autopilot on below 2,000 feet AGL?

Altitude causing air in the tank to expand and drain fuel in a baffled tank is something I hadn't even considered happening. Not a problem in the types of planes I fly currently, but who knows what the future holds? It's the sort of "oh by the way" information that might just have saved my life some day.

I've heard of it happening a couple of times. Usually someone didn't build their airplane correctly or had been skimping on maintenance.

Brady's build used as an opinion piece about EAA direction. Wasn't expecting that.

How so? Who's Brady?

rwanttaja

04-09-2012, 01:06 AM

Ron's article on Experimental Wreck Stats had me applauding; it's refreshing to read someone who knows how to actually write an information paper, starting with assumptions and methodologies used in data selection, having unique circumstances in raw data trends pointed out (and the caveats it brings to the fore), and then hedged conclusions on what the data means - it forces one to think on what it meant. I used to do that sort of stuff for a living, and it was nice to be able to clearly walk the dog in a stats article without a lot of questions.
Thanks, Frank.

Ron Wanttaja

dewi8095

04-09-2012, 06:29 AM

One of the biggest reasons I am a member is to get access to the old magazines online (the ones from back when they had technical articles and other informative articles about homebuilt aircraft)

That's my major interest too. The magazine archives also give readers a clear picture of how much the EAA magazine has changed over the years. I don't think there will be any going back. Kit Planes is probably the next best option for homebuilders.

Don

Chris In Marshfield

04-09-2012, 06:56 AM

How so? Who's Brady?

Brady = Brady Lane, EAA Photographer, Writer, Pilot. He's done a lot with the organization since joining not too long ago. You may remember him from his multimedia journey through the Sport Pilot program, "Ab Initio" columns in the magazine, Dream-Build-Fly series, etc. He and his building partner Caleb also have a live video feed on their aircraft build that appears every Tuesday night at http://www.dreambuildfly.com/. Good man! Here's his article in the latest issue:

http://www.sportaviationonline.org/sportaviation/201204#pg64

~Chris

Chad Jensen

04-09-2012, 10:01 AM

Chuck,

I'm a homebuilder, but the content doesn't have to be experimental IMO. It could be vintage, warbird, or any other intersting hands-on topic. That's what has more or less disappeared from the magazine, and for the magazine to retain its identity (as opposed to being AOPA-Lite or Flying Part Deux), the first person material needs to be 50% or more of the content.
Folks, this was the Safety Issue. Says so in big bold print on the cover. Sorry if a few of you feel it's repetitive from other pubs, but safety is a BIG issue at EAA and the FAA, like it or not. We have to educate, along with everyone else.

The story on the DC-7 was fantastic...and while it is a BIG old airplane, it does fit the vintage segment. It's not like it's a revenue producing airliner in service. It's run by a volunteer organization with a passion for the airplane. Why would that NOT fit in to EAA?

First person material is hard to find Kyle. We ask for it all the time, and while we get some, it's just not enough (or well written) to put in a publication like Sport Aviation.

I think the April issue of Sport Aviation was one of the better issues. (some background for credibility- I am a member of EAA and AOPA, building ribs (slowly) for a Hatz biplane and own and fly a Cessna 140A. I first attended the Oshkosh convention in 1985 and have not missed one since 1997).

April's issue clearly reminded us of the mission statement of EAA and I like it. I also liked the emphasis on safety and hope for more articles on point.

So far a big thumbs up to EAA and it's leadership from this member on the changes at EAA.

Daniel Findling
We hear a lot more of this than people realize...because the majority of EAA members don't participate in any way, shape, or form in online forums. Phone calls, emails, and personal contact is where the majority of the variety of opinions come from.

I was at Sun N Fun for 9 days last week...I talked to hundreds of people, and I can count on one hand the number of people that blatantly said they had an issue or two with the magazine. One guy said he didn't like it at all.

Chad Jensen

04-09-2012, 10:04 AM

Chuck,

To answer your question, no. There is/was nothing particularly noteworthy about my experience as a Tomahawk owner, an RV-6 builder/flyer, an (ongong) Aeronca restorer, or as someone who has built the ribs and center section for a Hatz Classic. I'm pretty much following in the footsteps of people who have already done those things and who were kind enough to share their experiences in Sport Aviation.
And therein lies the problem. Most people feel this way, and very few write articles for us.

Man...I had to edit this post several times. Too much coffee this morning, I think!;)

cluttonfred

04-09-2012, 11:32 AM

While this horse is probably long since beaten to death, I will add that I have recently joined the UK's LAA and just received the April issue of their magazine, Light Aviation, with a meticulously-built JDT HiMax. I have to say that I find in this magazine from "across the pond" the kind of practical tips and affordable aviation that you see in Sport Aviation of the past but less so today.

I don't have an issue with the occasional article on a restored airliner, a multimillion dollar warbird or a business aircraft, what bothers me is an overall trend in SA that seems to marginalize the homebuilder and especially those building from plans or modest kits. Don't get me wrong, I will say that since the demise of the paper lightplane magazine, I have seen a noticable increase in the practical building tips and LSA/ultralights in SA. But when is the last time SA featured an affordable, plans-built aircraft on the cover?

steveinindy

04-09-2012, 01:08 PM

But when is the last time SA featured an affordable, plans-built aircraft on the cover?

Define "affordable".

Mike M

04-09-2012, 01:33 PM

...like it or not. We have to educate, along with everyone else....

no. we don't. we are a privately funded group, not an arm of the FAA or any other government agency. we can spend our money on whatever we want to. or is EAA getting government grants now? nothing WRONG with having a safety issue. lots of stuff RIGHT with it. many members still want to see unique, individual effort, hands-on, AIRCRAFT each month. we aren't an organization of meat and potatoes, that's AOPA. we're an organization of DREAMS. it's not just the steak; savor the sizzle.

The story on the DC-7 was fantastic...does fit the vintage segment...It's run by a volunteer organization ... Why would that NOT fit in to EAA?

get real. it was an advertisement for selling SIC certification rides. granted, they need revenue to stay alive. just like we need revenue to keep Aluminum Overcast in the air. did they pay for the ad space? or was it a swapout? what did we get besides the article? did Sully and Jeff and Brady pay for their rides/ratings or did EAA?

First person material is hard to find...while we get some, it's just not enough (or well written) to put in a publication like Sport Aviation...

so go LOOK for it. send writers to the field to follow up on the stuff that does get sent in, including the unique features we see in "building or restoring" aircraft submissions. have them research, expand and re-write if necessary, that's what editors do, isn't it? did Sully and Brady and Jeff get paid for writing the DC-7 article? in case you can't tell, i don't believe that article just fell out of a tree for free, ready to print. nor the one about the TBM a couple issues back. etc etc.

BUT to be fair,

it has been a LONG time since Miss Norman's journalism class, and there's pro'ly been lots of changes since copy was literally cut and pasted on posterboard before going to the print shop. investigation hasn't. integrity hasn't.

RV8505

04-09-2012, 01:48 PM

no. we don't. we are a privately funded group, not an arm of the FAA or any other government agency. we can spend our money on whatever we want to. or is EAA getting government grants now? nothing WRONG with having a safety issue. lots of stuff RIGHT with it. many members still want to see unique, individual effort, hands-on, AIRCRAFT each month. we aren't an organization of meat and potatoes, that's AOPA. we're an organization of DREAMS. it's not just the steak; savor the sizzle.

get real. it was an advertisement for selling SIC certification rides. granted, they need revenue to stay alive. just like we need revenue to keep Aluminum Overcast in the air. did they pay for the ad space? or was it a swapout? what did we get besides the article? did Sully and Jeff and Brady pay for their rides/ratings or did EAA?

so go LOOK for it. send writers to the field to follow up on the stuff that does get sent in, including the unique features we see in "building or restoring" aircraft submissions. have them research, expand and re-write if necessary, that's what editors do, isn't it? did Sully and Brady and Jeff get paid for writing the DC-7 article? in case you can't tell, i don't believe that article just fell out of a tree for free, ready to print. nor the one about the TBM a couple issues back. etc etc.

BUT to be fair,

it has been a LONG time since Miss Norman's journalism class, and there's pro'ly been lots of changes since copy was literally cut and pasted on posterboard before going to the print shop. investigation hasn't. integrity hasn't.

That's it you got the job! When are we going to see some of your good ol fashioned Aviation reportin! When are you going to send an article on what you built or are building? If you have time to write these big rebutals wouldn't it be a better use of time to put pen to paper and be constructive and share your knowledge? Somebody with your insight could probably explain alot of things to us novices. After all it would be great to have some with a direct link to the way back EAA old timey days and how things were done.

steveinindy

04-09-2012, 01:48 PM

we're an organization of DREAMS. it's not just the steak; savor the sizzle.

....and at times delusions. The problem is that you don't see that a lot of us look at the things you see as "advertising" or "filler" and see the "sizzle" (as you put it).

many members still want to see unique, individual effort, hands-on, AIRCRAFT each month.

I still want a supermodel to....well, let's just leave that to the imagination. It doesn't mean I'm going to get what I want. With the vast majority of folks building kits or even plans, "unique" is a bit of a stretch. Very, very, very few of us are doing anything unique outside of maybe our paint schemes and the layout of the panel and if we started doing articles on that, people would be whining that the EAA is the advertising arm of the various glass panel manufacturers and how we're wiping our collective butts with the heritage of what Paul had in mind, etc, etc ad nauseum.

get real. it was an advertisement for selling SIC certification rides.

And the story about some guy building a RV-6 (sorry Chad) isn't any less of glorified sales pitch for that model of aircraft?

send writers to the field to follow up on the stuff that does get sent in, including the unique features we see in "building or restoring" aircraft submissions.

Two things:
1. If people aren't submitting even story ideas (which is part of the problem), then how do they "follow up"?
2. How do you suppose we fund these reporters that you want out hunting down interesting home building stories? Between direct payment and related expenses (food, travel, etc) it gets very costly very quickly.

Let's be practical here. This is a failing as much with the membership as with the administration but it's much easier to shift the blame to Rod, Mac, Chad and the folks up in Oshkosh than it is to get off our asses and take part in the actual solution to the problem.

did Sully and Brady and Jeff get paid for writing the DC-7 article? in case you can't tell, i don't believe that article just fell out of a tree for free, ready to print. nor the one about the TBM a couple issues back. etc etc.

Are we supposed to expect folks to simply offer their wares free of charge and if so, why aren't you out there taking your free time to hunt down all these fascinating first-person "so there I was, elbow deep in the wing of my RV, when I realized I'd riveted my ring finger to the spar..." stories? No offense but as someone who makes a fair amount of his income from writing (and ghost-writing at times) articles, if someone wants me to write something- especially if it isn't my cup of tea- you can bet the farm I am getting paid either in terms of cash or in kind.

BTW, I'm happy to go out and write up any homebuilding story you can direct me at. All I ask is that you (or the EAA) cover my admission to Oshkosh and camping fees for Oshkosh in exchange for the first article, etc. That seems fair enough doesn't it?

that's what editors do, isn't it?

You show me an editor at a major publication who actually does serious re-writes and I'll show you a very shocked freelance writer. At non-scientific publications, normally the article gets handed back to the author with minimal revision guidance and an admonition to "fix it" and resubmit.

Chad Jensen

04-09-2012, 01:51 PM

no. we don't. we are a privately funded group, not an arm of the FAA or any other government agency. we can spend our money on whatever we want to. or is EAA getting government grants now? nothing WRONG with having a safety issue. lots of stuff RIGHT with it.
We will have to agree to disagree then. As a strong supporter of the EAA Safety Initiative, I believe it is absolutely in our best interest to educate and provide safety articles. EAB's are on the FAA's target radar. We keep killing 73 people a year, and we will be regulated out of existence. So as a part of EAA's effort to keep that from happening, education on safety is paramount. No, there is no government grant, we just want to be proactive about it.

many members still want to see unique, individual effort, hands-on, AIRCRAFT each month. we aren't an organization of meat and potatoes, that's AOPA. we're an organization of DREAMS. it's not just the steak; savor the sizzle.
Exactly why I wrote the article I did that appears in the April issue...

get real. it was an advertisement for selling SIC certification rides. granted, they need revenue to stay alive. just like we need revenue to keep Aluminum Overcast in the air. did they pay for the ad space? or was it a swapout? what did we get besides the article? did Sully and Jeff and Brady pay for their rides/ratings or did EAA?
I don't run the magazine, so I'm ignorant to how ad space works, swapouts, etc...I do know for certain that HFF paid for the fuel for this fundraiser flight that Sully and Skiles were a part of. They all paid their own personal expenses, and no, EAA didn't pay for the ride or ratings.

so go LOOK for it. send writers to the field to follow up on the stuff that does get sent in, including the unique features we see in "building or restoring" aircraft submissions. have them research, expand and re-write if necessary, that's what editors do, isn't it? did Sully and Brady and Jeff get paid for writing the DC-7 article? in case you can't tell, i don't believe that article just fell out of a tree for free, ready to print. nor the one about the TBM a couple issues back. etc etc.
We are doing just that. As a part of the next phase of magazine development, we are actively searching for the stories to feature. New writers, new approaches, & contemporary coverage.

Mike M

04-09-2012, 02:01 PM

They all paid their own personal expenses, and no, EAA didn't pay for the ride or ratings....As a part of the next phase of magazine development, we are actively searching for the stories to feature. New writers, new approaches, & contemporary coverage.

great. thanks for the answers. i'll sit back down and let you do your job on the next issue.

RV8505

04-09-2012, 02:01 PM

I would be wiling to write.. No longer a chapter president and I am now Freeeee......... as a bird!!! Well,,, not really! I still have a Navy aircraft tug I donated to the EAA and it is with Gary in the south maintenace garage. I have ebaying and everything else to restore it. Talk about pulling teeth! I would like to do a story when I am done with it. I have to finish that first !

steveinindy

04-09-2012, 02:07 PM

As a part of the next phase of magazine development, we are actively searching for the stories to feature. New writers, new approaches, & contemporary coverage.

If you guys get any leads for stories down here, I'm happy to help out. That said, I'm trying to get those revisions to the homebuilding articles done ASAP.

Chad Jensen

04-09-2012, 02:08 PM

Will do Steve! Looking forward to reading the revised copy. :cool:

steveinindy

04-09-2012, 02:12 PM

Yeah, I just need to get this research article out of the way first. Talk about revisions from hell....22 page article, 8 pages of suggestions for ADDITIONAL things to discuss. *stabs self in temple with a pencil*

cluttonfred

04-09-2012, 04:22 PM

I agree that the definition of "affordable" varies widely, but since your asking, I would say at total cost, absolutely complete and ready to fly, less than the price of the average new car wherever you live. In the USA, that means about $30,000 this year. If that seems like a lot -- and it does to many people, especially in these times -- then less is even better.

Define "affordable".

Kyle Boatright

04-09-2012, 06:24 PM

And therein lies the problem. Most people feel this way, and very few write articles for us.

Chad, the problem is that EAA has changed how SA is operated.

Once upon a time, EAA promoted the owners and aircraft which won major awards at Oshkosh (err, Airventure). Every month, there was an article, maybe two, about the Grand Champion Antique, Classic, Contemporary, Homebuilt (kit), Homebuilt (plans), Warbird, Ultralight, etc. The owner/builder didn't write the article, Jack Cox did, and EAA's longtime photographer (whose name escapes me) contributed with outstanding photos. Now, we get advertisements (disguised as articles) from Socata, Bose, the DC-7 folks, and a host of others, plus stock photography which seems to include a fair amount of 2nd rate photoshop work.

The magazine is the organization's calling card, and should serve as the organization's point of entry, even if it loses money on a strict accounting basis. It should serve to inspire and recruit members to the dream. Instead, it is being run as a profit center where revenues are maximized and expenses minimized, despite the impact on the quality of the product. Long term, that will be a failing strategy because nobody is going to pick up a random copy of SA sitting in an FBO and say "Wow, I wanna join that organization." Instead, they are gonna say "Meh. I already subscribe to Flying."

Chad Jensen

04-09-2012, 07:07 PM

Chad, the problem is that EAA has changed how SA is operated.

Once upon a time, EAA promoted the owners and aircraft which won major awards at Oshkosh (err, Airventure). Every month, there was an article, maybe two, about the Grand Champion Antique, Classic, Contemporary, Homebuilt (kit), Homebuilt (plans), Warbird, Ultralight, etc. The owner/builder didn't write the article, Jack Cox did, and EAA's longtime photographer (whose name escapes me) contributed with outstanding photos. Now, we get advertisements (disguised as articles) from Socata, Bose, the DC-7 folks, and a host of others, plus stock photography which seems to include a fair amount of 2nd rate photoshop work.

The magazine is the organization's calling card, and should serve as the organization's point of entry, even if it loses money on a strict accounting basis. It should serve to inspire and recruit members to the dream. Instead, it is being run as a profit center where revenues are maximized and expenses minimized, despite the impact on the quality of the product. Long term, that will be a failing strategy because nobody is going to pick up a random copy of SA sitting in an FBO and say "Wow, I wanna join that organization." Instead, they are gonna say "Meh. I already subscribe to Flying."
We have a membership that wants a magazine...something had to change in order to keep it afloat. We've done that, so now it's time to work on the content again to move it back the other way a bit. It's never going to be that "once upon a time..." publication. My hope is that is will get better, and continue to do so.

A profit center? Not in the slightest. It might break even every once in a while...

Picking up a copy in an FBO may just be the inspiration that a young person learning to fly needs. You don't know that it won't anymore than I don't know that it will. I hope so, but I don't know...the other side of your comment about Flying mag, is that someone may pick up a copy of SA and say "Nice! I can join an organization that is passionate about growing and protecting aviation and get a great magazine. Why do I need Flying?"

hydroguy2

04-09-2012, 09:44 PM

I'm here to stay. I skip the articles that don't interest me, but I read most of the rag. Actually look forward to finding it in the mailbox. maybe I have an aviation problem.

As far as articles go. I would have loved to see my story in print, but most likely no one would care to read it(I barely graduated high school english). I think Chad should take a EAA expense account and come to Montana we'll get some stories.

Dana

04-10-2012, 04:41 AM

First person material is hard to find Kyle. We ask for it all the time, and while we get some, it's just not enough (or well written) to put in a publication like Sport Aviation.

The writing needs to be decent, but in a world of amateur built airplanes, amateur writing (as long as it's reasonably decent) isn't necessarily a bad thing... it adds to the flavor, a sense of community, and the sense of "if he can do this so can I!"

Do you pay for articles? That would encourage submission. If you can't afford to, perhaps a year's free membership? I know of at least one magazine that offers a year subscription (or a year's extension of your current subscription) for articles used.

steveinindy

04-10-2012, 05:30 AM

In the USA, that means about $30,000 this year. If that seems like a lot -- and it does to many people, especially in these times -- then less is even better.

No thanks. If I wanted a magazine about ultralights, I'd go find one.

steveinindy

04-10-2012, 05:31 AM

I know of at least one magazine that offers a year subscription (or a year's extension of your current subscription) for articles used.

Which one is that?

steveinindy

04-10-2012, 05:34 AM

Chad, the problem is that EAA has changed how SA is operated.

Once upon a time, EAA promoted the owners and aircraft which won major awards at Oshkosh (err, Airventure). Every month, there was an article, maybe two, about the Grand Champion Antique, Classic, Contemporary, Homebuilt (kit), Homebuilt (plans), Warbird, Ultralight, etc. The owner/builder didn't write the article, Jack Cox did, and EAA's longtime photographer (whose name escapes me) contributed with outstanding photos. Now, we get advertisements (disguised as articles) from Socata, Bose, the DC-7 folks, and a host of others, plus stock photography which seems to include a fair amount of 2nd rate photoshop work.

The magazine is the organization's calling card, and should serve as the organization's point of entry, even if it loses money on a strict accounting basis. It should serve to inspire and recruit members to the dream. Instead, it is being run as a profit center where revenues are maximized and expenses minimized, despite the impact on the quality of the product. Long term, that will be a failing strategy because nobody is going to pick up a random copy of SA sitting in an FBO and say "Wow, I wanna join that organization." Instead, they are gonna say "Meh. I already subscribe to Flying."

Good grief Kyle. I take it you're one of those folks that could find the downside to almost anything. I think I'd have to shoot myself if I lived with that level of pessimism about everything. Lighten up. I think you'll find that it makes life all the more enjoyable.

cluttonfred

04-10-2012, 05:45 AM

So you think $30,000 is an unreasonably low budget for a homebuilt aircraft project? Lucky you, and your attitude leaves a lot to be desired.

No thanks. If I wanted a magazine about ultralights, I'd go find one.

steveinindy

04-10-2012, 06:05 AM

So you think $30,000 is an unreasonably low budget for a homebuilt aircraft project?

From a practical standpoint- meaning an aircraft that can haul two modern adults and some decent baggage (say 200 lbs) at a decent speed (say 150 knots to make it have a travel advantage over a car) and not be limited to day VFR only- yeah, $30,000 is not going to cut it in the first world. If one is happy with puttering slowly around a field on sunny days with light winds and not having a decent ability to haul stuff, then yes, I'm pretty sure you could do it for $30,000 to $40,000 and make it look like a real airplane and not just a hang glider with a lawn chair and lawnmower engine strapped on.

$50,000 is pretty much the low end for a practical aircraft and that's cutting it pretty close. I say this because the LSA I designed (which could be easily turned into a useful airplane by putting a slightly bigger engine and a decently equipped panel) would be about $50,000 to build in the metal skinned variant. I also figured out the means to offer a wood version and fabric covered metal variant just to expand the marketability.

Lucky you,

How so? I'm not any more well off than most of the Americans on this forum. I just don't think that trading quality, comfort and what I demand out of an aircraft for the "pleasure" of being able to fly is a good one.

and your attitude leaves a lot to be desired.

So does yours. As does the economy of building an airplane in the post-1940s world in which we actually live. This delusion that aircraft need to be cheap as the bottom end of the car market is one of the most annoying aspects of homebuilt community.

spungey

04-10-2012, 07:49 AM

Do we really not want to print interesting articles from the Homebuilder's Corner thread on the forum? Every week I see enough material here in our little chat-room of the sky to fill quite a few magazine pages, and that's without photos. We should glean it for the top four or five things monthly. Not just what's the best prop, but how different power-prop matching formulas can we find? How about emergency repairs for landing gear (to get you back to town?) One non-cert engine examined each month? Maybe a dozen pages of power/torque curves for various engines and some discussion of how to identify "good" engines for aircraft? Do you want to add flaps to your cub? How about a monthly column on alternative ways to do flight sensing? Or understanding and programming digital systems? We have more than enough material for a genuine DIY article or two every month if we thought about it a bit.

In the 1990's we experimenters had our own magazine. Anyone else remember "EAA Experimenter"? I loved it then and would love it now. All about not simply how-to, but tools, shops and even some of the underlying philosophy of the DIY world. It was small--typically 30 pages or so. I always wanted more meat in even it. Maybe it's about "Those who want to build, build. Those who want to write, write." Few of us have Ron W's gift for both. Both skills can be learned, though.

Marlhalbrook

04-10-2012, 07:52 AM

From a practical standpoint-

Not to cause any more argument-----but who's practical???

I just don't think that trading quality, comfort and what I demand out of an aircraft for the "pleasure" of being able to fly is a good one.

So does yours......This delusion that aircraft need to be cheap as the bottom end of the car market is one of the most annoying aspects of homebuilt community.

Just one opinion---not that of everyone involved in Sport Aviation.

I'm not trying to ruffle feathers anymore than they already seem to be ruffled.....just want to point out that this discussion had dwindled away to a "my opinion" vs. "your opinion" battle. This is serving no useful purpose for any of us.

Guys-----This thread--along with similar discussions on several other sites that I frequent-- does point out the fact that there is a problem in the eyes of quite a few EAAers as to the content and message of SA. I can almost guarantee that EAA is keeping up with these discussions (correct me if I'm wrong, Chad...) and that they are, and will take our thoughts into account when working to change SA. It's a big ship--and is not easy to change it's course once set----and there is NO WAY to make us all happy with every single issue.

Matthew and Steve have brought to light the division that exists even amongst homebuilders....we can't even agree on what is practical and what is not----so how the heck can we ever expect SA to reach us all at our own level of comfort and skill???

Instead of bashing each other's thoughts and desires with respect to airplanes, we should all direct that energy toward sending information to EAA about what we are doing in our own shops---and let the folks that are trying to make SA better have a chance to pull some of our stories into the mix...I know they's appreciate that a whole lot more than having to listen to us bicker like little school kids........

Please take this for what it's worth --- an no offense intended toward anyone.....

Marl

{{{oh--and practical to me.....2 seat, open cockpit, biplane, some aerobatic capability.....could care less for point "A" to point "B" as of right now----all this subject to change at any given moment or day based on absolutely no understandable criteria or reasoning!!! I can be fickle if I wanna---it's my dream!!! :P }}}

Chad Jensen

04-10-2012, 08:03 AM

I can almost guarantee that EAA is keeping up with these discussions (correct me if I'm wrong, Chad...) and that they are, and will take our thoughts into account when working to change SA. It's a big ship--and is not easy to change it's course once set----and there is NO WAY tomake us all happy with every single issue.
I spend so much time keeping up with the forums that I get the eye roll from my wife on a nightly basis...

It is a big ship for sure, and changes don't happen quickly in the print magazine world, but things will swing back the other way.

Regarding Experimenter...I have the July 2002 issue on my desk right now with the Sky Ranger on the cover...I'm using it as an inspiration for creating the new digital version that can be read and viewed offline after a download. Yeah, it's not a hard copy, but the feedback we get on the current Experimenter is crying out for a pdf downloadable magazine, rather than a newsletter. I hope to launch it in the next few months...

spungey...you mention several good ideas for articles. Can you put them on paper as a subject expert? I'd love to have some submissions on some of that. I can write about a few things as an expert, but I don't claim to cover all areas...:cool:

steveinindy

04-10-2012, 08:06 AM

Matthew and Steve have brought to light the division that exists even amongst homebuilders....we can't even agree on what is practical and what is not----

Which is why the magazine- to paraphrase Paul's admonition about what the EAA should be- should be broad enough to cover the interests of all involved. That's my point and has been from word one. Trying to limit the magazine to our own narrow interests is simply going to cause more strife. I don't care if people want to cover non-certed engines (to respond to Spungey's suggestion) but I'm not going to read that article because I don't like non-certified engines. Same goes for articles about ultralights and other light aircraft which I have philosophically outgrown (for lack of a better term). But at the same time, there needs to be articles about the top of the line in certified aircraft to inspire those of us who want to emulate that and articles about the "gee whiz" type certifications in aircraft beyond the grasp of the average homebuilder.

so how the heck can we ever expect SA to reach us all at our own level of comfort and skill???

By "compartmentalizing" the magazine into a series of sections each covering a specific aspect of the EAA each month. The only way that will happen is if people spend half the energy they do whining on here actually writing for the magazine. Given how well a lot of the folks on here write when someone says something they disagree with, I find it hard to believe that their writing skills are not good enough for a trade magazine. You don't have to be John Steinbeck to produce a readable article. Pretty much anyone who graduated high school (especially pre-1990) and can refrain from drooling on themselves in social situations can turn out a decent article which is all the magazine needs. We're not shooting for Pulitzers here, we're just trying to fix the "problems" that everyone keeps pointing out.

Please take this for what it's worth --- an no offense intended toward anyone.....

None taken at all. I have pretty thick skin and can see the other side of the coin even though I don't necessarily enjoy those aspects of aviation.

In the 1990's we experimenters had our own magazine. Anyone else remember "EAA Experimenter"? I loved it then and would love it now. All about not simply how-to, but tools, shops and even some of the underlying philosophy of the DIY world. It was small--typically 30 pages or so. I always wanted more meat in even it. Maybe it's about "Those who want to build, build. Those who want to write, write." Few of us have Ron W's gift for both. Both skills can be learned, though.

Ron's a man to be emulated and envied in many ways.

Perhaps we could take Chad and the other powers that be into producing the Experimenter as a PDF every month and making it freely available? I certainly would prefer it in that format over a hard copy format (and it's easily printable if one is so inclined) and if it's "open access" then it's a good recruiting tool.

steveinindy

04-10-2012, 08:08 AM

I spend so much time keeping up with the forums that I get the eye roll from my wife on a nightly basis...

Ah....the law of unintended consequences with regards to the "Yes dear, go ahead and take that job with the EAA"?

Yeah, it's not a hard copy, but the feedback we get on the current Experimenter is crying out for a pdf downloadable magazine, rather than a newsletter. I hope to launch it in the next few months...

LOL It's like my brain's that tree and you're those little Keebler elves. It's kind of creepy. LOL

Chad Jensen

04-10-2012, 08:13 AM

Ah....the law of unintended consequences with regards to the "Yes dear, go ahead and take that job with the EAA"?
Nail on head. ;) She's very understanding...for now.

LOL It's like my brain's that tree and you're those little Keebler elves. It's kind of creepy. LOL
It's something I've been slowly working on since I got here, and we now have a project charter to present to the rest of the leadership team in the next week or two. :cool:

spungey

04-11-2012, 07:18 PM

Chad, I'm unfortunately not an expert -- and probably not even a page ahead in anyone's documentation -- on anything really interesting. I can probably squeeze a few hours each month to write something if people who actually do know something are willing to team up.

steveinindy

04-11-2012, 07:30 PM

So....finally got the research article done. Time to start on the revisions to the SA articles. This should be a lot more fun.

Cobrajock24

04-11-2012, 09:19 PM

Talk about having an article hit ALL of the bases..... this one knocked the ball out of the park: Mike Busch's article "The Most Unforgivable Sin" in this months issue. VERY WELL DONE MIKE! Thank you!

rosiejerryrosie

04-12-2012, 10:30 AM

OMG! Somethng positive. Write that date on your calendar! I wouldn't have believed it.....

Hillbilly Bill

04-15-2012, 07:10 PM

It seems many of the articles now are like infomercials. Last month was a story about do it yourself interiors. Great! But all it was was an advert for a company that makes interior kits. How many other articles have we read pushing glass technology and such while mentioning the manufacturers. Its the same with all magazines today. Look at the car magazines. Ever see a road test that was bad? Not often and the ones that are good have a full page ad ($$$$) for that particular vehicle on the next page.

Mike M

06-06-2012, 10:06 PM

I remember long ago when the Sport Aviation magazine was all about homebuilt airplanes. Now it seems that the magazine has changed directions. It does not seem to be centered around homebuilt airplanes anymore...What do you guys think?

Steve Stephenson

i just finished the June 2012 issue in less than 35 minutes. other than the "members building" section, nada on experimentals. closest was a multipage uncompensated (?) advertisement for Van's Aircraft. i quit taking Flying magazine decades ago because i was tired of reading pilot reports of bonanzas (a great airplane, in my opinion) and ads for jets i'd never be able to ride in, much less own. now Sport Aviation is Flying. check out page 96 and the inside back cover. goooood bye.

jhausch

06-07-2012, 05:25 AM

I read June 2012 yesterday, too. Enjoyed it. Another great job with a wide variety of content.

I suspect there is a "greater than normal" internal effort to feature/stress experiences related to growing the pilot population. I base this on the content in many of the "columns". I was particularly touched (I guess that's the right word?) by Mr. Payne's article. I benefited from the kindness of others when I started flying. I hope to give back to the same degree some day.

keen9

06-07-2012, 03:02 PM

multipage uncompensated (?) advertisement for Van's AircraftWow. If you can't appreciate an article about Van (and it was mostly about the man not the company), what part of experimental are you interested in?

BBARTONB

07-03-2012, 06:35 AM

I think the same thing Steve.I do understand that change happens.But I would be in favor of a seprate magazine;geared toward the things you pointed out.I know,that this comment will draw alot of "flack",but that's how we feel,and'the the ones giving the flack should try and see "our"side.

Chad Jensen

07-03-2012, 07:04 AM

canopyflier

03-05-2013, 08:22 PM

It's coming! I'm not gonna let the cat fully out of the bag yet though...;)

Have I missed a new publication?! Let me know. I am definitely interested.

Hal Bryan

03-06-2013, 08:24 AM

Chad was talking about our new digital magazine, Experimenter, which launched last September:

http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/

Chad Jensen

03-06-2013, 08:57 AM

As hard as I try, I can't stay ahead of you here Hal! ;)

Victor Bravo

03-18-2013, 06:29 PM

It seems many of the articles now are like infomercials.

How many other articles have we read pushing glass technology and such while mentioning the manufacturers.

Perhaps I should weigh in here, having been on both sides of this issue. I make a living writing, and have helped, written or assisted magazine articles that highlight a product which I manufacture. It is "guerrilla marketing" for sure, but it also may be legitimately relevant and of interest to readers. On the other hand, I'm a magazine reader like any other EAA member, and I too have been annoyed at the large number of articles in many aviation magazines which are reprints, re-hashes, or thinly disguised versions of the same old stories done dozens of times previously.

Seriously, how could you write an article on the tiny detail variations in this year's $750K Bonanza, and make it remotely interesting to the average pilot? How many times can you publish a DIY "tips and tricks" article that tells you how to change an oil filter?

Good magazine article authors are not exactly growing on trees.... and I'm sure the money sucks from a "pay the rent" standpoint. So it is not an easy job for magazine chiefs to come up with relevant, new material every month, and they can't nearly pay the kind of money for a Richard Bach caliber author to mesmerize and delight us on the deepest emotional levels (hats off to Lauran Paine and Jeff Skiles for their work in this direction).

Into this vacuum walks the avionics manufacturer, with money to spend, a good professional writer on staff, and a product to showcase. On an altruistic level, the magazine editor should refuse the article, and direct the avionics mogul to the advertising department. But on a realistic level, it fills up pages at no cost to the magazine, and makes the advertisers happy.

The only way to honestly address both sides is to have a designated, marked section of the magazine set aside for feature articles "assisted" or contributed by commercial interests, that are not traditional print ads, but are also not 100% neutral. This would fill up pages with new ideas and topics, and allow editors to take advantage of guys like me (who would provide a legitimate article, but an article showing off their product), and still be 100% honest with their readers.

Bill Berson

03-18-2013, 07:27 PM

EAA had a prolific article writer named Bob Whittier from the 50’s to around 2002.
Bob wrote an article for EAA (back in the early days) about how small organizations eventually grow and switch from member oriented to advertiser oriented.
I don't know what year EAA switched.
What ever happened to Bob Whittier?

martymayes

03-19-2013, 06:33 AM

What ever happened to Bob Whittier?

He was writing for Experimenter when I had a subscription back in the '90's. I remember him being inducted into the EAA hall of fame in 2004, same yr as Pete Bowers. I would guess he retired.

Jeff Boatright

03-19-2013, 12:22 PM

...hats off to Lauran Paine and Jeff Skiles for their work in this direction...

Mr. Skiles is one of the best writers in aviation today, IMO.

pacerpilot

03-19-2013, 06:43 PM

Hey Guys, I am a longtime EAA member and am building a scratch built biplane at home.
I remember long ago when the Sport Aviation magazine was all about homebuilt airplanes.
Now it seems that the magazine has changed directions. It does not seem to be centered around
homebuilt airplanes anymore. I see more certified aircraft and adds than anything.
I will probably renew my membership this month, but if this trend continues I may not next year.

I wish we could do something to get the organization back on track. I was thinking about emailing all the EAA Chapter Presidents and ask them to bring this topic up at their meetings to get an idea of what everyone else thinks. I am working twelve hour shifts and trying to make progress on my plane, so I don't have much free time to devote to the issue.

What do you guys think?

Steve Stephenson

Steve, I have to agree with you. I'm still trying to decide whether to renew as well. There is much I like (this forum for instance) but I do find the spam can articles and tech articles that assume unlimited budgets repelent. I see many post from others that like the new format though. Unfortunately, the "new generation" of homebuilders seem to buy airplanes mostly built (kits/semi-factory built) or fly factory planes. I don't think the EAA is what it used to be. I guess that's why new clubs start. Maybe a "new EAA" is in order?

Kyle Boatright

03-19-2013, 08:00 PM

Today's magazine is centered around preachy monthly columns and a triple serving of safety. The passion has been largely lost. Passion is the only way EAA or GA as a whole is going to attract new members. 25-30 pages per month of "Don't kill yourself" is about as appealing as the smell of roach spray at a restaurant. Safety is very important in aviation and roach spray is probably important in the restaurant business, but neither one attracts customers. In fact, both repel potential customers.

Sport Aviation needs a much bigger focus on people, relationships, airplanes, etc. The magazine is missing the mark badly.

Bill Greenwood

03-19-2013, 09:29 PM

Kyle, I disagree with you, and I think safety is very important; although sometimes the way it is presented in EAA is not the best, but they are at least trying.

There are a lot of articles about the dangers of formation flying, often from jet pilots, when in fact there are very few people lost in civilian formation flying and very few EAA or sport type flying is jet formation anyway, but it makes a good headline.

I think the public thinks gen aviation is dangerous, and sometimes it is. We need to work on safety and try to do the best we can.
There are members who seem reluctant to be more definitive about safety, sometimes the turn a deaf ear.

I would really like to see EAA focus on the most significant causes of fatal accidents, and it is not formation. More have probably been lost flying into EAA or Sun N Fun, even.

rwanttaja

03-19-2013, 10:17 PM

Kyle, I disagree with you, and I think safety is very important; although sometimes the way it is presented in EAA is not the best, but they are at least trying.

There are a lot of articles about the dangers of formation flying, often from jet pilots, when in fact there are very few people lost in civilian formation flying and very few EAA or sport type flying is jet formation anyway, but it makes a good headline.
Just for a data point, there are 36 midairs involving homebuilts in my 1998-2011 database (involving 43 homebuilts). Eight (a bit less than 25%) involved formation flight.

The total is roughly equal to the number of accidents caused by fuel contamination.

Ron Wanttaja

danielfindling

03-20-2013, 08:58 AM

I think the public thinks gen aviation is dangerous, and sometimes it is. We need to work on safety and try to do the best we can.
There are members who seem reluctant to be more definitive about safety, sometimes the turn a deaf ear.

Well said Bill. The perception of general aviation safety is highly relevant to the growth of general aviation.

For example, last summer, a local TV affiliate in metropolitan Detroit opened a newscast with a plane crash story at a local airport. The crash involved a Cessna 182 that lost control during takeoff and exited the runway bending the plane. There was no fire or injuries, just a bent plane. This accident was the functional equivalent of a minor fender bender in a grocery store parking lot. However, it opened the local TV news. Certainly, events like this hurt general aviation. Frankly, General aviation is under a microscope.

I think many feel or fear that focusing on improving safety will validate these melodramatic news stories, result in new overly burdensome regulation and confirm the perception that general aviation is dangerous. On the other hand, I am of the opinion that focusing on safety will do exactly the opposite.

Daniel

Victor Bravo

03-20-2013, 11:24 AM

The safety focus of the magazine is a question of balance, like everything else in the universe. Plaintiff's lawyers, and hungry reality TV journalists, and rodent bureaucrats, and any other "natural enemy" of aviation will be held at bay a little bit more if the aviation community has demonstrated concern for safety and sanity in public documents/magazines/videos. On the other hand, a 100% focus on safety will allow these same enemies to make a case that it really must be unsafe if all the magazine articles are all about improving safety. Balance.

Please forgive the thread creep... Although not directly relevant to a thread on Sport Aviation magazine, to address the issue of public perception raised in recent posts, I'd like to throw an idea out for consideration. EAA (with or without AOPA) should embark on a professional PR campaign. And I mean a high-end professional campaign, notin-house PR staffers or a local midwest "mom and pop" PR company. Not enough horsepower, sorry, no offense, I know what I'm talking about.

AOPA had once pushed a PR campaign called "GA serves America", but this was not exciting or hard-hitting in the least. Perfectly good campaign, and perfectly valid point, but it was not strong enough to publicly crush opponents of general aviation. Having been born and raised around Hollywood and all the spin-doctoring and posturing that is done here, I can tell you that altering public perception in 2013, with all the psychological load heaped on the average person today, requires horsepower and strong messaging that resonates on a gut/fear/money/love level.

The PR campaign I'm thinking about should be designed to make people accept that aviation is one of the things that made, and makes America great. It's one of the few areas where we're still a world leader. Most importantly, participation in general aviation is one of the few things that can keep your kids out of gangs and drugs. The whole country is rightfully worried about all the problems that happen because of "disenfranchised youth". The costs to society are astronomical, and last for generations.

Kids building model airplanes or helping grandpa with his RV or Pietenpol project would be a pretty good solution... and a solution that doesn't require more government spending. As a grant writer, I once wrote a PR/collateral piece for a social services provider, with the tag line "We can keep your kids in school and out of jail". Involvement in aviation is one of the very few activities that could back up such a bold claim, and again not require billions in spending. EAA's brilliant Young Eagles program has proven this, has actually delivered national-level results, and changed millions of kids' lives for the better. Who or what else can compete with us on that level? This kind of powerful "sales" statement (and the legitimacy behind this claim that aviation can bring to the table) is the kind of horsepower I'm talking about.

If EAA management would be open to it. I'd gladly contribute my professional abilities in this area. May be a moot point; I have no idea about the internal politics or entrenched obstacles that would be involved. Anyone with contacts at EAA HQ can feel free to try and make this happen.

Again, sorry for the thread creep.