Where is Sport Aviation going?

[BES]

Is it just me or have other long time EAA'ers wondered about Mr. McClellan's writings in Sport Aviation? I feel certain that Mr. McClellan is a very competent editor and aviation journalist, but his choice of subjects for his articles in Sport Aviation leaves me somewhat puzzled. IFR procedures, business jets, turboprop singles which maybe 1% of the current membership can afford..?!?
Are we looking at an attempt to turn Sport Aviation - and maybe EAA - away from the homebuilder/restorer kind of guy and towards the segment that flies mainly IFR, or is Mr. McClellan just trying to educate the ignorant EAA'ers and turn us towards his self-confessed persuasion: A mainly IFR kind of pilot...?

[cluttonfred]

It's not just you...there has been much discussion along those lines in recent months.

http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?150-Sport-Aviation-Magazine&highlight=McClellan
http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?2106-Rod-Hightower-and-EAA&highlight=McClellan
http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?639-What-the-heck-is-this&highlight=McClellan
http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?589-Good-Thread-on-EAA-Direction&highlight=McClellan

[martymayes]

Welcome to the "new and improved" Sport Aviation.

[mmorrison123]

Have you guys seen the new Experimenter on-line magazine? Just came out and looks great, to me anyway.

http://experimenter.epubxp.com/t/25378

Malcolm Morrison

[Joe LaMantia]

I received the Sept issue of SA this past Thursday and I've read several articles. I'm a "low and slow" club flyer and I tend to read articles that are geared in that direction. My favorite this month was Brady Lanes' coverage of the Cub Fly-in from Hartford, Wi to OSH. I've read the RV-14 story, and Jeff Skiles story on flying his Waco. As a result of this thread I read Mac's article on Diesel Aircraft Engines and ADS-B, well written and informative. Our club Archer is still running the radios put in at the factory in 1976. A few months ago I brought up the possibility of replacing the nbr 1 with a Garmin 430 and pulling the Fly Buddy II (GPS) out and installing it in our club TriPacer. Our club treasurer went to AirVenture this year and spent some time looking through all the avionics booths. We had a discussion on the upgrade and decided to wait until the ADS-B system "shakes out a bit". Our Archer has about 1700 Hrs on the engine SMOH, maybe upgrading it to a Continental 180HP diesel would be something to consider when the time comes to overhaul. So even though I fly old airplanes "low and slow" Mac's article was helpful and interesting, he only used 2 and half pages in a 128 page publication, that's 1.9%. There were 57 ad's covering page 127 listed in SA, not all take up a whole page, but do we actually read all those ads? Some members read SA cover to cover, generally I don't, but pick and choose based on interest, and more importantly time available to actually sit down and read. I get AOPA Pilot each month as well, lots of overlap in subject matter, but again I pick and choose. I've been getting both for the last 20 years or so and I think there both good values. I think we have room for Mac's subjects even if we don't always read what he writes. Same goes for the rest of the SA contributors, overall a very good publication that keeps me interested and involved in aviation when I'm not flying.

Joe
:cool:

[Bill Berson]

Neal Wilford was my favorite Sport Aviation contributor. He did a nice article a few years ago called "doing more with less".Wilford should resubmit his latest article to Mary Jones for the new EAA Experimenter digital magazine.

[Aaron Novak]

Its different I will give you that. Some articles I enjoy ( anything well done on homebuilts or antiques ), some dont get a second glance ( written for the pilot, not the enthusiast, there is a difference ), and some are downright scary ( the so called "maintenance" articles, especially the last couple issues ). SA is not nearly as technical as it used to be, and it seems its authors and perhaps majority of the readership are not as well.

[PaulDow]

As the people who manage EAA Publications have said here, they are finishing up a long transition process. At first, I liked the SA format change. Then the 2nd phase was the content change to appeal to a wider GA audience. I think I had the concern, like many other people, that the do-it-yourself interests were getting squeezed out. Now that the 3rd phase of reintroducing Experimenter has taken place, I like the level of information we're getting. I hope the Experimenter content will become searchable like the SA content is. Some people had said it was difficult getting articles they submitted published in SA. I would think the members with homebuilding interests could get material published in Experimenter​ much easier.

[Richard Warner]

I've been an EAA member since the 60's and am a lifetime member. Personally, I do NOT like what Sport Aviation magazine has become. It reminds me too much of magazines like Flying and AOPA Pilot.

[Clark Savage Jr]

I've been an EAA member since the 60's and am a lifetime member. Personally, I do NOT like what Sport Aviation magazine has become. It reminds me too much of magazines like Flying and AOPA Pilot.

I agree 100%. But as long as the current method of proxy voting continues, the membership has no voice in the direction of the Experimental Aviation Association.

[jrollf]

With today's tecnology there really is no need for Poxy voting. We could easily have a secure online quorum to place votes directly by members. If a large enough portion of members truly want to change the voting system they can start revoking their proxy vote permissions. If enough of the membership does this, then voting board would not have enough proxy ballots to reach an official quorum and voting would come to a halt. This would require a pretty large organized effort on behalf of the membership to work.

Just my two cents :-)

[Tex Sonex]

.... Been an EAA member for 41 years. The most recent issue of SA imoressed me with the quality of the writing, overall. Seems more professional writers who are aviation types are contributing and the difference shows. As to the article selection, I have to agree with those who say, it's too much like FLYING or AOPA magazine. Like another person said, some articles I consume, but many, I pass right by. EAA's roots are in the homebuilding movement. Of course homebuilding has come a long way since EAA was begun. The days of scrounging for parts and materials have almost been totally replaced by popping open the crate of a kit. EAA has also changed is a result of our own success. Now, as a major aviation community, the membership ecompasses those who fly IFR a lot, fly very expensive aircraft, and have the means financially to do so. Yet, I doubt seriously, they are the majority. I think the organization and the editorial staff of SA would do well to look at just, "Who is EAA?" nowadays. I'm sure they are trying to maintain a delicate balance between the high-rollers of aviation and the folks in the cheap seats. It's really a marketing question. It's very hard to give your customer what he wants if you don't know who your customer is.

If Experimenter is going to take the place of what SA used to be.... doesn't that tell us SA isn't what it used to be? If that's the case, why try to hybridize SA into a one-size-fits-all magazine? Make Experimenter the size of SA and make SA just another FLYING magazine for turboprop/IFR/half-million dollar spam can pilots.

[novipilot]

Maybe the reason for the change is that EAA will replace AOPA as the premier GA organization. Ever since Fuller took over AOPA I see them as becoming a political machine, similar to the national rifle association. Every letter is "the sky is falling send us money now" so that the AOPA can schmooze with the politicians. I see Rod Hightower as what AOPA leadership used to be, dedicated to flying, and enjoying his time in the sky, and I see EAA evolving as a GA organization rather than just a homebuilders / warbirds organization.

[David Dean]

For those that miss what the EAA and "Sport Aviation" use to be, THe Sport Aviation Association (www.sportaviationassociation.org) is back up and running under the leadership of Ed Fisher. It does not intend to compete with the EAA, but add to it by providing an additional place for those of us that appreciate grass roots aviation. It needs our support. It was originally start up by Paul Poberezny, went dormant for awhile, and recently came back to life under Ed Fisher's initiative and Paul's support.

[MADean]

"...the membership ecompasses those who fly IFR a lot, fly very expensive aircraft, and have the means financially to do so." - Tex Sonex

By what percentage, I wonder. Enough to warrant the majority of the magazines space? Seems to me it's the money, not the members, that EAA is listening too as fo late.

[Tex Sonex]

"...the membership ecompasses those who fly IFR a lot, fly very expensive aircraft, and have the means financially to do so." - Tex Sonex

By what percentage, I wonder. Enough to warrant the majority of the magazines space? Seems to me it's the money, not the members, that EAA is listening too as fo late.

The rest of the thought was... "Yet, I doubt seriously, they are the majority." My point, exactly. Pilots who routinely fly IFR are perhaps EAA members in greater numbers than they once were, but I think they are still a small percentage.

[Joe LaMantia]

Interesting conversation! Here's a few thoughts about EAA and its' "identity"; I would agree that the ground work of the organization was and still is homebuilding, it's at the core of EAA, but as mentioned the vast majority of "homebuilders" buy and build kits. Kits started out as plans with a box of materials and maybe a couple of pre-fabrications, this evolved into what we have today. As the clock moved forward from the 1950's to the 1980"s we saw a lot of growth in EAA and interest in aviation. Somewhere in the early 90's the pilot population began to shrink, do initially to the aging of the WWII population which had a larger percentage of pilots in the general population then present. A lot of changes and forces at work over the past 20 years have impacted EAA and it's membership. Fuel prices, and the general state of the world economy affect everybody. In my previous post I mentioned that the Sept issue of SA had 57 advertisers listed in the publication, one of the biggest changes and thrusts of the organization is AirVenture, which is a huge opportunity for the aviation business community to show and sell their products. While AirVenture is a "fly-in", that is not where the $ comes from....thank you Ford, GE, and Honda to name a few. There has always been a segment of the aviation community that is well-off financially, Howard Hughes comes to mind as an example. Given that times change and aviation is global means that markets get bigger and growth takes place outside the US as well as here. So we, get a new situation regarding managing any organization. I'm not taking a good or bad position on this, it's just a different playing field today then it was a few years ago.

There's a lot of changes impacting aviation as a market segment and a community, Flying magazine has lost a lot of readership and some long time contributors have left their staff to join other publications. A lot of joint ventures and outright purchases of long standing names in aviation to "off-shore" investors. AirVenture really brings in the general public and provides a big opportunity to sell "stuff", EAA has changed, it's bigger has a stronger voice and is more diverse. Human nature dislikes change, and as we get older we have even less tolerance in that regard.

Joe
:cool:

[rosiejerryrosie]

And here's a radical suggestion! It grows out of a feeling that I have had for a while that was recently reinforced in a conversation with an airport owner just recently. As we were talking, he shared his experiences in talking with folks about the EXPERIMENTAL Aircraft Association and the looks he gets from the uninitiated when he mentions EXPERIMENTAL. The looks says, "You want me to let my kid fly in someone's science project???". Any thought ever been given to changing the name of the organization?

[Joe LaMantia]

Whoever said "What's in a name?"! How about a new thread to see how the folks out in "airport bum land" will respond to a new name. Here's my thought "NRDAA", Not Really Dangerous Aviation Association.


Joe
;)

[martymayes]

And here's a radical suggestion! It grows out of a feeling that I have had for a while that was recently reinforced in a conversation with an airport owner just recently. As we were talking, he shared his experiences in talking with folks about the EXPERIMENTAL Aircraft Association and the looks he gets from the uninitiated when he mentions EXPERIMENTAL. The looks says, "You want me to let my kid fly in someone's science project???". Any thought ever been given to changing the name of the organization?

Paul Poberezny tried to get a reg change to allow the experimental markings to read "sport" or "custom." Never went anywhere.

I don't see a problem with the name of the organzation.

[prasmussen]

The chapter's techie suggests I not make a bunch of changes to the plans-built that is gradually growing in my shop. Maybe he is right. And so maybe I'm not experimenting as much as I am enjoying Escaping the Regulations and Costs which Surround a Certified Aircraft. ERCSCAA isn't as graceful as EAA but, who can tell, maybe it'll catch on.

[Qmiester]

It isn't just the EAA. I've dealt with one or more FAA GADO/FSDO for almost 40 years now and it seems that most of the younger guys now working there (at least on the maintenance side of the house) are firmly convinced that the smallest light aircraft are either Lear 35s or Cessna Citations!

[Eric Witherspoon]

And here's a radical suggestion! ... "You want me to let my kid fly in someone's science project???". Any thought ever been given to changing the name of the organization?

I already started that thread. Not sure if it was on this version of the forums or the previous one. You want to poke the ant hill with a stick - start this idea as a separate thread. Conclusion - even if "Experimental" brings up some incorrect connotations to those on the outside, the vast majority of people on the inside have real problems with the thought of changing the government-selected word for our carefully crafted replicas of proven designs.

I think there could be some worthy distinction between creating your own, unique, never before seen, flown, or tested creation vice carefully following published manuals and plans to create a replica of something that has been thoroughly tested (and I don't mean ELSA). But others see them all as Experiments, and forever more shall be so. The distinction of not being certified to FAR 23 shall not be messed with!

Of course it would be complicated. Probably TOO complicated. What "falls under" the new "Custom" category? How much of a deviation from published plans is too much? Would such a change really only be taking ELSA to bigger, faster levels (must use the same switches, same lights, same radios, same air vents, etc, or it's back into E-AB with it!)

Can I select my own instruments, use my choice of tires, add an autopilot - where's the line? Or do you propose to throw out E-AB entirely! Then we get into the "be careful what you ask for" part of the argument - multiple in-process FAA / FSDO inspections, licensed engineers to approve any deviations from the documentation... Don't mess with what we have! It's pretty darned free already, and if someone won't ride in it because the government says we have to put a big "EXPERIMENTAL" label on it, then too bad for them!

So Jerry, if you can dig up my previous thread, and get through the battle documented therin, you might conclude that yes, it is too radical a suggestion. Sorry.

[rosiejerryrosie]

Man, where did that all come from? Just suggesting changing the name of the organization - not rewritting the FARs. But, as you point out - prolly wouldn't do much good anyway with that plaquard on the airplane.....

[Joe LaMantia]

If the founder of EAA couldn't get the name changed, Eric's comments certainly explain the difficulty in detail. Brings to mind the old saying; "you can't push a rope"!

Joe
:eek:

[Bill Greenwood]

If we are talking just about the direction of the magazine, I enjoyed the last issue of the magazine. I am not primarily a homebuilder, though I have some interest in what new designs come out; not from the standpoint of me building another homebuilt, but as another addition to the fun (or sport side) part of aviation. And of course I am interested in most of the other parts of gen av except the modern jet stuff.

I liked the cover of Sport Av., with the great photo of the CAF B-29 flying over Oshkosh and the convention spread out below. I am not a big ra ra fan of atomic bombs, I see the horrible results when used on a civilian population; but I am glad to see Fifi flying again and I am proud of the enormous amount of hard work and just don't quit attitude the went into getting her flying again and with the new engines which seem to be proving a lot less trouble. Gary Austin was the brains and much of the push behind Fifi and Jim Cavanaugh provided much of the financial donation needed. I am a CAF life member, not very active now, but think most any other organization would have been satisfied to have had Fifi as only a dust covered, inanimate object in a museum.

The cover of Warbirds was the Seafire Mk XV, and inside a short piece on flying it, as it is somewhat different from a standard land Spitfire , especially a Merlin engine one. It had some disadvantages as for as landing on a carrier, but certainly no takeoff or climb shortcomings, and once airborne was a potent weapon, far ahead of something like a Martlet,(Wildcat).
Any version of a Spitfire/Seafire is among the most beautiful of airplanes,and the XV has that extra military purpose and carrier look about it.

[Bill Greenwood]

If we are talking about where sport; that is aviation for fun is going, some part of the homebuilt and or LSA movement seem to be making progress. But we still don't have any new design that I know of that is a normal type airplane, not like an ultralight, which can be bought for well under $100,000 and which flights schools and FBO could have for low cost basic instruction and rentals.

There are plenty of sport type kits like R V s in the medium price range and Cirrus, etc. at the high end.