Doe Mac McClellan Write For EAA?

[WLIU]

There appears to be a bunch of grumbling out in the blogosphere about the EAA Sport Aviation articles that appear under J Mac McClellan's byline. I would sum it up as no one can figure out which EAA constituency is his target audience and why are these articles in the EAA magazine instead of say Business And Commercial Aviation.

Are the articles aimed at the Warbird guys? Nope.
Are the articles aimed at the Antique Classic guys? Nope.
Are the articles aimed at the Aerobatic guys? Nope.
Are the articles aimed at the Ultralight guys? Nope.

I read posts where folks are wondering which homebuilt airplanes have stick shakers in them. And who is flying their RV in ice?

Mr MacClellan is clearly very knowledgeable, and likely brings a LOT of knowledge on how to successfully publish a magazine to EAA. But there seems to be a lot of "Why is he here?" discussion going on out there.

Can we get Mr M out of his Baron and into a Pietenpol?

Thanks for thinking,

Wes

[Larry Lyons]

Sorry Mac but I couldn't agree more. I know Paul's mind was to include everyone, and I agree to a point. Having been a member since the 60's I am considered old foggy I know, but I have been seeing more and more of the negative posts about Mac's column and I wonder why is he writing stuff I can get in Flying or several other mags. I am a member of EAA just because the kind of flying I like is not the everyday kind, but more off the wall and more grass roots type then cooperate. Stick shakers? The only stick shaker I have ever encountered was buffeting just before the stall and caused by the aircraft design, not a $250,000 200lb device that you will probably never see in our GA types unless there is a quantum leap in technology. Again sorry, but I don't think Mac and Sport Aviation are a good mix. L

[Frank Giger]

He's certainly very hit or miss on writing for his target audience.

I'd love to sit down and chew the fat about flying with him - I'm pretty sure that even though we come at aviation very differently we'd find a lot of common ground. I'm also putting two dollars down that he doesn't actually have horns and a tail.

However, he's clearly a commercial aviation techie type - there isn't a gizmo to prevent a pilot from piloting an aircraft he doesn't like. He's more into managing systems from the articles and comments he's followed up on.

He once posited to me in comments that a computer could land a Champ in 15 kt crosswinds with 5 kts gusting on top of it better than I could, or more generally, better than any human pilot could. He cited that military UAV's do it - forgetting the wingspan is double that of a Champ and they are very selective on where and when they land them.

And the windowless cockpit? Grand idea. Let's all just look at screens and adjust the autopilots. If we even do that. Just push a button that says "Fly" once one gets into the aircraft and watch the monitors with hands in the lap until it goes "bing" to let us know the aircraft has taxied to the FBO.

I sometimes wonder if Mac even enjoys flying - he seems to advocate for things that separate the pilot from the aircraft as if it's a dirty thing to work stick and rudder while looking beyond the panel.

One of the indicators of his viewpoint was the article on Aviators versus Pilots. His point that professional curiosity should lead a pilot to learn more than just the basics, such as weather (for example), got a bit drowned out by poo-pooing the standard six pack panel stick and rudder guy as an ignorant rube. Knowing weather to the level of a meteorology Ph.D. is great - but more often it's the pedestrian, plebian pilot stuff that puts us in the obituaries. All the gizmoes in the world won't bring sound judgement to the aviator; understanding the nuances of ADS-B as it relates to air traffic control won't save the poor runway light at the edge of the taxiway due to poor skills in ground handling.

However, when he's on point in areas that actually pertain to us, he's excellent as a writer - and his different aviation viewpoint pays big dividends. If anyone is going to point out when we're wearing no clothes, it's Mac - and when he does, he does so gently and in an intelligent manner.

[miemsed]

I am 55 years old been an EAA member since 2003. I fly a 1973 piper challenger. I love the magazine and love all the articles. I love reading about all things aviation even though I do not participate in all of them. I hope he keeps up exactly what he is doing.

I have been reading things like this from long time EAA members since I joined that EAA should be just about this or that. EAA has changed over the years and most members do not participate in the forums so you do not hear that they are happy with the EAA direction. In fact a few of my friends do not participate here because they no longer want to read about EAA should be just about homebuilts etc.

Sport Aviation Mag is great and in my opinion should continue what it is doing. There is room for all types of articles. If I am not interested in one, I do not read it.

[Bill Greenwood]

There was a recent article about him flying a T-6. I thought it was a little silly, in view that his background probably is about as far from a T-6 expert as you can find in EAA. If you really wanted to get the best info, why not ask one of the Aeroshell team members who have a decade or more and vast experience in them. Or find someone who taught in them in the military in the 40's and 50's, or the guys in Kississmee that teach in them now. There is a really excellent book about the T-6, including the pilot's manual, by Len Morgan.
There is some value in getting a fresh look at a plane or experience by someone who is not familiar with a subject. And the high end and high tech side of aviation may appeal to some members. Some people have an upper end transportation plane, as well as something for fun. If you own a B-25 or P-51, it is likely not your only plane.
I glance at his articles and just skip over them if it doesn't interest me. I do think he was better at Flying.
One aviation writer who's style I like is Mark Phelps, and to me Gordon Baxter and Len Morgan were a notch above most others.

[WMinear]

I agree with Wes that we should maybe try and keep articles on target. I am a professional pilot and get enough information through other avenues and I would like to learn more about what the EAA has to offer. Fewer and fewer people are able to keep up with old technology like covering and working on round engines. I think these would be excellent areas to see more information as well as new technologies like electronic ignition and economically priced EFIS system reviews.

I have written for newsletter before and it is challenging to come up with topics, I think the writers do well we just need some more GA appropriate articles.

[cwilliamrose]

Sport Aviation was one of the biggest reasons to be a member of EAA 20, 30 or 40 years ago. My EAA membership dates back to about 1971 and my collection of old SA magazines is cherished. They will be part of my permanent library. The more recent issues have hovered over the recycle bin more than once after a very short read. The magazine no longer serves the sport aviation community in general or the EAB community specifically. It has very little value to those of us involved in flying for sport. The influx of writers from Flying Magazine has pretty much finished the job of killing the magazine.

I have been waiting for two years to cancel the magazine and each of those years I made the wrong choice. The only way the people running EAA will get the message is for a large percentage of us to vote with our feet and abandon the magazine subscription. I will still support EAA but I can no longer support what used to be such a fine publication. Time to send a loud message.

[Victor Bravo]

I've said it before, but in the context of this thread it bears repeating. EAA has a wonderful opportunity to be "all things for all people" in aviation. That is a worthwhile goal. But not at the expense of alienating or disenfranchising the average guy who wants to build their Volksplane or RV-8. Being all things to all people should mean more "offshoot" magazines, not watering down Sport Aviation.

EAA can start a new magazine called "EAA Sport Bizjets and Astronomically Priced Piston Twins", and have advertisements from Lincoln cars and Rolex watches and Napoleon Brandy. I hope they succeed, and I hope that it makes money, and I hope that the demographic readership for that magazine all become EAA members. But I hope they return Sport Aviation to the nuts and bolts, small airplane focus that made it unique in the first place. And by that I am including small factory built airplanes.

Mac McClellan is a first rate pilot, and a first rate writer on the segment of aviation that he is associated with. I think it was a catastrophic mistake to allow that segment of aviation to intrude so far on the core values of EAA. It's probably not Mac's fault, and I have to apologize to him for previously making a comment or two that should have been held back.

But Flying Magazine (whether under Mac McClellan or Richard Collins or whoever) has become almost completely irrelevant to the vast majority of EAA members, if not the majority of the aviation community overall. So it stands to reason that bringing the content and style from Flying over to EAA was a mistake.

[Mike Switzer]

Sport Aviation was one of the biggest reasons to be a member of EAA 20, 30 or 40 years ago. My EAA membership dates back to about 1971 and my collection of old SA magazines is cherished. They will be part of my permanent library. The more recent issues have hovered over the recycle bin more than once after a very short read. The magazine no longer serves the sport aviation community in general or the EAB community specifically. It has very little value to those of us involved in flying for sport. The influx of writers from Flying Magazine has pretty much finished the job of killing the magazine.

I have been waiting for two years to cancel the magazine and each of those years I made the wrong choice. The only way the people running EAA will get the message is for a large percentage of us to vote with our feet and abandon the magazine subscription. I will still support EAA but I can no longer support what used to be such a fine publication. Time to send a loud message.

I pretty much agree with this. I sat on the sidelines for a lot of years, reading other guy's copies of sport aviation, I joined when I went to a SportAir workshop. I enjoy having access to back issues of the magazine for the information that is there - but the issues that I get every month now are skimmed thru & put in a box.

[Flyfalcons]

Bringing Mac onboard is one of the reasons I let my membership lapse. His writing is as far from "Sport Aviation" as one can get. It was time for me to let my money do the walking.

[Jeff Boatright]

As Anatole the Chef would say, "You must takes zee smooths with zee roughs!"

I've been a member since 1985, own and fly a Pietenpol, am building (slowly) a Druine Turbulent. I am low-tech and I like the current iteration of SA. I think it went through a rough patch, but in the last couple of years is getting much better. There are, in fact, more grassroots tech articles than there were several years ago. There are also more grassroots stories, and more "story" stories. As to writers, I think Jeff Skiles is a gem that EAA should never let go of. He's a natural writer writing well about something he loves. Lane Wallace, Budd Davisson, Mike Busch, Brady Lane, Mark Phelps, Pat Matheny, Robert Rossier, and Lauren Paine all write well and usually on topics that interest me, though I have to admit that some are more acquired tastes than others. J. Mac McClellan writes very well, too. Often his topics don't interest me, but sometimes they do. His article on en route accidents in this month's SA was very well written and interesting. To me.

Now, with this line up of a couple of GREAT writers, several very good ones, and an overall redirecting back towards nuts-and-bolts flying, you're really going to toss your membership because one guy sometimes (often?) writes about topics you that don't interest you? I encourage you to at least compare your SAs from a couple of years prior to Mac's arrival to what SA publishes today. I think you'll be surprised.

[Aaron Novak]

If you want technical articles, SA is not that anymore.....although it used to be. Honestly Kitplanes is a MUCH better read if someone wants technical information on homebuilding. In the last handful of issues of SA, I would once in a while see a semi-technical article that seemed interesting, only to find out it was a reprint from SA's past. It seems, at least to me, that SA has gone towards entertainment, while Kitplanes has gone towards education. From a technical aspect anyway.

[Bob Dingley]

If you want technical articles, SA is not that anymore.....although it used to be. Honestly Kitplanes is a MUCH better read if someone wants technical information on homebuilding. In the last handful of issues of SA, I would once in a while see a semi-technical article that seemed interesting, only to find out it was a reprint from SA's past. It seems, at least to me, that SA has gone towards entertainment, while Kitplanes has gone towards education. From a technical aspect anyway.

I agree with Aaron. I do enjoy rereading old copys of SA from the 1960's from that big stack out in my shop. Suggestion. Pick a few old articles for reprint from time to time. Here in the 21st century we have the Experimenter and I do like it. Trouble is, its only available online and its like reading it through a paper towel tube. If only I could swap and get Experimenter in the mailbox and SA online. NRA gives you three magazine choices.


I think that Mac is an asset. I like the way he thinks. We both like Barons. Enough said.

[Kyle Boatright]

There have been numerous threads on this.

Mac is a fine writer/editor for Flying. But I already get that magazine and don't need SA to be redundant with Flying.

SA shouldn't be personality driven with monthly columns to fill space. SA needs to be inspirational more than anything. It should be about the unique people within EAA, their interest in aviation, and the amazing contributions they make. It also needs to provide solid technical content. Every time Mac writes about his Baron or an article is published about a million dollar turbine, some inspired person's eyes glaze and they walk away from "Sport Aviation" and EAA.

[miemsed]

There have been numerous threads on this.

Mac is a fine writer/editor for Flying. But I already get that magazine and don't need SA to be redundant with Flying.

SA shouldn't be personality driven with monthly columns to fill space. SA needs to be inspirational more than anything. It should be about the unique people within EAA, their interest in aviation, and the amazing contributions they make. It also needs to provide solid technical content. Every time Mac writes about his Baron or an article is published about a million dollar turbine, some inspired person's eyes glaze and they walk away from "Sport Aviation" and EAA.

I am sorry but for every member that does not like a certain article in the mag, there are just as many if not more members that will like that same article. If someone is going to give up their membership or walk away because they do not like an article, well".........

[Jeff Boatright]

Ironically, the most recent issue of Kitplanes has a retread tech article from year 2000 about weight and balance. But whatevs...Everything everywhere used to be better, amirate?

;)

[martymayes]

After giving it a lot of thought I'm good with them doing away with the magazines completely. Design a user friendly, easy to read home page, update it weekly. Attach 1 or 2 Mac-less PDF "articles" which can be read or not and/or saved/printed for reference. I like Experimenter but I'd gladly forfeit the magazine style layout for something easier to peruse.

Plenty of technical information on the internet. The current EAA forum could be used for that purpose. That fosters contribution without the need to create a full length magazine article. Other forums do a great job of dispensing technical information without printed media, I'll use the PWC forum "GreenHulk" as an example. They maintain a good balance of technical exchange and socializing.

[Kyle Boatright]

After giving it a lot of thought I'm good with them doing away with the magazines completely. Design a user friendly, easy to read home page, update it weekly. Attach 1 or 2 Mac-less PDF "articles" which can be read or not and/or saved/printed for reference. I like Experimenter but I'd gladly forfeit the magazine style layout for something easier to peruse.

Plenty of technical information on the internet. The current EAA forum could be used for that purpose. That fosters contribution without the need to create a full length magazine article. Other forums do a great job of dispensing technical information without printed media, I'll use the PWC forum "GreenHulk" as an example. They maintain a good balance of technical exchange and socializing.

In a sense, you're right, but that concept relies on a "pull" model where people come to forums seeking information. Magazines "push" information to everyone on the mailing list, making it much more likely to achieve market penetration (with information or AD space) than a forum. Of the 150K EAA members, how many use this site? <5%, I'd bet. That other 95% gain something when a printed magazine shows up at their house every month.

[Flyfalcons]

As Anatole the Chef would say, "You must takes zee smooths with zee roughs!"

I've been a member since 1985, own and fly a Pietenpol, am building (slowly) a Druine Turbulent. I am low-tech and I like the current iteration of SA. I think it went through a rough patch, but in the last couple of years is getting much better. There are, in fact, more grassroots tech articles than there were several years ago. There are also more grassroots stories, and more "story" stories. As to writers, I think Jeff Skiles is a gem that EAA should never let go of. He's a natural writer writing well about something he loves. Lane Wallace, Budd Davisson, Mike Busch, Brady Lane, Mark Phelps, Pat Matheny, Robert Rossier, and Lauren Paine all write well and usually on topics that interest me, though I have to admit that some are more acquired tastes than others. J. Mac McClellan writes very well, too. Often his topics don't interest me, but sometimes they do. His article on en route accidents in this month's SA was very well written and interesting. To me.

Now, with this line up of a couple of GREAT writers, several very good ones, and an overall redirecting back towards nuts-and-bolts flying, you're really going to toss your membership because one guy sometimes (often?) writes about topics you that don't interest you? I encourage you to at least compare your SAs from a couple of years prior to Mac's arrival to what SA publishes today. I think you'll be surprised.

Yes, yes I am. I joined EAA because it was about sport aviation. Mac has nothing to do with that. Therefore I don't feel the need to continue my support.

[Flyfalcons]

I am sorry but for every member that does not like a certain article in the mag, there are just as many if not more members that will like that same article. If someone is going to give up their membership or walk away because they do not like an article, well".........

It's not "an article".......

[Aaron Novak]

Marty,
Unfotunately there is a flaw in using the internet for technical research. At least with printed media, there is some sense of hope that information presented has been reviewed by peers on a subject before ever being published. With the internet, everyone is an expert, and as humans we tend to gravitate towards and trust what WE want to hear. There are no "online" credientals, we are all equal. Bad ideas as well as good ones get promoted and it turns into a sea of confusion. There still is a need for printed, reviewed and trusted media.

[Mike Switzer]

Marty,
Unfotunately there is a flaw in using the internet for technical research. At least with printed media, there is some sense of hope that information presented has been reviewed by peers on a subject before ever being published. With the internet, everyone is an expert, and as humans we tend to gravitate towards and trust what WE want to hear. There are no "online" credientals, we are all equal. Bad ideas as well as good ones get promoted and it turns into a sea of confusion. There still is a need for printed, reviewed and trusted media.

I have seen some really bad information printed in magazines recently. I'm not sure there is much in the way of peer review going on anymore unless you are talking about university level research papers.

[martymayes]

Aaron, correct me if I am wrong but there is no peer review of SA articles. The only review is by an editor who may or may not have any knowledge of the subject. Not to worry, if something is wrong, reader letters will pour in but that doesn't stop it from being published. So if you are relying on SA as a printed, reviewed and trusted media, it's falling way short of the bar on two of three objectives.

Forums have plenty of peer review. If something is posted that is incorrect, it would be highly unusual for it not to be challenged by other forum members. Bad information gets squashed pretty quick in a forum. Even a newbie can filter the good from the bad.

[WLIU]

I will agree that there is just as much bad info in printed media as there is on the internet. The advantage of the internet is that you can quickly get multiple sources and compare them to sort out the sketchy stuff. Harder to do that with printed info.

I will also agree that Jeff Skiles brings great writing to the magazine. His monthly contribution is one of the first places I turn to when the magazine arrives. Jeff S is just as good in person. If you get a chance to see him speak, don't miss it. He describes his experience landing in the Judson with great humor, candor, and humility. I have a yellowed copy of Richard Bach's "A Gift of Wings". I rate the writing that I see under Jeff S's byline equal to the stories in that volume.

I think that Bud Davisson was mentioned above. His column is in Plane & Pilot and is the only reason that I go to that web site. You can find a link to his latest writing on the front page of their web site. EAA's web site might get more traffic if they had direct links to Jeff Skiles, Lauran Paine, Lane Wallace, and Brady Lane's articles on their front page.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[Floatsflyer]

Yes, yes I am. I joined EAA because it was about sport aviation. Mac has nothing to do with that. Therefore I don't feel the need to continue my support.

To make a fair assessment analysis of the pros and cons of EAA membership, you should first get a clean piece of paper. On that paper draw a line down the middle. On the left side jot down all the benefits(perceived and actual) of membership. On the right side jot down Mac's writing in SA.

If you honestly choose the right side as your reason for membership cancellation then you are figuratively cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[Aaron Novak]

I have seen some really bad information printed in magazines recently. I'm not sure there is much in the way of peer review going on anymore unless you are talking about university level research papers.

Mike,
Yes I suppose you are correct on that. Honestly that is what is refreshing about Kitplanes, many of the tech articles are written by people from the aerospace engineering community. Basicly passing down real information from industry to the "trenches" of homebuilding, rather than the sea of old wives tales and advertisement engineering that seems to be in abundance. I do not believe there is anyone at EAA with any kind of engineering background (except Jack) to review their articles....correct me if I am wrong.

[Jeff Boatright]

Mike,
...I do not believe there is anyone at EAA with any kind of engineering background (except Jack) to review their articles....correct me if I am wrong.


Jack Pelton's engineering background is experience as a production/manufacturing/management engineer. Nothing wrong with that at all - my dad retired from a similar career at McD/D and two of my best friends have PhDs in that broad field. But, that sort of engineering isn't really the type needed for peer review of a technical article. I do think that there are several people at EAA with the technical background to properly review technical articles in SA. I have no idea whether they are asked to review those articles.

As to Kitplanes, I agree that there are many technical articles from industry. That's of course a two-edged sword, but I always enjoy articles by Barney Wainfain and Jim Weir. I still write "Floobydust!" when my students make questionable claims in manuscript drafts.

[jjhoneck]

To make a fair assessment analysis of the pros and cons of EAA membership, you should first get a clean piece of paper. On that paper draw a line down the middle. On the left side jot down all the benefits(perceived and actual) of membership. On the right side jot down Mac's writing in SA.

If you honestly choose the right side as your reason for membership cancellation then you are figuratively cutting off your nose to spite your face.

My top three reasons for belonging to EAA since 1983:

1. Oshkosh
2. Oshkosh
3. Oshkosh
...
13. The Magazine

The mag is nice, and always provides good bathroom material -- but if it went away tomorrow, I would still belong to EAA.

[zaitcev]

Bringing Mac onboard is one of the reasons I let my membership lapse.

Having a membership lapse does not get one booted from forums? Interesting.

[Matt Gonitzke]

Having a membership lapse does not get one booted from forums? Interesting.

EAA membership is not required to be a member of this forum, you know.

[Mayhemxpc]

We know that people who can make changes in EAA read what is posted on the forum. We have seen changes because of it. With that in mind, I want to be on record as saying that I think Sport Aviation is great and I look forward to it coming in the mail every month (whatever time in that particular month that happens to be.)

I agree that Mac's column seemed better placed in Flying than SA. Do I think that SA magazine suffers from it? No! (But I do think that Flying definitely lost something when Mac and Lane left.) Not everything in every -- or perhaps any -- issue interests me. Not everything speaks to my particular special interest area in aviation (that is, if I could ever be so narrow as to say that I have a particular "special interest.") On the other hand, there is a great deal in each issue that I find fascinating. But again, I think that EAA is MUCH more than JUST E-AB.

Keep up the good work!

[Kyle Boatright]

I think that EAA is MUCH more than JUST E-AB.

Keep up the good work!

I don't think anyone has suggested that EAA should be limited to EX/AB. However, I will point out that the magazine is "Sport Aviation," not "Piston Twin IFR" or "Turbine Single" magazine. Those articles and columns are so far removed from what EAA is about, including them in the magazine is a real puzzler.

[Flyfalcons]

To make a fair assessment analysis of the pros and cons of EAA membership, you should first get a clean piece of paper. On that paper draw a line down the middle. On the left side jot down all the benefits(perceived and actual) of membership. On the right side jot down Mac's writing in SA.

If you honestly choose the right side as your reason for membership cancellation then you are figuratively cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I understand that you know what benefits I receive from EAA better than I do, but Mac is simply one cog in the wheel of the direction of EAA. I just chose not to roll with that wheel anymore.

[krw920]

The mag is nice, and always provides good bathroom material -- but if it went away tomorrow, I would still belong to EAA.


Exactly!

[Bill Greenwood]

EAA basic membership is the immense sum of $40. So Ryan, if you save $40, what are you going to spend it on? Maybe ICE FISHING ILLUSTRATED?

Seriously, if the magazine really is not your taste at all , you can probably get the membership and ask them to skip the mag or donate it to your local FBO or dentist office or lunch shop.

[Flyfalcons]

EAA membership could be $5, but if it's not something I wish to support, then I wouldn't spend that either.

[TedK]

Sometimes I think Mac is a blessing in disguise. He occasionally says something that motivates me to action.

[miemsed]

EAA membership could be $5, but if it's not something I wish to support, then I wouldn't spend that either.

If you do not wish to support or be involved with EAA, why are you here. Just wondering.

[flybuddy]

Mac has a current article in this months Sport Aviation titled "En Route Risks". He states that E-AB aircraft are under represented in fatal weather accidents. He then goes on to express his "obvious opinion" that E- AB aircraft fly mostly locally as to the reason they are not crashing as much as certifieds. Also, since they fly mostly locally they won't generally aviate if the local conditions are poor or windy. After reading that I actually flipped the magazine over to double check that I was reading EAA Sport Aviation.
IMO, the reasons that E-AB has less fatal weather accidents is:
* exp planes are generally better equipped to deal with weather as they are not as encumbered in adding state of the art equipment as certified a/c are.
* exp pilots tend to have more experience
* how does he think all those E-AB aircraft get to Oshkosh?
I live on an air park where 20 years back everyone had certifieds, now nearly everyone here owns higher end experimentals. In just the past week several of my neighbors had made flights in home builds of over a thousand miles. Also, gusty crosswinds are the norm here and doesn't impact our flying much. Mac is clearly not in his element when stating opinions on aircraft he has very little experience with.

[Mayhemxpc]

I don't think anyone has suggested that EAA should be limited to EX/AB. However, I will point out that the magazine is "Sport Aviation," not "Piston Twin IFR" or "Turbine Single" magazine. Those articles and columns are so far removed from what EAA is about, including them in the magazine is a real puzzler.

Kyle, You have a good point. As I said, his articles seem better suited to other magazines and I enjoyed them very much in Flying. My point is that I do not think his articles in SA detract too much from an otherwise great and evolving layout. But you know what else? I believe that I am very much part of EAA and I believe in all of the things it does. I also happen to own a piston twin and I fly it IFR. It happens to be an O-2A and I do not feel that flying it is at all, "removed from what EAA is about."

I will be happy to suggest to Mac (through this forum) that he might try to understand his audience a bit better. For example, in this month's article, it is all well and good to remind all of us in the sport aviation community who fly IFR of the risks in a circling approach (as though one is likely to forget how hard it is in benign conditions during an annual IPC.) That could apply to me and it could just as easily apply to a friend of mine who flies IFR in a very nicely equipped RV-8. In describing how to meet those challenges, he should describe things in a broader context than just a fully modernized B-58 (or heavier metal.)

Chris Mayer
N424AF

[CarlOrton]

<snip> In describing how to meet those challenges, he should describe things in a broader context than just a fully modernized B-58 (or heavier metal.)

Chris Mayer
N424AF
I've been somewhat surprised that Mac hasn't been on the forums, or that more effort hasn't been expended in providing him with opportunities to really get to know us (experimenters in general).

I'm assuming that he does not live in Oshkosh (I seem to recall him talking about flying to Convention across Lake Michigan), so daily contact with experimental aviators may be limited. Certainly we can provide him the opportunity to be better immersed. Does he belong to a Chapter? Are there *any* ex/ab members near him? Would he even "hang out" with some of us?

Of course, every time in the past that I've given folks the benefit of the doubt, I've turned out to be wrong, so the emerging conspiracy theorist in me is surprised that we haven't heard from staff on this matter.

[Frank Giger]

LOL, I thought y'all were referring to his blog, which can be reached by the main EAA website page.

His stuff in SA is a lot more on point with the EAA than his blog....though he does come up with some very good On Point stuff for the EAA audience, which is why I check it out.

I don't think Mac cares what we say on a forum board; I suspect as long as the EAA check comes on time and clears he's quite content with the job he's doing. And rightfully so - the only one he has to please is the man who does the hiring and firing, just like the rest of us.

I would like to see him in a Champ (he'd probably stroke out in an experimental) out of an uncontrolled field.

"So where's the stack?"
"Um, the handheld radio is right here velcro'd to the panel."
"Where's the GPS, weather updating, terrain avoidance radar, traffic locator or other basic essential instruments for flight?"
"I put a sectional on a knee board for you. You'll have to rely on the glass above and to the sides of the panel for the rest of it. Oh, and monitor and self report on just the one frequency; the other is the current weather."
"Where's the approach plates?"
"Um, I put a sectional on a knee board for you."
"Where's the trim and autopilot?"
"You're in luck - the elevator trim is right here above your left shoulder. The autopilot only engages when the aircraft's speed and elevation are zero and zero, with the mags turned off and the pilot away from the plane with wind on the field. It is also disengaged through the use of tie down ropes and chalks. Trust me, you really don't want the autopilot on."
"This is barbaric!"
"Aw, it should be a cinch for a super computer wizard aviator like you...."

[rwanttaja]

IMO, the reasons that E-AB has less fatal weather accidents is:
* exp planes are generally better equipped to deal with weather as they are not as encumbered in adding state of the art equipment as certified a/c are.

You're welcome to your opinion, but there's no way to prove this. In any case, not every homebuilder puts gazillions of dollars into in-cockpit weather displays. For the most part, weather accidents are not due to people flying into bad weather because they lack radar or any other modern gimcracks to let them navigate through it. The windshield usually provides all the weather information they really needed.

If anything, the average homebuilt is LESS capable of handling bad weather than the average production aircraft. In the past 50 years, how many Cessnas, Pipers, or Beeches rolled out of the factories without basic gyro instruments? I don't think I've ever flown in a Cessna 172 without an artificial horizon... and my '65 150 certainly had one.




* exp pilots tend to have more experience

That is certainly provable. Looking at accidents in the 1998-2011 time period, homebuilt pilots had a median of 1,000 flight hours at the time of the accident. Cessna 172 pilots had 233 hours, PA-28 pilots had a median 321 hours.



* how does he think all those E-AB aircraft get to Oshkosh?

Same way they did back in the 70, 80s, 90s. Didn't need funky weather gear then, and not everyone has it now. The problem isn't aircraft equipment, it's the pilots making the right decisions. More experienced pilots generally make better decisions.

The fact is, the vast majority of homebuilt aircraft are flown for recreation. While this doesn't mean we're immune to get-there-itis (guilty!), the fact is we tend to not fly in less-than-optimal conditions.

Certified airplanes are much more likely to be operated for business purposes, where the pilot may be under more pressure to get to a particular destination. I've even had an FAA specialist tell me that you can NOT operate a homebuilt in support of a business, based on 14CFR 91.319(a)(1).

The problem with comparing the homebuilt to the GA accident rate is that we're comparing different things. Homebuilts should be compared to the portion of the GA fleet that is owner-flown as a personal recreational vehicle, since that's how the vast majority of homebuilts are operated. When they calculate the number of flight hours, FAA analysts assume that the owner of a Cessna 172 flies 200 hours per year. If the owner of that 172 completes his RV-8, the FAA then assumes he now flies 28 hours a year. See how this might affect the accident-per-flight hours summaries from FAA (which the AOPA uses in the annual Nall Report)?

There's actually some method in that particular madness; the FAA assumption is factoring in the (assumed!) percentage of registered homebuilts that are not active. It'll be interesting to see if their per-hour assumption changes now that the mandatory re-registration process supposedly got rid of all the deadwood.

It really, really SHOULD. Since January 2009, for every homebuilt removed from the FAA registry, twelve production-type aircraft had their registration cancelled. That's the figures as of last December, it'll be interesting to see how it changed this year.

Ron Wanttaja

[flybuddy]

You're welcome to your opinion, but there's no way to prove this. In any case, not every homebuilder puts gazillions of dollars into in-cockpit weather displays. For the most part, weather accidents are not due to people flying into bad weather because they lack radar or any other modern gimcracks to let them navigate through it. The windshield usually provides all the weather information they really needed.

If anything, the average homebuilt is LESS capable of handling bad weather than the average production aircraft. In the past 50 years, how many Cessnas, Pipers, or Beeches rolled out of the factories without basic gyro instruments? I don't think I've ever flown in a Cessna 172 without an artificial horizon... and my '65 150 certainly had one.
Ron Wanttaja

And Mac is welcome to his opinion and there's no way to prove his side either. It might be best to stick to facts when writing about Experimental aircraft (of which he has little experience) in an experimental magazine that you're being paid to write for. Given that you point out the chronic under reporting of EA-B hours. Isn't his opinion that much more wrong?

Not sure I agree with you on homebuilts LESS capable statement. The most common homebuilt flying is an RV and many of those have glass panels. Autopilots are now the norm especially because you can add a fully capable one to a Dynon unit for $1500. APs are a huge help in VFR into IMC incidents. The older certifieds simply can't afford this capability. An AH and DG don't seem to keep the right side for a VFR pilot in IFR conditions.

[1600vw]

There are a lot of folks whom only lurk on boards as this and never post. I myself know of about 10 people whom come here but never post. Read some posts and its not hard to understand this. Make a mistake in spelling or something and you get judged. I myself careless and will post a lot without even prove reading. But 99.9 percent will judge you on this.

Looking over all the airplanes, we have some really nice airplanes today. Glass panels, no more fabric but nice fiberglass or composite airplanes. But as in the GA world where they do indeed today build these new airplanes that have a price with more zero's in it then I will ever spend or afford to by, This is not what is being flown. Our air fleet is in the 50's or years old as we all know.

Well this is my world in EAB. Now I do have a friend building a new airplane but that is not the norm. Everyone I know flies an EAB that is at least 15 years old. Mine is almost 10 years old. Cost in the range of 4500 - 7000 bucks. This is EAB experimental flying in my world. These airplanes have a few steam gauges and never fly in anything but calm weather on clear days.

When I read about experimental airplanes costing upwards of 10's of thousands of dollars, are there those flying them? Sure. But no one I know, so when one speaks of eab's and only talks about those that have glass panels and cost more then my car you have just isolated a huge group of people or shut them out. They stay shut out or alone and play on the sideline. There is more to flying then glass panels or long x-countries that require flight following and in and out of weather fronts. Not one person whom I hang with flies this way..not one.

I ask them why I never hear from them on forums like this....They don't belong...Not for them....They don't fly like those folks...Not my type's......

So I bet you anything Mac looms over these forums but does not post as most. Only a few will jump into the pit.

[WLIU]

Ron,

Thanks for the excellent contribution of interesting data on the topic of your average homebuilder vs your average Piper/Cessna/Mooney driver. May I suggest that the info might be the basis of an interesting article in Sport Aviation? There has been some interesting focus by the FAA on accidents in homebuilt airplanes. The data that you posted might provide an enlightening perspective to use when evaluating whether the response to the raw accident numbers are really being applied appropriately.

Thanks,

Wes
N78PS

[rwanttaja]

Ron,

Thanks for the excellent contribution of interesting data on the topic of your average homebuilder vs your average Piper/Cessna/Mooney driver. May I suggest that the info might be the basis of an interesting article in Sport Aviation? There has been some interesting focus by the FAA on accidents in homebuilt airplanes. The data that you posted might provide an enlightening perspective to use when evaluating whether the response to the raw accident numbers are really being applied appropriately.
Thanks for the suggestion, Wes. I've included this detail in past articles for Kitplanes, and have referenced the issue regarding "equivalent operation" in past SA articles. I'll be writing my annual Sport Aviation accident statistics article in a month or so, and may bring it up, there.

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

So I bet you anything Mac looms over these forums but does not post as most. Only a few will jump into the pit.
I would agree with you that Mac probably checks out these forums and reads the threads, or at least someone passes key comments along. But he would be absolutely nuts if he decided to plunge in and participate. Most magazine editors I've met have been extremely busy people, active near-real time discussion of their editorials would require a massive amount of time.

As Mac is a bit controversial in the EAA world, it would be even worse. There would be a few folks who would latch on and not let go. Far easier to just ignore it....

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

And Mac is welcome to his opinion and there's no way to prove his side either. It might be best to stick to facts when writing about Experimental aircraft (of which he has little experience) in an experimental magazine that you're being paid to write for. Given that you point out the chronic under reporting of EA-B hours. Isn't his opinion that much more wrong?

The chronic under-reporting of E-AB hours is *my* opinion, based on discussions with the FAA and the AOPA Nall Report folks. If I had any way to get statistics to prove it, I would dig, hard. You may recall several years ago that that AOPA Nall Report claimed a huge jump in E-AB accidents. This is where the discussions occurred. You may also recall that the AOPA retracted their claim. Modest as I am, I have to take credit for that...I found they were counting Experimental Light Sport Aircraft as Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft (at that time, ALL were ultralights converted by the grandfather clause).

You and I have differing opinions. My (and probably Mac's) logical flow is:

1. Homebuilts are flown as recreational aircraft almost exclusively.
2. Persons who fly for fun are less likely to fly when it ISN'T fun.
3. Hence, E-AB pilots are less likely to fly into challenging weather

Your logical flow is:

1. You have examined the cockpits of some subset of E-AB aircraft (If you looked inside 1,000 airplanes, you've only seen 3.1% of the entire fleet)
2. Your impression is that a large portion of those aircraft contained equipment that would provide an advantage over production-type aircraft if the aircraft encounters weather.
3. You project that unknown large portion onto the other 31,000 homebuilt aircraft
4. Hence, more homebuilt aircraft are better equipped to fly into challenging weather.

I just don't agree.

However, there is a kicker we both agree on: E-AB pilots are more experienced, which affects the statistics even more.


Not sure I agree with you on homebuilts LESS capable statement. The most common homebuilt flying is an RV and many of those have glass panels. Autopilots are now the norm especially because you can add a fully capable one to a Dynon unit for $1500. APs are a huge help in VFR into IMC incidents. The older certifieds simply can't afford this capability. An AH and DG don't seem to keep the right side for a VFR pilot in IFR conditions.

First off, let's look at the statistics. As of 31 December 2012, there were 32,041 aircraft licensed as Experimental Amateur-Built, of which 6,740 were RVs. They're certainly the most common homebuilt type, but it's still only 21% of the homebuilt fleet.

EFISs are certainly more common across the homebuilt fleet, just for the ease of installation if nothing else. Heck, I almost installed one in my Fly Baby last year. But EFISs, in themselves, don't enhance safety. They provide the same functionality of the classic aircraft instruments, just in a electronic, more-compact configuration. They do have their own drawbacks, though, in the form of putting all one's eggs in a single digital basket.

An autopilot enhances safety in challenging weather. Theoretically true...if the pilot takes advantage of it. The pilot has to be willing to push a button and release the wheel in a situation where they're in mortal danger. I would find that hard to do. Do those RV pilots with autopilots get training to prepare them for that kind of decision?

The fact is, we don't *know* how many homebuilts have autopilots, and, further, we don't know what percentage of the owners would turn the plane over to George in a critical situation (I am reminded of the exchange between the peacenik woman and the Marine general). Damn few, would be my opinion...but that's just my opinion.

Autopilots may be rarer in the GA fleet, but they're not all that rare. There are more Bonanzas (12,236) on the FAA registry than RVs...and I bet many of them have autopilots. Heck, Mooney had full-time wing levellers, you had to hold down a button (with a hefty spring in it) to get it to turn OFF. Short, thick, rubber bands became popular, which might indicate the pilots' willingness to rely on the autopilot.

Keep in mind, I'm not anti-autopilot. I agree they're a good safety feature, and there's time I wish my Fly Baby had one (or a modicum of cruise stability :-). I just don't feel they or ANY other piece of equipment significant affects the safety rate of E-AB vs. overall GA aircraft.

Ron Wanttaja

[jjhoneck]

LOL, I thought y'all were referring to his blog, which can be reached by the main EAA website page.

His stuff in SA is a lot more on point with the EAA than his blog....though he does come up with some very good On Point stuff for the EAA audience, which is why I check it out.

I don't think Mac cares what we say on a forum board; I suspect as long as the EAA check comes on time and clears he's quite content with the job he's doing. And rightfully so - the only one he has to please is the man who does the hiring and firing, just like the rest of us.

I would like to see him in a Champ (he'd probably stroke out in an experimental) out of an uncontrolled field.

"So where's the stack?"
"Um, the handheld radio is right here velcro'd to the panel."
"Where's the GPS, weather updating, terrain avoidance radar, traffic locator or other basic essential instruments for flight?"
"I put a sectional on a knee board for you. You'll have to rely on the glass above and to the sides of the panel for the rest of it. Oh, and monitor and self report on just the one frequency; the other is the current weather."
"Where's the approach plates?"
"Um, I put a sectional on a knee board for you."
"Where's the trim and autopilot?"
"You're in luck - the elevator trim is right here above your left shoulder. The autopilot only engages when the aircraft's speed and elevation are zero and zero, with the mags turned off and the pilot away from the plane with wind on the field. It is also disengaged through the use of tie down ropes and chalks. Trust me, you really don't want the autopilot on."
"This is barbaric!"
"Aw, it should be a cinch for a super computer wizard aviator like you...."

Where's the "Like" button? :-)

[flybuddy]

Ron, both you and I are of the opinion that the FAA has shortchanged experimental aircraft via overinflation of certified stats (hours and aircraft) while underinflating those of experimentals. Additionally ALL types of experimentals (exhibition, racing, et) show in the accident stats along with many older unique certified a/c mistakenly added to those roles. I knew also that certifieds would lose out on the Nall report via reduced registrations. Even with that, there are still many certifieds being registered that are in pieces in the rafters of hangars.
Along comes an example where E-AB has positive stats with various opinionable reasons. I would tend to think that EAA would lend itself toward a more positive version of these opinionable reasons (especially given the aforementioned skewing of stats)
If I were flying a Baby Ace or a Pietenpol (I've flown both), etc and that's was my MAIN exposure then I would concede to the line of reasoning being given. I've got close to 6K hours in a multitude of various certified and otherwise a/c ranging from ultralights to DC3s. I attend lots of aviation events. We're seeing this from 2 different sides of EA-B. IMO, there is PLENTY of cross country activity in homebuilts. Mac doesn't think so. The only factual statements he and I have made is that it's an OPINION. Wouldn't EAA/EA-B, be better served taking a viewpoint of potential optimism instead of negative fatalism? Think about the glass and AP manufacturers that are vendors at Oshkosh, Sun-N-Fun, etc. How many thousands of units do you think Dynon, MGL, Advanced, GRT, etc have sold. Isn't it logical that those planes will be more cross country oriented?

[Frank Giger]

I'm actually thinking that higher total hours of Experimental pilots + higher accident rate = a negative to the equation, unless I'm missing something.

Um, wait...if E/AB pilot fly more, they're more likely to work the percentages for failure; if there's a one in a thousand chance for something to go wrong and Pilot A flys 35 hours a year and pilot B flys 1000 hours a year, pilot B is more likely to have the lightning strike. Is that right?

On cross country numbers, it's a statistical lie in waiting. When I hop over to Talledega from Pell City, it's a ten mile jaunt - and also a cross country trip by definition, no different from flying from NYC to Seattle. Less challenging, as weather conditions are typically the same for close airports and the duration of the trip is very short, but it's still "cross country."

Then again, I've gone from fun to no-fun weather in about ten minutes thanks to a faster-than-expected front moving through, bringing a change of temps and nasty wind conditions.

I think a large chunk of Experimentals are doing short cross countries versus their certified brothers; the essence of recreational flying is tooling around the skies and meeting up with others, especially within the homebuiding community.

Personally, I think an hour of touch-and-goes is more hazardous than an hour cross country flight with one takeoff and one full stop. More chances to screw up.

[flybuddy]

I'm actually thinking that higher total hours of Experimental pilots + higher accident rate = a negative to the equation, unless I'm missing something.

Frank, the Nall report over inflates the numbers of certified aircraft by taking hours flown response data from pilots in their surveys and applying that average to every registered certificated airplane. Prior to the re-registration process there were many certified aircraft not flying (ramp queens) that were registered. The accident rate stats are fairly static except in Experimental reporting where there were numerous certified aircraft lumped into the experimental category for some unknown reason. Bottom line, the stats have been skewed against the experimental safety record. Now, in safety reporting we see a glimmer of hope inasmuch as fatal weather accidents are (comparatively) lower for E-AB aircraft. Sound like a good thing to me but then J. Mac writes this is Sport Aviation:


"The single most common cause of a GA en route fatal accident is weather, the pilot, or his airplane simply couldn't handle. E-AB aircraft are underrepresented in fatal weather accidents. The obvious guess is that E-AB fly more locally than pilots of standard airplanes."

While it does not seem to be a big deal, it does come across as having EAA say..well, if experimental aircraft show themselves to be safer in any way then we are of the opinion that it must be a mistake or some other reason rather than something positive. Positive things would be stuff like more experienced pilots in EA-B or better equipment. Wouldn't it be nice if the case could be made that the state of the art equipment in many experimentals is making aviation safer and maybe it would behoove us to allow that same equipment into older certifieds without the huge time and expense of current compliance?

[1600vw]

Are the Stats really correct? I wonder how many non fatal accidents there have been that do not get reported. I have had a few folks tell me stories of accidents where the aircraft mangled and then is pushed off into a hangar before anyone ever noticed. These where all EAB's that are of the single seat design. Its not until this is fatal that we hear about it.

One Gent just told me about something like this he went through a few months ago. 30 years ago this man flew weight shift gliders. Now 30 years later the things that kept him from flying are grown and out of the house. He goes out and buys an EAB that weighs in at almost 700 lbs. Trailers her home and then puts her together. He then tries to fly her. Not knowing what to do with rudder peddles we all know the outcome. Lucky he did not kill himself.

Now he wants to repair this airplane without ever working on anything like this. He went out purchased a Gas welding kit and is planing on welding the tubes back. I told him he is a dead man walking. I tried to get him to let me help him but he knows more then I, so be it. I tried.

Then another man kinda in the same spot. He has flown with others some and has a lot of cash or deep pockets. Goes out and buys a really nice I do not want to say RV but who knows. He gets her up and rolls her in a ball on touchdown, Again lucky this was not fatal. He goes and gets a forklift tractor and has this mess cleaned up in a short time. He said he stuck parts of that plane all over the place.

This is like the computer programmer. The programs only as good as the man whom programmed it. Trust the stats if you want but they are not correct. I am sure things like this happen all over. This is one reason I am trying to push training in my area, at an affordable cost. We need it in the name of safety. I really do cherish each and everyone of you and want to see you on these boards and flying as long as we can. Lets not be a statistic and lets help those whom need it or aviation truly is a dead activity, hobby or sport.

You want to make aviation safer, we need training at an affordable cost. The man I spoke about with the deep pockets, after this happened to him he did go out and get training. I spoke with him about this and this in itself was something to tackle. So if he had a hard time doing it imagine someone with not so deep pockets.

I believe we all know this, I am telling no one nothing new.

Its all about...TRAINING.......

[rwanttaja]

Are the Stats really correct? I wonder how many non fatal accidents there have been that do not get reported. I have had a few folks tell me stories of accidents where the aircraft mangled and then is pushed off into a hangar before anyone ever noticed. These where all EAB's that are of the single seat design. Its not until this is fatal that we hear about it.

Yep, you hit a key point. If a 172 does a forced landing in the boonies, the pilot is probably incapable of doing much more than calling an FBO and having them send out a mechanic and a trailer. The FAA naturally shows up. But if it's a homebuilt, the owner is likely to be quite capable of disassembling the plane himself and carting it away, no one the wiser.

Years ago, one of my EAA chapters was having a picnic at a local airpark. One of the members based at the field lost his engine on the takeoff run. He ground-looped the plane to keep from going off a steep hill at the end of the runway, wiping out the gear (no one hurt). Coincidentally, it happened at the end of the runway near this man's hangar. Chapter members ran out, grabbed pieces of airplane, and hauled them into the hangar. By the time the cops arrived, the hangar door was shut. "What accident?"

More recently, a plane undergoing taxi testing had an accident. The owner successfully convinced the investigators that this did NOT count as an aircraft accident, since the plane...uhhh, "vehicle"...had not yet been given its airworthiness certificate nor been registered.

And as Flybuddy has pointed out, the NTSB accident records themselves are shot with errors, with "homebuilt" used as a catch-all term for all non-standard-airworthiness aircraft.

The problem is, the NTSB reports are all we have. There's nothing else to use, to try to compare production to homebuilt safety. All we can do is hope the errors even out....

Ron Wanttaja

[Mayhemxpc]

And why the heck would the police be involved with the airpark incident, anyway? Nothing to see here officer, move along.

[rwanttaja]

And why the heck would the police be involved with the airpark incident, anyway? Nothing to see here officer, move along.

Third degree burns to the passenger, in the second instance.

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

Flybuddy's and my discussion regarding the equipment level of the homebuilt fleet got me curious. And when I get curious, I start analyzing.

I used my December 31 2012 copy of the FAA registration database, and extracted all the airplanes listed as Experimental Amateur-Built. Then, using a variety of filters and eventually a line-by-line manual process, I divided the fleet into eight categories. I managed to identify ~86% of the fleet into specific categories; some names weren't obvious as to what the "real" type was.

The seven categories were:

1. Ultralight-like. These are N-numbered homebuilts of ultralight heritage or of classic pod-and-boom ultralight design. Manually, I added all homebuilts using two-stroke Rotaxes. These aircraft are likely to have minimal additional equipment.

2. Recreational. These are homebuilts which are primarily built just for the enjoyment of flight. Pietenpols, Fly Babies, Kitfoxes, CH-701s, etc. A GPS is likely to be the most-complex instrumentation these aircraft have. But, while they typically do not have advanced navigation or weather equipment, some builders do add such capability.

3. Cost-Effective Performance. These are aircraft where an attempt is made to make them suitable for cross-country flying without going "whole hog." The RVs, T-18s, Long-EZs fall into this category. Many of these aircraft are likely to have expanded panels.

4. High Speed. These aircraft primarily exist to go fast. Lancairs, Glasairs, Legends, Rockets, and other things that go whooooosh in the night. Manually, I added most airplanes with O-540s, O-550s, and turbines. These planes will invariably have top-line panels.

Aerobatic, Racing, and Rotorcraft categories should be self-explanatory. These aircraft are unlikely to have high-buck panels. The final category, Unknown, is the aircraft that I wasn't able to assign a category to.
3443
What's interesting is how close the results came out. The less-likely groups (1, 2, 5, 6, and 7) add up to 47% of the total, vs. 36% for the more-likely set (Cost-Effective Performance and High Speed). Considering the broad-stroke categories and the number listed as unidentified this is practically a dead heat.

Ron Wanttaja

[Kurt Flunkn]

Jack Pelton's engineering background is experience as a production/manufacturing/management engineer..

Read the wiki entry and pay close attention to the part about Hamilton University....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_J._Pelton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_University

[WLIU]

So Ron, DOT claims that there are about 223,000 aircraft in the general aviation fleet, and 10%, or 22,000+ are experimental, presumable amateur built. By your analysis, somewhere around 9,000 E-AB's are likely to be go fast, well equipped aircraft.

So we can guess that somewhere around 4% of the of the GA fleet is well equipped E-AB's. If the DOT assumptions that all of the GA fleet is active are off by 25%, that puts the well equipped go fast E-AB's at just over 5% of the GA fleet.

With that view, we can ask the question whether the E-AB's comprise more or less than 5% of the weather accidents. Do your analysis tools allow you to easily pull that info from the data? If so, that might give us an insight as to whether we think that DOT and NTSB are looking at the E-AB community fairly, or whether they are mis-analyzing the data.

Best of luck,

Wes

[Kyle Boatright]

The sum of the thread drift here is epic...

<not picking on anyone at all, just commenting>

[WLIU]

Well, to get back to the original topic, reading about how airlines operate safely leaves me quickly skipping to the next article. An airline captain shows up at the airplane knowing that dispatch has calculated the weight and balance, the maintenance department has gone over the airplane, the first officer has done the preflight walk around, the ramp crew has loaded on fuel and bags, and the cabin crew will make sure that all of the pax are seated, belted, and briefed. Both crew members up front have been through their 6 month sim rides where they get to try to handle fires, system failures, and other breakdowns after they try rolling the sim on their first takeoff. If ATC needs to change their routing it pops up on the ACARS screen. Airline operations are like recreational aviation how?

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[Jeff Boatright]

Read the wiki entry and pay close attention to the part about Hamilton University....


Which is why I wrote what I wrote very carefully. His experience in the industry is a matter of record. Beyond that, I don't know nuttin' about nuttin'...

;)

[Victor Bravo]

Getting back to the question of Mr. McClellan's relevance to EAA....

Recently I posted a comment that included the idea that all of this is probably not all Mac's fault. I stand by that, which is why I offered an apology. My reasons for this are that when Rod Hightower came to my area on his grassroots tour stop (Van Nuys, CA, a couple of years ago), he made a comment in response to someone in the crowd.

The person had asked Rod about a large number of the members being upset with EAA's focus shifting away from Paul's original vision, and those members' annoyance over everything that came with that shift.

Mr. Hightower's response was that he saw EAA as a living, growing, and evolving organization, and that he personally had put in place or personally supported some changes that would broaden EAA's appeal, and address other groups within aviation that EAA had not been fully represented within EAA. Not a verbatim quote, but this is pretty accurate.

Most of us in the audience took this to mean that he defended or supported the EAA focus shift (in the direction that the Mac question represents). I don't remember whether Mac was brought in to EAA during Rod's tenure, or at the end of Tom's tenure, or under Jack.

So there is a perfectly good possibility that someone from EAA called Mac McClellan on the phone one day, and said to him "Hey Mac, we want to steer EAA in a new direction to include more IFR Baron drivers, and pontificate about fifty grand worth of glass panels, and tell turbine cross country stories... and we want YOU to come in and start writing about all this stuff, and we're going to remove a bunch of small homebuilt content in the magazine to make room for you, and they're all going to love you !"

If I were Mac McClellan and I got that phone call, I would afterburner myself right out of Flying and right over to Oshkosh, and start writing about Barons and leather interiors and flying with epaulets on your shoulders... and I'd sit there all happy and proud that I was doing the right thing.

So before we (including myself) point any blame directly at him personally, we really ought to have the intel on where this shift came from.

If Tom or Rod or Jack made the decision to change EAA away from the original concept, toward being more like AOPA, and start appealing more to Mac's audience... and poor Mac is just doing what he was told to do, then we need to address our "opinion" to Tom or Rod or Jack.

If Tom or Rod or Jack wanted to return EAA closer to Paul's version, and publish more articles about carving your own propeller for your Volksplane... and Mac came barging in and told them to get out of the way because he knew what was best for aviation, and all EAA members should start becoming less interested in homebuilts and more interested in turbine cross country... then our problem is with Mac personally.

So, in fairness, I think we need to know what Mac was told, and what he did or didn't "push" on EAA.

[miemsed]

Getting back to the question of Mr. McClellan's relevance to EAA....

Recently I posted a comment that included the idea that all of this is probably not all Mac's fault. I stand by that, which is why I offered an apology. My reasons for this are that when Rod Hightower came to my area on his grassroots tour stop (Van Nuys, CA, a couple of years ago), he made a comment in response to someone in the crowd.

The person had asked Rod about a large number of the members being upset with EAA's focus shifting away from Paul's original vision, and those members' annoyance over everything that came with that shift.

Mr. Hightower's response was that he saw EAA as a living, growing, and evolving organization, and that he personally had put in place or personally supported some changes that would broaden EAA's appeal, and address other groups within aviation that EAA had not been fully represented within EAA. Not a verbatim quote, but this is pretty accurate.

Most of us in the audience took this to mean that he defended or supported the EAA focus shift (in the direction that the Mac question represents). I don't remember whether Mac was brought in to EAA during Rod's tenure, or at the end of Tom's tenure, or under Jack.

So there is a perfectly good possibility that someone from EAA called Mac McClellan on the phone one day, and said to him "Hey Mac, we want to steer EAA in a new direction to include more IFR Baron drivers, and pontificate about fifty grand worth of glass panels, and tell turbine cross country stories... and we want YOU to come in and start writing about all this stuff, and we're going to remove a bunch of small homebuilt content in the magazine to make room for you, and they're all going to love you !"

If I were Mac McClellan and I got that phone call, I would afterburner myself right out of Flying and right over to Oshkosh, and start writing about Barons and leather interiors and flying with epaulets on your shoulders... and I'd sit there all happy and proud that I was doing the right thing.

So before we (including myself) point any blame directly at him personally, we really ought to have the intel on where this shift came from.

If Tom or Rod or Jack made the decision to change EAA away from the original concept, toward being more like AOPA, and start appealing more to Mac's audience... and poor Mac is just doing what he was told to do, then we need to address our "opinion" to Tom or Rod or Jack.

If Tom or Rod or Jack wanted to return EAA closer to Paul's version, and publish more articles about carving your own propeller for your Volksplane... and Mac came barging in and told them to get out of the way because he knew what was best for aviation, and all EAA members should start becoming less interested in homebuilts and more interested in turbine cross country... then our problem is with Mac personally.

So, in fairness, I think we need to know what Mac was told, and what he did or didn't "push" on EAA.

Could it be the vast majority of members think there is room for many different types of interests and most members do not have any problem with Mac, Tom, Rod or Jack.

[martymayes]

Airline operations are like recreational aviation how?
There is no commonality Wes, but you already know that.
Besides, when I want to read a publication on professional flying, the authoritative publications are Pro Pilot or B/CA, not Sport Aviation. Those publications are written by people at the professional level, not a wannabe.
When I read Sport Aviation, I expect to find articles about Joe the Plumber building & restoring airplanes as a hobby or for recreation, because that is what EAA has represented for past 60 yrs.
This format change reminds me of the Coke/Pepsi battle back in the '80's. The taste of Pepsi is preferred by a large segment of consumers, so Coke reformulates it's product to taste like Pepsi. We all know that was one of the largest marketing failures of modern times. I would think that's not exactly a model I would want to follow.

[rwanttaja]

So Ron, DOT claims that there are about 223,000 aircraft in the general aviation fleet, and 10%, or 22,000+ are experimental, presumable amateur built. By your analysis, somewhere around 9,000 E-AB's are likely to be go fast, well equipped aircraft.

So we can guess that somewhere around 4% of the of the GA fleet is well equipped E-AB's. If the DOT assumptions that all of the GA fleet is active are off by 25%, that puts the well equipped go fast E-AB's at just over 5% of the GA fleet.

With that view, we can ask the question whether the E-AB's comprise more or less than 5% of the weather accidents. Do your analysis tools allow you to easily pull that info from the data? If so, that might give us an insight as to whether we think that DOT and NTSB are looking at the E-AB community fairly, or whether they are mis-analyzing the data.

My analysis consists of a reading of the accident narrative and an assignment of the accident to one or more of 51 categories. I haven't performed that analysis on the GA fleet as a whole, since there are typically ~2000 accidents per year. I like to have a minimum of ten years data, so that'd be a long process.

What I *have* done, at various times, is evaluate specific airplane types. Here's a summary of them over a ten year period:

Homebuilts:
Data period: January 2001 through December 2010 (ten years)
Registered examples as of 31 December 2010: 32,682
Number of accidents due to Continued VFR flight into IMC: 27
Percentage of total accidents: 1.3%
Percentage of total fleet: 0.082% (This is over the ten-year period)

Cessna 172:
Data period: January 2001 through December 2010 (ten years)
Registered examples as of 31 December 2010: 25934
Number of accidents due to Continued VFR flight into IMC: 30
Percentage of total accidents: 2.5%
Percentage of total fleet: 0.115%

Piper PA-140, PA-161, PA-180, PA-180:
Data period: January 2001 through December 2010 (ten years)
Registered examples as of 31 December 2010: 14785
Number of accidents due to Continued VFR flight into IMC: 32
Percentage of total accidents: 5.8%
Percentage of total fleet: 0.216%

Cessna 210:
Data period: January 1998 through December 2007 (ten years)
Registered examples as of 31 December 2010: 5417
Number of accidents due to Continued VFR flight into IMC: 17
Percentage of total accidents: 4.3%
Percentage of total fleet: 0.313%

The 210 to homebuilt comparison is interesting. The 210s should almost universally be equipped for IFR flight, but a greater percentage of its total accidents is due to Continued VFR into IMC. The fleet rate is interesting as well... even if you assume only HALF the homebuilts are active, and ALL the 210s, homebuilts still have half the fleet rate of the big Cessna! And note that the median flight hours is *higher* for the 210s... 1400 hours, vs. 1000 hours.

Ron Wanttaja

[Dan Johnson]

Add one more member who thinks Mac's articles are irrelevant to "sport" aviation. EAA has been on a path away from its roots. I used to enjoy Sport Aviation magazine but I may not bother renewing it anymore. It's become a monthly disappointment.

[Gil]

Just the opposite opinion here. I was thinking of abandoning my EAA membership two years ago, but the incredible improvement in Sport Aviation changed my mind. If one writer's articles bother me, I just move on, but the magazine overall is so much better than it used to be that it is now the first one I read each month.

[Infidel]

I cancelled my membership a few years back when Hightower was in operation as I didn't like the Corporate business approach EAA was heading. But since then, I've found EAA appears to be slowly getting back on track. It's a delicate trek and I suspect EAA is trying its best to appeal to the whole market and membership pool. Retaining long time members without becoming redundant and appealing to the next generation of Pilots/aircraft enthusiasts isn't an exact science.

I enjoy the SA monthly read and each new monthly arrival becomes my porcelain companion. I've yet to read any of Mac's entries as they don't interest me. Would I like to see something else occupying the space his writings occupy? You betcha. Then maybe I could stretch my companion's usefulness a little longer instead of re-reading articles until the next copy arrives.

[Dave Stadt]

I too think SA is much, much better than in years past. It can never be everything to everybody but It very effectively covers all areas of sport aviation.

[tspear]

I have not been an EAA member for long. I used to be a member for years before I started flying. Then due to circumstances, I dropped my membership. I never seemed to get anything from EAA, and they really did not seem to advocate on my behalf, or help me in anyway since I was not building a plane. I had interest in building one, but the attitude in the magazine and the few EAA members i met really turned me off. Very much of the, you do not belong here if you not starting from plans only building a bi-plane that cannot cost more $5K including the engine (slight exaggeration, but you get the idea, and I was of all things interested in a Kit, oh the horror of a kit).

When Rod Hightower came in, I though I would give it another chance. The mag stunk and I think Rod and the organization made a lot of miss steps. But there were two very successful changes I think which have eventually started to pay off: First they have broadened the appeal of EAA. Second, the advocacy on behalf of the members has been significantly more successful in the past few years then the previous sixty. For example, look at how the grass strips and recreational airports at National Parks, from a few guys involved and public relations that was mostly the effort of EAA and RAF with AOPA providing some support. There are many more examples, if you read the advocacy sections in AOPA and EAA.

Anyway, for all those upset at Mac's articles. Consider it from this perspective, it is all those new members fees, magazine ads, and other broad efforts that allow EAA to have dramatically increased and supported the training sessions around the country, expand advocacy on your behalf, and overall make the organization much more a of force to be reckoned with. Considering the constant assault aviation endures around the country, this is a good thing.

For all those complaining about the number of hours per hour for each category, those numbers come from three basic sources. And most critically, they match. First, is surveys, second is NTSB reports, third is 337, ramp checks and other paperwork submitted to the FAA. Note, the third category mostly applies to certified only. So those who complain, go fly more :D On another board, some pilots were complaining the numbers had to be off; I lived near one of the complainers, so we setup a bet (loser bought lunch) that the average hours of the next 20 pilots that came into the airport would be under 70. I won, the number came in just over 60, and this was at KGAI an airport with a fair amount of corporate traffic. :rollseyes:

Last item (this is based on reading, I have not been alive or around aviation that long :D), the EA-AB market and concepts have dramatically changed in the past sixty years. The first 20 years, there was no real concept of plans, each plane was truly unique and the few plans sold have very little in the way of working documentation. The second twenty years you started to the formation of more standard aircraft by people staying closer to well documented/designed planes. e.g. the RV series. The last twenty years you have seen the market change from just plans to include kits, and eventually include high end kits which approach a cool $2 million in price (e.g. the Eclipse), this is far different then the plans built RV3 which costs $20K. The point for you to consider is that the market has changed, expanded and grown. When you look at the EA-AB kit marketplace, anecdotally (would be interesting if there was some actual data) the planes in the $200-$400K total budget are selling faster then the low cost kits and plans, with a higher completion rate and fewer test flight problems.

Tim

[Sam Buchanan]

The point for you to consider is that the market has changed, expanded and grown. When you look at the EA-AB kit marketplace, anecdotally (would be interesting if there was some actual data) the planes in the $200-$400K total budget are selling faster then the low cost kits and plans, with a higher completion rate and fewer test flight problems.

Tim

You might want to consider the completion rate of the Vans aircraft--averaging nearly two completions per day (actual FAA registration data) with an average completed cost in the $60K-$90K range. Nobody else is remotely close to Vans when it comes to completion rate (including most certificated manufacturers!).

[Infidel]

You might want to consider the completion rate of the Vans aircraft--averaging nearly two completions per day (actual FAA registration data) with an average completed cost in the $60K-$90K range. Nobody else is remotely close to Vans when it comes to completion rate (including most certificated manufacturers!).

Amen!

[crusty old aviator]

I joined EAA in '76 and became friends with many of EAA's pubs people. They used to share a few criticisms with me, like Jack Cox's overuse of exclamation points, for one. Every writer develops his own style and not every reader will appreciate his style.
Back when Paul was running things, like his generation, he valued quality over quantity (but still valued quantity when it was preceded by a $). He ran EAA as a grassroots organization and stressed that through extensive use of volunteer labor and materials donated by individuals and local businesses.
Then Tom took over with his MBA, pulled up the grass by its roots and paved it over with corporate partners. The attitude of "if you're not growing, you're dying" seemed to take root in the new corporate culture dominated by Directors and VP's. Volunteers were still heavily relied on, but a glitzy, Disneylike atmosphere supplanted the grass-roots rusticity.
But then Tom retired and EAA found itself Pobereznyless, an identity crisis ensued, and in a moment of corporate panic, EAA's subliminal mantra seemed to be "if you're not growing, you're dying." EAA needed more members! Do do that, they needed to become the chimera of "all things to all aviation people." But how do they do that? Hmmmm...since Flying is the top aviation magazine: they hired their writers in hopes that Flying readers will become EAA'ers to continue reading their favorite writers! Sure it was expensive, but EAA could always find another corporate partner to help pay for it. There must be turboprop airfarme manufacturers that like Flying. I have to wonder if it was ever discussed while the EAA was rebranding itself: would more Flying readers make the jump to EAA than would snobby elitist homebuilders let their memberships lapse out of disgust for neoEAA? Perhaps EAA's Chris Jovaag has the data to answer that question, but I doubt it: I don't recall any survey asking if someone recently joined EAA becasue they think Lane Wallace is hot.
EAA has changed in an effort to adapt to the times, just as we all do. We don't like changes, especially the ones that remind us we're getting old, but we have to accept them or move on. I like Mac, I became well acquainted with him and his adorable wife when I was a fellow volunteer with her in Convention HQ, back when our conventions were simply Oshkosh, not AirDisney. So he flys a Baron: would you appreciate his writing more if he flew a Cougar, or less if he flew a Seminole? I find most of his writing is thoughtful, informative, and applicable to flying most fixed wing aircraft, regardless of their pedigree. So please don't make him feel unwelcome.
If you don't like neoEAA, fire the Board and vote in someone you can believe in. I write this with one little history lesson as a caveat: Back in the Rockford days, EAA held elections at the annual meeting, like today. Someone with a LOT of friends at the meeting was voted president, and Paul found himself unemployed. Disappointed, Paul wandered off down by the P-51's, lower than a plumber's pants. The new president soon realized he didn't have time for the job and stepped down, Paul was reinstated, and soon after, your membership renewal form had a proxy attached to it. At the next and every annual meeting thereafter, garbage bags full of proxies were presented and voted however president & board wanted. Good luck out-voting those garbage bags!

[Bill Greenwood]

I get 4 magazines a month, two of them from EAA, and I read most of the content, certainly not all. If Mac is writing about something that isn't interesting to me, then I just glance at it and go on. Just as I wasn't interested in the Turbine section in AOPA magazine, I didn't have to read it. It is a little easier with AOPA as they let you opt out of the high dollar stinky fuel stuff and send you the magazine without that part. It is a little harder with Sport Aviation, but to me there are many things that I am interested in and do read, at least in some detail. Both EAA and AOPA are so cheap to join, $85 gets you both and thats less than a round of golf many places; that I think we easily get good value for the money.
I am lucky enough that my sisters taught me to read when I was a child and I have always been good at it so can scan a magazine pretty quickly and get the essence of it. I am as good at reading as I am bad at computers. I find maybe 1 of 5 of Mac articles, like accident analysis, that pertains to me, but there is a lot else in the magazine.
The big drawback of any mag is that they tend to clog up and take over your house, and/or car. I finally thought where did all these piles of mags come from, then I realized that being a member of 4 groups means 48 mags a year or so, which is a few hundred pretty quickly. I am currently in the process of disposing of many of them, but who can discard one with a beautiful Bleriot lifting off from Pioneer Field or a Seafire on the cover?
I have found a local school project that wants some.

[tspear]

You might want to consider the completion rate of the Vans aircraft--averaging nearly two completions per day (actual FAA registration data) with an average completed cost in the $60K-$90K range. Nobody else is remotely close to Vans when it comes to completion rate (including most certificated manufacturers!).

I have been looking at RVs recently on controller and elsewhere. In addition, I read the completion section of Sport Aviation.
The avionics alone in many of the planes now approach 75-100K alone; look at the cost of a G3X, GTN750 and few more items and your price is up there. In addition, I am seeing more and more experimental planes being finished with certified Lycoming/Continental engines and props. Many of these are 30K engines and 10K props.
So just in avionics, engines and props you break 100K easily. Add in a quick build kit....

I am sure you can see where this is going. People spend a lot more building these kits then they admit. Especially to a spouse :D So I will leave it to you if you want to recalculate the costs.

Tim

[Sam Buchanan]

I have been looking at RVs recently on controller and elsewhere. In addition, I read the completion section of Sport Aviation.
The avionics alone in many of the planes now approach 75-100K alone; look at the cost of a G3X, GTN750 and few more items and your price is up there. In addition, I am seeing more and more experimental planes being finished with certified Lycoming/Continental engines and props. Many of these are 30K engines and 10K props.
So just in avionics, engines and props you break 100K easily. Add in a quick build kit....

I am sure you can see where this is going. People spend a lot more building these kits then they admit. Especially to a spouse :D So I will leave it to you if you want to recalculate the costs.

Tim

Tim,

I've been a part of the RV community since 1997 when I began the construction of my RV-6. As an EAA Technical Counselor, charter member of the Tennessee Valley RV Builders Group and a moderator of the VansAirforce web forum I've been able to keep a close eye on the RV community for nearly two decades.

Yes, there are RVs, especially the RV-10, with high-$$$$ avionics and engines. But those are the exception, not the "average" RV that is being completed. The average price will indeed climb with time due to more advanced kits (RV-14, etc) and more expensive engines, but avionics prices are stabilizing, not climbing steeply.

Based on my observations, I stand by my statement that RV's are presently completed at an average cost below $100K. FAA registration data shows that two-place RVs are still the lion's share of experimentals joining the fleet, the very high-value examples are still a very small part of new completions. What you are not seeing in the for-sale ads are the huge numbers of experimental aircraft that are being happily flown by builders (and increasingly non-builders) who have not spent exorbitant amounts on their magic carpet.

I'm not sure how all this dove-tails into the topic of this thread, I just wanted to share my observations that reasonably-priced custom-built aircraft are still the bread-n-butter of our corner of the aviation universe.

But I'm not going to touch the spousal component of aircraft finances..... :eek:

[tspear]

Sam,

Sounds like you have more exposure than me :D
Mine was anecdotal based on what I see being completed in mags and listed for sale. So that could be a very skewed perspective. But we should get back to why Mac is such a bad influence for EAA.

Tim

[WLIU]

So Mac M is likely doing a great job at running the business of the magazine. But there appears to be a lot of folks out there who believe that what he writes has no relevance for the stated target audience of the magazine. In polite terms those folks are saying that Mac M's pages in the magazine are wasted space and that writers who speak to topics aimed at the EAA audiences of Classic, Homebuilts, Warbirds, Light Sport, etc., should get the space that Mac M is using. The vast majority of the readers will never ever even ride in a TMB-800. And when Mac M writes about needing stick shakers, many people just roll their eyes and pick up Kitplanes. Will there be a design contest to put a stick shaker in an EAA Biplane?

Magazines have a business side and a creative side. Both have to be done well for a publication to be a success. There appear to be a lot of EAA members who think that articles about turbines and flying a Baron are signs that EAA is losing its way.

I will second the observation that for every Lancair IV that is completed, there are 10 RV's. Which is why it seems off balance that more magazine space isn't set aside for the meat and potatoes of EAA activity.

Thanks,

Wes
N78PS

[crusty old aviator]

So Wes...would that a be the wood tailed EAA Biplane, or the steel tube version, you need a stick shaker in???

[miemsed]

Maybe the meat and potatoes of EAA activity is changing which may not be a bad thing. I enjoy many of the articles including Macs. Some of the home building articles are interesting many are not. So I just do not read them. I do not complain that they should not be there.

[cluttonfred]

Maybe the meat and potatoes of EAA activity is changing which may not be a bad thing. I enjoy many of the articles including Macs. Some of the home building articles are interesting many are not. So I just do not read them. I do not complain that they should not be there.

I know we've had these threads before, but I for one do not embrace the direction that Mac McClellan is taking Sport Aviation. I just went over to Oshkosh365.org and ran a search for all the articles large and small penned by McClellan in 2013. There were a lot of them--36 articles in twelve issues--but only two or three had anything to do with experimental, vintage, aerobatic or ultralight aviation. The rest could have appeared in Plane & Pilot or Flying or AOPA Pilot without skipping a beat and quite a few read like commercial product endorsements.

There nothing wrong with general aviation or the general aviation magazines--we've all picked up a copy to drool over the light jets or newest Mooney--but that is not what EAA is all about. By allowing the lines to blur between our recreational aviation organization's magazine and those of the general aviation community, we are losing what is distinct and special about EAA. Personally, if there were an option to pass on receiving Sport Aviation and just get the Experimenter online newsletter, I would take it, and not because of the cost.

In recent years I have joined the UK's Light Aircraft Association (http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/) (LAA, ex-PFA) and I look forward with enthusiasm to receiving their magazine Light Aviation every month. The focus is far more on practical advice for amateur, vintage and microlight (light sport) builders and pilots than in Sport Aviation, and even the articles on antique aircraft often focus on modest planes (Polikarpov Po-2, Druine D.60 Condor, RAF BE.2C replica from a Tiger Moth) that more of us might actually envision owning someday. At $105 per year for an overseas membership it's not cheap but well worth it in my view.

Sport Aviation actually improved markedly a couple of years ago when the old paper Experimenter was discontinued: revamped format, more nuts-and-bolts tips and tricks, more prominent coverage of ultralight and light sport aircraft. The recent trend of general aviation articles is a step backwards. Mac, please bring our magazine back!

[miemsed]

I know we've had these threads before, but I for one do not embrace the direction that Mac McClellan is taking Sport Aviation. I just went over to Oshkosh365.org and ran a search for all the articles large and small penned by McClellan in 2013. There were a lot of them--36 articles in twelve issues--but only two or three had anything to do with experimental, vintage, aerobatic or ultralight aviation. The rest could have appeared in Plane & Pilot or Flying or AOPA Pilot without skipping a beat and quite a few read like commercial product endorsements.

There nothing wrong with general aviation or the general aviation magazines--we've all picked up a copy to drool over the light jets or newest Mooney--but that is not what EAA is all about. By allowing the lines to blur between our recreational aviation organization's magazine and those of the general aviation community, we are losing what is distinct and special about EAA. Personally, if there were an option to pass on receiving Sport Aviation and just get the Experimenter online newsletter, I would take it, and not because of the cost.

In recent years I have joined the UK's Light Aircraft Association (http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/) (LAA, ex-PFA) and I look forward with enthusiasm to receiving their magazine Light Aviation every month. The focus is far more on practical advice for amateur, vintage and microlight (light sport) builders and pilots than in Sport Aviation, and even the articles on antique aircraft often focus on modest planes (Polikarpov Po-2, Druine D.60 Condor, RAF BE.2C replica from a Tiger Moth) that more of us might actually envision owning someday. At $105 per year for an overseas membership it's not cheap but well worth it in my view.

Sport Aviation actually improved markedly a couple of years ago when the old paper Experimenter was discontinued: revamped format, more nuts-and-bolts tips and tricks, more prominent coverage of ultralight and light sport aircraft. The recent trend of general aviation articles is a step backwards. Mac, please bring our magazine back!

I think it is time to put this conversation in perspective. Your appeal in your last sentence is not worded correctly, you say "Mac please bring our magazine back" but I suggest that maybe that is not what you really mean because "OUR" magazine is already here. Sport Aviation is "OUR" magazine as it has articles of interest for all EAA members. Not all of the articles are of interest to me and not all are of interest to you but all most all members can find articles that interest them in the magazine. It seems what you want is to bring back YOUR magazine. A magazine that meets your limited interest in aviation and leaves out any article that does not fit into what you are interested in. EAA is changing and Sport Aviation is changing with it. EAA members have different ideas of what Sport Aviation means and that is reflected in OUR magazine. EAA is doing well with the Magazine in my opinion. I am an EAA member.

[cluttonfred]

I think it is time to put this conversation in perspective. Your appeal in your last sentence is not worded correctly, you say "Mac please bring our magazine back" but I suggest that maybe that is not what you really mean because "OUR" magazine is already here. Sport Aviation is "OUR" magazine as it has articles of interest for all EAA members. Not all of the articles are of interest to me and not all are of interest to you but all most all members can find articles that interest them in the magazine. It seems what you want is to bring back YOUR magazine. A magazine that meets your limited interest in aviation and leaves out any article that does not fit into what you are interested in. EAA is changing and Sport Aviation is changing with it. EAA members have different ideas of what Sport Aviation means and that is reflected in OUR magazine. EAA is doing well with the Magazine in my opinion. I am an EAA member.

Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I made it to Oshkosh for the first time two years ago and was appalled at how little attention was paid to the experimental, vintage, aerobatic and ultralight aircraft which I thought were at the core of what EAA represents. Instead, such aircraft were shoved to the side and off into the distance by big commerical displays and private corporate stands. If homebuilt aircraft and the rest are no longer at the heart of what EAA stands for, I wonder if it's time to change the name of the organization? "General Aviation Association," "Corporate-Sponsored Aviation," and "Rich Man's Aviation Association" are a few possibilities that come to mind. And yes, I have been an EAA member for over 20 years.

[CarlOrton]

Would NRA's American Rifleman have a story about a Zebco reel? Fishing is closely related to hunting, in fact lots of us don't do one without the other. Yet I don't want a fish story in a gun mag.

[miemsed]

Would NRA's American Rifleman have a story about a Zebco reel? Fishing is closely related to hunting, in fact lots of us don't do one without the other. Yet I don't want a fish story in a gun mag.

Wow is all I can say.

[Chad Jensen]

You guys know this is a never-ending debate, right? I no longer work for EAA, but the magazine as it is put out today covers the best range of what EAA is today. Paul always said, "all are welcome" and I think that's what the magazine is about now. Good or bad, your opinion or mine, it DOES serve the membership well. You may not like it, but from what I know about EAA membership in working there, it really does.

I am a homebuilder at heart...still can't wait to get started on a new project one of these days, but even as a homebuilder and loyal EAA member, I love reading about different areas of aviation within "our" magazine.

There is the Experimenter magazine that is nothing but EAB...quite an awesome digital publication geared directly for the homebuilt community. Each of the divisions have their own magazine too, but I think it's awesome that I can read about a bit of everything in the flagship Sport Aviation.

[Dave Stadt]

Wow is all I can say.

My thoughts exactly. Guess I missed the fish stories.

[CarlOrton]

My thoughts exactly. Guess I missed the fish stories.

Gee, guys, I was just trying to tag along with others in the preceding messages. Cluttonfred and miemsed were commenting about how the emphasis in Sport Aviation and EAA originally represented. I was just providing a short example of another passionate group. I could have picked about a "building birdhouses" magazine (if one existed) and having them branch off into squirrel feeders.

I guess what got me going was that while not 100% thrilled, I accepted Sport Aviation for what it is - an excellent product. Then, someone (can't remember who, but it's in the thread...) made the comment that they at first would ignore Mac's column, then got bothered because pages were spent on things other than things in which they were interested.

The magazine has evolved over the past 2-3 years where it has really become a GREAT experimental-related, sport-related product. What's wrong with asking for more.

I'm not a debater and won't discuss this further; just thought I'd give some insight into why I said it. Like I said - I was just continuing the thoughts of prior posters.

[Ylinen]

I read that many are not happy with the current magazine, but I don't read much with real suggestions to what they want in the magazine that is not. Just, "I like it the way it was"

I like the format and style of the magazine.

For me, I would like to see more coverage of Light Sport.

I would like to see more coverage of BUILDS. Especially how people are modifying and improving a kit plane.

More coverage on Flight Testing and best practices.

It would be nice if each month, they did an article on each phase of the build process.

Would like to see articles on how to set up your shop for a build. Best practices on documenting your build.

In other words, more depth on building.

[Floatsflyer]

Ylinen, most if not all your coverage requests are covered in EAA publication "Experimenter" Check it out.
.

[Bob Dingley]

Ylinen, most if not all your coverage requests are covered in EAA publication "Experimenter" Check it out.
.
Right on Floats. If I had my preferences, I would get EXPERIMENTER in my mailbox and read SA on my laptop. But thats just me.

Bob

[Kyle Boatright]

I may be repeating myself in this thread, but SA is doing a terrible job of selling the sport of aviation, which by definition should be fun. Mac isn't about editing or writing for a fun magazine. His columns pretty much exist in a universe without fun. He writes about procedures, regulations, transportation, and how to not kill yourself. There's nothing fun or inspiring in there.

On a broader sense, in this month's edition, there are 17 pages of crash and/or safety content in 5 different articles and columns. That's out of 75 or 80 pages of content (the rest of the magazine is advertisements, EAA contact info, etc.). Let's call the safety topics 20% of the content of the magazine.

If you want to turn people away from aviation, there is no better way to do it than to drone on and on about the dangers, the risks, etc. Certainly we need to be aware of the risks and mitigate them, but EAA is in the business of promoting aviation and drawing in new people. You draw people in by telling them how great flying is, not with endless reminders about the dangers of the activity.

As examples, Ducati, Ferrari, Porsche, and other performance vehicle manufacturers stress the thrill and enjoyment their products provide, not the fact that their products can kill you pretty fast, especially if you are careless. Same thing with enthusiast magazines. Fine Woodworking may mention a safety device and spend a page or two an issue on shop safety, but the magazine doesn't flood its readers with statistics around tablesaws, finger amputations, and kickback. That would be bad for business. Instead, the magazine focuses on the enjoyment of woodworking and the satisfaction of making something with your hands. Similarly, there is Road & Track magazine. They review all sorts of high performance vehicles, and occasionally talk about airbags, ABS, and other safety features, but they don't shoot themselves in the foot by focusing on the fact that tens of thousands of Americans a year die in auto accidents. The magazine sells the product (sport?) with good writing which makes you want a Porsche or maybe encourages you to restore and drive an old MG.

Going back to Sport Aviation, this month's magazine had exactly one article that was relatable to the enthusiast - the one about the Venture. The article about Pilots & Paws was nice, as was the one about the first female pilot to circle the globe, but dedicating 15 pages of the magazine's content to those two stories was too much. Do you think anyone who reads those stories will be inspired? Not that they are bad stories, but there isn't anything inspiring there.

The bottom line is that SA has become Flying Magazine. We don't need another Flying magazine - that space is already served. We need a publication that is informative and inspirational. The current staff isn't providing that magazine.

[Sam Buchanan]

But Kyle.......Flying Magazine is the only kind of magazine the current editorship knows how to publish........old habits are hard to break.....

[Mayhemxpc]

"SA is doing a terrible job of selling the sport of aviation, which by definition should be fun. Mac isn't about editing or writing for a fun magazine. His columns pretty much exist in a universe without fun. He writes about procedures, regulations, transportation, and how to not kill yourself. There's nothing fun or inspiring in there."

BINGO! That is it. If we are going to promote aviation we will not be successful without the joy of flight! yes, yes, all of those other things are important, but without the joy, there will be no sport aviation.

I liked the Disney Movie "Planes." Somehow, though I felt that I did not like it as much as I wanted to. I thought that there was something missing, something left out. When I mentioned that, a friend who is an editor for a more sedate, business oriented magazine said, "the joy of flight. What was missing was the joy of flight." If we want aviation not to die with us, but to live on for our children and their future, we have to turn them on! We have to get them to the point where they are racing us to the mailbox to get to Sport Aviation before we do. We can do that. We just need to include stories that will inspire, not frighten, and never bore (except for describing the joy of boring holes through the sky.) I think, that if Mac sets his mind to it, he can remember how to do just that.

Chris Mayer
N424AF
www.o2cricket.com

[miemsed]

I love the SA mag, keep up the good work.

[Bob Dingley]

Kyle,


There are real hazzards for a publication to stop being a constant nag regarding safety. In fact, its prudent that they constantly beat the drum for safety and profesionalism.


Lets go back to 1972 when FLYING published an article by an Alaskan pilot about his methods and techniques for safely flying through icing conditions. No joke, I read it. He emphasized that he did it all the time "because HE was a REAL pilot, had lots of time in ice and knew what he was doing." Or words to that effect. Furthermore, "you ordinary pilots cannot hope to do what I do." Or words to that effect. The readers must have been stunned or something because there little response on the letters page.


Jump ahead a few months and Louisiana Congressman Hale Boggs and others were lost in a 310. Icing was forecast to be terrible and it sure was. Especialy in the mountains along the filed route. A huge search effort was without results. The 310 was never found. Remember how impatient the US Congress was. They over ruled FAA and mandated that a thing called an ELT be invented and installed in everything but the follow me truck.


Now the letters swamped the magazine. The magazine never again strayed from "nothing but safety all the time" line. The name of the pilot/writer has long since been forgotten. We still have ELTs. A magazine has gotta do what a magazines gotta do.


Bob P.S. This would never have happened in Experimenter.

[Kyle Boatright]

Kyle,


There are real hazzards for a publication to stop being a constant nag regarding safety.

I don't think anyone has come forward proposing publishing articles that suggest doing really dumb things (like in your FLYING example). I am suggesting that if you're trying to grow the sport or organization, continually pounding on the topic of safety will be counterproductive.

[rwanttaja]

On a broader sense, in this month's edition, there are 17 pages of crash and/or safety content in 5 different articles and columns. That's out of 75 or 80 pages of content (the rest of the magazine is advertisements, EAA contact info, etc.). Let's call the safety topics 20% of the content of the magazine.
Well... as one of the contributors to that 17 pages of safety content, I have to mention that March is the annual Safety issue for Sport Aviation. So there's a lot of safety content.

Hey, and us safety-article-writers have to eat, too (or in my case, have to splurge the whole thing on some toy or airplane gizmo).

Ron Wanttaja

[Dave Stadt]

Well... as one of the contributors to that 17 pages of safety content, I have to mention that March is the annual Safety issue for Sport Aviation. So there's a lot of safety content.

Hey, and us safety-article-writers have to eat, too (or in my case, have to splurge the whole thing on some toy or airplane gizmo).

Ron Wanttaja

Makes perfect sense with spring (hopefully) just around the corner and flying season getting under way. Don't mind the safety reminder articles one bit.

[Kyle Boatright]

Well... as one of the contributors to that 17 pages of safety content, I have to mention that March is the annual Safety issue for Sport Aviation. So there's a lot of safety content.

Hey, and us safety-article-writers have to eat, too (or in my case, have to splurge the whole thing on some toy or airplane gizmo).

Ron Wanttaja

Ron, as usual, your article was well written and informative.

I hope the new G3X installation goes well. ;-)

[Bob Dingley]

I apologize for omiting a key fact in my last post. The blowhard that wrote the 1972 FLYING article was also the pilot of the 310 that was lost 3 or 4 months later. No wonder Congress acted so fast. They had just lost two noted members in a dumb accident. Boggs was Cokie Robert's Dad. The FLYING article was read into the Congressional Record. We got ELTs in record time. The editors were slammed. FLYING (or any other) ever, ever strayed from emphasizing safety.


Bob

[Bill Berson]

I don't read the current Sport Aviation. ( I skim sometimes).
I do read through the archives. From '53 to around 1985 is superb. And the stuff from John Roncz and Neal Willford from 90's and early 2000’'s. Just search on the author.

Wish they would also archive the Mary Jones Experimenters, I want to read them again.

[Mayhemxpc]

Regarding the posts about the March issue having 17 pages of crash and burn contrasted with an earlier comment from me about making Sport Aviation fun and fighting with my kids over the copy. March's Warbirds Digest was also their safety issue…full of crash and burn. I STILL had to fight my 10 year old son for it -- him getting it before I did. The apparent conclusion is that a safety issue CAN be fun, NOT turn people off, and promote interest in aviation.

Admittedly an unscientific survey and the results with your own 10 year old boy may vary.

[kmacht]

Yeah but how do you think the parents of other 10 year olds will view flying if they were to pick up and read that issue and don't know much else about aviation? If I give my copy of that magazine to my neighbors kid do you think their parents are going to be more or less inclined to let me take their kid on a young eagles flight after seeing all the safety / accident articles?

I dont' think this is just a sport aviation problem either. It seems like alot of the flying magazines have run out of ideas for things to write about so they start digging up NTSB reports and writing articles about the accidents to fill space.

Keith

[WLIU]

In all fairness to the magazines, they do this to make the FAA happy. The folks at the FAA set annual safety "goals", like they can control Mother Nature and Murphy. The FAA then "persuades" the aviation organizations to publish and support those goals. Giving up one magazine issue a year is a tax that we pay to avoid more hassle. That said, there is some useful info in most of these issues.

Personally, I find the stories about "this guy screwed up and died", or "I really scared myself so don't be me" unpersuasive. When I speak about safety I try to tell folks how my many bad friends found themselves in a jam aloft and worked their way out of the grasp of Murphy or Mother Nature to make a safe landing, or at least a landing that they could limp away from. My belief is that explaining successful coping and aeronautical problem management techniques and strategies is a lot more useful to our peers than simple "don't fly there" messaging.

Best of luck,

Wes

[Floatsflyer]

My belief is that explaining successful coping and aeronautical problem management techniques and strategies is a lot more useful to our peers than simple "don't fly there" messaging.Best of luck,Wes

Agreed.

But those safety or bad occurrence stories that you characterize as unpersuasive, I find valuable, thought provoking and an educational tool.

Here in Canada all licensed civil aviation personnel receive a quarterly DOT publication called The Aviation Safety Bulletin. It contains a myriad of safety tips, do's and don'ts, how to's and how to not's and detailed TSB Accident Reports with accompanying pictures and drawings. The Reports contain occurrence details, the findings, conclusions and recommendations so as to hopefully not repeat. Under the front page masthead of the publication are the words, "Learn from the mistakes of others, you won't live long enough to make them all yourself." I fully subscribe to this mantra and I gently encourage my intrepid pilot friends here to do the same.

[Rob Erdos]

This thread resonates for me. I want to relate a story. I have been an EAA member since the late 1970's, and I formerly read every issue of Sport Aviation cover to cover, often standing in front of my mail box. I saved every issue. A few years ago, after the magazine changed format and content, I enthusiastically opened an issue, and flipped through it without finding a single article that interested me. Out of disappointment, I wrote a lengthy e-mail to the "editor", explaining that Sport Aviation now read like a hybrid of Flying Magazine and AOPA Pilot, and that there seemed to be nothing in it that would appeal to the core constituency of the EAA: hombuilders, restorers and warbirders. I went on to venture the opinion that while Mac Maclellan was an excellent aviation journalist, he wrote from a perspective that was inappropriate to the EAA, and that he would alienate members. My note was quite strong in tone, but fortunately it was polite because...

...about two hours later I received a phone call from the Editor of Sport Aviation, Mac Maclellan. He thanked me for my e-mail, and went on to politely and articulately explain that EAA had made a decision to diversify from its core membership base. His argument was that EAA needed to grow into an organization that would represent all of general aviation if it was to survive, and that there wouldn't be enough homebuilders and restorers to keep EAA viable in the future. His attitude seemed to be that the EAA needed to grow beyond Paul Poberezny's initial vision, and that debate on the subject within EAA was effectively over. I hope I have represented his position accurately, because it was very gracious and considerate for him to call me.

I was a bit saddened by this "news". I am a homebuilder, a vintage aeroplane enthusiast, a warbird pilot and an inveterate airplane nut. The EAA was my community. This was where I could find kindred spirits. Personally, I enjoyed Jack Cox's version of Sport Aviation far more than the current incarnation. EAA's focus on growth is at the expense of some alienation of the core members, and I think that they realize it. After all, Mac is still writing for the magazine.

I'm still a member, and I probably will be for life. The EAA does a better job representing our freedom to fly than anyone else. There are still many kindred souls at Oshkosh with whom I can talk about my crazy passions. Nevertheless, EAA needs to reconnect with its own roots. Lets help them.

Rob Erdos
RV-6
Ottawa, Canada

[jimwomble]

Being a long time reader of Flying and a on/off again member of EAA since 1986 I have a few comments. Mac always requires his writers to be active pilots and aircraft owner - at least he did at flying. Flying is merely a shell of a magazine since he left - only the very high end bijets are selling so not much money available. At least he is a pilot/ owner - the editor of SA a couple years ago was only once a student pilot. I know the EAA mag of the 50s/60s were far more interesting to some because people had the skills and time to build a plane from plans. But not really possible for most these days. The real questionable GA org in my opinion is AOPA with its turbine division and until recently a fine wine club. So Hightower is gone - so be it- EAA is looking better to me under new mgt.

[Jeff Boatright]

lot[/U] more useful to our peers than simple "don't fly there" messaging.

Best of luck,

Wes

THAT is an extremely useful approach. Have you had a chance to read Durden's "The Thinking Pilot's Flight Manual"? Seems to have an approach similar to yours.

[phavriluk]

I feel as if I was treated very fairly at those times when Mac has answered an email of mine to Sport Aviation, and at all hours of the evening, too. That fella works long hours for the EAA, and I thank him for it. But (there's always a 'but' in comments like mine) the general topics Mac covers in Sport Aviation do not, in my opinion, belong there. Flying, yes, AOPA, yes. Ours, no. While respecting and welcoming the various interests of general and experimental aviation, I think the EAA needs to work its own side of the street, so to speak, and not do the other fellow's job for him. If Mac's bizplane articles can get an audience in publications that pursue that clientele, good for him and the publishers. But I think that publisher should not be the EAA.

[phavriluk]

I just read Rob Erdos' comments about his conversation with Mac over the content of Sport Aviation, and by implication, the future of EAA as seen through the eyes of the good and the great. I've gotten the impression, over the last few years, that the EAA good and the great know what's best for the organization and the role of the membership is to shut up, sit down, and bring money. The emphasis, of course, is on the 'bring money' part. I get the impression that as seen by 'leadership', the organization is more important than the membership. I regard those collective attitudes as the means by which the organization will lose its reason to exist. I think it is not correct that the EAA wants to be the focus of influence for GA in general, there is another organization that does that. I think we need to be the voice of the homebuilder, warbirder, restorer, historian, and recreational pilot. That's plenty enough to do. We don't need to try to thoroughly cover every element of general aviation, and won't do a good job at it; the tasks are too many with too many conflicting goals to successfully be addressed around one table. My opinions.

[TedK]

I am sympathetic to those who cherish EAA's legacy and their concern that EAA's tent is growing too big.

A couple of thoughts:

EAA has grown from its original roots of homebuilding and experimentation. It now includes builders, restorers, warbirds, aerobatics, light sport, kit building and experimentation. It grew its scope without abandoning anyone.

There are things that AOPA probably ought to be doing that EAA is. I have high hopes for Mark Baker and AOPA, but I am skeptical of their ability to regain a populist legitimacy.

IMO, EAA remains more of a member focused organization than AOPA. While EAA isn't perfect, it's organization structure favors staying in tune with its membership. AOPA seems to be more of a business that is interested in helping its clientele.

I am in favor of EAA being the big tent of personal aviation. If that means opening the tent wider, like it did to foster Sport Pilot, then so be it. It probably ought to be called the Personal Aviation Association, but somehow that sounds too much like "me, me, me..." Add Interests as they develop without forsaking existing interests.

I would urge everyone to join both EAA and AOPA, participate, and nudge both organizations toward safeguarding personal aviation.

[phavriluk]

Ted, I agree that we ought to join both organizations, for nothing else but to add to the weight of the head count of each. And I do maintain membership in both, but the EAA offers members opportunities to contribute hands-on, which I think is a tremendously rewarding way to do some active good, and is unique to the EAA.

[ssmdive]

I don't read much from Mac.... His articles seem to drip disdain for anything other than IFR flight and the newest (read: expensive) gimmick.