Sport Aviation Magazine

[pacerpilot]

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

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

What do you guys think?

Steve Stephenson

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

[Kyle Boatright]

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

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

[Bill Greenwood]

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

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

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

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

[rwanttaja]

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

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

Just for a data point, there are 36 midairs involving homebuilts in my 1998-2011 database (involving 43 homebuilts). Eight (a bit less than 25%) involved formation flight.

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

Ron Wanttaja

[danielfindling]

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

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

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

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

Daniel

[Victor Bravo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, sorry for the thread creep.

[Bill Greenwood]

Ron, if there are 8 accidents( how many fatal), over 13 years involving formation, that is not very many. I, off the top of my head can't name a friend who was lost in civilian formation flights, in my 34 years as a pilot. Of course, the potential for an accident is always there and there have been a number of fatal accidents, even fatal to civilian crowds, of military formation teams, but they have a lot of exposure.

I can name dozens lost in other types of accidents like low level acro, which took a best friend who taught me when I began, and a best friend and long time EAA performer this year.

For the average EAA member a fatal accident in a jet formation is highly unlikely and not a top cause of losses in any plane.