Sport Aviation Magazine

[Bill Berson]

You guys must think we are stupid. It is impossible to "broaden the appeal of the magazine" without insulting the core EAA homebuilders and low cost flyers. If just one comment or article appears in the magazine about corporate jets or turboprops it is enough to get me angry. The early Sport Aviation from the '60's would never have used an article about the "new" Lear Jet. EAA was the alternative to corporate aviation then.
EAA was supposed to be the alternative to FLYING, now it has become FLYING even to the point of using Mac as editor (or soon to be editor). This is incredible.

I know magazines are driven by advertisers. That is the problem, homebuilders do not advertise or buy expensive jets. Rod wants to "broaden the appeal" to people with money and general aviation types. This has been happening for years now (decades actually), like a frog that is slowly cooked.
Sure, 2/3 of the members are not builders or restorers now. So the non- builders are the majority now and the homebuilders have no say in a poll of the members preferences anymore (because the GA types have the majority).

I might as well get a subscription to FLYING. At least that won't anger me with each issue because I know it will have jets, and a subscription is only about $10.
Bill Berson

[Dana]

Fair point, Dana, but one of EAA's goals is to grow sport aviation, while Ferrari is not out there to grow driving...

Perhaps not, but Ferarri might be interested in growing sport driving...

But I still don't see how a TBM or Learjet relates to "sport" aviation.

[Kyle Boatright]

Fair point, Dana, but one of EAA's goals is to grow sport aviation,

Hal, thanks for jumping in, but putting the TBM article, columns on flying people tubes, and "light twin reviews" in Sport Aviation isn't going to grow sport aviation. It is going to run off the base EAA has built. The base that could (and probably does) subscribe to Flying and AOPA, but isn't satisfied with those products, so joins EAA, in part to get a magazine on the interesting or aspirational side of aviation. And saying that these articles don't subtract from homebuilt (or U/L or Antique or Warbird) content is a non-starter. Sport Aviation's budget allows for "X" pages. When quite a few of those pages are dedicated to something other than the EAA's core mission, the enthusiasts lose. Why? Because Sport Aviation is the only magazine that carries good articles on the interesting aircraft. All the other magazines are about "GA as transportation", which isn't why people come to the EAA.


The magazine is off message and is damaging the brand. This thread and a half dozen like it in other aviation forums demonstrate that. Nobody is coming to the plate and saying "Gosh, I'm so glad there was a C-182 article in the last SA, I couldn't have gotten that information anywhere else."

[Eric Page]

I've been a member of AOPA for more than 20 years. I think AOPA Pilot is one of the best GA magazines currently published. I subscribe to their Turbine edition because I fly a twin turboprop for a living and that segment of aviation interests me. I feel that Pilot's coverage of GA, including corporate aircraft, is second-to-none. I'm sure Flying, Plane & Pilot, and all the rest have plenty of similar coverage.

I'm not a homebuilder yet, but I joined EAA perhaps 15 years ago because I wanted information about homebuilding. I plan to start an airplane project within the next few years, so I want to see what other builders are doing, what kit/plans manufacturers are coming up with, what's new in small piston engine and avionics technology, etc. I want articles on building techniques, proper tool usage, test flying, E-AB certification issues, and so on. That is why I joined EAA.

I don't need -- or want -- articles on million-dollar turboprops in my EAA magazine. People join EAA because they're interested in what EAA is all about: amateur built airplanes. In my view, "broadening" Sport Aviation to attract members with divergent interests is a mistake. Does EAA really want a lot of additional "GA interest" members who likely won't be part of local chapters and won't contribute to improving amateur building techniques or otherwise advancing the movement?

Is this audience-broadening effort about increasing dues revenue, or maximizing the total membership count to improve EAA's lobbying weight in Washington?

[kscessnadriver]

People join EAA because they're interested in what EAA is all about: amateur built airplanes. In my view, "broadening" Sport Aviation to attract members with divergent interests is a mistake. Does EAA really want a lot of additional "GA interest" members who likely won't be part of local chapters and won't contribute to improving amateur building techniques or otherwise advancing the movement?

So, if I don't participate in a local chapter, I'm not welcome in the EAA? Perhaps if that's the case it's time for me to reconsider being a member?


I enjoy reading about experimental stuff in the magazine. I don't really mind the higher end piston GA stuff, but once they move into new, JetA burning equipment, it's out of Sport Aviation's league, IMO.

[Eric Page]

So, if I don't participate in a local chapter, I'm not welcome in the EAA? Perhaps if that's the case it's time for me to reconsider being a member?

Whoa there, big fella! I know there are some EAA members who aren't chapter members. Heck, I'm not (but you can bet I will be when I'm ready to build!). I certainly don't mean to suggest that you're not welcome if you like or fly spam cans. Everyone's welcome!

My point is simply that there are other organizations and magazines that cater specifically and effectively to that audience. In my opinion, EAA should not try to make SA be all things to all aviators. Rather, it should stick to comprehensive and in-depth coverage of the interests of EAA's core constituency.

I think the complaints here boil down to essentially this: we'd much rather see a seven page how-to article on [insert building skill here] than a report on a plane almost none of us will ever set foot in, let alone fly.

[Mike Switzer]

I'm not a local chapter member, because the chapter local to me has little to no interest in serious homebuilding

But that is the sole reason I joined EAA, I am designing my own "homebuilt" airplane (I am a licensed professional engineer, so I'm not sure really what "homebuilt" means other than it won't be built in a factory)

But to the point of this thread, if I want to read about production turbines I will read Flying or AOPA Pilot - in fact I get Flying pretty much for free at a "professional rate" to put in my waiting room since they were about to go under with their former editor... Oh, wait a minute.....

[Chad Jensen]

Is this audience-broadening effort about increasing dues revenue, or maximizing the total membership count to improve EAA's lobbying weight in Washington?

Generating revenue is essential to keeping any organization going, but one of the biggest problems we face at EAA is our aging membership. We absolutely must make this a priority or Sport Aviation and EAA will slowly dwindle to nothing. Another issue is the fact that so much homebuilding information is available at the stroke of a key on the Internet, that all publications are suffering in print form. Sport Aviation is no different, and in order to keep it going, there needs to be a spot in there for everyone. There is room for everyone. EAA is and always has been an organization that embraces all facets of aviation...just look at at the arrivals at AirVenture every summer. Homebuilding is continually growing, and in a meeting this week, Rod opened with "homebuilding is what started this organization, it's our roots, and we will never abandon it." Mac was in the same meeting. I do think he is getting an education here and I think working with him will bring more homebuilding articles back to the magazine. Online resources are huge today, and EAA has plenty. Keeping the magazine coming to your mailboxes is a big priority, but to do that, we have to embrace all things aviation...even articles that don't seem to belong in there to us as homebuilders.

[KDoersom]

Chad

You mentioned the aging membership. I agree that this is a problem and we need to get younger people involved in aviation. Lets take me as an example. I am in my early 30's have a decent paying job and a small family. There is no way I can afford most aircraft out there. Hangars around here are 500 a month. Once you take the house payment, Cars, Insurance, food utilities and retirement there isn't much left. Lets focus more on the affordable aircraft out there than the ones that are out of most peoples means. How can we make flying cheaper. To get young people involved we need to focus on the more affordable ways to fly instead of the latest greatest gee wiz turbines that can do just about anything without you having to touch the controls. My generation I think will be the first to not be as well off as our parents generation as a whole. We all have less disposable income. Flying has got to be cheaper for us to be able to do it. The SP was a great start but when the aircraft are at 100,000 plus the rental costs are still high. C172 rent for about 120-150 an hour around here and the LSA are not much less. When I learned in 98 I was getting a C150 for 40 an hour wet, It was affordable then ( I was a high school student paying my own way)now not so much. Last months issue on the Fly baby was a perfect example of how we can fly cheaply.. I fly professionally for a living and while I like to read about the turbine stuff that is why I get BCA, AOPA, Flying etc. for. When I open up Sport Aviation I want to read about grass roots type of flying. Aircraft that are economical to buy, maintain and fly. Lets help make the dream a realization for more people buy showing them that you don't have to be super wealthy to do this.

Keith

[Chad Jensen]

We talked about exactly this topic in that same meeting Keith...we are listening...