I'm not a pilot, (I'm George Brownfag the old aeroplane basher from Potters Bar that Roger Bacon occasionally spoke to when he was feeling sympathetic) but I'm also disappointed by Flight these days. If you're in the aviation business its compulsory reading, even if its someone else's copy. But as someone already pointed out, there are lots of controversial things happening in aviation these days and they are seldom mentioned and never debated. 8.33 Khz - necessary or not? RVSM/RNP in Europe - are there better ways of improving traffic flow?, ETOPS - has it gone too far? Precision RNAV how the hell are the little people going to pay for that? Why are all the ATC improvements aimed at the airlines instead of the controllers? Will we get a discount on ATC fees? No-one is mentioning these sort of things in any of the aviation magazines. Well, mentioning them perhaps, but not contributing to debate.
JARs! Now there's a subject that beggars description. Typical European b*llsh*t with different countries adopting different standards according to their own liberal or literal interpretations of the rules.
Come on David, let's see Flight coming down off the fence and contributing to controversy, not just in the editorial (Yes, I read the editorial right after the jobs pages!) but in the rest of the magazine. What is wrong with Flight is that it reports facts; we already know most of the facts, good reporting looks under the surface. There be slugs down there!
**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema