One of the reasons Pilot still has articles that bear the look of the 'old' magazine is that they're still using up material commissioned, written and edited by the editorial team that got dumped — viz 'recent' articles from Bob Grimstead and Pat Malone, who both decamped last summer. And yes, Hairyplane, happy to declare an interest here — I was deputy editor and worked on Pilot for 30 enjoyable years under James Gilbert's editorship, ownership and astute guidance. Of course those who lost their livelihoods last year feel aggrieved (at least I chose to walk rather than be kicked out), but the fact is that many people with no hidden agenda or axe to grind have used these Forums to point up the very obvious decline in standards at Pilot. Content is a subjective matter, and it may be that the present team is steering the magazine in the direction which its market researchers believe to be the correct heading (and may well be so despite the opinions of many PPRuNers), but the accuracy of reporting, fact-checking and proof-reading is not subjective. It's either right or wrong, and too many silly Bloomers in a magazine — any magazine — erode the entire package's credibility. As Prof Denzil said, Pilot is by no means unique in suffering thus. I can think of — but no longer buy — several titles in the fields of motoring, photography and aeromodelling that have followed the same route.