Aviation magazines - why are they such crap? (asks journo!)

[Jackonicko]

Over on R&N, there's a 7-page thread specifically criticising (and very occasionally defending) Flight International.

On it, civil pilots give their reasons for not buying it, not renewing their subs, etc. But why do you military chaps not buy it? What would make you buy Flight (or, if you do buy it, what would improve it for you?)

Or indeed any other aviation magazine? Where do they go wrong? :rolleyes: Where do they turn off their potential core professional readership? What would be required to make you invest your £2.40-£3.40 per week or per month - or is it the case that whatever they did, you'd rather buy another two pints! :D

Just asking! :p

Edited to move a parenthesis, 'cos as Boeing kept telling me at Paris, this is the age of the parenthesis, a rare and yeasty time......

[ 21 August 2001: Message edited by: Jackonicko ]

[Hengist Pod]

Quite simply, they're bollox.

What kind of sad, boring spotter would want to read that load of old cr@p? I'll tell you, a sad, boring spotter (of which the services have mercifully few.) Believe it or not there is more to life than getting airborne and if you spend every day doing it, why the bl00dy hell would you want to get home and read about it? I personally subscribe to Tractor Driver Monthly - much more fulfilling.

[ 22 August 2001: Message edited by: Hengist Pod ]

[tonka]

Hengis

Agreed, why waste time reading sad boring aviation magazines when you could lock yourself in a darkened room with a computer and a box of kleenex, surfing the web for aviation related web sites.

[NoseGunner]

Jacko,
I think there are 3 main reasons.
Firstly as has already been mentioned, a lot of people want to get away from flying now and again, (even if they do still check out this website!)

Secondly, most crewrooms have flight in them anyway, so why pay for your own copy?

Thirdly, they talk bollox. I cannot remember one article written on a subject that I know about that has been vaguely accurate. The vast majority are written by civvies or someone who left the forces years ago, and even well informed journos (such as yourself, obviously!) don't know what they are talking about because they don't have the day to day experience. Also they don't have access to all the classified stuff which at the end of the day makes all the difference.

Cheers

[Low and Slow]

Bloody Hell, hats off to you Jacko! Tough question.

I can only add that my own experience of FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL.
I've been involved in two major military equipment/fleet transfers, in the last 5 years. Flight has commented on both, and in each case was very wide of the mark and in one case to the severe determent of the project. I even contacted their military correspondent to give him the word from the horse's mouth, and he pretty much ignored me. (yeah, I'm used to it.)

Another major gripe I have about all contemporary air news mags is their close relationship with some of the industry. It was well put to me by some boyo who pointed out that if you give a Journo a good lunch and let him fly the simulator for an hour, you pretty much guarantee he'll write what you want.

I know Jacko would not be bought off by such squalid means.

Just for the record, I'm a complete tart, for half a cider and 20 minutes in the cockpit procedures mock-up.

[EESDL]

Hey, am I the only Mil pilot who buys FI?
If you have it delivered, it drops onto your mat atleast 2 days before it reaches the top shelf.
You can read all the bollox before everyone else!!!

Page 3 photograph of a Trolley-Dolly would ensure my continued membership.

Even bought a spotter-type mag to read an interesting article on "how I gave up my well-paid job as a shelf stacker, to mortgage my house and put my family through hell, because I thought flying junk mail across the Irish Sea would be a worthwhile and satisfying job".

Well, after all, you need something as an emergency substitute in case the Systems Monitor has forgotten to bring the 'Gentlemen's Entertainment' on those long flights between parties:-)

Does anybody not read FI from the back first?

[ 22 August 2001: Message edited by: EESDL ]

[sprucemoose]

Jacko:

I trust you're not including my fantastic and oh-so reasonably priced organ in this list! Even so, why is everyone picking on Fright, and am I excused only because we're not on the news stands?

We're all frustrated spotters who didn't make it as pilots (rather like the music, sporting or any other type of press), and too many writers seem to pander to their own interests rather than those of the end user. Not that we get to talk to them very often (so we have to talk to industry, who we know have their own agenda) and there's even less chance of flying with them - how's Oman for an example of excluding the entirity of the trade press?

If this is market research ahead of setting up your own mag, you owe me some freelance!

[Reichman]

Like 99% of all military pilots I read FI from back to front, and stop as soon as the Courses and Tuition section starts. The reasons:

a) I'm not that interested in which third world country has bought a load of superior jet fighters than we could ever imagine having.

b) I don't care that Coconut Airways has just agreed a code sharing deal with Pina Colada Air.

c) I'm not too fussed about the fact that some country that was receiving humanitarian aid from us, due to famine, has just sent a communications satellite into the dark blue on the back of an ex Soviet ballistic missile - actually, I am.

d) Roger Bacon's industry in-jokes are about as funny as shouting BANG! during a Concorde take off.

e) The reporting borders on fiction (who IS David Learmount anyway?).

f) Not enough pictures. reading makes my head hurt.

g) I'm not quite in the market to buy a used Boeing 727 with full VIP interior.

Enough? ;)

[ChristopherRobin]

FI is crap, and there are far better out there - I like Aviation and Space Technology because it has got lots of pictures and space things too.

Which is nice.

Seriously though, its a good read.

[Firestreak]

:rolleyes: Where I work only one section of Flight is regularly scanned-----the jobs

[ol_benkenobi]

Chris
glad to see that you have moved on from 2B and that you are getting more stimulation from pictures and the use of colour in particular.
We will try to put something more interesting your way, not just all the promotional bull from the Companies hoping to fill the void of the failed project under your wing. Just ask and I'm sure a subby can be sent your way for those difficult 'can't do without crayon pieces'.

[ChristopherRobin]

Ah Obi-Wan, when we last met, I was but the pupil,

- Now I am the Master!

But what is this "crayon" you speak of?

[Ex F111]

In close to 100% of the time that an article discusses apects of my FJ airframe, there are numerous errors of fact. Having ascertained that, I ask 'what other errors are included in articles on airframes that I know nothing about'.

[Flatus Veteranus]

How nice to be able to curse the aviation mags - presumably you do not need to buy them! One of the things I missed most on retirement was that I no longer have free access to the aviation press, either in the messes, or on circulation in the office. They are difficult to buy at newsagents in the country - even if I could afford them. And the "defence correspondents" of the broadsheet press neither know nor care abut military aviation. They seem to have an army or naval background and grind their axes noisily and with profound ignorance. How does one keep in touch - except via pprune? :mad: