Pilot Magazine

[Twin Peaks]

Well....has it taken a headlong dive for the dirt, or is it just me?
This latest issue is riddled with errors, as have the preceding two.
It certainly aint what it used to be.

[QDMQDMQDM]

The new publisher is a regular poster to this forum, so no doubt he will contribute. The magazine appears to have gone through a period of tumultuous change, inbcluding the acrimonious departure of the previous editor and a number of its key contributors.

QDM

[BRL]

Yep, mine kept repeating itself. (Nov issue) Must be a prob at the printers...... :(

[niknak]

I didnt renew my subscription in May, the mag' has become a shadow of it's former self.
If anyone from the editorial team is reading, IMHO, although the regular bits (air mail, old timers, safety etc) maintained the usual standard, the magazine has become very much the same as all the other competitors.
Where Pilot used to win was it's ability to produce a magazine with different types of articles which appealed to the broad spectrum of everyone in aviation, even specialist interest matter was produced in a very readable way.
For whatever reason this doen't seem to happen now, and I briefly read it on the newsagents shelf.
Even the letters page is dull these days - although I accept that this has as much to do with the readership as anyone.:p

[SteveR]

..and there's a blatant wrong piece of advice about logging P1.s in the letters page. Guy asked a question about this, and the letters editor gave exactly the wrong answer.

Tsk tsk.....

Steve R

[Evo]

I'm just waiting for my subscription to run out... :(

[Min Sink]

Mine has and I'm not bothering to renew it.

[LPL]

Pilot...................utter shyteeeeeeeee

best kept for the regie spotters.

[Wide-Body]

Nov issue, I subscribe and it has not turned up yet. I was a big supporter but it has not picked up at all since the new editor arrived. The amount of poor quality articles continues. The other mags are getting better. Pilot must buck up. Perhaps the correspondents who jumped ship new what was going on!! A good flight test writer is a must, (Bob Davy or Maxi Ganza come to mind) who can put the reader in the seat. Rant now finished.:rolleyes:

[QNH 1013]

BRL
May I ask when you received the November Issue of "Pilot"? I have been a subscriber for years (although I suspect new subscribers are offered better deals than existing subscribers) but the latest issue I have is October 2002 which arrived (according to memory) a couple of weeks ago.

[bottieburp]

As an avid reader of all 3 and occasional contributor to them -a few letters and, by coincidence my provision of the aircraft for a feature in this month's Pilot (cover feature in TP last year too) I haven't noticed anything about Pilot that causes me the even consider cancelling my subscription. I have taken it for many years and have back numbers to compare.

If in your opinion the new team are getting it wrong then a readership survey may be necessary.

However, how many of you contributors to this thread have pulled a readership survey out of a magazine and binned it rather than complete it?

You then rely on telepathy for them to get it right and castigate them for getting it wrong.

All I say is - the Pilot team are great guys keen to do a good job. If you want the magazine to reflect your wishes, share it with them.

What you also seem to fail to realise is that there are 3 magazines out there now and the readership wll certainly not triple to accomodate them.

Couple this with the fact that ours is a highly specialised sector with relatively modest numbers and you will conclude that anybody bringing out no.3 magazine was really brave and presumably well funded.

I take all 3 - all make their contribution - all really nice guys involved - all aviation enthusiasts trying desperately to win the majority.

I can't believe that the negativity in this thread about Pilot reflects the views of the general readership.

I look forward to the development of this thread with keen interest.

[Whirlybird]

My November "Pilot" arrived on Friday. I think a day or two late is acceptable; blame the post office.

It isn't brilliant, but I really can't understand what you're all making so much fuss about. I wasn't always interested in everything in the "old" Pilot either. It has a few interesting articles, a few that are OK, some which I haven't bothered to read and probably won't. As usual really. One new thing is 10 free landing fees for November - including Coventry and Wolverhampton, which are both normally pretty expensive. A November Private Pilots fly-in, maybe? There may be mistakes - but that's not unique to any of the mags, though don't ask me for specific examples, as I can't remember.

No, I really don't know what you're all on about. The last thread like this I remember, everyone was whinging about Flyer not having enough depth. Then there was a thread on Today's Pilot being lightweight, or something similar. I think if anyone whinges, someone else jumps on the band wagon.

Hmm...who/what shall I have a whinge about? Any suggestions? I'll start a new thread. :D

[long final]

I have to second Whirlybird here. About 50% really appeals to me - liked the 196 review this month - but for a couple of quid a month, especially with the new free landing fees, worth every penny IMHO.

LF

[treadigraph]

I brought "Pilot" every month for years but, other than the first two issues under the new management, I haven't bothered recently. Why?

I'm not sure just which of the "original" regulars are still on board, but it seems to me that the depth of aviation knowledge and expertise that the old editorial team and the excellent contributors possessed is missing and it feels too lightweight a read now. Not sure that the Pilot sense of humour is still there either... Quite apart from the various howlers I spotted in those first two issues, the overall quality, particularly photo reproduction, has plummeted in my view.

I've leafed through subsequent issues in Smiths, but have not seen any improvement nor have I been inspired to get my wallet out.

A great shame for it was once an excellent magazine, something to look forward to each month; and in my view it stood head and shoulders above the competition but now it's just one of the gang...

[Aerohack]

How many of the old 'regulars' are still on board? Even fewer than the masthead or the article bylines would have you believe. They're still using up some feature material that was in place before the rest of us were sacked or walked away, and some of those still shown as 'Contributors' have no intention of ever writing another word for 'Pilot' under its present regime.

[Evo]

Whirly - I've subscibed to Flyer and Pilot for a couple of years now, and the difference in the new Pilot is quite clear to me. Flyer has always had better columnists (especially John Farley), but Pilot still used to be a more enjoyable read. However, I've found that's no longer the case. I flick through it when it arrives, but there's nothing much there. Flyer beats it easily now and it never used to.

I recently found a year-old Pilot (the one with the SR-22 review), and the difference between that and the latest is dramatic IMHO. It's gone downhill fast. No point in cancelling a sub with a couple of issues to go, but I've no interest in renewing. And that's sad :(

[PANews]

Rumour .... the worlds worst thing I know ... was that at the time of the last Aerofair [May, North Weald] the whole of the editorial staff walked out on the management [or Editor].

I did not expect it back but its still there so maybe they mended bits but not enough...

Either way this might give a reason for the loss of quality.

[Aerohack]

Not quite the whole of the Pilot team quit just before Aerofair. But of those that did, a couple were pushed, which prompted the rest (myself included, after 30 years) to vote with our feet.

[bingoboy]

Days are getting shorter, the drizzle outside is very depressing but so far I agree with Whirlybird in that I shall buy the November issue if only for the free landings.

I no longer subscribe to either of the 3 mags - instead I preview them on the net or whs and buy whichever (one or more) that seems most interesting.

Hope they can all continue as competition must be good.

Suggest critics feedback direct to each editor as rather subjective comments can sometimes be seen as coming from a biased perspective and we will all benefit from improvemnts in the breed.

[Aerohack]

Bingoboy, you've just proven what we now-departed 'old guard' at Pilot tried to explain to the present incumbents. Freebies, giveways and gimmicks may boost sales of individual issues, but ultimately it's the quality of the editorial content that brings readers back month after month, year after year. And that's what really matters if a publisher is in for the long haul, as Pilot's former owner/publisher/editor and those of us who worked with him were.

[rustle]

Whirlybird,

Hmm...who/what shall I have a whinge about? Any suggestions? I'll start a new thread.
How about something to do with NOTAMs cos we haven't discussed those in a fair while... :p

[Aerobatic Flyer]

I managed to buy a copy of Pilot for the first time in a long time last week. (For some reason Flyer is readily available in France, Pilot not at all....).

On the basis of the October issue, I've got to agree, it's not what it used to be. There were still some good things - John Templeton Smith, who's articles are always a pleasure to read, and the article on the SE5a for example. Some of the rest was a bit off target though. The flight test of the Italian microlight was rather too obviously just a quick jolly from the passenger seat, and was pretty dire.

And please, bring back Lynn Williams! The illustrations that accompanied Nick Bloom's article on side-slipping really weren't pretty - the little aeroplane looked as if it belonged in Tellytubbyland. (Interestingly in this article I learnt that side-slipping a Pitts down to the flare takes "years of practice"..... Most people I know who've tried learn after 4 or 5 circuits.)

I hope things recover soon. It would be a huge shame to lose Pilot. I see that James Gilbert is a "consulting editor" - I hope the new team are consulting him.

[QDMQDMQDM]

Hmm...who/what shall I have a whinge about? Any suggestions? I'll start a new thread.

Come on, Whirlybird, don't be smug and patronising just because you don't happen to agree with the point being made.

QDM

[formationfoto]

I admit to being an employee of the owner of 'Pilot' and a member of the board of the business which publishes the magazine 'Archant Specialist'. I was also responsible for the deal which brought Pilot to a well funded community media business which has two active pilots on the four strong core management team. I am not, however, responsible on a day to day basis for the magazine (although I do have an involvement in both the web activity and the creation of a photo archive). The Publisher is Bob Crawley and the Editor Dave Calderwood.

Now you know where I am coming from I can offer some thoughts:

I have learnt before that debating through forums such as this is both futile and inappropriate so I won't take issue with any of the comments here. I am saddened and concerned that there is a body of readers who are keen to reject the publication but ultimately in a market where there are three titles a magazine lives and dies by its ability to interest purchasers in buying regularly or subscribing. Pilot contines to be the highest selling GA magazine in the UK (circulation figures are independently auditted) and has an increasing subscription base. Despite the changes in content and contributor base Pilot must be doing something right.

We are all entitled to our views though and I both respect the right of posters here to criticise the magazine and support the freedom of speech a forum such as this creates.

I know that the team involved in the magazine take a great deal of pride in it. Many are very active pilots and some of those who are not yet active pilots have embarked on PPL training. They are all open to suggestions of how to improve.

Nick Bloom can be contacted via the Pilot office and is always willing to listen and discuss issue concerning the magazine.

I know that one of the main areas of concern for the team has been poor photo reproduction in issues going back many years. They have been striving to improve this and will continue to do so. The Spitfire cover recently is a good example of the quality which can be achieved and this issue was one of the best selling for many years.

If subscribers receive a copy late the team would like to know about it - it is normally something outside the direct control of the Pilot team but they are keen to try and improve the service offered by external organisations.

If you have received a copy which has an article printed twice and some content missing this is indeed a printing issue which the team has already been made aware of. As far as we know this is restricted to a small number of copies. We believe that most of them are in the North of England and we have had copies pulled from the shelves to be reprinted. If you have one of the rogue copies I am sure the team would want to arrange for you to get a corrected copy (I have not spoken to them about this but knowing their desire to serve the reader base I would expect them to help - at worst I will send you my copy). Feel free to contact Nick Bloom at the office or contact me direct ([email protected] - 07802 611647).

We do read the various forums and try to react where helpful criticism can point to changes for the better.

I am sure the contribution from LPL will assist in creating a better magazine in the future!.

Finally some of the posters here have direct experience of the Pilot team and in some cases providing contributions. If you believe you can do better the team is always keen to hear from people with a story they have been dying to write.

[Aerohack]

Good to know that the Spitfire issue was a best seller, formationfoto. But as I recall, the Spitfire feature was commissioned by the editor your 'well-funded community media business' fired, and written by an immensely talented and long-serving contributor who walked away from Pilot in disgust. Credit where it's due.

[Genghis the Engineer]

As an occasional buyer of all 3 of the magazines, and a monthly columnist for an American flying mag (I only rarely write for anything in the UK at present), I find this interesting. Ian, I'd like to pose a couple of questions about Pilot that I, and perhaps some others, would find interesting.

(1) Do you have a target audience? Flyer primarily targets the keen-to-learn PPL, Todays-Pilot seems to be more targetting the enthusiast pilot who isn't hugely concerned about self improvement - where does Pilot see itself sitting.

(2) Do you have a core of regulars, or rely primarily on "spec" writing such as the stuff you've had from Whirly? Flyer for example has tended to rely upon specialists (Ronnie Faux for microlights, John Farley and Irv Lee for technical articles, etc.) Whats the rationale behind the approach that you are taking?

(3) Do you have a core content to the magazine? Flyer and TP generally endeavour to have at least one each of technical / microlights / rotary / fast GA for example, but I can't quite see such a "keep all interests happy" format from Pilot. Am I right here?

G

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

As a sometime contributor to 'Pilot', and a subscriber since 1978, I have to say that the magazine has changed under new ownership - and not for the better. But IMHO it's still better than the opposition.

Before the recent changes, 'Pilot' was owned and edited by James Gilbert. Because of this independance, James was able to stamp his personality onto the mag. Not everyone liked the result, but I certainly did, and it had a great deal of character, was not afraid to be opinionated, and didn't pull its punches.

James wasn't everyone's cup of tea, but as a contributor I always found him, and the editorial office generally, a delight to work with. Maybe it still is - I havent submitted anything for a year or so so don't know.

When James sold up, the magazine came into the ownership of a large publishing organisation. The editor was no longer the owner - he was an employee of this organisation - the same situation AFAIK as at the other two mags. This is bound to have a profound effect on the mag's character- and it has. I think (and this is purely my opinion, not neccessarily fact, so I may be wrong) that James' successor tried to continue editing 'Pilot' in the manner that James had done - and this might be why the axe was wielded in the editorial office. The editor was sacked, and several other members of the team resigned in sympathy.

'Pilot' was unique in its editorial freedom - and we are the poorer that it no longer exists in that guise. Perhaps, these days, it just is no longer possible for a market leading magazine to exist as a completely independant entity - more's the pity.

'Pilot', with one or two exceptions, always IMHO had better regular writers than the opposition - Bob Grimstead and Maxi Gainza come to mind, and the increadibly good Brian Lecomber always used it for his all-to-rare forays into print. I will admit, however, that in John Farley 'Flyer' probably has one of the most interesting contributors on any aviation mag - but 'Flyer' also carries regular copy (though not so much these days) from one who is IMHO the very worst aviation writer ever!

I still think 'Pilot' is the best, but if Grim Bedstead and Maxi (and Brian?? - we can but hope!) start writing for one of the others, that may change.

SSD

[bluskis]

I got through the Oct issue in record time a few days ago. I did not question why until I read this thread, so I pulled the issue out to check.

Like many previous posters, there have always been articles which are of interest to me, and others which have little or no interest, but are obviously of interest to their target audience.

October appears to have covered a reasonable spread of different subjects, so why did I not bother to read them?

Was it jet lag on returning from the far east, or was it the difficulty in reading the extremely glossy format, which might be great for photo reproduction, but is not conducive to easy reading.

[niknak]

Whirlybird/Formationfoto/Bottieburp

I, as a subscriber, did take part in the last reader response survey that Pilot ran, I made my views very clear at the time via the survey AND I subsequently wrote to the editorial team expressing the same opinions as I've already posted.

Guess what - no response whatsoever :rolleyes: .

Little wonder, that I, and many others have not renewed our subscriptions, despite the desperate attempts to woo us back by offering us prices that must be well below production costs.

James Gilbert and his team were far from perfect, but at least they were prepared to offer us something fresh and enlightening each month without necessarily agreeing with the content.

I stand by my original post, the magazine is very average these days, when it really should be (as it did for a long time) competing as number 2 to Flight International, but I somehow doubt that will happen under the current structure.

[SKYYACHT]

If I knew how to do it, I would do it myself, but how about running a vote amongst us to see what is the current most widely read publication?

Blueskies

[Circuit Basher]

As a subscriber to Pilot for the last 6 years, I must confess to having been decreasingly satisfied by the content in the last 12 months. A lot of it's intangible, but some of the nagging feelings that I had have been identified by contributors to this thread. My general feeling is that it's a bit prescriptive; there's the mandatory 'new ultratight' [non deliberate typo, but I left it as I liked the term ;) !!] article, the 'flying a historic/unusual type' article, the 'I flew somewhere overseas' article, the 'report on a big GA meet', the 'interview with someone big in aviation who's about to retire'....., etc. For my personal interests, I find the Old Timers section seems to be getting bigger and bigger and more 'anorakky' [I fully confess to being less than interested in avaiation history, so am maybe being a little harsh here] and the 'How Air-Minded Are You?' test seems to include less questions about aviation knowledge that could reasonably be expected to be known by a fair cross-section of the GA community [ such as 'Which country's registrations are the only ones to be all-numeric?' - that's one you'll either know or not, usually because you fly in or around that country, so is not really a check of 'air-mindedness'].

Aerobatic Flyer - like you, I was similarly appalled by the quality of the illustrations for the sidelipping article and felt that the whole tone of the article massively overdid the 'mystery' of sideslipping - it's a good technique that needs to be practised for the first time at safe altitude, but it's not rocket science to a qualified PPL if approached with caution.

I did respond to the survey a few months ago in this tone and suggested that the education and safety content could aford to be increased and the historic element reduced [all IMHO, of course].

My subscription runs out this month; I have not yet renewed, as I have been considering trying Today's Pilot for the next year. There are, however, some aspects of Pilot that I enjoy and would genuinely miss - I tend to feel that on balance, I'll renew my Pilot subscription, but with less of a feeling that it's a 'no-brainer' decision.

[camaro]

As per most of the other replies to this thread, I am a long time subscriber of Pilot (15+ years) who has also become disappointed with the downturn in quality.

The difference between Pilot and the other aviation mags used to be quite marked - now it has become just one of the also-rans.

My subscription runs out in the new year......I will be giving some serious thought as to whether to renew, instead of it being automatic as usual.

[Whirlybird]

QDM,

I added a light throw-away comment, and I even put a smilie after it! Smug and patronising? Where did that come from? :confused: I daresay I have been at times...but not on this particular thread.

I actually think Pilot's improved. But that's probably because I'm female. Back in the old days, it had a definite old boys' club we're-all-in-this-together-lads sort of flavour, as though women didn't exist in aviation. I can't actually remember any examples, though I do remember the then chairwoman of the BWPA writing a letter pointing out that women do fly - and there was a reason for her doing so. At one point I vowed never to subscribe - but when they accepted the first ever flying article I'd been paid for, I bought a subscription. I think that's called selling out, but there you are. Anyway, that feel in Pilot has changed, and about time too.

[Rod1]

I have subscribed for a long time. It is not as good as it was, but it is not appalling. It will be interesting to see if the other two, particularly Flyer, have closed the gap on the number of copies sold. My guess is Pilot is going backwards in relation to its competition, but may still have its nose in front.

Will I renew my subscription? I am not sure. I will certainly think hard about it for the first time in many years.

Rod

[BRL]

QNH1013 I picked mine up at Brighton train station on the way up to Luton for the tower visit friday just gone (18th). Left it on the train as well on the way home.. :rolleyes:
Lots of pages were missing and some repeated 3 times.

[Stampe]

Well this latest issue with the big feature on Miles aircraft is one of the best ever superb photography!! though I must admit recent issues have been somewhat variable.Guess after nearly forty years of reading aviation mags I,ve become slightly jaded ,just how many flight tests on the "classic Cessna 150 " can you cope with in a lifetime.Best as with all journalism to remember you are reading one persons (possibly inexpert opinions).I remember reading flight tests in Pilot in years gone by on both the Stampe and Condor aircraft of which I have years and many many hour of operating experience ,they were full of inaccuracies , biased opinions not bearing out my knowledge of the types.However the quality of all the Uk mags is exceptional compared to the dreadful American equivalents we are lucky to have such a choice and pilot is still the best of the bunch and an entertaining read.The printed word should never be taken to seriously.

[khorne]

I subscribe to both Pilot and Flyer. I have no relationship with either other than as a reader. I have no idea what everyone is talking about as Pilot is by far the superior publication. I can only assume that so many posting on a similar vein are due to some hidden agenda.

[Evo]

I can only assume that so many posting on a similar vein are due to some hidden agenda.


Or maybe, just maybe, a fair number of us readers are becoming unimpressed with the magazine.

<hidden agenda>
but I would say that, wouldn't I. I've made 1000 posts so that nobody would suspect a thing when the chance came to take a shot at Pilot magazine....

Damn. Exposed. :)
</hidden agenda>

:p

[Aerohack]

Bit of a sweeping generalisation about American aviation magazines, Stampe. Undeniably, some once great U.S. titles are, like 'Pilot', in decline editorially, but there's still some fineaviation journalism on the other side of the Atlantic. Try 'AOPA Pilot' or 'The Aviation Consumer'. At the heavier end of things 'Business & Commercial Aviation' sets very high standards of accuracy and authority, and 'Air & Space' is for my money unmatched anywhere for quality writing and illustration.

[QNH 1013]

BRL

Thanks for the info. I'm still waiting for my November issue. Looks like subscribers get served last !

[bottieburp]

Hi Stampe,

I agree that the Miles feature is really good. Whilst I can be accused of bias (!) there is no denying that the photography is exceptional. Dave Calderwood, Nick Bloom and the modest unsung genius with the camera Cliff Knox (Old Warden photographer par excellence) have produced some priceless pictures.

How frustrating for the Editor to learn that there has been some problems with the production. Hardly their fault - all subcontracted(?) - and I am sure the subject of separate discussion.

If your copy is defective then it will be replaced surely. If it were me (mine was fine) I would go back to the shop, leaf through the stock, find a brankers copy and get them to swap it.

For you Miles enthusiasts out there - if you want to know more about the Miles Falcon featured in Nov. Pilot you need to get hold of a copy of Feb 03 FlyPast, out January 1st. Where Ken Ellis is involved we can be sure of something really exciting.

Come on guys - give our magazines a break - all make an excellent contribution. 3 magazines? Aren't we lucky! I agree with Stampe - some American magazines are ghastly.

[niknak]

Bottieburp

Why should we give our magazines a break?

By now, it should be totally obvious to the editorial staff at Pilot that they are failing in a big way, yet Pilot contiues to be a very expensive publication for very little worthwhile content.
I accept that the majority of the photography is of an extremely high standard, but that's about all that is going for it at the moment.

The Pilot "team" seem to be oblivious to the fact that they are not producing the quality magazine that it used to be, and utimately, it is they who will lose when revenue drops, advertisers withdraw, and the publication becomes (if not already is) an "also ran".

Pilot has a great history, and would be a travisty if it radical action is not taken to rectify it's current problems and return to the high standards and respect it so recently commanded.

A very basic start would be if the people who produced it, stopped resting on their laurals and recognised their deficiancies.

[Ace Rimmer]

Dons flak jacket... There's no doubt about it Pilot has changed, for better or worse really is a matter of taste (certainly you can't lay production problems at the door of the editorial team - One of the first things I learned when I first got into this journo caper was "never EVER underestimate the ability of a printer to cock it up").

The Rimmer view is that both Flyer and Today's Pilot have improved by leaps and bounds - especially the latter. While I'm reserving judgement on Pilot I think the old timer bit is getting a bit big but there you go, matter of opinon

I'd echo earlier comments about the triad compared with US mags although I'd qualify my remarks as has been mentioned above AOPA Pilot and B&C A both are top notch. Flying on the other hand is a little up it's own arse... basically all a bit 'what I did this month' type of copy mind you it'd be dead easy to write....Having said that Lane Wallace can be a good read (not a patch on Bax though) and there is some good stuff in it feature wise.

Newsflash: Pretty much every mag is a bit formula driven (here at Rimmer news I've just fininshed the 'what are we going to cover next year feature wise' phase... always a bit of a brain ache that one... you can't please everyone and people are always more than ready to tell you what they don't like) Every time somebody joins a mag as editor the first thing he or she does is think about how they can improve it and and preferably make their own mark. This is usually in the form of a re-design which nobody likes until the next time the mag is revamped then the new design is "the classic that shouldn't be tampered with"
You can bet your booties they firmly beleive that the changes will improve the the mag win more subs and advertisers since the opposite is a sure fire way to get a cozy chat with the publisher who it turn will have the phrase your fired somewhere in the his mind.

Returning the wider audience, the trouble with writing, especially on a specialist publication is that most of the readership thinks they can do it while the truth is not many people can... I can't tell you how many technical or policy driven articles we get which while they contain really good info are written in a style so turgid as to render them ineffective since nobody, short of a penitant fully paid up member of Opus Dei, is likely to get to the end. Like any job writing is a craft, unless you've got a natural ability, John Farley springs to mind as do Rufus and Irv, then it's a craft you have to learn.

Bottom line though folks: Every mag since Pontius was a pilot has waxed and waned in the quality of its copy and perhaps popularity as a result. This is always going to be subjective by definition

If you don't like the way a mag is heading editorially, the answer is simple don't buy it...

Takes cover awaiting the usual 'all journos are charlatans' fire away boys and girls just don't tell my mother she thinks I do something respectable like doorman at a brothel...at least that's what I keep telling her

[formationfoto]

I have mentioned my relationship to PILOT elsewhere in this thread so won't repeat but I am being open and honest about my link.

This is a mostly well mannered discourse on the relative merits of PILOT magazine.

Having read through the comments there are some I agree with as a reader and some I don't. I do, however, want it to be a magazine which reflects what I want to read at the highest level of quality possible. At least in this I assume we all have the same requirements (even though our own interests will be different).

I am trying to balance being responsive to criticisms and comments with not appearing to try and counter everything that is said and develop an argument ( quite difficult I have found).

I will therefore constrain comments at this stage to matters of fact and response to specific points.

When James Gilbert decided to sell, whilst not inevitable, it was extremely likely that the magazine would go to a publishing business rather than another enthusiast individual - perhaps sad but real world. James gains financial reward for building the magazine up, the new owner pays a high price which requires further improvement in the magazine to deliver profits to pay the interest bills. Simple economics.

BRL (Mr Moderator sir) your rogue copy is clearly not by design and for anyone who understands publishing it is clear that where some copies are correct and some wrong this is a printer issue rather than a publisher issue and normally the publisher would be having conversations with the printer about the problem!. As I mentioned in a previous post despite this not being a problem caused by PILOT I am sure they would be willing to help you obtain a replacement copy - see later.

Aerohack - indeed credit where it is due - the piece does deserve praise and the author has since been writing for other magazines. I would hope to see him as a contributor to PILOT again shortly - he is one of the top contributors.

Plenty of mention has been given to changes at PILOT around May this year. Less has been said of more recent changes with the introduction of a new publisher. Bob Crawley, who I have been flying with recently, is extremely dedicated to sorting out problems which may have occurred in the past. He is a willing listener to complaints and has shown himself to act quickly to sort out problems. He can be contacted at [email protected].

I took up the questions from Genghis and passed them on to Bob for his response - the following (apologies for length) is his reply - I hope it answers the questions raised (and prompts you to consider offering articles for PILOT to publish) but as always anyone frustrated with failing to get a response from PILOT can contact me and I will take it up with the team ([email protected]):

As Publisher of Pilot for the last three months, perhaps I can set the record straight.

Pilot’s target audience is broad, ranging from private pilots who fly infrequently, stay local and rent or share an aeroplane, to military and commercial pilots, others who make their living in aviation, and aeroplane enthusiasts.

However our core audience is committed aviators who are knowledgeable about aircraft and flying. They usually have strong opinions, which is why any change to the magazine or its staff stimulates debate. Pilot has always published articles from a broad range of contributors. When Alan Cassidy as British Aerobatics Champion flight tests the latest aerobatic machine, he does it for Pilot, even though he is not a regular contributor.
The winners of the Dawn to Dusk contest also chose Pilot to write about how they did it. Contributions from readers like this have always been Pilot’s main strength, but we also have an exceptional team of regulars: Tim Cripps, Bruce Hales-Dutton, Derek Jones, Geoffrey P Jones, Pat Malone, John Templeton Smith, James Allan, Peter R March, Don Peterson and
Nick Bloom and others. Most of these do not write for other GA magazines. What they all have in common is experience and the ability to put it across in a way that is interesting and entertaining. With the exception of Peter R March, who specialises in aviation history, Pilot’s regulars each cover a range of topics. Nick Bloom, for instance, writes about flying technique, interviews aviation personalities and conducts flight tests.

Much of the team that wrote for Pilot when James Gilbert was editor is still on board. We have an excellent editor in Dave Calderwood, who spent 26 years in the profession before joining the magazine and a very talented new designer, Simon Watkins.

Despite what you may have heard or read Pilot’s owners are committed to building on its reputation as the leading GA magazine in the market. Early in 2003 Pilot will significantly increase its pagination, add new editorial sections, and will continue to strengthen its already impressive team of
regular contributors.

I took over as publisher of Pilot in the summer and was somewhat concerned about the way some things had been done in the past. Hopefully I have dealt with all outstanding issues in a courteous and professional manner.

***Note the above is editted to remove one name at the request of the individual***

[Aerobatic Flyer]

Formationfoto / Ian,

It's encouraging to see that you and your colleagues don't dismiss the points raised. Thanks for that. Also, as you point out, printing issues are difficult to control, and I think everyone understands that.

For me the main issue is a slightly indefinable feeling of unease about the future. There have been management changes, and some of the regular writers have left and now write for the competition. This has happened in the past, and in itself doesn't necessarily cause a problem. When Alan Bramson left Pilot and wrote for Flyer for a few months, Pilot carried on. And Flyer still printed a lot of "flight tests" which were horrendous.... written by the contributor that Shaggy Sheep Driver didn't need to name. :rolleyes:

But to lose Philip Whiteman, Mike Jerram, Bob Grimstead (who contrary to Bob Crawley's assertion is published in several GA magazines) and others..... well, that worries people. They were some of the key people who made the magazine what it was, and - some of them at least - have clearly parted company from Pilot on fairly acrimonious terms.

To use an analogy, it's as if your local country pub has been taken over, and all the regular staff either sacked or resigned..... the beer and food may stay the same, but there'll be a nagging doubt that the new managers will turn it into "The Slug and Lettuce", and employ a bunch of 18 year old bar staff! And if the old staff are all working in a pub in the next village, it'll be tempting to go there instead.

As I mentioned above, I do hope that things work out well. I doubt whether anything can be done to mend the bridges that have been broken with the former contributors - but I hope I'm wrong.

Best of luck!

(P.S. to Bob Crawley, if you read this - please banish to the wastebin that cartoon aeroplane which taught us all how to sideslip last month... :mad: )

[Legalapproach]

I read this thread with some interest as I have read every isue of pilot since October 1977. Over the years, when the various competitors came out I read one or two copies but remained loyal to Pilot and felt that they were pale imitations.

Over the past few months I have have reached the opinion that Pilot is going downhill and that the changes are a downmarket attempt to emulate its rivals. Pilot is in danger of doing a new labour and losing its traditional readership in an attempt to attract a few readers from its rivals. However, unlike a political party, hitherto loyal readers may well desert to a rival magazine if they are getting the same product.

I liked Pilot as it was, that is why I have read it avidly for some 25 years and around the middle of every month would start getting twitchy for the next months fix. That twitch is now diminishing.

I had come to the above conclusions before seeing this thread and am glad to see that I am not the only one to feel this way. All I can add is come back James Gilbert, there is nothing to be forgiven for.

[undertheweather]

I don't know why so many people have got in a twist about the 'cartoon aeroplane'. I read the Pilot article on sideslipping, and although a little cautious in its approach to the subject, I thought the cartoon drawings explained clearly and well the control surface deflections for each of the described techniques.

I remember thinking as I read it that this way of illustrating helped the reader visualise how to fly this useful approach technique. Well done for being innovative!

[Eraserhead]

It might help if they pulled their finger out and updated the crap website.
Its still advertising octobers magazine. The poll has been on for months. The classified adds are still off line and as for the forum,well.................?

[big pistons forever]

I have been buying PILOT here in Canada for many years.

The Good News. It is still better than any North American aviation magazine

The Bad News. I agree with the general tone of this thread, the quality is definitely slipping. At $10(Cdn) per issue I am not sure I am getting my moneys worth

IMHO the best aviation jounalism ever was in the Flying magazine of the early to mid 1970's. I especially appreciated the three great G's ( Gilbert, Gann, and Garrison )

[pilotpublisher]

Two quick points.

1. I am passionate about publishing and Pilot. In my experience I know that any bridges worth rebuilding can be. Some things, however, have to change - I believe those changes will benefit Pilot. Watch this space!

3. The cartoon planes have been ditched - while they illustrated the issue quite well, I agree they should not appear again...they are already banished!

[LowNSlow]

pilotpublisher

Two quick points
1.
3.

Whoops :D

Seriously though, it's good to see a quick response from the person who is responsible for the mag. There are a lot of people who love Pilot and would hate to see it going down the tubes and/or becoming a. n. other flying mag.
Although I have been buying it since Pontious was a pilot I've never taken out a subscription but I will be for next month. I do feel however that the atmosphere of Pilot has changed and not really for the better so I'm hoping that the comments made so far will be absorbed by the new management and incorporated in future editions of Pilot. I'm also not keen on the shiny paper which can make it hard to read. This is something all the flying comics seem to suffer from though.

I do think that both Flyer and Today's Pilot have improved especially the latter and in a much shorter timespan and this improvement has highlighted the changes in Pilot.

[QNH 1013]

LowNSlow, You might get your Pilot copies quicker by not being a subscriber. I have subscribed for many years and I'm still waiting for the November issue, which others seem to have had since last week. As I live in the Midlands and not in outer Mongolia I find this unacceptable.
Sure, things can go wrong in any organisation. What sorts out the professionals is how things are put right. I have telephoned the Pilot Subscriptions department twice (quite an effort in itself since I had to listen (at my expense) to seemingly endless repetitions of "your call is EXTREMELY important to us" each time. If calls are that important, I would have thought it would be a good idea to have the staff to answer the phone !
I was told a replacement would be sent. When that didn't arrive, I telephoned again (see procedure above) and was told that it took from seven to ten days to send a replacement !

You might find it quicker to use W H Smith.

In contrast to many, I find the magazine good and I particularly like the recently introduced free landing vouchers.

[bottieburp]

Looks like this has been done to death now.

Some of the posts have been fairly venomous. One can therefore only admire the Pilot team for providing such a full and frank explanation in this 'hang you out to dry' forum.

Lets continue to enjoy all 3 publications - all have their strengths and weaknesses, only one can be best seller.

I have no intention of cancelling my subscription to Pilot and will look forward to each issue as always.

Chill out and look forward to the improvements promised.

BottieBuuuuurp

[Wide-Body]

Have to agree with BB in general. I have just read the latest flyer and it is there best yet. Lots of interesting articles, very good photography and design. No personal axe to grind, I would just like to see Pilot get better

All the best

Wide

[Keef]

I don't suppose there are many others who suiffer my problem - too many magazines to read. I get about a dozen a month, covering a variety of topics, and rarely find time to read them all as thoroughly as I would like.

Pilot was a "must" until recently. (I've always followed the advice given above, and I ordered it via my newsagent: rarely missed a copy, and didn't get charged for it when it didn't arrive).

Last Monday I told the newsagent to cancel my copy. It dropped to number ten on the "must have" list, mainly due to the fall-off in quality of content. I'm sad, but Flyer, Sky and Telescope, RadCom, Management Today, Theology, and some others now beat it for my time. Maybe if I read reports of how good it's got at some future date...

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I think it's worth re-iterating simething i said in an earlier post: 'Pilot' isn't waht it was - bit it's still the best of the bunch IMHO. 'Flyer' is snapping at its heels now. And I didn't bother to renew my subscription to 'Today's Pilot'.

SSD

[Remmington]

Goodbye Pilot
Hello Flyer - anyone got web address for on line subs?

[Census boy]

Having just returned to power flying via the NPPL (no thanks to CAA but that's another story) I was considering which magazine to subscribe to. At one point I used to get Pilot,Flyer, Popular Flying,EAA magazine(?) etc each month but used found that many articles would be duplicated more or less. I really used to get hacked off with seeing Pilot in the shops before I got mine through the post don't know if this is still the case?

I've actually finally decided on subscribing to Today's Pilot as currently you can get 12 issues for still £29.40 (the full yearly price would now be be £39 it's just gone up to £3.25 a copy) and that includes a £10 Transair gift voucher. Which I think is good value and I like the style and content which seems to be orientated around the GA pilot more than some of the others these days.

[Evo]

I've found the two issues since I last posted to be better, although it still isn't as good as it has been. Hopefully the drop in quality (IMHO) is just a blip and it is getting back to normal

[Splat]

I resubbed earlier this year after a number of year of not (cheap internet offer I could not pass up). Nothing p155e5 me off more than walking past Smiths, only to find the next edition there before mine arrived on my door step.

I binned subbing many years ago for just this reason, and will almost certainly do the same at renewal time if I don't see a BIG improvement all round.

S

[Monocock]

Sent an email to pilot last week.

I was promised that my subscription copy would be here v. soon. Still waiting.............went out and bought one.

How many other businesses in the UK can get away with this sort of lax performance.

NEVER again will I renew my subscription after 7 years.

Why should they get away with it?

[Taildragger]

OK....time for my two pennyworth.
First of all, I agree with other posters here. I used to get my copy via the Newsagent, and I picked it up promptly each month. Since I started contributing...it has ALWAYS come later than the local newstand. I don't think that is acceptable. Not a huge point, but irritating nonetheless.
More importantly is what is happening to the magazine.
It was mentioned previously that the magazine was bought by Military Pilots, Commercial Pilots, GA Pilots, Microlight Pilots, Glider Pilots etc etc....but mostly by PILOTS surprise surprise.. A common bond, but each with their own specialist interest.
It would, of course, be impossible to please all of the people all of the time, but the point is that the magazine appealed to a wide section of the aviation community including the more fringe activities like registration interests. The previous Registrations contributor, Ian Burnett (I mention the name as he was a long time contributor) was fired, and he found out when someone called him and told him that the column was not in the magazine and his name had been removed from the list of contributors.
Great management technique, and the column was dropped from the mag. Next thing we know, there was such an outcry that the column was restored under no name and little said except an editorial comment saying that it had been restored, by saying "I know, I know, it's back" Mike Jerram, IMHO one of the finest aviation journalists in this country, leaves the magazine at the same time. So where do these people go.?? Over to the opposition which is fast becoming what Pilot was previously and is obviously what the market wanted.
My real point is this..... Perception is absolute reality, and if the management of Pilot wishes to ignore this, then they do so at their peril. The perception here in several pages of PPRuNe is that Pilot have got it wrong. If you ignore this, then you must take the consequences. Don't just say, "Well, why don't you write to the editor about it" ........Listen to the people who took the trouble here to make their point. There are many people out there who know who I am....... I have no vested interest in this debate...I am simply a subscriber, but if this upswell of protest is not listened to, I will be an ex subscriber.

[quixote]

Been flying 45 years and buying Pilot for the past 10 or so since I discovered it. It was the world's best flying magazine. So good that I would buy a copy to read to get my flying fix when stuck in HK or somewhere away from my homebase and aircraft.
Have never seen such a deterioration in a magazine's content as experienced by Pilot since Gilbert et al left.
If the present owners can't get it back to the top maybe Gilbert can buy it back at a cut price and restore it.

[Splat]

Oh,

and my December issue has still not arrived. Called up last Tuesday, todays Friday with no copy.

Ggggrrrrrrrrr

S

[poetpilot]

Photos in the Barton article are absolute crap. You need night vision to discern the aircraft (one of which is mine, so particularly peeved !)...

Great shame.

[t'aint natural]

The most interesting thing is that people care.
In most cases, if a magazine I'd enjoyed for years went sour, I'd just stop buying and forget about it.
But Pilot's readers seem to be tremendously loyal - so much so that we're complaining in public about the degradation of something that was as much part of our flying as our logbooks and our headsets.
I resent the way something I enjoyed so much has been dragged down. I resent it enough to complain, in the hope that some of what Pilot once had can be restored.

[Rosss]

Having purchased Pilot for the past 10 years or so off the shelf. I noticed a distinct change in the magazine apart from the paper but could not put my finger on what it was. After a couple of editions the penny dropped, too many pictures and superficial articles, similar to Flyer and Today's Pilot when they started. Too big or too many photographs IMHO are often a cover up for poor text content. You only have to look a look at some of the boy racer magazines on the shelf as a example. I used to see Pilot as the professionals choice, its old format may have been staid, even boring to the eye but is that not the case with most 'manuals' 'educational' or 'text' books. I believe that as was stated previously that the Pilot team have got hung up on updating the look and format to coincide with the other two magazines in the field and have taken their eye off the content ball. Flyer and Today's Pilot should be climbing to Pilots level, which is happening, Pilot should stick with a tried and tested format and not allow themselves to drop down to the competitions level.

PS I think Flyer and Today's Pilot content is acceptable but I always thought that Pilot was more in-depth.

[Keef]

Yes, sad. I think what we're saying is that someone has hijacked "our" magazine and spoiled it. Hence we feel angry.

I never subscribed - I got it each month from the local newsagent. Since 1980, and until October 2002. Now cancelled.

If it returns to its original quality (as reported on here) then maybe, just maybe...

[undertheweather]

Any response from anyone out there who has anything to do with 'Pilot'?

Reading the thread throughout, there appears to be virtually no-one (aside from former employees) with an agenda, and there is some pretty valuable feedback from those who matter - the customers (PS They're the ones that ultimately pay the wages, as not only do they determine baseline sales revenue, but also how much advertisers spend to reach that audience)

So, come on, Pilot editor, let's have some constructive response!
Are you listening, or is it a 'head totally immersed in the sand' situation?

[Hairyplane]

Dear Under The Weather,

I am sure it is frustrating that the current Pilot team/ editor have not been goaded into a response by this thread.

However, think what would happen if they did. They have a magazine to run and - by the responses here - need to commit themselves 100% to the job rather than dilute their attentions elsewhere.

It is clear from the vitriol in some postings that the persons submitting them may not have an impartial view.

Heads rolled for business reasons. It is a tough world out there. Decisions made by the owners of the magazine - now facing competition that din't exist when they bought it - are hardly likely to please everybody.

Anybody posting here that wasn't directly involved in the why's and the wherefore's can only make a value judgement.

I am a businessman with a love of aircraft. I have read Pilot since Pontius was on the team. My loyalty is with Pilot. However, I take the others too and enjoy them all. Pilot and TP ( I have no axe to grind with Flyer) have featured my aircraft, new and old, over the last 18 months - I totally enjoyed working with both magazines - all nice guys committed to aviation.

It is obvious that the Pilot team will trawl through this thread very carefully - identify those who have constructive comments to make and get on with job of making an excellent magazine even better. However, dont expect them to stick their heads above the parapet.

The last issue was really good (I am too biased about the Nov. issue to comment! )

HP

[Splat]

Still no December mag. I'm less than happy. Shame I've still a few months left on my subs.

I intend to post here until it arrives....

S

[The Inspector]

This thread has been going for so long, I cant remember if I've posted my 2 penneth or not!

As a 'Pilot' reader since 1977, I'm really quite peeved at the way a few journo's can totally screw things up.. Yes, James Gilbert had some pretty set ideas, but everyone liked them. The present team, in an obvious attempt to 'make their mark' have shown how little they know about the way other pilots think, which is a sure way to lose readers....As someone else said 'Flyer' and 'TP', both pretty awful magazines to start with, should have risen to 'Pilots' standards, not the other way...

My subscription runs out in April, and I'm definately not going to renew it as things are at the moment. If i was the editor or owner, I'd be reading these threads and getting ready to offer James Gilbert the helm again.

Any response from anyone at the Pilot offices? What happened to the Photographer chap at Seething who was involved - He seemed quite vocal about things to start but has gone very quiet of late....

[undertheweather]

HairyPlane,

Thats quite a condescending reply to my post, if I might say so. Your implication is that its all to do with 'business', and we should let them them get on with it. As a 'businessman' yourself, you presumably understand this desire for interference free management.

I presume that you also (hindsight notwithstanding) would have defended George Simpson and his 'businessmen' colleagues at Marconi against any strategy mismanagement charges when they set about changing the business that Arthur Weinstock had spent a lifetime buiding up? Oh dear, what happened to Marconi?

As a previous poster on this thread has said, it is amazing that so many people care enough about the future of Pilot magazine to have posted on this thread. It would be nice to hear from those who currently run the magazine that they are taking the well-meaning comments on board.

If they can't find 5 minutes to do that................

[ratsarrse]

I'm a relative newcomer to Pilot - I have subscribed for 2 years and was an occasional reader prior to that. I have to confess that I haven't enjoyed the last few editions as much as I used to. A change of personnel didn't really show up on my radar, but that maybe does explain a few things. I have struggled to put my finger on exactly what has changed. My gut feeling is that it is lacking in strong opinions - the odd article or editorial that prompts a reaction, whether positive or negative. I read Flyer on an occasional basis and I think that it has the edge. Excellent articles from John Farley - which admittedly I've had trouble getting to grips with, but hey, I like to be challenged!

[Vlady Hell]

In the last issue they had an article on how to read maps. Now the burning question for me is: which way round do I sit in my plane?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Exactly that! 'Pilot' was opiniated because Gilbert was his own man with no one to answer to but himself. He also encouraged such forthrighness in his contributors.

That's why 'Pilot' was always such a stimulating read. Now, it's got the corporate blandness and inoffensiveness of the other mags (save for the few articles still in the pipeline from the 'old school', like Grim Bedstead) and probably always will have.

Maybe the days of the opinionated owner/publisher have gone. If so, the magazine world will be much the poorer for it.

SSD

[formationfoto]

This is a worthwhile debate and demonstrates that the aviation community is not short on opinions and long should that remain the case.

The shortage of responses from the PILOT team is, in part, a result of experience. If you trawl elsewhere in this forum you will find that the level of abuse and criticism can be monumental when members of the PILOT team dare to venture into the forum.

For the record I am not actively involved in the day to day management but am a director of the business which owns it. I am also a dedicated pilot who cares about the sector and the magazines supplying it.

The comments on this and other forums are certainly noted and taken into account when considering actions.

PILOT still outsells the other magazines by a significant factor and although the team is not complacent about this it is one of the best polls available.

Failure to be drawn into a debate on a rumour network should not be taken as an indication that the people involved are not interested in readers views.

As for subscription the process is handled by an external company and problems are frequently reviewed.

[niknak]

Well, I read Pilot at the newsagent today.
I had been prepared to buy it if it had improved at all, it hasn't, and it's still on the shelf.
I can appreciate where Formationfoto is coming from regarding a direct response on this forum from the Pilot team, but I would of thought the least that they would have done is take the constructive critisism from this long running post seriously - apparantly not.

[formationfoto]

Niknak
This is the problem - responding doesn't achieve anything much other than invite further criticism (not getting at you in particular - just making the general point).

I know that the constructive criticism from this long running post is taken seriously and the team are working hard to publish a magazine which can justify its position as the leading title in the GA market.

All comments, criticisms, and praise warmly received and passed on to the relevant people.

The magazine might not be what you want it to be but this doesn't mean that the comments are being ignored.

:)

Ian Davies
Head above the trenches waiting to be shot at!

[Taildragger]

Formationfoto.....

I am delighted that the team at "Pilot" are listening, but it IS a two way street and they should be talking to their Customers...yes Customers, for that is what we are.
We have spoken...it is clear to see in these pages what people feel right now, and a few platitudes are not going to change that at all. If you consider how many people have joined this debate and then factor in those who do not have a computer, or a registration with PPRuNe, and those who don't look in these forums, then maybe you will see that perhaps reliance on the loyalty of the readership is not enough.
As I said before, ignore this at your (Pilot Team) peril.
I used to really enjoy Maxi Gainza's write ups, because it was done in such a readable way. It gave me some well remembered Walter Mitty time when reading in the smallest room..... so where is he these days.?? The fact that he writes on military aircraft has no bearing, because the mag had a wide readership base, from all flying disciplines. Ian Burnetts registration columns are gone too. Yes, yes, I know that a reggie column is back, but where are the background remarks which filled in the gaps.
Where is Mike Jerram also.??
So, Formationfoto, if you as a Diriector have any influence, please persuade the Editor, and others, that IMHO, they have NOT got it right and get them to bring back the people and style that made Pilot the best, by far, of any General Aviation magazine around, before TP or Flyer becomes the best etc etc etc.
Now before I get accused of having a vested interest, I have no repeat NO connection with this magazine or the previous magazine except that I have been reading it since Nineteen Hundred and Frozen to Death.
It is terribly trite to say that subscriptions are handled by an external company.....Nonsense. I signed up my subscription with Pilot and that is, as far as I am concerned, who I am dealing with. I get it well after it appears in W.H. Smiths EVERY month. Now it is up to your people at the mag to put pressure on whoever. I care not who, but I would like the mag on time please. Ta
Over to you.....Your choice. :mad:

In any case, A Happy Christmas and New Year to all at Pilot.

[Philip Whiteman]

Taildragger:

Maxi Gainza is writing for General Aviation, AOPA's journal. You will find his piece on flying the Yak-52 in the Alps in the December issue. Also writing for GA are Charles Stites, the former U.S. correspondent for Pilot, and helicopter specialist and instructor Pat Malone, again ex-Pilot magazine.

You asked about Mike Jerram: he is GA's consultant editor. Design is handled by David Tarbutt who, like Mike, worked for James Gilbert for nearly thirty years.

[Splat]

Well ffs, it's the 4th December, and despite two phone calls, there is no sign of my December edition.

It better be good when it arrives.

[quixote]

" As for subscription the process is handled by an external company and problems are frequently reviewed."

Online subscriptions would be facilitated and increased if Credit Card billing details were sent 'SSL Secured' instead of in the clear.

Don

[Splat]

Still not arrived. I see phone call No 3 comming up in the morning.

[formationfoto]

Quixote
Agreed on the on line subs point and we are working with the subs house to deliver just that ASAP - probably early next year now. Doesn't help speed up the distribution process though.

Splat - the external subs house isn't intended as an excuse but most publishers use external subs handling and external mailing operations - it is just not economical to set this up internally. This means that you have a part of the process outside of your control.

I can assure you that any failure of subs delivery is a serious issue and worst case should be ten days (I am told). In your case it appears that it is well beyind ten days and I would be happy to take this up personally (and for anyone else waiting for their Dec subscribed mag). My contact details are:
[email protected]
01603 772811 (work)
07802 611647 (mobile)
01508 534900 (home)

I suspect you have been calling the mailing house but if I can have all the details I will talk to the publisher directly and try and track down where the problem exists.

Taildragger
Not ignoring your earlier post but trying to avoid further trite responses and getting caught up in the debate about previous contributors. Philip Whiteman has summarised where various people now are. The comments on this site are not ignored. My contributions (trite or otherwise :-)) do indicate that we at least look at them and I am planning to summarise the wealth of constructive criticism contained here to input to the many debates about improving the magazine.

I am with you as a subscriber I expect to get a better service than people who have to visit the high street - this is the promise of mail delivered goods which has been fuelled by the likes of Amazon. All of the elements of the chain from the publisher to the postman need to work properly for this to be the case and it is the role of the publisher to orchestrate and cajole where required. I know he is on the case.

[Splat]

Ian,

I'll be in touch in the morning.

Regards

S

[t'aint natural]

formationfoto:
It's all very well to listen, but do you know how to fix it? On current evidence, the answer must be no.

[Taildragger]

Philip....

Thank you for the info. It proves my point that Pilot's competitiors are picking up the good fallout from the
change over. They would be mad not to.

Formationfoto....

Thank you for your response. It does indicate that somebody may be listening and I am encouraged that you are gathering up the feedback from this forum. I, and I am sure all the others who have written on this forum, will be watching with great interest, even if it is from W.H.Smith's High street reading room.!!
The Floggings will continue till morale improves.

[Philip Whiteman]

Taildragger:

Thank you - if I'm going to be classed with fallout, it's nice to be 'good' fallout!

My fellow fallen-out man, Mike Jerram, has asked me to point out that his role of consulting editor for General Aviation is voluntary and unrenumerated. I am extremely grateful to him for his support in getting the revitalised magazine established - it wouldn't be the sort of publication it has fast become without his invaluable input.

[AC-DC]

Interesting thread.
I am a subscriber of Pilot for 4 or 5 years and of Flyer for just a year. I always enjoyed reading Pilot and was waiting for its arrival, Flyer magazine was way below Pilot. Pilot was professional, through and interesting while Flyer was shallow and amateurish, It took me 20min to read Flyer and 20 days to read Pilot, no more.
While Flyer made an enormous effort to improve its quality Pilot became much more of an ‘easy read’ and shallow. To-date, I find myself spending more time reading through Flyer than Pilot, I find Flyer increasingly more interesting than Pilot. In 6 months time I will have to renew my subscriptions, I don’t think that I will renew the one for Pilot

[ratsarrse]

I just thought I'd try and balance this thread with a little praise despite my relatively negative comments on about page 5.
I always enjoy the 'How Air-brained Are You?' bit, and I still look forward to being able to answer all the questions correctly (it has never happened yet). Not only that, but be able to point out a mistake as then I will have truly arrived...

[t'aint natural]

'How Air Brained Are You' seems to be the only surviving feature from the James Gilbert Pilot, which probably means it's not long for this world.

[Monocock]

Well then well then well then..........

After an email to Pilot at the end of November I received a polite response saying that my copy would be sent on ASAP.

Nothing came.....

I then clicked on formationfotos email link and sent an email about my plight and I received a personal call yesterday morning saying that the copy would be couriered to me immediately and apologies for the delay.

Still nothing has come......(48 hrs later)

If you're reading this formationfoto and I'm the only one you phoned on Monday morning you will know exactly who I am. Please don't contact me again and give me the polite stuff, wake up and smell the coffee Pilot cos your boat dont float with me when promises like that are broken.

Possession is nine tenths of the law. I've paid, so that makes you.....................................................

[rustle]

Monocock,

Exactly how far is "48 hrs and one mile" from the M4?

Now I reckon, in a 747 sized aircraft, 48 hours would get me twice around the world (including fuel stops) which would make your location 1 mile from where you started...

In a 152 it'd be about 4321 nm away (assuming 90kts G/S average), and I'm guessing Pilot don't use 152s for couriers ;)

PS this is my very sad attempt at humour before anyone complains