Pilot Mag Oct
 

Is it me or has the mag suddenly dropped off a cliff in respect of content and coverage - suddenly Dave Calderwood is gone? and the whole mag is a rambling mess of GA bits and pieces?

Having just read this months it seems like Nick Blooms flying circus - special edition mk 1? - i have nothing against the guy at all but it seems every thing he writes for the mag must have reference to him in it somewhere.........!

And as for Bob Davy's flight test of the Husky Pup - very dissapointed - feel sorry for Bob Pula - gushing on about a Citabria is someone who clearly has limited experience in barnstorming / taildraggers etc. - IMHO

Like for like i would have expected Husky versus Super Cub (150)

Guess its time to move onto a another mag for while

Ho hum :\

So i'm not the only one who thinks Pilot has gone downhill recently. I used to buy it every month up until August. Now i've stopped buying pilot and have gone onto buying Flyer and Todays Pilot.

Well Jet,

Instead of moaning why not give something positive. Suggest what YOU would do to make it better.....

Anyone can bitch.

Don't even need a licence.......


F.

At least there was a reasonable amount of helicopter content for once instead of all the boring travelogues.

In their own ways, they are all as good as each other really. So Pilot may have gone downhill,(your opinion) of course this kind of thing will, and does happen in this kind of media, not only Pilot but the others mags too suffer a dip now and again don't they?.

As said before, give them feedback, it is easy to email them now or write and suggest something you want to see covered. Better still, write something of your own and send it in and see what happens.

For everyone who thinks the mag has gone downhill there will be someone in favour of it too.

Funny that...

I bought October's Pilot and thought it was better than it has been of late.

Just goes to show that we all have different expectations.

I was thinking the other day, there are loads of car and bike magazines who have naked women draped all over the cars/bikes......is there some potential here?

I'm not suggesting Flyer goes out and pays some bird with bingo wings £75 to drape herself over a Thruster, more along the subtle lines of Amanda Holden perched nimbly on the wing of a Mooney would do.

(Choise of aircraft names not intended to have double entendres)

I think all the UK mag. editors should take a look at Flying from the US. I buy it whenever I can, although it is sadly less often available these days. The annual subscription I have just been given should solve that.

The aircraft reviews in the UK mags are on the whole not too bad. The news bites are also OK. IMHO the rest has no depth to it all and seems to be directed at the very new PPL or trainee PPL.

Also the mags are all very pretty and maybe that is what it takes to sell them in the UK but I cant help feeling most pilots would actually prefer better content and less pretty pictures.

Take a look at Flying as a real contrast. I would be interested in other peoples views who are familiar with both types of magazines.

There's a Rotorheads Forum for that kind of comment! :}

Just kidding! Actually I find that all the magazines have limited interest to me, because I have a narrow interest myself, and they all try to cater for a very broad audience in a limited UK market...

I must confesss, however, that I would not like to make the Big Business decisions that the editors must make.

Not unprecedented, you know:

http://www.dubtrub.freeuk.com/ad13.jpg
(1941 Advert).

Apologies for the thread drift. Perhaps an Editor would like to do an article reproducing post-war aircraft ads?

Flash, et al'.

It's not up to us to keep up the standards, that's the responsibility of the publishers.

I stopped subscribing to Pilot some time ago because of it's deterioating content, I even wrote in to say why I was doing so and suggested some things which could be improved, I heard nothing back.

The secret of Pilot magazine's success in earlier times was that the edititorial and regular contributing team had experience and contacts not only at G/A level, but right across the spectrum of the industry. They produced an interesting an well balanced, informative magazine which meant something to everyone at all levels who have any interest in aviation.

Sadly, that is certainly not the case now and I really do wonder how much longer they will keep going if they continue to produce such a banal rag.

I'd suggest it is next to impossible to product a "good" magazine for the UK GA market.

For a start, I am certain (though I can't prove it) that a lot of the readership doesn't and never has flown anything. But they buy the mag so their interests need to be covered.

Next, the great majority of new PPLs stop flying within a year or two, so post-PPL readership is going to be relatively transient.

One could address a magazine at vintage aircraft owners (and admirers); that should work.

One could address a magazine at high-time pilot owners who fly distances, and fill it with stuff on IFR, advanced avionics, etc. This works in the USA but here the readership would be far too small.

So all the mags are hanging in there trying to do everything, and in the process please very few.

The things I really don't understand is the aircraft maintenance articles. Very very few readers will be doing their own maintenance anyway, and those that do ought to be able to read the manufacturer's maintenance manuals! Not some generalised tips in a magazine.

Personally, I get 10 minutes' reading for £3.50 - poor value.

In the days of James Gilbert the balance was just about right. The editorial style naturally changed with his departure and the mag has gone downhill from there. I have subscribed to it for about 30 years now and used to read it avidly from cover to cover, but now like the other commentator I find that everything of interest takes about 10 minutes. What is the competition though? Popular Flying has now gone monthly but is solely aimed at the homebuilder. Todays Pilot has more ads for cameras than articles about aviation, and Flyer has good and bad months.

I guess the content balance is never going to be right for everybody.

In James Gilbert's ownership, the magazine attracted some really excellent contributors over the years, like Brian Lecomber, Bernard Chabbert, Stephen Wilkinson, Doug Bianchi, Neil Williams, Manx Kelly, etc.

With people like that writing for the magazine, it was always a very good read.

For depth of knowledge and experience, James Gilbert and Mike Jerram will always be hard to beat.

KZ8

As some of you know, I write for one of the mags fairly regularly, and others occasionally (and those of you who know who I am, please don't mention my name on here, or this post will get deleted, either by me or BRL ;) ) Deciding who the audience is, and what level to pitch articles at, is difficult. What do you all suggest I should do? I'm serious; I try to get it right, and all suggestions are very welcome.

Agree with KZ8, but I also wonder if it's a case of 'times have changed'. I loved 'Pilot' in the Gilbert days, and subscribed from when I started flying in 1978 right up until the August 2005 issue. Contributed a few articles myself, as well.

However, James is one of aviation's characters and his personality shone through the magazine. He was not always PC which may not go down quite so well in this decade as it did in the last 2 of the 20th century, and my impression of many of the newer PPLs is that they may not be looking for the stuff that turned us older guys on back then. Bottom line is that flying is perhaps a tad less free and fun than it was back then, and this is reflected in the current readership and the mags they demand.

As for the US 'Flying', I don't read it often but that's because my impression is it caters for the 'turbcharged IFR' sector, which is big in the US. Many UK pilots (like me) are VFR fun flyers and the pilot base is tiny compared to US. The UK mags have therefore to ry to satisfy a wide range of tastes in one publictaion.

SSD

In reply to Flash - yes i have written to NB - to which i had an arrogant reply.

If there was enough interest - i think i would publish my own mag - but it would be a pdf mag delivered by email - that way you could print it on toilet paper and use it environmentally after you had read it? :E :E

"but it would be a pdf mag delivered by email"


Funny you should say that, I have always thought that would be a very good idea for a GA mag.

PPL IR do exactly this and it is a very good read, albeit catering for a very specialist sector of the GA community. I think GA in general needs someting similiar.

"US 'Flying', I don't read it often but that's because my impression is it caters for the 'turbcharged IFR' sector"

As you say, you obviously dont read it very often.:D

Has it changed significantly in the last few years, then? If so, I might look out for a copy. ;)

SSD

An interesting topic.

Let's face it, finding enough new and interesting things to write about GA and the hardware involved is not an easy task. Just look at the lists of previously tested aircraft in the longer standing publications and see how often they have had to duplicate an aircraft.

There's hardly alot of current affairs in the GA industry that can be covered in the front few pages. Apart from the odd bankruptcy or new personal jet test flight results these seem to read the same month after month.

A good writer can make a flight test in a diesel Cessna sound a lot more exciting than a poor writer giving their views on low level circuits in a Citation. This will always be the case. I question the readability of most of the articles mainly from the point of view of their lack of entertainment. We buy these magazines to enjoy and relax, not to get tied up in the benefits of different spark plugs and how they perform at different altitudes... If I laugh out loud at an article I know it has been good. The recent series by a well known aerobatics pilot has been (and continues to be) excellent.

Where do these writers come from? I have not had the pleasure of reading Whirlybird's work as I turn the pages when I see a helicopter article in the same way that I do when I see PCWorld's adverts in the Sunday papers.

Take Cloud69's writing for example. The guy had an enjoyable flight in his 152 recently and he sat down and wrote about it for 30 minutes and posted it here. The response was incredible and that's not just because it was well written; it was written by a chap who loves to fly for what it is.

Can it be that some of the writers are bored of it after all these years and have lost the passion to put something down on paper that will keep the reader glued?

If I was asked to summarise the main three it would be as follows:

PILOT - The grandad of them all. Aimed more at the "budding ATPL" pilot. Steely and cold, not to be written to with suggestions for fear of the almighty!

FLYER - GA magazine with a "club" feel. Personal touches and friendly staff from what I can gather.

TODAYS PILOT - Has the benefit of being the relative newcomer so seems to get away with printing articles that are very similar to ones that others have done in the past.

I cannot help but admire the way that these chaps think up new and interesting topics to write about. My beef is that they need to find people who can do so in an entertaining way. When did you last photocopy and article from one of these magazines and give it to someone because it was so good?

I am expecting a barrage of criticism for my comments. Please don't hold back, give me both barrels if I have offended you. We may as well be honest!!

:ok:

I suspect quite a lot of us read all 3 mags in the hope that there will be something of value in one of them. The free landings help to defray the cost and get you out to some different airfields. However I have to agree with an earlier poster that the helicopter stuff should be removed and put in a separate quarterly (?) magazine. However I think the standard for this type of mag is the American AOPA mag which seems to go from grassroots to business jets. But then it has a MUCH bigger readership.