Flying Magazine is lame...

captain_john · Post by **captain_john** » Sun May 01, 2005 8:15 pm

Ya know, I haven't subscibed to Flying Magazinein years. It is so far out of touch with the common aviator, it is simply ridiculous!

New Cessnas and Pipers are just the beginning of it all. To consider a new Bonanza is the follies of doctors and lawyers!

Gimme an RV any day!!!

CJ

Post by **Spike** » Sun May 01, 2005 8:22 pm

I still subscribe to it and frankly I really like it with one exception. I think Dick Collins could not write another word for the rest of my life and I would be happy. He writes too many of their articles and has no use for anything other than high time IFR anywhere pilots flying very complex airplanes. I could use less diatribe about weather fronts, etc. too. I dont think he knows what it is to have fun in an airplane anymore, especially anything slower than his precious P-210 that he writes about every month.

Lane and a few other writers they have though are extremely talented and still in love with flying. I do quite enjoy the rag.

-- John

Submitted via email

hngrflyr · Post by **hngrflyr** » Sun May 01, 2005 10:27 pm

Flying isn't the only aviation magazine that isn't worth a pinch of &#!t to the average aviator who wants factual information. Many writers who contribute to many of the popular magazines expose their ignorance the minute they start pecking on their keyboards. There was a recent piece about a certain classic airplane that had been so faithfully and meticulously restored to it's original configuration. Anyone who really knows the type would see from the photos that the plane had many wrong parts installed for the airframe's serial number. This, in no way is saying the owner didn't put a nice airplane in the air. It is a very nice airplane, but a faithfull restoration, it is not. Many writings are nothing more than the opinions of the writer, and are certainly no more valid than the banter that goes on at this website. Many of the contributions we make here are our own perceptions of our own experiences. We just don't get paid big salaries for pouring our guts out here.

Bobby S

jim_geo · Post by **jim_geo** » Sun May 01, 2005 11:47 pm

I pretty much think of most flying oriented magazines as being for the wanna be crowd. With the exception of Kit Plane and AOPA they all pretty much suck air.

captain_john · Post by **captain_john** » Mon May 02, 2005 5:31 am

jim_geo wrote:I pretty much think of most flying oriented magazines as being for the wanna be crowd. With the exception of Kit Plane and AOPA they all pretty much suck air.

YAH!!! That is it! They are for the former military aviators, lost medical 30 years ago, RC pilots and wannabees.

CJ

Post by **Spike** » Mon May 02, 2005 6:04 am

Maybe I should try to figure out a way to make that happen

..... We just don't get paid big salaries for pouring our guts out here.....

.

Submitted via email

l & d lewis · Post by **l & d lewis** » Mon May 02, 2005 3:17 pm

I stopped reading Flying for the same reason as CJ. When did $300,000.00 become a low-end airplane? The instruments in those things cost more than my airplane. Got tired of everything being related to the corporate jock or business flying..........

cjensen · Post by **cjensen** » Mon May 02, 2005 5:38 pm

I have very similar issues with this magazine as CJ. I would love to someday fly some of those jets that they test, but C'MON!!! Really, who among the readership is capable of pulling the trigger on one of those baby's! I'm sure some are, but gimme more grass roots GA! I do (rarely) get to fly right seat in our Lear 24 and 35 for work, but I don't like the direction Flying has taken.

svanarts · Post by **svanarts** » Mon May 02, 2005 8:22 pm

Captain_John wrote:Ya know, I haven't subscibed to Flying Magazinein years. It is so far out of touch with the common aviator, it is simply ridiculous!

New Cessnas and Pipers are just the beginning of it all. To consider a new Bonanza is the follies of doctors and lawyers!

Gimme an RV any day!!!

CJ

Agreed...

That's also why I gave up on AOPA for a while. Now I'm starting to see articles about homebuilts and, better yet, RV's in AOPA Pilot. I guess they are smart enough to see which way the wind is blowing.

Sometimes I think that if Cessna and New Piper were really smart, they'd offer kit versions of their birds. But I guess no one would want to pay $75,000 for a kit from Cessna.

arffguy · Post by **arffguy** » Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm

OK. I will admit it. I still like Flying magazine. I still like reading about stuff that I can't afford. Some of the best articles written have been in "I learned about flying from that." And Dick Collins is controversial. This can be good because it gets people talking about things. And if you are learning IFR maybe you could occassionally pick up a tip or two. Yes they do cater to the pricier and corporate crowd but if you look around the larger airports (like where I work) all you see are spam cans, flight schools, twins and heavier corporate stuff too. You don't see that many experimentals being used by a business traveler unless he flies by himself/herself. And there are a hell of a lot of students out there aiming for those business/airline cockpits. Obviously Flying is still selling magazines and you aren't.

As far as paying AOPA goes: If you don't believe 39 bucks a year is worth it to have them fight for keeping airports open, well, then you're just a damn fool.

And that 300,000 bucks for a entry level airplane, well, that one you can blame our litigious society for that.

Half the cost of a new airplane is liability insurance, I hear. Seems like the club/school I rent from talks about going out of business at least every six months just because of insurance costs.

By the way, I do know a few people who can afford a 300,000 dollar airplane. It just isn't me.

captain_john · Post by **captain_john** » Mon May 02, 2005 9:19 pm

Some great points have been made here!

I agree, AOPA goes a LONG WAAAAY towards keeping our skies OURS! We must keep them fighting for our freedom!

Flying mag is like eye candy. It really doesn't do much for you, but it sure does have lotsa pretty pictures!

CJ

cjensen · Post by **cjensen** » Mon May 02, 2005 10:52 pm

I do still read many of the columns in Flying, but I typically skip the feature. I never miss a Dick Carl column. Besides knowing him (we sold him an airplane a few years back-and still have his old Cessna 340 for sale

) I love his style-but not necessarily his choices. He has written several controversial articles as well, but it sure makes us readers talk!!

AOPA is OUTSTANDING, and worth every dollar, and more, that we can give them.

Dan A · Post by **Dan A** » Mon May 02, 2005 10:55 pm

Yeah, I used to be in AOPA also ---'Till I met Phil B. He didn't have time to talk to this 'ole po' Boy and now I don't have time for his organization. At least EAA still courts the homebuilder!

Dan

Post by **Spike** » Tue May 03, 2005 6:42 am

arffguy wrote: And that 300,000 bucks for a entry level airplane, well, that one you can blame our litigious society for that. Half the cost of a new airplane is liability insurance, I hear. Seems like the club/school I rent from talks about going out of business at least every six months just because of insurance costs.

I heard a statistic the other day (I think at SNF) that for every airplane that comes off of the manufacturing line, Cessna writes a $50K+ check for the liability policy for that *singe* aircraft.

-- John

hngrflyr · Post by **hngrflyr** » Tue May 03, 2005 11:17 am

One thing you must remember about the popular aviation magazines is, they can't really give an honest appraisal of the lastest products coming to the marketplace, because their revenue stream comes form the manufacturers of these products in the form of advertizing dollars. They are not about to incur the wrath of a paying advertizer by saying something negative about their products.
As for the issue of insurance companies and litigation driving the cost of everything out of sight, we've became a nation of whining wusses who fail to take responsibility for our own actions. The idea that I should pay thousands of dollars in insurance premiums to protect myself against some moron walking into my turning propeller is totaly stupid. The moron needs to take the total responsibility for his own safety in a potentially hazardous situation. Whether my airplane is on the ramp or not should not enter into the issue. Real tort reform is long overdue. The last tort reform passed was so weak as to be nearly of no effect. It shows the power of the trial lawyer lobby.
I'm ready to go back to the days of settling our own problems in our own way. To hell with insurance companies and lawyers.

Bobby S.

l & d lewis · Post by **l & d lewis** » Tue May 03, 2005 1:58 pm

Perhaps its a lawyer conspiracy, now that they have driven the price up only they can afford them!! I remember when Cessna, Piper and Beech almost stopped building GA airplanes altogether because of product liability. Scud running into cumulous granite sounds more like natural selection than product liability too me.............

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue May 03, 2005 3:49 pm

GO BOBBY GO

728GD · Post by **728GD** » Wed May 04, 2005 12:09 pm

You want to get controversial, then letâ€™s go! WE are a large part of the insurance problem. When one of us goes down or has a serious accident, it is our families who sue the aircraft manufacture. Yes, it's the lawyer who drives the process, but it is our spouse, children, parents... whoever who is hiring the lawyer to get these astronomical claims. It is US who have to look the mirror and see who is looking back at us. I have told my wife if something should happen when I am flying, remember I was doing something which I love and would rather leave this world that way then being hit by a car, shot by some idiot, or what ever other Darwinistic manner I can think up of.

If my fuel gauge is not working, it is my fault, not the manufactures (look in the tank!). If my engine quits and it was a maintenance issue, I am to blame, not Superior. If my wing spar fails because I am pulling excessive gâ€™s, my fault.

As pilots, we and our families have to also be accountable for our actions and take responsibility for our own arrogance. We all know flying is inherently unsafe. We all know the possible outcome and consequences for making bad decisions. As much as I hate some of those trial lawyers, it is still our families who are saying yes, lets sue for 30 millionâ€¦â€¦

Well, my pulse rate is up now. Anyone else?

Dale

l & d lewis · Post by **l & d lewis** » Wed May 04, 2005 12:28 pm

Gee Dale it doesn't sound to me like you are part of the problem, I've told my wife the same thing. But you used the two words that are not part of our deep pocket driven tort system, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. You understand that half your auto insurance premium goes to buy a policy for the guy who won't take responsibility. (uninsured motorist) Pilots bend a lot of airplanes, and premiums go up, but the major increases are the result of product liability suits. Parker Hanifin was recently ordered to pay tens of millions of dollars even after the investigation revealed thier part played no roll in the accident. The court system is devoid of the other two dreaded words COMMON SENSE. I receive calls constantly from attorneys who are just fishing..........Larry

Post by **Spike** » Wed May 04, 2005 12:35 pm

I agree to a very large part Dale. I have also had that discussion with my wife. But IMHO the problem is that we have a system that does not recognize the yahoos that bring silly suites and dismiss them. Instead, they are allowed to set precedent, and that is where the aviation community is getting hosed.

-- John

Submitted via email

RivetBangers.com