Disappointing Oshkosh 2004 Video on Wings

[Jay Honeck]

This video aired last night on Discovery Wings, and I can't tell you how
disappointed I was.

They didn't cover the fly-in at all, preferring to focus instead on the
"gee-whiz" parts of the show, including Burt Rutan, Bruce Bohannon, and
NASA's ever-optimistic predictions of a flying car in every man's garage...

While these are all interesting aspects of the show, they are NOT what
Oshkosh is all about, and I was deeply disappointed that they didn't cover
any of the real reasons we've attended OSH for 22 years in a row...

I certainly hope EAA had nothing to do with this production. Heck, I can't
even remember them talking about EAA at all!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Michelle P]

Jay,
Un-fortunately, Gee Whiz is what sells. What most of us here find
interesting is not very interesting at all to 98+% of the world.
Michelle

Jay Honeck wrote:

>This video aired last night on Discovery Wings, and I can't tell you how
>disappointed I was.
>
>They didn't cover the fly-in at all, preferring to focus instead on the
>"gee-whiz" parts of the show, including Burt Rutan, Bruce Bohannon, and
>NASA's ever-optimistic predictions of a flying car in every man's garage...
>
>While these are all interesting aspects of the show, they are NOT what
>Oshkosh is all about, and I was deeply disappointed that they didn't cover
>any of the real reasons we've attended OSH for 22 years in a row...
>
>I certainly hope EAA had nothing to do with this production. Heck, I can't
>even remember them talking about EAA at all!
>
>

--

Michelle P ATP-ASEL, CP-AMEL, and AMT-A&P

"Elisabeth" a Maule M-7-235B (no two are alike)

Volunteer Pilot, Angel Flight Mid-Atlantic

Volunteer Builder, Habitat for Humanity

[Dan Luke]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
> This video aired last night on Discovery Wings, and I can't tell you
> how
> disappointed I was.

Pretty weak, wasn't it?

Discovery persistently talks down to its audiences; their science shows
are similarly insubstantial, IMO.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Jim Weir]

I teach the technical end of TV, and my colleagues teach the production end.
They tell me that the saying in the editorial department for the evening news
is, "If it bleeds, it leads."

Jim



Michelle P >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->Jay,
->Un-fortunately, Gee Whiz is what sells.


Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Jay Honeck]

> Pretty weak, wasn't it?
>
> Discovery persistently talks down to its audiences; their science shows
> are similarly insubstantial, IMO.

I guess what bugged me most was that their "coverage" could have been filmed
at ANY airshow, anywhere. There was nothing "Oshkosh-specific," which --
when you consider how truly unique EAA and the Oshkosh experience are -- was
truly bizarre.

They completely missed the point of the entire 7-day show, IMHO.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>Pretty weak, wasn't it?
>>
>>Discovery persistently talks down to its audiences; their science shows
>>are similarly insubstantial, IMO.
>
>
> I guess what bugged me most was that their "coverage" could have been filmed
> at ANY airshow, anywhere. There was nothing "Oshkosh-specific," which --
> when you consider how truly unique EAA and the Oshkosh experience are -- was
> truly bizarre.

And that's exactly the problem you would have with air racing on TV.
They would spend 95% of their time explaining what you are seeing, how
an airplane flies, how even the slighest mistake means instant death,
etc, every single telecast. As a hockey fan I have experienced this
first hand with ESPN. Air racing would be 1000 times worse.

[Morgans]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:nro5d.112171$MQ5.1933@attbi_s52...
> > Pretty weak, wasn't it?
> >
> > Discovery persistently talks down to its audiences; their science shows
> > are similarly insubstantial, IMO.
>
> I guess what bugged me most was that their "coverage" could have been
filmed
> at ANY airshow, anywhere. There was nothing "Oshkosh-specific," which --
> when you consider how truly unique EAA and the Oshkosh experience are --
was
> truly bizarre.
>
> They completely missed the point of the entire 7-day show, IMHO.
> --
> Jay Honeck

The sad part is, that with all of the transmission problems I had, it was
the best look at the show I had, and..... I WAS THERE!

I can only hope for better luck next year.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.768 / Virus Database: 515 - Release Date: 9/22/2004

[Peter Duniho]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> And that's exactly the problem you would have with air racing on TV. They
> would spend 95% of their time explaining what you are seeing, how an
> airplane flies, how even the slighest mistake means instant death, etc,
> every single telecast. As a hockey fan I have experienced this first hand
> with ESPN. Air racing would be 1000 times worse.

Worse for whom? What are the goals in having the races televised?

Putting the races on television could breath new life into the sport. It
could bring sponsorship money, advertising revenue, and a host of other good
things. It's simply about expanding the business. Just as with other
televised sports, the real fanatics probably will find the commentary
tiresome and the actual coverage lacking, but that wouldn't stop the
coverage from being a useful component of the sport.

If anything, the constant "newbie chit chat" does serve to make the sport
more accessible. Nothing kills public interest more than a new potential
viewer not having any idea of what's going on.

Your hyperbole aside ("1000 times worse"?), I don't really disagree with
your prediction. I just don't see how it's such a terrible thing.
Personally, if the commentary started getting on my nerve, I'd just pop in
one of my airplane sounds CD's and watch the races with the TV volume turned
down. It's not like the audio over the telecast is going to compare in any
way to actually being there anyway.

Pete

[Michelle P]

Dan,
We are not their audience. We (pilots, aviation nuts) are only a small
part of their demographic.
If they were catering to only us they would have gone off the air years ago.
Michelle

Dan Luke wrote:

>"Jay Honeck" wrote:
>
>
>>This video aired last night on Discovery Wings, and I can't tell you
>>how
>>disappointed I was.
>>
>>
>
>Pretty weak, wasn't it?
>
>Discovery persistently talks down to its audiences; their science shows
>are similarly insubstantial, IMO.
>
>

--

Michelle P ATP-ASEL, CP-AMEL, and AMT-A&P

"Elisabeth" a Maule M-7-235B (no two are alike)

Volunteer Pilot, Angel Flight Mid-Atlantic

Volunteer Builder, Habitat for Humanity

[C Kingsbury]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...

> > with ESPN. Air racing would be 1000 times worse.
>
>
> Putting the races on television could breath new life into the sport. It
> could bring sponsorship money, advertising revenue, and a host of other
good
> things. It's simply about expanding the business.

Seriously, if people can find NASCAR so enthralling, which stuns me to no
end, Reno Unlimited air racing ought to be able to attract at least a modest
audience. Even shaving the pennies of what sponsors put into stock car
racing could be transformative for air racing.

Also, it's yet another avenue to draw more people, particularly the
young'uns, into aviation, which is always good.

> Just as with other
> televised sports, the real fanatics probably will find the commentary
> tiresome and the actual coverage lacking, but that wouldn't stop the
> coverage from being a useful component of the sport.

No kidding. I live in a hardcore sports town (Boston) and a lot of my
friends are dyed-in-the-wool Sox, Pats, and Bruins fans, and they spend half
their time talking about the game and half the time complaining about the
announcers.

> If anything, the constant "newbie chit chat" does serve to make the sport
> more accessible. Nothing kills public interest more than a new potential
> viewer not having any idea of what's going on.
>

Seriously. I was taking a friend of mine up for his first ride in my 172,
and he's a serious car nut. At first he didn't find the idea of 150HP too
impressive, then I explained what was really going on... Well, actually it's
a nearly 6-liter engine running the equivalent of racing gas, generates
almost 350lb-ft of torque at only 2500rpm, and will run at full power
continuously for nearly 200,000 miles with only routine maintenance. Oh
yeah, and it's air-cooled, carbureted, and normally aspirated, and weighs
only a couple hundred pounds... you should see what a "high performance"
engine looks like. That got his attention. Then I explained the IO-550 on
the SR-22 in front of us, his eyes got a little wider, then I told him about
Rare Bear. He said, "this makes car engines sound like pretty wimpy
stuff..."

Best,
-cwk.

[C Kingsbury]

"Michelle P" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Dan,
> We are not their audience. We (pilots, aviation nuts) are only a small
> part of their demographic.
> If they were catering to only us they would have gone off the air years
ago.
> Michelle

Well, there's 600,000 pilots in the US, figure that the 400,000 or so in
AOPA/EAA are the active and engaged kind. In a
digital-cable-with-300-channels world that's a decent size audience to work
with, expecially considering that it's on the whole an extremely affluent
and educated demographic.

Plus, there's a ton of "enthusiasts" out there who'd enjoy programming for
"real pilots." Look at all the Flight Simulator weenies who spend hundreds
or thousands on fancy joysticks, etc., and fly simulated airlines. I bet
they'd watch "IFR Tonight with Captain Al McFly."

Who would've guessed 20 years ago there would even be such a thing as the
"Discovery Wings Channel?"

Best,
-cwk.

[Dan Luke]

"C Kingsbury" wrote:
> Who would've guessed 20 years ago there would even be such a thing as
> the
> "Discovery Wings Channel?"

....or that an aviation nut like me would almost never watch it?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[C Kingsbury]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C Kingsbury" wrote:
> > Who would've guessed 20 years ago there would even be such a thing as
> > the
> > "Discovery Wings Channel?"
>
> ...or that an aviation nut like me would almost never watch it?

Maybe if they did a bit more interesting programming rather than recycling
"bizarre machines of Nazi Germany" hand-me-downs from the History Channel...
I wonder how many hours of programming per month is new? I'd bet no more
than 5-10.

"Learning to Fly" is a nice idea that would have benefited from (1)
following multiple students with different personalities and (2) editing. Of
course that means jacking up production costs, which have to be covered
somehow. Digital tech has brought post-production costs down enormously but
it still costs real money to put a film crew on-site. This probably explains
why there's still so little original content.

What Wings lacks is a signature show that people like us make a point of
watching. They ought to do something like the back page of AOPA Pilot, or
Lane What's-Her-Name's column in Flying, where they do a 50-minute feature
on interesting people, places, and planes in aviation. It could appeal to a
wide audience and thus also be run on Discovery, Nat'l Geo, or whoever.

I also wonder whether anybody's ever tried to make a movie of Rinker Buck's
book Flight of Passage. It'd be cake to turn into a screenplay and it has
enough mischief to keep it contemporary (think about the kids getting high
painting the plane with nitrate dope) but ultimately "heartwarming" enough
to become "the feel-good hit of the season for the entire family."

Best,
-cwk.

[Montblack]

("C Kingsbury" wrote)
> What Wings lacks is a signature show that people like us make a point of
> watching. They ought to do something like the back page of AOPA Pilot, or
> Lane What's-Her-Name's column in Flying, where they do a 50-minute feature
> on interesting people, places, and planes in aviation. It could appeal to
a
> wide audience and thus also be run on Discovery, Nat'l Geo, or whoever.


Lane What's-Her-Name is a goddess. She was at the Golden Wings hangar dance
(at ANE) last September for the National Air Tour.

Lane Wallace. Yummy.


Montblack

[Dan Luke]

"C Kingsbury" wrote:
>> "C Kingsbury" wrote:
>> > Who would've guessed 20 years ago there would even be such a thing
>> > as
>> > the
>> > "Discovery Wings Channel?"
>>
>> ...or that an aviation nut like me would almost never watch it?
>
> Maybe if they did a bit more interesting programming rather than
> recycling
> "bizarre machines of Nazi Germany" hand-me-downs from the History
> Channel...
> I wonder how many hours of programming per month is new? I'd bet no
> more
> than 5-10.
>
> "Learning to Fly" is a nice idea that would have benefited from (1)
> following multiple students with different personalities and (2)
> editing. Of
> course that means jacking up production costs, which have to be
> covered
> somehow. Digital tech has brought post-production costs down
> enormously but
> it still costs real money to put a film crew on-site. This probably
> explains
> why there's still so little original content.
>
> What Wings lacks is a signature show that people like us make a point
> of
> watching. They ought to do something like the back page of AOPA Pilot,
> or
> Lane What's-Her-Name's column in Flying, where they do a 50-minute
> feature
> on interesting people, places, and planes in aviation. It could appeal
> to a
> wide audience and thus also be run on Discovery, Nat'l Geo, or
> whoever.
>
> I also wonder whether anybody's ever tried to make a movie of Rinker
> Buck's
> book Flight of Passage. It'd be cake to turn into a screenplay and it
> has
> enough mischief to keep it contemporary (think about the kids getting
> high
> painting the plane with nitrate dope) but ultimately "heartwarming"
> enough
> to become "the feel-good hit of the season for the entire family."

It's frustrating: a network about airplanes that has very little
programming for pilots. It seems they must do very little demographic
research.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dave Stadt]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C Kingsbury" wrote:
> >> "C Kingsbury" wrote:
> >> > Who would've guessed 20 years ago there would even be such a thing
> >> > as
> >> > the
> >> > "Discovery Wings Channel?"
> >>
> >> ...or that an aviation nut like me would almost never watch it?
> >
> > Maybe if they did a bit more interesting programming rather than
> > recycling
> > "bizarre machines of Nazi Germany" hand-me-downs from the History
> > Channel...
> > I wonder how many hours of programming per month is new? I'd bet no
> > more
> > than 5-10.
> >
> > "Learning to Fly" is a nice idea that would have benefited from (1)
> > following multiple students with different personalities and (2)
> > editing. Of
> > course that means jacking up production costs, which have to be
> > covered
> > somehow. Digital tech has brought post-production costs down
> > enormously but
> > it still costs real money to put a film crew on-site. This probably
> > explains
> > why there's still so little original content.
> >
> > What Wings lacks is a signature show that people like us make a point
> > of
> > watching. They ought to do something like the back page of AOPA Pilot,
> > or
> > Lane What's-Her-Name's column in Flying, where they do a 50-minute
> > feature
> > on interesting people, places, and planes in aviation. It could appeal
> > to a
> > wide audience and thus also be run on Discovery, Nat'l Geo, or
> > whoever.
> >
> > I also wonder whether anybody's ever tried to make a movie of Rinker
> > Buck's
> > book Flight of Passage. It'd be cake to turn into a screenplay and it
> > has
> > enough mischief to keep it contemporary (think about the kids getting
> > high
> > painting the plane with nitrate dope) but ultimately "heartwarming"
> > enough
> > to become "the feel-good hit of the season for the entire family."
>
> It's frustrating: a network about airplanes that has very little
> programming for pilots. It seems they must do very little demographic
> research.
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM

No doubt the vast majority of viewers if Discovery Wings are not pilots.

[G.R. Patterson III]

C Kingsbury wrote:
>
> Who would've guessed 20 years ago there would even be such a thing as the
> "Discovery Wings Channel?"

Well, 20 years ago is about 3 years after I quit watching televison. I've never seen
Discovery Wings.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Dan Luke]

"Dave Stadt" wrote:
> > It's frustrating: a network about airplanes that has very little
> > programming for pilots. It seems they must do very little demographic
> > research.
>
> No doubt the vast majority of viewers if Discovery Wings are not pilots.

"No doubt?" How do you know? What is their audience size, anyway?

I'm not confident enough to make a "no doubt" assertion, but I'd *bet* their
audience has a larger percentage of pilots than any other cable channel.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"Michelle P" wrote:
> Dan,
> We are not their audience. We (pilots, aviation nuts) are only a small
> part of their demographic.
> If they were catering to only us they would have gone off the air years
ago.

What is their audience size? How do you know what portion is pilots?
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Peter Duniho]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>> No doubt the vast majority of viewers if Discovery Wings are not pilots.
>
> "No doubt?" How do you know? What is their audience size, anyway?
>

I suppose you might equivocate on "vast", but I think there simply aren't
enough pilots to support a channel like that, when you consider that only a
fraction of them are watching the channel. Between pilots who don't watch
TV, who don't get Discovery Wings, who don't know that they get it, and
those who simply get bored with the repetitive programming, I'd be surprised
if even 10% of the total pilot population actually watches. That's only
60,000 people in the US.

I don't know exactly how many people are needed in order to support a
cable/satellite channel like Discovery Wings, but it's got to be at least
twice that. Maybe closer to 500,000 or a million.

I think it's safe to say that, for any viable channel, more non-pilots watch
it than pilots. There simply aren't enough pilots for it to be any other
way.

> I'm not confident enough to make a "no doubt" assertion, but I'd *bet*
> their
> audience has a larger percentage of pilots than any other cable channel.

Now that seems like a reasonably safe bet. :) Even there, however, you
have to take into account the problem that Discovery Wings *is* very
repetitive. So other channels that might also appeal to pilots, like
Speedvision, or the Action Movie Channel, The Nashville Network, and other
stuff like that, might still draw more of the pilot crowd, due to the
greater variety of programming.

Pete

[Jay Honeck]

> I suppose you might equivocate on "vast", but I think there simply aren't
> enough pilots to support a channel like that, when you consider that only
a
> fraction of them are watching the channel.

True, but I'd bet that for every person that achieves their PPC, there are
ten "wannabees" who have the interest, but may not have the money, time or
aptitude.

I know from the interest we have received at our inn, there are a LOT of
aviation enthusiasts out there who don't enjoy the privilege of flight. .
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:G156d.62067$wV.13775@attbi_s54...
> True, but I'd bet that for every person that achieves their PPC, there are
> ten "wannabees" who have the interest, but may not have the money, time or
> aptitude.

Well, I take it as granted that the vast majority (however you define it) of
the Discovery Wings channel are aviation enthusiasts. I don't see how the
channel would appeal to anyone else.

But the original comment was about *pilots* watching the channel, not pilot
wannabes.

Personally, I find it amazing that, even as repetitive and uninteresing the
shows on Discovery Wings are, that the channel survives at all. Imagine how
popular it would be if it were actually *good*.

Pete

[Dan Luke]

"Peter Duniho" wrote:
> Personally, I find it amazing that, even as repetitive and uninteresing
the
> shows on Discovery Wings are, that the channel survives at all.

That's what makes me think it can do so on a very small audience. I bet
it's ~500k. Their operating budget must be miniscule.

> Imagine how
> popular it would be if it were actually *good*.

A little creative mgmt. could do it. If they could get half of AOPA's
members to watch regularly, think what that would be worth to advertisers.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM