Letting my Flying Subscription Expire

[Kyle Boatright]

My last issue of Flying came in the mail today, and I won't be re-upping the
subscription. In recent years, I've grown more and more reluctant to renew
it, but when it came to crunch time, I went ahead and mailed in my $12.00 or
whatever. Not this year, though. In all honesty, I don't remember the last
article or column in Flying that made me want to go back and re-read the
article. Instead, the magazine arrives and I spend an hour or so breezing
through it, then it goes into the trash can, leaving me wondering what I
missed.

Once upon a time, I subscribed to 4 or 5 aviation magazines and enjoyed them
all. Now I'm only taking two aviation related mag's - Sport Aviation and
AOPA Pilot, and both of them are member benefits from their sponsor
organizations. I have a tremendous interest in aviation and love to read,
so why don't the aviation magazines interest me anymore? Have the
magazines changed? Is it me? Is it that the subject matter is finite and
after reading 20 years worth of aviation magazines, there is very little
left that is new and interesting to me?

Anyway, it is sad in a way that there isn't an aviation magazine that
interests me enough that I'll spend $12 or $15 a year for a subscription.

KB

[john smith]

> I have a tremendous interest in aviation and love to read,
> so why don't the aviation magazines interest me anymore? Have the
> magazines changed? Is it me? Is it that the subject matter is finite and
> after reading 20 years worth of aviation magazines, there is very little
> left that is new and interesting to me?

Yes, the subject matter has changed. It has shifted to high-priced
aircraft and avionics. Although, there aren't many aircraft today that
aren't high priced, relatively speaking.
Also, if you go back through the years, there is a five year cycle or
recyle of magazine topics. Every five years, the topcs are updated to
reflect the change in technology.

[Peter Duniho]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
> [...] I have a tremendous interest in aviation and love to read, so why
> don't the aviation magazines interest me anymore? Have the magazines
> changed? Is it me? Is it that the subject matter is finite and after
> reading 20 years worth of aviation magazines, there is very little left
> that is new and interesting to me?

Only you can say. However, if your experience is similar to mine, it's a
combination: you have read the same thing over and over again often enough
that it's no longer interesting; but also, I feel that Flying in particular
has been going downhill. I can't stand either Mac or Collins -- Mac just
seems like too much of an idiot sometimes, and Collins is just too full of
himself. When Collins came back, the magazine practically turned into "The
Richard Collins Magazine".

Back in the day, there were several authors in the magazine that I enjoyed
reading: Gordon Baxter (duh), Len Morgan, and Peter Garrison being the top
three. "I Learned About Flying From That" kept my interest occasionally as
well. But Baxter and Morgan are both gone and while their replacements are
competent enough, they don't draw me hopelessly in the way those two did
(especially Bax). The stories in "ILAFFT" have gotten old (I guess there's
only a limited number of ways most people wind up crashing or nearly
crashing an airplane). And Garrison on his own isn't enough to keep me
resubscribing, especially when I not only have lost interest in most of the
rest of the magazine, but the principals in the magazine are people who
irritate me.

That said, every now and then Flying runs a feature that seems interesting,
and it's one of the least expensive aviation magazines I've seen that's
worth reading. But I already have a LOT of reading in my life. Aviation
isn't the only topic for periodicals to which I subscribe, and there are
still books, and of course online resources to read.

If I had nothing better to do, maybe I'd have kept up the subscription, but
when it came time to do some paring down, Flying was one of the first to go.

Have you tried Air & Space Magazine? It's not targeted at general aviation
per se, but rather runs a broad gamut of aviation topics. IMHO, it is to
Flying Magazine what Scientific American is to Discover Magazine. I also
still keep my subscription to Flight Training Magazine, even though it's now
published by AOPA and has a lot of duplicated content. I am especially
interested in the topics targeted at flight instructors, or which address
the learning process generally; as far as I know, there's not another
aviation magazine out there that provides that slant.

But as far as general aviation, and general piloting topics go, I think the
two you're getting now are about the best around. Hopefully they still
interest you, more than Flying Magazine at least.

Pete

[Greg Farris]

"Flying" has always catered to the high-priced sector.
Maybe some years ago you still thought the day would come when you would be
trading-up to a G-IV! ;-)

GF


In article >,
says...
>
>
>"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
>> [...] I have a tremendous interest in aviation and love to read, so why
>> don't the aviation magazines interest me anymore? Have the magazines
>> changed? Is it me? Is it that the subject matter is finite and after
>> reading 20 years worth of aviation magazines, there is very little left
>> that is new and interesting to me?
>

[Kevin Black]

KB

Must be some Karma here, my initials too. I subscribe here from OZ ($54 two
years) as opposed to paying $11 per issue at the newsagent.

Having said that, I've noticed that the general thrust of the magazine has
shifted from generally GA (me a low time VFR pilot) to mid sized jets. I
don't mind the occassional article on the jets, but I really have no
interest. As far as I'm concerned the content is (has) shifting
significantly out of my interest zone and I wont be updating the
subscription when it expires.

The local AOPA magazine here in OZ is, well, poor by comparison to the US
version. I've thought about joining the US AOPA just to get the magazine.
The local OZ SAAA magazine is a better fit for me than Flying, at least it
talks stuff I want to hear.

YMMV,
Kevin

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
> My last issue of Flying came in the mail today, and I won't be re-upping
> the subscription. In recent years, I've grown more and more reluctant to
> renew it, but when it came to crunch time, I went ahead and mailed in my
> $12.00 or whatever. Not this year, though. In all honesty, I don't
> remember the last article or column in Flying that made me want to go back
> and re-read the article. Instead, the magazine arrives and I spend an
> hour or so breezing through it, then it goes into the trash can, leaving
> me wondering what I missed.
>
> Once upon a time, I subscribed to 4 or 5 aviation magazines and enjoyed
> them all. Now I'm only taking two aviation related mag's - Sport Aviation
> and AOPA Pilot, and both of them are member benefits from their sponsor
> organizations. I have a tremendous interest in aviation and love to read,
> so why don't the aviation magazines interest me anymore? Have the
> magazines changed? Is it me? Is it that the subject matter is finite and
> after reading 20 years worth of aviation magazines, there is very little
> left that is new and interesting to me?
>
> Anyway, it is sad in a way that there isn't an aviation magazine that
> interests me enough that I'll spend $12 or $15 a year for a subscription.
>
> KB
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

Just my 2 cents worth, but I only had the subscription for 1 year and
didn't renew. The high priced aircraft articles where part of it, but
also it seemed like I was reading articles written by high school
students.
Lou

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-03-15, Kyle Boatright > wrote:
> My last issue of Flying came in the mail today, and I won't be re-upping the
> subscription. In recent years, I've grown more and more reluctant to renew
> it, but when it came to crunch time, I went ahead and mailed in my $12.00 or
> whatever.

The trouble with 'Flying' I found was it seemed like you were nothing if
it wasn't turbocharged, pressurized or turbine powered. There wasn't
enough of interest to someone with a fixed gear, slow and relatively
inexpensive aircraft. Then the endless repeats of the same weather
related articles every year.

Of course, I'm not against articles about turbine planes or flying them,
but a good general interest GA mag should have a mix. I tend to prefer
'Pilot' magazine (the British one, not AOPA Pilot, although when I lived
in the US and was a member of AOPA there, I found their 'Pilot' mag to
be pretty decent). The UK mag 'Pilot' has quite a lot of good general GA
articles, such as a trip report every month, sometimes articles about
microlights, classic aircraft, helicopters, gliders and other things.
It's not the same old tired used plane report and a bunch of editorial
columns about how the super wealthy editor went flying somewhere in his
P210.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Matt Barrow]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Flying" has always catered to the high-priced sector.
> Maybe some years ago you still thought the day would come when you would
> be
> trading-up to a G-IV! ;-)
>
As if there aren't enough rags devoted to corporate aviation (which is
hardly GA anymore...more like the airlines), but then those advertisers pay
the big bucks and thei CEO's need their butts kissed. Even more, Flying's
writers are getting more and more repetitious. I found their technology
articles are more oriented toward gadgetry that making for sense/use of
technology.

I killed my supscription a couple years ago.

I get AOPA Pilot and a couple newsletters. Suites me just fine.
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[tom418]

IMHO, Flying was a good magazine, back in the '60s and '70s, when it
featured articles by Robert Blodgett , Archie Tramell, John Olcott and
Stephen Wilkinson. The articles written today have little to offer.
"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
> My last issue of Flying came in the mail today, and I won't be re-upping
the
> subscription. In recent years, I've grown more and more reluctant to renew
> it, but when it came to crunch time, I went ahead and mailed in my $12.00
or
> whatever. Not this year, though. In all honesty, I don't remember the
last
> article or column in Flying that made me want to go back and re-read the
> article. Instead, the magazine arrives and I spend an hour or so breezing
> through it, then it goes into the trash can, leaving me wondering what I
> missed.
>
> Once upon a time, I subscribed to 4 or 5 aviation magazines and enjoyed
them
> all. Now I'm only taking two aviation related mag's - Sport Aviation and
> AOPA Pilot, and both of them are member benefits from their sponsor
> organizations. I have a tremendous interest in aviation and love to read,
> so why don't the aviation magazines interest me anymore? Have the
> magazines changed? Is it me? Is it that the subject matter is finite and
> after reading 20 years worth of aviation magazines, there is very little
> left that is new and interesting to me?
>
> Anyway, it is sad in a way that there isn't an aviation magazine that
> interests me enough that I'll spend $12 or $15 a year for a subscription.
>
> KB
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Jim Macklin]

The EAA has some good magazines, check them out www.eaa.org


"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Greg Farris" > wrote in message
| ...
| >
| > "Flying" has always catered to the high-priced sector.
| > Maybe some years ago you still thought the day would
come when you would
| > be
| > trading-up to a G-IV! ;-)
| >
| As if there aren't enough rags devoted to corporate
aviation (which is
| hardly GA anymore...more like the airlines), but then
those advertisers pay
| the big bucks and thei CEO's need their butts kissed. Even
more, Flying's
| writers are getting more and more repetitious. I found
their technology
| articles are more oriented toward gadgetry that making for
sense/use of
| technology.
|
| I killed my supscription a couple years ago.
|
| I get AOPA Pilot and a couple newsletters. Suites me just
fine.
| --
| Matt
| ---------------------
| Matthew W. Barrow
| Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
| Montrose, CO
|
|

[Marco Leon]

OK, I'm going to go out on a limb here. I really like Flying. I believe it's
one of the few aviation magazines that actually has some balls to form an
opinion. I get tired of the aircraft and avionics reviews that are little
more than a regurgitation of a brochure. I also really enjoy their columns
on living with aviation. My favorite columnist is Lane Wallace but I also
like the way each of the others offer their own perspectives on how aviation
fits into their lives. Dick Karl most closely resembles my view of the
ultimate aviation situation (for my life anyway).

I like details too. For example, the latest issue had a feature on the Beech
Bonanza G36. The detailed account of the new Garmin autopilot operational
modes was a refreshing change from the other mags I subscribe to. And I
subscribe to practically all--Flying, Plane & Pilot, Pilot Journal, IFR, IFR
Refresher, Aviation Consumer, GA News, Trade-A-Plane, Aviation Safety, and
AOPA Pilot. I read every one of them cover-to-cover (except TAP of course)
thanks to a one hour+ commute on the train each way to Manahattan.

Richard Collins and Mac McClellan may **** some people off but they at least
take a stand on a subject or have a real opinion. Are Mac's articles on the
latest biz jet a bit out of my league? Sure it is but I'm sure it appeals to
others and the larger audience enables its low subscription price. Collins
sometimes sounds like he's high on himself but he's also the first to admit
he screwed-up so he deserves some respect for that.

For less than $10 a year, I think it's a bargain.

Marco "information junkie" Leon

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
> My last issue of Flying came in the mail today, and I won't be re-upping
the
> subscription. In recent years, I've grown more and more reluctant to renew
> it, but when it came to crunch time, I went ahead and mailed in my $12.00
or
> whatever. Not this year, though. In all honesty, I don't remember the
last
> article or column in Flying that made me want to go back and re-read the
> article. Instead, the magazine arrives and I spend an hour or so breezing
> through it, then it goes into the trash can, leaving me wondering what I
> missed.
>
> Once upon a time, I subscribed to 4 or 5 aviation magazines and enjoyed
them
> all. Now I'm only taking two aviation related mag's - Sport Aviation and
> AOPA Pilot, and both of them are member benefits from their sponsor
> organizations. I have a tremendous interest in aviation and love to read,
> so why don't the aviation magazines interest me anymore? Have the
> magazines changed? Is it me? Is it that the subject matter is finite and
> after reading 20 years worth of aviation magazines, there is very little
> left that is new and interesting to me?
>
> Anyway, it is sad in a way that there isn't an aviation magazine that
> interests me enough that I'll spend $12 or $15 a year for a subscription.
>
> KB
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Ross Richardson]

I am exactly like you and I let mine expire many years ago. I did not
want review on $2.2M jets. I get AOPA Pilot and EAA Sport Aviation.
However, I also get Plane & Pilot. I do find it rather more to the small
GA pilot/owner. Might give it a try.

Ross
KSWI

Kyle Boatright wrote:

> My last issue of Flying came in the mail today, and I won't be re-upping the
> subscription. In recent years, I've grown more and more reluctant to renew
> it, but when it came to crunch time, I went ahead and mailed in my $12.00 or
> whatever. Not this year, though. In all honesty, I don't remember the last
> article or column in Flying that made me want to go back and re-read the
> article. Instead, the magazine arrives and I spend an hour or so breezing
> through it, then it goes into the trash can, leaving me wondering what I
> missed.
>
> Once upon a time, I subscribed to 4 or 5 aviation magazines and enjoyed them
> all. Now I'm only taking two aviation related mag's - Sport Aviation and
> AOPA Pilot, and both of them are member benefits from their sponsor
> organizations. I have a tremendous interest in aviation and love to read,
> so why don't the aviation magazines interest me anymore? Have the
> magazines changed? Is it me? Is it that the subject matter is finite and
> after reading 20 years worth of aviation magazines, there is very little
> left that is new and interesting to me?
>
> Anyway, it is sad in a way that there isn't an aviation magazine that
> interests me enough that I'll spend $12 or $15 a year for a subscription.
>
> KB
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[John T]

I get flying mag too, and I'm gonna let it lapse. As has been mentioned,
they are focusing more on VLJ's and high end avionics. Way outta my
league.

However, I can recommend General Aviation News, and Kitplanes if you're
into that. Plane and Pilot is OK.

[Greg Farris]

I like it too, and I find it a good bargain.
I get AOPA and Flying, and appreciate them both.
I like Collins because of his statistical presentation, which I find sound.
And I still think a flight test and review of the latest Gulfstream holds its
own against yet another single-engine 110Kt tin bird.

GF


In article >, mmleonatyahoo.com says...
>
>
>OK, I'm going to go out on a limb here. I really like Flying. I believe it's
>one of the few aviation magazines that actually has some balls to form an
>opinion. etc

[Dan Luke]

"Peter Duniho" wrote:

> When Collins came back, the magazine practically turned into "The
> Richard Collins Magazine".

Amen. What a freakin' blowhard.

> And Garrison on his own isn't enough to keep me resubscribing,

He is for me. Far and away the best writer in aviation journalism. I
don't get the Lane Wallace fan club, though; she often comes across as
maudlin to me.

> That said, every now and then Flying runs a feature that seems
> interesting, and it's one of the least expensive aviation magazines
> I've seen that's worth reading. But I already have a LOT of reading
> in my life. Aviation isn't the only topic for periodicals to which I
> subscribe, and there are still books, and of course online resources
> to read.

Indeed. The stack of "must reads" at my bedside is a serious avalanche
threat. Try becoming well informed on the evolution/intelligent design
"controversy" if you're not a biologist to begin with.

> If I had nothing better to do, maybe I'd have kept up the
> subscription, but when it came time to do some paring down, Flying was
> one of the first to go.

It's the only non-Belvoir I have left besides the "perforce" mags, AOPA
Pilot and Sport Aviation.


--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Roger]

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 18:33:30 -0600, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>
>"Peter Duniho" wrote:
>
>> When Collins came back, the magazine practically turned into "The
>> Richard Collins Magazine".
>
>Amen. What a freakin' blowhard.
>
>> And Garrison on his own isn't enough to keep me resubscribing,
>
>He is for me. Far and away the best writer in aviation journalism. I
>don't get the Lane Wallace fan club, though; she often comes across as
>maudlin to me.
>
>> That said, every now and then Flying runs a feature that seems
>> interesting, and it's one of the least expensive aviation magazines
>> I've seen that's worth reading. But I already have a LOT of reading
>> in my life. Aviation isn't the only topic for periodicals to which I
>> subscribe, and there are still books, and of course online resources
>> to read.
>
>Indeed. The stack of "must reads" at my bedside is a serious avalanche
>threat. Try becoming well informed on the evolution/intelligent design
>"controversy" if you're not a biologist to begin with.

That's easy. One is based on science and the other on superstition,
some times called faith.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>> If I had nothing better to do, maybe I'd have kept up the
>> subscription, but when it came time to do some paring down, Flying was
>> one of the first to go.
>
>It's the only non-Belvoir I have left besides the "perforce" mags, AOPA
>Pilot and Sport Aviation.

[Dan Luke]

"Roger" wrote:

>>Indeed. The stack of "must reads" at my bedside is a serious
>>avalanche
>>threat. Try becoming well informed on the evolution/intelligent
>>design
>>"controversy" if you're not a biologist to begin with.
>
> That's easy. One is based on science and the other on superstition,
> some times called faith.

It is not so easy. There is a great deal of misinformation abroad on
the subject, and it behooves a critical thinker to get the facts, which
cannot be reduced to sound bites. Although the Intelligent Design
movement recently suffered a disastrous, humiliating defeat in Dover,
PA, there is still a concerted politico/religious attack on public
school science education underway in the U. S. Citizens who are not
scientists may be deceived by the glib, superficially plausible
arguments of ID if they do not trouble themselves to understand how
science really works.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[[email protected]]

Well your right Flying Magazine is one of those magazines that tend to
be dry unless you like hearing someones personal flying experiences.
Don't get me wrong I do, but I get that at the Airport I am employed
at.

You mentioned liking Sport Aviation and AOPA Pilot. I subscribe to AOPA
Pilot because I enjoy all the benefits. Lately I have been disapointed
with AOPA Pilot. Again dry and boring with the exceptions of a couple
departments like the Features section and Never Again. I do the same
thing, brief through it except I keep all my magazines becasue there
are some articles I tab for future reference and share with my
students.

I am CFI so I really enjoy reading Flight Training magazine. Best of
all I get it for free because I give so many referals and my students
subsribe to it. I assure you that if you haven't read Flight Training
to subscibe to it. Guaranteed that you'll look back in your old files
and re-read time and time again.

Can Flying Magazine and replace it it with Flying Training.

Cjamairway

[John T]

I also get "flight training". A lot of the articles seem to be cut and
paste of the same old info. I think this is due to "new" students.
Occasionally, a really good article is in there.

[Dan Youngquist]

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Roger wrote:
>> Try becoming well informed on the evolution/intelligent design
>> "controversy" if you're not a biologist to begin with.
>
> That's easy. One is based on science and the other on superstition,
> some times called faith.

True. But the more I learn about the issue, the more I realize that many
people are confused on which is science and which is faith or
superstition. Even Darwin himself said something to the effect that if
fossils supporting his theory didn't start turning up soon, their absence
would disprove his theory. (150-odd years later, no luck yet.) Things
have only gone downhill since then for the theory of evolution -- the more
we know, the harder it becomes to support the theory from a scientific
standpoint.

One factoid that got my attention: Evolution proponents insist that
_only_ evolution be taught, while intelligent design proponents say teach
the pros & cons of all views and decide which has the most going for it.
The latter position is in line with scientific principles and an honest
effort to learn the truth, while the former smacks more of unsupportable
religious belief and superstition. Some folks don't think kids should
even be told that evolution is only a _theory_, not a proven fact, and
that there are other views with good scientific arguments behind them.
Is that objective science, or religious fundamentalism?

In the interest of returning to topic, I've determined that with spring
coming, I'm going to have to get out there and fix my airplane, as it
doesn't seem to be evolving on its own. At least, not in the right
direction. I was hoping if I left it alone over winter, it would turn
itself into a Columbia 400, or maybe a King Air. But, no luck so far.

Which reminds me... I've never understood how people can simultaneously
believe in evolution theory, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy).
Just doesn't make sense, from a scientific or logical standpoint. I've
seen some attempted explanations of this phenomenon, but they don't stand
up to critical and unbiased examination. It's sort of like believing if
you play the slot machines long enough you've just gotta win, when there
are big signs everywhere saying "Our slots return [some number less than
100]%" -- in other words, on average, you are going to lose. But, folks
keep believing what they want to believe, despite the facts staring them
in the face.

-Dan

[Peter Duniho]

"Dan Youngquist" > wrote in message
hell.org...
> True. But the more I learn about the issue, the more I realize that many
> people are confused on which is science and which is faith or
> superstition.

Doesn't sound to me like you're actually doing much learning.

> Even Darwin himself said something to the effect that if fossils
> supporting his theory didn't start turning up soon, their absence would
> disprove his theory. (150-odd years later, no luck yet.)

Your assertion is that there is no fossil evidence in support of evolution?

> Things have only gone downhill since then for the theory of evolution --
> the more we know, the harder it becomes to support the theory from a
> scientific standpoint.

Hardly. Evolution has not only received strong support from geological
evidence, but from laboratory experiments as well.

> One factoid that got my attention: Evolution proponents insist that
> _only_ evolution be taught, while intelligent design proponents say teach
> the pros & cons of all views and decide which has the most going for it.

A fundamental component of science is a testable hypothesis. Evolution
qualifies for this, "intelligent design" does not.

Evolution proponents do not "insist that _only_ evolution be taught". What
they do insist on is that in science class, the topics be restricted to
things that are valid science. If someone came up with an alternative
theory that actually proposed a testable hypothesis, I'm sure they would
have no trouble accepting that as a teachable topic.

"Intelligent design" is nothing more than the religious idea of a creation
by a supreme being restated. It contains no actual theory for process, no
testable hypothesis, nothing that would even remotely qualify it as science.

> The latter position is in line with scientific principles and an honest
> effort to learn the truth, while the former smacks more of unsupportable
> religious belief and superstition.

You have that backwards.

> [...]
> Which reminds me... I've never understood how people can simultaneously
> believe in evolution theory, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy).
> Just doesn't make sense, from a scientific or logical standpoint.

It seems that you understand neither evolution nor thermodynamics. Entropy
is in no way a counter-proof to evolution.

Pete

[[email protected]]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> My last issue of Flying came in the mail today, and I won't be re-upping the
> subscription. In recent years, I've grown more and more reluctant to renew
> it, but when it came to crunch time, I went ahead and mailed in my $12.00 or
> whatever. Not this year, though. In all honesty, I don't remember the last
> article or column in Flying that made me want to go back and re-read the
> article. Instead, the magazine arrives and I spend an hour or so breezing
> through it, then it goes into the trash can, leaving me wondering what I
> missed.
>
> Once upon a time, I subscribed to 4 or 5 aviation magazines and enjoyed them
> all. Now I'm only taking two aviation related mag's - Sport Aviation and
> AOPA Pilot, and both of them are member benefits from their sponsor
> organizations. I have a tremendous interest in aviation and love to read,
> so why don't the aviation magazines interest me anymore? Have the
> magazines changed? Is it me? Is it that the subject matter is finite and
> after reading 20 years worth of aviation magazines, there is very little
> left that is new and interesting to me?
>
> Anyway, it is sad in a way that there isn't an aviation magazine that
> interests me enough that I'll spend $12 or $15 a year for a subscription.

My interest in GA pretty much started when, several years ago, I read a
Flying Mag in a doctor's waiting room. It was about an inch thick and
had articles like the history of the China Clipper, one of the
classics IMO was "When Real Men Flew IFR" which was an old airline
writing about his experience flying DC-3's on four-course ranges and
cheating minimums to get into Idelwild because the competition got in
so damnit I'm getting in too, etc. I've subscribed ever since.

It has gone significantly downhill. It has much less content than just
a few years ago and too much of it is the same stuff written by the
same old blowhards. Just look at how thin it is now compared to only a
few years ago. Clearly the budget for editorial content has been cut
to the bone. Richard Collins is particularly hard for me to take.
Someone said his statistical stuff is good, yeah right. He's boring
and his writing is completely self-centered. He flies a C210, so he
does a scan of C210 accidents and gets an article out of it, then he
does one of C210 SDR's and gets another article out of it, etc. I
think he bangs some of those articles out in all-nighters at deadline.
Half the time I think he just pulls out his work from a few years ago
and puts a few touches on it. He's done that several times.

I still think it's worth it for Lane Wallace, Aftermath, and Les Abend.
Very occasionally they'll have an additional feature article that
interests me but more and more seldom. But hey it's only $12/year and
IMO the three I like are worth that.

I also get Aviation Consumer, which I usually find fascinating. I
recently let Aviation Safety lapse because I didn't think I was really
getting any new info from it. AOPA Pilot is the best of the glossies,
but that's kind of top.turd.dungpile at this point. I found Private
Pilot and Plane & Pilot to be atrocious, bad quality (not just poor
writing but also layout errors), very repetitive, and unrewarding to
read -- so many times an article looks like I would enjoy it because
it's about an airplane type or subject I'm interested in and I always
came away disappointed.

What's really depressing is if you can dig up old articles from Flying
or AOPA Pilot. I've run into a few on the web, they used to be so much
better.

[Jose]

> But the more I learn about the issue, the more I realize that many people are confused on which is science and which is faith or superstition.

The key difference is that a scientific theory can be =dis=proven, with
appropriate evidence. An issue of faith cannot.

> Evolution proponents insist that _only_ evolution be taught, while intelligent design proponents say teach the pros & cons of all views and decide which has the most going for it.

It may be a factoid, but it is not a fact. A factoid "resembles" a
fact. What you state above is not true. It is not a fact.

What is a fact is that those whom you call "evolution proponents" insist
that matters of faith not be taught as science. Come up with a
testable, disprovable theory and it can be taught as science. Come up
with some evidence in its favor and it might even gain support.
Evolution fits the bill. Neither Intellegent Design (laughable when I
see how living things actually work!) nor the Great Spaghetti Monster
(bless his noodley appendages) can be disproven, therefore do not fit
the definition of "scientific theory". To be a "scientific theory" it
must be more than an idea or speculation - it must be DISprovable. (not
that "disprovable" does not mean "incorrect"; it merely means that there
are experimental results which, =if= obtained, could disprove the theory)

Theories of air pressure on wings is testable and disprovable. Lifting
fairies are not.

> I've never understood how people can simultaneously believe in evolution theory, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy).

Entropy increases over a closed system. Evolution shows its effects on
an open system. It's like perpetual motion machines being impossible,
even in the face of solar powered motors. While small areas of a system
get more complex, they do so at the cost of larger areas of the system
becoming more degraded. Go to any garbage dump for a picturesque
illustration.

This has been discussed here about six months ago. I forget the (of
course misleading) subject lines, but google for it.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Walt]

Dan wrote:

>Which reminds me... I've never understood how people can simultaneously
>believe in evolution theory, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy).
>Just doesn't make sense, from a scientific or logical standpoint.

Check out: http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html

--Walt

[Matt Barrow]

"Dan Youngquist" > wrote in message
hell.org...
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Roger wrote:
>>> Try becoming well informed on the evolution/intelligent design
>>> "controversy" if you're not a biologist to begin with.
>>
>> That's easy. One is based on science and the other on superstition,
>> some times called faith.
>
> True. But the more I learn about the issue, the more I realize that many
> people are confused on which is science and which is faith or
> superstition. Even Darwin himself said something to the effect that if
> fossils supporting his theory didn't start turning up soon, their absence
> would disprove his theory. (150-odd years later, no luck yet.) Things
> have only gone downhill since then for the theory of evolution -- the more
> we know, the harder it becomes to support the theory from a scientific
> standpoint.

HA!!! Where did you get that non-sense?

[Matt Barrow]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dan Youngquist" wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Roger wrote:
>>>> Try becoming well informed on the evolution/intelligent design
>>>> "controversy" if you're not a biologist to begin with.
>>>
>>> That's easy. One is based on science and the other on superstition,
>>> some times called faith.
>>
>> True. But the more I learn about the issue, the more I realize that many
>> people are confused on which is science and which is faith or
>> superstition. Even Darwin himself said something to the effect that if
>> fossils supporting his theory didn't start turning up soon, their absence
>> would disprove his theory. (150-odd years later, no luck yet.) Things
>> have only gone downhill since then for the theory of evolution -- the
>> more we know, the harder it becomes to support the theory from a
>> scientific standpoint.
>
> You're a fine example of someone who has been grossly misled on the
> subject.
>
> 1) The fossil record offers fine support for the theory of evolutuion.
> Google ambulocetus or archaeopteryx.
> 2) Genetics, a field of science Darwin didn't even know about, has
> provided even stronger evidence.
> 3) Advances in many other natural sciences--paleontology, biochemistry,
> geology--have all affirmed the t. of e.
>
> This is exactly the baloney that a Christian, Republican, conservative,
> Bush-appointed judge struck down in Dover, PA. Intelligent Design is not
> science; there is no scientific controversy about ToE vs. ID.

Quite...150 years after Darwin, not ONE shread of contradictory evidence has
been raised.

>
> [snip]
>>
>> Which reminds me... I've never understood how people can simultaneously
>> believe in evolution theory, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy).
>> Just doesn't make sense, from a scientific or logical standpoint. I've
>> seen some attempted explanations of this phenomenon, but they don't stand
>> up to critical and unbiased examination. It's sort of like believing if
>> you play the slot machines long enough you've just gotta win, when there
>> are big signs everywhere saying "Our slots return [some number less than
>> 100]%" -- in other words, on average, you are going to lose. But, folks
>> keep believing what they want to believe, despite the facts staring them
>> in the face.
>
> More of the bogus arguments I was refering to in my previous post. The
> 2nd LoT argument is a particularly old often refuted chestnut that keeps
> coming up because the ID/Creationist scammers know that most people won't
> make the effort to learn why it is BS.
>
> Wake up Dan; you've been had. Try a little reading:
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof

Took the words (okay...the URL) right out of my mouth.

[Matt Barrow]

"Walt" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Dan wrote:
>
>>Which reminds me... I've never understood how people can simultaneously
>>believe in evolution theory, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy).
>>Just doesn't make sense, from a scientific or logical standpoint.
>
> Check out: http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html
>
Two good links from Walt and Dan Luke. Let's wait and see if Dan Y. recants.

My bet is he spins like a top. (Based on experience)

[Mike Schumann]

If you want interesting reading, you should get a subscription to Aviation
Week.

Mike Schumann

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> [...] I have a tremendous interest in aviation and love to read, so why
>> don't the aviation magazines interest me anymore? Have the magazines
>> changed? Is it me? Is it that the subject matter is finite and after
>> reading 20 years worth of aviation magazines, there is very little left
>> that is new and interesting to me?
>
> Only you can say. However, if your experience is similar to mine, it's a
> combination: you have read the same thing over and over again often enough
> that it's no longer interesting; but also, I feel that Flying in
> particular has been going downhill. I can't stand either Mac or
> Collins -- Mac just seems like too much of an idiot sometimes, and Collins
> is just too full of himself. When Collins came back, the magazine
> practically turned into "The Richard Collins Magazine".
>
> Back in the day, there were several authors in the magazine that I enjoyed
> reading: Gordon Baxter (duh), Len Morgan, and Peter Garrison being the top
> three. "I Learned About Flying From That" kept my interest occasionally
> as well. But Baxter and Morgan are both gone and while their replacements
> are competent enough, they don't draw me hopelessly in the way those two
> did (especially Bax). The stories in "ILAFFT" have gotten old (I guess
> there's only a limited number of ways most people wind up crashing or
> nearly crashing an airplane). And Garrison on his own isn't enough to
> keep me resubscribing, especially when I not only have lost interest in
> most of the rest of the magazine, but the principals in the magazine are
> people who irritate me.
>
> That said, every now and then Flying runs a feature that seems
> interesting, and it's one of the least expensive aviation magazines I've
> seen that's worth reading. But I already have a LOT of reading in my
> life. Aviation isn't the only topic for periodicals to which I subscribe,
> and there are still books, and of course online resources to read.
>
> If I had nothing better to do, maybe I'd have kept up the subscription,
> but when it came time to do some paring down, Flying was one of the first
> to go.
>
> Have you tried Air & Space Magazine? It's not targeted at general
> aviation per se, but rather runs a broad gamut of aviation topics. IMHO,
> it is to Flying Magazine what Scientific American is to Discover Magazine.
> I also still keep my subscription to Flight Training Magazine, even though
> it's now published by AOPA and has a lot of duplicated content. I am
> especially interested in the topics targeted at flight instructors, or
> which address the learning process generally; as far as I know, there's
> not another aviation magazine out there that provides that slant.
>
> But as far as general aviation, and general piloting topics go, I think
> the two you're getting now are about the best around. Hopefully they
> still interest you, more than Flying Magazine at least.
>
> Pete
>

[Matt Barrow]

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> If you want interesting reading, you should get a subscription to Aviation
> Week.
>

If you want articles that really get to the nitty-gritty of piloting, get a
free subscription to "Professional Pilot", though the ads are some of the
most blatent asskissing I've ever seen.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-03-16, Dan Youngquist > wrote:
> religious belief and superstition. Some folks don't think kids should
> even be told that evolution is only a _theory_, not a proven fact, and
> that there are other views with good scientific arguments behind them.

As soon as someone says '...evolution is only a _theory_' you can
immediately tell they actually have no idea what a scientific theory
actually is. They are equating the scientific meaning of 'theory' with
the common every day use of 'theory'.

The common use of 'theory' often really means a hunch, or a gut feel, or
maybe even as much as a conjecture. In science, a 'theory' is something
much different. A theory must be falsifiable for a start. It must make
predictions that can be tested. I won't waste my time here going over
the full definition of a scientific theory, if you're interested, Google
will help you do that.

Electricity is also "just a theory" too. So is Einstein's Theory of
General and Special Relativity. Even though, as you put it, they are
'just a theory', you tell the residents of Hiroshima in 1945 that E=MC^2
is part of something which is 'just a theory'.

On the other hand, Intelligent Design is not a theory or even a
hypothesis - it only qualifies as conjecture. It is not scientific in
any way. It has no place being taught in science classes. That's not to
say it should *not* be taught at all - perhaps it should be taught as
what science ISN'T and why it is not science. Perhaps it should be
taught in religious studies classes and philosophy classes. But it
should not be taught as a valid theory in a science class because it is
not science.

Teaching the theory of evolution is not religious or religious
fundamentalism. It is just science. Of course, those who don't even
understand what a scientific theory actually is (probably because their
own science classes failed them) are not likely to agree.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[[email protected]]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > It has gone significantly downhill. It has much less content than just
> > a few years ago and too much of it is the same stuff written by the
> > same old blowhards. Just look at how thin it is now compared to only a
> > few years ago. Clearly the budget for editorial content has been cut
> > to the bone. Richard Collins is particularly hard for me to take.
>
> Agreed. Collins is fine ONCE, but so much is just repaet business and he has
> a hard time geeting past OWT's.
>
> >
> > I still think it's worth it for Lane Wallace, Aftermath, and Les Abend.
>
> I can't past Wallace's "touchy/feely" writing.

The "touchy/feely" style is what I like least about Lane, I like her
mainly because she actually is a spamcan owner and writes about the
kinds of topics that interest me, like flying a spamcan in Austrailia,
or interviewing the last guy to get an FAA Navigator's rating (complete
with sextant!). Sometimes I like her touchy-feely stuff but not that
often (I really liked her column on why she didnt' want an instrument
rating, for example), but usually I just find the topics she writes
about interesting and as a hobbyist spamcan pilot myself I can identify
with her more than the other staff members there..

> In all, though, it's not what it was 30 years ago when I first subscribed
> and got the awesome "Flying Annual" issue each year.

Heh. It's not even what it was 5 years ago.

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> Collins is just too full of
> himself. When Collins came back, the magazine practically turned into "The
> Richard Collins Magazine".
>

Isn't it a pity? The guy is practically ruining the magazine. And at an age
where he could easily quit.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Dan,

> there is still a concerted politico/religious attack on public
> school science education underway in the U. S.
>

Well, in that regard, you're right, the topic deserves attention.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Dylan,

> The trouble with 'Flying' I found was it seemed like you were nothing if
> it wasn't turbocharged, pressurized or turbine powered.
>

and weather downlink. Each and every single article and column mentions
how great it is.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Morgans]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Dan,
>
> > there is still a concerted politico/religious attack on public
> > school science education underway in the U. S.
> >
>
> Well, in that regard, you're right, the topic deserves attention.

Perhaps so, but please, not in this forum.
--
Jim in NC

[Bob Fry]

I quit subscribing years ago. The writers of many aviation mags churn
out clichéd, insipid crap that often has little relevance to the
flying I do, putzing around in an Aircoupe. AOPA Pilot is also filled
with junk that is wordy and boring. I've never found anything from
EAA that is consistently good.

Instead, I've taken to individual writers. Rod Machado has a regular
article in AOPA Pilot and is a fair to good author. Often the Never
Again article is better written and far more interesting than that
from the professional writers. Mike Busch
(http://www.savvyaviator.com/articles.html) writes clearly and concisely.

Also try Aviation Consumer and Light Plane Maintenance for articles
that are both relevant and interesting to read. What a concept! I
wish a similar mag with just plain flying stories could be produced.

[Travis Marlatte]

My problem is that I haven't paid for a subscription in a decade, yet Flying
still keeps showing up at my doorstep. Christmas present subscriptions, ya
know!

AOPA is generally pretty good except that everything seems like an add for
the organization. I don't like Rod. Good topics but the silly humor gets in
the way. If he cut it back to just one or two puns per paragraph, it might
be palatable.

But, by far the best writing and information-filled articles are on AvWeb.
If you aren't reading it, you are missing 80% of the good information
floating around. Mike Busch shows up there too.

--
-------------------------------
Travis

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
>I quit subscribing years ago. The writers of many aviation mags churn
> out clichéd, insipid crap that often has little relevance to the
> flying I do, putzing around in an Aircoupe. AOPA Pilot is also filled
> with junk that is wordy and boring. I've never found anything from
> EAA that is consistently good.
>
> Instead, I've taken to individual writers. Rod Machado has a regular
> article in AOPA Pilot and is a fair to good author. Often the Never
> Again article is better written and far more interesting than that
> from the professional writers. Mike Busch
> (http://www.savvyaviator.com/articles.html) writes clearly and concisely.
>
> Also try Aviation Consumer and Light Plane Maintenance for articles
> that are both relevant and interesting to read. What a concept! I
> wish a similar mag with just plain flying stories could be produced.

[Dan Luke]

"Thomas Borchert" wrote:


>> The trouble with 'Flying' I found was it seemed like you were nothing if
>> it wasn't turbocharged, pressurized or turbine powered.
>>
>
> and weather downlink. Each and every single article and column mentions
> how great it is.

Perhaps they are overdoing it, but it would be hard to overestimate how
revolutionary this technology will be for light GA flying in the U. S.

I can see how the topic might be less than fascinating for European readers,
though. ;)

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Thomas Borchert]

Morgans,

> Perhaps so, but please, not in this forum.
>

Hey, but it went so well last time ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[nrp]

It is sad but it seems to me like GA has slowly evolved into a magazine
publishing industry. We've joke at our coffeeshop that the gross
weight of magazines published each year exceeds the empty weight of new
light aircraft produced. The editors and writers get to try out the
new ones so they can write about them, then some end up going to the
raffles and sweepstakes to preserve the illusion of private ownership,
and many of the the rest go to govt agencies etc or overseas.

[Ron Natalie]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> My last issue of Flying came in the mail today, and I won't be re-upping the
> subscription. In recent years...

I haven't found anything relevant in Flying in decades. I haven't
subscribed since the eighties although I occasionally pick up a copy
while flying commercially (only thing the airport newsstands carry).


>
>
>
>
>

[Jay Honeck]

> > and weather downlink. Each and every single article and column mentions
> > how great it is.
>
> Perhaps they are overdoing it, but it would be hard to overestimate how
> revolutionary this technology will be for light GA flying in the U. S.

Hey Dan, I was able to use the XM weather feature extensively on our
flight to Las Vegas (on Jim Burns' new tablet computer), and it was
awesome.

One glitch: In the turbulence like we ran into, I found I could not
look at it, for fear of losing my cookies. Trying to click the screen
with the stylus, while looking down, while floating on your seat belt,
was a real exercise in inner-ear/hand-eye coordination.

In this regard, your 396 would be vastly superior, with dedicated
buttons, mounted up on the yoke (rather than in your lap). In ever
other way, however, that huge screen weather depiction was simply
fabulous.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Don Tuite]

On 23 Mar 2006 21:21:23 -0800, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>> > and weather downlink. Each and every single article and column mentions
>> > how great it is.
>>
>> Perhaps they are overdoing it, but it would be hard to overestimate how
>> revolutionary this technology will be for light GA flying in the U. S.
>
>Hey Dan, I was able to use the XM weather feature extensively on our
>flight to Las Vegas (on Jim Burns' new tablet computer), and it was
>awesome.
>
>One glitch: In the turbulence like we ran into, I found I could not
>look at it, for fear of losing my cookies. Trying to click the screen
>with the stylus, while looking down, while floating on your seat belt,
>was a real exercise in inner-ear/hand-eye coordination.
>
>In this regard, your 396 would be vastly superior, with dedicated
>buttons, mounted up on the yoke (rather than in your lap). In ever
>other way, however, that huge screen weather depiction was simply
>fabulous.

Does the tablet have a hard drive and does the processor cache things
to disk? Does it do seeks for new data when it can't update a page
from the current buffer? Do other programs access the disk while the
nav program is running? I was idly wondering the other day about
head crashes due to turbulence. Any thoughts?

Don

Don

[Dan Luke]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

>> > and weather downlink. Each and every single article and column mentions
>> > how great it is.
>>
>> Perhaps they are overdoing it, but it would be hard to overestimate how
>> revolutionary this technology will be for light GA flying in the U. S.
>
> Hey Dan, I was able to use the XM weather feature extensively on our
> flight to Las Vegas (on Jim Burns' new tablet computer), and it was
> awesome.
>
> One glitch: In the turbulence like we ran into, I found I could not
> look at it, for fear of losing my cookies. Trying to click the screen
> with the stylus, while looking down, while floating on your seat belt,
> was a real exercise in inner-ear/hand-eye coordination.

Roger that. I used to use a notebook pc for XM Wx. It was a pain in the
ass at the best of times and a hazard in turbulence.

> In this regard, your 396 would be vastly superior, with dedicated
> buttons, mounted up on the yoke (rather than in your lap). In ever
> other way, however, that huge screen weather depiction was simply
> fabulous.

Yeah, I'd like a little bigger screen--which I'm sure Garmin has in the
works to absorb more of my money in a year or two. Still, I love the the
396. It is now a go/no go item for me if CBs are any more than isolated.
Can't imagine how I ever flew without it.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"Don Tuite" wrote:

> Does the tablet have a hard drive and does the processor cache things
> to disk? Does it do seeks for new data when it can't update a page
> from the current buffer? Do other programs access the disk while the
> nav program is running? I was idly wondering the other day about
> head crashes due to turbulence. Any thoughts?

I never had a head crash with the Sony Vaio notebook I used to use, even
though I did occasionally use it above 10,000', which others have reported
to cause crashes..

I did have some of the usual Windows glitches. What's annoying at your desk
is something else entirely when you're depending on a pc to help you dodge
death.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM