Thought that for a change I might actually give some feedback on the February issue.
Thought that it was a great editorial. The 'Sealane' article was also interesting but I always think that the best articles, although it is good to have input from someone experienced with the type, are the ones done by a flight tester with no experience of the type, who has to think his way round the plane and can therefore say what he has to think when flying it, thus giving an article more relevant to the reader. Still, it was a good article. Both the Aerobat and Condor articles were superb; perhaps far more deserving than the sealane one of the leading article position. Apart from that it was another great Pilot issue.
Some points; I think that Pilot might benefit from a larger News section, perhaps not going to the extreme of Todays Pilot, but somwhere inbetween. It would also be good if some form of avionics reviewing section could be worked out; might have some suggestions if you like. One negative point; the advertisement of the school in Ireland that took up a page and was dressed up like an article with the Piot typeface etc.; this seemed a bit 'cheap' and slightly insulting to the readers that they might be more influenced by it than a normal page advertisement. I realise it will make money, but surely not that much more than a normal ad?
I'm always tempted to comment on the quality of each issue but it's never seemed apropriate before.
I agree it was one of the better issues i've looked through recently. I particularly enjoyed Old Timers although that might be a reflection of my age!!!
It'd be great to read other people's opinions so maybe this is something we could all start posting on more often???
Oh please do - and it doesn't have to be praise, criticism is also useful.
I thought I'd reply on the question of which is best - flight tests by authors like Clive Davidson and Bob Grimstead who've flown hundreds of different types, or flight tests by the aircraft's owner. Both have their points. The pros are more experienced writers and can draw on having sampled a variety of aeroplanes, but the owner usually has much more knowledge of his aircraft than the journalist forced to draw conclusions after just a couple of flights. First impressions can be wrong! (Having said that, it's Pilot's policy to get the text checked and approved by the owner.)
There's another aspect to this. Most of the regular contributors to Pilot began by writing about their own aeroplane and we do need to introduce new writers. I am always keen to encourage anyone who is really knowledgeable to write on any subject and John Russell certainly demonstrated his expertise.
Nice to see Peter R March praised, too. He's one of Pilot's longer serving contributors and his standards of photography and journalism are widely respected. - Ed.
On the subject of the 'flight tests', of which there are three this month if one includes the Buyer's Guide version, I would welcome a different perspective sometimes. The tried and tested regulars write, naturally, in their tried and tested ways. All well and good. It would be refreshing to me and possibly to other readers to see things from another angle. I suppose this is a wish too far, given the rather small and incestuous world of flying, but there must be people you know or meet in your travels whom you know have something to offer, whether by experience or style. Looking at the posters on another forum (or two), I know there are pilots with experience, wit and who can spell and write the Queen's English. Surely the Pilot office can charm one or two from the skies to add to the magazine's kudos?
Rant mode on.
On the subject of journalistic standards, which is thread drift par excellence, I know, could I put in a plea for the return of the Pedantic Proof Reader? It's the one thing Pilot used to do better than those others. One instance: March issue, page 66. By the time I find it, the "brand new" will be vintage. Overall, I can forgive the odd typo and perhaps the very occasional lapse in grammar, if it still makes sense, but I'd like to think that exacting standards are pursued in all publications; I'm allowed to write as I talk, you're meant to be setting an example!
That said, I was appalled recently by the abysmal pages in a glossy monthly picked at random in WHS. I can't remember which title it was, but it was something I'd consider to be rating a decent circulation. I can remember how little effort had been made and felt saddened that if such examples are common, the standards of those supplying the great British public are worse than I feared. Publishers must be very happy if they can sell such rubblish.
Like you, I always thought that in the past Pilot had the best editorial standards of any magazine out there (aviation or not).
I was wondering if you've noticed any difference during the last year (2011).
Because I felt the same as you, when Philip came back to the helm I offered my services as 'self-appointed nit-picker' so, when I have the time (which is not always) I've been copy-editing most of the mag's content in recent months.
Do you see an improvement, or am I wasting my time?
23/01/2008, 8:27 AM
