Australian Flying recently ran an on-line reader survey that provided us with a big picture of who our readers are, what they like and don't like and what they want to see. We also got a lot of comments about the magazine, most of them fortunately very complimentary and supportive of both the magazine and the website. There were a few stand-out comments and ideas that deserve responses, so editor Steve Hitchen took up his pen and provided these answers.
Please don't go digital as I don't have good internet connection where I live.
Neither do I! But fear not; there is no intent to make Australian Flying a purely on-line or digital publication. We are constantly told by readers that they love the paper version, and as the mag is well supported, we'd be crazy to make such a radical change without good cause.
Tired of rehashing of old accidents. Sometimes the safari items are too long. Tired of "here i am learning to fly" articles. Don't overdo these please. Perhaps up a notch or two. My tailwheel endorsement or my first turbine or twin etc, thanks.
We try to keep things as fresh as we can. Interestingly, Jim Davis' What Can We Learn columns rated extremely high in the survey, so it seems there are a lot of people still keen to learn from the mistakes other pilots have made. I agree with you about the "learning to fly" type articles, so I managed to guide the Reach for the Sky series away from that an on to more advanced training. In the last three years, we've done RA-Aus, formations, aerobatics, tailwheel and twins. Turbines? Would love to run something like that, but it would be quite costly. However, I am working on it!
Editorial needs to be an article of useful info not a list of what is in the magazine. That is lazy journalism. See the US Flying mag for how it should be done.
I think this reader is referring to The Last Minute Hitch, rather than the Editorial, which appears in the print mag. I will answer on that assumption. In only the last month have I become genuinely aware of the impact The Last Minute Hitch in the aviation community, and how much people look forward to reading it! Consequently, my intent now is to re-frame it more along the lines of a blog. Thanks for the feedback.
Would like to see info/articles on aircraft building as that is a fair size portion of GA including myself being a current aircraft builder.
We recently ran an excellent feature by serial builder Martin Hone, and added the column Good Sports from the Sport Aircraft Association of Australia. Amateur-built aircraft do make up a large proportion of privately-own aircraft, and we have no intention to igmore that.
Prefer more sport pilot aircraft reviews, not only reviews on "GA" lookalikes, include aircraft that have a MTOW below 600 kg.
This question comes up at every strategy meeting the Australian Flying team has! I understand that some aircraft with an MTOW below 600 kg actually have higher useful loads than some GA aircraft, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. The decision not to review aircraft with an MTOW below 600 kg was made because there are other publications dedicated to this sector that have more expertise and do a great job at it! We are always re-evaluating, and will on occasions dip into the recreational area, but right now our focus will remain on GA and LSAs with an MTOW of 600 kg.
I am sick and tired of the shallow articles written by Shelley Ross and every time a new editor comes aboard we get, yet again, all the details of his/her learning to fly. I hope I am wrong, but I feel there is the possibility of "freebies" or "mates rates" for the publicity given in the magazine for accommodation etc (Shelley Ross) and the flight schools (editors).
I am not sure this is fair, but worth a reply anyway. Shelley's Destinations series remains one of the most popular series we do, and I would hardly describe her work as shallow. The cost of writing aviation stories is very high, and many stories would never see the light of day if the writers and publishers had to cover the cost of doing so. That goes for all aviation publications, not just us. However, most companies accept that we will still say what we think; that's part of the bargain. We value the support of aviation companies, because if not for them, we'd never be able to get the more expensive features to print. Can you imagine if we had to pay for all the flying done for John Absolon's test flights, including the cost of the camera plane? As for accommodation, I know that Shelley plans her own, and often the proprietors aren't told she's writing a feature until she gets there. Also, you need have no worries about more ab-initio articles from new editors. I got my licence the hard way in 1988 ... and I paid for it all myself!
Reincorporate Last Minute Hitch into the e-newsletter. It is a wasted extra click.
It used to be incorporated, but we changed to enable it to be kept on the website. The e-news itself exists only in the e-mail you get, so if you delete the e-mail, it's gone. This way, The Last Minute Hitch remains on the website to be read by anyone, not only those that get the e-news ... and for those who may want to refer back to it after deleting the e-mail!
I unsubscribed when AF began promoting a digital version for ipad. I abhor apple products and only use android devices. Even FSA developed an android app before stopping print altogether. Android will not go away and you people are missing out on a large audience by leaving your heads in the sand and ignoring Android users.
Yes, we went with Apple first so it could be used on iPads (as distinct from iPhones) as iPads are more prevalent in aircraft cockpits. Android is on the radar, and I am expecting news from our production team any day now.
Editorial is good but Hitch needs to work on his behaviour towards CASA. Don't hear me say I like them or the fact that when he deals them a blow that they don't deserve it but promoting or designing/creating a forum through his voice and position to work with CASA and GA combined is far better than continually slamming them and sharing that across his readership which fosters an I hate CASA attitude.
And to think the other day I got lambasted by an aviation group for being too supportive of CASA! Firstly, I don't hate CASA; I hate what CASA has become, and am frustrated with some of the people that made it become that way. My simple policy is that I assess everything coming out of Aviation House against what I believe is good for general aviation, and whether or not the regulation or SID or AD is logical and fair. Sometimes that will cause me to nod my head in agreement (most of the Forsyth Report) or take to the paper with a venom-filled pen (Part 61!). General aviation in this country is divided, but nonetheless both sides of the division are parts of GA, so as editor I can't ignore one side over the other. Inevitably, I get a lot of brickbats flung in my direction from one side or the other. That's just part of being an editor.
I would also like to see Jim's "What Can We Learn" based on Australian ATSB incidents. I doubt there is any less legal risk in commenting on the learnings of Australian events against the South African ones he uses. This is one improvement that goes towards the magazine's name: Australian Flying.
We do get asked this a lot, and Jim and I did talk about it. However, we came to the conclusion that it can't be done. Yes, there are legal issues, but also Australian incidents are too close to home. The articles would be read by friends and family of those involved, and cases where the accident wasn't fatal, the actual people involved. Jim's writing style is very straight-forward and he pulls no punches. Some people could be hurt by that. The other reason is that Jim is intimately involved with the aviation industry in South Africa, and if you hadn't noticed, some of the CAA accident summaries are quite brief and in some cases don't make a lot of sense. Jim finds out what really happened by talking to people who know, and uses his own experience with the airports and the environment to give a more comprehensive picture of the situation. He couldn't do that with Australian accidents.
You left Masterclass out of the list. That would have been my #1 choice!
Yes, I did. There is nothing else to say, but I didn't realise we'd done that until it was too late! I believe that Masterclass would have romped it in as the top choice of all our regular features, so I offer an apology to both the readers and Jim Davis for my oversight. Stupid, really.
Great magazine. Could do with a bit more info on whats happening in WA.
Yes, we could! I am with you 100% on this. Our problem is that we don't have any correspondents based over there. If you know anyone who a) has a good knowledge of the aviation industry, b) can write, c) wants to write, d) can source images and e) has the time to do it; please get them to contact me immediately!
Thanks to everyone who participated in the survey. We know have a great picture of who our readership base is, what they value and why they read Australian Flying. We'll use your feedback to constantly improve what we offer.