Pro Pilot magazine

[ProPilotGuy]

Gentlemen,

I am requesting a few bricks be thrown in my direction. I work for Professional Pilot magazine, which has come up in a few threads in this forum.

There are some definite opinions regarding the magazine out here in cyberspace. After reading your comments, it appears we have problems providing our readers, pilots of the corporate market, with material that they find useful, or more importantly, credible.

Therefore, I am asking for your help. Tell me what's wrong with the magazine. What can we do to fix it? Tell me what you would like to read that we don't already carry. What is useful to you that you would like to see within our magazine's covers? Give me specific recommendations and examples. If you tell me "This sucks!" or "It needs to be better!", tell me why.

On the flip side, if there is something you don't like, tell me that as well. Is it an editorial feature that you feel isn't appropriate for Pro Pilot? Is there an article series that isn't helping you to do your job better and safer? If you could get rid of, or change something, what would it be, and more importantly, why?

We need your help to keep it aimed at who it is supposed to serve: Professional Corporate Pilots.

I appreciate and await your comments. Thanks!

 

[hawkerflyer]

I actually find ProPilot one of the better sources with particular regard to corporate flying. There seems to be a fairly good balance between technical, educational and general interest articles. Still waiting for the day that ole' Clay finds an airplane he really doesn't like though...

 

[GVFlyer]

Professional Pilot magazine is supposed to be a professional journal reporting on a segment of the aviation industry. As such, it has a responsibility for objective reportage. Commentary should be labled as such and personal opinions should not creep into articles that should be, "Just the facts, Ma'am." Mort Zuckerman over at US News and World Report has this down in his market segment. You don't see any of the Newsweek style creative reporting there. You know what I mean, " The President leaves the Blue room, turns right, walks six steps to the Oval Office where he sits down at the mahogany desk that Jefferson brought from Monticello to sign the new trade bill with Lithuania." In this pseudo example of Newsweek style reporting the only fact is that the President signed the trade bill. The rest, while being based on knowledge of the White House, is not truly known by the reporter to have occurred.

Pro Pilot occasionaly does creative reporting, but more importantly, the views of the publisher tend to taint the quality of much of the magazine's content. Murray Smith is so opinionated and so far from being objective that at one time he was not allowed on the property at Gulfstream.

In short, I think journalistic integrity is Pro Pilot's short coming. Business and Commercial Aviation should be your target for journalistic verite'. Fred George does a good job for them. I don't know where he is now, but Matt Thurman could always be counted on for accuracy when he was writing for AIN . There should be a writer at Pro Pilot that is known for being a straight shooter and an honest guy.

As a personal note, I think that the selection process you use to choose flight departments to profile is absurd. Why not select departments like Bank of America which has a unique and effective organizational structure, a professional staff which includes dispatch, pilots, maintenance technicians and flight attendants, observes the Flight Safety Foundations crew scheduling guidance and does innovative things like web-site scheduling and having a chief pilot for technology integration rather than picking a flight department that does trans-oceanic flights in a Learjet then sleeps in the plane when they get to their foreign destination?

GV

 

[Bandit60]

GV ...I have heard that many companies like you have mentioned, do not want to be on the cover. I know my company has turned it down more than once. As you know alot of the top corporate flight departments would rather just stay under the radar.

 

[Rabble]

I honestly love the magazine. I truly enjoy it! The only problem I have is your selection of "flight department of the month".

The name of your magazine is "Professional Pilot", not "Management Flunky Weekly"!

If you're going to select a flight department to highlight, then pick a department that reflects a lifestyle that a professional pilot can be proud of!

Focusing on a department that admits that you're on-call 24X7/365 and will be gone on Christmas and your aniversary every month is ludicrous! Ultra-short call-out times. Long trips with no set days off. Departments that dont send their F/Os to initial or frequent recurrents.

This is not the lifestyle that professional pilots seek. Don't glorify a department that treats its employees poorly! Seek out those corporations that have a strong flight department where a pilot could seek to build a career.

Thanks for taking the time to ask us what we think.

 

[LJ45]

don't like all the helicopter stuff

What is up with all the Helicopter articles? Don't they have magazines devoted to that all ready? Too Much Helicopter stuff lately.

Some of the flight department interviews show how not to run a department...Pro pilot could do better or leave it out completely.

 

[2000flyer]

Well said GV! Well said indeed.

ProPilot does, at times, have great articles on weather and products. However, the weakest part of their pages is the flight department stories. Like Bandit, our company has also rejected offers to be in their magazine. What respected company wants to be on the cover after they "hi-lite" Larry Flynt's company? While many may be good flight departments, most are so full of it that we can see right through it. Now, in ProPilot's defense, I doubt there is one CP or Manager out there that will say (or allow to be said) anything negative about the company or department (and none of us have a problem with that). But every department covered is always "at or above NBAA" in salary (a likely story in many cases). They seem to have so much icing on them you'll never get a "taste" of what the flight department is really like.

My other dislike of ProPilot is they're always a month behind in news reporting. B/CA, AIN, even Flying has current news of the day. When I get my ProPilot it's news brief section is often dated material.

Lastly, in my humble opinion, you're salary survey is nothing but comical. Every CP I know will throw out any reference to a salary survey done by ProPilot. Many have said, and still say, that much of their data is so over inflated and in some cases probably under inflated. In years past we've seen GV captains making $70K a year and Citation 500 captains making $125K. While that may be true, having such gaps in ranges and what most of us really make leave this survey a weak link at best. Don't you find it interesting on the fractional thread NJA pilot's citing ProPilot in hopes of their new contract? One guy listed a DA2000 CA at $120K/year and a Citation X pilot at $123K. Again, those may be true numbers but from everyone I've talked to, very very VERY few even come close to those numbers.

2000Flyer

 

[semperfido]

if you can't showcase a quality dept in a meaningful way i would rather see you skip a month or two or three. sometimes it is a joke, as previously mentioned. there is always that "pro-pilot curse" hanging over the heads of any dept that ends up on the front cover of pro pilot.

take a look at AIN, that's the one i like to peruse.

 

[On Your Six]

Gentlemen,

I am requesting a few bricks be thrown in my direction. I work for Professional Pilot magazine, which has come up in a few threads in this forum.

There are some definite opinions regarding the magazine out here in cyberspace. After reading your comments, it appears we have problems providing our readers, pilots of the corporate market, with material that they find useful, or more importantly, credible.

Therefore, I am asking for your help. Tell me what's wrong with the magazine. What can we do to fix it? Tell me what you would like to read that we don't already carry. What is useful to you that you would like to see within our magazine's covers? Give me specific recommendations and examples. If you tell me "This sucks!" or "It needs to be better!", tell me why.

On the flip side, if there is something you don't like, tell me that as well. Is it an editorial feature that you feel isn't appropriate for Pro Pilot? Is there an article series that isn't helping you to do your job better and safer? If you could get rid of, or change something, what would it be, and more importantly, why?

We need your help to keep it aimed at who it is supposed to serve: Professional Corporate Pilots.

I appreciate and await your comments. Thanks!

It is helpful that you are seeking our feedback. Frequently we, as readers, feel that our interests are subordinated to those of the advertisers. You rarely read anything critical about certain aircraft (i.e., Clay Lacy's lame aircraft reviews) for fear of losing advertising dollars from those same aircraft manufacturers. The magazine does not seem very objective as a result - and that is what we want - more objectivity. But, at the same time, we recognize that this is a business too.

I agree that the selection of flight departments is less than desirable most months. I realize that "professional pilot" can refer to many types of pilots (law enforcement, corporate pilots, military, airline pilots, etc.), but most of us around the hanger would prefer to focus (most but not all of the time) on corporate, fractional or airline pilot jobs and issues. We will benefit from examples of "best in class" or "innovative" practices that enhance the profession. When we read about these crummy flight departments with low pay, no benefits and horrible schedules (but they do fly a great Challenger 300!), this is a step backwards and doesn't help our cause. I'd like to read about innovative practices at specific flight departments - not just general theory from some dated consultant...

I would suggest the following for future department/organization profiles:

1. Mix of large (General Motors or Bank of America sized) and small (maybe operates a CJ2 or Premier Jet) departments that have something positive in the way of pilot pay or schedules - don't glorify crappy operations with low pay

2. An occasional European, Latin American or Asian flight department

3. Other Fractionals or Part 135 profiles - Avantair, Jet Aviation, TAG, The Air Group, maybe Deer Jet in China

4. Better examples of actual pilot schedules (better descriptions of lifestyles)

5. Day-in-the-life profiles are great for comparison. I remember an article you had a few years back profiling the life of a King Air 200 pilot (Belk in South Carolina?). That was a great article and I'd like to see more like that one with jet operators - maybe week-in-the-life of a BBJ or GV or a fractional pilot... You could even have the targeted pilot author the article. I enjoy those articles when I find them in AIN or B&CA or Airways - those are the article I remember and enjoy re-reading.

6. An occassional airline/regional profile like the old days would be nice. Your articles about Hainan Airlines and Brit Air years ago come to mind.

I look forward to your magazine every month. I use it to compare my situation to that of other pilots. I just wish it were more objective and less of a PR magazine like AIN. Better corporate/fractional profiles would be a step in the right direction.

And bring back the "what's new with you?" section up front - I always enjoyed that section and constantly looked for people I knew...

 

[GVFlyer]

Good Post On Your Six.

 

[bigD]

I can't really speak much of the content since I'm still a newbie to the industry, so instead I'll throw in a couple of design tips:

First, keep the design consistent across the various areas of the magazine. You're using a lot of different fonts for different sections such as mail, accident recaps, articles, the PIREPS section...etc. It's not a subtle difference either - the size of type changes too. Keep it the same. You might be trying to differentiate different sections of the magazine and that's fine, but it needs to be done in a much, much more subtle way. This goes beyond just the fonts used - pick a "feel" for the magazine and stick with it for everything. Right now it kind of seems like you have one guy doing one section, another guy doing a different section, and there's no communication between any of them.

You don't do this very often, but never, ever use a graphic that's at a screen resolution. Insist that every picture be at or above the resolution that you print at. For the most part you're fine with this, but only one or two jaggy pictures can ruin the whole image of your magazine. For an example, take a look at the picture of the Eclipse 500 on page 28 of your January issue. If you don't have a picture that's at a high, printable resolution, either insist that you get one, or don't include the picture at all. Stuff like this will just make you look like amateurs. Also, I know they're paying the bills, but try and insist the same of your advertisers. Page 10 of that same issue, look at the Miami Executive Aviation ad. It's fine except for the graphic of the UVAir fueling card. It's the same type of thing - and most advertisers understand that it looks poorly on them when they do this.

Same January issue, page 66 - look at the title text overlaid on the picture of the two guys in the Falcon 2000. You’re usually good about this, but you need to be good about it *all* the time. One glaring mistake will be what readers remember – even if the rest of the magazine is flawless.

I’m not a designer myself, so if I cringe when I see these mistakes, there’s probably a host of other things that I’m missing. I think it might be a good idea to bring in someone solely to deal with the look and feel of the magazine. That person doesn’t have to be expensive either – find the closest college with a design department and bring in a cheap intern. That person will make a world of difference.

Hope this helps!

 

[Gulfstream 200]

I like the Intl Operation articles.

I like the weather articles.

To echo the rest, please stop profiling these absurd companies who have 2 pilots on call 24/7 even Christmas. The one that really set everyone off was the ski resort jackoff who operated Lear 35s to London and made them "berthable" for the crew to rest in...This hurt ProPilot very much IMHO.

I agree with the above, I would rather see no department profile before one that embarasses our industry.

A small, tightly run, mediocre pay department that is a success story keeping pilots employed and benefiting/promoting corp aviation - SURE! - sleeping in a Learjet on the ramp at Luton after a 20 hr crossing.....no.

and please, a little less Clay Lacy.

Thanks for asking!

 

[ProPilotGuy]

Thanks for the input! Keep it coming!

I wasn't expecting such a quick response! Thanks guys!

I'd like to respond to several of the comments so far:

Flight Department Profiles: The flight departments profiled on our covers are selected by the writer and approved by the publisher. Often, the writer is contacted by the department itself and is asked to write a profile. We look at a department's scope of operations, number of pilots on staff and if they are a true Part 91 department. We tend to shy away from 135 operators. You may see helicopter units on the cover from time to time.

Could we do a better job of screening departments? Sure. It's been discussed. Our covers are unique in the industry in that we are the only business aviation publication among the "Big Three", us, B/CA and AIN, that puts people on the cover. Let me ask you guys a couple questions: What, in your opinion, makes a flight department a good candidate for a cover story? What do you look for, or hope is profiled, in our cover stories? What is the most important aspect of a cover story that isn't being covered now that you'd like to see added?

2000flyer mentioned the Larry Flynt cover, news and the Salary Study. We took some heat for the Larry Flynt cover, mainly because of Flynt's "Hustler" connection. However, not to defend him, but to provide some background info, Flynt runs a publishing empire with over 50 magazines that aren't tied to the "adult entertainment" world. The cover story that month was about Flynt's department, not his venture into the "adult entertainment" world. As for news, we are not a news magazine and don't pretend to be one. We'll cover the highlights of the industry, but little more. News isn't our focus. Our Salary Study is just that: A study. Are the results "comical"? Perhaps, but keep this in mind: It doesn't portray what you are currently paid. It projects what you SHOULD be getting paid. That's its purpose.

LJ45 asked about the helicopter articles. We have increased our amount of helicopter coverage as the industry itself has increased in importance thanks to homeland security. More helicopter departments are popping up thanks to goverment money being handed out to cities to increase their law enforcement activity. It's only right to increase our coverage as well. Part of our mission statement is to cover the helicopter industry, whether it be LE, EMS, Offshore Oil Ops, or corporate. I hope that explains it.

GVFlyer remarked about journalistic integrity. B/CA and the other magazines employ staff journalists to write their articles. We don't. We go to the field for our writers. We ask department heads or industry personalities who are doing the "nuts-and-bolts" work to write articles for us. A professional journalist who hasn't flown an approach, managed a flight department, created an avionics suite, etc, shouldn't be writing about it as if they are an expert. Articles such as these are best coming from people in the field who are actually involved in such aspects of the industry. Yes, they may at times be very opinionated. This is a small price to pay. For credibility, it's better having an expert write about a subject.

And to HawkerFlyer, I think you'll be waiting quite a while before Clay finds an aircraft he doesn't like.

Thanks for your time, guys!

 

[propsarebest]

Good mag, But too many Clay Lacy things- Like the last issue about that company that flies like 450 overnights a month with 3 airplanes, 2 crews and the CEO who likes to fly. I read that as nothing but a big giant CLA advert. I wish it had more regional coverage like the "olden days". The Helo stuff is good, but I may be a bit bias. I like the WX, intl ops and the squak ident articles too.


AND STOP SENDING ME SURVEYS!!!!!!!

 

[BankAccount=0$]

Wow

Gentleman you should all be applauded. Thirteen posts, all on topic, and all very well thought out and constructive. While I'm sure it was high on all of your lists of suggestions, the corporate community used some self control and did not all suggest what you really want in ProPilot magazine.......the BBQ joint of the month.

Perhaps ProPilot could do a piece on how internet message boards are rapidly becoming the tool of choice for people to network in their job hunting. It seems like more people everyday are getting hired through contacts made online as opposed to someone met in a FBO.
TJ

 

[Gearmunky]

My feeble .02

Please stop putting law enforcement flight departments in your magazine (especially on the cover) looking like a scene from a bad 80's TV cop show. All serious and ready to strike at moments notice The everyday pilot struggling for a job can't just send these people a resume' and expect to get hired, save the space for more useful stuff to us. It's kinda like profiling a military flight wing, if you know what I mean.

Also a little column on places to go, things to to when you get there would be nice. We don't need a three page spread on a golf course like in Stratos, but a little something to hint us in the right direction. Throw in a survey on the best places to eat and where.

 

[Kingairrick]

The fact that the profiled departments sometimes ask you to profile them should ring an alarm bell. Maybe you should send out a ballot for the readers to nominate flight departments to be profiled. We all know an operator or two that "does things right" and would nominate. I think quality flight departments would respond once the bar gets raised to a higher standard.

I find the rest of the magazine very informative and enjoyable. Keep up the good work!

 

[On Your Six]

The fact that the profiled departments sometimes ask you to profile them should ring an alarm bell. Maybe you should send out a ballot for the readers to nominate flight departments to be profiled. We all know an operator or two that "does things right" and would nominate. I think quality flight departments would respond once the bar gets raised to a higher standard.

I find the rest of the magazine very informative and enjoyable. Keep up the good work!

I had a copy of PP at work and my boss (the owner) picked it up and actually read about one of the flight departments - it might have been about YUM Brands which was not so negative. Thank goodness he didn't read the article about the Lear 35 operator out of Reno (pilots sleep in the aircraft while overnighting in London) - my salary and benefits could have been in jeopardy!!!!

All we ask is that you spend a little more time and effort seeking out (as opposed to accepting random offers) GOOD flight departments for profiles. I'm not talking about the highest pay, but instead a good combination of pay, quality aircraft and QOL. Perhaps you could seek out some of your own survey participants and ask (maybe via email) if they would like to share their profiles - but ask screening questions before you dive in...

In the meantime, more day-in-the-life and airline/regional profiles would be appreciated...

 

[semperfido]

Please stop putting law enforcement flight departments in your magazine (especially on the cover) looking like a scene from a bad 80's TV cop show. All serious and ready to strike at moments notice The everyday pilot struggling for a job can't just send these people a resume' and expect to get hired, save the space for more useful stuff to us. It's kinda like profiling a military flight wing, if you know what I mean.

i like reading about some diff pilot jobs i.e LE, mil, choppers, freight, flight test etc. i got a job and it will never be one of those in my example, so i don't mind reading a little about them. pro pilot doesn't necessarily mean corp pilot.

 

[ProPilotGuy]

Keep it coming!

You guys are the best!

I have to echo what BankAccount=0 noted: All comments are on topic!

I am sharing your sentiments and comments with my fellow staffers. Hopefully, we'll be able to translate them into meaningful change.

BankAccount=0: I was watching BBQ with Bobby Flay last night on the Food Network. Apparently, there's a great BBQ place at the KOA campground in Carlsbad NM. You may want to check it out next time you drop in there.

Hey Kingairrick, what would you ask on the ballot? I like the idea.

On your six: AWESOME post! Your suggestions are right on! I'm going to see if I can't get a few pushed through.

Oh, and about the surveys. We do ask our readers to fill them out whenever possible. They provide valuable feedback to the manufacturers to help improve their service and their products. Please take a few minutes to fill in a survey form when you receive it and drop it in the mail. Yes, we do send at a rate of 1/month. But, they're for a good cause: keeping support high and quality. So, send in your surveys.

Cheers!