Disappointing Oshkosh 2004 Video on Wings

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

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

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

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

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

Jay Honeck wrote:

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

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

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

I certainly hope EAA had nothing to do with this production. Heck, I can't
even remember them talking about EAA at all!



--

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

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

Volunteer Pilot, Angel Flight Mid-Atlantic

Volunteer Builder, Habitat for Humanity

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

Pretty weak, wasn't it?

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

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

Jim



Michelle P
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

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


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

Pretty weak, wasn't it?

Discovery persistently talks down to its audiences; their science shows
are similarly insubstantial, IMO.

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

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

Jay Honeck wrote:

Pretty weak, wasn't it?

Discovery persistently talks down to its audiences; their science shows
are similarly insubstantial, IMO.


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

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

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:nro5d.112171$MQ5.1933@attbi_s52...
Pretty weak, wasn't it?

Discovery persistently talks down to its audiences; their science shows
are similarly insubstantial, IMO.

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

They completely missed the point of the entire 7-day show, IMHO.
--
Jay Honeck

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Pete

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

Dan Luke wrote:

"Jay Honeck" wrote:


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



Pretty weak, wasn't it?

Discovery persistently talks down to its audiences; their science shows
are similarly insubstantial, IMO.



--

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

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

Volunteer Pilot, Angel Flight Mid-Atlantic

Volunteer Builder, Habitat for Humanity

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

with ESPN. Air racing would be 1000 times worse.


Putting the races on television could breath new life into the sport. It
could bring sponsorship money, advertising revenue, and a host of other
good
things. It's simply about expanding the business.

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

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

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

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

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


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

Best,
-cwk.