Relevance??

[fly_tornado]

I am surprised no one is spitting chips as the state of MARAP, all that time and money invested and it seems to gone no where. No word from any of the RAA reps about the future of it either.

 

I'm surprised that the members are happy to see this happen, I had high hopes for it saving the drifter.

 

 

[ev17ifly2]

There are a few threads on here that I wish would go away. They have been done to death and keep going round in circles. I would like to see an ignore option for threads, so that when I hit "New" they don't clutter the top of the list.

Yeh, Gun Culture and the sub thread of RAA Bashing are two we could start with.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

not a lot of interest in the failures of the RAA any more. The board reps don't even bother trying to sell the achievements anymore.

 

 

[facthunter]

Then I would have failed my purpose. The best funnies are the ones that hit about 15 minutes later. Hard to achieve that level on line. Nev

 

 

[Admin]

Ft, you are again trying to fragment a thread but no one seems to be biting as around 60% of users have you on their ignore list so they don't even see your posts any more so maybe you are just posting to yourself and filling up the database. As a suggestion, perhaps you may like to stop trying to turn threads and increase the quality of posts

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I thought we had answered Frank's questions?

 

 

[spacesailor]

WELL!, I'll say thank you, to all the contributors, I enjoy All of the banter, ( and I didn't make too many ooopsies I hope).

 

spacesailor

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I enjoy it all, but it would be helpful to have two "new" buttons, one for flying threads and one for the others. Then I could choose one or the other according to my mood. And maybe the moderator could change a threads category if it goes off on a tangent.

 

 

[facthunter]

I haven't ever put anyone on an ignore list. Don't really see the purpose of it. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

I didn't know there was an ignore list, but now that there is I can see how it could be useful, although if I ignore someone I will never know if they come good or deteriorate.

 

 

[djpacro]

..... Calling someone names ..... seems a bit childish.

and offensive so more added to my ignore list.

[Bruce Tuncks]

I don't have time for Facebook or Twitter, in fact this is the only forum I come to. There is great technical support here and fast responses too. Quite a few knowledgeable people here are generous with their expertise and they have been a great help in my flying and maintenance.

 

For years I never even looked at the "off topic" stuff but lately I have found it to be fun, and I like to have my say sometimes there too.

 

I hope the site stays the same.

 

 

[kasper]

Well to be frank the RAA are a bit like a black hole now.1. the online magazine is too large a file and too difficult to read other than on a wide screen desktop so i have stopped reading it

2. the new website is just SO static and information poor in some respects I have given up looking at it - just for a laugh TRY and find the draft constitution etc

 

The mag is an extreme disapointment - they made the decision to go digital THEN the editor makes everything a layout for double page view only - ie layout for printed pages with EVERY bloody picture and story flowing across pages ... then the pdf document has everything as double page and that becomes SO damn small on a Kindle or mobile device I have to continually zoom in and move around pages to read it - crap changes and crap management of the magazine that is now laid out PERFECTLY for printed (not available without extra $$) and HORRIBLE for the primary distribution channel of digital.

 

I'm still interested in the RAA but they have from an information perspective hunkered down and gone silent - even the emails from them just try and get you to read the mag - RAA comms are I am afraid heading towards automatic delete as garbage in my email :-(

 

RAA are getting fail grades now from me on the new digital comms and website - I gave them the benefit of the doubt and a few months to improve but the changes over that time are to the detriment of members. F-

Damn, I should have left good enough alone - I gave in a read the January sport pilot and am seeing red:

Quote from the editor of the mag in the letters section:

 

"Since the changeover to digital it's clear that a lot of former letter writers are not contributing, possibly because they have not yet subscribed"

 

So add to my beef the layout issues the fact that even the editor accepts that FEWER people are reading the mag ... and the ones missing are ones who USED to read it and interact with the RAA.

 

Is there a grade lower than -F ? I think RAAus are looking like a candidate for it on effectiveness of comms.

 

And I am giving the benefit of the doubt to the editor that he really didn't mean that he expected all people to subscribe at additional cost to the paper mag ... or I would then be having to say Ahhh - that explains the absolutely CRAP layout for digital then doesn't it?

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Shame on me, I come here instead of reading the official stuff. I reckon I keep more up to date AND I can have my say.

 

 

[kasper]

This is going off to the CEO today on the magazine changes - and its positive in one respect as it identifies an issue and why that issue is antithetical to the stated new distribution method of the RAAus magazine ...

 

"CEO

 

Since the change to digital form of Magazine I have noted to the editor of the magazine and through RecreationalFlying.com forums as the wider readership an apparent lack of awareness of page and file layout that is best suited to digital e-readers such as the Kindle or a table computers.

 

My issue is that in both the .pdf files on the RAAus site and the dowloadable files from Issuu the page layout of the magazine is single page front/back cover and double page spread for all other pages.

 

This is a terrible layout for ereaders and tablets as the double page format forces you to manually zoom in to any page other the front and rear covers to be able to read ANYTHING and the double whammy for many tablets is that as the files are delivered in portrait view the double pages automatically zoom down to mimiscule size to stay portrait unless you change the setting on the device to have it set up as landscape.

 

This issue alone makes the digital version near impossible to readily read on portable - even those designed specifically as ereaders.

 

I have asked for the .pdf files to be saved as single page portrait layout as an option to allow ereaders to download a workable file but to no effect. And whilst I realize that over the past 5 issues of the magazine over a third of every magazine has double page spread layouts that will be impacted by this I have noted to the editor that double page spreads work VERY well for printed magazines but are not well suited to portable devices and in particular ereaders and as the primary distribution is intended to be electronic optimization towards print at the expense of electronic readers is not appropriate in my opinion.

 

Can you please advise if it is possible to have at the very least a form of single page portrait view of each magazine available for download from the RAAus website and on a more general point of direction and suitability for portable electronic viewing why since the change to the magazine distribution to electronic format the number of double page spreads has increased so greatly?

 

Thanks in advance."

 

 

[kasper]

Got a Thanks for the considered comment email from the CEO and he will take it up with the editor to see what can be done.