From: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: (none)
Date: 23 Jul 1992 01:48:15 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Reply-To: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

>In article <9207222051.AA06891@rascal.ics.utexas.edu> rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) writes:
>>GROUP I: Must have.  The re-organization fails if these don't pass.
>
>Why? 

They comprise a core group selection that will siphon 40% to 50% of 
the traffic from rec.aviation.  A major, mandatory division such as this 
should be considered.  To have these fail, and a dozen other groups, 
comprising perhaps another 20% of total traffic, pass, is not a good idea.
Considering the number of groups proposed, I feel that "important"
groups be hilighted.  I therefore recommend that Geoff's "Group I" newsgroups 
be narrowed down, to emphasize a group-selection that is "highly 
recommended."


>>1.  rec.aviation.misc          A group that all rec.aviators should read.
>
>If this group fails, it will be called rec.aviation. Same purpose,
>different name. 

The current plan tends to forcing the creation of this group, if one or more
other sub-groups are created.  I.e.: rec.aviation -> rec.aviation.misc.


>>2.  rec.aviation.soaring       Soaring/ballooning/hang-gliding.
>
>1. If you want to separate unpowered flight you should call it
>unpowered. 

Soaring is a far more common designation.  I do not support the use
of a "negative" group-name, one that reads like a diminuitive version of 
another.  


>>3.  rec.aviation.powered       Powered general aviation aircraft/flying/etc.
>>4.  rec.aviation.powered.ifr   IFR flight.
>
>The rules apply to everyone. Why split out IFR from VFR? Do VFR pilots
>never encounter IFR? 

Never.


>Are all those NTSB reports that say that they
>sometimes do, with disasterous results, lies?

No, but they do distinguish between VFR into IMC and VFR into IFR.  VFR
into IFR is kind of... kinky... if one thinks about it... :-)

IFR flying is highly technical, dependent upon a comprehensive knowledge
of the federal aviation regulations, the airspace system, and the operation
and design of the major airplane components.  

VFR flying is much more "fair-weather."  

VFR-related discussions tend to be more technique/pilotage-oriented, 
whereas IFR discussions tend to be much more detailed and technical.  
I merely suggest that VFR pilots (the majority of pilots) are not
necessarily interested in the intricacies of IFR traffic until they "bite 
the bullet" and start thinking aggressively about the rating.  This is
arguably a fine distinction, and, perhaps, a rec.aviation.ifr group
should go into my "Group II".  In the rec.aviation survey, the trend is 
somewhat toward a "piloting/flying" group and an ancillary "IFR" group; I 
interpret this as emphasizing the unique nature of IFR flight, compared to 
VFR, or "general" flying.


>
>>5.  rec.aviation.answers       Maintenance group, moderated by Peck.
>>8.  rec.aviation.maintenance   A bit too technical for "misc," but not
>
>Two different branches for the same thing?

Ah.  "Answers" as a "maintenance" group as in "group-maintenance."  As
proposed, it would be a group dedicated to FAQ posts.  Sorry for the 
confusion.



Av-glossary:

IFR	Instrument Flight Rules
IMC	Instrument Meteorological Conditions
VFR	Visual Flight Rules




--
Robert Dorsett
Internet: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu
UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!rdd