From: stadler@Apple.COM (Andy Stadler)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: why IFR = "real pilot"
Date: 27 Jan 93 23:11:32 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA


I just can't believe how thin skinned yer all turning out to be.  Poor Dave
posts some letters he wrote, trying to HELP get GA more accepted for
corporate travel, and BOOM everyone gets all defensive about the relative
worth of IFR vs. VFR.

First, all of this talk about what pilots believe is absolutely useless
IN THE ORIGINAL CONTEXT.  Dave's letters were SPECIFICALLY written to try to
explain things to groundhogs.  In doing so, he made use of an analogy.  Fine, 
maybe IFR is not exactly equal to PhD.  Had I written that letter, I'd have
probably picked Masters or something.  So what???  Are you all so insecure 
that this really makes you feel defensive?

The point was, Dave was trying to make an analogy which the READERS would
understand.  And if he "spun" it a little, well maybe he should have.  Let me
offer an alternative scenario:
  Let's say Dave wrote that the instrument rating is the "Masters Degree"
  of flying.  The transportation committee reads this and says "well if
  that's the masters, what's the doctorate?"  And somebody answers "most
  pilots get their IFR and then go on to get their commercial."  And the
  committee bangs a gavel and says "We don't want to trust our important
  people to a lowly MA.  We decree that only Commercial pilots with IFR
  may fly on business."
See, it could have been worse!

I also can't believe the amount of whining over his use of the phrase "the
system."  Look, there are plenty of systems.  There happens to be one,
that network of victor routes, radar controllers, and airports with
approaches, which IS known as "the system" to people who use it.  Big deal.
How about if we just call it "A system" if that will make people feel better?

Can we just quit all the bellyaching about anyone being high-and-mighty or
ego trips.  For example:

>> I don't recall my first solo instrument flight as being all that dramatic,
>> but I do recall frequently being impressed by the fact that I was sharing
>> the frequency and shooting the same approach as a USAir flight.  I'd even
>> point this out to passengers.  "Look, we're hanging out with the grownups."
>
>Sounds like an ego trip to me.  Piloting and big egos don't go well
>together.  It also sounds like the words of someone who
>still hasn't gotten over the fact that they're not going to be an airline
>pilot.

I usually make a rule of "praise in public, criticize in private."  I'm going
to break my rule today.  To the person who wrote that response, I'd like to
Oh Get Off It.  Give me a break.  I fly under a busy TCA all the time and I
have said something like that many times.  Ego trip?  Bull.  Passengers love
it.  It HELPS GA because it shows them that we ARE part of the same system.
VFR or IFR has nothing to do with it.  It tells our passengers that GA is
real, that it is accepted, and that it's not just some buzzing fly disturbing
the "real thing."

If we can all stretch our little tiny memories back, that's what Dave's
original post was about.  It was about convincing non-flyers that flying is
an acceptable form of transportation.  To accuse him of trying to start a 
class war between the wet and dry wings is ludicrous.

Enough already.


--Andy    stadler@apple.com



Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc