But use of the analogy should be used cautiously since not all aspects of the analogy really make sense for the organizational equivalents of flying. For example, a plane is a very stable object. After construction, a plane will undergo relatively minor changes, and the cockpit modeling system can easily detect whether a given component is functioning properly or not. The model is static, can be tested for correctness, and can make assumptions about the principals of flight and the impacts of plane problems or errors on the overall flight capability. I doubt the same can be said for organizations.
Few organizations remain static.
People come and go, procedures are continually being changed, outside forces cause the firm to modify its structure and approach, etc. In that sense, an enterprise model is actually tougher to construct than a model to control a plane. On the other hand, the model of a plane had better be precisely accurate, otherwise the plane will crash. This last point brings to light the need to understand when and how an enterprise model should be used. Currently, enterprise models are aids to managers.