"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:30a7e.12275$Bb3.8317@attbi_s22...
[...]
I personally would eliminate all the stupid "look at the picture of the
VOR, and tell me your position from the station" crap. Same with the
ADF. (Hell, I don't even *have* an ADF in my plane.)

And you could eliminate all the "pressure altitude" versus "density
altitude" computational B.S., too. Never used it yet.

And while we're at it, the FAA could simplify the ridiculous VFR versus
IFR ceiling/visibility rules, along with the almost laughable
alphabet-soup airspace designations.

Perhaps you would prefer that all pilot certificates be issued with
restrictions stipulating precisely what it is the pilot was actually taught?
Then, every time you want to add some sort of facet to your flying
repertoire, you would have to go through (at a minimum) specific flight
training and a logbook endorsement?

The required training is a compromise. Once certificated, a pilot is
permitted to engage in a wide variety of flying. Just because YOU don't
personally avail yourself of those privileges, that doesn't mean you don't
have them, nor does it mean it was a waste of time for you to obtain them.
It would be impractical to try to tailor each and every pilot certificate
specifically to the needs of that pilot.

By the way, it's unclear what you mean by "the ridiculous VFR versus IFR
ceiling/visibility rules". There are no minimum ceiling or visibility rules
for IFR flight. That's the whole point of IFR. As far as the
"alphabet-soup airspace designations", frankly it's a heck of a lot more
organized than the old named airspace designations were, and it's gone a
long way to helping international flight become more uniform (in spite of
the many exceptions that still exist, of course).

Pete