On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:04:04 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote in 8388e.18726$xL4.8356@attbi_s72::

I would prefer that any changes to the airman's written test primarily
result in increased safety not numbers.

I'm not sure what can be added to a written exam that will increase the
safety of a pilot in the air -- but I'd entertain suggestions.

Perhaps GPS navigation would be an appropriate additional topic for
inclusion in the airman Private written examination. :-)

With the advent of GPS satellite navigation equipped aircraft it seems
more appropriate to _ADD_ GPS related questions to the test.

On the surface this appears more logical than asking about VORs, but asking
about GPS is still testing OPTIONAL knowledge.

Where is the term "optional knowledge" defined? Is everything beyond
airspeed, compass and ball optional in your opinion? Where does the
boundary between 'optional' and 'essential' lie, in your opinion?

To fly, all you really need is a sectional map and a compass -- and
I know guys who fly safely without *those*.

Oh, like the Air Tractor pilot killed in the MAC with a military
training flight recently? :-)

Where do they do that? Certainly not over sprawling urban areas in
marginal visibility. It's beginning to sound like your frame of
reference is the sparely populated plains.

Currently, VFR pilots are prevented from navigating over the top of
KLAX without a VFR chart and VOR receiver without violating
regulations. The same is true of transition through KLAX Class B
airspace on the charted transition routes. VOR navigating is
required.

Again, do we want to make flying more accessible, or are we trying to keep
it exclusive?

In the '70s, Cessna, Piper and Beech tried the Country Club marketing
approach to flight instruction and aircraft rental. Their advertising
showed nattily attired upscale 30-something socializing at the FBO,
and generally attempted to shed the grease-stained hanger aspect of
aviation. Today you can see the results of that not insubstantial
effort: nil. It seems, that most folks interested in piloting
aircraft possess courage, desire, intelligence and means beyond the
norm. I have a hard time believing that Joe-sixpack will ever
dominate the ranks. Aviation isn't elitist by design; it's a natural
result of human nature. In its current state, aviation isn't for
everyone. Technology may change that, and when that occurs, easing
airman's testing requirements may be appropriate.

Today, dumbing-down the training criteria to attract the unqualified
seems like a step in the wrong direction destined to fail in an
unpleasant way. The NTSB has announced, that 2004 was general
aviation's safest year yet. I fail to see how eliminating material
from the airman's training curricula will positively impact aviation
safety.

I fear that if we continue to weed people out, we will find
ourselves more and more alone at the airports as the early Baby Boomers --
who make up a huge percentage of active pilots -- start to die out.

Is that an original notion you formed, or is it an agenda supported by
others? Is it in any way related to your aviation-based enterprise?
A US President once said, "We have nothing to fear, but fear itself."
Given the fact, that aviation is expected to double or tipple in the
not too distant future, I find a fear of dwindling ranks of airmen
suspicious if not unfounded.

And when that happens, what happens to the FBOs? The avionics guys?
Airport funding?

If the number of active airmen fails to decline due to baby-boomers
failing medical requirements, and safety suffers as a result of
dumbing-down the airman's examination requirements, what do you think
will be the reaction of the regulators and the public? Your
suggestion could as easily backfire as succeed.

We're already fighting to "only" lose one airport every
14 days in this country -- and it will only get worse.

The loss of airports is not a result of a diminishing number of
pilots. It's largely motivated by encroaching homeowners and greedy
developers, not a dearth of pilots.

We need more pilots.

Perhaps, but you have failed to convince me of that allegation, and I
oppose your approach to achieving it. If you want more pilots, you
need to reduce the cost of aviation, not compromise safety.

Sport Pilot will hopefully be the answer, but I'm not holding my breath.

It will at least provide some tangible statistics.