Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:52:16 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:34:32 -0700 (PDT), Dan
wrote:

On Mar 24, 7:01 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:47:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques

wrote:
GA was never meant for test pilots and engineers alone. If GA is to
flourish in the future, it will have to attract more "average" people
into it's ranks.
Isn't that the philosophy of NASA's Free Flight concept?
Most people are only comfortable flying along with a herd. Try
diverting the typical 737 load into the requisite 30 Bonanzas and hear
the howls on the tarmac --" I have to fly in THAT!?"
You'll have to explain that to Dudley.
Don't be an imbecile.

No need to take offence; I didn't mean that the way it may have
sounded.

Dan was telling me why he didn't think NASA's Free Flight concept was
viable, although I didn't say I believed it to be. As it was you who
apparently believed in the desirability to attract more student pilots
to GA who are uncomfortable with the systems engineering approach
required to effectively navigate within the NAS, so he should have
addressed his comment to you who may or may not believe NASA's Free
Flight concept to be capable of causing GA to "flourish in the
future."

I should have been clearer.

Personally, I can see that if GA is to continue to exist in the face
of the current opposing head wind posed by the airlines, DHS, and
those who would privatize ATC, it's imperative that GA's political
clout be strong. Despite that necessity, I seriously doubt that
"Soccer Mom's" and their ilk would be welcomed with open arms by the
current users of the NAS. It seems to me, that given the specific and
immediate demands involved in flying, an individual uncomfortable with
the absolutes involved in engineering would not do very well despite
successfully earning an airmans certificate due to a "dummed down"
training syllabus unless technological aids (al la Free Flight, etc.)
are provided. That's my opinion; of course you are free to disagree.


I don't disagree. All these points are pertinent. My concerns are for
the purpose of this discussion not addressing the macro situation which
could fill a book with opinion back and forth. My comments in this
thread only concern training manuals and their interface with new
students. The rest has been thread creep.

--
Dudley Henriques