Larry Dighera wrote in
:


Larry Dighera wrote in
m:

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:34:51 -0400, "G.R. Patterson III"
wrote in Message-Id:
:

Larry Dighera wrote:

The second clause of the sentence you quoted should have given you
a clue:

Bull****. If you don't want to be something, don't be. If you decide
to actually *be* a wet blanket (as you were), then you MUST want to
be
one.

Ha Ha... You're logic makes me laugh.
The gravity of the issue outweighed the risk of rebuke. Perhaps it
all depends on your point of view.

What is it in life that really matters to you? Is it flying? Is
the risk of further restriction worth a beer in public? Those
airmen who would answer 'yes' put ALL of us at risk.

I guess it's about values, and responsibility, and exploitation, and
_responsible_ freedom of expression, and ... Personally, I'd prefer
to see the image of airmen elevated in the public eye in these
troubling times, not publicly portrayed as frat-boys unleashed.
This _public_ tailhookesque marketing campaign is the wrong image of
airmen, at the wrong time, and I said so.

It was the "en route" aspect of this article that I found just a
little too over-the-top:

Subject: Oshkosh Bound? Free Beer in Iowa!
Message-ID: UTyQa.59032$Ph3.6151@sccrnsc04
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.217.229.103
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:13:08 GMT

Yes, for those pilots who are hot, tired, thirsty, and en route
to Oshkosh on Sunday, July 27th, Mary and I are holding our
First Annual Fly-In Pool Party at the Alexis Park Inn & Suites
in Iowa City, IA.!

Plug in "IOW" on your GPS, and high-tail it on in -- your flight
into OSH on Monday will be that much shorter (we're just 80
minutes from OSH in our Pathfinder), you'll arrived more
refreshed -- and, besides, where the heck ELSE are you gonna get
free beer en route to the Big Show, anyway?
--

Stopping EN ROUTE and having a beer mandates a pilot ground himself
for a subsequent 1/3rd of a day. I saw no offer of free lodging to
facilitate that mandatory 8 hours period. Thus, it would appear
from an objective point of view, that pilots were being lured into
violating regulations.

Perhaps Mr. Honeck could accomplish his marketing objectives via
e-mail, instead of this public forum.



On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:05:57 GMT, John Theune
wrote in Message-Id: :

Larry:
I suggest you re-read the post in question.

At your suggestion, I have.

It clearly states that the party is on Sunday and your flight on
MONDAY will be much shorter.

Implicit in your statement is the notion that pilots en route to OSH
will be attending the party on the day BEFORE they depart for their
final OSH destination. And that therefore they will have a night's
rest before taking to the skies.

Because the two dates are in two separate paragraphs, I would hardly
characterize that implication as "clearly' stated. Further, I would
not expect the non-flying public reading that article to readily
perceive that implication.

I don't see where Jay has a responsabilty to provide free lodging to
anyone if they chose to break the rules.

If Mr. Honeck freely provides the means for pilots to violate federal
regulations, and publicly advertises that fact to *en route* airmen,
his culpability in the event of a mishap by one of his departing
guests would likely be tried in a court of law, IMO.

If you want a beer, then don't plan on flying further that day.

Right. No question.

But what of the *en route,* party-attendee pilot who finds himself
without a convenient place to wait out the required 8 hour period?
Will he truly find himself "more refreshed" as promised by Mr. Honeck
in that article? What are his options?

He can:

1. Rent a room from Mr. Honeck for 8 hours at the _daily_
rate _if_ there is a vacancy.

2. He can rent a room someplace else for 8 hours at full
rate _if_ there is a vacancy, and in addition incur round
trip transportation charges.

3. He can walk the streets, or otherwise kill time, for 8
hours, then depart for OSH in less than optimal physical
condition.

3. He can depart for OSH at his convenience, and disregard
the regulations.

4. ...

So while the options he faces don't preclude him from operating his
aircraft within the regulations, the choice is likely to be costly,
perhaps more costly than anticipated.

What sort of host puts his guests in such a situation? I say it's a
host who places his own interests above those of fellow airmen enticed
by his ill conceived marketing scheme.

Your analysis of the issue is appreciated. Thank you for taking the
time to point out the facts you mentioned. Indeed, I was unaware of
them.

But a _publicly_ advertised tailhookesque marketing campaign is still
a damaging image of airmen, at the wrong time.



Larry;
Your stock just went up in my eyes. I disagree with your opinion on this
matter, but not with your method of expressing your thoughts.

John