AOPA states that "most" pilots are incompetent

[Skylune]

From the AOPA intro to the Weather Wise Course:

"Most pilots don't realize that low ceilings and restricted visibilites
are aviation's most deadly killers. With a little knowledge..."

LOL. But the course was fun to take. I liked the audio of the guy with
the Texas drawl who had to land on a dirt road...

[[email protected]]

I've taken all of AOPA's courses, and they are usually useful and at
least enjoyable. the obviously put quite a lot of work into them.

I think you might have misinterpreted the intro comment:
>"Most pilots don't realize that low ceilings and restricted visibilites
>are aviation's most deadly killers.

I dont't take that to mean that most pilots don't realize that these
conditions are killers. I took that to mean that most pilots wouldn't
think that these conditions are so statistically much higher than other
causes.

Either way it isn't good though. Sure hope I don't show up on the list
someday...

[Skylune]

by Mar 17, 2006 at 08:54 AM



I think you might have misinterpreted the intro comment:

I dont't take that to mean that most pilots don't realize that these
conditions are killers. I took that to mean that most pilots wouldn't
think that these conditions are so statistically much higher than other
causes.

<<

Ah. So what they meant to say was most fatal GA accidents are due to
flying into conditions with low ceilings and restricted visibility?

I really like the "most deadly killer" phrase. What is the "least deadly
killer?"

[BDS]

"Skylune" > wrote
>
> I really like the "most deadly killer" phrase. What is the "least deadly
> killer?"

Reminds me of what someone once said about the Piper Cub - it think it was
something like that it was the safest airplane ever built because it could
just barely kill you.

BDS

[[email protected]]

SKylune wrote:
>Ah. So what they meant to say was most fatal GA accidents are due to
>flying into conditions with low ceilings and restricted visibility?

That'd be my personal guess, but you'd have to check with them. They
have way more hours and research time than I do. :<)

As a former technical writer, I know how easy it is to write something
you intended one way, only to have some reader take it in a completely
unforseen direction.

[Gary Drescher]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Ah. So what they meant to say was most fatal GA accidents are due to
> flying into conditions with low ceilings and restricted visibility?

If so, they were wrong. Weather accounts for about 3.5% of GA fatalities,
according to the 2005 Nall Report.
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/05nall.pdf.

--Gary

[The Visitor]

Skylune wrote:
> From the AOPA intro to the Weather Wise Course:
>
> "Most pilots don't realize that low ceilings and restricted visibilites
> are aviation's most deadly killers. With a little knowledge..."
>
Sounds about right. Well, hmmmm, "most", certainly "too many".

[Skylune]

by Mar 17, 2006 at 07:37 PM

As a former technical writer, I know how easy it is to write something
you intended one way, only to have some reader take it in a completely
unforseen direction.

<<

The AOPA should really hire a proof reader or editor. But since the
organization has a president who makes George W. Bush sound well- spoken
by comparison, I doubt it recognizes the grammatical problem.

Here's a very recent quote from the former network TV executive (speaking
on the AP article about older pilots' purportedly higher rate of
accidents):

"There has been no history that having that medical exam creates a safer
environment," said Boyer.

Sigh.... I think I know what the bonehead is trying to say, but who
knows....

John McCain dismissed the ex-TV exec as a liar several years ago. Maybe
McCain was wrong: he's not a liar, he is just unable to communicate in a
way that makes sense.

[Dave Stadt]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> by Mar 17, 2006 at 07:37 PM
>
> As a former technical writer, I know how easy it is to write something
> you intended one way, only to have some reader take it in a completely
> unforseen direction.
>
> <<
>
> The AOPA should really hire a proof reader or editor. But since the
> organization has a president who makes George W. Bush sound well- spoken
> by comparison, I doubt it recognizes the grammatical problem.
>
> Here's a very recent quote from the former network TV executive (speaking
> on the AP article about older pilots' purportedly higher rate of
> accidents):
>
> "There has been no history that having that medical exam creates a safer
> environment," said Boyer.
>
> Sigh.... I think I know what the bonehead is trying to say, but who
> knows....
>
> John McCain dismissed the ex-TV exec as a liar several years ago. Maybe
> McCain was wrong: he's not a liar, he is just unable to communicate in a
> way that makes sense.

Quoting McCain doesn't do much for your credability. I have no trouble
understanding what Boyer said.

[Skylune]

by "Dave Stadt" > Mar 20, 2006 at 04:36 PM



Quoting McCain doesn't do much for your credability. I have no trouble
understanding what Boyer said.

<<

I didn't quote McCain.

(I said John McCain dismissed Boyer as not credible. One more reason to
like Sen McCain.)

[[email protected]]

Skylune wrote, in part:
>But since the
>organization has a president who makes George W. Bush sound well- spoken
>by comparison,

I'm pretty picky about what gets written, because the author has time
to think, proof, and change.

But I am very forgiving of most impromptu speaking situations.
Speakers are thinking as the form the thoughts and phrases, and
frequently change and adjust midstream. If I recorded my own speaking,
I'd probably destroy the tapes.

There is an exception to this, and that is tv and radio
newscasters--newsreaders. THey have a prepared script, and it is all
wrong. I am seriously considering giving up on listening to tv news,
because they are nearly all reading the stuff in newspaper-headline
style. They use no verbs, or everything is "--ing"
I once heard an entire segment on tv that had not one single sentence.
And we wonder why our population can't talk properly.

The above paragraph might appear thusly:
"An exception for tv newscasters. Having prepared scripts, all wrong.
Listeners considering giving up listening, because newscasters reading
in headline style. Using no verbs, or everything is "ing"
Listeners hearing entire segments without a single sentence. And we
wonder why our population not talking properly."
C'mon, the newsreaders are setting the example.

[Skylune]

by Mar 20, 2006 at 10:43 AM


I'm pretty picky about what gets written, because the author has time
to think, proof, and change.

But I am very forgiving of most impromptu speaking situations.
Speakers are thinking as the form the thoughts and phrases, and
frequently change and adjust midstream. If I recorded my own speaking,
I'd probably destroy the tapes.

There is an exception to this, and that is tv and radio
newscasters--newsreaders. THey have a prepared script, and it is all
wrong. I am seriously considering giving up on listening to tv news,
because they are nearly all reading the stuff in newspaper-headline
style. They use no verbs, or everything is "--ing"
I once heard an entire segment on tv that had not one single sentence.
And we wonder why our population can't talk properly.

<<

I agree.

I only know of one real news program on television: The News Hour with Jim
Lehrer. Gone are the likes of Edwin Newman. (His books, "Stricly
Speaking," and "A Civil Tongue" are good reads for people who believe that
proper use of the language matters.)

Today, all the network news is variety hour schlock about celebrities,
"life-styles," local crime, anything salacious, and car (and plane)
crashes. Brain-dead crap delivered by bo-toxed Stepford Wives with no
comprehension of what they are reading off the Tele-prompter.

Some newspapers are well written (WSJ and Washington Post for e.g.), but
many seem to have copy editors that failed English 101. As far as AOPA, I
think their editors never took a high school level English course. Their
use of the language is shockingly bad, and sometimes the articles are
unintentionally funny. I once posted something they wrote that was so
mangled that one of the regulars here accused me of fabricating it. I
guess when you hire a network TV executive as President of the
organization, I guess that is to be expected.

[Skylune]

Here is an example of AOPA speak:

"Now representing more than 400,000 owners and pilots, AOPA keeps the
individual needs of each member of utmost importance."

LOL. What do they do with the individual needs of members of less
importance? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Tom Conner]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Here is an example of AOPA speak:
>
> "Now representing more than 400,000 owners and pilots, AOPA keeps
> the individual needs of each member of utmost importance."
>
> LOL. What do they do with the individual needs of members of less
> importance? Inquiring minds want to know.

My favorite AOPA quote is:

"General Aviation (GA) offers many advantages to the personal and business
traveler. That's why it's one of America's most popular forms of air
transportation, flying more than 166 million passengers a year!"
http://www.gaservingamerica.org/Advantages_of_GA.htm

That is over 50% of the population, when in actuality very few people have
ever been in a GA aircraft their entire life, let alone within the last
year. When we fudge statistics like that to make ourselves appear more
important than reality we just end up looking bad when the truth comes out.

[Matt Barrow]

"Tom Conner" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> My favorite AOPA quote is:
>
> "General Aviation (GA) offers many advantages to the personal and business
> traveler. That's why it's one of America's most popular forms of air
> transportation, flying more than 166 million passengers a year!"
> http://www.gaservingamerica.org/Advantages_of_GA.htm
>
> That is over 50% of the population, when in actuality very few people have
> ever been in a GA aircraft their entire life, let alone within the last
> year. When we fudge statistics like that to make ourselves appear more
> important than reality we just end up looking bad when the truth comes
> out.

I guess the idea that "passengers" counts "repeaters" didn't enter your
head.

[Skylune]

by "Tom Conner" <tconner@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Mar 21, 2006 at 12:23 AM


My favorite AOPA quote is:

"General Aviation (GA) offers many advantages to the personal and
business
traveler. That's why it's one of America's most popular forms of air
transportation, flying more than 166 million passengers a year!"
http://www.gaservingamerica.org/Advantages_of_GA.htm

That is over 50% of the population, when in actuality very few people
have
ever been in a GA aircraft their entire life, let alone within the last
year. When we fudge statistics like that to make ourselves appear more
important than reality we just end up looking bad when the truth comes
out.

<<

;-). I missed that one. Everyone knows advocacy groups like AOPA
advocate. But this constant over-the-top hyperbole and the outright
falsehoods give them zero credibility with the non-flying public they are
trying so hard to influence. At least the grammar was ok.

[Skylune]

by "Matt Barrow" > Mar 21, 2006 at 07:07 AM



I guess the idea that "passengers" counts "repeaters" didn't enter your
head.

<<

If they meant "passenger trips" they should have said it. They said
"passengers."

If I say I flew 100 passengers last year, that does not mean that I took
one passenger up one hundred times. That means 100 people flew on my
plane. TC had it right.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> by "Matt Barrow" > Mar 21, 2006 at 07:07 AM
>
>
>
> I guess the idea that "passengers" counts "repeaters" didn't enter your
> head.
>
> <<
>
> If they meant "passenger trips" they should have said it. They said
> "passengers."
>
> If I say I flew 100 passengers last year, that does not mean that I took
> one passenger up one hundred times. That means 100 people flew on my
> plane. TC had it right.
>

When the airlines quotes their numbers how do you think they count them? I
flew 10 legs on airlines in 2005. I'll bet I count as 10 passengers.

[Dave Stadt]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Skylune" > wrote in message
> lkaboutaviation.com...
>> by "Matt Barrow" > Mar 21, 2006 at 07:07 AM
>>
>>
>>
>> I guess the idea that "passengers" counts "repeaters" didn't enter your
>> head.
>>
>> <<
>>
>> If they meant "passenger trips" they should have said it. They said
>> "passengers."
>>
>> If I say I flew 100 passengers last year, that does not mean that I took
>> one passenger up one hundred times. That means 100 people flew on my
>> plane. TC had it right.
>>
>
> When the airlines quotes their numbers how do you think they count them? I
> flew 10 legs on airlines in 2005. I'll bet I count as 10 passengers.

Don't they use passenger miles? It gives them a big number which looks
impressive.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Skylune" > wrote in message
>> lkaboutaviation.com...
>>> by "Matt Barrow" > Mar 21, 2006 at 07:07 AM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I guess the idea that "passengers" counts "repeaters" didn't enter your
>>> head.
>>>
>>> <<
>>>
>>> If they meant "passenger trips" they should have said it. They said
>>> "passengers."
>>>
>>> If I say I flew 100 passengers last year, that does not mean that I took
>>> one passenger up one hundred times. That means 100 people flew on my
>>> plane. TC had it right.
>>>
>>
>> When the airlines quotes their numbers how do you think they count them?
>> I flew 10 legs on airlines in 2005. I'll bet I count as 10 passengers.
>
> Don't they use passenger miles? It gives them a big number which looks
> impressive.
>

They do in most cases for just that reason and because it is statistically
relevant. But I've seen them quote words to the effect of "We carried X#
passengers last year," which is exactly what AOPA did in the press release
that Skywhine is bitching about. There is certainly know case where the
airline quoted the number of individuals they carried which is what Skypuss
seems to think the AOPA should do.

[Skylune]

by "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> Mar 21, 2006 at 09:22 AM



When the airlines quotes their numbers how do you think they count them?
I

flew 10 legs on airlines in 2005. I'll bet I count as 10 passengers.

<<

The commercials count revenue passenger seat miles, boardings, etc. So
yes, they do measure it that way, sort of.

But, that is NOT what it said on GA serving america site. It said
passengers. Like most other stuff from AOPA, it is either intentionally
misleading or just incredibly dumb.

[Skylune]

by "Dave Stadt" > Mar 21, 2006 at 03:37 PM

Don't they use passenger miles? It gives them a big number which looks
impressive.

<<

You are getting into an area I had some (former) professional expertise
in: they use passenger miles, passenger revenue miles, boardings as their
primary operational statistics. Passenger revenue miles is a primary
metric they use to determine fare structures (it measures only paying
customers) and usage.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article
utaviation.com>,
"Skylune" > wrote:

> by "Dave Stadt" > Mar 21, 2006 at 03:37 PM
>
> Don't they use passenger miles? It gives them a big number which looks
> impressive.
>
> <<
>
> You are getting into an area I had some (former) professional expertise
> in: they use passenger miles, passenger revenue miles, boardings as their
> primary operational statistics. Passenger revenue miles is a primary
> metric they use to determine fare structures (it measures only paying
> customers) and usage.

And -- big airports use "enplanements" to define "busy", even though the
only proper way to define "busy," relating to runway/airspace issues is
takeoffs and landings.

[[email protected]]

Each of these separate statistics has its own purpose.

1. Individual "Passengers" of course would indicate only how many
people fly. How is this useful?
2. "Passengers" in the sense the airlines use it would be more useful,
since it doesn't make any difference whether it's 100 people travling
once or one person travelling 100 times. They still have to provide a
seat on 100 trips, and spend the $$ on fuel, baggage, etc. The airport
still has to provide parking, etc.

3. We have, what 600,000 ppilots in the US? This indicates our
political clout.
4. If we all flew once per year, we have certain effects. If we all
flew daily, we'd have a much larger effect. So my local airport counts
operations, not individual pilots. Airport activists count operations
because it is an appropriate indicator of economic activity. Airport
haters count pilots, because they try to stress that few people benefit
from the airport.

If a statistic is "passsengers", I would have to take it in context to
determine if they meant "passenger trips" or individual "passengers".
So MOST of the items provided above are very clear in context, and not
dishonest. Misusing the statistic wouldn't be a good thing, though.

>"Now representing more than 400,000 owners and pilots, AOPA keeps the
>individual needs of each member of utmost importance."
This original AOPA quote sounds fine to me. Questioning the
disposition of "members of lesser importance" is humorous, and I do
that quite often myself. But the context leaves no confusion.

>That's why it's (GA) one of America's most popular forms of air
>transportation, flying more than 166 million passengers a year!"
AOPA was trying to indicate the value and popularity of air travel.
One person travelling 100 times is as much an indicator of popularity
as 100 people each going once. It's a valid use of the statistic.

I don't size airports based on the number of individuals who fly, but
on the number of trips made.
I don't send mass mailings based on the number of trips made (send 100
flyers to 1 one person?), but on the number of individuals involved.

All that said, it is very easy for someoe to misues ot twist
statistics. I just don't see it in any of the cases cited.

[Dave Stadt]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> utaviation.com>,
> "Skylune" > wrote:
>
>> by "Dave Stadt" > Mar 21, 2006 at 03:37 PM
>>
>> Don't they use passenger miles? It gives them a big number which looks
>> impressive.
>>
>> <<
>>
>> You are getting into an area I had some (former) professional expertise
>> in: they use passenger miles, passenger revenue miles, boardings as
>> their
>> primary operational statistics. Passenger revenue miles is a primary
>> metric they use to determine fare structures (it measures only paying
>> customers) and usage.
>
> And -- big airports use "enplanements" to define "busy", even though the
> only proper way to define "busy," relating to runway/airspace issues is
> takeoffs and landings.

Think I will start using that. My plane is a two enplanement model. Pretty
snazzy, eh.

[David CL Francis]

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 at 12:03:50 in message
utaviation.com>,
Skylune > wrote:

>When the airlines quotes their numbers how do you think they count
>them? I flew 10 legs on airlines in 2005. I'll bet I count as 10
passengers.

I am pretty sure that you will have been counted as 20 passengers. One
for each take off and landing. You arrived at an airport and you left
from an airport.

Think of the airport management. You climb into an aircraft and fly out.
One passenger to them. You land at another airport. That airport logs
you in as a passenger arrival.

So my wife and I who flew to three main destinations last year in the
USA and had 2 legs on each flight which made 8 flights altogether, so we
probably clocked up as 32 passengers. That seemed to be the most
economical way to do what we wanted at the time.

It included a very short scheduled flight from Santa Anna in L.A. To LAX
(only 35 miles!).

I guess the one unscheduled landing and take off did not count! So maybe
if you don't get out of the aircraft at a stop that does not count!
--
David CL Francis

[gatt]

"Tom Conner" > wrote in message
ink.net...

> When we fudge statistics like that to make ourselves appear more
> important than reality we just end up looking bad when the truth comes
> out.

It's sort of like the propaganda you always see about how aviation is a
booming industry and there's going to be great opportunities for pilots in
the next few years because of all the retiring ex-military types.

" Pilot jobs are expected to increase faster than average through the year
2006, based on the geographical location of the employer. Jobs will continue
to be open due to the growth of the industry as well as replacement of
retired pilots or those who leave the field."
http://www.lcc.edu/transportation/aviation/careers/

Then, it turns out:

http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/ooh9899/36.htm
"Pilots are expected to face considerable competition for jobs through the
year 2006 because the number of applicants for new positions is expected to
exceed the number of job openings. Competition will be especially keen early
in the projection period due to a temporary increase in the pool of
qualified pilots seeking jobs. Mergers and bankruptcies during the recent
restructuring of the industry caused a large number of airline pilots to
lose their jobs. Also, Federal budget reductions resulted in many pilots
leaving the Armed Forces...."

And what do they earn?

" Earnings of airline pilots are among the highest in the nation. The
average starting salary for airline pilots ranged from about $15,000 at the
smaller commuter airlines to $26,000 at the larger, major airlines in 1996.
The average earnings for experienced pilots ranged from $28,000 at the
commuter airlines to about $77,000 at the largest airlines" [Right up
there with Martha and Oprah.]

-c

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-04-13, gatt > wrote:
> " Pilot jobs are expected to increase faster than average through the year
> 2006, based on the geographical location of the employer. Jobs will continue
> to be open due to the growth of the industry as well as replacement of
> retired pilots or those who leave the field."

I think when they talk about a "pilot shortage", generally it means
there are only 20 applicants for each job instead of 100-200 applicants
for each job that are happening during non-shortage times.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Matt Barrow]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2006-04-13, gatt > wrote:
>> " Pilot jobs are expected to increase faster than average through the
>> year
>> 2006, based on the geographical location of the employer. Jobs will
>> continue
>> to be open due to the growth of the industry as well as replacement of
>> retired pilots or those who leave the field."
>
> I think when they talk about a "pilot shortage", generally it means
> there are only 20 applicants for each job instead of 100-200 applicants
> for each job that are happening during non-shortage times.

I had nine people send resumes/letters/emails for the short-term contract
position I posted. That posting was not in a widely read forum...just RAP,
RAM and a couple notices at airports where I know people.

[Greg Farris]

In article >, says...
>

>
>I had nine people send resumes/letters/emails for the short-term contract
>position I posted. That posting was not in a widely read forum...just RAP,
>RAM and a couple notices at airports where I know people.
>

And of the nine, how many were really fit for the job?
What kind of job was it - Part 135? 91?

[Matt Barrow]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>
>>
>>I had nine people send resumes/letters/emails for the short-term contract
>>position I posted. That posting was not in a widely read forum...just RAP,
>>RAM and a couple notices at airports where I know people.
>>
>
> And of the nine, how many were really fit for the job?

All but one. Some were a bit short on total hours (I asked for 3000 but
could go to 1500), most on Bonanza hours (I asked for 500 but was able to go
as low as 150...insurnace you know).

> What kind of job was it - Part 135? 91?

Part 91.

I offered the job to a young gentleman this morning. What I got was a fellow
with lots of mountain experince (he's from Utah), 2200 TT and 600 hrs
Bonanza.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Greg Farris" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>I had nine people send resumes/letters/emails for the short-term contract
>>>position I posted. That posting was not in a widely read forum...just
>>>RAP,
>>>RAM and a couple notices at airports where I know people.
>>>
>>
>> And of the nine, how many were really fit for the job?
>
> All but one. Some were a bit short on total hours (I asked for 3000 but
> could go to 1500), most on Bonanza hours (I asked for 500 but was able to
> go as low as 150...insurnace you know).
>
>> What kind of job was it - Part 135? 91?
>
> Part 91.
>
> I offered the job to a young gentleman this morning. What I got was a
> fellow with lots of mountain experince (he's from Utah), 2200 TT and 600
> hrs Bonanza.
>

One interesting thing: a few years back I posted jobs for a part-time IT
admin person and for an accountant. I got over 200 responses for the IT job
and only five or six were qualified (most were just "hobbists"). Most their
correspondance was attrocious, about on part with someone in early
elementary school.

I got over 50 for the accountant. About 30 were qualified.

The IT guy I hired was a retired IT guy and he still works for me two day a
week and on call. The accountant was a student from Niger who spoke King's
English and sounded like James Earl Jones. He stayed two years until he got
his CPA. I loved to just listen to him talk.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...

>One interesting thing: a few years back I posted jobs for a part-time IT
>admin person and for an accountant. I got over 200 responses for the IT job
>and only five or six were qualified (most were just "hobbists"). Most their
>correspondance was attrocious, about on part with someone in early
>elementary school.
>

That is funny. Shows that the IT job today makes people dream more than a
pilot's job. A good IT job also pays more than all but the very best pilot
jobs, and aguably requires more training.

GF

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Greg Farris >
wrote:

> A good IT job also pays more than all but the very best pilot
> jobs, and aguably requires more training.

which almost none have. :-(

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Matt Barrow]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>
>>One interesting thing: a few years back I posted jobs for a part-time IT
>>admin person and for an accountant. I got over 200 responses for the IT
>>job
>>and only five or six were qualified (most were just "hobbists"). Most
>>their
>>correspondance was attrocious, about on part with someone in early
>>elementary school.
>>
>
> That is funny. Shows that the IT job today makes people dream more than a
> pilot's job. A good IT job also pays more than all but the very best pilot
> jobs,

Demand. Every company much bigger than a "Mom & Pop" operation needs IT
people. How many need commercial pilots?

> and aguably requires more training.

That would certainly be arguable.

[Roger]

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 08:58:36 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote:

>In article >, Greg Farris >
>wrote:
>
>> A good IT job also pays more than all but the very best pilot
>> jobs, and aguably requires more training.
>
>which almost none have. :-(

I have the training, the degree and I doubt any out there can afford
me. <:-)) "I love retirement" although it could pay better.

Actually I did find one that could afford me and it'd have been doing
the same thing I did before retiring for a *lot* more money, but
unfortunately they expected the same kind of hours which was why I
retired in the first place.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger]

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 06:26:37 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>
>>>One interesting thing: a few years back I posted jobs for a part-time IT
>>>admin person and for an accountant. I got over 200 responses for the IT
>>>job
>>>and only five or six were qualified (most were just "hobbists"). Most
>>>their
>>>correspondance was attrocious, about on part with someone in early
>>>elementary school.
>>>
>>
>> That is funny. Shows that the IT job today makes people dream more than a
>> pilot's job. A good IT job also pays more than all but the very best pilot
>> jobs,
>
>Demand. Every company much bigger than a "Mom & Pop" operation needs IT
>people. How many need commercial pilots?
>
>> and aguably requires more training.
>
>That would certainly be arguable.

I'd think it would take more hours to get the degree, plus the
required experience for IT than it does for the commercial. Maybe not
ATP, but I'd almost bet on the commercial.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>