VOR-DME writes:

The problem I have is with non-pilots, who don’t know the system, giving
advice to pilots.

In other words, you can't find anything wrong with the suggestion to follow
V66. Your problem is with me, specifically. Like many people, you cannot
discriminate between personality and topic of conversation. You cannot be
objective because you always consider the messenger before the message.

Now ... exactly what's wrong with V66? Not with me, but with the suggestion I
gave. Be specific. I _do_ know the system.

"Slow and safe" is only best for non-pilots who are afraid of flying.

Like the old saying goes: There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but
there are no old, bold pilots. Flying safely has nothing to do with fear, and
it has everything to do with reason and intelligence.

Not that there's anything inherently unsafe about asking permission to fly
over all those firing ranges. But you only gain three minutes, and there are
many opportunities for mistakes to be made when you want to take shortcuts
through restricted areas, even if the controlling authorities give you
permission. You complicate your flight greatly for an insignificant gain. That
is not logical.

The opposite of slow and safe is fast and unsafe. Is that your suggestion?

"Fast and ask for what you want" is the normal way, and it’s what everyone is
expecting.

Why does so much traffic follow V66/J2, then? Why did the government bother
creating these airways and threading them between restricted areas if the
majority of pilots are just going to set Direct-To on the GPS and negotiate
their way through missile firing ranges?

If you don’t get it, you take what you get. Most pilots’ idea of
"keeping things simple" is saying where you’re going and asking for what you
want.

Not true, given the number of aircraft that are flying those airways. You
don't have to ask for anything if you follow the routes that are already there
and ready for you to fly.