Andrew Vanis wrote:I am sorry to say that I will have to disagree with you on most of these issues.
1 – I believe (but have not confirmed) there are more HG rated RDs than PG rated RDs (the bi-wingals neutural out) os that takes out the PG bias.
2 – The PG world is still developing so it’s not unreasonable that they would take more support – this is not a bad thing. Let them learn form HGs evolution and HG’s failures. Often this will result in lives saved.
3 – my opinion - since PG is newer, there are more “go get it” involved persons that bring new things to the table. T hose new things get support because they are brought not because they are PG
4 – again, my opinion - if more HG things were brought more would happen on them. In my experience, the HG pilots are generally older and “just want to deal with their own flying” (this came up this week in our club) Many of them no longer have the drive and vision that the newer pilots do. I say newer rather than PG because our newere HG pilots have as much drive as the newer PG pilots
5 – “some should do something for my cause but I don’t have any ideas or I won’t bring it up” is a sentiment I have been getting a lot this week form old HG pilots.
If you have a “strategic” idea to promote HG, please share and I will do what I can to get it through the USHPA.
Cutting away for the PG pilot base though, in my opinion, is a step in the wrong direction. Three is strength in numbers and often a pilot of one discipline ventures into the world of the other. Splitting up would increase the costs of both groups and reduce the effectiveness of both groups as well. Would your bi-wingal buddies appreciate having to paying two higher memberships in an economy like this? Just think about eh site administration headaches.
(HG only pilot)
PS I'm happy to continue this discussion but I try to avoid PM if I can but you can always contact me directly at firstname.lastname@example.org
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 1 guest