by
Darryl Phillips
I was walking across the huge atrium of Lowes Anatole when I heard him calling from a balcony high above. The Anatole, one of Dallas' posh hotels, was the site of the Aircraft Electronics Association convention this year. I was there representing Airsport and also to give a talk on overload of the transponder frequency.
I didn't know him, but he recognized me. The next day it happened two more times. Strangers applauding the message, not the messenger. People who love the freedom of flight, and hate to see it slip away.
The best part of writing a column like this is the many friendships it generates. By letter, by telephone, and in person, you readers let me know when you agree. And you sure let me know when you don't! Democracy may be ruled by the majority (or so we were taught in 6th grade civics class) but columns aren't. That gives me the freedom to espouse viewpoints that don't always represent the mainstream.
That's what THE OTHER WING means. An aircraft can't make it with only a right wing, and neither can aviation. We've sure been trying, it was a noble effort, but putting all the lift on one side causes serious problems.
Planes and cars have evolved during the same timespan, controlled by the same laws of physics, influenced by the same economic factors, under laws administered by similar idiots in Washington, but look how differently they have grown.
Cars are not safe, and neither are aircraft. Zooming along faster than a gazelle is an unnatural act. There are dangers involved in both driving and flying, at that level they are equal.
But you can repair your own car if you want. Indeed, you can rebuild or modify the whole automobile if you want, with no paperwork whatever. You can drive to the center of Los Angeles or Chicago without getting permission from anybody. Why with cars, and not planes?
Used to be, aircraft hardware was labeled "AN". Automotive hardware wasn't. The AN stood for Army-Navy, while the car bolt was just a bolt. Nowadays the AN is gone, replaced by "MS", which stands for Military Specification. Car bolts are still just bolts.
Priced any Military Specification hardware recently?
The military has strongly influenced more than just the cost of the machines. What about the people it has cost aviation? I'm thinking of those who might have joined the pilot community, but weren't willing to endure the politics.
Recently Patsy and I, along with another pilot couple, had the pleasure of attending a matinee concert featuring Itzhak Perlman at the OK Mozart festival held in Bartlesville each year. Now if you're not into classical music, let me explain that Perlman is to a fiddle what Bob Hoover is to a P-51. He makes it look so easy! The 1600 seat auditorium was a sellout, people wearing everything from bluejeans to tuxedos and evening gowns. There was no hint of politics, no way to know if the people seated nearby were left wing or right wing, and no reason to care. We all came to hear Perlman.
Later that evening the event was horses. Equestrians and classical music, held in a picturesque meadow. Horses are an important part of American history, where would the U.S. Cavalry have been without horses? And where would the United States have been without the Cavalry? Certainly there is a connection if you look for it. But the attraction was beautiful music and beautiful horses, not a commentary on patriotism. And everyone enjoyed it immensely, regardless of individual political persuasion.
Compare that with Oshkosh, or Sun'n Fun, or just about any other flying exposition. Hour after hour, day after day, the announcer keeps up a steady right-wing commentary. It only varies between pro-military and ultra pro-military. War is glorious. Love it or leave it.
And so they leave it. Or more likely, they never join it. There is little place for those who love Aeroncas but not A-10s, those who thrill at slipping the surly bonds, but abhor militarism.
Most aviation magazines (not GAN&F, I'm proud to say) do their part to keep outsiders out. Oh, yes, they print articles about the joy of learning to fly. Right next to the articles about the joy of flying warbirds in combat. The never-forgotten thrill of first solo intermingled with the glory of shooting down other pilots.
Boating magazines don't feature nuclear submarines. Car magazines don't print articles on the fun of driving a tank. And I really don't believe most flying publications think of their coverage in political terms, any more than the announcer thinks of his monologue that way. It is just aviation.
But to the newcomer it looks and feels too much like the skinheads or the KKK. Discretionary income and free time are exactly that, discretionary and free. If it doesn't feel right, people will not join it. There are a multitude of competing alternatives that offer freedom rather than preaching about it. Through the years and decades, we've seen our market share slip away.
And aviation is the poorer for it. First, because our numbers are reduced and our markets are diminished. Second, because we are denied the strength that comes from a diversity of viewpoints and abilities.
When the FAA fails to give us due process or denies a fundamental right, why don't we sue the bastards? That is what racial minorities do. That is what other groups do when they feel their government is unfair. But aviation cannot do it because of the strong military influence. A large percentage of pilots were trained to respect the chain of command more than common sense, taught to follow the book rather than seeking fresh solutions, conditioned to the mindset of militarism rather than the principles of free society.
We have few ACLU members, and fewer NAACP members. I can't even find a pilot who voted for Clinton! Just as we cannot build a composite airframe with all fiberglass and no epoxy, we cannot build a strong future for aviation with all conservative viewpoints. That doesn't mean the right-wingers are wrong. Nor is fiberglass wrong. It just isn't enough.