Aviation Access Project Terminology: Do you agree?

[N918KT]

I am all for growing general aviation and the pilot population as much as everyone else in the aviation community but there are some terms that Aviation Access Project changes that I don't agree with.

1. "Flight Pro" replacing the term "CFI". For some reason the term "Flight Pro" sounds unusual in aviation terminology in my opinion. I would rather change the term from CFI to just simply "flight instructor", since I think everyone knows what a flight instructor is.

2. "Flight Tech" replacing the term "A & P mechanic" or "Airframe and Powerplant mechanic". This term I definitely think we should change since no one would know what an A & P mechanic is. They might think it has something to do with a grocery store chain. I would just simply change the term to "aircraft mechanic" or "airplane mechanic". I think everyone would know what an aircraft mechanic or airplane mechanic is.

The only thing I agree with is that that the term "FBO" be changed to "Flight Center". That term sounds cool to people in my opinion.

What do you think guys? Do any of the terms that AAP suggests using in aviation seem awkward or out of place to you or do you like all the new terms from AAP? Would you change any of the terms AAP proposed? Or do you like to keep using the original terminology like CFI, A & P mechanic, or FBO?

[MovingOn]

.......

[FrankR]

I know AAP are good people with motives that, in addition to profit for them, includes getting more people in the air. But...

Eight pilots could buy a plane for less money with less restrictions. I don't see what value they add.

"Flight Pro" and "Flight Tech," since they are not defined by the FAA, could leave them enough wiggle room to put any uncertified knucklehead they want into those positions.

[MovingOn]

.......

[Merlinspop]

And they are talking about LSAs, which do not require an A&P. I suppose they adopted Flight Pro to keep from having to differentiate between traditional CFIs and Sport Pilot CFIs. They use "Flight Center" because they create an entity by that name around each plane they 'place' to manage the aircraft. But it does not serve traditional FBO functions or is open to the public (serves other people's aircraft).

I, too, do not see the value in their business model. But more power to them if they can sell shares and maintain their business.

[MrMorden]

"Flight Pro" sounds like a guy in tight whit pants, platform shoes, and a satin shirt open to his waist to expose his hairy chest and gold chains. maybe the shirt would have epaulets to indicate professionalism.

[dstclair]

I, too, do not see the value in their business model. But more power to them if they can sell shares and maintain their business.

Unfortunately, they are 2 years into the business plan and have pretty much done nothing tangible but produce press releases.

[MovingOn]

.......

[Merlinspop]

When I talked with them, I asked a ton of questions that were important to me before investing that amount of money. I got criticized for asking too many questions.

Which I bet was the final part of your conversation with them.

[MovingOn]

.......

[Wm.Ince]

"Flight Pro" sounds like a guy in tight whit pants, platform shoes, and a satin shirt open to his waist to expose his hairy chest and gold chains. maybe the shirt would have epaulets to indicate professionalism.

There's already plenty of them around.
Why do we need more? . . . . .

[c162pilot]

I noticed these guys where not at Sun 'n Fun or Oshkosh and not sure about Sebring given their big splash last year. Their web site is still active but not updated in a long time. Are they still in business?