The only thing that gives the generals control over F-16s, military bases and the masses of soldiers is obedience to the chain of command.  Had things gone better for the revolt in 1992, ideally, the vast majority of Venezuelan soldiers would have sided with Chavez and the students and workers in the streets.  This would have stripped military power from the regime of Carlos Andres Perez and given it to the rebels.  With the right units joining the rebellion, Chavez's forces may have even got their hands on air power - or at least prevented it from being deployed against them.  Unfortunately, it didn't work out that way and the rebellion was quickly repressed.  But had the rebellion achieved its goal of quickly overthrowing the government, there is no doubt that an apparatus of the state (portions of the military) would have been used to achieve it.  
You are right that it's very important to emphasize the difference between what Chavez did in 1992 and the coups that have plagued Latin America.  But I don't think it helps anything to argue that because of the extremely unusual characteristics of Feb 4 1992, it wasn't an attempted coup at all.  Let the defenders of oligarchy tie themselves into logical and rhetorical knots trying to claim that April 2002 wasn't a coup against Chavez or that Aristide wasn't overthrown in a coup and "modern kidnapping."  Chavez doesn't have anything to be ashamed about for 1992, no matter what you call it.  
I can't categorically say that coups are always a bad thing.  One example of a coup that accomplished far more good than bad, was the 1974 coup in Portugal that overthrew 50 years of fascism.  It too was instigated not by generals conspiring with the CIA, but young officers like Chavez.