AOPA has totally lost it

1. "Just the facts, maam": Of the 10 busiest airports (listed airports
are big commercial airports), GA contributes only 4.5% of the traffic.
The Destroyer's conclusion: "So much for the airlines claim that GA is
using more than its paying for." Hysterical. Beyond ludicrous.

2. AOPA opposes emissions study in CA. AOPA opposes even a study. Can't
even discuss it. Verboten by Phil.

3. AOPA previously opposed a study of GA in Maryland. Just a study.
Also verboten by Phil.

4. Aging GA aircraft: No limits other than voluntary.

5. Twin Cities airport: AOPA opposes an economic analysis (by the state
legislature) of Crystal Airport. Huh????? Say again???? I thought
these things brought untold wealth to communities. (Oh, yeah. Only the
studies commissioned by AOPA or state aeronautics boards reach this
conclusion. No other groups are qualified to comment.)

6. AOPA "milestone": 408,000 members. I suppose each thousand members
will represent "milestones." If it hits 409,000, that will be the next
milestone.

7. On ADIZ transcripts again being made public, Boyer says, "I wonder how
much it cost the taxpayers?" Phils concern over the taxpayers may
represent an about face, and perhaps he will now support the user fees.
But wait:

8. "Beware the Camel's Nose" article: I guess he doesn't care about
taxpayers after all.

9. TSA warning about jihadists: What's the worry. The voluntary airport
watch program has been a "proven" success, according to the Destroyer.

I repeat what I've said befo this man is a disaster for your
organization. John McCain, to his credit, got this clown's number years
back, recognizing he is an unscrupulous liar and a fraud.

Well, I guess there's something vaguely flattering to see that you feel
General Aviation should be held to higher honor-bound standards than every
other interest and lobbying group (unless, that is you are also posting
similar laments as "bulletlune" on pro-gun newsgroups, or "splashlune" on
boat enthusiasts' sites) but I am concerned, for someone reaching retirement
age, that you still appear to suffer from the illusion that politicians
order "studies" in order to inform themselves of the facts and hear the
opinions of all concerned parties, in order to make sound, unbiased
decisions in the best public interest. Most of us, by adolescence, had shed
ourselves of this dangerous illusion.

GA airports get on just fine thank you very much without politicians
"studying" them, which usually only means developers studying alternate land
uses.

GF

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...

2. AOPA opposes emissions study in CA. AOPA opposes
even a study. Can't even discuss it. Verboten by Phil.


Duh. Of course we oppose this study. If the public finds out that we still
use leaded fuel, with 2 grams of lead per gallon, which is 4 times the
amount that used to be in car fuel, then we are in big trouble. Especially
in CA.

Duh. Of course we oppose this study. If the public finds out that we still
use leaded fuel, with 2 grams of lead per gallon, which is 4 times the
amount that used to be in car fuel, then we are in big trouble. Especially
in CA.

Well, look at the bright side. If all the tree-huggers really DO get
worked up about all that lead, MAYBE they'll let you burn ethanol-free
unleaded mogas again in Kalifornia?

:-)

Nah...that would make too much sense...

:-(
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

by Greg Farris Apr 21, 2006 at 07:38 PM


Well, I guess there's something vaguely flattering to see that you feel
General Aviation should be held to higher honor-bound standards than
every

other interest and lobbying group (unless, that is you are also posting
similar laments as "bulletlune" on pro-gun newsgroups, or "splashlune" on

boat enthusiasts' sites) but I am concerned, for someone reaching
retirement
age, that you still appear to suffer from the illusion that politicians
order "studies" in order to inform themselves of the facts and hear the
opinions of all concerned parties, in order to make sound, unbiased
decisions in the best public interest. Most of us, by adolescence, had
shed
ourselves of this dangerous illusion.

GA airports get on just fine thank you very much without politicians
"studying" them, which usually only means developers studying alternate
land
uses.




Well, I stand by my commentary that the AOPA has completely lost it. I
mean, using GA traffic at the 10 busiest COMMERCIAL aviation sites to
"prove" that GA shouldn't be subject to user fees is absolutely
preposterous. All the other contradictions and denials by Phil brand this
man as a GA demogogue, at best, and an outright liar most likely. John
McCain has his number.

There is no such thing as a study. That's just a PC name for an agenda.
--
Gene Seibel
Gene & Sue's Aeroplanes - http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.

"Gene Seibel" wrote in message
oups.com...
There is no such thing as a study. That's just a PC name for an agenda.
--
Technically, it's "Am undertaking to select data to fit a preordained
conclusion".

"Gene Seibel" wrote in message
oups.com...
There is no such thing as a study. That's just a PC name for an agenda.

Similarly, there's no such thing as knowledge or reasoning; that's just a PC
name for propaganda. So we may as well just believe whatever is convenient
and leave it at that.

--Gary

by "Gary Drescher" Apr 24, 2006 at 11:41 AM


Similarly, there's no such thing as knowledge or reasoning; that's just a
PC
name for propaganda. So we may as well just believe whatever is
convenient

and leave it at that.



Yeah, that is the AOPA way.

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
by "Gary Drescher" Apr 24, 2006 at 11:41 AM

"Gene Seibel" wrote:
There is no such thing as a study. That's just a PC name for an agenda.

Similarly, there's no such thing as knowledge or reasoning; that's
just a PC name for propaganda. So we may as well just believe
whatever is convenient and leave it at that.

Yeah, that is the AOPA way.

Skylune's way: don't settle for trenchant irony if you can issue a petulant
taunt instead.