AOPA states that "most" pilots are incompetent

I've taken all of AOPA's courses, and they are usually useful and at
least enjoyable. the obviously put quite a lot of work into them.

I think you might have misinterpreted the intro comment:
"Most pilots don't realize that low ceilings and restricted visibilites
are aviation's most deadly killers.

I dont't take that to mean that most pilots don't realize that these
conditions are killers. I took that to mean that most pilots wouldn't
think that these conditions are so statistically much higher than other
causes.

Either way it isn't good though. Sure hope I don't show up on the list
someday...

by Mar 17, 2006 at 08:54 AM



I think you might have misinterpreted the intro comment:

I dont't take that to mean that most pilots don't realize that these
conditions are killers. I took that to mean that most pilots wouldn't
think that these conditions are so statistically much higher than other
causes.



Ah. So what they meant to say was most fatal GA accidents are due to
flying into conditions with low ceilings and restricted visibility?

I really like the "most deadly killer" phrase. What is the "least deadly
killer?"

"Skylune" wrote

I really like the "most deadly killer" phrase. What is the "least deadly
killer?"

Reminds me of what someone once said about the Piper Cub - it think it was
something like that it was the safest airplane ever built because it could
just barely kill you.

BDS

SKylune wrote:
Ah. So what they meant to say was most fatal GA accidents are due to
flying into conditions with low ceilings and restricted visibility?

That'd be my personal guess, but you'd have to check with them. They
have way more hours and research time than I do. :)

As a former technical writer, I know how easy it is to write something
you intended one way, only to have some reader take it in a completely
unforseen direction.

by Mar 17, 2006 at 07:37 PM

As a former technical writer, I know how easy it is to write something
you intended one way, only to have some reader take it in a completely
unforseen direction.



The AOPA should really hire a proof reader or editor. But since the
organization has a president who makes George W. Bush sound well- spoken
by comparison, I doubt it recognizes the grammatical problem.

Here's a very recent quote from the former network TV executive (speaking
on the AP article about older pilots' purportedly higher rate of
accidents):

"There has been no history that having that medical exam creates a safer
environment," said Boyer.

Sigh.... I think I know what the bonehead is trying to say, but who
knows....

John McCain dismissed the ex-TV exec as a liar several years ago. Maybe
McCain was wrong: he's not a liar, he is just unable to communicate in a
way that makes sense.

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
by Mar 17, 2006 at 07:37 PM

As a former technical writer, I know how easy it is to write something
you intended one way, only to have some reader take it in a completely
unforseen direction.



The AOPA should really hire a proof reader or editor. But since the
organization has a president who makes George W. Bush sound well- spoken
by comparison, I doubt it recognizes the grammatical problem.

Here's a very recent quote from the former network TV executive (speaking
on the AP article about older pilots' purportedly higher rate of
accidents):

"There has been no history that having that medical exam creates a safer
environment," said Boyer.

Sigh.... I think I know what the bonehead is trying to say, but who
knows....

John McCain dismissed the ex-TV exec as a liar several years ago. Maybe
McCain was wrong: he's not a liar, he is just unable to communicate in a
way that makes sense.

Quoting McCain doesn't do much for your credability. I have no trouble
understanding what Boyer said.

by "Dave Stadt" Mar 20, 2006 at 04:36 PM



Quoting McCain doesn't do much for your credability. I have no trouble
understanding what Boyer said.



I didn't quote McCain.

(I said John McCain dismissed Boyer as not credible. One more reason to
like Sen McCain.)

Skylune wrote, in part:
But since the
organization has a president who makes George W. Bush sound well- spoken
by comparison,

I'm pretty picky about what gets written, because the author has time
to think, proof, and change.

But I am very forgiving of most impromptu speaking situations.
Speakers are thinking as the form the thoughts and phrases, and
frequently change and adjust midstream. If I recorded my own speaking,
I'd probably destroy the tapes.

There is an exception to this, and that is tv and radio
newscasters--newsreaders. THey have a prepared script, and it is all
wrong. I am seriously considering giving up on listening to tv news,
because they are nearly all reading the stuff in newspaper-headline
style. They use no verbs, or everything is "--ing"
I once heard an entire segment on tv that had not one single sentence.
And we wonder why our population can't talk properly.

The above paragraph might appear thusly:
"An exception for tv newscasters. Having prepared scripts, all wrong.
Listeners considering giving up listening, because newscasters reading
in headline style. Using no verbs, or everything is "ing"
Listeners hearing entire segments without a single sentence. And we
wonder why our population not talking properly."
C'mon, the newsreaders are setting the example.

by Mar 20, 2006 at 10:43 AM


I'm pretty picky about what gets written, because the author has time
to think, proof, and change.

But I am very forgiving of most impromptu speaking situations.
Speakers are thinking as the form the thoughts and phrases, and
frequently change and adjust midstream. If I recorded my own speaking,
I'd probably destroy the tapes.

There is an exception to this, and that is tv and radio
newscasters--newsreaders. THey have a prepared script, and it is all
wrong. I am seriously considering giving up on listening to tv news,
because they are nearly all reading the stuff in newspaper-headline
style. They use no verbs, or everything is "--ing"
I once heard an entire segment on tv that had not one single sentence.
And we wonder why our population can't talk properly.



I agree.

I only know of one real news program on television: The News Hour with Jim
Lehrer. Gone are the likes of Edwin Newman. (His books, "Stricly
Speaking," and "A Civil Tongue" are good reads for people who believe that
proper use of the language matters.)

Today, all the network news is variety hour schlock about celebrities,
"life-styles," local crime, anything salacious, and car (and plane)
crashes. Brain-dead crap delivered by bo-toxed Stepford Wives with no
comprehension of what they are reading off the Tele-prompter.

Some newspapers are well written (WSJ and Washington Post for e.g.), but
many seem to have copy editors that failed English 101. As far as AOPA, I
think their editors never took a high school level English course. Their
use of the language is shockingly bad, and sometimes the articles are
unintentionally funny. I once posted something they wrote that was so
mangled that one of the regulars here accused me of fabricating it. I
guess when you hire a network TV executive as President of the
organization, I guess that is to be expected.

Here is an example of AOPA speak:

"Now representing more than 400,000 owners and pilots, AOPA keeps the
individual needs of each member of utmost importance."

LOL. What do they do with the individual needs of members of less
importance? Inquiring minds want to know.