AOPA Truthsquad

I hate to agree with you, but that is a pretty sizeable math error.
The funny thing is that even if you use the wrong technique to
calculate the percentage, 366% is still the wrong number. I can't
even figure out how they arrived at that number.

Why is it wrong and what is the correct procedure to calculate the
percentage increase? Just curious!

Why is it wrong and what is the correct procedure to calculate the
percentage increase? Just curious!

Consider going from 30 to 33. It's an =increase= of 10% (an increase of
3, referenced to the starting point of 30). The =new= value is 110% of
the old value (100% + 10%). There are several equivalent ways of
calculating a percent increase, one is to divide the new value by the
old value, convert to percent ("per hundred"), and then subtract 100%.
In the AOPA case, 70.1/19.3 = 3.63 so the new value is 363% of the old
value. Since the old value is (by definition) 100%, when we subtract
that, we get a 263% increase.

I wouldn't blame Boyer; he's probably using an old pentium. "two plus
two is pretty close to three point something".

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Mar 24, 9:59 am, Jose wrote:
Why is it wrong and what is the correct procedure to calculate the
percentage increase? Just curious!

Consider going from 30 to 33. It's an =increase= of 10% (an increase of
3, referenced to the starting point of 30). The =new= value is 110% of
the old value (100% + 10%). There are several equivalent ways of
calculating a percent increase, one is to divide the new value by the
old value, convert to percent ("per hundred"), and then subtract 100%.
In the AOPA case, 70.1/19.3 = 3.63 so the new value is 363% of the old
value. Since the old value is (by definition) 100%, when we subtract
that, we get a 263% increase.

I wouldn't blame Boyer; he's probably using an old pentium. "two plus
two is pretty close to three point something".

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I nominate Jose to head the AOPA. He is at least capable of rational
discussion, unlike The Destroyer, who relies 100% (that means full
reliance, Phil, since you obviously are "percentage challenged") on
hyperbole, rhetoric, and faulty logic. All arguments The Destroyer
makes regarding user fees are easily rebuked. (The easiest is to
simply look at the contribution that AV gas taxes make to the Trust
Fund.)

But AOPA is a fairly powerful lobby, many politicians have vested
interests, and the FAA is nonaccountable to the nonflying public. The
battle to inject public/community rights into the use of airspace will
go on for many years. STN has made some nice progress, however.

Skylune out!

All arguments The Destroyer
makes regarding user fees are easily rebuked.

The arguments both for and against are quite simplistic, and it doesn't
matter whether they are "easily rebuked" or not. It's not so much a
question of whether you've counted the money correctly, as whether
you've counted all the money in the first place. Two very simple
(non-aviation) examples:

Who benefits from public education and public libraries?

What is the "proper" fee to charge pedestrians when an existing (free)
pedestrian bridge is torn down to make room for an automotive toll
bridge with a pedestrian walkway?

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
t...
All arguments The Destroyer
makes regarding user fees are easily rebuked.

The arguments both for and against are quite simplistic, and it doesn't
matter whether they are "easily rebuked" or not. It's not so much a
question of whether you've counted the money correctly, as whether
you've counted all the money in the first place. Two very simple
(non-aviation) examples:

Who benefits from public education and public libraries?

What is the "proper" fee to charge pedestrians when an existing (free)
pedestrian bridge is torn down to make room for an automotive toll
bridge with a pedestrian walkway?

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Thanks Jose,

Nicely stated!

Peter

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
.. .

What is the "proper" fee to charge pedestrians when an existing (free)
pedestrian bridge is torn down to make room for an automotive toll
bridge with a pedestrian walkway?


Thanks Jose,

Nicely stated!

Peter

I wouldn't mind seeing AOPA fight EVERY expenditure from the aviation trust
fund that does not benefit GA.

Why should my fuel tax go towards maintaining a runway that would easily
last one hundred years if only piston aircraft used it?

"Skylune" wrote in message
oups.com...

I nominate Jose to head the AOPA. He is at least capable of rational
discussion, unlike The Destroyer, who relies 100% (that means full
reliance, Phil, since you obviously are "percentage challenged") on
hyperbole, rhetoric, and faulty logic. All arguments The Destroyer
makes regarding user fees are easily rebuked. (The easiest is to
simply look at the contribution that AV gas taxes make to the Trust
Fund.)


Let's have a rational discussion on the GA projects that you worked on.
Please identify them.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

Let's have a rational discussion on the GA projects that you worked on.
Please identify them.

KASH - Fuel Truck containment basin.

Although there has never been a fuel spill attributed to an airport based
fuel truck, Skylune found an EPA ruling somewhere that fuel trucks parked
overnight must be parked in a specially constructed basin to catch any fuel
that might leak.

He, and his Stop-The-Noise friends spent our tax dollars building a useless
basin.

I hate to agree with you, but that is a pretty sizeable math error.
The funny thing is that even if you use the wrong technique to
calculate the percentage, 366% is still the wrong number. I can't
even figure out how they arrived at that number.

Why is it wrong and what is the correct procedure to calculate the
percentage increase? Just curious!

I missed the speech, or statement, so I do not know whether Phil Boyer
actually made such an error--but it is a common one.

The correct procedure is to divide the final value by the original value,
subtract 1.00 from the quotient, and then multiply the result by 100 in
order to express it as a percentage.

The common error is to neglect the subtraction step, resulting in an answer
which is 100 too high--for example 366% when the correct result is 266%.

Bottom line: Phil Boyer's point was well taken, despite the math.

Peter