AOPA

But they sure sound more like an
infomercial business than a lobbying group at times.


Whatever the perceived shortcomings of AOPA are (and I don't stipulate to any
that you observe) they are a tremendous asset to GA, a powerful advocate of our
right to fly. If you don't want them calling, just tell them and they are
quite cordial about it.

They have a substantial staff that needs to be paid . . . dues have not risen
in years.
Solicitations for donations to the PAC, for in
www.Rosspilot.com

They have a substantial staff that needs to be paid . . . dues have not risen
in years.
Solicitations for donations to the PAC, for insurance, etc, are efficient ways
to generate revenue. I do send them money from time to time, because you gotta
"put your money where your mouth is" sometime. Without AOPA's work, Washington
would be COMPLETELY closed off, along with plenty of other airspace. Aside
from their political activity on our behalf, they are a wealth of technical
help, highly responsive to member inquiries, and in my view, the BEST money I
spend in aviation.


www.Rosspilot.com

"Rosspilot" wrote in message ...

They have a substantial staff that needs to be paid . . . dues have not risen
in years.
Solicitations for donations to the PAC, for insurance, etc, are efficient ways
to generate revenue. I do send them money from time to time, because you gotta
"put your money where your mouth is" sometime. Without AOPA's work, Washington
would be COMPLETELY closed off, along with plenty of other airspace. Aside
from their political activity on our behalf, they are a wealth of technical
help, highly responsive to member inquiries, and in my view, the BEST money I
spend in aviation.


www.Rosspilot.com



I don't understand the article about "How low do they go?" in the January 05 AOPA pilot. According to the article the
pilot was flying at 1000' in the Farmville MOA, but according to the chart with the article, the "MOA EXCLUDES AIRSPACE
AT AND BELOW 1500' AGL." Then the article goes on the criticize a GA Cessna that is spotted flying in their area. There
was no mention of the height of the Cessna.

While I get it that the fighter jocks have to have a place to train, what was the point of this article? MOAs are joint
use airspace with see and avoid rules in effect (VFR of course). It sounds like the AOPA is recommending ceding this
airspace whenever the hot rods are flying....

I don't buy that. Where do you get the information that Washington
would be completely closed off. I think sometimes the AOPA's big mouth
causes more problems than it solves.


On 04 Feb 2005 17:36:25 GMT, ospam (Rosspilot)
wrote:


They have a substantial staff that needs to be paid . . . dues have not risen
in years.
Solicitations for donations to the PAC, for insurance, etc, are efficient ways
to generate revenue. I do send them money from time to time, because you gotta
"put your money where your mouth is" sometime. Without AOPA's work, Washington
would be COMPLETELY closed off, along with plenty of other airspace. Aside
from their political activity on our behalf, they are a wealth of technical
help, highly responsive to member inquiries, and in my view, the BEST money I
spend in aviation.


www.Rosspilot.com

Terry Lorz wrote:

I don't buy that. Where do you get the information that Washington
would be completely closed off. I think sometimes the AOPA's big mouth
causes more problems than it solves.

"More problems" implies multiple examples, so please site a specific
example.

--
Peter







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

G. Sylvester wrote:

It seems like you can't read one of their
headlines on their website or mags without it being preceeded by
"AOPA helps win....."

I have to admit, I too find it boring. I'm interested in what's going on -
I read the Aiport Support blurbs with interest, for example - but there's
definitely too much self-hype.

From my limited experience, this is something specific to aviation. The
only other place I consistently see this is at a regular aviation-related
meeting I attend. The person running the meeting is constantly taking
something interesting that is occurring and pointing out that this is the
sort of thing that makes the meetings so useful.

Of course, the people to whom he's speaking are all at the meeting. Why?
Because we already value it.

Now, if he took those experiences and wrote them up into ad copy for people
not [yet] attending, he'd be right on track.

[In fact, that's so good an idea I think I'll do it myself. Next meeting is
ad fodder. Thanks!]

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
G. Sylvester wrote:

It seems like you can't read one of their
headlines on their website or mags without it being preceeded by
"AOPA helps win....."

I have to admit, I too find it boring. I'm interested in what's going
on -
I read the Aiport Support blurbs with interest, for example - but there's
definitely too much self-hype.

From my limited experience, this is something specific to aviation. The
only other place I consistently see this is at a regular aviation-related
meeting I attend. The person running the meeting is constantly taking
something interesting that is occurring and pointing out that this is the
sort of thing that makes the meetings so useful.
SNIP

It is aviation specific. NRA's Rifleman has many articles that are in the
"What we've done for you and our cause" class. Rememeber, AOPA and NRA are
mainly advocasy groups. They assume your joined them and paid your dues to
get them to advocate the cause in question. They use the magazines to show
you that they are doing it.

EAA, PETA, and a host of other do the same thing.