AOPA states that "most" pilots are incompetent

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.

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

My favorite AOPA quote is:

"General Aviation (GA) offers many advantages to the personal and business
traveler. That's why it's one of America's most popular forms of air
transportation, flying more than 166 million passengers a year!"
http://www.gaservingamerica.org/Advantages_of_GA.htm

That is over 50% of the population, when in actuality very few people have
ever been in a GA aircraft their entire life, let alone within the last
year. When we fudge statistics like that to make ourselves appear more
important than reality we just end up looking bad when the truth comes out.

"Tom Conner" wrote in message
ink.net...
My favorite AOPA quote is:

"General Aviation (GA) offers many advantages to the personal and business
traveler. That's why it's one of America's most popular forms of air
transportation, flying more than 166 million passengers a year!"
http://www.gaservingamerica.org/Advantages_of_GA.htm

That is over 50% of the population, when in actuality very few people have
ever been in a GA aircraft their entire life, let alone within the last
year. When we fudge statistics like that to make ourselves appear more
important than reality we just end up looking bad when the truth comes
out.

I guess the idea that "passengers" counts "repeaters" didn't enter your
head.

by "Tom Conner" tconner@[EMAIL PROTECTED] Mar 21, 2006 at 12:23 AM


My favorite AOPA quote is:

"General Aviation (GA) offers many advantages to the personal and
business
traveler. That's why it's one of America's most popular forms of air
transportation, flying more than 166 million passengers a year!"
http://www.gaservingamerica.org/Advantages_of_GA.htm

That is over 50% of the population, when in actuality very few people
have
ever been in a GA aircraft their entire life, let alone within the last
year. When we fudge statistics like that to make ourselves appear more
important than reality we just end up looking bad when the truth comes
out.



;-). I missed that one. Everyone knows advocacy groups like AOPA
advocate. But this constant over-the-top hyperbole and the outright
falsehoods give them zero credibility with the non-flying public they are
trying so hard to influence. At least the grammar was ok.

by "Matt Barrow" Mar 21, 2006 at 07:07 AM



I guess the idea that "passengers" counts "repeaters" didn't enter your
head.



If they meant "passenger trips" they should have said it. They said
"passengers."

If I say I flew 100 passengers last year, that does not mean that I took
one passenger up one hundred times. That means 100 people flew on my
plane. TC had it right.

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
by "Matt Barrow" Mar 21, 2006 at 07:07 AM



I guess the idea that "passengers" counts "repeaters" didn't enter your
head.



If they meant "passenger trips" they should have said it. They said
"passengers."

If I say I flew 100 passengers last year, that does not mean that I took
one passenger up one hundred times. That means 100 people flew on my
plane. TC had it right.


When the airlines quotes their numbers how do you think they count them? I
flew 10 legs on airlines in 2005. I'll bet I count as 10 passengers.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
by "Matt Barrow" Mar 21, 2006 at 07:07 AM



I guess the idea that "passengers" counts "repeaters" didn't enter your
head.



If they meant "passenger trips" they should have said it. They said
"passengers."

If I say I flew 100 passengers last year, that does not mean that I took
one passenger up one hundred times. That means 100 people flew on my
plane. TC had it right.


When the airlines quotes their numbers how do you think they count them? I
flew 10 legs on airlines in 2005. I'll bet I count as 10 passengers.

Don't they use passenger miles? It gives them a big number which looks
impressive.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
. com...

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
by "Matt Barrow" Mar 21, 2006 at 07:07 AM



I guess the idea that "passengers" counts "repeaters" didn't enter your
head.



If they meant "passenger trips" they should have said it. They said
"passengers."

If I say I flew 100 passengers last year, that does not mean that I took
one passenger up one hundred times. That means 100 people flew on my
plane. TC had it right.


When the airlines quotes their numbers how do you think they count them?
I flew 10 legs on airlines in 2005. I'll bet I count as 10 passengers.

Don't they use passenger miles? It gives them a big number which looks
impressive.


They do in most cases for just that reason and because it is statistically
relevant. But I've seen them quote words to the effect of "We carried X#
passengers last year," which is exactly what AOPA did in the press release
that Skywhine is bitching about. There is certainly know case where the
airline quoted the number of individuals they carried which is what Skypuss
seems to think the AOPA should do.