AOPA Propaganda, cont.

Morgans wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote

Yep, clearly a product of the public school system.


Once again, you've gotten on my last nerve, with that crack. See ya.

Into the kill file, again.

:-) Mucho gracias.

Matt

by "Tom" Nov 18, 2005 at 06:30 PM


Skylune, you hapless Troll, are you the poster child for Home Schooling?

If so, what a failure.


Some additional silliness:

Congress funds FAA for 2006
Again says "No user fees!"

Congress has passed the FAA funding bill, and in effect said, "The current
tax system works just fine, thank you." So much for the FAA's claim that
the system is "broken." And once again, lawmakers said, "No user fees!"

AOPA Truth Squad: Congress has NOT declared that the current funding
situation "works just fine, thank you." They simply passed the 06 budget
(late). Passing the budget has zero to do with user fees. As such,
passing the budget cannot be used to signify that the current system is
not "broken."

But the AOPA continues to simultaneously argue that (1) GA uses very
little of the FAA infrastructure and (2) user fees for GA would adversely
harm recreational pilots interests. How can both be true???

I am only home schooled, so these nuances escape me.... ;-)


The fun part is that a subsquent AOPA article

In article
outaviation.com,
"Skylune" wrote:

But the AOPA continues to simultaneously argue that (1) GA uses very
little of the FAA infrastructure and (2) user fees for GA would adversely
harm recreational pilots interests. How can both be true???

I am only home schooled, so these nuances escape me.... ;-)


The fun part is that a subsquent AOPA article


Simple: Most of the airways system is designed for airline/military use;
GA is an incidental user and is required to use the services in some
airspace (Class B & Class C), even though the service adds little
benefit to GA operations.

User fees for those services would be a bit like charging "Skyloon" the
full charges for using a waterway or harbor that was dredged for
supertankers whenever he takes his boat (yacht?) out for a cruise.

The experience of GA in other countries (Canada, Germany, Australia, New
Zealand, the UK) has been far less than positive, as the bureaucracies
there have taken it upon themselves to charge for every radio callup, to
charge landing fees and to require a tower at any field that has flight
training.

--
Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.

Skylune wrote:
AOPA said: "Already more than 18,550 pilots, an unprecedented number, have
spoken out against making the ADIZ permanent around Washington and against
allowing ADIZs to metastasize to other Class B airspace."

Truth squad: The overwhelming majority of comments do seem to come from
interested parties. Not all come from pilots.

AOPA: "Pilots now have until February 6, 2006, to file their comments."

Truth squad: True. So does every other citizen.


AOPA:

"... they (Dept of Defense, HSA) need to look pilots in the eye and hear
firsthand what their decisions are doing to general aviation."


Truth squad: No they don't.

by Gary G Nov 11, 2005 at 09:56 AM


Truth Squad: AOPA trying to insure that appropriate feedback
opportunity exists so that government mandates cannot be
implemented without due representation of interested citizens.
AOPA doesn't exist to protect ALL citizens - they protect
the right of their members. That's what I pay them to do . . .

Your money is wasted. But don't take it from me, take it from a fellow
aviator. From this months "Atlantic Flyer Magazine":

http://www.aflyer.com/cadwalladeratlarge.html

AOPA prepares "independent" report on economic "impacts" (they mean
effects, but impact is becoming a verb in AOPA vernacular) of ADIZ on
Washington area airports. They say it is "clearly apparent" (I guess
just saying apparent is not clear enough) that the ADIZ is "impacting" the
area economy.

LOL. I like best the way they talk about direct, indirect, and induced
jobs lost.

"AOPA-commissioned ADIZ economic impact study reveals negative impact on
GA

The Washington, D.C., ADIZ
with Flight Restricted Zone
Ten general aviation airports inside the Washington, D.C., Air Defense
Identification Zone (ADIZ) that are dependent on providing services to
pilots of light aircraft are losing nearly $43 million per year in wages,
revenue, taxes, and local spending. That's what AOPA's independent
economic study of 13 airports impacted by the ADIZ has revealed.

"The study shows that those most affected by the ADIZ are GA aircraft
owners and pilots, and the businesses that serve this group, even though
they pose the least threat," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. "If the ADIZ
is not modified, it could permanently jeopardize the economic viability of
GA operations in the Washington, D.C., area."

Total revenue at the impacted airports has dropped $27.5 million since the
ADIZ imposition in 2003. And more than 100 jobs have been lost, sales of
aviation gasoline are down by nearly 20 percent, a flight school has
closed, and many pilots have either stopped flying or have moved out of
the area.

"Overall, it is clearly apparent that airports within the ADIZ have been
negatively impacted (both operationally and economically) by the events of
9/11 and that their recovery had lagged the recovery experienced at
airports outside of the ADIZ," the study conducted by Aviation Management
and Consulting Group and Martin Associates revealed.

AOPA commissioned the study to find out just how much the ADIZ is
negatively impacting those airports because the FAA failed to gather any
data about the impact the ADIZ has on general aviation airports.

The firms analyzed economic data from 2002 through 2004 at 13 airports
within the ADIZ and 20 airports around the perimeter of the ADIZ. Airports
within the ADIZ were also compared to other national and regional airports.
In addition to gathering specific economic data, the firms conducted
one-on-one meetings and telephone conversations with airport operators,
airport businesses, and airport users.

Some of the specifics at individual airports are telling examples of the
negative effect an ADIZ can have on a GA airport.

Take Martin State Airport in Baltimo From 2002 to 2004, Martin State
has lost nearly $7 million each year in local spending. It also reports an
annual loss of $15 million in airport revenue.

Or look at Montgomery County Airpark in Gaithersburg, Maryland: It has
lost 72 direct, induced, and indirect jobs, which equates to about $2.5
million in lost annual personal income. And airport revenue is down $3.7
million.

AOPA will be including copies of the executive summary in its comments on
the FAA proposal to make the ADIZ permanent."

Yeah, ok. Negative impact indeed.

The word "impact" is used because the government requires
"impact" statements, such as the EPA "environmental impact".

The AOPA is exactly correct, aviation is effected by the
number of flight restrictions, extra costs, public
perception (the media is ignorant and just wants a headline,
facts just get in the way).

Airlines have "industry organizations, as do the airport
operators, the manufactures and the oil companies. The AOPA
represents Aircraft Owners and Pilots and if they do an
independent study it means that they did the data analysis
and reached conclusions independent of those that might be
reached by the airline groups, for example.

As far as the airlines are concerned, they would like all
aircraft smaller than a DC 9 banned from all airspace within
40 miles/18,000 feet of one of THEIR airports. BTW, the
only airport actually owned by the airlines is Dallas-Ft.
Worth Regional, all other airports are owned by governments
and are open [?] to all users.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm



"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
| AOPA prepares "independent" report on economic "impacts"
(they mean
| effects, but impact is becoming a verb in AOPA vernacular)
of ADIZ on
| Washington area airports. They say it is "clearly
apparent" (I guess
| just saying apparent is not clear enough) that the ADIZ is
"impacting" the
| area economy.
|
| LOL. I like best the way they talk about direct,
indirect, and induced
| jobs lost.
|
| "AOPA-commissioned ADIZ economic impact study reveals
negative impact on
| GA
|
| The Washington, D.C., ADIZ
| with Flight Restricted Zone
| Ten general aviation airports inside the Washington, D.C.,
Air Defense
| Identification Zone (ADIZ) that are dependent on providing
services to
| pilots of light aircraft are losing nearly $43 million per
year in wages,
| revenue, taxes, and local spending. That's what AOPA's
independent
| economic study of 13 airports impacted by the ADIZ has
revealed.
|
| "The study shows that those most affected by the ADIZ are
GA aircraft
| owners and pilots, and the businesses that serve this
group, even though
| they pose the least threat," said AOPA President Phil
Boyer. "If the ADIZ
| is not modified, it could permanently jeopardize the
economic viability of
| GA operations in the Washington, D.C., area."
|
| Total revenue at the impacted airports has dropped $27.5
million since the
| ADIZ imposition in 2003. And more than 100 jobs have been
lost, sales of
| aviation gasoline are down by nearly 20 percent, a flight
school has
| closed, and many pilots have either stopped flying or have
moved out of
| the area.
|
| "Overall, it is clearly apparent that airports within the
ADIZ have been
| negatively impacted (both operationally and economically)
by the events of
| 9/11 and that their recovery had lagged the recovery
experienced at
| airports outside of the ADIZ," the study conducted by
Aviation Management
| and Consulting Group and Martin Associates revealed.
|
| AOPA commissioned the study to find out just how much the
ADIZ is
| negatively impacting those airports because the FAA failed
to gather any
| data about the impact the ADIZ has on general aviation
airports.
|
| The firms analyzed economic data from 2002 through 2004 at
13 airports
| within the ADIZ and 20 airports around the perimeter of
the ADIZ. Airports
| within the ADIZ were also compared to other national and
regional airports.
| In addition to gathering specific economic data, the firms
conducted
| one-on-one meetings and telephone conversations with
airport operators,
| airport businesses, and airport users.
|
| Some of the specifics at individual airports are telling
examples of the
| negative effect an ADIZ can have on a GA airport.
|
| Take Martin State Airport in Baltimo From 2002 to 2004,
Martin State
| has lost nearly $7 million each year in local spending. It
also reports an
| annual loss of $15 million in airport revenue.
|
| Or look at Montgomery County Airpark in Gaithersburg,
Maryland: It has
| lost 72 direct, induced, and indirect jobs, which equates
to about $2.5
| million in lost annual personal income. And airport
revenue is down $3.7
| million.
|
| AOPA will be including copies of the executive summary in
its comments on
| the FAA proposal to make the ADIZ permanent."
|
| Yeah, ok. Negative impact indeed.
|
|

by "Jim Macklin" Dec 13, 2005 at
11:55 AM


The word "impact" is used because the government requires
"impact" statements, such as the EPA "environmental impact".

The AOPA is exactly correct, aviation is effected by the
number of flight restrictions, extra costs, public
perception (the media is ignorant and just wants a headline,
facts just get in the way).

The government uses the word "impact" as a noun: Environmental impact.

AOPA uses it incorrectly as a verb, as in "airports are negatively
impacted..."

I agree with you that GA is AFFECTED by ADIZ. Thats the idea behind the
ADIZ: protecting critical airspace from misuse. Whether this is the
right approach is debatable.

As far as the AOPA's "independent" study, I think I would prefer the ATA's
"independent" study better. Especially given the huge tax subsidies that
GA already receives. Such subsidies are in addition to the fees paid by
commercial aviation travellers to support the FAA infrastructure. GA needs
to pay its own way. An independent study is required!

GA has a very small, fragmented voice as it is. I'm glad that AOPA is on the
scene making outraged noises because each of us individually might as well
holler down a well or write our comments in the sand. Without AOPA, EAA,
NBAA, et al we would have been smooshed into a grease spot decades ago. More
power to them.

Bob Gardner

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
AOPA prepares "independent" report on economic "impacts" (they mean
effects, but impact is becoming a verb in AOPA vernacular) of ADIZ on
Washington area airports. They say it is "clearly apparent" (I guess
just saying apparent is not clear enough) that the ADIZ is "impacting" the
area economy.

LOL. I like best the way they talk about direct, indirect, and induced
jobs lost.

"AOPA-commissioned ADIZ economic impact study reveals negative impact on
GA

The Washington, D.C., ADIZ
with Flight Restricted Zone
Ten general aviation airports inside the Washington, D.C., Air Defense
Identification Zone (ADIZ) that are dependent on providing services to
pilots of light aircraft are losing nearly $43 million per year in wages,
revenue, taxes, and local spending. That's what AOPA's independent
economic study of 13 airports impacted by the ADIZ has revealed.

"The study shows that those most affected by the ADIZ are GA aircraft
owners and pilots, and the businesses that serve this group, even though
they pose the least threat," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. "If the ADIZ
is not modified, it could permanently jeopardize the economic viability of
GA operations in the Washington, D.C., area."

Total revenue at the impacted airports has dropped $27.5 million since the
ADIZ imposition in 2003. And more than 100 jobs have been lost, sales of
aviation gasoline are down by nearly 20 percent, a flight school has
closed, and many pilots have either stopped flying or have moved out of
the area.

"Overall, it is clearly apparent that airports within the ADIZ have been
negatively impacted (both operationally and economically) by the events of
9/11 and that their recovery had lagged the recovery experienced at
airports outside of the ADIZ," the study conducted by Aviation Management
and Consulting Group and Martin Associates revealed.

AOPA commissioned the study to find out just how much the ADIZ is
negatively impacting those airports because the FAA failed to gather any
data about the impact the ADIZ has on general aviation airports.

The firms analyzed economic data from 2002 through 2004 at 13 airports
within the ADIZ and 20 airports around the perimeter of the ADIZ. Airports
within the ADIZ were also compared to other national and regional
airports.
In addition to gathering specific economic data, the firms conducted
one-on-one meetings and telephone conversations with airport operators,
airport businesses, and airport users.

Some of the specifics at individual airports are telling examples of the
negative effect an ADIZ can have on a GA airport.

Take Martin State Airport in Baltimo From 2002 to 2004, Martin State
has lost nearly $7 million each year in local spending. It also reports an
annual loss of $15 million in airport revenue.

Or look at Montgomery County Airpark in Gaithersburg, Maryland: It has
lost 72 direct, induced, and indirect jobs, which equates to about $2.5
million in lost annual personal income. And airport revenue is down $3.7
million.

AOPA will be including copies of the executive summary in its comments on
the FAA proposal to make the ADIZ permanent."

Yeah, ok. Negative impact indeed.

by "Bob Gardner" bobmrg@[EMAIL PROTECTED] Dec 13, 2005 at 11:08 AM


GA has a very small, fragmented voice as it is. I'm glad that AOPA is on
the
scene making outraged noises because each of us individually might as
well

holler down a well or write our comments in the sand. Without AOPA, EAA,
NBAA, et al we would have been smooshed into a grease spot decades ago.
More
power to them.

Bob Gardner

Well, lobbying groups are an established piece of the US political
landscape. I just think that AOPA is a very amateurish operation, and
some of their releases are completely irrational, if not downright
laughable. I once quoted from one of their missives on user fees: it was
so poorly written that people here accused me of fabricating it, until I
provided the web link to the article.


They will not convince anyone not already in the "choir." The AOPA's
IMPACT ("Impact should remain a noun; a proposal can have an impact, but
cannot impact anything without degenerating into jargon. The only thing
that can be impacted is a wisdom tooth" -- From Rutgers.edu grammar and
style guide, which AOPA writers DESPERATELY need to take a look at) on the
nonflying public is nil at best, and is probably negative. Many of their
arguments (against user fees, for example) are easily dismissed by an
undergrad that has taken a basic logic course.