Is AOPA Forgetting about the little guy?

[James Blakely]

Is it just me, or is it that AOPA is starting to ignore the Spam-can pilot?
I've been a member for about 5 years now and each year, the airplane they
give away becomes more impractical. They claim the Waco is worth $200k but
it is a day VFR only aircraft. How useful is that? Now, next year, they
are giving away a twin. What percentage of pilots have a ME ticket? How
many could get insurance?

It is not just the airplanes either. I used to think that the AOPApilot
magazine was one of the best. Now, almost half of it is dedicated to
turbine operations. I do not see a turbine in my future at all.

It really seems to me like AOPA is moving away from the weekend pilot and
moving toward the semi-professional pilot. It seems to me that they are
just supporting part 91 operations just because that is where most
professional pilots get their start.

So, what do you think?

[sam]

sad, but true.

*** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.

[G.R. Patterson III]

James Blakely wrote:
>
> So, what do you think?

I think that the typical AOPA member will have to sell whatever they give away
ASAP to pay the taxes, and it's great that the planes they are giving away are
valuable enough for me to afford to do something nice with what would be left
over if I won one of them.

If I win the WACO, I can sell it and have about $150k left over after taxes. That
will buy a very nice, useful airplane.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Stu Gotts]

I've often thought as you do and although I'm a member but have
elected to not receive their magazine for a few years now. What you
have to look at is how hard the current leadership of AOPA is working
for you now. As far as the giveaways go, don't worry you'll never win
one.


On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 00:47:13 GMT, "James Blakely"
> wrote:

>Is it just me, or is it that AOPA is starting to ignore the Spam-can pilot?
>I've been a member for about 5 years now and each year, the airplane they
>give away becomes more impractical. They claim the Waco is worth $200k but
>it is a day VFR only aircraft. How useful is that? Now, next year, they
>are giving away a twin. What percentage of pilots have a ME ticket? How
>many could get insurance?
>
>It is not just the airplanes either. I used to think that the AOPApilot
>magazine was one of the best. Now, almost half of it is dedicated to
>turbine operations. I do not see a turbine in my future at all.
>
>It really seems to me like AOPA is moving away from the weekend pilot and
>moving toward the semi-professional pilot. It seems to me that they are
>just supporting part 91 operations just because that is where most
>professional pilots get their start.
>
>So, what do you think?
>

[Bob Noel]

In article
>, "James
Blakely" > wrote:

> Is it just me, or is it that AOPA is starting to ignore the Spam-can
> pilot?

[snip]
> It really seems to me like AOPA is moving away from the weekend pilot and
> moving toward the semi-professional pilot. It seems to me that they are
> just supporting part 91 operations just because that is where most
> professional pilots get their start.
>
> So, what do you think?

I don't AOPA is "starting" to ignore the spam-can, I don't think
they've ever really loved the "weekend" pilot or the sport flyer
(at least not since I joined in 1988).

--
Bob Noel

[plumbus bobbus]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> > Is it just me, or is it that AOPA is starting to ignore the Spam-can
> > pilot?

> I don't AOPA is "starting" to ignore the spam-can, I don't think
> they've ever really loved the "weekend" pilot or the sport flyer
> (at least not since I joined in 1988).

Ok. Then tell us how the AOPA can do a better job of pleasing you.

[Nathan Young]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 00:47:13 GMT, "James Blakely"
> wrote:

>Is it just me, or is it that AOPA is starting to ignore the Spam-can pilot?
>I've been a member for about 5 years now and each year, the airplane they
>give away becomes more impractical. They claim the Waco is worth $200k but
>it is a day VFR only aircraft. How useful is that? Now, next year, they
>are giving away a twin. What percentage of pilots have a ME ticket? How
>many could get insurance?
>
>It is not just the airplanes either. I used to think that the AOPApilot
>magazine was one of the best. Now, almost half of it is dedicated to
>turbine operations. I do not see a turbine in my future at all.
>
>It really seems to me like AOPA is moving away from the weekend pilot and
>moving toward the semi-professional pilot. It seems to me that they are
>just supporting part 91 operations just because that is where most
>professional pilots get their start.
>
>So, what do you think?

I think AOPA does an ok job of mixing GA interests, especially when
considering the varied base of their constituents (private,
commercial, ATP, light GA owners, heavy GA owners). I fly a Cherokee,
and certainly enjoy the articles on latest/greatest avionics and
planes. If you are looking for someting different - I find the
type-specific magazines (Cessna Pilots Association, Cherokee Pilots
Association, etc) to be good sources of spam-can info.

As far as the WACO give-away, I think it is great. What a cool plane!
If the pilot who wins doesn't like it, they can always trade/sell it
for something of equivalent value. As others have already pointed out
many pilots won't be able to afford the taxes on the plane, so they
will have to sell no matter what.

AOPA and flying have gone a bit overboard on the turbine operations
sections, but I think this is being driven by the surge in the light
jet industry, ie Eclipse, MustangJet, etc. It might be a fad,
particularly if the 6-seat jet market never materializes.

Regardless of what they put in their magazine, and what they give away
- I do think AOPA does a good job of fighting against TFRs and other
GA-oppressive legislation. They are our best hope against scandalous
news reporting, and overzealous Congressmen.

-Nathan

[Jordan]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 02:29:52 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>
>
>James Blakely wrote:
>>
>> So, what do you think?
>
>I think that the typical AOPA member will have to sell whatever they give away
>ASAP to pay the taxes, and it's great that the planes they are giving away are
>valuable enough for me to afford to do something nice with what would be left
>over if I won one of them.
>
>If I win the WACO, I can sell it and have about $150k left over after taxes. That
>will buy a very nice, useful airplane.
>
>George Patterson
> Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
> "Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

Americans get taxed on material prizes as well as cash? Wow! It makes
winning a new car or house or plane or whatever a burden to the wrong
person!

[C J Campbell]

"Jordan" > wrote in message
...

|
| Americans get taxed on material prizes as well as cash? Wow! It makes
| winning a new car or house or plane or whatever a burden to the wrong
| person!

There are exceptions. You are not taxed on gifts, so if you did not enter a
contest or something like that you do not have to pay taxes on the prize.
Thus the Nobel Prize is not taxable but winning the Waco is. The IRS
believes that you had to do something to win the Waco (renew your AOPA
membership), but that the Nobel is given to you despite the fact that you
did nothing to get it.

The IRS could give lessons to the FAA in writing arbitrary and nonsensical
regulations.

Yes, winning a big prize can be a big burden. People who win big prizes on
TV game shows often return the prizes after the show simply because they
cannot afford to pay the taxes. There have been some real horror stories.
One contestant decided to keep her mink, found that she could not pay the
taxes, could not sell it (prospective buyers severely damaged the mink
during the process, eventually rendering it worthless), and nearly lost
everything she owned. IIRC it even broke up her marriage.

Even cash can cause a problem. A janitor won hundreds of thousands of
dollars playing blackjack in Vegas on New Year's Eve, but by morning he had
lost it all. The IRS came after him for his 'gambling income.' The janitor
asserted that he could take his gambling losses against his income. The IRS
agreed, but you can only take your gambling losses against your winnings
that same year. Since his losses came after midnight, he could only take
them against his winnings, if any, of the following year. This case was so
disastrous that casinos are now required to withhold a percentage of your
winnings for tax purposes.

Some organized crime figures have attempted to claim that their percentage
is actually 'gifts' from their underlings, but that never worked. Now they
either launder their money through legitimate businesses or, as in one
notorious case, declare it all as miscellaneous income and pay the taxes. It
would have been fun if he had tried to itemize his business expenses:
"payments to Senators and Congressmen, $3 million," etc.

[Ron Natalie]

"Jordan" > wrote in message ...
> Americans get taxed on material prizes as well as cash? Wow! It makes
> winning a new car or house or plane or whatever a burden to the wrong
> person!

Certainly, it's just like any other income. You get taxed on the value. What's
really absolutely stupid is that if you win a "new" car, you get taxed on the MSRP
irregardless of what the going rate is, or the fact that this "new" car depreciates
70% in the first few feet it's driven.

[Ron Natalie]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message ...

>
> Even cash can cause a problem. A janitor won hundreds of thousands of
> dollars playing blackjack in Vegas on New Year's Eve, but by morning he had
> lost it all. The IRS came after him for his 'gambling income.' The janitor
> asserted that he could take his gambling losses against his income. The IRS
> agreed, but you can only take your gambling losses against your winnings
> that same year. Since his losses came after midnight, he could only take
> them against his winnings, if any, of the following year. This case was so
> disastrous that casinos are now required to withhold a percentage of your
> winnings for tax purposes.

I have my doubts about that story. First, if it had been
all in one sitting (not cashed in or out), it wouldn't even be declared as income.
The money is considered "won" when it is constructively transferred to the
winner. Since you are expected to turn in your chips when you leave the
casino, their accumulation on the table is not considered constructively paid.


I doubt this one event caused the withholding requirements. A single million dollar
winner wouldn't be an issue. What is an issue are the aggregate millions of gamblers
who can't be trusted to pay their taxes on the winnings in a timely fashion. Particularly
onerous are the "backup withholding" requirements from gamblers who might not
have ever declared their winnings to the IRS.

[Dennis O'Connor]

Don't forget about state income taxes, local property taxes where assessed,
and sales tax <yup> in most states...

I don't enter contests so it's not a problem... But for me, with the winning
of something being considered to be the last dollars earned for the year, it
is taxed at the top rate, add on property and sales tax, and it costs me
almost as much as if I went out and purchased it... Not worth it to me since
if I intended to purchase I would structure the deal to be for business and
create a tax reduction....
denny
"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message > > Americans get taxed on
material prizes as well as cash?

[Mike Rapoport]

If memory serves, their was a Tripacer followed by a Bonanza followed by
aWaco followed by a Twin Commanche. If they are going to do a different
plane every year what would you have them give away? They don't give away
airplanes to provide members with airplanes, they do it to provide a subject
for a series of articles. It would be tough to make ten articles from a
Cub.

They used to have two versions of Pillot, one of which was called Turbine
Pilot which had one or two additional articles. They decided it would be
easier to give everybody the same magazine, so now everybody gets what used
to be Turbine Pilot. The magazine has everything it always had but, in
addition, it has the one or two turbine focused articles, so you are
complaining about recieving MORE magazine for your money.

Personally, I would like to see more articles about long flying "adventures"
like flying around the world or through Alaska/Patagonia/Siberia or perhaps
to the tip of South America. I think that AOPAs main purpose is to provide
general aviation a voice in government and they do that fairly well.

Mike
MU-2



"James Blakely" > wrote in
message ...
> Is it just me, or is it that AOPA is starting to ignore the Spam-can
pilot?
> I've been a member for about 5 years now and each year, the airplane they
> give away becomes more impractical. They claim the Waco is worth $200k
but
> it is a day VFR only aircraft. How useful is that? Now, next year, they
> are giving away a twin. What percentage of pilots have a ME ticket? How
> many could get insurance?
>
> It is not just the airplanes either. I used to think that the AOPApilot
> magazine was one of the best. Now, almost half of it is dedicated to
> turbine operations. I do not see a turbine in my future at all.
>
> It really seems to me like AOPA is moving away from the weekend pilot and
> moving toward the semi-professional pilot. It seems to me that they are
> just supporting part 91 operations just because that is where most
> professional pilots get their start.
>
> So, what do you think?
>
>

[Ron Natalie]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message link.net...
> If memory serves, their was a Tripacer followed by a Bonanza followed by
> aWaco followed by a Twin Commanche.

Before that if memory serves me right it was a 206, a (new) 172, a restored 172.

I suspect highly that the selection is driven a lot by what they can get donated.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message link.net...
> > If memory serves, their was a Tripacer followed by a Bonanza followed by
> > aWaco followed by a Twin Commanche.
>
> Before that if memory serves me right it was a 206, a (new) 172, a restored 172.

The "good as new 172", the "better than new 172", the new 172, the "flying SUV"
(206), the Tripacer (plus some cash to pay the tax bill), the Bonanza, and now
the WACO.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

James Blakely wrote:

> Is it just me, or is it that AOPA is starting to ignore the Spam-can pilot?
> I've been a member for about 5 years now and each year, the airplane they
> give away becomes more impractical. They claim the Waco is worth $200k but
> it is a day VFR only aircraft. How useful is that? Now, next year, they
> are giving away a twin. What percentage of pilots have a ME ticket? How
> many could get insurance?
>
> It is not just the airplanes either. I used to think that the AOPApilot
> magazine was one of the best. Now, almost half of it is dedicated to
> turbine operations. I do not see a turbine in my future at all.
>
> It really seems to me like AOPA is moving away from the weekend pilot and
> moving toward the semi-professional pilot. It seems to me that they are
> just supporting part 91 operations just because that is where most
> professional pilots get their start.
>
> So, what do you think?
>
>

I disagree. AOPA Pilot is like any enthusiast's magazine, it has a mix
of articles on things ranging from practical to dreamworld.

I also get Flying Magazine, and it's even MORE weighted toward turbine
and expensive planes. I like to see articles for SpamCan pilots like me
but I also like the variety too so I can see how the other half lives.

The magazine that is closer to the SpamCan journal you want is Private
Pilot, which while kind of cool has the lowest quality editing and
writing that I have ever seen.

There just aren't that many models of spam cans out there, you couldn't
sustain a magazine for long writing about nothing but flying Cessna
172s and Piper Warriors!

I also get Car and Driver, they run articles on normal cars all the way
up to supercars. They also get letters to the editor from people
griping that they should not review Ferarris since most readers can't
afford them.

Whatever.

[Dude]

I can't afford a turbine, but I like reading about them.

A Waco isn't a bad choice for the 100th anniversary.

Lots of Twins are owned by partnerships of experienced spam can pilots,
especially pilots that enjoy working in the hangar on weekends (the twin has
twice as much to fix, oh boy!). One local partnership has a car mechanic
that easily works on the plan 5 times as much as he flies it.

If you want to win a 172, buy something from Sporty's. People who can't
afford the taxes on the Waco are not much better off with a 172 costing
3/4ths the amount. Since it will be sold by these types of winners, the
more valuable the better.

I really like that they give away renovated planes, because most members fly
older planes. Most of us dream about spending a planes value in mods, but
aren't rich enough to through that kind of money around.

A completely renovated Twin will not likely be valued nearly as much as it
is worth to the winner (twin prices are depressed due to the cost of
operations). I hope the winner sells half to a partner, and uses the money
to pay the taxes, and get the training to fly it!

AOPA is doing a great job in trying times, I am surprised they have time to
put out such a great mag.








"James Blakely" > wrote in
message ...
> Is it just me, or is it that AOPA is starting to ignore the Spam-can
pilot?
> I've been a member for about 5 years now and each year, the airplane they
> give away becomes more impractical. They claim the Waco is worth $200k
but
> it is a day VFR only aircraft. How useful is that? Now, next year, they
> are giving away a twin. What percentage of pilots have a ME ticket? How
> many could get insurance?
>
> It is not just the airplanes either. I used to think that the AOPApilot
> magazine was one of the best. Now, almost half of it is dedicated to
> turbine operations. I do not see a turbine in my future at all.
>
> It really seems to me like AOPA is moving away from the weekend pilot and
> moving toward the semi-professional pilot. It seems to me that they are
> just supporting part 91 operations just because that is where most
> professional pilots get their start.
>
> So, what do you think?
>
>

[C J Campbell]

"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
link.net...
| Who was this? (Mob history used to be a bit of an interest of mine.)
|
|
| > Some organized crime figures have attempted to claim that their
percentage
| > is actually 'gifts' from their underlings, but that never worked. Now
they
| > either launder their money through legitimate businesses or, as in one
| > notorious case, declare it all as miscellaneous income and pay the
taxes. It
| > would have been fun if he had tried to itemize his business expenses:
| > "payments to Senators and Congressmen, $3 million," etc.

I don't remember his name, but he was supposed to have been the head of the
Mafia in New Jersey during the 1960s. More likely he was head of some
family, rather than head of the Mafia in all New Jersey. The story was told
me in 1973 by my income tax professor at the University of Washington, so it
could well be the CPA equivalent of an urban legend. But I like it anyway.

[Newps]

Dude wrote:


>
> If you want to win a 172, buy something from Sporty's. People who can't
> afford the taxes on the Waco are not much better off with a 172 costing
> 3/4ths the amount. Since it will be sold by these types of winners, the
> more valuable the better.

Every plane AOPA and Sporty's has given away has been sold by the winner
within a few months of winning it. That 206 SUV that AOPA gave away a
few years ago was here in Montana, flown in by the guy who bought it
from the winner. Nice looking plane.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 01:30:24 GMT, Newps > wrote:

>> If you want to win a 172, buy something from Sporty's. People who can't
>> afford the taxes on the Waco are not much better off with a 172 costing
>> 3/4ths the amount. Since it will be sold by these types of winners, the
>> more valuable the better.
>
>Every plane AOPA and Sporty's has given away has been sold by the winner
>within a few months of winning it.

Not necessarily that quickly. Margaret Puckette, a rec.aviation denizen
who won the first AOPA giveaway (an Archer) kept hers for several years,
getting her IFR, Commercial, and CFI on the way (she won the plane a week
after getting her Private). She eventually sold it to buy a 152 to
instruct in, but it was after a number years and a divorce.

She took out a loan to pay the taxes, using the airplane itself as
collateral.

Ron Wanttaja

[Paul Folbrecht]

It's not completely off the deep end by any means. It was the IRS that
brought down Capone and I'd bet that lesson wasn't soon forgotten.

(The NY/NJ area was run by five la cosa nostra families from at least
the 40s (possibly earlier) on through modern times, though since the
early 90s they are but a small shadow of what they were in their glory
days. Gotti's conviction was the beginning of the end.)

C J Campbell wrote:
> I don't remember his name, but he was supposed to have been the head of the
> Mafia in New Jersey during the 1960s. More likely he was head of some
> family, rather than head of the Mafia in all New Jersey. The story was told
> me in 1973 by my income tax professor at the University of Washington, so it
> could well be the CPA equivalent of an urban legend. But I like it anyway.
>
>

[Dan Luke]

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:
> The "good as new 172", the "better than new 172", the new 172, the
"flying SUV"
> (206), the Tripacer (plus some cash to pay the tax bill), the Bonanza,
and now
> the WACO.

There was a Mooney in there, somewhere.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dan Luke wrote:
>
> There was a Mooney in there, somewhere.

I don't remember that one. Was there a 182 after the 172s?

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Ron Natalie]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message ...

>
> Not necessarily that quickly. Margaret Puckette, a rec.aviation denizen
> who won the first AOPA giveaway (an Archer) kept hers for several years,
> getting her IFR, Commercial, and CFI on the way (she won the plane a week
> after getting her Private).

I found this in GOOGLE

THE SONG OF THE ARCHER!

My feet are round lil' tires
My arms are great big wings
My nose has got a whirlygig
And I do amazing things.

Oooohhh...
I'm a gold and blue, Archer Two
With low time on my tach
I live in a hangar that's a big door banger
With big dents in the back :-)

My owner treats me fine
She spend$ a lot on me
And we go flyin' very high
To see what we can see.

I'm a gold and blue, Archer Two
My panel has lots of stuff
I feel royal and I don't burn oil
And that's about enough!

My inside smells like vinyl
My outside smells like wax
My owner flies me everywhere
(and worries a lot about tax).

I'm a gold and blue, Archer Two
I prefer a sunny day
We're still waiting for an instrument rating
When skies are dark and gray.

Remember this, pilot friends
When that checkbook is sighing
And families cry for more of your time
YOU'D STILL RATHER BE FLYING!

I'm a gold and blue, Archer Two
I fly high and far
And advertize for various guys,
A-Oh-Pah and Northstar!

************************************************** ********************
Margaret "Pilot-Laureate" Puckette
AOPA Archer N1939G

[Dan Luke]

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:
> > There was a Mooney in there, somewhere.
>
> I don't remember that one.

Yeah, remember? They called it the "Millenium Mooney."

> Was there a 182 after the 172s?

I don't remember that one.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[R.Hubbell]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 00:47:13 GMT "James Blakely" > wrote:

> Is it just me, or is it that AOPA is starting to ignore the Spam-can pilot?
> I've been a member for about 5 years now and each year, the airplane they
> give away becomes more impractical. They claim the Waco is worth $200k but
> it is a day VFR only aircraft. How useful is that? Now, next year, they
> are giving away a twin. What percentage of pilots have a ME ticket? How
> many could get insurance?


The past few give-a-ways seem to have been more fun for the writers and
pilots then for the winners. AOPA actually had an article about the past
winners and the planes. They followed some of the planes' paper trail.
Very few planes are still in the hands of the winners.

>
> It is not just the airplanes either. I used to think that the AOPApilot
> magazine was one of the best. Now, almost half of it is dedicated to
> turbine operations. I do not see a turbine in my future at all.

Half sounds like an exageration is it really that high?

>
> It really seems to me like AOPA is moving away from the weekend pilot and
> moving toward the semi-professional pilot. It seems to me that they are
> just supporting part 91 operations just because that is where most
> professional pilots get their start.


I disagree.


>
> So, what do you think?
>
>

Send them your comments and suggestions for what you'd like to see in
their mag.

I like that magazine, but like all flying rags it's obviously a stretch for
them to write interesting stuff month in and month out. In general I like
the AOPA mag.


R. Hubbell

[G.R. Patterson III]

"R.Hubbell" wrote:
>
> Half sounds like an exageration is it really that high?

Well, I happen to have the latest one handy. Lessee here.....

The pres' column is on glass cockpits. Might as well be jets to me.
Answers for Pilots is about transitioning from pistons to turbines.
Letters don't count.
Waypoints is about the Udvar-Hazy museum.
Proficient Pilot is a thinly-veiled bitch about Signature FBOs.
Pilotage is about some bug-smasher trips.
License to Learn is about being addicted to aviation.
Safety Pilot deals with VFR -> IMC problems.
Pilot Briefing is basic news. Doesn't count IMO.
Then we feature the Diamond DA-40-180, though most of the talk is about the Garmin
panel.
Then a recap of AOPA Expo.
Then we look at the new Husky Pup.
Boatman writes about portable devices for the cockpit.
Turbine Pilot is about (you guessed it) turbines.
Then an article on AOPA's Flight Planner.
WXWatch is on weather.
Pilot Counsel discusses "stale complaints" in FAA prosecutions.
Test Pilot has no questions about turbines this month.
The guy in Never Again is flying a spamcan.
Pilot Products are all for the little guys.
The Pilots trailer is a typical high-time guy.

Doesn't look like anywhere near half to me.


George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[James Blakely]

Ah! So it isn't just me.
"sam" > wrote in message
...
> sad, but true.
>
> *** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
> Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.

[James Blakely]

True, AOPA is working hard for us now, but if they keep sliding to the
professional crowd, then they may forsake us.

I didn't know you could op out of the magazine.


"Stu Gotts" > wrote in message
...
> I've often thought as you do and although I'm a member but have
> elected to not receive their magazine for a few years now. What you
> have to look at is how hard the current leadership of AOPA is working
> for you now. As far as the giveaways go, don't worry you'll never win
> one.
>
>
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 00:47:13 GMT, "James Blakely"
> > wrote:
>
> >Is it just me, or is it that AOPA is starting to ignore the Spam-can
pilot?
> >I've been a member for about 5 years now and each year, the airplane they
> >give away becomes more impractical. They claim the Waco is worth $200k
but
> >it is a day VFR only aircraft. How useful is that? Now, next year, they
> >are giving away a twin. What percentage of pilots have a ME ticket? How
> >many could get insurance?
> >
> >It is not just the airplanes either. I used to think that the AOPApilot
> >magazine was one of the best. Now, almost half of it is dedicated to
> >turbine operations. I do not see a turbine in my future at all.
> >
> >It really seems to me like AOPA is moving away from the weekend pilot and
> >moving toward the semi-professional pilot. It seems to me that they are
> >just supporting part 91 operations just because that is where most
> >professional pilots get their start.
> >
> >So, what do you think?
> >
>

[James Blakely]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
link.net...
> If memory serves, their was a Tripacer followed by a Bonanza followed by
> aWaco followed by a Twin Commanche. If they are going to do a different
> plane every year what would you have them give away? They don't give away
> airplanes to provide members with airplanes, they do it to provide a
subject
> for a series of articles. It would be tough to make ten articles from a
> Cub.

Granted, they do the give-away as a publicity stunt. And you're also right
about the articles. If you recall, during the year of the Bonanza, every
month had an article. For the Waco, it was every other month. I would like
them to alternate, one year, do a 182, next year, a Bonanza, etc.

The problem is, the Waco is not a useful airplane, except for doing
acrobatics. I wouldn't pay anyone $200k for a Waco, no matter how well
appointed. The Bonanza was upgraded to the point that it was a great
crosscountry machine, but not a good, knock around machine. How about a
little restraint? Do a Bonanza, but don't go overboard.

Really, a twin? What is it, like 8% of the private pilots have ME ratings?
I shutter to think of the insurance for someone like me who has no twin
time. (I know it wouldn't be a problem for you, but we're in different
fincincial areanas.)
>
> They used to have two versions of Pillot, one of which was called Turbine
> Pilot which had one or two additional articles. They decided it would be
> easier to give everybody the same magazine, so now everybody gets what
used
> to be Turbine Pilot. The magazine has everything it always had but, in
> addition, it has the one or two turbine focused articles, so you are
> complaining about recieving MORE magazine for your money.
>

Well, not really, they seem to be recycling articles. Every fall, there
will be the same article about flying in ice. Every spring, an article
about knocking the rust off you skills. I guess I'm getting tired of
reading the same stuff over and over.


> Personally, I would like to see more articles about long flying
"adventures"
> like flying around the world or through Alaska/Patagonia/Siberia or
perhaps
> to the tip of South America. I think that AOPAs main purpose is to
provide

I agree. More articles like their postcard articles.


> general aviation a voice in government and they do that fairly well.

Agree.


>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
>
> "James Blakely" > wrote in
> message ...
> > Is it just me, or is it that AOPA is starting to ignore the Spam-can
> pilot?
> > I've been a member for about 5 years now and each year, the airplane
they
> > give away becomes more impractical. They claim the Waco is worth $200k
> but
> > it is a day VFR only aircraft. How useful is that? Now, next year,
they
> > are giving away a twin. What percentage of pilots have a ME ticket?
How
> > many could get insurance?
> >
> > It is not just the airplanes either. I used to think that the AOPApilot
> > magazine was one of the best. Now, almost half of it is dedicated to
> > turbine operations. I do not see a turbine in my future at all.
> >
> > It really seems to me like AOPA is moving away from the weekend pilot
and
> > moving toward the semi-professional pilot. It seems to me that they are
> > just supporting part 91 operations just because that is where most
> > professional pilots get their start.
> >
> > So, what do you think?
> >
> >
>
>

[James Blakely]

Wasn't there an "Ultimate Arrow" somewhere in there as well?


"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Ron Natalie wrote:
> >
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
link.net...
> > > If memory serves, their was a Tripacer followed by a Bonanza followed
by
> > > aWaco followed by a Twin Commanche.
> >
> > Before that if memory serves me right it was a 206, a (new) 172, a
restored 172.
>
> The "good as new 172", the "better than new 172", the new 172, the "flying
SUV"
> (206), the Tripacer (plus some cash to pay the tax bill), the Bonanza, and
now
> the WACO.
>
> George Patterson
> Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually
said is
> "Hummmmm... That's interesting...."