Talk:Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

I e-mailed AOPA requesting permission to use parts of their website such as the history and mission statements, etc. I never received a response though. I will call them this week and see what I can find out. I would like to flesh out a lot of this article as it is a very influencial organization. bDerrly talk contr 16:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Received an email from AOPA ePublishing stating I have permission to use web content. They said if needed I can get written or email verification, is this needed for Wikipedia? bDerrly talk contr 22:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 NPOV 2 Inappropriate tone 3 Category : Airport Terminology 4 Our Friend Phil

[edit] NPOV

This article reads more like an advertisement for AOPA than an encyclopedic entry. Shreditor 00:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite, specifically, which passages read like an advertisement? I just went through the article and didn't spot anything that struck me as advertising. I'm removing the NPOV tag, feel free to re-add it and cite the offending section(s). -- ChadScott 23:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I won't quote specific passages, because the whole article reads the same: "The FAA did ________ to restrict general aviation, and the AOPA fought against it and did _______." It is my opinion that AOPA would like to take credit for a lot of things they had nothing to do with. How about citing sources? Shreditor 02:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate your opinion, otherwise I wouldn't even bother to respond. :) -- ChadScott 03:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Shreditor, so I am restoring the NPOV tag. Shreditor couldn't name specific sections, but the sections to do with AOPA's response to 9/11 reads exactly like an advertisement, i.e.

"Even though the events involved aviation as a weapon of destruction, AOPA staff worked to keep pilots informed and to lift unnecessary restrictions, and defended the right and privilege to fly."

or "Even as AOPA fought to keep restrictions imposed on general aviation to a minimal, reasonable level, some pilots ran afoul of the complex and rapidly changing rules. The AOPA legal services team was able to work with the FAA to establish no-violations agreements for certain transgressions caused by faulty information passed to pilots through flight service and other official channels."

or "AOPA Legislative Affairs, the association's lobbying arm on Capitol Hill, arranged meetings with influential policy makers and told general aviation's side of the story. Boyer personally met with a number of legislators to provide them with insight as to how GA operates and the enormous economic impact of keeping general aviation aircraft on the ground. As the flood of complex, confusing, and sometimes misleading notams threatened to overwhelm pilots who were allowed to return to the skies, a staff member was stationed at FAA headquarters to help clarify these rules, often before they were released. With an on-the-spot advocate for general aviation, AOPA was able to tell the FAA about the realities of operating general aviation aircraft and uncover some of the hidden implications in their proposals. Those efforts also helped stop some of the most onerous proposals from ever becoming reality." Engelalber 22:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate tone

I'm cleaning this up now, some by rewriting and wfying, else by removing the "color" details that have little relevance to the subject at hand, which are pulled almost verbatim from the official website. Stephen Compall 20:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category : Airport Terminology

Okay - why is "airport terminology" an incorrect category? I would think AOPA's efforts to keep GA airports open would make it apropos there.--Justfred 15:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The category "airport terminology" is intended to be a collection of subjects which are all things that you find on an airport or things that are part of operating an airport, like Pavement Classification Number, Pilot Controlled Lighting, Precision Approach Path Indicator, Runway Edge Lights, Runway End Identification Lights, Runway visual range, etc. Aviation associations don't belong there, even though there are some other items that also don't belong, like International Air Transport Association and International Civil Aviation Organization. Ahunt 16:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Since there's no discussion of intention on the airport terminiology page (or its associated talk) I don't know what the basis is for deciding whether something is appropriate there. IATA and ICAO are the associations that give names to airports and facilities; not sure why that wouldn't be "airport terminology" either (I was the one who added them). Or between that and "aviation terminology". Should there be an explanation on the category page, of what qualifies or "belongs there" for that category or what the intention of the category is? Or related categories? I'm going to read up on categories and see if there's any standard consensus on this, as I'd think there should be. Maybe this discussion should be there, tho.--Justfred 17:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Since AOPA exclusively employees mammals why not classify them under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mammals ? Ahunt 18:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that explains a lot. Perhaps an explanation of intention of some sort on the Airport Terminology category page would be more productive.--Justfred 18:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Our Friend Phil

Hello All, it looks like the link to Phil Boyer goes to some English Soccer Player. I know Phil is a pretty talented guy but I'm pretty sure he didn't play over 100 league games for 4 different clubs per say... Any one know if a real article for Mr. Boyer is being created? Thanks, --Trashbag 22:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)