An AOPA WTF pie chart

Unit74 said:
Maybe Mark should sell his, er, “our “ jet and invest more in editors? Or, put his, er, “our” advocacy money towards the issues instead of his kerosene addiction.
Click to expand...

Rolling my eyes hard. :rolleyes:

AOPA has owned N4GA for a long time - That isn't the first jet to bear that number, and Mark Baker is at least the third AOPA president to fly it.

AOPA owns a fleet of airplanes, and employs pilots. If they can't justify doing so, then it'd be awfully hard for them to tell everyone else that it's justified.

Among all of the things AOPA does with their money, buying airplanes and fuel is among the ones I'm most OK with.
 
This experiment has been fun. When I ask the accounting types they add up the percentages and say "that's not 100%" but when I ask the coders they say "that's not 54%"

Thanks AOPA!
 
Ravioli said:
This experiment has been fun. When I ask the accounting types they add up the percentages and say "that's not 100%" but when I ask the coders they say "that's not 54%"

Thanks AOPA!
Click to expand...
You have bad accountants.
 
But what portion of the 54% is composed of those who don't have an airframe parachute, but choose to self identify as having one? :rolleyes:
 
Unit74 said:
You seen the movies Idiocracy yet?
Click to expand...

Really? You think you are better than others so much so that you can laugh at people in that movie and the AOPA folks, yet you typed this sentence?? Some people don't know math very well and others don't know english very well. :rolleyes:
 
First, this is based on a poll that was on AOPA's eBrief daily email. I get it and remember this poll.

Second, if you simply use the integer parts of the answer numbers without rounding, this is possible.

Good grief, this isn't an end of the world scenario. I voted NO on the poll because the club isn't likely to pay to put chutes on our 172s and 182, and I wouldn't be happy with the hit on empty weight if they did. Not a reason they give, but that was the basis for my answer.
 
It’s why I tore up my dues letter and threw the card in the trash this year. I dont think he and AOPA really needs to spend our money in that manner. My oh my has being a nonprofit become a rather nice venture to them. If they wanted to impress me, fly their personally owned plane and claim it as a business expense like the rest of us.


flyingcheesehead said:
Rolling my eyes hard. :rolleyes:

AOPA has owned N4GA for a long time - That isn't the first jet to bear that number, and Mark Baker is at least the third AOPA president to fly it.

AOPA owns a fleet of airplanes, and employs pilots. If they can't justify doing so, then it'd be awfully hard for them to tell everyone else that it's justified.

Among all of the things AOPA does with their money, buying airplanes and fuel is among the ones I'm most OK with.
Click to expand...



Dav8or said:
Really? You think you are better than others so much so that you can laugh at people in that movie and the AOPA folks, yet you typed this sentence?? Some people don't know math very well and others don't know english very well. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Right. You want to drill down to the thousandths decimal on syntax because that’s all you got. Pu-lease.... that’s weak. Perhaps I should audit your posts a bit and see what you wrote.
 
I learned a long time ago that if the percentages in a chart don't add up to exactly 100%, the editor will likely get some complaints. So I'm either careful with the rounding (to ensure the integers add up to 100%) or ensure there's some sort of disclaimer as to why they don't (usually because a given accident can have more than one contributing factor).

Ron Wanttaja
 
TomHaines said:
Geez, ya’ll. Judgemental much? There were 115 other pages in that issue without errors. We’ve been striving to hire perfect humans to do our writing and editing but have been so far unsuccessful. Let me know when you spot any.

Clearly you all aren’t in the publishing business and are unfamiliar with the Printer’s Axiom: Everyone makes mistakes. We publish ours.

Lighten up.
Click to expand...
Except how do you possibly not catch something that obvious? The error smacked me upside the head as soon as I saw it. Deep analysis not required.

I assume at least two sets of eyes had perused that before it went to press. Or do you not have editors look at copy before it goes to press? Does anyone in the "AOPA Pilot" organization have a math background at all? If not, maybe you should ban pie charts from your magazine (and anything else that requires synapses be firing on the left side of the brain).

Most pilots are left brained (at least I certainly hope they are) and will catch errors this egregiously obvious.

You haven't been serving your organization very well with your responses here of late my friend.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Rolling my eyes hard. :rolleyes:

AOPA has owned N4GA for a long time - That isn't the first jet to bear that number, and Mark Baker is at least the third AOPA president to fly it.

AOPA owns a fleet of airplanes, and employs pilots. If they can't justify doing so, then it'd be awfully hard for them to tell everyone else that it's justified.

Among all of the things AOPA does with their money, buying airplanes and fuel is among the ones I'm most OK with.
Click to expand...

Go look and see how much is being paid to Mr. Baker for utilizing his own aircraft on the member dime. I don't mind spending some money and travelling GA...but now getting reimbursed for his own aircraft in addition to the company owned ones is BS
 
timwinters said:
maybe you should ban pie charts from your magazine
Click to expand...

Pie charts should probably be banned, period. The number of times they're actually done well approaches zero.

You haven't been serving your organization very well with your responses here of late my friend.
Click to expand...

Strongly disagree. We all love to ***** about AOPA with all kinds of false "data" to back up our positions, and I'm really glad @TomHaines is bringing some semblance of reality to the discussion. At least that way, we can skewer them for legitimate reasons and maybe make them better, instead of sitting here in our little righteously indignant bubble.

MichiPilot said:
Go look and see how much is being paid to Mr. Baker for utilizing his own aircraft on the member dime. I don't mind spending some money and travelling GA...but now getting reimbursed for his own aircraft in addition to the company owned ones is BS
Click to expand...

Can you provide a reference, or is this just speculation? I couldn't find anything about him being reimbursed.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
They made a goof. A graphics 'typo'.
Hardly worth the shaming, pages of comment, "AOPA is awful" nonsense.
"Let he who has never goofed, step forward."
Click to expand...
I agree it's minor, and there is a lot of over-reaction.

But...

I'd be curious as to how the "typo" occurred. The artist had the percentages...54%, 41%, and 1%. I'd just like to know how that massively incorrect pie chart resulted. Obviously, Excel or any other mathematical tool wasn't involved, they would have gotten the proportions right. The only thing I can think of is that the graphic artist used another pie chart as a template but didn't change the proportions. I can see that happening if they generated what they considered a "placeholder" but didn't go back to update it to the appropriate values.

I've seen cases where the graphical depiction of data was manipulated to favor one side or the other, but I don't think this would be such a case. The other instances had correct data but set max/mins, used logarithmic scales, etc. to make one side seem a lot worse.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Meh. It happens, even to the best organizations.
50b62b796bb3f7084c00000e-480-360.jpg


Add up the percentages of this one...comes to 120%:
50b62c6569bedd5e3e000013-480-240.jpg
 
timwinters said:
Except how do you possibly not catch something that obvious? The error smacked me upside the head as soon as I saw it. Deep analysis not required.

I assume at least two sets of eyes had perused that before it went to press. Or do you not have editors look at copy before it goes to press? Does anyone in the "AOPA Pilot" organization have a math background at all? If not, maybe you should ban pie charts from your magazine (and anything else that requires synapses be firing on the left side of the brain).

Most pilots are left brained (at least I certainly hope they are) and will catch errors this egregiously obvious.

You haven't been serving your organization very well with your responses here of late my friend.
Click to expand...

We have a very effective editorial production process. There is no way we could produce 24 issues a year--AOPA PILOT and Flight Training--mostly error free without it. There are multiple reviews, but every once in a while not all the components make it to the page until late in the process and something slips by. After all, we are dealing with mere humans here, not the folks prowling forums like this one.

This was not a math problem. The same data and the correct pie chart ran in AOPA Aviation eBrief. A graphic artist was using the data to create a pie chart in the magazine's style and color palette and somehow it made it onto the page incomplete. And, probably because it was picked up from another publication, it did not get the scrutiny it usually does from the editors, most of whom are pilots, by the way--left brainers just like you.

When we have an error we acknowledge it right away and correct it. A correction for this is in the March issue, which will be out soon.

Regarding "something that obvious," you do know that doctors sometimes amputate the wrong limbs from people, right?

"You haven't been serving your organization very well with your responses here of late my friend."

A few days ago you called me and my staff of publishing professionals "idiots" after a rather inconsequential error. You actually used that word. And now we're "friends"? Hmmm.
 
I just truly don't understand all the griping about AOPA. It's an organization. Join or don't. I choose to, think it's a bargain. Some don't, and that's fair. Baker seems to do a pretty good job. He has a board to oversee him. If you are a member and don't like what you see, take it up with AOPA. Write Baker, write the board. Join the forum and make suggestions there.
If you are not a member, why the hell do you need to express your opinion? Frankly, I can't imagine anyone caring.
 
Just to clear the air, I made a rather crass remark about journalists and graphics folks on this thread but I did not intend it to be an attack on AOPA. I’m a member and am pretty satisfied with them overall. Keep up the good work @TomHaines.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Pie charts should probably be banned, period. The number of times they're actually done well approaches zero.



Strongly disagree. We all love to ***** about AOPA with all kinds of false "data" to back up our positions, and I'm really glad @TomHaines is bringing some semblance of reality to the discussion. At least that way, we can skewer them for legitimate reasons and maybe make them better, instead of sitting here in our little righteously indignant bubble.



Can you provide a reference, or is this just speculation? I couldn't find anything about him being reimbursed.
Click to expand...

Yes, go read the financial report.
 
@TomHaines

I am glad you have thick skin; and thanks for taking the time to reply. Overall, i like what AOPA does; and when I disagree I do call in (instead of posting about it).

Tim
 
MichiPilot said:
https://www.aopa.org/-/media/files/...hash=ABBB7260836034380E97BCBFDA94C3148CF955E3

Schedule L, Page 2. $100k reimbursement for his aircraft because it helps avoid an "organization owned fleet"...yet AOPA has a fleet.
Click to expand...

OK, so he owns airplanes. That's part of what qualifies him as the leader of the AIRCRAFT OWNERS and Pilots Association...

In 2017, the year for which you're apparently complaining about, he owned a Cessna 185 (doesn't burn Jet-A), a Howard (doesn't burn Jet-A) and an early TBM 700 (s/n 91). Since the TBM is the only thing that burns Jet-A, presumably that's what you're complaining about, but that's a much more efficient aircraft than N4GA is, so I'm not sure why you have the complaint. Should we spend more just so he can fly the AOPA-owned hardware more? :dunno:

You want to complain, why not complain about his over $2mil annual salary? Presumably that's what allowed him to sell the TBM and buy himself a CJ1 (which, BTW, still burns less fuel than the CJ3 that AOPA owns...) and a Caravan and a Baron?

But, this appears to have been Baker's habit before he started at AOPA as well. Guy sure goes through a lot of airplanes. https://prijet.com/owner/BAKER PLANES LLC?owner=BAKER+PLANES+LLC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top