Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hangar Talk' started by timwinters, Feb 3, 2019.
In this month's Pilot Magazine.
Wow. Nothing skewed there.
I'm in the 1%
I just don't understand how something like this made it to press without being caught...unless it was intentional.
It looks like they were being purposely deceptive or are simply idiots. Neither is good.
"Baseball is 90 per cent mental. The other half is physical."
-- L. P. Berra
Me too. Not sure of the "limitations" they are referring to other than installing a parachute on my plane would cost more than the plane itself.
Obviously didn't use Excel to make the graph ...
Probably meaning that you'd not need an STC, and/or you'd get an automatic gross weight increase equal to the chute.
My limitation is cash and max payload.
It's axiomatic that nobody ever looks at anything closely until after it's in print.
Must be that new math
common core strikes again!
Pretty amazing, isn’t it? It’s either very careless or very blatant.
That's what happens when you let graphic arts and journalism majors do math, even if they are in aviation. Heck, I know some pilots who can't do math very well.
However, I would imagine that if you ignore the moronic graphic and look at just the numbers which are what really matter, it is probably accurate. You only have to read any online thread about parachutes to see that there is a high percentage of pilots against them.
Again as others note, it depends on the limitations. No limitations could be interpreted as no performance penalties and nothing in the Airworthiness Limitations Section mandating an expensive periodic repack. If that was true, there really is no logic in not having one. If you read the no limitations this liberally, then it really is silly not to have one.
It is probably due to the macho hazardous attitude mentality which many pilots suffer from.
Seeing things like that too frequently is the primary reason I left AOPA.
Looks like someone misplaced the decimal point on the 41 and 4 numbers.
I don't think these two options are mutually exclusive. My experiences last year with the AOPA political donation folks proved to me that they are purposely deceptive idiots.
Lots of examples in media of very bad graphs.
I may need to borrow that chart the next time my wife asks what percentage of the budget is allocated for aviation
Fake news. There's nothing on the red board about it.
I wouldn't let the pie-chart guy repack my chute!
Why did they ask if you install an escape pod?
Why not? He'd get it 90% right. Or 54%.
I didn't know until this day that it was CNN that owned AOPA all along.
This is the type of mistake I fear when I make charts for the C suite at work. Tying out numbers is really boring. I should make an intern do it.
@timwinters - you don't think half of GA owners would install this critical safety equipment if...
I give up. I'm laughing too hard to be non-serious.
Yogi would tell us "if the world were perfect, it wouldn't be."
It's what happens when you're good at photoshopping percentages from your data onto a picture of a pie graph instead of actually creating the pie graph with Excel or similar. Likely less about deception, and more about having poor skills in Excel, lol.
They did poke fun at themselves for the mistake on the AOPA podcasts. I can sympathize with them. I have made more than one PowerPoint presentation with a glaring error that I missed no mater how many times I proof read it.
Or your proofreader is taking a little too much "executive time" and not doing his job!
I can sympathize, too...but I also feel the need to improve in the future, which is what I’ve never seen from AOPA before. At least this time they’re not defending or just ignoring the mistake.
All I know is that I only ate 54% of the pizza tonight and the wife called me a gluttonous pig. What’s up with that?
That's the same math that convinced the board that the wine club, the refurbished 152s, the flight planner etc were a good idea!
You seen the movies Idiocracy yet?
I had to present something to "the head honcho" a couple months ago. He kept asking about the equation we were proposing to switch to for a calculation.
He asked several times. I was befuddled.
Someone else sends me an instant message that I had left out a "(" and depending on where you assume it belongs the answer changes.
I corrected it in the presentation and the honcho was happy. I bought the other person dinner
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.
It’s not the errors...it’s the GFY attitude that causes problems.
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.
My articles on homebuilt accident statistics are pretty artwork-intensive. I generate my own plots, directly from Excel, but paste them into a Powerpoint file to "pretty" them up (colors, line sizes, proportions, labels, etc.).
Kitplanes uses the graphics I build, but EAA Sport Aviation has their graphics department re-do them... their intent is to standardize the appearance of graphics across the whole issue. I give them a raw graphic (not prettied up) and include a table of values. They've never made any value errors. They've made changes that I felt made the "message" of the artwork a little less comprehensible, such as using a narrower color spectrum or putting points on the top of the bars on bar graphs.
However, both magazines send me a PDF of the article in its final layout form, and invite me to make corrections. Don't know if AOPA Pilot does that. I usually do a last-minute "reasonableness check" on the graphs as part of my review.