Cessna years of manufacture?

[CFLav8r]

When I look for older Cessna 172 models, I have noticed that there doesn't
seem to be any in the 1987 to 1996 range for sale.
Did Cessna not build any during these years?

David

[tony roberts]

> When I look for older Cessna 172 models, I have noticed that there doesn't
> seem to be any in the 1987 to 1996 range for sale.
> Did Cessna not build any during these years?

Correct.
Liability suits were killing them. I understand that their reason for
moving baqck into GA piston singles was a change to the statute of
limitations.


Tony

--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Almost Instrument :)
Cessna 172H C-GICE

[EDR]

In article <nospam-F0BE06.18040312022004@shawnews>, tony roberts
> wrote:

> > When I look for older Cessna 172 models, I have noticed that there doesn't
> > seem to be any in the 1987 to 1996 range for sale.
> > Did Cessna not build any during these years?
>
> Correct.
> Liability suits were killing them. I understand that their reason for
> moving baqck into GA piston singles was a change to the statute of
> limitations.

General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1996.
Removed liability for parts and products more than 18 years old.

[Jim Fisher]

"EDR" > wrote in message
> General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1996.
> Removed liability for parts and products more than 18 years old.

THIS is considered a "revitalization"? What was the limit before that? 200
years?

Geez.

--
Jim Fisher

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:15:11 -0600, "Jim Fisher"
> wrote:

>
>"EDR" > wrote in message
>> General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1996.
>> Removed liability for parts and products more than 18 years old.
>
>THIS is considered a "revitalization"? What was the limit before that? 200
>years?

No, longer. As in "forever." Heck, there's a move afoot to penalize some
(non-aviation) US companies for their actions over 150 years ago...

Ron Wanttaja

[G.R. Patterson III]

CFLav8r wrote:
>
> Did Cessna not build any during these years?

That's correct.

George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.

[John Galban]

"CFLav8r" > wrote in message >...
> When I look for older Cessna 172 models, I have noticed that there doesn't
> seem to be any in the 1987 to 1996 range for sale.
> Did Cessna not build any during these years?
>

Correct. And all of the (few) 1986 models were just 1985 models
that took more than a year to unload.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[C J Campbell]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
. ..
|
| "EDR" > wrote in message
| > General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1996.
| > Removed liability for parts and products more than 18 years old.
|
| THIS is considered a "revitalization"? What was the limit before that?
200
| years?
|
| Geez.

Smith & Wesson has been successfully sued for "defective" handguns
manufactured by predecessor companies during the Civil War.

[C J Campbell]

"CFLav8r" > wrote in message
...
| When I look for older Cessna 172 models, I have noticed that there doesn't
| seem to be any in the 1987 to 1996 range for sale.
| Did Cessna not build any during these years?

Cessna built no single engine aircraft during those years. Liability
insurance, which is a large part of the manufacturing cost of an airplane,
had driven the cost up so high that there was virtually no demand. Cessna
and other manufacturers said they would not build any more planes until
there was some kind of liability reform. The Aviation Revitalization Act
limited aviation product liability to 20 years from the date of manufacture,
so Cessna and others started building planes again. The tort lawyers have
made several unsuccessful (so far) attempts to break the 20 year limit. If
they ever do succeed, the manufacturers will probably quit for good.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> Cessna built no single engine aircraft during those years. Liability
> insurance, which is a large part of the manufacturing cost of an airplane,
> had driven the cost up so high that there was virtually no demand. Cessna
> and other manufacturers said they would not build any more planes until
> there was some kind of liability reform. The Aviation Revitalization Act
> limited aviation product liability to 20 years from the date of
manufacture,
> so Cessna and others started building planes again. The tort lawyers have
> made several unsuccessful (so far) attempts to break the 20 year limit. If
> they ever do succeed, the manufacturers will probably quit for good.
>

Imagine if John Edwards becomes president. Think businesses are leaving in
droves now, just wait.

[Jay Honeck]

> No, longer. As in "forever." Heck, there's a move afoot to penalize some
> (non-aviation) US companies for their actions over 150 years ago...

Heck, the country is still being sued by American Indians and African
Americans for actions taken by our ancestors centuries ago.

Liability - the gift that keeps on giving.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Addison Laurent]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 02:43:21 -0500, Tom Sixkiller wrote:


> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Cessna built no single engine aircraft during those years. Liability
....
>> so Cessna and others started building planes again. The tort lawyers
>> have made several unsuccessful (so far) attempts to break the 20 year
>> limit. If they ever do succeed, the manufacturers will probably quit
>> for good.
>>
>>
> Imagine if John Edwards becomes president. Think businesses are leaving
> in droves now, just wait.

Well, to point out the obvious and nitpick.....

As President, he'd have less control over that than he currently does in
the Senate now. (Not that I'd want him to be President. But of all the
problems having a trial lawyer (who potentially used *ahem* questionable
"science" in his cases) as President - that's not one I'm concerned
about.)

Addison

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Addison Laurent" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 02:43:21 -0500, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
>
> > "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Cessna built no single engine aircraft during those years. Liability
> ...
> >> so Cessna and others started building planes again. The tort lawyers
> >> have made several unsuccessful (so far) attempts to break the 20 year
> >> limit. If they ever do succeed, the manufacturers will probably quit
> >> for good.
> >>
> >>
> > Imagine if John Edwards becomes president. Think businesses are leaving
> > in droves now, just wait.
>
> Well, to point out the obvious and nitpick.....
>
> As President, he'd have less control over that than he currently does in
> the Senate now. (Not that I'd want him to be President. But of all the
> problems having a trial lawyer (who potentially used *ahem* questionable
> "science" in his cases) as President - that's not one I'm concerned
> about.)

Three words: Tort reform veto.

[C J Campbell]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Addison Laurent" > wrote in message
| ...
| > On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 02:43:21 -0500, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
| >
| >
| > > "C J Campbell" > wrote in
message
| > > ...
| > >> Cessna built no single engine aircraft during those years. Liability
| > ...
| > >> so Cessna and others started building planes again. The tort lawyers
| > >> have made several unsuccessful (so far) attempts to break the 20 year
| > >> limit. If they ever do succeed, the manufacturers will probably quit
| > >> for good.
| > >>
| > >>
| > > Imagine if John Edwards becomes president. Think businesses are
leaving
| > > in droves now, just wait.
| >
| > Well, to point out the obvious and nitpick.....
| >
| > As President, he'd have less control over that than he currently does in
| > the Senate now. (Not that I'd want him to be President. But of all the
| > problems having a trial lawyer (who potentially used *ahem* questionable
| > "science" in his cases) as President - that's not one I'm concerned
| > about.)
|
| Three words: Tort reform veto.

One of my students, a retired prosecutor, said that public defenders often
became the toughest judges. They knew that most of what the defense does is
BS. Perhaps it is not a foregone conclusion that Edwards would be pro trial
lobby. He might know too much to fall for their crap.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> | >
> | > As President, he'd have less control over that than he currently does
in
> | > the Senate now. (Not that I'd want him to be President. But of all the
> | > problems having a trial lawyer (who potentially used *ahem*
questionable
> | > "science" in his cases) as President - that's not one I'm concerned
> | > about.)
> |
> | Three words: Tort reform veto.
>
> One of my students, a retired prosecutor, said that public defenders often
> became the toughest judges. They knew that most of what the defense does
is
> BS. Perhaps it is not a foregone conclusion that Edwards would be pro
trial
> lobby. He might know too much to fall for their crap.
>

Edwards wasn't a public defender. He wasn't even really a defense lawyer.