J.M. Farrington wrote:

"Romeo Delta" wrote in message
om...

Dear Mr. Byars:


Large snip

The proper protocol in this matter would be to defer such decisions to
the sanctioning body (SSA). I urge your friend to consult his insurer
and his lawyer on this matter in an attempt to better define what
exactly his "due diligence" as an airport owner is when hosting a
glider competition.

RD


I think you are putting far to much faith in the letter of the law here
and forgetting what American juries are capable of. In the recent Carnahan
trial, an award of some $25 + million was made against the manufacturer of
the vacuum pump's. Units by the way, that the NSTB said were working before
and after the crash. Carnahan had asked for $100 million, awarded 25 +, and
the judge cut it down to $2.1 million. Still quite a bit to pay for
something that was working as advertised.

Lanier has a nice piece of property there, and while I agree with you, in
that I do not think he could loose it, the time and cost of a trial would be
hard to bear.

The liklihood of being sued because the airport owner did not require a
pilot to carry equipment that sailplanes are specifically exempted from
carrying, and that doesn't even involve flight safety, seems extremely
remote. No airport, anywhere, has been sued because a glider crashed
without an ELT. His potential liabilities for other reasons connected
directly to the use of the airport and his towplanes far exceed this
one. In the example given, note that the airport was not sued for
allowing the aircraft to use "defective" vacuum pumps.

Still, if he thinks this is an important issue, and wishes to make it a
condition of access to his airport, I think he is within his rights to
do so.



--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA