Jack wrote:
On 6/19/04 12:37 AM, in article , "Eric
Greenwell" wrote:


Could you offer a guess about the potential liability exposure of
allowing your airport to be used for a soaring contest in the first
place, compared that to neglecting to require contestants install a
piece of equipment their gliders are specifically exempted from in the
regulations, and is only of value if they crash somewhere besides your
airport?


The lawyer can speak for himself, but I have to ask, "Could you offer a
guess concerning whether or not OJ is a murderer?"

The point I think is that, number one -- anything is possible when a
question goes before a jury; and number two -- if it's your airport, you get
to make the rules.

You got a problem with that?

From my posting yesterday:

"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."

I'm also in favor of using ELTs, though not necessarily requiring their
use. What I was attempting to do is keep the discussion on the value of
ELTs, and how, when (or where), and if they should be required. As I've
stated, I think the liability issue raised is so small compared to the
liability assumed by allowing the use of one's airport that it doesn't
affect the airport owner's overall liability.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA