At Dear Ol' AVL Airport, Asheville, NC

On 15 Aug 2004 08:19:12 -0700, (GaryP) wrote:

(Del Rawlins) wrote in message ...

You come on the newsgroup, and make a statement to the effect that
A&Ps and flight instructors who don't operate out of fixed facilities
are a bunch of hazardous freeloaders who shouldn't be allowed on the
airport, and you expect a civil response?

I entered into this discussion with an alternative point of view
having watched aviation businesses try to survive in this litigious society.
My assertion, which I believe you did not understand correctly based
on the above response is this: Fixed operators cannot escape exposure to
litigation for lawsuits filed in the aftermath of a fatality. When something
happens the attorneys name everyone in what is called "partitioning of the
blame".

Even if an independent A&P or CFI carries a big liability policy, I'm
still not sure how that is supposed to help an uninvolved party who
happens to operate at the same airport. Their insurance company
certainly isn't going to agree to that. To turn the situation around,
if there is an accident caused by shoddy maintenance at the FBO, but
my signature happens to be in the logbook for unrelated work, and I am
then named in the resulting lawsuit, are they then expected to
indemnify me? I really doubt that is going to be the case and I will
be on my own. What you seem to be advocating is a situation where
everybody who works on an airfield be required to carry insurance that
covers everyone else working there. Not going to happen.

As a result the airport owners insurance policy might have a
requirement that all operators on the airport be fixed and properly insured for
their respective activities. An independent CFI or A&P routinely operating
at an airport without their own insurance are exposing the airport and
fixed businesses to potential litigation and may be doing so in violation of
the airport owners insurance coverage requirements.

The operating authority of a public airport doesn't get to pick and
choose who can engage in business activities there.

From day to day
without incident this is not a problem until an accident occurs where there
are serious injuries. The fixed operators are there, easily identified
and nameable in a suit while the independents operating out their car can simply
dissapear.

Please tell me how I am supposed to "disappear" if there is an
accident involving an airplane I have worked on. I am required to
hold an FAA certificate, and if I move I am required to inform the
FAA, who keeps a record of where I live. If I do not keep the
government apprised of my current location my certificate is not
valid. If somebody wants to find me so they can sue me, it won't be
all that difficult to accomplish.

Even if they don't disappear, when the suit is filed you can be the
attorneys will go after the deepest pockets first. The fixed operators will be
targeted for a larger share of the blame because they have deeper pockets. The
legal system is not fair in this regard.

So because the legal system is unfair, you think everybody should be
required to have the same deep pockets before being allowed to enter
business? I don't like the system any more than you do, but that
doesn't mean I should have to provide coverage for people I am not
even involved with.

NO WHERE did I say or am I saying NOW that the independent are doing
shoddy work. NO WHERE did I say or am I saying NOW that they should not
entitled to operate. What I am saying is their activities, depending on the
insurance policy requirements of the airport, may be in violation of that
policy.

And if their activities are taking place at a public airport which
accepts federal funding, that policy is illegal.

Indirectly the fixed operators premiums are sholdering the liability
costs of the independent operators.

No, they are shouldering the additional liability cost of a broken
legal system (and no, I don't claim to have an answer to fix it
either) which encourages lawsuits against uninvolved parties. Just
like everybody else in the country.

I compared this to car insurance
where in my home state of NJ is mandatory YET includes a surcharge
for "uninsured motorists". In effect I pay for folks who don't have
insurance. The uninsured driver has a lower cost per mile than me.
They could be the safest driver on the road but my premium is, in effect
higher to pay for their coverage.

I also carry the uninsured motorist coverage on my policy. It isn't a
requirement in my state (last I checked) but it does protect me in
case an uninsured driver runs into me, financially at least. The
reason the cost per mile is lower is because most drivers carry
insurance, so the odds of being hit by an uninsured driver is lower
than that of getting into a collision with an insured driver.

Unfortunately you are making an apples and oranges comparison because
if an uninsured driver plows into me, then they were most certainly
involved in the accident. If I screw up and return an airplane to
service after doing improper maintenance, the local FBO is not
involved. If the lawyer for the greiving widow chooses to name them
in the suit I don't have any control over that and I don't owe them
anything.

snipped more of the same

I do not believe I made the uncivilized assertions you acuse me of.
But this issue sparks emotion and people don't always express themselves
throughly. Perhaps I've made my point a little clearer, perhaps not.

No, you made yourself perfectly clear the first time. I would like to
see your reaction when your airport decides that even working on your
own airplane is too much exposure for them, and that all maintenance
must be done by the FBO. Will you roll over and take it, or will your
response be closer to mine?


================================================== ==
Del Rawlins--
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply