New law for older airplanes?

"AirHead" wrote in message
news
I heard about something like this a while back. Apparently the new planes
aren't selling all that good and there's some lobbying going on to limit
the
life of the old ones. Maybe that's what it's about.



I think that what you are referring too, is the Limits of Liability of the
original manufacturers. Should Piper or Cessna be liable if a 40 year old
airframe fails? (or mebbe/ coulda/ possibly. failed) If the builder's
liability could be capped by statute at 25 years, the savings in litigation
would be reflected in lower costs for new GA aircraft. (in theory)

Pepperoni

Pepperoni wrote:

If the builder's
liability could be capped by statute at 25 years, the savings in litigation
would be reflected in lower costs for new GA aircraft. (in theory)

The current cap is 18 years. Why would increasing it to 25 years save money on
litigation?

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

No. This is not liability limits. It's intrusive inspections of older
aircraft
designed to get them off the market to try to bolster the sale of
new aircraft. Not unlike the inspections of older cars designed to get them
off the road that
are promoted and supported by the new car manufacturers.




"Pepperoni" wrote in message
...

"AirHead" wrote in message
news
I heard about something like this a while back. Apparently the new
planes
aren't selling all that good and there's some lobbying going on to limit
the
life of the old ones. Maybe that's what it's about.



I think that what you are referring too, is the Limits of Liability of the
original manufacturers. Should Piper or Cessna be liable if a 40 year
old
airframe fails? (or mebbe/ coulda/ possibly. failed) If the builder's
liability could be capped by statute at 25 years, the savings in
litigation
would be reflected in lower costs for new GA aircraft. (in theory)

Pepperoni

On Tue, 11 May 2004 00:18:02 -0400, Pepperoni wrote:


"AirHead" wrote in message
news
I heard about something like this a while back. Apparently the new planes
aren't selling all that good and there's some lobbying going on to limit
the
life of the old ones. Maybe that's what it's about.



I think that what you are referring too, is the Limits of Liability of the
original manufacturers. Should Piper or Cessna be liable if a 40 year old
airframe fails? (or mebbe/ coulda/ possibly. failed) If the builder's
liability could be capped by statute at 25 years, the savings in litigation
would be reflected in lower costs for new GA aircraft. (in theory)

Pepperoni

What's the limit on liability for buildings and bridges? What about cars?
Do such parallels even make sense? One expects buildings and bridges to
be around for some time. Are car manufacturers free of liability on
clasic cars?