Survey Time

Is it fair representation when anybody who has even a peripheral
involvement in an accident is financially responsible for the whole
thing?

That's not a question of represntation, it is a question of the
judgement. "loser pays" won't alter the judgement of who wins and who
loses, but it will alter the field of who decides to bring suit in the
first place.

We truly need tort reform!

Yes, but not so much in the procedures as in the attitudes of those who
make the judgements. It should also be noted that not all things which
appear frivilous on the surface are in fact unfounded.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
Yes, but not so much in the procedures as in the attitudes of those who
make the judgements. It should also be noted that not all things which
appear frivilous on the surface are in fact unfounded.

Sorry Jose but its way past time for the pedulum to swing back
and even overshoot. These lawsuits are destroying this country
and have become no more than a lottery for people who figure
they can eventually get in on the action.

If the jury pool had to pass a basic test of integrity, intelligence
and demonstrate a track record of productive citizenship (other
than just being a voter) then there would be hope for minor changes.
But unfortunately this isn't the case... in fact the attorneys
filing the lawsuits seek the lowest lifes they can take advantage
of their ignorance, baffle them with BS and appeal to their hopes
of winning the lottery themselves someday.

Jose wrote:

A "loser pays" legal policy would straighten this one out immediately


The problem with "loser pays" is that only the rich could afford to take
the risk of having to pay, so the less well off would be without fair
representation.

Ok, then tax all attorneys 10% of their income to put into a fund to pay
for legal action for those who can't afford it.


Matt

In article ,
DILLIGAF wrote:

Of the five what is the biggest threat to GA?

1. High fuel cost
2. Insurance
3. FAA policies
4. Terror war restrictions
5. Maintenance cost on aircraft

In my neck of the woods, I would vote #4.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

cost, cost, cost, all of them plus IMHO less of an interest or
excitement for GA compared to decades ago.

DILLIGAF wrote:
Of the five what is the biggest threat to GA?

1. High fuel cost
2. Insurance
3. FAA policies
4. Terror war restrictions
5. Maintenance cost on aircraft

Of the five what is the biggest threat to GA?

1. High fuel cost

The cost of Avgas combined with the decreasing availability of unleaded,
alcohol-free car gas is killing grass roots aviation. It (would have) cost
$320 to fill my Cherokee in St. Louis, which means that flying is now well
beyond the means of most Americans.

All other factors pale into insignificance by comparison.

(2) Insurance is actually less than my car insurance...

(4) Terror war restrictions aren't an issue in 95% of the country...

(5) Maintenance costs are owner-dependent in many ways...

and (3) I don't even understand what you mean by "FAA Policies"...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:iPmKf.780050$x96.151238@attbi_s72...
Of the five what is the biggest threat to GA?

1. High fuel cost

The cost of Avgas combined with the decreasing availability of unleaded,
alcohol-free car gas is killing grass roots aviation.

Per gallon, fuel for airplanes in the US is still less than fuel for motor
vehicles elsewhere in the world. Yet, that industry seems to continue to
thrive.

Fuel costs are a poor scapegoat. Even for thirsty airplanes, fuel costs are
a small proportion of total operating costs (generally estimated at 25-33%).
The cost of fuel cannot possibly be "the biggest threat to GA".

It (would have) cost $320 to fill my Cherokee in St. Louis, which means
that flying is now well beyond the means of most Americans.

"To fill"? How is that relevant? You apparently did not fill up your
airplane, so you did not need to, so the cost to fill up your airplane is
irrelevant.

Conversely, if you really want to look at the cost to fill your airplane
with fuel, you need to look at the total operating costs for a flight that
would require that much fuel, the number of passengers you might have taken
(let's say four, in your six-seater), and how that total operating costs
compares to the fuel cost portion of the total.

Assuming fuel is 1/3rd of the total cost of the flight (a very generous
assumption), then you could cut the fuel costs in half and still save only
1/6th the cost of the flight. A 20% increase in costs doesn't kill any
industry, not even aviation.

All other factors pale into insignificance by comparison.

Hardly.

(2) Insurance is actually less than my car insurance...

I pay about 10 times my car insurance for my airplane. You either have very
inexpensive airplane insurance (fixed-gear land-plane helps that for sure),
or very expensive car insurance, or both.

(4) Terror war restrictions aren't an issue in 95% of the country...

The factors that make them politically viable are.

(5) Maintenance costs are owner-dependent in many ways...

That's not an argument that those costs are "insignificant by comparison".
Fuel costs are owner-dependent as well. A cost being "owner-dependent"
doesn't mean that the cost is insignificant.

Pete

(4) Terror war restrictions aren't an issue in 95% of the country...
The factors that make them politically viable are.

Bingo. That's the thing that Jay consistantly misses.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:

(4) Terror war restrictions aren't an issue in 95% of the country...

The factors that make them politically viable are.


Bingo. That's the thing that Jay consistantly misses.

As long as he doesn't miss it consistently.

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Bingo. That's the thing that Jay consistantly misses.

As long as he doesn't miss it consistently.

And you claimed the *original* post was stupid. How ironic.

Sheesh.