New Castle ELT Requirement

The safety of flight is ultimately the responsibility of the P.I.C.
(so says the FARs)--this includes ensuring the operational condition
of any *required* onboard instrumentation and equipment.

The safety of a single flight is the responsibility of the pilot. However,
the safety of a soaring contest falls in the lap of the contest organizer.
His decisions regarding the safe operation of a contest at a his site should
be respected, and not 2nd guessed.


But ask yourself this: if because someone lands gear-up twice should
the airport owner [for liability concerns] demand that all similar
aircraft be installed with a gear warning system as a condition to
operate at his airport?

Invalid analogy. Landing gear up will not cause a ground and air search
involving time, effort and risk of numerous individuals and agencies.

What I see is a knee-jerk policy unilaterally instituted under the
color of an exagerated concern of liability in the rare case of an off
site aircraft accident during a glider contest. Such a policy
instituted at a public airport could rightly be contrued as

New Castle is a private airport. Check your facts before posting.

http://www.airnav.com/airport/VA85


The proper protocol in this matter would be to defer such decisions to
the sanctioning body (SSA).

Please post a reference to this protocol. Is this published somewhere, or
is it just your personal opinion?


Guy Byars

Ed:

My comment has nothing to do with the "checking of facts" as I know
New Castle is a private airport. The point is that what initiates
there could very well have consequences elsewhere--and you know that.

Please be advised that my soaring club is currently fighting a battle
with a dictatorial airport authority at a private airport whose
strategy is to create arbitrary, grating rules in an attempt to get us
off the premises, so forgive me if I am sensative to any such mandates
as you have been involved with the creation thereof. It's bad enough
when such rules come from unsympathetic sources. It's harder to take
when we do it to ourselves.

As far as the reference protocol, it is my "opinion" that the SSA
should be afforded the authority to standardize what equipment is
required to fly in a soaring contest else who knows what specific
requirements some local airport owner and his friends may come up
(with the best of intentions) that all of a sudden becomes a barrier
to universal involvement.

Best,

Ray

I wish to address the potential legal liability issue regarding the ELT
requirment made by the "sponsor" of the event at a private airport.

I do not know all the details, nor do I know the law in the state where New
Castle is located. But, I have been a practicing attorney for 35 years and
have seen lawsuits on almost every issue one can imagine. I have read
judgments into the millions of dollars where it seemed obvious there was no
liability. I have defended cases that were brought where there was
significantly less culpability than the organizer of a soaring event might
face if he ignored the potential safety benefits of an ELT.

While I am embarassed by the direction of our legal system, I simply wanted
to say that there may be a potential liability concern. Remember that even
if the organizer is successful in defending a lawsuit, the legal fees could
be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Colin





---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.706 / Virus Database: 462 - Release Date: 6/14/04

COLIN LAMB wrote:

I wish to address the potential legal liability issue regarding the ELT
requirment made by the "sponsor" of the event at a private airport.

I do not know all the details, nor do I know the law in the state where New
Castle is located. But, I have been a practicing attorney for 35 years and
have seen lawsuits on almost every issue one can imagine. I have read
judgments into the millions of dollars where it seemed obvious there was no
liability. I have defended cases that were brought where there was
significantly less culpability than the organizer of a soaring event might
face if he ignored the potential safety benefits of an ELT.

While I am embarassed by the direction of our legal system, I simply wanted
to say that there may be a potential liability concern. Remember that even
if the organizer is successful in defending a lawsuit, the legal fees could
be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I know crazy things can happen in the liability world, but "possible"
isn't "probable", and I wondering about sense of the perspective here.

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?

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

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?



Jack

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

Spoken in the generalities of a lawyer.

One assumes a huge liability risk every time one drives a car.

Concern for liability has a point of diminishing returns.