A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Club Management Issue



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #141  
Old March 29th 04, 11:40 PM
Dave Stadt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Doug Carter" wrote in message
...
John T wrote:

What about "winner does not receive punitive damages"? Contingency is

still
there, the truly wronged are made as right as money can make them, the

"bad
guys" are still punished, but the courts are not treated as the lottery

they
sometimes seem to be. The punitive awards in this scenario would go to

a)
the general fund; b) a designated "victims' fund"; or c) some other

"public
fund" that benefits society at large.


Good idea; why not go a bit further and eliminate
punitive damages? Today their primary purpose is lawyer
enrichment. Since the purported intent is to deter bad
companies from making dangerous products why not simply
leave this to criminal courts? In this way the injured is
paid for their actual losses and



the party causing the
injury faces the possibility of being Martha's cell mate.


I would gladly accept the death penalty over a month in a cell with Martha.



  #142  
Old March 30th 04, 12:16 AM
Russell Kent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Doug Carter wrote:

the party causing the injury faces the possibility of being Martha's cell
mate.


Dave Stadt replied:

I would gladly accept the death penalty over a month in a cell with Martha.


Yeah, I'd rather kill her too, but I don't think that's an option... ;-)

Russell Kent

  #143  
Old March 30th 04, 12:56 AM
Tom Sixkiller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dude" wrote in message
...
The problem with contingency fees is not that they are a bad idea, it is
that they are abused. They are still necessary to assure equal

protection.

The Bar does not live up to its high calling to police its own. Instead,

it
handcuffs itself as if it had no care or concern for the good of anything

or
anyone other than lawyers. Lawyers should be held to a higher standard,

and
their licenses more easily revoked. If the Bars are going to maintain a
monopoly, they should be forced to do a better job. Unfortunately, all

the
legislatures and courts are full of Bar members, so don't hold your

breath.

Our judges are no longer empowered to be judges. They are too hamstrung

by
the legislature (who are rightly upset due to judicial activism). In my
opinion, a good judge should have more power to tell a lawyer to take his
ridiculous motions and suits and stick them where they belong.
Unfotunately, that is no longer the case in this country. Due to the
system's inability to weed out or remove bad judges, the whole thing has
gone haywire.

What we really need to figure out is how to get better judges and get rid

of
the bad ones.


Judges are all members of the ABA, too.


  #144  
Old March 30th 04, 01:04 AM
Dave S
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Peter,

I have flown free of charge in someone elses plane, rental or
what-have-you for purposes of pleasure or mutual interest. Does that
count as a commercial operation too? Is my license in peril in your mind
because of that? (I'm a private pilot).

Dave

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Dave S" wrote in message
news
[...]
If the recovery pilot is not a commercial pilot, but is doing the club's
bidding in returning the aircraft, I dont see the problem with the club
billing the FLIGHT TIME of the recovered airplane to the ABANDONING
pilot.



The FAA does not agree with you. If the "abandoning pilot" were billed for
the flight time, then that means the pilot actually flying the plane would
not be paying for the flight time, and if that pilot holds only a private
certificate, that is clearly against the FARs.

Pete



  #145  
Old March 30th 04, 01:42 AM
Doug Carter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Russell Kent wrote:

Yeah, I'd rather kill her too, but I don't think that's an option... ;-)


Gee, that seems a little harsh for lying to a government
lawyer.

  #146  
Old March 30th 04, 02:07 AM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dave S" wrote in message
ink.net...
I have flown free of charge in someone elses plane, rental or
what-have-you for purposes of pleasure or mutual interest. [...]
Is my license in peril in your mind
because of that? (I'm a private pilot).


Yes. If someone other than you paid for the direct operating expenses,
that's a clear violation of the pro-rata cost sharing provision in 61.113.
As far as the FAA is concerned, not being charged is the same as being
charged and being compensated at 100%.

That's assuming the owner of the airplane paid for those expenses. It
becomes even MORE problematic for the private pilot flying for nothing if
some third party pays those expenses, as is being suggested here.

Pete


  #147  
Old March 30th 04, 03:10 PM
Darrel Toepfer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Dave S" wrote...

I have flown free of charge in someone elses plane, rental or
what-have-you for purposes of pleasure or mutual interest. [...]
Is my license in peril in your mind
because of that? (I'm a private pilot).


Yes. If someone other than you paid for the direct operating expenses,
that's a clear violation of the pro-rata cost sharing provision in 61.113.
As far as the FAA is concerned, not being charged is the same as being
charged and being compensated at 100%.

That's assuming the owner of the airplane paid for those expenses. It
becomes even MORE problematic for the private pilot flying for nothing if
some third party pays those expenses, as is being suggested here.


Pete, you're leaving out that a charity can pay 100% of the flight
costs...
  #148  
Old March 30th 04, 03:49 PM
Dave S
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thanks.. sounds like we need our club to review things, and perhaps get
a letter of opinion from the FAA/FSDO and/or possibly change our SOP's.

In intent, I would like to say we dont want to violate the FAR's but at
the same time we want to hold our club members responsible for expenses
incurred by them leaving the aircraft away from its base. This sounds
like its going to be an interesting meeting this month.

Dave

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Dave S" wrote in message
ink.net...

I have flown free of charge in someone elses plane, rental or
what-have-you for purposes of pleasure or mutual interest. [...]
Is my license in peril in your mind
because of that? (I'm a private pilot).



Yes. If someone other than you paid for the direct operating expenses,
that's a clear violation of the pro-rata cost sharing provision in 61.113.
As far as the FAA is concerned, not being charged is the same as being
charged and being compensated at 100%.

That's assuming the owner of the airplane paid for those expenses. It
becomes even MORE problematic for the private pilot flying for nothing if
some third party pays those expenses, as is being suggested here.

Pete



  #149  
Old March 30th 04, 06:34 PM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Darrel Toepfer" wrote in message
.. .
Pete, you're leaving out that a charity can pay 100% of the flight
costs...


That has nothing to do with the operation being considered here.


  #150  
Old March 30th 04, 06:36 PM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dave S" wrote in message
k.net...
In intent, I would like to say we dont want to violate the FAR's but at
the same time we want to hold our club members responsible for expenses
incurred by them leaving the aircraft away from its base.


If that's your goal, the solution is to make sure you hire a commercial
pilot to fly stranded airplanes back. Since you're passing the costs back
to the original renter anyway, you should have no problem with that. It's
just an extra administrative hassle, is all.

You may even be able to find commercial pilots willing to do the task for no
other compensation than the free use of the airplane. Hours are hours,
after all.

Pete


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Northern NJ Flying Club Accepting New Members Andrew Gideon Aviation Marketplace 1 June 12th 04 03:03 AM
Northern NJ Flying Club Accepting New Members Andrew Gideon General Aviation 0 June 12th 04 02:14 AM
Northern NJ Flying Club Accepting New Members Andrew Gideon Owning 0 June 12th 04 02:14 AM
Ultralight Club Bylaws - Warning Long Post MrHabilis Home Built 0 June 11th 04 05:07 PM
Club Management Issue Geoffrey Barnes Owning 150 March 30th 04 06:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.