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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 | |
|
|
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 |