Survey Time

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

"DILLIGAF" wrote in message
. ..
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

#4, sort of.

It's not "terror war restrictions" per se, though they are pretty damn
harmful. It's the general public opinion and attitude that has led to them,
as well as other effects.

#3 seems like a red herring to me, and #'s 1, 2, and 5 are really all just
the same issue: economics.

I think that fundamentally, economics is always an issue, but I also think
it's one that will resolve itself, as long as the other issues are dealt
with.

But public perception is a big problem. It gets in the way of new
participants, and it allows draconian and useless regulations to be put in
place, strangling the entire industry.

Pete

"PD" == Peter Duniho writes:

PD But public perception is a big problem. It gets in the way of
PD new participants, and it allows draconian and useless
PD regulations to be put in place, strangling the entire
PD industry.

Keep flying Young Eagles. Still the best single program for improving
GA's image to the public.

DILLIGAF wrote:

Of the five what is the biggest threat to GA?

1. High fuel cost
2. Insurance **
See #5 below
3. FAA policies
4. Terror war restrictions
5. Maintenance cost on aircraft ***
I believe this (which is ultimately related and interlocked with #2) is
doing the most damage. Lawsuits result in very high parts and maintenance
costs which reult in people avoiding maintenance or upgrades they might
otherwise perform. This results in less safe aircraft and higher risk of
accidents/incidents/lawsuits which further increases costs.

This is a vicious spiral and, if nothing is done, will eventually kill off
GA all but the extremely wealthy.

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

6. Stupid ng posts.

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

1) Real estate developers and their political cronies. They have the ear
of the local politicians and all too often persuade (read: sometimes
bribe) them into closing airports for "better" uses. Real estate
developers are the single biggest political contributors at the local
and state level in the US.

2) #1 above

3) #4 above

4) Tort lawyers with their "deep pockets" mentality. A "loser pays"
legal policy would straighten this one out immediately ( plus, it would
solve a lot of other problems.) We will probably never see it because
the trial lawyers are one of the biggest lobbies in DC. #2 above is a
result of this one, as is #5

5) #4 We have Chicken Little making policy and Fearless Fosdick
enforcing it. #3 above is part of this, but it is the Homeland Security
tail wagging the FAA dog.

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.

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

In article ,
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.

Jose

That is the usual response from the tort lobby.

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

Is it fair representation when a manufacturer or individual is pulled
into a legal action and has to hire lawyers to defend against someone
else's misuse of a product?

Is it fair that a lawyer can, with impunity, name uninvolved parties in
legal actions?

We truly need tort reform! How about making losing lawyers pay the costs
of defense against their predations?

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article ,
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.

Jose

That is the usual response from the tort lobby.

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

Is it fair representation when a manufacturer or individual is pulled
into a legal action and has to hire lawyers to defend against someone
else's misuse of a product?

Is it fair that a lawyer can, with impunity, name uninvolved parties in
legal actions?

We truly need tort reform! How about making losing lawyers pay the costs
of defense against their predations?


Juries should have a minimum of three verdicts in a tort case.

A. In favor of the Plaintiff.
B. In favor of the Defendant.
C. This is so stupid that the lawyer that brought the case is suspended from
the Bar for X months/years.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
A. In favor of the Plaintiff.
B. In favor of the Defendant.
C. This is so stupid that the lawyer that brought the case is suspended from
the Bar for X months/years.

Exactly... if we required a pre-filing review of the basic _merits_
of a lawsuit by qualified individuals (i.e. a sort of "grand jury" made
up of respectable individuals, who have a JOB and pay taxes) we could
eliminate many of them. Those that did not pass this "pre-file" test
of merit could still file but would be responsible to pay ALL legal
costs if they lose.