Club Management Issue

"Dan Truesdell" wrote in message
...

The mechanic was also on the trip, and was getting paid for his time.
Makes it a part 135 operation as far as the FAA is concerned, even if
"Mark" didn't receive a dime.

Actually, the paid mechanic's presence does nothing at all to make this a
Part 135 operation. The mechanic was not part of the flight crew so his
presence was irrelevant for the purpose of determining if this is Part 135.
If you want to hire a cabin attendant and/or onboard entertainer for your
Part 91 flights, that is just fine as long as they are not flight crew.

Interestingly, you could also hire a paid flight instructor and it would
STILL not be a Part 135 operation; in fact, it would not even be a
commercial for hire operation as long as the flight instructor did not
provide the airplane.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Dude" wrote in message
...

I am not. Is there a specific rule that says that because someone on the
plane is getting paid to go somewhere that it is now a 135 operation?

You are correct -- there is no such rule. In fact, you could could pay a
flight instructor to come along in an airplane you own and it is not a
commercial operation. Even if the instructor acts as PIC, he need only have
a third class medical in fact; a second class medical is not required for
flight instruction.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 23:33:45 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

I guess that I see it differently.

The owners are responsible for maitenance and they should be responsible
when lack of maitenance causes a problem. It is their call whether to
replace things to insure better reliability.

Maybe I missed it but who said that the owners shirked any required
maintenance, or were lax in their maintenance here? Things break. I
lost an alternator control unit in a 2003 Skyhawk SP which was
delivered in December and only had 75 hours total time. How could
that possibly be due to bad/non maintenance?

Peter Clark wrote:
Maybe I missed it but who said that the owners shirked any required
maintenance, or were lax in their maintenance here? Things break. I
lost an alternator control unit in a 2003 Skyhawk SP which was
delivered in December and only had 75 hours total time. How could
that possibly be due to bad/non maintenance?

When anything breaks and a loss is either incurred or can
be imagined to have occurred then an opportunity is
created for lawyers to file suits and juries to award
damages. Who, if anyone, was responsible for the parts
failure is not important nor even considered in this
process. Target identification is based on depth of
pockets, period.

We see repeated claims that Jews run everything in the
U.S.A. This could only be true if there is a higher than
average representation of Jews within the population of
lawyers.

Perhaps if Edwards lands the Veep job Kerry will have him
lead the charge on tort reform!!

So, Doug, if you become a quadriplegic because some defective product caused
you to crash, will you refuse to sue the maker of that product on principle?
Wouldn't want some sue-happy lawyer getting rich off you. (You better pray
that tort "reform" hasn't happened yet.)

"Doug Carter" wrote in message
...
Peter Clark wrote:
Maybe I missed it but who said that the owners shirked any required
maintenance, or were lax in their maintenance here? Things break. I
lost an alternator control unit in a 2003 Skyhawk SP which was
delivered in December and only had 75 hours total time. How could
that possibly be due to bad/non maintenance?

When anything breaks and a loss is either incurred or can
be imagined to have occurred then an opportunity is
created for lawyers to file suits and juries to award
damages. Who, if anyone, was responsible for the parts
failure is not important nor even considered in this
process. Target identification is based on depth of
pockets, period.

We see repeated claims that Jews run everything in the
U.S.A. This could only be true if there is a higher than
average representation of Jews within the population of
lawyers.

Perhaps if Edwards lands the Veep job Kerry will have him
lead the charge on tort reform!!

"Dan Thompson" wrote in message


So, Doug, if you become a quadriplegic because some defective product
caused you to crash, will you refuse to sue the maker of that product
on principle? Wouldn't want some sue-happy lawyer getting rich off
you. (You better pray that tort "reform" hasn't happened yet.)

"Tort reform" does not mean "no more lawsuits".

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

I agree that there are infant mortality failures that can't be predicted and
the manufacturer is responsible for those. The owners could have replace
the alternator the day before but didn't. They are the ones making the
maitenance decisions so they need to live with the consequences.

Mike
MU-2




"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 23:33:45 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

I guess that I see it differently.

The owners are responsible for maitenance and they should be responsible
when lack of maitenance causes a problem. It is their call whether to
replace things to insure better reliability.

Maybe I missed it but who said that the owners shirked any required
maintenance, or were lax in their maintenance here? Things break. I
lost an alternator control unit in a 2003 Skyhawk SP which was
delivered in December and only had 75 hours total time. How could
that possibly be due to bad/non maintenance?

Dan Thompson wrote:
So, Doug, if you become a quadriplegic because some defective product caused
you to crash, will you refuse to sue the maker of that product on principle?
Wouldn't want some sue-happy lawyer getting rich off you. (You better pray
that tort "reform" hasn't happened yet.)

I do pray for tort reform; the sooner the better. Our
system has been hijacked by the trial lawyers for their
personal enrichment by allowing contingency fees, class
action suits and not adopting the 'loser pays' rule.

If you think you have suffered a loss because of someone
else, then by all means, sue; if you win, collect what
you are out, if you lose you should pay for the damage you
caused the other party.

My point remains that I object to the higher prices I pay
for everything because of jury awards for obscene amounts
of punitive damages in cases where the injured simply
wanted to avoid personal responsibility and the law firms
wanted to make a ton of money.

How much more will we pay for vacuum pumps because the
Carnahan family soaked Parker Hannifin to the tune of $4m
for damages caused by vacuum pumps that did not fail and
did not contribute to the crash?

OK, so you would sue the maker of a defective product that made you a
quadraplegic. I respect that.

Now, how are you going to pay your lawyer in that lawsuit? Job prospects
for quadraplegics are pretty dismal. Or are you going to argue your own
case to the jury, from a gurney wheeled into the courtroom? The lawyer is
going to have out of pocket expenses in this lawsuit, where's that money
going to come from?

And that's great you like the loser pays theory. What if you lose? What if
the product wasn't defective after all? How are you (the loser) going to
pay? What if, at the end, you can't pay? Should you be required to prove
you could pay if you lost, before you even were allowed to file a lawsuit?

"Doug Carter" wrote in message
...
Dan Thompson wrote:
So, Doug, if you become a quadriplegic because some defective product
caused
you to crash, will you refuse to sue the maker of that product on
principle?
Wouldn't want some sue-happy lawyer getting rich off you. (You better
pray
that tort "reform" hasn't happened yet.)

I do pray for tort reform; the sooner the better. Our
system has been hijacked by the trial lawyers for their
personal enrichment by allowing contingency fees, class
action suits and not adopting the 'loser pays' rule.

If you think you have suffered a loss because of someone
else, then by all means, sue; if you win, collect what
you are out, if you lose you should pay for the damage you
caused the other party.

My point remains that I object to the higher prices I pay
for everything because of jury awards for obscene amounts
of punitive damages in cases where the injured simply
wanted to avoid personal responsibility and the law firms
wanted to make a ton of money.

How much more will we pay for vacuum pumps because the
Carnahan family soaked Parker Hannifin to the tune of $4m
for damages caused by vacuum pumps that did not fail and
did not contribute to the crash?

Dan Thompson wrote:
Now, how are you going to pay your lawyer in that lawsuit? Job prospects
for quadraplegics are pretty dismal.

First, your presuming I'm broke to begin with and that my
income stops with the accident. Neither is necessarily
true. The argument for "increasing access to the courts"
is commonly used to rationalize contingency fees. Does
this increase in suits result in a net-net greater good
for society? I don't think so.

While, on one hand contingency allows someone with little
money to file a suit and possible receive a huge award, on
the other, *someone else* is paying that award whether it
is reasonable or not. How can a jury determine the
"appropriate" punitive damage amount? These costs are
passed on to society. Does society in the U.S. benefit
more from this trade off than in Japan or England?

I'm not an expert on this but I think the crimes of
"maintenance" and "champerty" went back to biblical times.
Contingency seems to be the combination of these two.
If not eliminated perhaps Contingency should be limited to
"maintenance" by allowing the lawyer to recover his costs
from the spoils but not profit from them (champerty). A
slippery slope to be on though...

And that's great you like the loser pays theory. What if you lose? What if
the product wasn't defective after all? How are you (the loser) going to
pay? What if, at the end, you can't pay?

I think you more eloquently state my argument than me.
Clearly, as done in much of the rest of the world, the
prospective plaintiff had to consider a potential down
side as well as a possible up side then a better balance
would be achieved.

Should you be required to prove you could pay if you lost, before you even were allowed to file a lawsuit?

Interesting question. In most states you have to prove
you have insurance or deep pockets to license a car
because you are creating a potential liability by putting
that car on the road. When you file a suit you create a
potential liability as well.

But, my position depends on more personal responsibility
that most Americans have the stomach for so I doubt things
will change. Fewer and fewer companies will make risky
products (like vacuum pumps) and your daughter may not
have access to a doctor to deliver her child.