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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Dear Mr. Kilian:
I'm at a loss to figure out how you can interpret my previous post addressing the opinions and considerations of statements made by Mr. Byars as a personal attack, nor was it intended as such, nor do I believe it was received by Mr. Byars as such by referencing his subsequent posts. If I made a chatroom faux-pas by adressing the post to a specific person it was done without malice. On the other hand, you, sir, leave little doubt as to the intention of your post. I hope you somehow feel better by attempting to belittle me personally. I guess I'm the foolish one who thought discussion of issues concerning soaring via this open forum allowed the expression of differing opinions. You may be interested to know that it is reasons like this that I choose not to be involved in the competitive aspects of soaring. But just because I have not [recently] flown in a contest shouldn't reasonably preclude me from having educated opinions based on 27 years of a variety of soaring experiences (to include, I might add, contest flying), should it? I wish you the best of luck in your upcoming 13th New Castle contest. Best of Regards, Ray Cornay |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FAA PPL night flight requirement - does it have to be DUAL? | Peter Clark | Piloting | 21 | January 6th 05 12:38 AM |
FAA PPL night flight requirement - does it have to be DUAL? | Gary G | Piloting | 0 | October 13th 04 02:13 PM |
Mode S to become requirement? | Bob Chilcoat | Owning | 6 | July 14th 04 11:25 PM |
FBO Insurance requirement for tie-downs | Chris | Owning | 25 | May 18th 04 07:24 PM |
Strange wording in Commercial experience requirement | David Brooks | Piloting | 5 | January 18th 04 06:09 PM |