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 |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
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!! |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
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!! |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
"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 ____________________ |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 02:48:25 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote: 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. This is where I must have missed something in the original poster's set of facts. If the owners are doing minimally the FAA required maintenance on the aircraft and the alternator was showing no sign of problems when the pilot took off with it, how is the failure automatically a result of the owner's negligence, which appears to be your position? Are you somehow going to know to replace an apparently perfectly good alternator the day before it shows signs of problems and subsequently breaks down? There is no indication here that the alternator was squawked prior to this flight. There is nothing in the record that shows whether or not at the onset of the flight there was an alternator light on in the aircraft, or whether or not the voltmeter was showing normal things during the runup checks. I assume that the pilot wouldn't take the aircraft out if it the light was on or the voltmeter was showing wrong, right? It would not be airworthy. So, are you expecting the owners to call Ms. Cleo and find out it's going to break and then arrange to have it replaced before the pilot picked up the aircraft? Until something is uncovered during maintenance (there is no mention of lax maintenance here) or during runup and then squawked (at which point the flight should not have left the originating airport) the owner has no way of knowing to replace something. I include in routine maintenance those things with wear-lives that have listed hours-to-replace/rebuild even though they might not be showing anything wrong at the time they're replaced/rebuilt. I'm just saying that if the owners had deferred fixing a known issue with the alternator then yes, definitely negligence and not only their issue, but they should be picking up 100% of all costs including food, lodging, and rental cars - but if they did the required maintenance, with no known issues deferred (and there is no evidence in this set of facts to contend otherwise), I am having problems seeing how anyone could contrive owner negligence into this scenario. 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? |
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 |