Bret Ludwig wrote:
Most GA pilots are not attorneys, business analysts or accountants,

Similarly, the legal profession has a great deal of ignorance about
general aviation.

Do you know why Burt Rutan isn't in the homebuilding business anymore?
Because he broke even. He had been profitable, but had to spend money
defending himself in spurious lawsuits (he never lost, by the way).
This is a perfect example of the legal system being *******ized into an
extortion system and stifling innovation. Burt long ago turned his
talents to making his living in a different part of aviation.

Most engineers have to take humanities courses as part of their
education to make them "well rounded." Do litigation lawyers have to
take math and science courses? Hmm. I argue that the legal system has
a lot of "professionals" who have a poor technical background that
results in them accepting spurious cases. How many of them have a clue
who Burt Rutan is, never mind what is involved in building an airplane
yourself? This is just one example of one cause behind excessive
litigation.

and when magazines like Flying and Air Progress chose to parrot the
industry line, this was accepted without question. When I query
aircraft owners as to why airplanes are so expensive,one
word-"liability" comes out again and again. Even if they own a boat
and they will unquestioningly pay $300 for a $50 GM alternator because
it says MerCruiser, the $400 PMA'd $50 car alternator has to be the
fault of attorneys.

I think they unquestionably pay for PMA'ed parts because the law
requires it on certificated aircraft, not because of a herd mentality.

than tort law-and none of the neo-con whoreson Bush Republicans is
going to go near that problem.

You know, resorting to course language degrades you and your arguments.
It makes you seem like an angry, loud, drunk guy.