"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 15:48:48 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

The implication is that there is some inherent added risk in operating
an aircraft that is more than 18 years old. However, I'm not aware of
any such added risk. What basis is there for such a belief?

A recently-passed law releases the aircraft manufacturer from liability if
the
aircraft is more than 18 years old. Therefore, if a lawsuit stems from a
pilot
crashing in an airplane more than 18 years old, the only target his heirs
could
sue would be the maintenance shop that worked on the airplane. Thus, if a
shop
limits its customers to newer airplanes, the manufacturer would be a
co-defendant...and undoubtedly the "deep pocket" that would pay most of
the cost
of any judgement against them.

It's certainly in the best interest of the maintenance shop's insurance
company
to try to limit them to newer airplanes, and the premiums would reflect
that.

Ron Wanttaja

Wasn't the "recently-passed law" the general aviation revitalization one
that was passed while Reagan was in office? I understand the new issue is
due to (at least) one insurance company that insures A&P shops specifiying
that the coverage only applied if they worked on newer aircraft, for the
reasons stated.