Thread
:
Gene Whitt's Lawsuit
View Single Post
#
23
December 8th 07, 06:48 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Dudley Henriques[_2_]
external usenet poster
Posts: 2,546
Gene Whitt's Lawsuit
wrote:
Both of these positions are valid objections. The FBO or the airport
authority or whoever or whatever is responsible to the insurance company
covering liability for the airport not only has an inherent right, but a
responsibility to insure that anyone conducting a business operating
from the property has been duly cleared to do so by the insurance
covering the airport.
Doesn't make much sense to me, does this also mean that a CFI
operating out of another airport cannot come to this particular
airport and give instruction in the pattern for example? A CFI could
easily fly into this airport with a student and give dual instruction
from scratch. Would that be banned also? Would this airport also ban a
student from flying solo into this airport for liability reasons? Any
number of unknown people can fly in and taxi around the airport every
day and to pick on flight instruction for "liability reasons" which is
also supposedly the safest form of flying activity is bizarre.
What this has to do with Mr Pai, is whatever the owners and/or operators
of the airport and the underwriters that insure the airport say it does
as they operate the airport under present law.
The legal definitions in place of what can take place on the airport,
originate from the airport, or take place on the airport in aircraft
arriving there from other locations all come under the above as it
covers these situations.
The fact that something doesn't make sense to you has nothing whatsoever
to do with the issue.
--
Dudley Henriques
Dudley Henriques[_2_]
View Public Profile
View message headers
Find all posts by Dudley Henriques[_2_]
Find all threads started by Dudley Henriques[_2_]