Club Management Issue

John T wrote:

What about "winner does not receive punitive damages"? Contingency is still
there, the truly wronged are made as right as money can make them, the "bad
guys" are still punished, but the courts are not treated as the lottery they
sometimes seem to be. The punitive awards in this scenario would go to a)
the general fund; b) a designated "victims' fund"; or c) some other "public
fund" that benefits society at large.


Good idea; why not go a bit further and eliminate
punitive damages? Today their primary purpose is lawyer
enrichment. Since the purported intent is to deter bad
companies from making dangerous products why not simply
leave this to criminal courts? In this way the injured is
paid for their actual losses and the party causing the
injury faces the possibility of being Martha's cell mate.

"Doug Carter" wrote in message
...
John T wrote:

What about "winner does not receive punitive damages"? Contingency is
still
there, the truly wronged are made as right as money can make them, the
"bad
guys" are still punished, but the courts are not treated as the lottery
they
sometimes seem to be. The punitive awards in this scenario would go to
a)
the general fund; b) a designated "victims' fund"; or c) some other
"public
fund" that benefits society at large.


Good idea; why not go a bit further and eliminate
punitive damages? Today their primary purpose is lawyer
enrichment. Since the purported intent is to deter bad
companies from making dangerous products why not simply
leave this to criminal courts? In this way the injured is
paid for their actual losses and


the party causing the
injury faces the possibility of being Martha's cell mate.

I would gladly accept the death penalty over a month in a cell with Martha.

Doug Carter wrote:

the party causing the injury faces the possibility of being Martha's cell
mate.

Dave Stadt replied:

I would gladly accept the death penalty over a month in a cell with Martha.

Yeah, I'd rather kill her too, but I don't think that's an option... ;-)

Russell Kent

"Dude" wrote in message
...
The problem with contingency fees is not that they are a bad idea, it is
that they are abused. They are still necessary to assure equal
protection.

The Bar does not live up to its high calling to police its own. Instead,
it
handcuffs itself as if it had no care or concern for the good of anything
or
anyone other than lawyers. Lawyers should be held to a higher standard,
and
their licenses more easily revoked. If the Bars are going to maintain a
monopoly, they should be forced to do a better job. Unfortunately, all
the
legislatures and courts are full of Bar members, so don't hold your
breath.

Our judges are no longer empowered to be judges. They are too hamstrung
by
the legislature (who are rightly upset due to judicial activism). In my
opinion, a good judge should have more power to tell a lawyer to take his
ridiculous motions and suits and stick them where they belong.
Unfotunately, that is no longer the case in this country. Due to the
system's inability to weed out or remove bad judges, the whole thing has
gone haywire.

What we really need to figure out is how to get better judges and get rid
of
the bad ones.

Judges are all members of the ABA, too.

Peter,

I have flown free of charge in someone elses plane, rental or
what-have-you for purposes of pleasure or mutual interest. Does that
count as a commercial operation too? Is my license in peril in your mind
because of that? (I'm a private pilot).

Dave

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Dave S" wrote in message
news
[...]
If the recovery pilot is not a commercial pilot, but is doing the club's
bidding in returning the aircraft, I dont see the problem with the club
billing the FLIGHT TIME of the recovered airplane to the ABANDONING
pilot.


The FAA does not agree with you. If the "abandoning pilot" were billed for
the flight time, then that means the pilot actually flying the plane would
not be paying for the flight time, and if that pilot holds only a private
certificate, that is clearly against the FARs.

Pete

Russell Kent wrote:

Yeah, I'd rather kill her too, but I don't think that's an option... ;-)

Gee, that seems a little harsh for lying to a government
lawyer.

"Dave S" wrote in message
ink.net...
I have flown free of charge in someone elses plane, rental or
what-have-you for purposes of pleasure or mutual interest. [...]
Is my license in peril in your mind
because of that? (I'm a private pilot).

Yes. If someone other than you paid for the direct operating expenses,
that's a clear violation of the pro-rata cost sharing provision in 61.113.
As far as the FAA is concerned, not being charged is the same as being
charged and being compensated at 100%.

That's assuming the owner of the airplane paid for those expenses. It
becomes even MORE problematic for the private pilot flying for nothing if
some third party pays those expenses, as is being suggested here.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Dave S" wrote...

I have flown free of charge in someone elses plane, rental or
what-have-you for purposes of pleasure or mutual interest. [...]
Is my license in peril in your mind
because of that? (I'm a private pilot).

Yes. If someone other than you paid for the direct operating expenses,
that's a clear violation of the pro-rata cost sharing provision in 61.113.
As far as the FAA is concerned, not being charged is the same as being
charged and being compensated at 100%.

That's assuming the owner of the airplane paid for those expenses. It
becomes even MORE problematic for the private pilot flying for nothing if
some third party pays those expenses, as is being suggested here.

Pete, you're leaving out that a charity can pay 100% of the flight
costs...

Thanks.. sounds like we need our club to review things, and perhaps get
a letter of opinion from the FAA/FSDO and/or possibly change our SOP's.

In intent, I would like to say we dont want to violate the FAR's but at
the same time we want to hold our club members responsible for expenses
incurred by them leaving the aircraft away from its base. This sounds
like its going to be an interesting meeting this month.

Dave

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Dave S" wrote in message
ink.net...

I have flown free of charge in someone elses plane, rental or
what-have-you for purposes of pleasure or mutual interest. [...]
Is my license in peril in your mind
because of that? (I'm a private pilot).


Yes. If someone other than you paid for the direct operating expenses,
that's a clear violation of the pro-rata cost sharing provision in 61.113.
As far as the FAA is concerned, not being charged is the same as being
charged and being compensated at 100%.

That's assuming the owner of the airplane paid for those expenses. It
becomes even MORE problematic for the private pilot flying for nothing if
some third party pays those expenses, as is being suggested here.

Pete

"Darrel Toepfer" wrote in message
.. .
Pete, you're leaving out that a charity can pay 100% of the flight
costs...

That has nothing to do with the operation being considered here.