The frustrating economics of aviation

in article , Dudley
Henriques at wrote on 7/17/04 12:46 PM:


I hardly think that recognizing a problem exists without forcing the
general public into a scientifically provable analysis that they can't
hope to produce is being vague. I don't need the world to fall on me to
know that lawyers are a problem in the United States. I only need my two
eyes, two ears, and my natural intelligence as that applies to deductive
reasoning. :-)

That's all very well, Dudley, and like you, I am well aware that we live in
a highly litigious society where people are all too often rewarded for
spurious claims and lawsuits. Trust me, it drives me nuts. But this
realization brings us no closer to solving the problem.

It's a flawed premise I think to demand that a problem doesn't exist
just because individuals without access can't produce these "facts".

I have never stated that a problem doesn't exist.

It's also flawed to demand that people know how to fix the problem they
know exists.

I have made no such demand. I have simply asked for definitions of the
problem.

But recognizing that a problem exists is the first step in fixing it.

Correct. And the second step, as I've repeatedly stated, is to arrive at a
useful and working definition of that problem. Otherwise, how will anything
ever get done?

Okay, I'll get us started:

1. "Frivolous" shall be defined as any claim that causes a majority of those
hearing about it for the first time to slap the palms of their hands against
their foreheads and exclaim, "You've got to be kidding!".

Hi Phil;

I'm not giving you a hard time on this Phil. I just sound that way
because I'm old and hate lawyers!! :-))

I understand what you're saying about solving the problem and indeed, it
does need addressing just as you say. I'm afraid I'm totally unqualified
to speak to that issue, and I seriously doubt if it will be addressed by
anyone in the government with the power to correct it since most of them
are part of the problem. The rest of the problem is the general, who
NEVER seem to be able to get organized enough to attack things like
this.
It all comes around in one big gigantic circle of corruption ? What's
indicative to me anyway is that the issue itself could become the fatal
flaw in a capitalistic system; the flaw that brings down the economy of
the country around our own ears.
So in the end I'm with you. I know what the problem is, and I have
absolutely no idea on how to fix it. Could be we're looking at the
ultimate doomsday machine for big business in the United States....the
American Trial Lawyer.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt


"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , Dudley
Henriques at wrote on 7/17/04 12:46 PM:


I hardly think that recognizing a problem exists without forcing the
general public into a scientifically provable analysis that they
can't
hope to produce is being vague. I don't need the world to fall on me
to
know that lawyers are a problem in the United States. I only need my
two
eyes, two ears, and my natural intelligence as that applies to
deductive
reasoning. :-)

That's all very well, Dudley, and like you, I am well aware that we
live in
a highly litigious society where people are all too often rewarded for
spurious claims and lawsuits. Trust me, it drives me nuts. But this
realization brings us no closer to solving the problem.

It's a flawed premise I think to demand that a problem doesn't exist
just because individuals without access can't produce these "facts".

I have never stated that a problem doesn't exist.

It's also flawed to demand that people know how to fix the problem
they
know exists.

I have made no such demand. I have simply asked for definitions of the
problem.

But recognizing that a problem exists is the first step in fixing
it.

Correct. And the second step, as I've repeatedly stated, is to arrive
at a
useful and working definition of that problem. Otherwise, how will
anything
ever get done?

Okay, I'll get us started:

1. "Frivolous" shall be defined as any claim that causes a majority of
those
hearing about it for the first time to slap the palms of their hands
against
their foreheads and exclaim, "You've got to be kidding!".

I like that idea. How about that there be a "frivolity hearing" prior
to any suit being filed. The hearing board will consist of 12 respected
and responsible individuals (NOT POLITICIANS!) from the surrounding
area/community/jurisdiction. This board will chosen randomly from
people who actually have jobs or are retired (no one on welfare or who
is an attorney or works for an attorney is eligable).

Every licensed business (except attorneys) must nominate at least one
person to serve on this board per month. The resultant 12 will be chosen
from this pool randomly. The board will convene once every 90 days to
consider any pending lawsuits. Only those judged to be NON-frivolous
will be allowed to be filed with the court. Thos that are rejected as
frivolous may be filed if the conplaintant posts a bond of $5000 or
an amount equal to the estimated cost of the trial, whichever is greater.


Philip Sondericker wrote:

Okay, I'll get us started:

1. "Frivolous" shall be defined as any claim that causes a majority of those
hearing about it for the first time to slap the palms of their hands against
their foreheads and exclaim, "You've got to be kidding!".

in article , kontiki at
wrote on 7/17/04 2:19 PM:

I like that idea. How about that there be a "frivolity hearing" prior
to any suit being filed. The hearing board will consist of 12 respected
and responsible individuals (NOT POLITICIANS!) from the surrounding
area/community/jurisdiction. This board will chosen randomly from
people who actually have jobs or are retired (no one on welfare or who
is an attorney or works for an attorney is eligable).

Every licensed business (except attorneys) must nominate at least one
person to serve on this board per month. The resultant 12 will be chosen
from this pool randomly. The board will convene once every 90 days to
consider any pending lawsuits. Only those judged to be NON-frivolous
will be allowed to be filed with the court. Thos that are rejected as
frivolous may be filed if the conplaintant posts a bond of $5000 or
an amount equal to the estimated cost of the trial, whichever is greater.

I will give you credit for one thing--yours is the first really specific
solution that has been posted.

"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , kontiki at
wrote on 7/17/04 2:19 PM:

I like that idea. How about that there be a "frivolity hearing"
prior
to any suit being filed. The hearing board will consist of 12
respected
and responsible individuals (NOT POLITICIANS!) from the surrounding
area/community/jurisdiction. This board will chosen randomly from
people who actually have jobs or are retired (no one on welfare or
who
is an attorney or works for an attorney is eligable).

Every licensed business (except attorneys) must nominate at least
one
person to serve on this board per month. The resultant 12 will be
chosen
from this pool randomly. The board will convene once every 90 days
to
consider any pending lawsuits. Only those judged to be NON-frivolous
will be allowed to be filed with the court. Thos that are rejected
as
frivolous may be filed if the conplaintant posts a bond of $5000 or
an amount equal to the estimated cost of the trial, whichever is
greater.

I will give you credit for one thing--yours is the first really
specific
solution that has been posted.

But will it work?:-) By LITERAL definition, a specific solution for a
specific problem would appear to indicate that a solution to the problem
has been found.
Driving your car off a cliff is one way to stop it from rolling forward,
but is that the specific solution you REALLY want for this problem? :-)
I'd say his plan was more of a specific "suggestion" rather than a
"solution". :-))))

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt




DH

in article , Dudley
Henriques at wrote on 7/17/04 2:56 PM:


"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , kontiki at
wrote on 7/17/04 2:19 PM:

I like that idea. How about that there be a "frivolity hearing"
prior
to any suit being filed. The hearing board will consist of 12
respected
and responsible individuals (NOT POLITICIANS!) from the surrounding
area/community/jurisdiction. This board will chosen randomly from
people who actually have jobs or are retired (no one on welfare or
who
is an attorney or works for an attorney is eligable).

Every licensed business (except attorneys) must nominate at least
one
person to serve on this board per month. The resultant 12 will be
chosen
from this pool randomly. The board will convene once every 90 days
to
consider any pending lawsuits. Only those judged to be NON-frivolous
will be allowed to be filed with the court. Thos that are rejected
as
frivolous may be filed if the conplaintant posts a bond of $5000 or
an amount equal to the estimated cost of the trial, whichever is
greater.

I will give you credit for one thing--yours is the first really
specific
solution that has been posted.

But will it work?:-) By LITERAL definition, a specific solution for a
specific problem would appear to indicate that a solution to the problem
has been found.
Driving your car off a cliff is one way to stop it from rolling forward,
but is that the specific solution you REALLY want for this problem? :-)
I'd say his plan was more of a specific "suggestion" rather than a
"solution". :-))))

I was going to substitute the word "proposal", but "suggestion" works just
as well.

"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , Dudley
Henriques at wrote on 7/17/04 2:56 PM:


"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , kontiki at
wrote on 7/17/04 2:19 PM:

I like that idea. How about that there be a "frivolity hearing"
prior
to any suit being filed. The hearing board will consist of 12
respected
and responsible individuals (NOT POLITICIANS!) from the
surrounding
area/community/jurisdiction. This board will chosen randomly from
people who actually have jobs or are retired (no one on welfare or
who
is an attorney or works for an attorney is eligable).

Every licensed business (except attorneys) must nominate at least
one
person to serve on this board per month. The resultant 12 will be
chosen
from this pool randomly. The board will convene once every 90 days
to
consider any pending lawsuits. Only those judged to be
NON-frivolous
will be allowed to be filed with the court. Thos that are rejected
as
frivolous may be filed if the conplaintant posts a bond of $5000
or
an amount equal to the estimated cost of the trial, whichever is
greater.

I will give you credit for one thing--yours is the first really
specific
solution that has been posted.

But will it work?:-) By LITERAL definition, a specific solution for
a
specific problem would appear to indicate that a solution to the
problem
has been found.
Driving your car off a cliff is one way to stop it from rolling
forward,
but is that the specific solution you REALLY want for this problem?
:-)
I'd say his plan was more of a specific "suggestion" rather than a
"solution". :-))))

I was going to substitute the word "proposal", but "suggestion" works
just
as well.

Actually, I think Shakespeare came up with the first and best "specific
solution" in Henry VI part 2 :-))))

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

in article t, Dudley
Henriques at wrote on 7/17/04 7:41 PM:


Actually, I think Shakespeare came up with the first and best "specific
solution" in Henry VI part 2 :-))))

You must have had some very bad experiences involving lawyers. I can respect
that. I myself have had very little experience of them either way, and none
of it particularly negative. I've also known one or two lawyers that I would
be quite reluctant to kill.

The first thing that needs to happen is people need to take responsibility
for their own actions and assume responsibility for the results of their
actions. It is amazing that judges will hear some of these cases but then
again- they are attorneys too. I think the real solution would be to limit
the awards to a reasonable limit by calculating potential income over the
person's lifetime for death or a percentage of loss due to injury. It's
obvious to most that Billy Joe Jim Bob who works at McDonalds for $7.00/hr
is not worth $10M when his potential income is calculated for his lifespan.
In the example above of the McDonald's woman, there should be no award
because of my first sentence: she chose to buy the coffee and put it between
her legs, no one held a gun to her head and forced her to take the cup and
on top of that, she would have been mad if it was cold. The current legal
climate is damaging many industries and will continue. Take for example
Parker which has left the aviation market after being sued for a vacuum pump
that did not fail in a fatal crash.






"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , Dudley
Henriques at wrote on 7/17/04 2:56 PM:


"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , kontiki at
wrote on 7/17/04 2:19 PM:

I like that idea. How about that there be a "frivolity hearing"
prior
to any suit being filed. The hearing board will consist of 12
respected
and responsible individuals (NOT POLITICIANS!) from the
surrounding
area/community/jurisdiction. This board will chosen randomly from
people who actually have jobs or are retired (no one on welfare or
who
is an attorney or works for an attorney is eligable).

Every licensed business (except attorneys) must nominate at least
one
person to serve on this board per month. The resultant 12 will be
chosen
from this pool randomly. The board will convene once every 90 days
to
consider any pending lawsuits. Only those judged to be
NON-frivolous
will be allowed to be filed with the court. Thos that are rejected
as
frivolous may be filed if the conplaintant posts a bond of $5000
or
an amount equal to the estimated cost of the trial, whichever is
greater.

I will give you credit for one thing--yours is the first really
specific
solution that has been posted.

But will it work?:-) By LITERAL definition, a specific solution for
a
specific problem would appear to indicate that a solution to the
problem
has been found.
Driving your car off a cliff is one way to stop it from rolling
forward,
but is that the specific solution you REALLY want for this problem?
:-)
I'd say his plan was more of a specific "suggestion" rather than a
"solution". :-))))

I was going to substitute the word "proposal", but "suggestion" works
just
as well.

Actually, I think Shakespeare came up with the first and best "specific
solution" in Henry VI part 2 :-))))

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 21:19:47 GMT, kontiki wrote:

I like that idea. How about that there be a "frivolity hearing" prior
to any suit being filed. The hearing board will consist of 12 respected
and responsible individuals (NOT POLITICIANS!) from the surrounding
area/community/jurisdiction. This board will chosen randomly from
people who actually have jobs or are retired (no one on welfare or who
is an attorney or works for an attorney is eligable).

Every licensed business (except attorneys) must nominate at least one
person to serve on this board per month. The resultant 12 will be chosen
from this pool randomly. The board will convene once every 90 days to
consider any pending lawsuits. Only those judged to be NON-frivolous
will be allowed to be filed with the court. Thos that are rejected as
frivolous may be filed if the conplaintant posts a bond of $5000 or
an amount equal to the estimated cost of the trial, whichever is greater.

In many states, and Maine is one of them, a very similar process exists for
medical malpractice cases. The screening panels are also set up to allow
prompt payment of meritorious claims.

http://www.cga.state.ct.us/2003/olrd...003-R-0607.htm


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)