The frustrating economics of aviation

James Robinson wrote
Not really. The aircraft manufacturers seem to get sued almost
automatically, no matter what the cause of the accident was

Not really. In fact, the lawsuits are not all that common. The last
one I remember was the governor who crashed. When Kennedy crashed,
nobody sued.

General Motors doesn't have anywhere near the same number of lawsuits
filed against it.

Actually, GM has lots of lawsuits filed against it. It simply has the
money to fight it out.

The FAA doesn't force pilots to fly a perfectly good airplane into the
ground, which is the cause of a good proportion of accidents. How are
they to blame?

Well, in fact it does. It keeps the national airspace system complex
and quirky, it keeps the airplanes obsolete and under-equipped, and
basically makes flying far more difficult than it needs to be. Then
some pilots are not up to it.

More to the point, can you imagine if private boats were regulated the
way private planes were? In other words, if there was an FAA for
private boats?

While private boats are coming under increasing scrutiny, they don't yet
have the fatality rate of general aviation. Alcohol seems to be the
biggest problem with boating.

Actually, private boats (and cars) NO LONGER have the fatality rate of
GA. They've improved a lot. Planes haven't improved much.

Michael

Michael wrote:

James Robinson wrote
Not really. The aircraft manufacturers seem to get sued almost
automatically, no matter what the cause of the accident was

Not really. In fact, the lawsuits are not all that common.

They don't need to be that common when they are for millions and millions of
dollars. Who can forget the lawsuit that Piper lost because somebody took off
in their Cub with the seat removed on a runway with a truck intentionally it?
Piper was found at fault because the pilot couldn't see directly in front of
him before the tail wheel came up. (never mind that it was a tailwheel
airplane or that it had been certified by the govt that way or that the seat
had been removed.)
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...92/pc9212.html (Piper would later
lose the appeal too).


Or who can forget the poor fellow who flew his Cessna 182 VFR into a massive
thunderstorm in Virginia and was killed? Cessna was found responsible and had
to pay millions and millions because of a "defective tail design." Nevermind
that test pilots flew numerous 182s to Vne and couldn't find anything wrong
with the tail, that it had been certified by the feds, or that pilot had
illegally been scud running into IMC without an instrument rating.

The last
one I remember was the governor who crashed. When Kennedy crashed,
nobody sued.

The knives were sharpened amongst the individual parties but there was a big
settlement. Yes, I"m pretty amazed that Piper and every parts manufacturer
wasn't sued, but they probably figured they already have enough money and it
wasn't worth the time in court. Good for them.

In article , Greg wrote:


Michael wrote:

James Robinson wrote
Not really. The aircraft manufacturers seem to get sued almost
automatically, no matter what the cause of the accident was

Not really. In fact, the lawsuits are not all that common.

There's no database (that I know of) that lists such things, but it
seems based on my own personal non-random observation and misc internet
searchs that every time a Boeing plane goes down, they get sued (including
911). Your resuls might vary...

"Michael" wrote in message
m...

The FAA doesn't force pilots to fly a perfectly good airplane into the
ground, which is the cause of a good proportion of accidents. How are
they to blame?

Well, in fact it does. It keeps the national airspace system complex
and quirky, it keeps the airplanes obsolete and under-equipped, and
basically makes flying far more difficult than it needs to be. Then
some pilots are not up to it.


!$%^*! I have to agree with you again. I think I am going to be ill.
Fortunately, I disagree with most of the rest of your post.