Future of Electronics In Aviation

On Jun 24, 9:45*am, wrote:
On Jun 23, 1:55 pm, wrote:
* * * * Cessna says that a full third of the selling price goes toward
set-asides and insurance for them against possible future lawsuits
involving that airplane. The actual manufacturing cost, once that
third is removed and profit taken out, would be much lower. That
doesn't help us, of course, since lawyers and stupid juries and
irresponsible "pilots" will make sure it stays that way.

One has to wonder if Cessna would allow a that 1/3 (or 1/4 or 1/8) to
be given back to the buyer as a rebate in exchange for
indemnification.

I would imagine that life-insurance actuaries would be happy to
receive $70,000 lump-sum in exchange for various life-insurance and
other policies.

I guess it all depends on how often pilots crash.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
One has to wonder if Cessna would allow a that 1/3 (or 1/4 or 1/8) to
be given back to the buyer as a rebate in exchange for
indemnification.

Sorry, but indemnification from the buyer still leaves Cessna open to
lawsuits by family members of the buyer, passengers, any other victims on
the ground, and so on. The buyer can only speak for him or her self.

Furthermore, the owner often isn't the pilot - or even always a person.
(such as when a pilot rents a corporate or LLC owned aircraft).

In article ,
Jim Logajan wrote:

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
One has to wonder if Cessna would allow a that 1/3 (or 1/4 or 1/8) to
be given back to the buyer as a rebate in exchange for
indemnification.

Sorry, but indemnification from the buyer still leaves Cessna open to
lawsuits by family members of the buyer, passengers, any other victims on
the ground, and so on. The buyer can only speak for him or her self.

One example I recall followed a Bonanza pilot flying VFR into IMC, and
digging a hole somewhere in Kansas. Pilot error, no evidence that the
aircraft broke up for any reason other than majorly severed overstress.

The lawyer (or law firm) going for civil damages added everyone he/they
could think of, including Beechcraft. They were demanding something on
the order of $2B in damages. That "B" was intentional, not a typo.

And the suit wasn't laughed out of court by the presiding judge.

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 24, 9:45 am, wrote:
On Jun 23, 1:55 pm, wrote:
Cessna says that a full third of the selling price goes toward
set-asides and insurance for them against possible future lawsuits
involving that airplane. The actual manufacturing cost, once that
third is removed and profit taken out, would be much lower. That
doesn't help us, of course, since lawyers and stupid juries and
irresponsible "pilots" will make sure it stays that way.

One has to wonder if Cessna would allow a that 1/3 (or 1/4 or 1/8) to
be given back to the buyer as a rebate in exchange for
indemnification.

Nope because how are you going to get one signed by yet to be married
wives, not yet born children, second, third and 50th owners. Not to
mention every passenger who might ever fly in the plane.

So we have found yet another topic on which you are clueless. I really
think you are MX.

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in news:8b1893ba-2e4e-42fb-
:

On Jun 24, 9:45*am, wrote:
On Jun 23, 1:55 pm, wrote:
* * * * Cessna says that a full third of the selling price goes t
oward
set-asides and insurance for them against possible future lawsuits
involving that airplane. The actual manufacturing cost, once that
third is removed and profit taken out, would be much lower. That
doesn't help us, of course, since lawyers and stupid juries and
irresponsible "pilots" will make sure it stays that way.

One has to wonder if Cessna would allow a that 1/3 (or 1/4 or 1/8) to
be given back to the buyer as a rebate in exchange for
indemnification.

I would imagine that life-insurance actuaries would be happy to
receive $70,000 lump-sum in exchange for various life-insurance and
other policies.

I guess it all depends on how often pilots crash.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

You don't know **** from shinola about aviation OR insurance OR anything
else, fjuktjard.