If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
... But what of the *en route,* party-attendee pilot who finds himself without a convenient place to wait out the required 8 hour period? Will he truly find himself "more refreshed" as promised by Mr. Honeck in that article? What are his options? He can: 1. Rent a room from Mr. Honeck for 8 hours at the _daily_ rate _if_ there is a vacancy. 2. He can rent a room someplace else for 8 hours at full rate _if_ there is a vacancy, and in addition incur round trip transportation charges. 3. He can walk the streets, or otherwise kill time, for 8 hours, then depart for OSH in less than optimal physical condition. 3. He can depart for OSH at his convenience, and disregard the regulations. 4. ... So while the options he faces don't preclude him from operating his aircraft within the regulations, the choice is likely to be costly, perhaps more costly than anticipated. What sort of host puts his guests in such a situation? I say it's a host who places his own interests above those of fellow airmen enticed by his ill conceived marketing scheme. Your analysis of the issue is appreciated. Thank you for taking the time to point out the facts you mentioned. Indeed, I was unaware of them. But a _publicly_ advertised tailhookesque marketing campaign is still a damaging image of airmen, at the wrong time. Everyone that attended arrived with plans to stay the night either at Jay's or somewhere close by and the free beer was just an added 'perk'. They didn't come in for the free beer and then try to figure out where to stay. Give pilots some credit, they know the regulations and how to take responsibility. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
But what of the *en route,* party-attendee pilot who finds himself without a convenient place to wait out the required 8 hour period? Will he truly find himself "more refreshed" as promised by Mr. Honeck in that article? What are his options? He can: 1. Rent a room from Mr. Honeck for 8 hours at the _daily_ rate _if_ there is a vacancy. 2. He can rent a room someplace else for 8 hours at full rate _if_ there is a vacancy, and in addition incur round trip transportation charges. 3. He can walk the streets, or otherwise kill time, for 8 hours, then depart for OSH in less than optimal physical condition. 3. He can depart for OSH at his convenience, and disregard the regulations. 4. ... So if the pilot ends up walking the street because he drank when he shouldn't have.....this is Jay's fault? So while the options he faces don't preclude him from operating his aircraft within the regulations, the choice is likely to be costly, perhaps more costly than anticipated. More costly than anticipated by the pilot? SO WHAT??!?!?! Thats the pilots problem. If he had planned on leaving 3 hours later, he should have drank Diet Coke. This is NOT Jay's issue. What sort of host puts his guests in such a situation? I say it's a host who places his own interests above those of fellow airmen enticed by his ill conceived marketing scheme. "...puts guests in such a situation"???? Jay is not putting ANYONE in ANY situation. We're not talking about 5 year olds being attracted to the playground equipment in a building zone. We're talking about adults who can legally consume alcohol whenever they like. If they bust a reg in the process....oops, still not Jay's fault. I can't believe that someone could think it would be. But a _publicly_ advertised tailhookesque marketing campaign is still a damaging image of airmen, at the wrong time. PR for pilots should always be on the front of our minds. But this is about personal responsibility, not some liberal wanting to get rich off of "evil big insurance". |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Larry Dighera wrote:
If Mr. Honeck freely provides the means for pilots to violate federal regulations, and publicly advertises that fact to *en route* airmen, his culpability in the event of a mishap by one of his departing guests would likely be tried in a court of law, IMO. I finally figured it out. You're an American! Of course! That's why you're so willing to say that it's Jay's fault that some pilot -- er, I mean airman -- did something stupid. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? You know, people being responsible for their own actions? Look, pil--er--airmen know that they can't drink and fly. You are suggesting that anybody who flies into Jay's party intending to keep on flying the same day would absolutely not be able to stop themselves from drinking a beer? Or perhaps that Jay would tie them down and pour beer down their throat? No. Jay just had a party, and for those people who were planning on staying over, or those people who weren't flying, there was some beer available. By your reasoning, FBOs shouldn't provide courtesy cars because p--airmen might use them to drive into town and have a drink. - awh PS, who the hell says "airmen" anymore, anyway? |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Drew Hamilton writes:
Larry Dighera wrote: If Mr. Honeck freely provides the means for pilots to violate federal regulations, and publicly advertises that fact to *en route* airmen, his culpability in the event of a mishap by one of his departing guests would likely be tried in a court of law, IMO. By your reasoning, FBOs shouldn't provide courtesy cars because p--airmen might use them to drive into town and have a drink. Heck, some FBOs will fill fuel tanks without even checking the pilot/ airman's weight and balance calculations. Someone needs to crack down on these people! --kyler |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 07:33:39 -0400, Drew Hamilton wrote
in Message-Id: : Larry Dighera wrote: If Mr. Honeck freely provides the means for pilots to violate federal regulations, and publicly advertises that fact to *en route* airmen, his culpability in the event of a mishap by one of his departing guests would likely be tried in a court of law, IMO. I finally figured it out. You're an American! Of course! That's why you're so willing to say that it's Jay's fault that some pilot -- er, I mean airman -- did something stupid. Please don't attribute your inference to my having said it. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? You know, people being responsible for their own actions? Look, pil--er--airmen know that they can't drink and fly. You are suggesting that anybody who flies into Jay's party intending to keep on flying the same day would absolutely not be able to stop themselves from drinking a beer? That's ridiculous. Or perhaps that Jay would tie them down and pour beer down their throat? No. Jay just had a party, and for those people who were planning on staying over, or those people who weren't flying, there was some beer available. Unfortunately, Mr. Honeck's worldwide public advertisement made no mention of any such restrictions. By your reasoning, FBOs shouldn't provide courtesy cars because p--airmen might use them to drive into town and have a drink. Pleeezzzze. A _publicly_ advertised tailhookesque marketing campaign is still a damaging image of airmen, especially at this time of public fear and distrust of airmen and small airplanes incited by the news media seeking sensational stories. - awh PS, who the hell says "airmen" anymore, anyway? Um, the FAA? Like the four links at the top of your web page http://www.awh.org/, your comments are not terribly useful. Go play with your Dremel Tool: :-) So I was trying to figure out whether a Dremel Tool was something I should get. They have the following quote up on their customer testimonial page: "Now with my new Dremel Variable-Speed Rotary Tool, I no longer need a man." -- Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts. -- Larry Dighera, |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:15:57 -0500, "Jeff Franks"
wrote in Message-Id: : But what of the *en route,* party-attendee pilot who finds himself without a convenient place to wait out the required 8 hour period? Will he truly find himself "more refreshed" as promised by Mr. Honeck in that article? What are his options? He can: 1. Rent a room from Mr. Honeck for 8 hours at the _daily_ rate _if_ there is a vacancy. 2. He can rent a room someplace else for 8 hours at full rate _if_ there is a vacancy, and in addition incur round trip transportation charges. 3. He can walk the streets, or otherwise kill time, for 8 hours, then depart for OSH in less than optimal physical condition. 3. He can depart for OSH at his convenience, and disregard the regulations. 4. ... So if the pilot ends up walking the street because he drank when he shouldn't have.....this is Jay's fault? Is it good manners for a host to fail to provide for his guests needs that arise as a result of accepting his host's invitation? So while the options he faces don't preclude him from operating his aircraft within the regulations, the choice is likely to be costly, perhaps more costly than anticipated. More costly than anticipated by the pilot? SO WHAT??!?!?! Thats the pilots problem. If he had planned on leaving 3 hours later, he should have drank Diet Coke. This is NOT Jay's issue. I'm merely pointing out the facts that an *en route,* party-attendee pilot faces that might influence his (possibly addled?) judgement. What sort of host puts his guests in such a situation? I say it's a host who places his own interests above those of fellow airmen enticed by his ill conceived marketing scheme. "...puts guests in such a situation"???? Jay is not putting ANYONE in ANY situation. Inviting guests who will be grounded for a third of a day subsequent to attending the party, without providing them with a place to wait-out the mandatory flight prohibition period, is putting them in an awkward position in my opinion. Being an innkeeper, Mr. Honeck's financial incentive, while somewhat covert, is apparent upon examination of his free beer offer. Indeed, he subsequently reported that his inn was fulled to capacity (ostensibility, with paying guests). We're not talking about 5 year olds being attracted to the playground equipment in a building zone. Even if they PUBLICLY conduct themselves like the above referenced 5-year olds? :-) We're talking about adults who can legally consume alcohol whenever they like. If they bust a reg in the process....oops, still not Jay's fault. Where I reside, social hosts and bartenders are legally responsible for the actions of their guests. If they allow guests to take to the highway while intoxicated, they are subject to legal action. It's easy to draw a parallel to airways and federal regulations requiring 8 hours abstinence. Here's some information relating to social host laws: http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~leg450/mcguigg.htm Under traditional common law tort analysis, our inquiry is whether a social host violated a duty to an injured third person by serving an alcoholic beverage to a guest whose negligent operation of a motor vehicle, while adversely affected by the alcohol, caused injury to a third person. Such an inquiry would require us to consider whether the social host unreasonably created a risk of injury to a person who the social host should reasonably have foreseen might be injured as a result of the guest's intoxication. If a social host acted negligently in serving an alcoholic beverage to a guest when there was such a foreseeable risk of injury to another and injury resulted from the guest's negligence caused by his intoxication, the law would ordinarily impose liability in tort on the social host, ... There are, of course, differences between the operation of a commercial establishment selling alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises and the furnishing of alcoholic beverages to guests in one's home. Balancing these differences, courts have found it easier to impose a duty of care on the licensed operator than on the social host. The threat of tort liability may serve the public purpose of offsetting the commercial operator's financial incentive to encourage drinking. The means of serving beverages in a bar, tavern, or restaurant normally permits closer control and monitoring of customers and their consumption than is typically possible in private gatherings. The commercial vendor may generally (but certainly not always) have more experience in identifying intoxicated drinkers than would social hosts and would be better able to"shut off" consumption without the embarrassment that a social host would suffer. It has also been suggested that licensed operators can be expected to have insurance against loss whereas a private individual would not. Some courts have regarded these various differences sufficient to justify imposing a duty on licensed vendors but not on social hosts. See, e.g., Harriman v.Smith, 697 S.W.2d 219, 221 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985); Settlemyer v. Wilmington Veterans Post No. 49, 11 Ohio St. 3d 123, 127 (1984). Others have considered the distinctions insignificant in assessing whether a duty should be imposed, although the differences might have a bearing on whether particular conduct was negligent. See Coulter v. Superior Court, 21 Cal. 3d 144, 155(1978); Kelly v. Gwinnell, 96 N.J. 538, 547-548 (1984); Koback v. Crook, 123 Wis. 2d 259,267-268 (1985). . . . There are a few cases which have imposed social host liability when, as here, the intoxicated guest who operated a motor vehicle was an adult. In Coulter v. Superior Court, 21 Cal. 3d 144, 149-150 (1978), the Supreme Court of California concluded, on both statutory and common law grounds, that "a social host or other noncommercial provider of alcoholic beverages owes to the general public a duty to refuse to furnish such beverages to an obviously intoxicated person if, under the circumstances, such person thereby constitutes a reasonably foreseeable danger or risk of injury to third persons." n8 The "social hosts" in the Coulter case were the owner-operator and the manager of an apartment complex alleged to have served a guest(apparently an adult) large quantities of alcoholic beverages when they knew or should have known that she was becoming "excessively intoxicated," that she customarily drank to excess, and that she would be driving a motor vehicle. Id. at 148. ... We would recognize a social host's liability to a person injured by an intoxicated guest's negligent operation of a motor vehicle where a social host who knew or should have known that his guest was drunk, nevertheless gave him or permitted him to take an alcoholic drink and thereafter, because of his intoxication, the guest negligently operated a motor vehicle causing the third person's injury. In deciding whether the social host exercised ordinary prudence in such circumstances, a relevant consideration will be whether the social host knew or reasonably should have known that the intoxicated guest might presently operate a motor vehicle. . . http://www.alcoholdrugnewsroom.org/p..._Host_5_03.pdf Social host liability laws are being implemented across the nation to impose civil penalties, usually in the form of monetary damages, on social hosts for injuries caused by their intoxicated guests. New Jersey was the first state to adopt a social host liability law. Since then Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Massachusetts, North Carolina, North Dakota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon and Vermont have followed suit. http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issue...th63_text.html ... in 1978[55] the Supreme Court of California held that a social host could be liable to third persons injured as a result of the intoxication of the consumer[56] Justice Richardson, with whom the majority agreed, held that "a social host who furnishes alcoholic beverages to an obviously intoxicated person, under circumstances which create a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm, to others, may be held legally accountable to those third persons who are injured when that harm occurs"[57] ... Social Host Liability Courts in various states of the US (California, Minnesota, Iowa and New Jersey) have found limited causes of action to lie against social hosts for injuries caused by intoxicated guests[53] The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in June 1984 that "where the social host directly serves the guest and continues to do so even after the guest is physically intoxicated, knowing that the guest will soon be driving home, the social host may be liable for the consequences of the resulting drunken driving"[54] Even earlier, in 1978[55] the Supreme Court of California held that a social host could be liable to third persons injured as a result of the intoxication of the consumer[56] Justice Richardson, with whom the majority agreed, held that "a social host who furnishes alcoholic beverages to an obviously intoxicated person, under circumstances which create a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm, to others, may be held legally accountable to those third persons who are injured when that harm occurs"[57] ... The case of Baumeister must serve as a warning to hosts (and more particularly to household insurers). The accountability of licensed hoteliers, with a professional interest in making profits from serving intoxicating liquor, must attract increasing attention from the courts, in a climate where the statistics show a connection between alcohol and road users and where, for the seriously injured, damages awards are ever increasing. ... .... I can't believe that someone could think it would be. Apparently your lack of belief is not shared by the Judicial system as is evident by the quotes above. But a _publicly_ advertised tailhookesque marketing campaign is still a damaging image of airmen, at the wrong time. PR for pilots should always be on the front of our minds. I'm happy we agree about that. But this is about personal responsibility, It's about PUBLICLY providing intoxicating liquor to airmen, as well as host and guest responsibility. not some liberal wanting to get rich off of "evil big insurance". It could potentially be about an injured party recovering damages from an insured (or not) social host. In any event, I think we can agree, that a _publicly_ advertised tailhookesque marketing campaign is a damaging image of airmen, especially at this time of public fear and distrust of airmen and small airplanes incited by the news media seeking sensational stories. -- Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts. -- Larry Dighera, |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Larry Dighera wrote:
pour beer down their throat? No. Jay just had a party, and for those people who were planning on staying over, or those people who weren't flying, there was some beer available. Unfortunately, Mr. Honeck's worldwide public advertisement made no mention of any such restrictions. Why should it have? In a world where personal responsibility still meant something, Jay would not have been responsible for imposing, or even mentioning such restrictions. Listen, even accepting your theory about Jay's ulterior motives for hosting a party, his advertisement was directed at pilots, who know full well when they can drink and when they can not. A _publicly_ advertised tailhookesque marketing campaign is still a damaging image of airmen, especially at this time of public fear and distrust of airmen and small airplanes incited by the news media seeking sensational stories. You talk about his "tailhookesque" marketing campaign as if people will suddenly find themselves in Iowa City with a beer in their stomachs, wondering how it got in there, and unable to fly. Pilots are all big boys. We know not to drink and fly. How many pilots do you suppose were doing their flight plans, and went something like this: "Direct to WEUYD intersection at 6500 feet, then over to the Iowa VOR, and then pop into Iowa City for a few beers, and then call up terminal and get vectors for KOSH"? Of course not. People who decided that they were going to go to the party might have then decided to help out Jay by spending the night at his hotel. And what's wrong with that? Either that, or they will say "Well, I'd like to go to the party, but I'm not interested in staying over in Iowa City, so I won't drink any beer. I'll just say hi and then keep on going to Oshkosh. Or "I'd like to go to the party but I am not interested in helping Jay out so I'll just go to the Best Western instead" (do they have Best Westerns in the USA?) Basically, nobody is going to be "stranded" anywhere. Jay did not trick anybody into doing anything. PS, who the hell says "airmen" anymore, anyway? Um, the FAA? Well, according to Transport Canada, I only have a license to fly "aeroplanes". That doesn't mean that anybody actually uses that word. - awh |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:36:00 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote: snip Is it good manners for a host to fail to provide for his guests needs that arise as a result of accepting his host's invitation? big snip one side of this or the other needs to quit contemplating their navel, concede to the other, & put a fork in it......it's done already, jeez |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Larry
----clip---- Pleeezzzze. A _publicly_ advertised tailhookesque marketing campaign is still a damaging image of airmen, especially at this time of public fear and distrust of airmen and small airplanes incited by the news media seeking sensational stories. Have you noticed that the knee jerk following 'Tailhook' has gone away and saner voices have researched, compiled and pointed out the agendas of the broads who started all the outcry. Those who the Navy took down have been reinstated and given places of responsibility in the Navy structure following all the media 30 second sound bites have faded into history. Use of the term tailhookesque is no longer a valid characterization of anything unless you are trying characterize media bottom feeding. Big John |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:56:46 -0400, Drew Hamilton wrote
in Message-Id: : This seems a reasonable assessment of Mr. Honeck's intent: From: "Jason Kennemer" Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting Subject: Last Chance -- Free Beer in Iowa on Sunday! Message-ID: 1RdUa.145391$Ph3.18576@sccrnsc04 NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.239.88.13 I think Jay's intent is to have a fun afternoon party, and try to keep as many "guests" as possible at his establishment. I believe I've made my points sufficiently clear in the previous articles I've posted to this message thread. PS, who the hell says "airmen" anymore, anyway? Um, the FAA? Well, according to Transport Canada, I only have a license to fly "aeroplanes". That doesn't mean that anybody actually uses that word. It would seem that Transport Canada and your countrymen do indeed use the word 'aeroplane.' aero•plane \"ar-e-'plan, "er-\ noun [F aeroplane, fr. aero- aer- + -plane, prob. fr. fem. of plan flat, level, fr. L planus — more at floor] (1873) chiefly Brit : airplane Merriam-Webster Then there is the he USAF: air•man \-men\ noun (1873) 1 : a civilian or military pilot, aviator, or aviation technician 2 : an enlisted man in the air force: as a : an enlisted man of one of the three ranks below sergeant b : an enlisted man ranking above an airman basic and below an airman first class Merriam-Webster Perhaps you might start a thread on this subject. -- Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts. -- Larry Dighera, |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fly-In Breakfast in Iowa City THIS Sunday | Jay Honeck | Home Built | 7 | August 30th 04 12:49 PM |
[Media] A Marine's journey home | Michael Wise | Naval Aviation | 0 | May 3rd 04 04:57 AM |
Last Chance -- Free Beer in Iowa Sunday! | Jay Honeck | Home Built | 2 | July 26th 03 05:45 AM |
Last Chance -- Free Beer in Iowa Sunday! | Jay Honeck | Owning | 1 | July 26th 03 04:57 AM |
Oshkosh Bound? Free Beer in Iowa! | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 14 | July 22nd 03 08:28 PM |