At Dear Ol' AVL Airport, Asheville, NC

On 14 Aug 2004 20:17:16 -0700, (GaryP) wrote:

(Del Rawlins) wrote in message ...
Guess again, asshole.

Excuse me! Can't you engage in a discussion without resorting to vulgar
personal attacks. What a class act you are Del.

You come on the newsgroup, and make a statement to the effect that
A&Ps and flight instructors who don't operate out of fixed facilities
are a bunch of hazardous freeloaders who shouldn't be allowed on the
airport, and you expect a civil response?


================================================== ==
Del Rawlins--
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 17:12:30 -0500, Barnyard BOb -
wrote:


Plain and simple???
Not exactly.

I'm older than dirt.
No question I wuz here first.

The problem with being first so
long ago leaves one crony-less.

It ain't easy extorting a paycheck
under these conditions.

Hey Bob, when wuz the last time you tried to get anybody thrown off a
public airport for the mere act of exercising their pilot or mechanic
certificates? If you ever have, then my name is Latchless. 8^)


================================================== ==
Del Rawlins--
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply

What a brilliant response by the Michael Moore of RAH.

================================================== ==
Del Rawlins--
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 05:20:28 GMT,
(Del Rawlins) wrote:

On 14 Aug 2004 20:17:16 -0700, (GaryP) wrote:

(Del Rawlins) wrote in message ...
Guess again, asshole.

Excuse me! Can't you engage in a discussion without resorting to vulgar
personal attacks. What a class act you are Del.

You come on the newsgroup, and make a statement to the effect that
A&Ps and flight instructors who don't operate out of fixed facilities
are a bunch of hazardous freeloaders who shouldn't be allowed on the
airport, and you expect a civil response?

I believe all the instructors at the nearest 3 airports are all free
lance.

Mechanics are a bit different. We have an FBO plus a couple free
lance mechanics. They work in your hanger and in general are higher
priced than the FBO, but a bit more specialized.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com



================================================= ===
Del Rawlins--
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply

Hey Bob, when wuz the last time you tried to get anybody thrown off a
public airport for the mere act of exercising their pilot or mechanic
certificates? If you ever have, then my name is Latchless. 8^)


Del Rawlins--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi Lartchless, er Del...

My RV-3 is based at a PRIVATELY owned aerodrome.
No public funds involved.

Even so.....
Freeloaders and freelancers of all persuasions
are welcomed to ply their trades the best they can.

No restrictions on anyone, to date.....
Not that there haven't been feeble attempts.

A pox upon_assholes_
Yes, ASSHOLES, that would have it otherwise.


Barnyard BOb -

What a brilliant response by the Michael Moore of RAH.

Del Rawlins--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Michael Moore may not be your cup of tea...
but, IMO, he is brilliant.

Any self made millionaire in the USA is my hero.
Yeah, that includes Bill Gates, too. g

BTW...
If G.W. Bush doesn't get re-elected to office what
narrow minded idiot will hold that against Moore?


Barnyard BOb -

"Roger Halstead" wrote in message
...
[..] I believe all the instructors at the nearest 3 airports are all free
lance.

Mechanics are a bit different. We have an FBO plus a couple free
lance mechanics. They work in your hanger and in general are higher
priced than the FBO, but a bit more specialized.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


Roger, that means things in your neck of the woods are working well --- the
way the wise authors of the Sherman, Lanham, and Clayton Acts wanted them
to.

(Del Rawlins) wrote in message ...

You come on the newsgroup, and make a statement to the effect that
A&Ps and flight instructors who don't operate out of fixed facilities
are a bunch of hazardous freeloaders who shouldn't be allowed on the
airport, and you expect a civil response?

I entered into this discussion with an alternative point of view
having
watched aviation businesses try to survive in this litigious society.
My assertion, which I believe you did not understand correctly based
on the
above response is this: Fixed operators cannot escape exposure to
litigation
for lawsuits filed in the aftermath of a fatality. When something
happens
the attorneys name everyone in what is called "partitioning of the
blame".
As a result the airport owners insurance policy might have a
requirement
that all operators on the airport be fixed and properly insured for
their
respective activities. An independent CFI or A&P routinely operating
at
an airport without their own insurance are exposing the airport and
fixed
businesses to potential litigation and may be doing so in violation of
the
airport owners insurance coverage requirements. From day to day
without
incident this is not a problem until an accident occurs where there
are
serious injuries. The fixed operators are there, easily identified
and nameable
in a suit while the independents operating out their car can simply
dissapear.
Even if they don't disappear, when the suit is filed you can be the
attorneys
will go after the deepest pockets first. The fixed operators will be
targeted
for a larger share of the blame because they have deeper pockets. The
legal
system is not fair in this regard.
NO WHERE did I say or am I saying NOW that the independent are doing
shoddy
work. NO WHERE did I say or am I saying NOW that they should not
entitled
to operate. What I am saying is their activities, depending on the
insurance
policy requirements of the airport, may be in violation of that
policy.
Indirectly the fixed operators premiums are sholdering the liability
costs of the independent operators. I compared this to car insurance
where in my home state of NJ is
mandatory YET includes a surcharge for "uninsured motorists". In
effect I
pay for folks who don't have insurance. The uninsured driver has a
lower
cost per mile than me. They could be the safest driver on the road
but my
premium is, in effect higher to pay for their coverage. Not a problem
until there is an accident and fatalities or serious injuries and big
monitary lawsuits. How did this come to be, the insurance company is
simply passing
along their settlement costs, partitioned accordingly, in the premiums
to
their policy holders. I'd venture to guess there are similar
surcharges for airport liability policies too, but I don't have first
hand knowledge to say
for sure.

I am an A&P and I work on my own airplane. No one can legally
prevent me
from doing so(as far as the FAA is concerned) because I am
appropriately certificated just as I am certificated to fly my
airplane. Is this a violation of my airports insurance? No, because
I am only working on my own plane and not increasing their exposure
beyond that which I do simply as a pilot operating out of their field.
If I began working on other airplanes for compensation the answer
would be yes, and my airport has strict rules against it without
proper insurance coverage. Subrogation is the key term here. They
want my pockets
to be deep enough in proportion to the liability exposure of my
actions.

I saw first hand how a law suit filed by a relative of a deceased
pilot, who crashed on a too slow - stall spin on takeoff accident,
bankrupted several businesses. Including the avionics shop who simply
did the transponder check over a year before the accident. How the
transponder check contributed to the pilots failure to maintain
airspeed is a mystery to me but that didn't stop
the plaintiff's lawyers from naming him in the suit.
The cost of defending himself literally bankrupted the shop owner
because he
did carry enough insurance. As a result of this experience the only
way I will work one anyone elses airplane is as an employee of a fixed
operation with enough policy coverage to protect me. I could not
afford to purchase enough
insurance, as an individual, for A&P wages to cover the large sums
asked for
in todays courts.

I do not believe I made the uncivilized assertions you acuse me of.
But
this issue sparks emotion and people don't always express themselves
throughly.
Perhaps I've made my point a little clearer, perhaps not.

"GaryP" wrote in message
om...
(Del Rawlins) wrote in message
...

You come on the newsgroup, and make a statement to the effect that
A&Ps and flight instructors who don't operate out of fixed facilities
are a bunch of hazardous freeloaders who shouldn't be allowed on the
airport, and you expect a civil response?

I entered into this discussion with an alternative point of view
having
watched aviation businesses try to survive in this litigious society.
My assertion, which I believe you did not understand correctly based
on the
above response is this: Fixed operators cannot escape exposure to
litigation
for lawsuits filed in the aftermath of a fatality. When something
happens
the attorneys name everyone in what is called "partitioning of the
blame".

In law it is called joint and several liability.

The attorneys usually join the parties who share in the negligence, if there
is more than one. Those who don't share in the blame are usually dismissed
from the lawsuit by the judge before it ever goes to a jury, or runs up a
big attorney fee. Thus, if I were representing the avionics repairman and
his work on the transponder had nothing to do with the accident, I would
file motion and affidavit for summary judgment and get him out of the
lawsuit.

I hear stories of so-and-so being bankrupted by lawsuit, I usually check the
story out for accuracy. So who is the avionics guy, and let's just see if
he is no longer in business. If he's smart he would have been operating
under the prophylactic shield of a business corporation, protecting him and
his family from financial ruin.

Otherwise, your response is mostly a reasonable one, although it is
unreasonable to assert in a blanket statement that an independent A&P
working for himself subjects an unrelated FBO on his airport, or the public
airport operating under the rules of sovereign immunity, to liability.
Negligence lawsuits are predicated on reason, not hysteria or just grabbing
up the nearest deep pockets and turning them upside down and shaking the
money out of them.

Of course there is a rich complexity of issues here which your vulgar
adversary is unable to comprehend. You should perhaps forgive our
shallow-pated friend for getting flustered and fumbling during a time in
which he was required to do a little thinking and instead blurted out the AH
word.

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 08:58:46 -0500, Barnyard BOb -
wrote:

BTW...
If G.W. Bush doesn't get re-elected to office what
narrow minded idiot will hold that against Moore?

Nah, as disgusting as Moore may be, he is just a symptom of the bigger
problem. That is, that the left actually tolerates and supports him,
despite the fact that he spins things as far out of context as is
necessary to make them fit his position. It is counterproductive to
both sides because a lot of the real, bad things that the current
administration is doing (all of the restrictions on civil liberties)
are ignored in all the hype over Moore's lies. As long as these
problems remain out of the public light, whoever wins the election in
November, be it Kerry or Bush, will get a free pass to continue
trampling individual rights.


================================================== ==
Del Rawlins--
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply