At Dear Ol' AVL Airport, Asheville, NC

On 15 Aug 2004 08:19:12 -0700, (GaryP) wrote:

(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".

Even if an independent A&P or CFI carries a big liability policy, I'm
still not sure how that is supposed to help an uninvolved party who
happens to operate at the same airport. Their insurance company
certainly isn't going to agree to that. To turn the situation around,
if there is an accident caused by shoddy maintenance at the FBO, but
my signature happens to be in the logbook for unrelated work, and I am
then named in the resulting lawsuit, are they then expected to
indemnify me? I really doubt that is going to be the case and I will
be on my own. What you seem to be advocating is a situation where
everybody who works on an airfield be required to carry insurance that
covers everyone else working there. Not going to happen.

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.

The operating authority of a public airport doesn't get to pick and
choose who can engage in business activities there.

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.

Please tell me how I am supposed to "disappear" if there is an
accident involving an airplane I have worked on. I am required to
hold an FAA certificate, and if I move I am required to inform the
FAA, who keeps a record of where I live. If I do not keep the
government apprised of my current location my certificate is not
valid. If somebody wants to find me so they can sue me, it won't be
all that difficult to accomplish.

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.

So because the legal system is unfair, you think everybody should be
required to have the same deep pockets before being allowed to enter
business? I don't like the system any more than you do, but that
doesn't mean I should have to provide coverage for people I am not
even involved with.

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.

And if their activities are taking place at a public airport which
accepts federal funding, that policy is illegal.

Indirectly the fixed operators premiums are sholdering the liability
costs of the independent operators.

No, they are shouldering the additional liability cost of a broken
legal system (and no, I don't claim to have an answer to fix it
either) which encourages lawsuits against uninvolved parties. Just
like everybody else in the country.

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.

I also carry the uninsured motorist coverage on my policy. It isn't a
requirement in my state (last I checked) but it does protect me in
case an uninsured driver runs into me, financially at least. The
reason the cost per mile is lower is because most drivers carry
insurance, so the odds of being hit by an uninsured driver is lower
than that of getting into a collision with an insured driver.

Unfortunately you are making an apples and oranges comparison because
if an uninsured driver plows into me, then they were most certainly
involved in the accident. If I screw up and return an airplane to
service after doing improper maintenance, the local FBO is not
involved. If the lawyer for the greiving widow chooses to name them
in the suit I don't have any control over that and I don't owe them
anything.

snipped more of the same

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.

No, you made yourself perfectly clear the first time. I would like to
see your reaction when your airport decides that even working on your
own airplane is too much exposure for them, and that all maintenance
must be done by the FBO. Will you roll over and take it, or will your
response be closer to mine?


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

"Del Rawlins" wrote in message ...
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


I saw on a bumper sticker:

"Under the Republicans, man exploits man. Under the Democrats it is just the opposite."
--
Dan D.
http://www.ameritech.net/users/ddevillers/start.html


..

Del Rawlins wrote:
: 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.

: The operating authority of a public airport doesn't get to pick and
: choose who can engage in business activities there.

I've got a friend with a similar situation here. He's a CFI and bought a
plane to do primary training. A local FBO/airport manager insists on a policy
intending to attract a "large flight school." In addition to requiring large
insurance requirements, any flight school must have at least two primary trainers and
a twin. That smacks of capricious allowances and discrimination against the little
guy. Obviously, there is no way for a one-man-band CFI to adhere to these policies.

So, is there any reference to cite that says that this is B.S? I would think
that if I were a CFI training out of my plane at a public airport, not only could I do
it uninhibited by insurance requirements if I so choose, but I could even provide
ground school in the public terminal area! Where are the official
regulations/policies governing this? Does a public airport have the right to deny
services to individuals at will (e.g. "Your freelance flight training business annoys
me... you cannot park your plane here anymore.")

-Cory

wrote in message
...
Del Rawlins wrote:
: 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.

: The operating authority of a public airport doesn't get to pick and
: choose who can engage in business activities there.

I've got a friend with a similar situation here. He's a CFI and bought a
plane to do primary training. A local FBO/airport manager insists on a
policy
intending to attract a "large flight school." In addition to requiring
large
insurance requirements, any flight school must have at least two primary
trainers and
a twin. That smacks of capricious allowances and discrimination against
the little
guy. Obviously, there is no way for a one-man-band CFI to adhere to these
policies.

So, is there any reference to cite that says that this is B.S? I would
think
that if I were a CFI training out of my plane at a public airport, not
only could I do
it uninhibited by insurance requirements if I so choose, but I could even
provide
ground school in the public terminal area! Where are the official
regulations/policies governing this? Does a public airport have the right
to deny
services to individuals at will (e.g. "Your freelance flight training
business annoys
me... you cannot park your plane here anymore.")

-Cory


http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9200/9262.wpd.
This case will get you started, as well as FAA rules, Clayton Act, Sherman
Act, and Lanham Act. This case is about merger but expresses govt
sentiment on the value to the public of competition at airports.
There are probably cases directly on point but I haven't done much research
yet. I'll furnish new info as I find it.

"GaryP" wrote:
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.

As has been previously stated, airfields that accept public funds (i.e. DOT
funds) are obliged to permit certain activities without hinderance. In a
case where the federal regulations were in conflict with a private contract
(i.e. the insurance policy), guess which side holds.

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

Hey, a school bus of kindergartners driving along the road outside the
perimeter of the airfield are likely exposing the airport and fixed
businesses to potential litigation. Don't like it? Don't do business
there.

and may be doing so in violation of the airport owners insurance coverage
requirements.

Again, if the airfield has accepted public funds, the federal regulations
trump ALL clauses of the insurance policy. Don't like it? Then the
airfield shouldn't have accepted the public funds, and there are procedures
for the airfield to repay the funds and escape the federal regulations.

Even if they [independent operators without a fixed presence]
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.

Are you saying that requiring independent operators to carry "big target"
insurance (i.e. high limit) is a way of addressing this perceive injustice?

The legal system is not fair in this regard.

Cite, please.

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.

Too bad for the airport operator. They should have gotten a better
insurance agent.

Indirectly the fixed operators premiums are sholdering the liability
costs of the independent operators.

Cite, please.

I compared this to car insurance where in my home state of NJ is
mandatory YET includes a surcharge for "uninsured motorists".

And in all of the policies I have seen (here in TX where auto liability
insurance is likewise mandatory) the uninsured motorist coverage is
declinable.

In effect I pay for folks who don't have insurance.

No one is holding a gun to your head: decline the coverage. Of course, if
you are involved in a collision with an uninsured motorist who is at fault,
be prepared to eat the loss.

The uninsured driver has a lower cost per mile than me.

Uh, no. They theoretically have one less fixed overhead cost, which *might*
translate to a lower overall fixed overhead cost, which, when amortized
across their annual driving costs, *might* translate to a lower amortized
cost per mile than you. One citation for driving without proof of insurance
could easily cause their amortized cost per mile to be more than you,
however.

And BTW, if you think that they're getting such a good deal, cancel your own
insurance.

They could be the safest driver on the road but my premium is,
in effect higher to pay for their coverage.

Again, UM coverage is probably declinable in NJ.

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.

Uh, HELLO! That's what insurance is! In fact, there's an entire field
called "actuarial science" devoted to figuring out how to partition the
costs so that the insurance companies can offer a price-competitve product
and still stay in business.

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.

Not true. By your (earlier) logic, unless you carry the same type of
liability coverage that the fixed A&P operators at the airfield carry, then
parties to a lawsuit involving your aircraft would come after the airport as
the "deep pocket". Since I assume you carry less insurance than the fixed
businesses do, you therefore pose a greater risk to the airport.

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.

What they want isn't a factor (except in the cases where the independent
operators choose not to fight). If the airport accepted public funds, they
are obliged to follow the federal regulations that are attached to those
funds, regardless of the insurance policy's clauses.

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.

That story does not make sense to me. Cite, please, so I can read the court
documents.

Russell Kent

Ultrajohn

Not unusual. Been there and had it happen. Wouldn't even let the FBO
on field shoot landings (except final after a mission).

Said it bothered the Corporate Jets (

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ````````````````````````````````````````````


On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 14:46:09 GMT, UltraJohn wrote:

It seems to me they could require that anyone doing business on their
airport carry an insurance policy to protect the airport from litigation
which makes more sense than requiring huge buildings and expensive
facilities.
Next thing you know they'll prohibit you from flying there from another
airport and doing a few touch and go's just in case you might have an
accident on their airport!
John


GaryP wrote:

Did you ever consider the insurance the airport operator carries and the
restrictions their policy might have? If an incident occurs at that
airport or to a plane which departed from that airport you can bet, in
todays litigious society, that a suit will be filed naming the airport
operators. The flight school there, especially in this post 911 world, has
an enormous
premium to pay. As a free lance CFI what insurance coverage do you have
to protect the airport operator at AVL from the outcome of your teaching
actions?

Big John wrote...

Wouldn't even let the FBO on field shoot landings...

Bet that would take a lot of power to taxi g.

Dave 'two-blocked' Hyde

Barnyard BOb wrote ...


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


Yeah, right in the same league as Leni Riefenstahl.


Daniel

"Daniel" wrote in message
om...
Barnyard BOb wrote ...


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


Yeah, right in the same league as Leni Riefenstahl.


Daniel

Nawp, Leni operated in an atmosphere of oppression, jackboots, and summary
executions. Michael exists in an atmosphere of raucous free speech and a
constitution with a vibrant First Amendment. You can still see and hear
counterpoints in the USA, well, most of the time.

Because of my criticism of a few creeps at AVL airport, at least one shady
riefenstahl-era figure tried to get me thrown off usenet, and one of them
tried to get me taken off a private list, but it didn't work.

Now, back to driving that perfectly formed rivet with that deftly held gun
and bucking bar. And, btw, is there a whispering campaign on your airport
about the high failure rate and high cost of Slick magneto coils? I had
one fail on a mag with just 100 hours on it, and the replacement cost is
almost $200. A friend said he had a similar problem but both his Slicks
failed at the coils within weeks of one another. Mag coils are already a p
in the a because sometimes they will check good when they are bad and you
have to rule out all the other causes of the miss before pulling a mag.
Like switching the upper plugs for the lower ones, for example. pinthea.

And you know those silly cast aluminum wedges they want $10 apiece for ---
the ones which hold the coil in place? Well, at least one of them will
break when you are using a puller on it. You should thank Bendix for still
being in business and furnishing parts, at least for furnishing a coil at a
reasonable price. If Slick had a monopoly a coil would be 500 bucks.

Where does Slick get its coils ------ Pakistan? Indonesia?

Howsomever. Rejoice. You'll get to fly again as soon as this wind and
moisture from Frances are passed away. The agony WILL abate.

I replaced my Bendixs with Slicks when the AD on the coil and rotating
magnet was over $550 plus installation for just one mag. Got BOTH new
Slicks and new harness for less than that.


" jls" wrote in message
. ..

"Daniel" wrote in message
om...
Barnyard BOb wrote ...


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


Yeah, right in the same league as Leni Riefenstahl.


Daniel

Nawp, Leni operated in an atmosphere of oppression, jackboots, and summary
executions. Michael exists in an atmosphere of raucous free speech and a
constitution with a vibrant First Amendment. You can still see and hear
counterpoints in the USA, well, most of the time.

Because of my criticism of a few creeps at AVL airport, at least one shady
riefenstahl-era figure tried to get me thrown off usenet, and one of them
tried to get me taken off a private list, but it didn't work.

Now, back to driving that perfectly formed rivet with that deftly held gun
and bucking bar. And, btw, is there a whispering campaign on your
airport
about the high failure rate and high cost of Slick magneto coils? I had
one fail on a mag with just 100 hours on it, and the replacement cost is
almost $200. A friend said he had a similar problem but both his Slicks
failed at the coils within weeks of one another. Mag coils are already a
p
in the a because sometimes they will check good when they are bad and you
have to rule out all the other causes of the miss before pulling a mag.
Like switching the upper plugs for the lower ones, for example.
pinthea.

And you know those silly cast aluminum wedges they want $10 apiece for ---
the ones which hold the coil in place? Well, at least one of them will
break when you are using a puller on it. You should thank Bendix for
still
being in business and furnishing parts, at least for furnishing a coil at
a
reasonable price. If Slick had a monopoly a coil would be 500 bucks.

Where does Slick get its coils ------ Pakistan? Indonesia?

Howsomever. Rejoice. You'll get to fly again as soon as this wind and
moisture from Frances are passed away. The agony WILL abate.