Survey Time

Maintenance has been the biggest headache for me, in my ownership
experience. I agree that high fuel costs are scaring people away,
although an extra $10 per hour is not all that big in the scheme of
things.

"DILLIGAF" wrote in message
. ..
Of the five what is the biggest threat to GA?

1. High fuel cost
2. Insurance
3. FAA policies
4. Terror war restrictions
5. Maintenance cost on aircraft

This website says it pretty well:
http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-sr20
(By the way, the rest of this page is a lengthy and most informative review
of the Cirrus)

quote:
Mooney, Cirrus, and other makers of small piston-powered planes are
generally making a product that is comparatively much less affordable than
decades ago. For example, a Chevrolet Corvette sports car in 1978 listed for
$14,000 and a Mooney was 2.7 times more expensive at $37,500. Today the
vastly improved Corvette is $44,500 and a somewhat improved four-seat
airplane is around $280,000 or 6.3 times more expensive. Most of the
improvement in the 2005 airplane versus the 1978 airplane comes from the
advent of the Global Positioning System.
:unquote

skym wrote:
We already have this...the "respectable person, who has a job and pays
taxes" is called the judge. He/she can (and do) throw out
nonmeritorious cases in a procedure known as "summmary judgement."
Also there is a rule (Rule 11, Fed R Civ Pro) that subjects an attorney
to monetary sanctions for filing a case that is not well founded in the
law and facts. The fact of the matter is...most lawsuits are
meritorious of consideration by a judge or jury.
Also, as for your loser pays rule, besides the other arguments put
forth in this thread, consider the satisfaction that most plaintiffs'
lawyers would have in having the losing mfr pay his fees. The cases
you probably decry are, for the most part, cases where the plaintiff
DID win, and you just don't like that.
Finally, my aircraft premiums went down this year by almost 20%. (I
think it's because I'm a lawyer. )


Of course you think that the current system "works", because you are
a part of it. I'm sure that most (if not all) all of the politicians
in Washington think that they are not part of the problem. They vote
for their own raises and create their own rules why shouldn't they?

The people rest their case.

If all the plaintiff's trail lawyers in the country like the way the system
is that should tell you there is something unfair to the defendants.


"Jose" wrote in message
. com...
Sorry Jose but its way past time for the pedulum to swing back

I agree...

and even overshoot.

No, that would be destructive.

These lawsuits are destroying this country

No, they are merely a symptom of what is destroying the country.

If the jury pool had to pass a basic test of integrity, intelligence
and demonstrate a track record of productive citizenship

... only supporters of the present administration would have legal
representation. You do support Bush and all his policies, don't you? You
wouldn't be un-American, would you?

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
m...
If the jury pool had to pass a basic test of integrity, intelligence
and demonstrate a track record of productive citizenship
... only supporters of the present administration would have legal
representation.
Now that is uncalled for, and certainly makes no sense in the
context of what I was saying
Just who do you think is going to administer this "basic test of
integrity, intelligence, and productive citizenship" before allowing
access to a jury of twelve peers?

Actually, rereading what you said.. you were talking about the =jury=
having to pass this test. I'm a bit more comfortable with that. I had
originally thought you intended the =plaintiffs= to meet this test before
being permitted to bring suit.

But.. AFAIK jury trials are primarily for criminal cases, not civil torts.
And each side gets to nix jury members. The issue seems to be that the
jury represents our culture's values... and you have (perhaps justified)
issue with those values.

Jose
--

No the juries are made up of people who couldn't get out of jury duty.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...
No the juries are made up of people who couldn't get out of jury duty.

I always find it funny that it always seems like the people who are most
critical of juries are the ones who are so proud that they (presumably) are
able to shirk their responsibility as a citizen to serve on a jury.

Peter Duniho wrote:
I always find it funny that it always seems like the people who are most
critical of juries are the ones who are so proud that they (presumably) are
able to shirk their responsibility as a citizen to serve on a jury.

Desire to serve has little to do with whether you actually are chosen
from the pool. The one time I received a notice to serve as a juror
on a civil case (involving someone suing a contractor for problems
on a contruction contract) I was cut out early on by plaintiff's
attorney during jury selction process.

After all the questioning was over the the jury was selected the
judge released the rest of us. Later, outside the courtroom those of
us that were cut had a chance to chat and found that we all had
above average knowledge of technical subjects being engineers of
various types, technicians and business owners. The ones utlimately
chosen for the jury were basically housewives and schoolteachers.

It was apparent that the plaintiff was not interested in a jury
that of the defendents peers... i.e anyone that could read a
blueprint or capable of serious analysis of technical subjects.

It was apparent that the plaintiff was not interested in a jury
that of the defendents peers... i.e anyone that could read a
blueprint or capable of serious analysis of technical subjects.

Well, the whole idea of a jury of peers is flawed. Not fatally, but
consider...

A politician bulldozes a runway, making it unusable, and then closes the
airport, destroying businesses and adversely affecting aviation, but
helping real estate developers and other politicians. He is tried on
criminal charges and a jury is to be drawn up.

A jury of pilots, who should know about avaition?
A jury of politicians, who should know how the system works?

There is an altercation between some Presbyterian clergy and some
Islamic Fundamentalists. An attack occurs, somebody dies. A jury is to
be drawn up.

A jury drawn from the community of the attacker?
A jury drawn from the community of the victim?

Does it matter whether the attacker was the Christian or the Islamic
funamentalist?

The choice of jury determines the choice of values that will be upheld,
and the way in which those values will be applied. When victim and
attacker are peers, the question never really comes up. But we are not
peers to each other in this day and age, and it does matter.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"ktbr" wrote in message
...
Desire to serve has little to do with whether you actually are chosen
from the pool.

That's not my point. The previous poster wrote: "juries are made up of
people who couldn't get out of jury duty". The implication is obvious: only
dumb people can't "get out of jury duty".

The phrase "get out of" doesn't concern itself with whether such a person is
ultimately selected. It's a way of saying that the person has removed
themselves from the possibility of selection at all.

There may be other problems with the issue of jury selection, but when
people actively attempt to remove themselves from the selection process,
they are at least as guilty of being a part of the problem as anyone else.

[...] The ones utlimately
chosen for the jury were basically housewives and schoolteachers.

It was apparent that the plaintiff was not interested in a jury
that of the defendents peers... i.e anyone that could read a
blueprint or capable of serious analysis of technical subjects.

I find that the implication that housewives and schoolteachers are incapable
of comprehending technical issues to be incorrect. I know plenty of very
intelligent and well-educated housewives and schoolteachers. Furthermore, I
have run into plenty of people supposedly trained as engineers or other
technical professionals who couldn't make a correct technical observation to
save their lives.

It may well be that the lawyers are playing the odds, and manage to shift
things in their favor. But it's incorrect to assume that they are 100%
successful at it.

So, once again, to clarify my point: what I find amusing is when someone who
complains about the content of juries proves themselves to be part of the
problem.

Pete

"ktbr" wrote in message
...
Peter Duniho wrote:
I always find it funny that it always seems like the people who are most
critical of juries are the ones who are so proud that they (presumably)
are able to shirk their responsibility as a citizen to serve on a jury.

Desire to serve has little to do with whether you actually are chosen
from the pool. The one time I received a notice to serve as a juror
on a civil case (involving someone suing a contractor for problems
on a contruction contract) I was cut out early on by plaintiff's
attorney during jury selction process.

After all the questioning was over the the jury was selected the
judge released the rest of us. Later, outside the courtroom those of
us that were cut had a chance to chat and found that we all had
above average knowledge of technical subjects being engineers of
various types, technicians and business owners. The ones utlimately
chosen for the jury were basically housewives and schoolteachers.

It was apparent that the plaintiff was not interested in a jury
that of the defendents peers... i.e anyone that could read a
blueprint or capable of serious analysis of technical subjects.

That only works up to a point. Plantiff and defendant can excuse a limited
number of possible jurors. I have been on two jurys, one civil and one
criminal. both jurys represented a pretty good cross section of the
community. Definately not all one sided. Both were very interesting
experiences.