New Castle ELT Requirement

Dear Mr. Kilian:

I'm at a loss to figure out how you can interpret my previous post
addressing the opinions and considerations of statements made by Mr.
Byars as a personal attack, nor was it intended as such, nor do I
believe it was received by Mr. Byars as such by referencing his
subsequent posts.

If I made a chatroom faux-pas by adressing the post to a specific
person it was done without malice.

On the other hand, you, sir, leave little doubt as to the intention of
your post. I hope you somehow feel better by attempting to belittle me
personally. I guess I'm the foolish one who thought discussion of
issues concerning soaring via this open forum allowed the expression
of differing opinions.

You may be interested to know that it is reasons like this that I
choose not to be involved in the competitive aspects of soaring. But
just because I have not [recently] flown in a contest shouldn't
reasonably preclude me from having educated opinions based on 27 years
of a variety of soaring experiences (to include, I might add, contest
flying), should it?

I wish you the best of luck in your upcoming 13th New Castle contest.

Best of Regards,

Ray Cornay

I wish to address the potential legal liability issue regarding the ELT
requirment made by the "sponsor" of the event at a private airport.

I do not know all the details, nor do I know the law in the state where New
Castle is located. But, I have been a practicing attorney for 35 years and
have seen lawsuits on almost every issue one can imagine. I have read
judgments into the millions of dollars where it seemed obvious there was no
liability. I have defended cases that were brought where there was
significantly less culpability than the organizer of a soaring event might
face if he ignored the potential safety benefits of an ELT.

While I am embarassed by the direction of our legal system, I simply wanted
to say that there may be a potential liability concern. Remember that even
if the organizer is successful in defending a lawsuit, the legal fees could
be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Colin





---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.706 / Virus Database: 462 - Release Date: 6/14/04

COLIN LAMB wrote:

I wish to address the potential legal liability issue regarding the ELT
requirment made by the "sponsor" of the event at a private airport.

I do not know all the details, nor do I know the law in the state where New
Castle is located. But, I have been a practicing attorney for 35 years and
have seen lawsuits on almost every issue one can imagine. I have read
judgments into the millions of dollars where it seemed obvious there was no
liability. I have defended cases that were brought where there was
significantly less culpability than the organizer of a soaring event might
face if he ignored the potential safety benefits of an ELT.

While I am embarassed by the direction of our legal system, I simply wanted
to say that there may be a potential liability concern. Remember that even
if the organizer is successful in defending a lawsuit, the legal fees could
be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I know crazy things can happen in the liability world, but "possible"
isn't "probable", and I wondering about sense of the perspective here.

Could you offer a guess about the potential liability exposure of
allowing your airport to be used for a soaring contest in the first
place, compared that to neglecting to require contestants install a
piece of equipment their gliders are specifically exempted from in the
regulations, and is only of value if they crash somewhere besides your
airport?

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

On 6/19/04 12:37 AM, in article , "Eric
Greenwell" wrote:

Could you offer a guess about the potential liability exposure of
allowing your airport to be used for a soaring contest in the first
place, compared that to neglecting to require contestants install a
piece of equipment their gliders are specifically exempted from in the
regulations, and is only of value if they crash somewhere besides your
airport?

The lawyer can speak for himself, but I have to ask, "Could you offer a
guess concerning whether or not OJ is a murderer?"

The point I think is that, number one -- anything is possible when a
question goes before a jury; and number two -- if it's your airport, you get
to make the rules.

You got a problem with that?



Jack

Ed:

My comment has nothing to do with the "checking of facts" as I know
New Castle is a private airport. The point is that what initiates
there could very well have consequences elsewhere--and you know that.

Please be advised that my soaring club is currently fighting a battle
with a dictatorial airport authority at a private airport whose
strategy is to create arbitrary, grating rules in an attempt to get us
off the premises, so forgive me if I am sensative to any such mandates
as you have been involved with the creation thereof. It's bad enough
when such rules come from unsympathetic sources. It's harder to take
when we do it to ourselves.

As far as the reference protocol, it is my "opinion" that the SSA
should be afforded the authority to standardize what equipment is
required to fly in a soaring contest else who knows what specific
requirements some local airport owner and his friends may come up
(with the best of intentions) that all of a sudden becomes a barrier
to universal involvement.

Best,

Ray

Spoken in the generalities of a lawyer.

One assumes a huge liability risk every time one drives a car.

Concern for liability has a point of diminishing returns.

Jack wrote:
On 6/19/04 12:37 AM, in article , "Eric
Greenwell" wrote:


Could you offer a guess about the potential liability exposure of
allowing your airport to be used for a soaring contest in the first
place, compared that to neglecting to require contestants install a
piece of equipment their gliders are specifically exempted from in the
regulations, and is only of value if they crash somewhere besides your
airport?


The lawyer can speak for himself, but I have to ask, "Could you offer a
guess concerning whether or not OJ is a murderer?"

The point I think is that, number one -- anything is possible when a
question goes before a jury; and number two -- if it's your airport, you get
to make the rules.

You got a problem with that?

From my posting yesterday:

"Still, if he thinks this is an important issue, and wishes to make it a
condition of access to his airport, I think he is within his rights to
do so."

I'm also in favor of using ELTs, though not necessarily requiring their
use. What I was attempting to do is keep the discussion on the value of
ELTs, and how, when (or where), and if they should be required. As I've
stated, I think the liability issue raised is so small compared to the
liability assumed by allowing the use of one's airport that it doesn't
affect the airport owner's overall liability.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA