cost changes in general aviation

[RJBrown]

I think that the certification process GARANTEES poorer quality products at greater cost.

 Look at the lowly battery. Normal car batteries are about $100 while aircraft batteries for our Mooneys can exceed $500. The car battery has a 24 month free replacement warranty the aircraft battery similar coverage is only 90 days. The car battery has a 5 year prorated warrantee while the airplane one is 1 year.

 Any improvements in methods or materials must be certified at a great cost so it never happens. No new competition enters the market because of the costs. The current comanies are then free to sell inferior products at obcsene prices. Any one want to buy a 18 month old Gill G-243S? Oh thats right it is JUNK and has given trouble almost since new. Was just replaced at annual.

[jetdriven]

I find the infant mortality rate of new aircraft parts obscenely common. In our first year of ownership, we had a new tachometer, attitude indicator, 1200$ Dukes fuel pump, and a magneto all fail within a dozen hours of installation.

[rbs4159]

Thanks, Zane, for defending attorneys. I'm not an attorney, but both my wife and daughter are, and I'm damn tired of all the idiotic lawyer bashing by lightweights who don't think for themselves and just regurgitate the anti-lawyer venom they've heard someone else spit up.

[fantom]

Thanks, Zane, for defending attorneys. I'm not an attorney, but both my wife and daughter are, and I'm damn tired of all the idiotic lawyer bashing by lightweights who don't think for themselves and just regurgitate the anti-lawyer venom they've heard someone else spit up.

 I can certainly understand your anger!

 

 

[Z W]

Thanks, Zane, for defending attorneys. I'm not an attorney, but both my wife and daughter are, and I'm damn tired of all the idiotic lawyer bashing by lightweights who don't think for themselves and just regurgitate the anti-lawyer venom they've heard someone else spit up.

 

I'm sure a lot of lawyers have done a lot of bad things to earn some bashing, but I do get tired of it sometimes.  The anti-trial-lawyer sentiment that blames the high cost of everything on them, though, is really misinformed.  The fact that insurance companies and big corporations can get everyday Americans to start pushing loser-pays and restricting jury trials scares me.  We have to fight those bills every session in our state legislature, and all the money is on the other side of the fight.

 

FYI, it usually starts now with the introduction of a one-sided "loser pays" bill.  If the Plaintiff loses, he must pay the Defendant's attorneys fees.  If the Defendant loses, each party bears their own fees.  That really shows you who is funding these efforts.

[jetdriven]

Thanks, Zane, for defending attorneys. I'm not an attorney, but both my wife and daughter are, and I'm damn tired of all the idiotic lawyer bashing by lightweights who don't think for themselves and just regurgitate the anti-lawyer venom they've heard someone else spit up.

I agree. Lawyers make it possible for folks like us to have access to the legal system. Kill all the lawyers and then see what kind of place this would be.

 

Everyone hates lawyers till they need one.

[fantom]

I agree. Lawyers make it possible for folks like us to have access to the legal system. Kill all the lawyers and then see what kind of place this would be.

 

Everyone hates lawyers till they need one.

 

...and then again when they have to pay the exorbitant bills and charges

[jetdriven]

I once had a lawyer who charged me 85$ to itemize the bill.

[DonMuncy]

He must have been an aviation attorney.

[aaronk25]

Lol that's funny.....sad but true!

[DaV8or]

Everyone hates lawyers till they need one.

The flip side of course is, usually you need one because somebody else with a lawyer is suing you.

 

The other reason you need a lawyer is, the court system is complex in procedure, terminology and precedence that just plain English and common sense may not be enough to win your case.  The lawyers themselves have built house rules that are hard to near impossible for the average citizen to abide by, or understand. People are terrified to defend themselves in court and rightly so.

 

For example, look at the legal documents that are required to buy a house. It's a stack of paper two inches high, dense and not an easy read. Why in the world do they still use Latin? I believe lawyers draw up contracts in such a convoluted way, that it will insure the employment of another lawyer to interpret it. They also want the average guy to have his eyes glaze over and sign on the line, or click "agree" without knowing they are chucking their rights out the window.

 

Each year, various governments write a bunch of new laws with new interpretations. Mountains of books to pour over. Kind of like the debate on the size and scope of government, how many laws are enough? Is there a maximum?

[DonMuncy]

I can't resist any longer. I am a retired civil litigation attorney. I won a bunch of trials and lost some, but for the most part, I think the results came out right.

As in all professions, groups, there are good guys and not so good guys.

Yes, if you are involved in litigation (larger than small claims court), you need a lawyer, just like if you are sick (larger than common colds, etc.), you need a doctor.

Yes, the law is complex. Just as mechanical things have gotten more complex, as society evolved, law has evolved.

No, the law didn't get the way it is just to make life miserable for someone. Every step that the law has taken was in response to a situation that needed a change. This doesn't mean that we all agree that that particular step was the right response, but they are always made in an effort to achieve a just result.

To everyone who thinks we can redo the legal by "just .....", you are wrong, just as anyone who says we can fix aviation's problems by just ....  It is never that easy.

You frequently hear that we need to eliminate frivolous lawsuits. I happen to agree, but I (and no one else) has figured out how to measure or define what is frivolous, without some legal proceeding to get to that decision.

It would be nice if it wasn't expensive to get justice, just like it would be nice if wasn't expensive to fly. But competent lawyers, like competent A&Ps, etc. have to spend their time and have to be paid.

[jetdriven]

Excellent passage, Don.

[jetdriven]

One of my best friends is an aviation lawyer. He was originally an engineer from Rice who got tired of designing overpasses, so he got a job with the FAA and became an inspector at the Tulsa FSDO. In the late 80s the organizational mentality of the FAA changed from "here to help" to "here to get as many violations as possible".  Meanwhile they were landing Barons with the gear up, ran a Sabreliner off the end of the runway through a golf course, and stalling a Sabreliner at 51K which lost 15K feet of altitude while he was in the back, reading. An inspector processing a violation for a Learjet pilot operating one pound over gross weight sent him over the edge.   He got so pissed off, he took night school law classes at TU and got his JD at the same time the Tulsa FSDO closed. He then made a career representing pilots and owners against the FAA.

 

The funny thing, is, he has given me tons of free advice over the years. Mostly about staying out of trouble with the FAA.   His favorite quote is "The 98% of them that are bad, ruin it for us 2%. "   He was just kidding, of course.

 

He has owned a Mooney M20F for 30 years, as well.

[DaV8or]

You frequently hear that we need to eliminate frivolous lawsuits. I happen to agree, but I (and no one else) has figured out how to measure or define what is frivolous, without some legal proceeding to get to that decision.

So... it's so complex that it can't be figured out and on we go with status quo?

 

It would be nice if it wasn't expensive to get justice, just like it would be nice if wasn't expensive to fly. But competent lawyers, like competent A&Ps, etc. have to spend their time and have to be paid.

 

 

So, justice is really only for the rich, or when there is a potential for a big pay out?

[DonMuncy]

As to the first, it is often complex, but the legal system will eventually sort it out and get to the answer. Unfortunately this does cost money and time. (Similar to your A&P spending a lot of time troubleshooting a problem)

As to the second, you have to separate out what you are asking about. Civil, criminal, contract, etc. Assuming you are talking about tort suits (personal injury and the like), which most of us focus on, as it affects aviation most, and the area where most people consider the most outrageous abuse to occur.

In these cases, the plaintiff can look for an attorney who will take the matter on a contingency. If the case has almost any chance of recovery, some lawyer will take it. Thus, people with no money can still receive a likelyhood of justice.

If you are on the defense side, it is best to have insurance unless you have almost no assets.

At least in Texas, tort law is virtually all insurance driven. That is, if the plaintiff's attorney find the potential defendant has no insurance (or very substantial assets), he simply won't take the case.  Since most people who are likely to hurt you have auto/airplane/homeowner insurance, or are in business and have insurance, most injuries have the potential for "justice".  

Assuming insurance is available, and some possibility of a case, the result then usually becomes a function of (1) cost of defense to the insurance company (2) percentage likelyhood of a favorable verdict and (3) potential recovery amount. Thus, $ value. As most insurance adjusters and plaintiff's lawyers have the same information, their evaluations of the case are usually close enough together that a settlement will happen (probably 98% of the time.)

So: No, justice can most often be reached without being rich (although, as in aviation, it helps).

[Hank]

And then the White Knight, in pursuit of justice, sues anyone and everyone who ever looked at, touched or spoke to the aircraft owner or pilot, the manufacturer of the aircraft, the aircraft systems, the aircraft parts, everyone who works for those companies and everyone who contracted parts for those companies. If the tort happened at an airport, then the airport, the airport owner, airport manager, all contractors and FBO's operating at the airport at the time, are all sued, too, because some of them have insurance and sure enough, some insurance company or another will choose to settle for a dollar amount instead of paying their own lawyer a [usually higher] dollar amount to prove, at their expense, that they were not involved in the tort in question.

 

THAT is why so many Americans hate lawyers . . . No personal experience, but I know people who have suffered from this--completely uninvolved but drug through the courts, using time off from their jobs and paying their lawyer out of their own pocket to prove their innocence because the responsible party had no insurance but they did.

 

Now can we please stop talking about lawyers and talk about flying our Mooneys? Lawyers make my blood pressure go up.

[Z W]

Hank: What you describe does not match the reality that I see on a daily basis. Plaintiff's lawyers who try to practice that way quickly go broke, as you would expect if you really think that through. Insurance companies keep multiple lawyers on salary. They can defend truly frivolous claims without paying anything (and they do). You have however just repeated the "frivolous lawsuit" message that insurance companies spend so much money promoting as the reason we need loser pays laws, damage caps, and to get rid of jury trials. I would encourage you to check into the issue more. You might find we are not all bad and your blood pressure can improve.

[Hank]

Relax, Zane. You may be part of the 1% who gets a bad name from the other 99%.

 

I also agree that there are times that lawyers are necessary. Part of our current problems, however, are caused by too many hungry personal injury lawyers trolling for cases on contingency, and insurance companies who settle rather than fight. Beat the rapscallions in court a few times, there'll be a lot less settlements and overall costs would decrease.

 

Don't get me started on class action suits where the settlements are divided up between the lawyers and the actual plaintiffs receive mere pittances in comparison. . .

 

Now I need to go flying tonight, assuming the servo has been reinstalled in my left wing. See, I brought it right back to Mooneys.

[Parker_Woodruff]

It's an attitude problem with society that has transferred to our lawyers and our courts.

 

There is no personal responsibility anymore.  There's also no acceptance that we live in an imperfect world with imperfect people and pilots and bad stuff happens.

[sreid]

Relax, Zane. You may be part of the 1% who gets a bad name from the other 99%.

 

I also agree that there are times that lawyers are necessary. Part of our current problems, however, are caused by too many hungry personal injury lawyers trolling for cases on contingency, and insurance companies who settle rather than fight. Beat the rapscallions in court a few times, there'll be a lot less settlements and overall costs would decrease.

 

Don't get me started on class action suits where the settlements are divided up between the lawyers and the actual plaintiffs receive mere pittances in comparison. . .

 

Now I need to go flying tonight, assuming the servo has been reinstalled in my left wing. See, I brought it right back to Mooneys.

I think you're off base placing a large portion of the blame on the lawyers. Without plaintiffs there would be none of these cases going to court. Somehow people have developed this attitude that something bad happens = winning the lottery. Except that when reading the news, it seems that the odds are better taking a company with "deep pockets" to court than buying power balls.