Act Acting » Acting Studio » Grandpa

Grandpa

Question:

Well, think of it this way:  For each "bad attorney" there has to be a "good attorney" to argue the opposition’s case or they (the bad attorney) win.

That’s correct.  So how many cases don’t even get argued because the "good guy" defendant couldn’t get, or couldn’t afford, an attorney for his defense? Since each lawsuit requires an attorney to start it, but doesn’t require an attorney to respond (since the defendant can just fold), it follows that, by this particular logic at least, there are more prosecuting attorneys than there are defending attorneys, since the demand for the former is greater than for the latter. Hence, more bad guys than good guys.  Right? — This is your .signature virus: < begin 644 .signature (9V]T8VAA(0K0z end             This is your .signature virus on drugs: <                         Any questions?

Response:

I’m wondering if the "thank an attorney" comment had more to do with the cost of flying than the grounding of the GA fleet.  I suspect as much because I hear it often.

Yes it did, but as Rick pointed out not all attorneys are in the business of screwing companies.  I should not have used such a broad brush.  It’s just that it infuriates me to no end to see what some a small (yet visible) percentage of them do. — Steve Dold CFI W6KCS Please don’t quote entire articles.  Only quote what is necessary to get your point across.  If you find you are quoting more than you’re writing, you should question yourself. rm -rf /bin/laden

Response:

Well, think of it this way:  For each "bad attorney" there has to be a "good attorney" to argue the opposition’s case or they (the bad attorney) win. Also keep this in mind: We, the citizens of this country hire the attorneys. So who’s the "bad guy" here???? DFW Jeff

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As an attorney that has spent the last 22 years defending general aviation and pilots and fighting restrictions on airports and freedom to fly. It’s a pity, but 99.9% of the attorneys ruin the reputation of the rest. I suspect that the percentage is far lower than that; you just don’t read about the ones that do good work.  It’s kind of like when my wife says "you always leave the toilet seat up!" when the truer statement is, "you always leave the toilet seat up when I find it up!"

Response:

Thank an attorney Steve, As an attorney that has spent the last 22 years defending general aviation and pilots and fighting restrictions on airports and freedom to fly.

And yet for every case you take in defense of general aviation, you fight against at least one lawyer whose mission is (for that one case, at least) to do as much damage against general aviation as possible. How many more of them are there than you?  His "cheap shot" against lawyers wasn’t directed at you, but at the lawyers you oppose.  My bet is that you (the good guy, and yes I really *do* mean that) are outnumbered badly by them (the bad guys), so a cheap shot against lawyers is therefore directed against them (the bad guys). Your cheap shot makes me wonder why I’ve expended the effort to try and help my fellow pilots when there are folks like you around who don’t appreciate how tough the battle is, don’t bother to step into the fight themselves and just sit on the sidelines and complain.

I strongly suspect he’s referring to the high cost of aviation. Here’s why: the high cost of aviation makes it difficult for the average person to enter general aviation.  Not only does it require a large financial commitment, but it also requires a large commitment of time.  The large commitment of time (at least, relative to the commitment of time necessary to learn how to drive) is something that has been necessary until recently, because it’s only relatively recently that we’ve had the technology to build airplanes that are capable of "driving themselves", i.e. fly-by-wire systems. The high cost of aviation and the technological backwardness of civilian aircraft are both primarily attributable to the same thing: FAA overregulation.  The FAA is responsible for making the general aviation market much smaller than it would be otherwise. So where do lawyers enter into the equation?  Simple: because general aviation is a small market, it is much more vulnerable to liability lawsuits than other, larger markets (such as the automobile market). There are two reasons for this.  The first is that because general aviation is expensive to participate in, the average person cannot afford to participate in it and therefore does not understand general aviation, and therefore cannot properly judge it when called upon to do so, such as when acting as a jury member in a liability lawsuit. The end result is a greater chance of a judgement against general aviation.  The second is that judgements against general aviation manufacturers are much larger relative to the size of the market than judgements against, say, automobile manufacturers.  This is true even if the actual values of the judgements are the same (but because of the first reason above, the judgements against general aviation are likely to be higher than those against automobile manufacturers).  The end result is that a liability lawsuit against a general aviation manufacturer is much more damaging to the general aviation market than a similar suit against an automobile manufacturer: the general aviation manufacturer must increase the cost of its product by quite a bit more than the automobile manufacturer in order to compensate, thus causing general aviation products to become significantly more costly than they would be otherwise and therefore reducing the market size even further. And the FAA makes matters even worse.  Thanks to the FAA, the manufacturers are very limited in terms of what they can do in order to improve their products.  Changes in the manufacturing process require at least partial recertification of the manufacturing operation, if not the product itself, both of which are expensive and time-consuming.  This is why Piper, Cessna, and Mooney have, in the grand scheme of things, made very minimal, incremental changes to their aircraft over time, in both design and construction.  I’m sure Piper (and, perhaps, Mooney) would love to be able to produce their airplanes using the latest in manufacturing technologies, but even if the market were larger, the costs of recertifying the manufacturing operation would more than outweigh the gains to be had.  And that’s why it doesn’t happen — they build them largely by hand instead.  I would therefore wager that the FAA is directly responsible for at least a portion of the liability lawsuits against general aviation manufacturers, since the FAA in essence forbids (through cost-prohibitive overregulation) manufacturers from making changes that would otherwise make their products better, safer, and cheaper. But while overburdening regulation on the part of the FAA is largely responsible for the small size of the market that is general aviation today, the liability lawyers and those they represent (no doubt in large part due to their solicitation of those they represent) have made the problem much worse, and are capable of killing the general aviation market entirely.  At some point, the costs of FAA certification combined with the substantial costs of potential liability are enough to prevent most manufacturers from even considering producing a product for the general aviation community — there’s no way they can possibly make enough money from the sale of the product to pay for these costs.  I can’t imagine how many useful products have been tabled in the concept stage for this reason. GARA has helped.  But ironically, it has helped only with respect to the older airplanes.  New airplanes and new products are just as vulnerable as they were before GARA, at least for the first 18 years of their life, and the prices of new aircraft are largely a reflection of this.  Manufacturers of replacement parts are now much more vulnerable than they were before because the lawyers representing the plaintiffs in these liability lawsuits go after the defendants with the most money, and this can only result in prices of replacement parts going up substantially as the parts manufacturers get hit with lawsuit after lawsuit.  Maintenance facilities are much more vulnerable now than they were before, with the result that they have had to increase their prices in order to be able to stay in business. Little to none of that extra money is going to the people who actually do the work.  Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, a senior A&P/IA will be lucky to bring in a little over $20/hour, out of $75/hour or so charged.  To put that in perspective, flight instructors typically bring in about $40/hour around here.  In an area where rent is at least $1000 per month (for a studio apartment).  That’s right: your mechanic makes half the money that your flight instructor does, so he stays in it because he really does love aviation.  Some part of the difference between what’s charged and what the A&P is paid will go towards operational costs, of course, but I’ll bet good money that most of it goes to liability insurance.  As lawsuits against general aviation businesses continue, you can expect that to go up.  Things have gotten so bad that, as we know, businesses that support general aviation are having a hard time even *getting* insurance.  This can only happen when the probability of a liability lawsuit is so great, and the judgement resulting from it so high, that the insurance company will lose more money by insuring these businesses than by losing the entire general aviation market. Most people that I’ve met aren’t lawsuit-happy (quite the opposite, actually.  Most are very much against the apparent lawsuit-happiness of the country), and that especially goes for the families and relatives of pilots.  Yet these lawsuits continue to happen.  The accident rate in general aviation continues to decline if you believe AOPA, so I can only conclude, therefore, that the liability lawyers are soliciting business from the "victims", offering "services" in order to "help" them get "relief".  Can you, therefore, blame those of us who love aviation when we blame lawyers for many of the woes of the aviation industry? I know that some of your profession take on pro bono (is that the correct term?) cases because in doing so they fight for a cause which is just and honorable.  But how many do this, versus the number who take on (or even solicit) liability lawsuits which are on their face specious? I, for one, know that there are many decent people such as yourself who also happen to have law as a profession.  I’m therefore quite interested in your impression of your fellow lawyers.  How many of them are the ones causing trouble not just for aviation but for the rest of society?  How many of them graduate to politics and influence the system in such a way as to favor a larger number of more grandiose lawsuits?  How honorable is your profession as a whole?  I ask these questions only because I can only judge as an outsider, not an insider.  But I can tell you this: there are few other professions out there in which the practitioners can get away with charging over $200 per hour, and even fewer that can also legitimately claim to have more members as a percentage of this country’s population than in any other country in the world — usually supply and demand economics would prevent such a combination. There’s a reason that Arthur Alan Wolk can afford to purchase, maintain, fly, and even crash an F9F Panther, any one of which would financially destroy most of us (and, as a group, we’re more well-off than average!).  I suspect that, among the ranks of liability lawyers, he’s far from alone.  And we, the members of the general aviation community, pay for that not just every time he and his brethren flex their legal muscles, but every time we buy aviation goods or services. So please cut us a little slack when we take cheap shots at lawyers. We know that, as with any group of … read more »

Response:

Gently extracted from the mind of DFWJeff; Well, think of it this way:  For each "bad attorney" there has to be a "good attorney" to argue the opposition’s case or they (the bad attorney) win. Also keep this in mind: We, the citizens of this country hire the attorneys. So who’s the "bad guy" here????

From memory… From The Devil’s Dictionary- a lawyer is like a die, able to lie on anyside.                          -ash                          for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

Response:

96% ?

Response:

Gently extracted from the mind of DFWJeff;

LOL…..thanks for being gentle!

Response:

That’s correct.  So how many cases don’t even get argued because the "good guy" defendant couldn’t get, or couldn’t afford, an attorney for his defense? Since each lawsuit requires an attorney to start it, but doesn’t require an attorney to respond (since the defendant can just fold), it follows that, by this particular logic at least, there are more prosecuting attorneys than there are defending attorneys, since the demand for the former is greater than for the latter. Hence, more bad guys than good guys.  Right?

I hate it when you’re right!….Hahaha Just trying to be optomistic, but you have an excellent point!! DFWJeff

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m usually note a big fan of attorneys, but in this case, well said, sir. I agree with you 100 % And thanks for your efforts! -Richard After reading his response, I’d have to agree with him.  That will teach me to get on here when I’m in a really foul mood.  You’re absolutely right, and I apologize. Unfortuntely the scumbags who are helping to drive up the cost of aviation are more visible than the ones who are are quietly helping the rest of us. Yes I did write letters to my reprentatives, three of them.  Forgot who asked.

Steve, I understand, I’ve certainly made the mistake of posting stuff when I was in a foul mood. Congratulations and thank you for taking the time to write to your Congresscritters.  Every letter helps. Warmest regards, Rick

Response:

I’m wondering if the "thank an attorney" comment had more to do with the cost of flying than the grounding of the GA fleet.  I suspect as much because I hear it often. As a practicing attorney and licensed pilot, I understand the frustration felt when one sees the huge settlements as in the likes of the Cessna seat track case and the one involving the Super Cub.  These settlements do indeed raise the cost of aviation for each of us, which is a (somewhat) understandable source of frustration.  As much as the attorneys are to blame, however, the settlements would not exist without juries.   It’s a tough call.  Blame the attorney for taking advantage of the system, or blame the system.   Carl (not a trial attorney) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Well stated Rick.  That guys just trolling. | Thank an attorney | | Steve, | | As an attorney that has spent the last 22 years defending general | aviation and pilots and fighting restrictions on airports and freedom | to fly.  Your cheap shot makes me wonder why I’ve expended the effort | to try and help my fellow pilots when there are folks like you around | who don’t appreciate how tough the battle is, don’t bother to step | into the fight themselves and just sit on the sidelines and complain. | | What have you done recently to keep the skies open to us?  Have you | even called your representatives in Washington? | | If you haven’t noticed, the problem right now is not attorneys, it’s a | National Security Council (which has no attorneys of which I know) | that doesn’t know a darn thing about general aviation but has taken it | upon itself to override the people who make their living dealing with | aviation safety and security, the Department of Transportation and the | Federal Aviation Administration, and have imposed incrdibly stupid | rules. | | This attorney is doing what he can to try and get those rules dropped | and to let the people who have been managing aviation issues for years | (and who have done an okay job of it, not perfect, but not bad) get | back to doing what needs to be done. | | So, save the cheap shots.  Get off your lazy ass and be part of the | solution.  Aviation doesn’t need whiners, it needs doers right now.

Response:

I’m usually note a big fan of attorneys, but in this case, well said, sir. I agree with you 100 % And thanks for your efforts! -Richard

After reading his response, I’d have to agree with him.  That will teach me to get on here when I’m in a really foul mood.  You’re absolutely right, and I apologize. Unfortuntely the scumbags who are helping to drive up the cost of aviation are more visible than the ones who are are quietly helping the rest of us. Yes I did write letters to my reprentatives, three of them.  Forgot who asked. — Steve Dold CFI W6KCS Please don’t quote entire articles.  Only quote what is necessary to get your point across.  If you find you are quoting more than you’re writing, you should question yourself. rm -rf /bin/laden

Response:

It’s a pity, but 99.9% of the attorneys ruin the reputation of the rest.

I’ve told you a million times to quit exaggerating. George Patterson,  N3162Q.

Response:

It’s a pity, but 99.9% of the attorneys ruin the reputation of the rest. I suspect that the percentage is far lower than that; you just don’t read about the ones that do good work.

Maybe, but according to my experience, I’m sticking with those numbers! — NOTICE TO HIJACKERS – Any attempt to assume control of an aircraft of which I am Pilot In Command or an occupant will be interpreted as an act of terrorism and an imminent mortal threat to myself and others, and will be met with lethal force to oppose that threat.

Response:

As an attorney that has spent the last 22 years defending general aviation and pilots and fighting restrictions on airports and freedom to fly. It’s a pity, but 99.9% of the attorneys ruin the reputation of the rest.

I suspect that the percentage is far lower than that; you just don’t read about the ones that do good work.  It’s kind of like when my wife says "you always leave the toilet seat up!" when the truer statement is, "you always leave the toilet seat up when I find it up!"

Response:

As an attorney that has spent the last 22 years defending general aviation and pilots and fighting restrictions on airports and freedom to fly.

It’s a pity, but 99.9% of the attorneys ruin the reputation of the rest. — NOTICE TO HIJACKERS – Any attempt to assume control of an aircraft of which I am Pilot In Command or an occupant will be interpreted as an act of terrorism and an imminent mortal threat to myself and others, and will be met with lethal force to oppose that threat.

Response:

I’m usually note a big fan of attorneys, but in this case, well said, sir. I agree with you 100 % And thanks for your efforts! -Richard

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thank an attorney Steve, As an attorney that has spent the last 22 years defending general aviation and pilots and fighting restrictions on airports and freedom to fly.  Your cheap shot makes me wonder why I’ve expended the effort to try and help my fellow pilots when there are folks like you around who don’t appreciate how tough the battle is, don’t bother to step into the fight themselves and just sit on the sidelines and complain. What have you done recently to keep the skies open to us?  Have you even called your representatives in Washington? If you haven’t noticed, the problem right now is not attorneys, it’s a National Security Council (which has no attorneys of which I know) that doesn’t know a darn thing about general aviation but has taken it upon itself to override the people who make their living dealing with aviation safety and security, the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration, and have imposed incrdibly stupid rules. This attorney is doing what he can to try and get those rules dropped and to let the people who have been managing aviation issues for years (and who have done an okay job of it, not perfect, but not bad) get back to doing what needs to be done. So, save the cheap shots.  Get off your lazy ass and be part of the solution.  Aviation doesn’t need whiners, it needs doers right now.

Response:

Well said Rick!  Keep on truckin’ — Ralph Griffith

Thank an attorney

Steve, As an attorney that has spent the last 22 years defending general aviation and pilots and fighting restrictions on airports and freedom to fly.  Your cheap shot makes me wonder why I’ve expended the effort to try and help my fellow pilots when there are folks like you around who don’t appreciate how tough the battle is, don’t bother to step into the fight themselves and just sit on the sidelines and complain. What have you done recently to keep the skies open to us?  Have you even called your representatives in Washington? If you haven’t noticed, the problem right now is not attorneys, it’s a National Security Council (which has no attorneys of which I know) that doesn’t know a darn thing about general aviation but has taken it upon itself to override the people who make their living dealing with aviation safety and security, the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration, and have imposed incrdibly stupid rules. This attorney is doing what he can to try and get those rules dropped and to let the people who have been managing aviation issues for years (and who have done an okay job of it, not perfect, but not bad) get back to doing what needs to be done. So, save the cheap shots.  Get off your lazy ass and be part of the solution.  Aviation doesn’t need whiners, it needs doers right now.

Response:

Well stated Rick.  That guys just trolling.

| Thank an attorney | | Steve, | | As an attorney that has spent the last 22 years defending general | aviation and pilots and fighting restrictions on airports and freedom | to fly.  Your cheap shot makes me wonder why I’ve expended the effort | to try and help my fellow pilots when there are folks like you around | who don’t appreciate how tough the battle is, don’t bother to step | into the fight themselves and just sit on the sidelines and complain. | | What have you done recently to keep the skies open to us?  Have you | even called your representatives in Washington? | | If you haven’t noticed, the problem right now is not attorneys, it’s a | National Security Council (which has no attorneys of which I know) | that doesn’t know a darn thing about general aviation but has taken it | upon itself to override the people who make their living dealing with | aviation safety and security, the Department of Transportation and the | Federal Aviation Administration, and have imposed incrdibly stupid | rules. | | This attorney is doing what he can to try and get those rules dropped | and to let the people who have been managing aviation issues for years | (and who have done an okay job of it, not perfect, but not bad) get | back to doing what needs to be done. | | So, save the cheap shots.  Get off your lazy ass and be part of the | solution.  Aviation doesn’t need whiners, it needs doers right now.

Response:

To day I visited my airport with my grandson. It was a sad event. From 600 + planes only a few spots have been empty. At run up area we waited for 40 min. to see a take off, when in the past it was common to see it every 45 sec. From seven offices two went bankrupt and closed. At the near by coffee shop numerous instructors chow the rag. When I told my Grandson to hop in the car, he turned to me and asked " when are we going to do hoops again "??? " Soon ", I answer – however deep in my hart I felt a pain thinking that American Eagle may never be free to fly again.

Response:

Thank an attorney

Response:

Thank an attorney

Steve, As an attorney that has spent the last 22 years defending general aviation and pilots and fighting restrictions on airports and freedom to fly.  Your cheap shot makes me wonder why I’ve expended the effort to try and help my fellow pilots when there are folks like you around who don’t appreciate how tough the battle is, don’t bother to step into the fight themselves and just sit on the sidelines and complain. What have you done recently to keep the skies open to us?  Have you even called your representatives in Washington? If you haven’t noticed, the problem right now is not attorneys, it’s a National Security Council (which has no attorneys of which I know) that doesn’t know a darn thing about general aviation but has taken it upon itself to override the people who make their living dealing with aviation safety and security, the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration, and have imposed incrdibly stupid rules. This attorney is doing what he can to try and get those rules dropped and to let the people who have been managing aviation issues for years (and who have done an okay job of it, not perfect, but not bad) get back to doing what needs to be done. So, save the cheap shots.  Get off your lazy ass and be part of the solution.  Aviation doesn’t need whiners, it needs doers right now.

Response:

Related Posts

Leave a Reply