Original Posted By: TomSpeir(at)aol.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: re: Vimy Update As of 20 July, 1845 the injunction against the Vimy's trip to Oshkosh has been lifted. Flight plan calls for 10 hr. days, weather permitting. The Pella Iowa folks are expecting the plane Sunday afternoon. ETA is at Oshkosh on Monday.Further litigation may be coming however. Blut, we are thankful the trip can proceed. This message came to me from EAA Chapter 456.Dr. Orville LanhamAviation HisotryBellevue,Ne________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: re: Vimy Update
Re: Pietenpol-List: re: Vimy Update
Original Posted By: "Warren D. Shoun"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: re: Vimy Update I don't understand the BMW/Vimy issue. As far as I know, BMW no longer makes or markets aircraft engines under their name, so why are they even in the picture?tom in Hotlana________________________________________________________________________________Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 18:59:47 -0700
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: re: Vimy Update I don't understand the BMW/Vimy issue. As far as I know, BMW no longer makes or markets aircraft engines under their name, so why are they even in the picture?tom in Hotlana________________________________________________________________________________Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 18:59:47 -0700
Re: Pietenpol-List: re: Vimy Update
Original Posted By: "Ignitor"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: re: Vimy Update I thought it must be something along those lines. When I saw the program on PBS, I guess the part about BMW contributing the engines slipped by me. Thanks for clearing this up for me and I understand their concern.tom in not-to-Hotlana today________________________________________________________________________________Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 22:55:11 -0700
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: re: Vimy Update I thought it must be something along those lines. When I saw the program on PBS, I guess the part about BMW contributing the engines slipped by me. Thanks for clearing this up for me and I understand their concern.tom in not-to-Hotlana today________________________________________________________________________________Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 22:55:11 -0700
Re: Pietenpol-List: re: Vimy Update
Original Posted By: "Ignitor"
Chris,Why apologize to this group? If not this group, then who is going to beinterested? If we sit back on our hands and let this stuff go withoutcomment we will wake up some day and find no airports that will let us land,no insurance company that will cover us and no aviation companies that willsell us supplies. Get back on that soap box and get this group stirred up.Then they will get on their soap boxes and get others to listen. That's howit is done. Remember Coca Cola? How long did they stick with their new and"improved" version? It can be done.One of the first things that has to happen is to get the FAA off our backswith all their micro managing of all aspects of aviation. When they runaround talking about "zero accidents" like Pena did a couple of years ago,that sets an impossible standard that the trial lawyers parade around incourt. The juries have no choice but use it to measure fault. Guess whatthe outcome is.Here, I'll let you have your soap box back....Ted BrousseauNaples, FL30PP/GN-1 & 922TT/Pietenpol----- Original Message -----
Chris,Why apologize to this group? If not this group, then who is going to beinterested? If we sit back on our hands and let this stuff go withoutcomment we will wake up some day and find no airports that will let us land,no insurance company that will cover us and no aviation companies that willsell us supplies. Get back on that soap box and get this group stirred up.Then they will get on their soap boxes and get others to listen. That's howit is done. Remember Coca Cola? How long did they stick with their new and"improved" version? It can be done.One of the first things that has to happen is to get the FAA off our backswith all their micro managing of all aspects of aviation. When they runaround talking about "zero accidents" like Pena did a couple of years ago,that sets an impossible standard that the trial lawyers parade around incourt. The juries have no choice but use it to measure fault. Guess whatthe outcome is.Here, I'll let you have your soap box back....Ted BrousseauNaples, FL30PP/GN-1 & 922TT/Pietenpol----- Original Message -----
Re: Pietenpol-List: re: Vimy Update
Original Posted By: "Gary Meadows"
07/25/2001 10:15:09 AMGroup,Yes, this whole issue is of concern to the aviation community, and I am asunhappy as anyone about lawsuits or threats of lawsuits that have no merit& put what the legal types call a 'chilling effect' on activities thatotherwise would be viewed as normal. HOWEVER, if you write yourCongressman, please be aware of a couple of things:1.) Most large awards for so-called frivolous claims are overturned onappeal to a higher court, but the newspapers almost never report this (nonews 'value' & the corporate entities that now control the news want tokeep the public stirred up on this issue).2.) The 'favored' Tort reform measure currently before Congress willbasically strip away the rights of all but the wealthiest individuals (NOTme, for instance) from bringing a suit to redress a real grievance. They dothis by making the loser responsible for both parties' legal costs,REGARDLESS of the merits of the original claim. This means that largeentities can intimidate people merely by threating to rack up absolutelyruinous legal fees that the large entities can easily afford. A bettersolution would be to have a panel of judges decide, AFTER a verdict andappeals, who is responsible for the fees. Some Congresspersons are tryingto push this alternative, but so far have been blocked by others whose arebeholden to corporations.3.) Part of this problem would go away if Congress would fund an adequatenumber of judgships and their supporting staff, infrastructure, etc. Theinability of the system to provide speedy resolution to claims makes a lotof frivolous lawsuits drag on ad infinitum. The cost to adequately fund anexpanded federal judiciary is about equal to 2 or 3 B-2 bombers.4.) Don't forget that the original intent of liability lawsuits is to allowredress for real wrongs done to someone by someone else. Like freedom ofexpression, this is a right we should not be too eager to throw awaywithout carefully looking at who would benefit the most & who would losethe most if it was gone. It is a sad reality in today's world that rightssurrendered are only rewon by extrordinary effort, if at all, even in ademocracy.I've said more than enough, but this is an issue that I feel has beengrossly oversimplified by an irresponsible press hyping a number ofspectacular examples of frivolity & legal greed (which I admit is real &could also use fixing) - so I'm ready to get back to the real purpose ofthis group - building & flying Piets.Cheers!Kip GardnerLaboratory ManagerOld Dominion UniversityDept. of Ocean, Earth & Atmos. Sciences, Rm. 4414600 Elkhorn Ave.Norfolk, VA 23529Ph: 757-683-5654Bumper Sticker of the Week:"Warning - I Brake For Red Lights"________________________________________________________________________________
07/25/2001 10:15:09 AMGroup,Yes, this whole issue is of concern to the aviation community, and I am asunhappy as anyone about lawsuits or threats of lawsuits that have no merit& put what the legal types call a 'chilling effect' on activities thatotherwise would be viewed as normal. HOWEVER, if you write yourCongressman, please be aware of a couple of things:1.) Most large awards for so-called frivolous claims are overturned onappeal to a higher court, but the newspapers almost never report this (nonews 'value' & the corporate entities that now control the news want tokeep the public stirred up on this issue).2.) The 'favored' Tort reform measure currently before Congress willbasically strip away the rights of all but the wealthiest individuals (NOTme, for instance) from bringing a suit to redress a real grievance. They dothis by making the loser responsible for both parties' legal costs,REGARDLESS of the merits of the original claim. This means that largeentities can intimidate people merely by threating to rack up absolutelyruinous legal fees that the large entities can easily afford. A bettersolution would be to have a panel of judges decide, AFTER a verdict andappeals, who is responsible for the fees. Some Congresspersons are tryingto push this alternative, but so far have been blocked by others whose arebeholden to corporations.3.) Part of this problem would go away if Congress would fund an adequatenumber of judgships and their supporting staff, infrastructure, etc. Theinability of the system to provide speedy resolution to claims makes a lotof frivolous lawsuits drag on ad infinitum. The cost to adequately fund anexpanded federal judiciary is about equal to 2 or 3 B-2 bombers.4.) Don't forget that the original intent of liability lawsuits is to allowredress for real wrongs done to someone by someone else. Like freedom ofexpression, this is a right we should not be too eager to throw awaywithout carefully looking at who would benefit the most & who would losethe most if it was gone. It is a sad reality in today's world that rightssurrendered are only rewon by extrordinary effort, if at all, even in ademocracy.I've said more than enough, but this is an issue that I feel has beengrossly oversimplified by an irresponsible press hyping a number ofspectacular examples of frivolity & legal greed (which I admit is real &could also use fixing) - so I'm ready to get back to the real purpose ofthis group - building & flying Piets.Cheers!Kip GardnerLaboratory ManagerOld Dominion UniversityDept. of Ocean, Earth & Atmos. Sciences, Rm. 4414600 Elkhorn Ave.Norfolk, VA 23529Ph: 757-683-5654Bumper Sticker of the Week:"Warning - I Brake For Red Lights"________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: re: Vimy Update
Original Posted By: "Ken Chambers"
Well,Instead of creating even more federal jobs in the form of additional judgeships for the overtaxed working people of America to support, why don't we just do this, it's simple and easy, and will save us all more money:1: Put a cap on lawsuits. A low cap. No one should get rich when they weren't going get rich anyway. Lawsuits weren't intended to be the Lotto. If the payoff is small lawyers won't be so excited to become involved.2: Create a "Client's Bill of Rights" In it, state that if someone brings suit and it fails, then the Plaintiffs ATTORNEY is responsible for all legal and court costs for both sides. If a lawyer had a personal stake in it, maybe he would be a less enthusiastic in pursuing marginal cases, and drastically reduce the litigation occuring in the US. Then, we'd need an even smaller judiciary! That'd save more money!Lawyers are the only parties involved in lawsuits who have absolutely nothing to lose. If they want to participate in the profit, then they should be forced to take their share of the risk.Yep, I know, fat chance. But maybe a new set of Slick mags wouldn't cost you $800 10 $1000, but the $100 or $200 that they're really worth.Gary Meadows________________________________________________________________________________
Well,Instead of creating even more federal jobs in the form of additional judgeships for the overtaxed working people of America to support, why don't we just do this, it's simple and easy, and will save us all more money:1: Put a cap on lawsuits. A low cap. No one should get rich when they weren't going get rich anyway. Lawsuits weren't intended to be the Lotto. If the payoff is small lawyers won't be so excited to become involved.2: Create a "Client's Bill of Rights" In it, state that if someone brings suit and it fails, then the Plaintiffs ATTORNEY is responsible for all legal and court costs for both sides. If a lawyer had a personal stake in it, maybe he would be a less enthusiastic in pursuing marginal cases, and drastically reduce the litigation occuring in the US. Then, we'd need an even smaller judiciary! That'd save more money!Lawyers are the only parties involved in lawsuits who have absolutely nothing to lose. If they want to participate in the profit, then they should be forced to take their share of the risk.Yep, I know, fat chance. But maybe a new set of Slick mags wouldn't cost you $800 10 $1000, but the $100 or $200 that they're really worth.Gary Meadows________________________________________________________________________________
RE: Pietenpol-List: re: Vimy Update
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Well said, Kip. Couldn't agree more.Ken Chambers in Blazing Hot Austin Texas-----Original Message-----
Well said, Kip. Couldn't agree more.Ken Chambers in Blazing Hot Austin Texas-----Original Message-----
Re: Pietenpol-List: re: Vimy Update
Original Posted By: "Ignitor"