Does gyroplane community really want S-LSA?

[RotorRambler]

Originally Posted by JEFF TIPTON

Some times I wonder if we really know what we want or it is just the WOW factor!

"Most folks don't know what they want until they see it."
Granddad Jesse James McDonald 1886-1968

[fara]

Originally Posted by JEFF TIPTON

I would agree with your estimate. The $112,000.00 is any introductory price and at $130,000.00, is in line with European models. If the Euro ever comes back to what it was nine years ago, then European models price would drop significantly here in the US.

I would think that you are also right about is there a market for the S-LSA gyroplanes. On the one side it would open up the ability for an aircraft to be rented that is not really an option at this time for most pilots. On the other side would the availability of the S-LSA mean the end of the LODA program for the instructors, which might force them to buy the S-LSA gyroplane. How many of the few instructors out there would buy the new machine and how many would just step away. At this point, can we afford to loose any?

Would the new machine fly anything like the various models that are currently available? I would think this would have a large effect on the acceptance of the new model. Some may remember the Piper Tomahawk. An aircraft designed after talking to instructors as to what they would like to see in an modern training aircraft. When it was available it was not well received even though it was built for them.

Some times I wonder if we really know what we want or it is just the WOW factor!

I don't think LODA program would and should end. Of course if there is an instructor 10 miles from you who has a S-LSA and you have a LODA that does seem unfair to the guy who got the S-LSA model.

But in general, the idea would be to increase the number of instructors and availability of factory built machines to try and increase population not decrease it.

The European perspective on the Euro versus USD is that if USD ever came back up to what it used to be .. interesting how outside world sees as to what happened to the US in the past 12 years.

[WaspAir]

Originally Posted by Fly Army

So in summary Lawyers are gutless and only want fights they can be 100% certain of winning ? You know I really don't see a huge influx of people that live in countries that have the "Loser Pays" systems rushing to get into our country because of the "Terrible injustices" of it. Rather, I DO see a large portion of the world laughing at the stupidity of this SAD aspect of our otherwise leading legal system.

Nonsense. Anybody who has ever been through a case will tell you that there is no such thing as a 100% chance of winning at trial, but the courts are full anyway, and the lawyers are anything but gutless. Once in a while a frivolous case gets some shock-value press, but there's no comparable coverage of the tens of thousands of non-frivolous cases that are the daily business of the courts. Our system offers unmatched access to justice so that all those tens of thousands of clients can get relief for their claims, without intimidation by deeper pocketed opponents.

Pay at a fixed rate for their time (as we do for doctors, engineers, mechanics, or firemen), and they'll take any case you want.

For clients who can't pay, offer a contingent fee, set up so that they have a chance at a nice recovery if they win and so that they can't lose more than they invest in the case if it goes sour, and plenty of lawyers will be happy to represent you.

But expecting a lawyer to take on the client's full risk of loss is like expecting the firemen to pay to replace the house if they can't get the fire out. Not going to happen; not for lack of guts.

And yes, this country's history (and its population) is chock full of people who fled injustice and who came to these shores to get the benefits of our system.

[fara]

Originally Posted by WaspAir

1) A venture capitalist's risk is limited to the money he puts into the venture. If he puts in $500,000, he can't lose more than $500,000. In a loser-pays system, much of the risk is under the control of your opponent, and can far, far exceed what you intended to invest.

...
2) I have litigated cases that including all the appeals and other proceedings kept teams of lawyers busy for years, and had total attorney's fees for all parties in excess of $30 million.

1) That all depends on how the law is written and if its written with some common sense, that extra risk can be easily avoided

2) So who really won there. I mean of course besides the greedy arse lawyers .

[fara]

Originally Posted by WaspAir

Once in a while a frivolous case gets some shock-value press, but there's no comparable coverage of the tens of thousands of non-frivolous cases that are the daily business of the courts. Our system offers unmatched access to justice so that all those tens of thousands of clients can get relief for their claims, without intimidation by deeper pocketed opponents.

I don't know about all that. Have you tried taking a survey of industrial world and figured this out or is this just a US centric perspective? I am an immigrant to the US and I do consider US overall a step above the rest but this particular area ... I think the other guy was right. I think I found some of the stuff here in the civil justice system rather comical. Tort reform here is paid lip service by both parties and neither do crap for it in reality. Most especially Republicans who claim to be all for such reform do absolutely nothing when actually in a clear majority either at the state level or at the national level.
By the way in Texas, Georgia and California I believe losing party has to pay court costs of the other. Also in most US states, a judge can decide to throw a frivolous lawsuit out if he/she believes it has little reasonable merit. The main thing is to get the case in front of a judge as soon as you can which lawyers do not always do because their own pockets don't get lined up that way.
Loser pays system is pretty much the norm in the rest of the western world. They should try it in the US but I believe they should apply/restrict it to civil business and manufacturing case law only.

[WaspAir]

Originally Posted by fara

2) So who really won there. I mean of course besides the greedy arse lawyers .

My client won big time, and they were thrilled about it.
They faced over $6 billion in exposure, but paid absolutely nothing to the other side when it was all over. Their legal fees were tiny compared to what it would have cost them to lose (about one tenth of a cent on the dollar). Any businessman should be happy to get out of a massive scrape at those rates, and they were ecstatic. They never could have settled the case for anything close to that. I worked my "greedy arse" off for five years on that case, and charged a market going rate for my services; the client didn't think I was greedy. They threw a big party and gave me several more cases to do for them.

Originally Posted by fara

By the way in Texas, Georgia and California I believe losing party has to pay court costs of the other.

Court costs are chump change, and don't include the attorney fees. If you get "costs" awarded, it will cover, for example, a $25 filing fee and the cost of the court reporter transcripts, but that's nothing compared to the attorney fees, which can be millions in a big case. I've tried cases in all three of those states over the last thirty years and I can assure you that they do NOT require the losing party to pay fees.

There are narrow exceptions for particular types of cases in limited circumstances; e.g. 17 USC 505 for copyrights, but the general so-called "American rule" is each party pays his own way. It's an old, old tradition intended to give little guys access to justice, and it works.

Originally Posted by fara

Also in most US states, a judge can decide to throw a frivolous lawsuit out if he/she believes it has little reasonable merit. The main thing is to get the case in front of a judge as soon as you can which lawyers do not always do because their own pockets don't get lined up that way.

Every U.S. jurisdiction has a process by which the opponent can ask the judge to dismiss a suit for lack of merit, and that provides significant protection against frivolous suits in our pay-your-own-fees system. As to your other comment, law practice is a very competitive business. If you delay or churn work to keep your fees high, your competitors will take away your clients.

Originally Posted by fara

Loser pays system is pretty much the norm in the rest of the western world. They should try it in the US but I believe they should apply/restrict it to civil business and manufacturing case law only.

Business to business disputes are not what generates the "frivolous case" headline making lawsuits, and there's no problem to be cured there.

[Fly Army]

Oh man, so much to write about here today ! Let's start with Vance in California. Vance, according to a friend of mine at the Light Aircraft Manufacturers Association "LAMA" both Magni and AutoGyro machines would already be ASTM compliant - so no extra money need be spent there. As matter of fact the German AutoGyro complies to an even HIGHER standard then ASTM as it is now.

As for the price, well all I can tell you is back in 2006 I helped a friend import and sell some fixed wing S-LSAs here in the states and his suggested retail price was THE SAME as the price in Europe because he was able to get them for a lower dealer cost. Hope that helps your understanding.

[Fly Army]

Originally Posted by WaspAir

My client won big time, and they were thrilled about it.
They faced over $6 billion in exposure, but paid absolutely nothing to the other side when it was all over. Their legal fees were tiny compared to what it would have cost them to lose (about one tenth of a cent on the dollar). Any businessman should be happy to get out of a massive scrape at those rates, and they were ecstatic. They never could have settled the case for anything close to that. I worked my "greedy arse" off for five years on that case, and charged a market going rate for my services; the client didn't think I was greedy. They threw a big party and gave me several more cases to do for them.


Court costs are chump change, and don't include the attorney fees. If you get "costs" awarded, it will cover, for example, a $25 filing fee and the cost of the court reporter transcripts, but that's nothing compared to the attorney fees, which can be millions in a big case. I've tried cases in all three of those states over the last thirty years and I can assure you that they do NOT require the losing party to pay fees.

There are narrow exceptions for particular types of cases in limited circumstances; e.g. 17 USC 505 for copyrights, but the general so-called "American rule" is each party pays his own way. It's an old, old tradition intended to give little guys access to justice, and it works.

Every U.S. jurisdiction has a process by which the opponent can ask the judge to dismiss a suit for lack of merit, and that provides significant protection against frivolous suits in our pay-your-own-fees system. As to your other comment, law practice is a very competitive business. If you delay or churn work to keep your fees high, your competitors will take away your clients.

Business to business disputes are not what generates the "frivolous case" headline making lawsuits, and there's no problem to be cured there.

WaspAir,

Bottom line the American people are just plain fed up with the crap. We are fed up with the way the liability process makes products MORE expensive.

Where was the judge to dismiss the case against McDonald's when some dumb-ass spilled coffee on herself ?????

Late night TV is filled with ads telling me how much some law firm "CARES" about my Uncle Elmo who is ill because he worked around asbestos. GIMME A FREAKING BREAK !!!! They DON"T care about my uncle. They don't REALLY give two good sh*ts about him !! They just want a BODY that's been WRONGED so they can go after big business and get a tidy 30%. My uncle is just a cost center to them. What a load of crap that you would even try with a straight face to defend this kind of nonsense !

Here in South Florida a group of lawyers is paying a man in a wheelchair to go around to small mom and pop businesses and look for ADA violations in their places of business. Now this "might" have merit in my mind if this handicapped individual had REALLY wanted to go into a dance studio or a bicycle shop but he's just in there to generate revenue for a civil suit ! In a few instances it's put these small shops our of business. Gee, what a great use of our wonderful tort system ! Bet you hadn't thought of that one ! You should try it in California. Maybe you could get yourself a nice S-76 then !

[cburg]

Originally Posted by WaspAir

Nonsense. Anybody who has ever been through a case will tell you that there is no such thing as a 100% chance of winning at trial, but the courts are full anyway, and the lawyers are anything but gutless. Once in a while a frivolous case gets some shock-value press, but there's no comparable coverage of the tens of thousands of non-frivolous cases that are the daily business of the courts. Our system offers unmatched access to justice so that all those tens of thousands of clients can get relief for their claims, without intimidation by deeper pocketed opponents.

Pay at a fixed rate for their time (as we do for doctors, engineers, mechanics, or firemen), and they'll take any case you want.

For clients who can't pay, offer a contingent fee, set up so that they have a chance at a nice recovery if they win and so that they can't lose more than they invest in the case if it goes sour, and plenty of lawyers will be happy to represent you.

But expecting a lawyer to take on the client's full risk of loss is like expecting the firemen to pay to replace the house if they can't get the fire out. Not going to happen; not for lack of guts.

And yes, this country's history (and its population) is chock full of people who fled injustice and who came to these shores to get the benefits of our system.

Even when you win...you lose:

Previously posted TEAM lawsuit.

I had a V-Max and loved it...so I have great sympathy for Wayne Ison’s plight.

[Vance]

Originally Posted by Fly Army

Oh man, so much to write about here today ! Let's start with Vance in California. Vance, according to a friend of mine at the Light Aircraft Manufacturers Association "LAMA" both Magni and AutoGyro machines would already be ASTM compliant - so no extra money need be spent there. As matter of fact the German AutoGyro complies to an even HIGHER standard then ASTM as it is now.

As for the price, well all I can tell you is back in 2006 I helped a friend import and sell some fixed wing S-LSAs here in the states and his suggested retail price was THE SAME as the price in Europe because he was able to get them for a lower dealer cost. Hope that helps your understanding.

Hello Randy,

I have the greatest respect for your flying experience.

I do not share your affection for debate.

Why do you suppose Magni and AutoGiro haven’t made an effort to become ASTM compliant since according to you there is no cost?

I have shared what little I know about business, the law, and compliance costs as related to S-LSA gyroplanes.

You seem satisfied with your view that is divergent from my experience so let’s just leave it at that.

I suspect I am not a viable customer for any of the likely contenders for S-LSA.

You can debate with Abid about the costs of compliance.

I am off to fly!

Thank you, Vance

[WaspAir]

Originally Posted by Fly Army

WaspAir,

Bottom line the American people are just plain fed up with the crap. We are fed up with the way the liability process makes products MORE expensive.

Dream on. It's all those supposedly fed-up American people who are filing all the lawsuits. If a child gets sick after getting a vaccination, or a garage burns down when faulty wiring in a new car starts a fire overnight, or a spouse ends up in the hospital after getting contaminated food from the supermarket, the American people want the right to sue, as they conclusively prove thousands of times per day by filing lawsuits over such things. So long as that right exists, there will be a product liability expense for those in business.

Originally Posted by Fly Army

Where was the judge to dismiss the case against McDonald's when some dumb-ass spilled coffee on herself ?????

That was one case back in 1994. Get mad at that judge if you wish, or at the American people on the jury who agreed with the old lady. But do you have any idea how many millions of meritorious suits have been filed in the 18 years since then, or how many questionable claims have been dismissed by judges? The press won't tell you that.

Originally Posted by Fly Army

Late night TV is filled with ads telling me how much some law firm "CARES" about my Uncle Elmo who is ill because he worked around asbestos. GIMME A FREAKING BREAK !!!! They DON"T care about my uncle. They don't REALLY give two good sh*ts about him !! They just want a BODY that's been WRONGED so they can go after big business and get a tidy 30%. My uncle is just a cost center to them. What a load of crap that you would even try with a straight face to defend this kind of nonsense !

I have never defended ambulance chasing. I vigorously defend a fee system that gives a little guy some chance of succeeding against the big, rich, and mighty. If you ever are on the wrong side of a dispute with the big, rich, and mighty, you might change your views.

Originally Posted by Fly Army

Here in South Florida a group of lawyers is paying a man in a wheelchair to go around to small mom and pop businesses and look for ADA violations in their places of business. Now this "might" have merit in my mind if this handicapped individual had REALLY wanted to go into a dance studio or a bicycle shop but he's just in there to generate revenue for a civil suit ! In a few instances it's put these small shops our of business. Gee, what a great use of our wonderful tort system ! Bet you hadn't thought of that one ! You should try it in California. Maybe you could get yourself a nice S-76 then !

When you bring me into your comments like that, you come extremely close to insulting my personal and professional ethics, about which you are utterly clueless. Back off.

[tadel001]

Interesting debate. First, the reason we don't see more S-LSA gyroplanes has nothing to do with liability or lawyers. It has to do with FAA regulations and market demands. Pricing is not largely dependent on the "cost" of litigation. Every manufacturer has insurance that covers the cost of litigation. Yes, insurance is expensive but it is not one of the big ticket items. The cost is research, development, testing for compliance and ongoing compliance. The risk is, if you built it, will people buy it.

As a lawyer (that just finished a jury trial) and someone significantly involved in aviation, I can tell you that the lawyers and lawsuits are not the hurdle.

As for the cost of the aircraft, the cost is not just parts. It is research, development, labor, cost of marketing, paying for a factory, etc. Kits cost less because there is less that needs to be done to prove compliance and lost ongoing compliance initiatives that are required.

I think the debate should focus more on what are the market demands.

[RotorRambler]

Originally Posted by Vance

Why do you suppose Magni and AutoGiro haven’t made an effort to become ASTM compliant since according to you there is no cost?

If you mean why haven't they made an effort to become ASTM compliant for the purpose of offering SLSA gyroplanes in the U. S., it's likely because of the existing FAA regulation. Why bother?

14 CFR 21.190(a) reads: "Purpose. The FAA issues a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category to operate a light-sport aircraft, other than a gyroplane."

If the FAA would remove those last four words, the door's open for SLSA gyroplanes.

[fara]

Originally Posted by WaspAir

My client won big time, and they were thrilled about it.
They faced over $6 billion in exposure, but paid absolutely nothing to the other side when it was all over. Their legal fees were tiny compared to what it would have cost them to lose (about one tenth of a cent on the dollar). Any businessman should be happy to get out of a massive scrape at those rates, and they were ecstatic. They never could have settled the case for anything close to that. I worked my "greedy arse" off for five years on that case, and charged a market going rate for my services; the client didn't think I was greedy. They threw a big party and gave me several more cases to do for them.


Court costs are chump change, and don't include the attorney fees. If you get "costs" awarded, it will cover, for example, a $25 filing fee and the cost of the court reporter transcripts, but that's nothing compared to the attorney fees, which can be millions in a big case. I've tried cases in all three of those states over the last thirty years and I can assure you that they do NOT require the losing party to pay fees.

There are narrow exceptions for particular types of cases in limited circumstances; e.g. 17 USC 505 for copyrights, but the general so-called "American rule" is each party pays his own way. It's an old, old tradition intended to give little guys access to justice, and it works.

Every U.S. jurisdiction has a process by which the opponent can ask the judge to dismiss a suit for lack of merit, and that provides significant protection against frivolous suits in our pay-your-own-fees system. As to your other comment, law practice is a very competitive business. If you delay or churn work to keep your fees high, your competitors will take away your clients.

Business to business disputes are not what generates the "frivolous case" headline making lawsuits, and there's no problem to be cured there.

I am sold. You don't have a license to practice litigation law in Florida, do you? .

[fara]

Originally Posted by Fly Army

Oh man, so much to write about here today ! Let's start with Vance in California. Vance, according to a friend of mine at the Light Aircraft Manufacturers Association "LAMA" both Magni and AutoGyro machines would already be ASTM compliant - so no extra money need be spent there. As matter of fact the German AutoGyro complies to an even HIGHER standard then ASTM as it is now.

As for the price, well all I can tell you is back in 2006 I helped a friend import and sell some fixed wing S-LSAs here in the states and his suggested retail price was THE SAME as the price in Europe because he was able to get them for a lower dealer cost. Hope that helps your understanding.

Hi:
Well I am the volunteer updating all LAMA checklists for compliance to most current set of FAA accepted standards.
However, what LAMA considers as ASTM compliance and what FAA auditors considers ASTM compliance are two very different things.
If you, like me, had the chance to look at some audits that FAA did of manufacturers from Europe who claim compliance with even CS-VLA standards and ASTM, you would be surprised to find how FAA auditors killed them on factory's own internal audit report as well as third party audit report as being insufficient. I can't name names but these are some really big airplane manufacturing names from Europe. Germany and Italy. They were found to be non-compliant by FAA and given time to get their act together and continue.
I wish I could say more about that but you get the idea. So I would not at all by any stretch of imagination go thinking that according to FAA auditors Magni and AutoGyro would be ASTM compliant. In fact I would bet counter to that today. They may be close enough where FAA would not ground them for claiming compliance like it did with some manufacturers but allow them to fix the issues and continue.