Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Avweb sued?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bigD
  • Start date Start date
  • Watchers Watchers 4

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

bigD

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2002
Posts
2,020
I heard from a CFI buddy today that the infamous Mr. Wolk is suing (or sued?) Avweb at the tune of $100K because some columnists called him an ambulance chaser and some other not so nice things.

What's the story on this, or is everyone keeping their mouths shut in fear that Wolk's 747 sized ego will come after them? I can't find any reference on Avweb.

I hope this is a rumor. This kind of thing makes me sick. :eek:
 
I agree

Truth hurts...
 
Will do DC9 - thanks!

Wolk is a piece of work. His web site speaks volumes about him. There's a little java app that scrolls some text promoting him. He talks about being the "Aviation Expert" for the various networks, but worse, he brags that Larry King was amazed that he was able to state the cause of an accident immediately after it occured!

Sigh....
 
gubernator - that's exactly what I'm trying to do. I must admit that I jumped the gun a bit here and my comments are based upon information that I received from other pilots. The Avweb article sheds a good amount of light on the subject.
 
Actually, I don't need any further facts before I jump on the anti-lawyer bandwagon. I'm a permanent rider. Besides, Wolk is, in fact, an ambulance chaser and that's all I need to know to form my opinion.
 
hope you never need one of us...

Hyper,

You revile my profession, which is 99% honorable. I do not revile yours, partly because I am a pilot myself, albeit not as my "profession," but mostly because I think your profession is one of the most grossly underappreciated relative to your responsibility every time you spool up the engines. I suspect you might find 1% of professional pilots are not honorable, either (see, Aaliayah - drunk, AWA - drunk, Cape Air - drying out and recovering from drug addiction, and so on).

I have closed million dollar business deals when working with other lawyers, representing our respective clients in an effort to find a solution, on our word. Then we reduce it to writing, but the deal is effectively done when we give our word. Would you take 99% of the aviation employers at their word on your contract and then trust them to reduce it to writing correctly? From what I have read on this board over the past few years, I would say the answer is, "no." Even if you are able to do so, who do you call when they breach that agreement? Us. Why? Because you need us for what? Justice.

Please save your post and put it in your log book for safe keeping. Then, show it to the first aviation or administrative law attorney you meet with when the FAA is all over your a** for some dumb thing that you, the FAA and your employer knows is BS but the FAA won't drop because, without competent legal representation, you're an easy target and a notch on their "violation" pole which helps justify their bureaucratic existence. With an attorney in your corner, I suspect the FAAis much more likely to cave or make a very favorable deal.

I'm sure the lawyers you meet with will be very happy to help you after reading your saved post showing how much you respect what they can do for you.

Finally, please check your civil liberties at your bathroom door today because, without us, who stands between the government and you? Do you really think the government and unfortunately sometimes overzealous law enforcement would be so kind as to leave you alone and secure in your property, personal effects, home and bedroom, body and otherwise without the dedication of competent and aggressive defense attorneys who often work for low pay (such as public defenders, ACLU attorneys, etc.)??? Where do you think the court decisions that interpret the Bill of Rights and limit government power when they execute the laws (i.e., the cops, the DAs and the Judges) come from?? Mars?? The limits on governmental power exist because lawyers take on the coercive power of the government and say, for example, "no, you cannot prosecute someone for who they decide to associate with, so long as they are consenting adults," etc.

You hate us until you need us and when you do, we're the best friend you ever had.

Fly safe!!!
 
lawyers suck. they are the reason that general aviation is so costly. Why does one pay 150,000 for a new Cessna? You pay 40k for the airplane and $110 for the liability.

Granted there are some good lawyers who are well meaning, but alot of others...
 
Lawyers are probably like anything else. You have a large number of well meaning lawyers and only a handful of the ambulance chasers. Unfortunately, the bad seeds are the ones getting all the press, and ruin it for everyone else.

I don't have a problem with lawyers. But I do have a problem with the ones that use aviation safety soley as a vehicle to line their pockets with the money of grieving families. I'm not saying that Wolk does that, but there's something about his web site, and the manner in which he carries himself that makes me think that he's not completely well intentioned. I get a very big "used car salesman" vibe from him. But again, I realize that it's an opinion based on nothing resembling fact, so maybe I'm off base.
 
You state that lawyers are responsible for the high cost of aviation. That is incorrect. The responsibility for the high cost of aviation is the negligence of airplane manufacturers.

Assuming that your figures re the cost of a new airplane are correct, why do you think it is that $110,000 of the purchase price goes toward liability? What is liability? In this context, it is a sum of money that one is legally obligated to pay because of one's negligence. Cessna spends $110,000 (again, using your figures) per airplane it manufactures because of its negligent acts that result in harm.

I think the general public has this notion that a lawyer, acting alone, can simply draft a letter to a large corporation, demanding millions of dollars for an injury that never occurred, and the corporation will write out a check just for the asking. I assure you that's not the case. When a corporation writes a check to settle any case it's because it has been advised by experienced counsel that a jury is likely to find that the corporation did something wrong.

That brings up another good point. A lawyer can't force a company to pay a dime without going to court. What about the role of juries and judges in the high cost of aviation? Surely they're to blame for awarding millions of dollars to undeserving plaintiffs. I've heard a lot of good lawyer jokes lately. Have you heard any good jury jokes?

This theme of lawyers being responsible for all of society's evils is also present in the medical industry. A recent news story told of how a trauma hospital was being "forced" to close because of the high cost of obtaining malpractice insurance, which was blamed on lawyers. One proposal was to cap the amount of damages an injured patient could receive in a lawsuit against his doctor for malpractice. That is a bad solution. Again, malpractice insurance is high because insurance companies pay out millions of dollars to settle claims brought against doctors for -- guess what? -- their negligent acts. The solution is to train physicians to make fewer mistakes, not to punish the person who is harmed by the mistake. Where is the incentive to be a better doctor when the consequences for committing malpractice are so severely reduced? That's like saying we can solve the problem of drunk driving -- and the related problem of the high cost of auto insurance for drunk drivers -- not by enforcement and education, but by reducing the penalty for drunk driving to a fine of $25.

How do you propose that we, as a society, reduce the cost of general aviation? Grant manufacturers immunity for anything they do wrong? Limit the amount of money an injured plaintiff can recover? You try telling someone who has been severely crippled and burned in an aviation accident that a jury found to be the fault of the manufacturer that he can only get $25,000 for his injuries, when his hospital bills alone are into the millions.

Sorry about the rant. Anyway, as andymsn pointed out, you ought to print out your post and save it for the day you're injured in an airplane because of the negligence of its manufacturer.
 
For curiosity's sake, what is the percentage of airplane "accidents" are caused by manufacturer's negligence i.e. faulty equipment? The numbers would make for an interesting debate, I'm sure.
 
chawbein said:
For curiosity's sake, what is the percentage of airplane "accidents" are caused by manufacturer's negligence i.e. faulty equipment? The numbers would make for an interesting debate, I'm sure.

I'd bet it would be higher for the pud-knockers flying the pud-knocker airplanes than it would be for your prime pilots flying the hot planes.:D
 
flx757 said:


I'd bet it would be higher for the pud-knockers flying the pud-knocker airplanes than it would be for your prime pilots flying the hot planes.:D

Well said!!! It sucks being a pud-knocker.
 
Product Liability

Gubernator,

Everyone that gets in an airplane knows there is an inherent risk involved with flying, while every manufacturer makes an effort to keep these risk to a minimum, products do fail, that being said if it meant paying lower insurance premiums or paying substantially less for new aircraft or aircraft parts I would choose that over paying for product liability or whatever you like to call this form of extortion, because in the end the money we all pay ends up in the pockets of the wrong people.

Dirt
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom