...And Here, Darn it, Are The Heartbreakers
Final Compilations/Analysis by ANN Editor-In-Chief/Corporate
Insomniac, Jim Campbell
It is both the most "fun," and most
difficult task, facing the ANN staff at the end of every year --
determining who, or what, did the most to promote the cause of
aviation in the past 365 days... while also chastising those people
or entities that did all they could to undermine the many successes
the aerospace community has managed to accomplish.
Alas, 2009 saw more than its fair share of downers, aviation-wise.
Sure, "stuff" happens... but a few folks, issues, or entities
seemed to go out of their way to create problems for the world of
aviation.
So... it is ANN's annual obligation to recognize Ten of our
Aero-Heartbreakers for 2009... in something of an informal order,
starting from the 10th to the 1st.
Let us know what you think of our selections... whom YOU would
have liked be included, or omitted, from such a list. In the
meantime, we hope those who had something to do with this year's
selections think a little more positively about the welfare of this
industry, so that future lists become harder and harder to
catalog.
Be it ignorance, arrogance or just plain incompetence, these
were the folks or topics that made our lot a whole lot more
difficult and immeasurably injured the aviation world in the past
year.
Shame on those issues, folks, or groups that made our lot so
much tougher in 2009...
Aero-Heartbreaker #4: Aero-Legal Defamation
It is a sad fact that the
inequities inherent in any complex society are usually too numerous
to count, but when you look at what is supposedly a rigidly
disciplined microcosm of that society -- like the legal profession,
which is supposedly defined by a rigorous code of ethics and
truthfulness -- one really wonders what happened to the concept of
"Justice."
ANN has been monitoring reports, documents, and websites devoted
to the legal community as well as various legal proceedings
involving aviation. We grow more and more alarmed by a number of
actions and programs that are happening (with increasing
frequency), that seem to be beyond the proper restrictions one
would expect from an honest, truthful, fair, and just legal
system.
We are none too thrilled with the number of so-called legal news
services that have popped up, most of them spewing slanted, and in
many cases wholly inaccurate news reports devoted to helping
connect lawyers with future clients. A few of those devoted to
aviation accidents or otherwise covering the subject, would be
hilarious on their face, if the damage they were doing were not so
ponderous.
We have watched them use
ludicrously inaccurate terminology in describing aviation and
aeronautical concepts, they are often quick to assign blame (even
before the NTSB can get to the site of the accident, and in once
case when we knew that the wreckage was STILL burning), and
commonly use inflammatory language to hype the tragedies that have
befallen some unfortunate aviators and their aircraft. Like many
things on the Internet, one must take it with a grain of salt...
but the fact that these are "news" stories published by
organizations claiming legal expertise (and describing themselves
as news services), while supposedly ascribing to legal ethics and
virtues, really makes us wonder what the hell has happened to a
significant portion of the legal profession.
While slanted aero-legal 'journalism' is alarming in no
uncertain terms, there is something far more insidious at work in
the ways that the legal system interfaces with aviation. Let's face
it, an aviation accident looks like a tempting target for some
attorneys looking for a reward, but the way in which the legal
profession (literally) attacks aviation with each and every suit is
somewhat terrifying. Suits are being waged in which some of the
most outrageous statements are presented as if they were fact.
Suppositions, theories, and just plain guesswork can be put forth
as a cause of action and written as if they were the ordained
truth. I am amazed at the language contained in a number of the
lawsuits we've seen in recent memory, because if anybody outside of
a lawyer looking for a quick buck were to publish this in public,
their asses would be hauled into court.
I'm not kidding. Some of the inflammatory rhetoric, wild
theories, and postulations presented (as if they were fact and
stated as such) are outright sickening. Add to this the fact that
the one true authority in any accident investigation, namely the
NTSB, is verboten from being utilized as a defense against some of
the senseless and outrageous attacks undertaken by a number of
aero-ambulance-chasers... and you have a recipe for a continuing
disaster. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not going to label every
attorney in a negative light, as I have come to know so many fine,
responsible, and outstanding people practicing the law... but no
one has the right to assert a cause for an accident and to assign
blame unless it is a proven documented fact -- as recognized by
competent authority. I realize that when you file a lawsuit, you
have to present a reason for doing so... but there are far more
responsible ways to do so than to make wild statements that have no
true supporting evidence (and in so many cases DELIBERATELY
CONTRADICT OR IGNORE NTSB determinations!!!!).
Worse than that, many such legal assailants take
their fights to the media -- who publish their rampant
speculation (and often, falsehoods) as if they were fact.
The statute of repose was supposed to be a long-awaited tool by
which aviation could recover from a number of ills it is suffered
for a number of decades. However, the costs and damage inherent in
the current legal liability situation (when it comes to aircraft
accidents and incidents) still are a huge hazard to the health and
well-being of aviation. In recent memory, a prominent GA
manufacturer, not even the biggest one in the business, told us
that their product liability premiums alone were so costly (and had
doubled in just a few short years, to boot) that if they were able
to do without them, they could immediately go out and hire 250
people. I'm not saying that manufacturers don't have any liability
when things go wrong, but I think the concept of liability should
be a far tighter and more limited concept. In ANY aircraft that has
gone through FAA or other foreign certification, as well as
aircraft that are maintained in accordance with FAA regs and
standards should have some protection from spurious legal assaults.
If the manufacturer does something that is outside of what the
aircraft was certified for or deliberately degrades their product
through knowledgeable action... well, let the lawyers at them. But
an aircraft that is certified, maintained in accordance with said
certification (or authorized mods), and operated according to the
regs should be free from undue hazard from the legal vultures who
will look at any excuse possible to extort big fees at the cost of
this embattled industry.
Enough is enough...