owner assisted maintenance & legal issues

[GAHorn]

Firstly, BradW, I did not intend to single you personally out in my previous response. My useage of your name was only an expedient to the example you posted. My apology if that was not evident.
Secondly, ...why is an opposing view a tirade? My post was a deliberate attempt to be accurate, and therefore was necessarily long. It was not what I'd call a tirade. (A tirade is a lengthy, and angry response or retaliatory remark. I was/am not angry at all. I'm just hoping to give some folks present a viewpoint to ponder that may explain why not all the situations presented previously should be viewed as they were.)
Thirdly, you wrote: "You said something regarding believing in Democracy. Democracy = Mob Rule. Sometimes good, most times bad. Just a little something to chew on -- That's why our founding fathers structured a Democratic Republic, as opposed to a Democracy."
Yes, that is technically correct, however it is not the common useage of the term. I'm sure our honorable president is not intending his imposition of "democracy" in Iraq to be true democracy. But your observation seems an effort to distract, rather than effectively negate my point. Specifically, I was not discussing our nat'l gov't (as you know). I was discussing the actual deliberations of a jury pool, which is a democratic vote.
Nonetheless, I disagree that democracy equates to mob rule. True democracy relates to majority rule, and I certainly believe that is what an innocent person would hope to have in a trial by his peers. It is certainly what is intended by the law.
Your statement: "Please keep in mind tough, that I was forced to serve -- a very different thing." is regretful. It seems to indicate an unwillingness on your part to assume the responsibility of a citizen to serve. I'm hopeful that, like myself sometimes, those were merely an unfortunate choice of words. In any case, yes, citizenship bears responsibility....including the responsibility for one's own actions.....something Joe certainly seems to support.
The point I wished to make in my "tirade" was merely that all is not necessarily that which "meets the eye" ...and THAT is why we have juries of our peers, and THAT is why we have lawyers....whom are NOT always evil, greedy persons, but who are necessary to make the machinery of a legal justice system operate correctly. A lawyer is like a pilot. He attempts to make a complex piece of machinery to perform as it's occupants would hope. It does not mean that he is an evil person if the destination is not accomplished, nor does it mean he is evil because he seeks employment in his profession.
The jury of our peers is an attempt to keep the system from being prejudiced against either side.....something this entire message thread seems to indicate is not only possible...but probable. IMHO

This thread was originated by an observation that allowing owner-assisted maintenance carries liability....and that liability is viewed by some mechanics as a legitimate reason to disallow the practice.
Since those mechanics are entitled to that opinion, then the owner has the choice to either use that shop....or not. In my view, no additional liability is incurred, if the regulation is properly implemented,...namely proper supervision of the owner's efforts. (There's little difference in my view of a knowlegeable owner assisting...or a general "shop apprentice" helping perform maintenance. Improperly supervised, they both pose a hazard. In fact, an argument could be made that LESS liability is assumed by the shop by allowing owner-assistance than if the assistant is the actual employee of the shop!) Most owners wish to participate because they want to learn. Most mechanics don't have the time (when working on the clock) to teach school.
It's a simple matter to resolve for both sides. Either allow it or don't, and respect the position of the other, and use that person or choose another shop or customer as the case may be.

[jrenwick]

On-topic: the mechanic who does my annuals is only too happy to have me working on my own airplanes, because the more I do, he says, the better I understand why it takes time to do things on aircraft, and the less likely I am to complain about the number of hours he's billing me for. Not that I've ever been inclined to complain -- this guy's work is so good, I've always been more than happy to pay the bills.

Happy flying,

John

[N1478D]

My AI is in his 80's and it's hard for him to turn wrenches. He has decades of knowledge, really enjoys seeing people educated about their airplanes, and is a genuine good guy. So it's a win win situation for me to do an owner assisted annual. It's worked out great for both of us.

George, in response to your last tirade (JUST KIDDING) One of the points I have been trying to make is analogous to an information technology employee explaining to the president of their corporation "it's a black box, don't worry your pretty little head about it, I'll take care of it."! This type of situation permits abuse in that the technology employee points corporate decisions in the direction of what's best for that employee, not necessarily for what's best for the corporation. Happens all of the time. In this example the technology employee will never say "Hey, this new software will replace me and cost half as much!" The same with a lot of lawyers. George, you say that they are needed to make a complex issue work smoothly, it's obvious to me that like the technology person described, a lot of lawyers make sure it's so complex he has to be there, and be there for a long time. Unlike the corporate example where it's the fault of the president for either not being educated enough himself, or hiring someone he trusts that is to understand the tech guy - there is nobody in the court process to stop lawyers from doing this. The other lawyer gains also if it is dragged out for a longer time and then maybe even retried. Something like unchecked scope creep! I define that as greed!

[GAHorn]

Actually, there IS a safeguard against that. It's called a "judge" who's job it is to keep the trial moving forward against any unnecessary delays, and whose job it is to see that proper procedure is followed to avoid mistakes that allow needless appeals. Unfortunately, even the best intentions of man allow for errors, and if you are a defendant victimized by the errors of a system (judge or prosecutor) then you are entitled to an appeal. On the other hand, if you are the public (represented by the judge or prosecutor) and you are victimized by an unscrupulous lawyer, then you are also entitled to an appeal (in civil cases.)
Don't let the "newsworthy" goofy cases form an opinion of a complex system designed to protect the innocent while also protecting the public interests. (It's a shame however, that the majority of our lawmakers happen to be lawyers. It makes the system difficult and cumbersome for the rest of us, and they usually get it wrong anyway! Look at the number of laws that are unenforceable and/or onerous.)

[N1478D]

Yea, Right, George! The Judges! Every day there is a judge doing the opposite of what you are describing. Here's the latest from the news down in your neck of the woods:

"8 minutes ago Top Stories - AP
HOUSTON - Andrea Yates' capital murder convictions for drowning her children were overturned Thursday by an appeals court, which ruled a prosecution expert witness gave false testimony at her trial.

Yates' lawyers had argued at a hearing last month before a three-judge panel of the First Court of Appeals in Houston that psychiatrist Park Dietz was wrong when he said he consulted on an episode of the TV show "Law and Order" involving a woman found innocent by reason of insanity for drowning her children.

After jurors found Yates guilty, attorneys in the case and jurors learned no such episode existed.

"We conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that Dr. Dietz's false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury," the court ruled. "We further conclude that Dr. Dietz's false testimony affected the substantial rights of appellant."

Jurors in 2002 sentenced Yates to life in prison in the 2001 deaths of three of her children. She was not tried in the deaths of the other two."

[GAHorn]

Yea, Right, George! The Judges! Every day there is a judge doing the opposite of what you are describing. Here's the latest from the news down in your neck of the woods:

"8 minutes ago Top Stories - AP
HOUSTON - Andrea Yates' capital murder convictions for drowning her children were overturned Thursday by an appeals court, which ruled a prosecution expert witness gave false testimony at her trial.

Yates' lawyers had argued at a hearing last month before a three-judge panel of the First Court of Appeals in Houston that psychiatrist Park Dietz was wrong when he said he consulted on an episode of the TV show "Law and Order" involving a woman found innocent by reason of insanity for drowning her children.

After jurors found Yates guilty, attorneys in the case and jurors learned no such episode existed.

"We conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that Dr. Dietz's false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury," the court ruled. "We further conclude that Dr. Dietz's false testimony affected the substantial rights of appellant."

Jurors in 2002 sentenced Yates to life in prison in the 2001 deaths of three of her children. She was not tried in the deaths of the other two."

So, what are you saying, Joe? That it's all OK for prosecution witnesses to lie? Especially if it helps convict someone the public perceives as guilty?
Let's see, now how would that help in other cases? Hmmmn. Well, there's OJ Simpson, who was set free because the prosecution witness, a cop, lied in an effort to help convict him, and that thoroughly tainted the jury-pool into feeling sorry for OJ who was obviously set to be victimized by the prosecution! Yeah. That's the ticket.

Yes, Joe, that's EXACTLY what the judges should have done....throw OUT the evidence that was a blatant LIE...and retry the case! The prosecution attempted to illegally influence the jury! If she's guilty, then a jury hearing the truth next time will still convict her. This ruling does not set her free, it merely resets the trial. It's the way YOU would HOPE the system would work if YOU were on trial for your life, and the prosecution LIED. Right?

(And don't forget, judges are usually elected. Next time you vote for a judge, look into his past as a lawyer, and see what you think about him/her. Keep in mind that a "hangin' judge" ain't necessarily the one you'd want when you or your loved one in on trial for his/her life. Hopefully what you'd want is a judge with considerable trial experience rather than political connections.)

[N1478D]

Yea, Right, George! The Judges! Every day there is a judge doing the opposite of what you are describing. Here's the latest from the news down in your neck of the woods:

"8 minutes ago Top Stories - AP
HOUSTON - Andrea Yates' capital murder convictions for drowning her children were overturned Thursday by an appeals court, which ruled a prosecution expert witness gave false testimony at her trial.

Yates' lawyers had argued at a hearing last month before a three-judge panel of the First Court of Appeals in Houston that psychiatrist Park Dietz was wrong when he said he consulted on an episode of the TV show "Law and Order" involving a woman found innocent by reason of insanity for drowning her children.

After jurors found Yates guilty, attorneys in the case and jurors learned no such episode existed.

"We conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that Dr. Dietz's false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury," the court ruled. "We further conclude that Dr. Dietz's false testimony affected the substantial rights of appellant."

Jurors in 2002 sentenced Yates to life in prison in the 2001 deaths of three of her children. She was not tried in the deaths of the other two."

So, what are you saying, Joe? That it's all OK for prosecution witnesses to lie? Especially if it helps convict someone the public perceives as guilty?
Let's see, now how would that help in other cases? Hmmmn. Well, there's OJ Simpson, who was set free because the prosecution witness, a cop, lied in an effort to help convict him, and that thoroughly tainted the jury-pool into feeling sorry for OJ who was obviously set to be victimized by the prosecution! Yeah. That's the ticket.

Yes, Joe, that's EXACTLY what the judges should have done....throw OUT the evidence that was a blatant LIE...and retry the case! The prosecution attempted to illegally influence the jury! If she's guilty, then a jury hearing the truth next time will still convict her. This ruling does not set her free, it merely resets the trial. It's the way YOU would HOPE the system would work if YOU were on trial for your life, and the prosecution LIED. Right?

(And don't forget, judges are usually elected. Next time you vote for a judge, look into his past as a lawyer, and see what you think about him/her. Keep in mind that a "hangin' judge" ain't necessarily the one you'd want when you or your loved one in on trial for his/her life. Hopefully what you'd want is a judge with considerable trial experience rather than political connections.)

That's not at all what I am saying George, sounds like you are trying to deflect attention by implying that because you have such a weak case in this discussion. One of the complaints has been that the system allows these cases to be dragged out forever. Your defense and response was that the judges role takes care of that. Here is a case of a woman drowning her 6 children in 2001 and the case is still going on in 2005. Taxpayer dollars are being wasted year after year and the lawyers keep getting more wealthy. In your statements you have brought up people without any arms and legs - well, what about the young children in this country who are going without food, but here we are spending our money on retrying a person who drowned her children 5 years ago? Why in the world do you believe the system is working? What is it about inefficiency and greed that you do not understand?

In the Grand Prairie council meeting Tuesday night the Mayor of Grand Prairie promoted that 3 story apartment buildings be allowed to be built in line with runway 17 at GPM. With citizen after citizen, me included, saying that safety would be compromised if the multi family structures are built and other citizens bringing up concerns about over crowded schools, traffic, etc, etc the mayor still voiced his opinions that all of that was not true and it was his duty to allow the landowner to make his profit and build the apartment complexes.

It's putting dollars in front of what's right in both examples - the apartments and the retrial. The lawyers, so they can make MORE money, keep nit-picking till they eventually find something that will allow them to get back in court and make more money. The woman drowned her kids, that is not debated. I've used the apartment example because it is more in theme with aviation and maybe that's something you won't argue about. The mayor took the side of the rich property owner and his lawyers who were present at the meeting against a horde of angry citizens. Nobody wants the complex built off of the end of the runway except people who will make money off of the deal. Nobody wants a retrial of a killer except the people who will make money off of the deal.

[GAHorn]

One of the complaints has been that the system allows these cases to be dragged out forever. ...
Taxpayer dollars are being wasted year after year and the lawyers keep getting more wealthy. ...
what about the young children in this country who are going without food, but here we are spending our money on retrying a person who drowned her children 5 years ago? Why in the world do you believe the system is working? What is it about inefficiency and greed that you do not understand? ...

The lawyers, so they can make MORE money, keep nit-picking till they eventually find something that will allow them to get back in court and make more money. ...
The mayor took the side of the rich property owner and his lawyers who were present at the meeting against a horde of angry citizens. Nobody wants the complex built off of the end of the runway except people who will make money off of the deal. Nobody wants a retrial of a killer except the people who will make money off of the deal.

Joe, it matters not how long it takes ...especially when it comes to justice being met. If you are either wrongly accused...or wrongly/unfairly sentenced....then the system is supposed to serve you. It's not supposed to do the "expedient" thing. It's supposed to attempt the fair, equitable, and just thing. Lying witnesses do not fit that description. Just because YOU have made up your mind about a particular case does not make it meet the intent of the law. The intent of the law is to determine the truth. Lying witnesses do not serve that purpose. If YOU were the defendant I imagine your position would be different.
Taxpayer dollars are NOT wasted if the truth is being sought. The LYING witness will (hopefully) now be prosecuted for perjury. Without that 3-judge hearing that perjuror would not have been caught. (with the help, by the way, of the defense lawyer you so hate.)
As for the commercial interests taking advantage of the citizens.... What do you suppose my earlier msg post addressed itself to? Commercial interests against citizens. My complaint about the system is that rich money can buy more "justice" than the little guy can afford.
As for the -re-trials such as the murderess....that's small potatoes, and the costs to the taxpayer is but a drop in the bucket compared to the costs to us citizens to comfort the rich corporate interests.
Lawyers are bad....seems to be your personal affront. But which lawyers are you angry about? The ones who defend the little guy? Or the ones that prosecute (who are on YOUR payroll) using liars for expert witnesses? Which side do you believe should be denied access to a lawyer? And in which case?
My point is that we are all very opinionated, especially after we read the newstory as presented by some reporter. And that's exactly why we need courts, judges, juries, and lawyers. To ignore prejudice and opinion, reach the truth, and determine what is just. And I don't care how long it takes or how much it costs. That's the cost of the system, and no system yet devised is any better.
The law is not simple, and it takes a specialist to use the system. Otherwise monied interests will buy all the "justice". Sounds like you guys up there in Grand Prairie need a lawyer to take on the mayor, city gov't and big money. Oh, wait. We don't believe in that, do we.

Poor kids get shafted all the time, but lawyer haters can't stand for the ACLU to challenge the rich system. Example: Public schools are taxpayer supported, and should be, but look how many people are willing to allow corporations to skim off profits from the little public money available, in a voucher system, charter school, or private/religious school.
Example: Welfare systems spend huge amounts on food stamp programs which pay large corporations to cut down trees, make paper, print certificates, transport them in armored cars, distribute the certificates, collect the certificates, shred and burn the certificates,...all of which did very little to feed poor kids. But big corporations made millions , off the system yet citizens get enflamed over people on welfare programs.
People get all upset over welfare recipients...imagining huge amounts of wasted taxpayer dollars....(amounts to roughly 7-cents per tax dollar) while ignoring the 56-cents spent with defense contractors in a post-cold-war world on projects having little-or-nothing to do with anti-terrorism. (We spend more in a single day in Iraq than we've spent the entire year in Port Security.)
Rants against "systems" imaginary or real take up so much of our time, which have so little to do with real waste and corruption.
The legal system is not perfect. The "democracy" we have is not perfect. It's just the best we've been able to come up with so far.
Lawyers can be "good" or "bad" (depending upon your viewpoint regarding a particular case.) But they're not the problem.

Old law school adage: "In a small town, a lawyer will go broke. But two lawyers will make a pretty good living."

[N1478D]

George, please stop saying what you think I am saying! You have done it more that once in this discussion. Say what you want to say yourself, and allow my posts to speak for themselves.

The cost is more than monetary George. Like the example of the Grand Prairie mayor. My neighbors, me, the people I know at GPM have lost confidence in him to do the right thing. He basically stated untruths in front of us. The same with the court system. When the public watches these judges and lawyers use tricks to prolong the process - not for the benefit of justice - the public starts to loose confidence in the system. Once enough confidence is lost, chaos is around the corner. One witness testified incorrectly in a trial of someone who has admitted to the crime, and that incorrect testamony was known before sentencing. Now, the process needs to start all over, year after year?

[GAHorn]

I've attempted to discuss this subject by posing some rhetorical questions, and I've quoted you in brief but not with the intent of changing your words, but only to make the conversation more concise. I have no interest in changing the meaning of your comments.
I guess I just don't understand why any group should be lumped into a common hate basket when it seems so clear to me that they largely support the most fair and equitably aimed justice system known. It seems narrow-minded to me to focus on a few shortcomings of a system designed to protect and value the innocent and preserve civil rights more than improperly convict the accused.
You must be right. I don't get that kind of thinking. I guess I'll leave the discussion to those whose minds are already made up or don't care for opposing viewpoints. Sorry if it offended.

[N1478D]

I believe there are alot of folks here who can agree to dissagree better than you can at times George. I have taken no offense, no apology needed. I still stand on my opinion that greedy lawyers and judges make it more expensive to fly our airplanes and make other things in life more expensive. The system allows attacks on entitys with deep pockets regardless of their percentage of fault, rewarding a few and passing the costs on to the rest of us. You pointing out that there are worse things going on doesn't change my opinion at all. I am happy with my opinion and happy for you that you have yours, even though it is hard for me to understand why you have it.

Have A Beck On Me, Take Care George,

[Tom Downey]

My two cents,

A major whitness lied, bad thing, lets do it over and get it right.

I am sure if some one lied at my trial I would want it brought to public attention, and a new trial.

The system. is working.

[zero.one.victor]

George & Joe-- after reading thru your tirades (yes, tirades!), I'm inclined to let the lawyers go & shoot you two!

Eric

[N1478D]

George & Joe-- after reading thru your tirades (yes, tirades!), I'm inclined to let the lawyers go & shoot you two!

Eric

Eric, I surely would hate to get shot by a lawyer! Since I have this uneasy guilty type feeling, it might be deserved though. Wish I hadn't of went there. Maybe if I see a lawyer in the next couple of days, or however long this guilty feeling lasts, I'll buy him lunch and take him for a flight in 78D, if he dosen't shoot me first.