My post goes to the issue not the OP.

Do people understand the point I have made over and over and over on BT?

"Mr. Drew, I want you to know I am not the type of person that sues, but..."

Let's say the engine blew up here with a couple passengers on board. Where would it go then?

Until it drops in your back yard. Peace brothers.

Going to the FAA makes you a rat AND will convict you of flying an unworthy aircraft by your own admission. Public outing can create other legal repercussions. Spending a $100,000 in spite over a $25,000 claim is just

Thanks Bob. I was curious how long it would take until the Mafia reference came out. You watch too many movies. Do us a favor good sir...read the whole thread before opining. Note the PIC of this aircraft who was single pilot waviered has retired. Not sure how I get convicted of anything. BWTFDIK.

In spite?

Bless your heart.

Giving credit where credit is due :)

Mark - setting aside the legal stuff, the numbers just don't work. Is there a significant investment in legal already or is the loss limited to the original 7 hrs for $25K?

I watched a similar case unfold for a friend. He was going to sue to teach a lesson. He lost and was countersued for 4X his suit and had to pay.

Mark,
Any chance you can get me the EXACT wording of the last engines inspections sign off?

Bill

Move on Mark, life is too short for this.
Did he actually proposed $18000 to you?

There is not much disagreement here regarding the course of action. How often does that happen on BT?

Food for thought.

Just a thought, why not tell the guy you would like to sit down with him and the FAA and sort out the FSDO's take on the HSI requirement. If the feds ok his interpretatation, you would probably lose the lawsuit. If they back your interpretation, he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Bypass the lawyers for now. This way you aren't narcing on him, but you force him to put up or shut up about the HSI. If he isn't willing to go see the Feds with you, explain that you will go talk to them about his interpretation, to clarify your understanding of the requirements.

It would have to be at least your expected legal fees divided by your chance of success to even make sense.

For example, $50K of legal fees, 50% chance, you need to be going after $100K.

Anything else has an expected value of less than you are going to put in. You'd really want to have a multiple of this to be worth your time, say at least double.

Getting the other side to pay your legal fees very often does not happen even when you "win". At a certain point, both sides end up fatigued, settle for some compromise on the actual damages, and each side eats its own legal fees. Even a judgment often doesn't pay for the winning side's fees. Lawyers win, you and the other side wasted time and money.

Don't overestimate your chances of success legally. A lawyer will often not give you an honest appraisal of those chances because they don't really know and it is in their interest to keep the case going.

You can lose on very minor grounds. A single sentence somewhere disclaiming any lessor representations, or the SB having some escape clause.

If your lawyer won't take the case on contingency (paid a percentage of the settlement), then you have you answer whether the lawyer feels the case has reasonable merit for their time investment. I can't imagine a $25K case qualifies.


That's not a civil case, but a regulatory issue, and then taking it to the FAA is appropriate if you think safety is meaningfully compromised.


Legally, no. A victim of fraud has no obligation to the next victim.

Legally, it may be the opposite. If you publicly claim someone is doing something wrong, that could be libel if you don't prove it in some way. Then you are facing possible damages greatly exceeding your present case.

Going to court is not about being right or wrong, it is about playing the odds for a return.

Mike C.

I like this approach, but maybe step 2.

Step 1 is to find an independent engine shop and ask their opinion first. Were the engines airworthy? This will arm you with documentation and knowledge about the exact rules of HSI requirements.

Mike C.

Most aviation businesses have structured themselves to be judgement proof. You need to assess if any win would then be collectible. Good chance you will be left with a court order, a moral victory, and an empty bank account.

A win in court is only the first step in the fight to collect from the type of person you are dealing with.

Nothing good can come from involving the FAA. You don't know which direction they will start looking at things and it can backfire.

This is a civil matter. Keep it that way. If you want expert testimony then find retired FAA folks.

Agreed.

But something good might come from the (perhaps implied) threat of involving the FAA.

An opinion from a reputable engine shop stating the engines are not airworthy also helps.

First step in all these battles is to collect ammunition with as little effort and cost with the implication you can use them if an agreement isn't reached.

When the defendant realizes the downsides exceed the ups, then there will be movement.

Mike C.

I say sue AND do all of the above. When you are at war, you are at war. Take no prisoners.

That said, I am still appalled that it takes $100K to litigate a simple issue like that. It's not a complex accident case where you have to investigate, hire experts, do mock jury trials etc. It's a simple regulatory issue. If it is crystal clear that HSI is mandatory and the aircraft didn't have it when it was delivered to you, what is there left for the court to decide?

Would you put up 20% of the legal fees for 20% of the winnings?