|
Frequently Asked Questions |
||
|
|
Q: What is the GA Legal Defense Fund? A: GALDF has been established to protect the rights and freedoms of pilots nationwide. A lawsuit has been filed by a small group of individuals against four pilots, a large flight school owned by one of the pilots, and an aircraft partnership, under Massachusetts state “nuisance” laws. The lawsuit will affect pilots across the U.S., as stated by AOPA President Phil Boyer. Most likely to be affected: flight instructors, students, aerobatic pilots, and helicopter pilots. GALDF is helping these four pilots raise well over $100,000 required to defend against this lawsuit and ensure that this legal threat to all pilots is stopped before it spreads to other pilots in other areas, which could damage general aviation nationwide. Q: What are the issues at stake and why should anyone care? A: The plaintiffs are using nebulous state “nuisance” laws to enforce their own personal no-fly zone. If they are allowed to succeed, then virtually anyone with a grudge or dislike of airplanes will have a legal precedent to do the same thing, potentially leading to a nationwide patchwork of legal hot spots. Flight instructors and their students will be particularly at risk since by definition, they practice turns and other maneuvers which keep them over smaller areas for longer times. They also often have minimal finances to mount a defense. It won’t take many lawsuits against CFIs for the pool of instructors to dry up and the ranks of new pilots to slow to a trickle. Our goal is to ensure that no other pilots have to go through a similar process in the future, rather than caving in to the plaintiffs’ demands and passing the buck to the next pilot somewhere else in the country. Q: What are the specific legal claims against the pilots? A: The overview of the legal complaint states, “to enjoin and recover damages for the low altitude, prolonged, and repeated aerobatic and non-aerobatic flights over the plaintiffs’ homes”. Q: What is the pilots’ response to these claims? A: We prefer to state simple, documented facts: (1) the number of flights where the plaintiffs singled out the defendants' aircraft for complaints is very low: much less than once a week according to their own detailed complaint logs – possibly even much less than once a month; (2) the defendants' flights comprise a small fraction of all flights over the affected area, and only a fraction of the aerobatic flights over the area; (3) despite plaintiff claims to the contrary, the pilots do NOT fly over the plaintiffs’ homes; and (4) even the plaintiffs now agree that the pilots have broken no FARs. Q: What are the plaintiffs suing for? A: $1,031,000 and a legal prohibition against flying in their vicinity. $21,000 of this is for “counseling, therapy, medication, and anticipated future medical and hospital expenses.” Q: Why have the plaintiffs singled out these particular four pilots? A: We don't know for sure. We speculate that there may be two main reasons. First, some of the defendants are comparatively higher profile since they comprise much of the local and regional flight training and aerobatic leadership. Second, unlike other pilots who may have flown similar flights over the area, they do not have unlimited resources to pay for the best possible defense. We expect the plaintiffs plan to use these pilots to set an example, then use this precedent to go after other pilots until all pilots stop flying in the area. Since one of the plaintiffs is a lawyer working pro-bono (free), they have an enormous financial advantage. Q: Have these pilots been insensitive to the affected communities or individuals? A: None of the pilots have ever felt that their rights as pilots reign supreme. They believe their flying reflects their concern for people on the ground. They have adjusted flight patterns, frequency, and duration, flown at reduced power and RPM, and more. They have testified to these facts under oath. These compromise measures have helped to satisfy other local residents. The pilots feel the plaintiffs have chosen an extreme and unnecessarily confrontational position. The defendants are - and always have been - willing to discuss reasonable solutions but are not willing to entirely give up the right to fly over entire geographic regions authorized by the federal government. GALDF feels this would be unreasonable and would set a dangerous precedent. Q: Can’t the pilots strike back? A: Yes, by vigorously defending against this attack and by not capitulating to what some might say is the misuse of the legal system. GALDF is working to help the pilots assure a victorious outcome. The message is not that pilots have the right to do anything they please. The message is that cooperative discussion, compromise, and recognition of each side's point of view is a more effective and more appropriate way to resolve an issue than filing lawsuits that take years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to pursue. Q: How long is the suit expected to continue? A: The suit was filed in May, 2003. Attorneys expect it to take 2-½ to 3 years total. Q: Are the legal costs really that high? A: Yes. Costs to date are well into the tens of thousands of dollars. Based on attorney’s figures, total cost is expected to be substantially over $100,000. Q: How much money has been raised so far? A: It is safe to say that donations have covered legal costs to date but are not enough to cover the full expected cost. We appreciate your support. Q: Who are the defendants being sued? A: Pete Bocon, Kent Christman, Steve Pennypacker, and a prominent airshow pilot & flight school owner. All are long time AOPA and EAA members. Also the largest flight school at Hanscom Field, and an aircraft partnership owned by three of the pilots. Q: How do I know my donation will go to the right place? A: The fund is a private trust, administered by a group of independent trustees who are prohibited from benefiting from the trust and who are responsible for all funding decisions. Funds may only be used to reimburse defendants for actual legal expenses incurred. The vision is for the fund to help with future lawsuits as well, if any arise. These would be carefully considered on a case by case basis.
|
|
General
Aviation Legal Defense Fund