EAA ditches air racing?

The world is changing. The types of incidents and greater number of incidents that now trigger long drawn-out and costly court cases, in the past were not always even considered to be candidates for such a thing. I think that's why they were called accidents, and treated as such. Not any more. Now somebody always have to be found to be "at fault" and therefore financially responsible.

EAA has to protect the organization (EAA) or else the potential exists for the end of EAA. Kind of like amputating a limb, but to save a life. Certainly not pleasant or without pain, but from a standpoint of survivability, necessary. Nobody really likes to do it, nor wants to do it, but if it comes down to doing it or not surviving, the decision becomes a little clearer. Just a sign of the times I'm afraid, IMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spongebobiwan

The world is changing. The types of incidents and greater number of incidents that now trigger long drawn-out and costly court cases, in the past were not always even considered to be candidates for such a thing. I think that's why they were called accidents, and treated as such. Not any more. Now somebody always have to be found to be "at fault" and therefore financially responsible. EAA has to protect the organization (EAA) or else the potential exists for the end of EAA. Kind of like amputating a limb, but to save a life. Certainly not pleasant or without pain, but from a standpoint of survivability, necessary. Nobody really likes to do it, nor wants to do it, but if it comes down to doing it or not surviving, the decision becomes a little clearer. Just a sign of the times I'm afraid, IMHO.

---

I have to disagree !!!!!. When you back down from a fight that is unjust then you are seen as weak and will have to keep backing down forever. If you stand and fight when you are in the right then you will become know as a company that is not going to just pay someone for a frivilous law suit. As a result you will be sued much less often. It is the same as the school bully when we were all kids, if you back down once they will pick on you forever. But punch him in the nose and even if you lose you will be left alone. You have to stand and fight on principle and by the same token stand and face the music when you are wrong. We have so many baseless law suits just because people know that big companies would rather settle than go to court. Easy money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spongebobiwan

The world is changing. The types of incidents and greater number of incidents that now trigger long drawn-out and costly court cases, in the past were not always even considered to be candidates for such a thing. I think that's why they were called accidents, and treated as such. Not any more. Now somebody always have to be found to be "at fault" and therefore financially responsible.

EAA has to protect the organization (EAA) or else the potential exists for the end of EAA. Kind of like amputating a limb, but to save a life. Certainly not pleasant or without pain, but from a standpoint of survivability, necessary. Nobody really likes to do it, nor wants to do it, but if it comes down to doing it or not surviving, the decision becomes a little clearer. Just a sign of the times I'm afraid, IMHO.

---

If that was the message EAA was communicating, it would be one thing. Not that the racers would like it, but everyone understands risk and liability.

However, other than an initial private e-mail that was leaked, the reasons EAA has given have focused on "Improper use of the EAA logo" and other seemingly petty issues, given that EAA and the Airventure Cup race have a long history. It appears that the EAA pushed more and more of the responsibility for the event to the race organizers over the years that the current staff in Oshkosh doesn't have much institutional knowledge about how and why the event is organized the way it is today. This lack of institutional knowledge led to the EAA effectively yanking the rug out from under the organizers. That may get fixed after a flurry of behind the scenes activity, but it probably shouldn't have happened in the first place, and even if EAA wanted to separate from the event, the time to do that was last fall, not 10 weeks before the event.

Are you blaming the liberal or conservative lawyers? Trial lawyers or defense lawyers?

In Henry VI, Shakespere's character thought if he could disturb law and order he could be king. My plea: Come on, enough trashing the lawyers and return to talking flying. Isn't there enough poliitcal &$&$ in the news. EAA cited branding as a basis for the disconnect. Enough political rants and forgive me for mine. Chad mentioned the Arlington verdict for EAA not supporting regional fly-ins years ago. In Arlington, EAA was initially found partially liable for not providing adequate fire protection equipment on site at the fly in. Apparently, the death of an RV pilot was caused in part by EAA's alleged failure. (e.g. To provide fire trucks not fire extinguishers - the pilot died after the portable extinguishers were emptied and fire trucks were . . .). I know nothing about the merits of the Arlington case except to say, if the facts as I recited are true, liability seems just (especially to the deceased pilot's family). Inherently dangerous activities and assumptions of risk are part of life. In fact, the law let's people do both without liability. However, if you place other people in danger, or don't do what you are required to (e.g. Provide the proper fire equipment) you can be held responsible. Shakespere respected lawyers. You can too!

Quote:

---

Shakespere respected lawyers. You can too!

---

It depends on the size of the check I get from them how much I respect them. ;)

What a stupid and unfortunate chain of events to this cluster "fudge."

Let's see if I get this right:

The race is ran - organized and orchestrated - by one organization.

They place a supporting organization front and center as a co-sponsor.

The supporting organization has no authority over the organization and orchestration of the event; they only provide support, and object to being identified as having more to do with it than they actually have.

This is known as responsibility without authority, and is a really bad place to be in.

The actual responsible organization then objects to sole responsibility and says they will cancel the whole event if the supporting one doesn't accept an untentable position.

They cancel the event.

The organization that supported them through volunteers and PR is blamed for the cancellation.

Uh, what?

This is no different than if Coke or Sporty's or any other company provided goods or services either gratis or at a reduced rate and found that they had gotten top billing as being responsible for the event. They'd probably do more than send an email - they'd send a cease and desist letter via registered mail or courier.

If the race organizers had put the EAA as a supporting organization along with all the other vendors there would probably not be an issue. Calling it the AirVenture Cup and featuring the EAA front and center puts the EAA firmly on the blame line for anything that goes wrong. Personally I think letting any event where the EAA isn't directly in charge be called an AirVenture anything is dangerous territory, as it's a trademarked brand for the organization.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Giger

What a stupid and unfortunate chain of events to this cluster "fudge."

. . .Calling it the AirVenture Cup and featuring the EAA front and center puts the EAA firmly on the blame line for anything that goes wrong. Personally I think letting any event where the EAA isn't directly in charge be called an AirVenture anything is dangerous territory, as it's a trademarked brand for the organization.

---

Well said Frank. This is also referred to as imputed or implied authority under an agent/principle analysis. An agent can sometimes bind a principle without authority to do so. If the agent (race organizers) have implied or imputed authority to act on the part of the principle (EAA) they can legally bind the principle even if they do not have actual authority. Therefore, EAA could be held liable by allowing the inference that they are the race organizers.

Following this logic, EAA Chapters should be afraid, very afraid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Giger

What a stupid and unfortunate chain of events to this cluster "fudge."

Let's see if I get this right:

---

Your conclusions make sense based on your stated facts, unfortunately the facts you present are not accurate. The race was started by a (then) EAA employee (and volunteer when no longer employed by EAA) and was managed from the first by him and a group of volunteers. This volunteer group met with and reported to someone at HQ (the actual person has changed over the years) and EAA has had control over the event since day one. Most of the actual decision making and management of the event was done by the volunteers who ran it. In this way it functions in much the same way as most of Airventure- the EAA paid staff make the very high level decisions but most of the nuts and bolts operational stuff is all handled by the volunteer corps, who in turn report to the paid staff.

There are certain people within EAA management who have wanted to kill the race for many years. Those forces were held in check during the previous administration, but with the recent changes the balance of power has shifted. For them to say this is just about the unauthorized use of a logo (which they have been authorized to use for years) is just spin. The race was cancelled because EAA management wanted to cancel it, and anything beyond that is just spin. Having said that, developments over the past couple of days indicate a willingness on the part of EAA to rethink this decision, and discussions are underway. We'll see what comes of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spongebobiwan

The world is changing. The types of incidents and greater number of incidents that now trigger long drawn-out and costly court cases, in the past were not always even considered to be candidates for such a thing. I think that's why they were called accidents, and treated as such. Not any more. Now somebody always have to be found to be "at fault" and therefore financially responsible.

EAA has to protect the organization (EAA) or else the potential exists for the end of EAA. Kind of like amputating a limb, but to save a life. Certainly not pleasant or without pain, but from a standpoint of survivability, necessary. Nobody really likes to do it, nor wants to do it, but if it comes down to doing it or not surviving, the decision becomes a little clearer. Just a sign of the times I'm afraid, IMHO.

---

It is what it is!