Gaunty: I’m not saying don’t fight the strict liability fight. What I’m saying is, fight it from a well-informed position on valid bases. Time and time again, AOPA raises issues that may have a kernel of merit, but argues them on unmeritorious bases.
An analogy: We don’t like daylight savings ‘cause it fades our curtains. Compare: We don’t like daylight savings because the people with whom we trade do not keep the same hours. We have no choice but to work an extra hour or risk weakening our external markets.
Same outcome sought in each case, but only one has a chance of getting up, unless the faded curtain brigade is in a marginal electorate.
Just as daylight savings doesn’t fade curtains, strict liability does not make criminals of pilots in the circumstances cited by Bill. The pilot vote makes no difference in any electorate, marginal or otherwise. So why would the government drop everything to make strict liability go away?
If AOPA takes the view that strict liability is a bad thing (and you’re absolutely right and prudent to critically analyse the status quo) AOPA must be very careful not to run the equivalent of the faded curtain arguments. Those arguments might rally the ever-dwindling troops, but they won’t get anywhere where it counts.
Carthage must be destroyed! Whoops: I mean’t “Vote 1 Gaunty”.