I've published a couple aviation related law review articles if anyone's interested. Since space is limited I'm reprinting the LEXIS headings. If you'd like you can always email me for a copy at rwluedeman@mchsi.com


Copyright (c) 2000 San Joaquin College of Law
San Joaquin Agricultural Law Review

2000

10 S.J. Agri. L. Rev. 121

LENGTH: 14925 words

ARTICLE: A TALE OF THREE STATES: LIABILITY FOR OVERSPRAY AND CHEMICAL DRIFT CAUSED BY AERIAL APPLICATION IN ARKANSAS, LOUISIANA, AND MISSISSIPPI

NAME: Robert W. Luedeman *

BIO:

* Robert W. Luedeman, B.A., California State University-Long Beach; J.D., Drake University; LL.M. (Agricultural Law), University of Arkansas-Fayetteville; is Assistant County Attorney, Madison County, Iowa and a journeyman aircraft mechanic. The author is indebted to Professor Lonnie Beard of the University of Arkansas Law School for suggesting this subject.

SUMMARY:
... The process of aerial application of agricultural chemicals is well suited to the way agriculture is practiced in much of the Mississippi Delta. ... Neither of these cases, therefore, stand for the proposition that Arkansas has generally adopted strict liability in the aerial application field. ... It does not, however, stand for the principle that Arkansas has adopted strict liability standards for aerial application of agricultural chemicals in all circumstances. ... Others have suggested that Arkansas applied a species of strict liability to aerial application in Chapman Chemical Co. v. Taylor. ... Interpreting Arkansas law, the Eighth Circuit held in Walton v. Sherwin-Williams Co. that because there was substantial evidence that 2, 4-D applied in an oil base was not an inherently dangerous product, there was no error when the trial court refused to instruct the jury on strict liability. ... By comparison to those courts that have imposed a strict liability theory, Arkansas courts in particular have been careful to distinguish the factors that can invoke strict liability in aerial application cases, and to carefully sort out the issue of negligence, if any, of the applicator and his or her employer. ...

Here's the other:


Copyright (c) 1996 Southern Methodist University School of Law
Journal of Air Law and Commerce

August / September, 1996

62 J. Air L. & Com. 93

LENGTH: 34004 words

ARTICLE: FLYING UNDERGROUND: THE TRADE IN BOOTLEG AIRCRAFT PARTS *

SEC-NOTE-1:

* Since this Article was written, certain key players in this controversy regarding bootleg aircraft parts, most notably Inspector General A. Mary Schiavo and the FAA's Anthony Broderick, have left the positions they held. The effect of these changes is uncertain, but the author of this Article is certain that the controversy which is the subject material of this Article will undoubtedly continue. - Ed.

NAME: Robert W. Luedeman **

BIO:

** The author is a journeyman aircraft mechanic and quality assurance inspector of 15 year's experience who is also a graduate of Drake University Law School in Des Moines, Iowa, a member of the Iowa Bar, and an LL.M. candidate (Agricultural Law) at the University of Arkansas - Fayetteville. He is currently furloughed from his last assignment as a second shift flight ramp quality assurance inspector for the McDonnell Douglas Corporation's Long Beach, California plant, and he is a past member of UAW Local 148. The opinions and conclusions in this work are his own. The descriptive material and technical digressions in the footnotes and text are included because it was suggested by Professor Robert Hunter in the early stages of this project that a general audience will better understand the issues when it has a good grasp of the technology under discussion.

SUMMARY:
... V. WHAT IS AN UNAPPROVED PART? ... The FAA defines an "unapproved part" as follows: ... Thus, if an operator using an approved distributor installed an unapproved part, only the distributor would be subject to enforcement. ... Regardless of the legal requirement for certification, the practical manager will grasp that all persons involved in parts supply need to be properly trained in recognizing the unapproved part. ... A rule that required mandatory reporting of a suspected unapproved part within forty-eight hours of becoming aware of its questionable status, as well as mandatory reporting to the production approval or certificate holder, could prove useful in generating the level of reporting that would allow the agency and component manufacturers to ascertain the scope and extent of the suspected unapproved parts problem and identify problem manufacturers and resellers in an expeditious fashion. ...