John Denver's Heirs Settle Crash Suit
Tony W,
GRay <gray....@fuckyou.co.uk> wrote in message
news:39D57D...@fuckyou.co.uk...
> Val wrote:
>
> (Snip Reuters story)
>
> Ok, Gould Electronics tossed the heirs a bone here..
>
> Val, can honestly tell me that John in taking off without topping up the
> fuel in an aircraft he had allmost no time in had no contributing cause
> here?
No but he had time to get himself tanked up.
Tony W.
Vet Trek
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The heirs of John Denver have settled a
wrongful-death lawsuit charging that a faulty fuel valve caused the singer's
homemade plane to plunge into the ocean off the California coast in October
1997.
"The suit has been settled," Jim Roop, a spokesman for Gould Electronics Inc.,
one of the companies named in the suit, said on Friday. "As usual in these
things, they are not providing any details, but it is done."
Denver died when his futuristic, Y-shaped Long-EZ plane fell into the Pacific
off Monterey, California, about 100 miles (160 km) south of San Francisco, on
Oct. 12, 1997.
Gould Electronics and a supplier of parts for homemade aircraft were then sued
by Denver's three children -- Jesse Belle Denver, Zachary Deutschendorf and
Anna Kate Deutschendorf -- and his mother, Erma Deutschendorf.
Their suit blamed a fuel valve problem for taking the life of the boyish
53-year-old singer star, known for such hits as "Rocky Mountain High" and "Take
Me Home, Country Roads."
A report by the National Transportation Safety Board found no problem with the
fuel valve on the aircraft. Federal investigators attributed the crash to low
fuel supply, a badly positioned fuel switch and Denver's inexperience in flying
the unusual fiberglass aircraft.
Roop said that the settlement involved no admission of liability by the
companies. He noted that in the case of Gould Electronics, the product named in
the suit was a valve manufactured by a former industrial products group no
longer part of the company.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Val
I heard a singer whose songs were pure
About humans, our loves and our greeds
And this man when he sang even angry words
Had a soul that was deeply at peace
- Ellen Stapenhorst
GRay
(Snip Reuters story)
Ok, Gould Electronics tossed the heirs a bone here..
Val, can honestly tell me that John in taking off without topping up the
fuel in an aircraft he had allmost no time in had no contributing cause
here?
--
GRay-
Take out the trash for mail.
sparks
techn...@yahoo.com fires up all the neurons and says...
> >
> > (Snip Reuters story)
> >
> > Ok, Gould Electronics tossed the heirs a bone here..
> >
> > Val, can honestly tell me that John in taking off without topping up the
> > fuel in an aircraft he had allmost no time in had no contributing cause
> > here?
>
>
> Tony W.
>
The autopsy showed no drugs or alcohol in Denver's system but then, you
knew that, didn't you...?
--
sparks
<!-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -->
http://www.thehungersite.com/
the only free lunch on the net...
mailto:spark...@my-deja.com
lawrence and carey dorn
fault." They should be saying " Ya I was a DUMBASS and its my fault!"
All these silly lawsuits a started with that DUMBASS old lady that spilled
her "too hot" coffee on her lap at the McDonalds drive through! I still get
pissed when I think about. I was always raised to take responsiblity for
your action good or bad.
Lawrence
"sparks" <spark...@your-deja.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.143f89da7...@news.pressroom.com...
> In article <3tfB5.7632$Ha1.2...@news-east.usenetserver.com>,
> techn...@yahoo.com fires up all the neurons and says...
> >
> > GRay <gray....@fuckyou.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:39D57D...@fuckyou.co.uk...
> > > Val wrote:
> > >
> > > (Snip Reuters story)
> > >
> > > Ok, Gould Electronics tossed the heirs a bone here..
> > >
> > > Val, can honestly tell me that John in taking off without topping up
the
> > > fuel in an aircraft he had allmost no time in had no contributing
cause
> > > here?
> >
Capt Nud
Steve Foley
McDonalds continued serving coffee at a much higher temperature than the
industry standard even after receiving numerous complainds about burns.
p.s. I did not sue the A&P who missed an AD on my pre-purchase annual, even
though I'm now spending about what I paid for the plane for repairs.
lawrence and carey dorn wrote in message ...
>I really tired of this nations "I am a victim attitude! It someone else's
>fault." They should be saying " Ya I was a DUMBASS and its my fault!"
>All these silly lawsuits a started with that DUMBASS old lady that spilled
>her "too hot" coffee on her lap at the McDonalds drive through! I still get
>pissed when I think about. I was always raised to take responsiblity for
>your action good or bad.
>
>Lawrence
>
>
>"sparks" <spark...@your-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.143f89da7...@news.pressroom.com...
>> In article <3tfB5.7632$Ha1.2...@news-east.usenetserver.com>,
>> techn...@yahoo.com fires up all the neurons and says...
>> >
>> > GRay <gray....@fuckyou.co.uk> wrote in message
>> > news:39D57D...@fuckyou.co.uk...
>> > > Val wrote:
>> > >
>> > > (Snip Reuters story)
>> > >
>> > > Ok, Gould Electronics tossed the heirs a bone here..
>> > >
>> > > Val, can honestly tell me that John in taking off without topping up
>the
>> > > fuel in an aircraft he had allmost no time in had no contributing
>cause
>> > > here?
>> >
S. Ramirez
old are you, anyhow?
-Simon
"lawrence and carey dorn" <ld...@compsol.net> wrote in message
news:J%jB5.825$a5.3...@newsfeed1.thebiz.net...
Glen
are damaging America? Did you know that every time you buy a product that has
one of those ridiculous warning stickers on it you are not only paying for the
sticker but also for the team of lawyers who recommended it, increased insurance
rates that sometimes almost double the consumers purchase price, and maybe worst
of all, a concerted refusal to improve product reliability and SAFETY because it
might be argued in court that the company knew about improvements before
implementing them? And why? Is it because people who are injured wish to insure
that others in the future won't be? Ha! The reason most people sue is because
some slick lawyer got to them and convinced them they had won the lottery!
Steve Foley wrote:
> John Devner cannot say "Ya I was a DUMBASS" - he's dead!
>
> McDonalds continued serving coffee at a much higher temperature than the
> industry standard even after receiving numerous complainds about burns.
>
> p.s. I did not sue the A&P who missed an AD on my pre-purchase annual, even
> though I'm now spending about what I paid for the plane for repairs.
>
> lawrence and carey dorn wrote in message ...
> >I really tired of this nations "I am a victim attitude! It someone else's
> >fault." They should be saying " Ya I was a DUMBASS and its my fault!"
> >All these silly lawsuits a started with that DUMBASS old lady that spilled
> >her "too hot" coffee on her lap at the McDonalds drive through! I still get
> >pissed when I think about. I was always raised to take responsiblity for
> >your action good or bad.
> >
> >Lawrence
> >
> >
> >"sparks" <spark...@your-deja.com> wrote in message
> >news:MPG.143f89da7...@news.pressroom.com...
> >> In article <3tfB5.7632$Ha1.2...@news-east.usenetserver.com>,
> >> techn...@yahoo.com fires up all the neurons and says...
> >> >
> >> > GRay <gray....@fuckyou.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> > news:39D57D...@fuckyou.co.uk...
> >> > > Val wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > (Snip Reuters story)
> >> > >
> >> > > Ok, Gould Electronics tossed the heirs a bone here..
> >> > >
> >> > > Val, can honestly tell me that John in taking off without topping up
> >the
> >> > > fuel in an aircraft he had allmost no time in had no contributing
> >cause
> >> > > here?
> >> >
Steve Foley
negligent by not reducing the temperature of the coffee. I won't buy coffee
at McDonalds because IT'S TO DAMNED HOT!!!
I was also pointing out that the person held responsible for John Denvers
death (according to the NTSB) never had the opportunity to accept
responsibility.
I think it's pure BULLSHIT that the family should go after the maker of a
valve that probably functioned fine.
I also think it's BULLSHIT that the Daisy BB gun company is held responsible
for waht happened with their properly functioning product.
I also think it's BULLSHIT that anyone who ever smoked can sue the tobacco
companies for their own stupid decision. (even though the world would
probably be a better place if nobody smoked and there was no Phillip Morris)
BUT:
If I decide to sue someone, I'm certainly going to hire the most
successful lawyer I can find. Same way as if I hire an accountant, he damn
well better let me know the best way to reduce my tax liability, even if I
don't agree with doing it.
My solution is an all or nothing award for lawsuits. If the jury finds for
the plantiff, but thinks the amount is excessive, the plaintiff gets
nothing. Too Bad - you lose - you shouldn't have been so greedy. I bet that
would reduce the amounts being asked.
Glen wrote in message <39D60453...@oregoncoast.com>...
>> >> > > Val wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > (Snip Reuters story)
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Ok, Gould Electronics tossed the heirs a bone here..
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Val, can honestly tell me that John in taking off without topping
up
>> >the
>> >> > > fuel in an aircraft he had allmost no time in had no contributing
>> >cause
>> >> > > here?
>> >> >
Tony W,
> > No but he had time to get himself tanked up.
> >
> > Tony W.
>
>
> The autopsy showed no drugs or alcohol in Denver's system but then, you
> knew that, didn't you...?
> --
> sparks
> !-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -->
> http://www.thehungersite.com/
> the only free lunch on the net...
> mailto:spark...@my-deja.com
I heard otherwise but through unofficial sources that he'd been dipping into
the Jack Daniels' before his flight. If he was sober, it was still stupid
to take off without topping up the tanks. I don't go for a motorcycle ride
without checking the fuel level much less go for a flight without doing the
same.
Tony W.
S. Ramirez
chose to operate on the almost empty tank. John Denver was totally at fault
for this accident, and he paid for it with HIS life. Good riddance. And
now HIS family is making others pay for HIS fault? Welcome to America,
everyone.
-Simon Ramirez
sparks
> > >
> > > Tony W.
> >
> >
> > The autopsy showed no drugs or alcohol in Denver's system but then, you
> > knew that, didn't you...?
> > --
> > sparks
> > !-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -->
> > http://www.thehungersite.com/
> > the only free lunch on the net...
> > mailto:spark...@my-deja.com
>
> the Jack Daniels' before his flight. If he was sober, it was still stupid
> to take off without topping up the tanks. I don't go for a motorcycle ride
> without checking the fuel level much less go for a flight without doing the
> same.
>
> Tony W.
Well, Tony, your sources are wrong... The autopsy showed nothing in
Mr. Denver's system that would have impaired Mr. Denver's ability to
control his craft...
He had just bought the plane the day before his incident and was still
unfamiliar with the location of the fuel valve which would have allowed
him to switch to the full secondary tank... His fumbling about apparently
caused his death...
See http://www.avweb.com/other/ntsb9905.html for additional details...
Fred Fillinger
responsibility he had in an oral contract might not even get you back
your attorney fees, as the attorney may not take it contingent.
Regrettably too late for your now, but researching AD's one's self can
make up for the fact that A&P's come in all flavors of competence.
Fred F.
Tony W,
press at the time going on and on about him loosing his pilot's license
because of alcoholism and this lent credence to the rumor that he was drunk
at the time of the crash.
Tony
sparks <spark...@your-deja.com> wrote in message > Well, Tony, your
Tony W,
<ric...@berkutNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:wEjWOUY08qGJDv...@4ax.com...
> I worked the Denver accident as a consultant, and it was my theory
> (accidental rudder roll while changing tanks) that was eventually
> accepted by the NTSB. I had access to all the techical reports and
> witness accounts during the investigation.
>
> There was no indication of any drugs or alcohol, either from
> reconstruction of his last day, or from the medical exam.
>
> While the tanks were low, it appeared from his comments before the
> flight that he intended to stay within a few miles of the airport, and
> he specifically refused more fuel when a line boy offered to fill it
> for him. The airplane was very new to him - he'd only picked it up
> the day before. I believe, but have no direct evidence, that he
> intended to run one tank dry so that he could fill it completely and
> get an accurate max fuel capacity. I've done that with airplanes in
> the past - but I did it at 8k feet, not at tree top level.
>
> Does anyone know if the heirs dropped Aircraft Spruce from the suit?
Another good reason not to trust the media reports on anything. The local
news up here in PDX couldn't wait to imply that he was intoxicated.
He also could have run that tank dry at 0 feet with the brakes on. But hey,
I'm a coward and I admit it.
Tony
Al Mills
> McDonalds continued serving coffee at a much higher temperature than the
> industry standard even after receiving numerous complainds about burns.
Industry Standard my blistering Ass! That term is garbage! If the people
were putting an unsafe product out in the way of the consumer, that's one
thing. But if they were selling people a product they want at a price they
can afford then more power to them! Coffee has to be hot to be safe,
otherwise it may be bacterially contaminated, same with the tea you get in
little bags. The water has to be boiled. Neither one of them is intended to
be used as skin cream. I suppose you could sue the manufacturer if you
accidentally drank rubbing alcohol on the same grounds. No pun intended.
AL
> >I really tired of this nations "I am a victim attitude! It someone else's
> >fault."
Me too!
Al Mills
>How
> old are you, anyhow?
> -Simon
I was thinking the same thing. LOL!
I thought the lady wearing the coffee was on the youngish side, myself, but
he called her "some old lady..."
AL
Ronald James Wanttaja
>
>Does anyone know if the heirs dropped Aircraft Spruce from the suit?
The writeup in today's (Sept 30) Seattle Times said that AS&S was party
to the settlement....
Ron Wanttaja
want...@halcyon.com
http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/
Glen
considered suing anyone, and hope to never feel the need. Just knowing that
juries in some "economically challenged" areas will award impossibly high damage
amounts just because they think some company is rolling in money seems to me to
be obscene. And I've heard the arguments that big companies like GM won't even
pay attention enough to fix a problem if the awards aren't in the hundreds of
millions of dollars, but in the end the consumer pays for it all anyway. Your
response to McDonalds too hot coffee is the correct one, and in the end that is
the better way to get companies to change, just my opinion.
Steve Foley wrote:
> >> McDonalds continued serving coffee at a much higher temperature than the
> >> industry standard even after receiving numerous complainds about burns.
> >>
> >> p.s. I did not sue the A&P who missed an AD on my pre-purchase annual,
> even
> >> though I'm now spending about what I paid for the plane for repairs.
> >>
> >> lawrence and carey dorn wrote in message ...
> >> >I really tired of this nations "I am a victim attitude! It someone
> else's
> >> >fault." They should be saying " Ya I was a DUMBASS and its my fault!"
> >> >All these silly lawsuits a started with that DUMBASS old lady that
> spilled
> >> >her "too hot" coffee on her lap at the McDonalds drive through! I still
> get
> >> >pissed when I think about. I was always raised to take responsiblity for
> >> >your action good or bad.
> >> >
> >> >Lawrence
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"sparks" <spark...@your-deja.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:MPG.143f89da7...@news.pressroom.com...
> >> >> In article <3tfB5.7632$Ha1.2...@news-east.usenetserver.com>,
> >> >> techn...@yahoo.com fires up all the neurons and says...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > GRay <gray....@fuckyou.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:39D57D...@fuckyou.co.uk...
> >> >> > > Val wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > (Snip Reuters story)
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Ok, Gould Electronics tossed the heirs a bone here..
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Val, can honestly tell me that John in taking off without topping
> up
> >> >the
> >> >> > > fuel in an aircraft he had allmost no time in had no contributing
> >> >cause
> >> >> > > here?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No but he had time to get himself tanked up.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Tony W.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> The autopsy showed no drugs or alcohol in Denver's system but then,
> you
> >> >> knew that, didn't you...?
Ronald James Wanttaja
Al Mills <alm...@crown.net> wrote:
>
>> McDonalds continued serving coffee at a much higher temperature than the
>> industry standard even after receiving numerous complainds about burns.
>
>were putting an unsafe product out in the way of the consumer, that's one
>thing. But if they were selling people a product they want at a price they
>can afford then more power to them! Coffee has to be hot to be safe,
>otherwise it may be bacterially contaminated, same with the tea you get in
>little bags. The water has to be boiled. Neither one of them is intended to
>be used as skin cream.
Agreed, agreed, and agreed. However, you got one aspect wrong. The
McD's coffee would not have blistered your ass. That's only a second-degree
burn. The accident case involved coffee that caused *third degree
burns*. The coffee was so hot it incinerated her skin. She had to
have skin grafts.
She should'a known better? Perhaps. But every argument you make about
coffee is true about hot chocolate. Should McD's dispense hot chocolate
capable of third-degree burns to six-year-olds?
McD's knew they had a problem, and probably figured they'd get MORE
complaints if the coffee was cooler, because it wouldn't stay hot as
long.
You can make the same arguments about homebuilt aircraft. Should a kit
manufacturer be held responsible if their product has a flaw? After
all, the builder is the legal manufacturer of the aircraft. If they use
the faulty parts produced by the kitmaker, well...is it their fault if
they crash, or the kitmakers? Ref. the Mini-500....
Glen
David Glauser wrote:
> If you want to get truly depressed at the current legal climate in the
> US, see http://www.overlawyered.com and preuse the archives. Makes me
> sick.
>
> David
Dave Hyde
> McDonalds continued serving coffee at a much higher temperature
> than the industry standard...
There's an industry standard for coffee temperature?! Geez, if they're
gonna standardize the stuff, the least McD's could do is get the TASTE
right. And let's see 'em enact or enforce some kind of maximum
time-on-burner standard. And some kind of 'minimum strength' standard
too. It's time for the ISO to really take the bull by the horns, show
some initiative, and HAMMER those profit-before-taste two-bean-per-pot
"I know it's dinnertime, but I made a full pot this morning so it's
still fresh", "It looks brown so I can call it coffee"
all-you-can-drink-'cause-one's-all-you-can-stand coffee places.
Another cuppa, please.
Dave 'pant, pant' Hyde
na...@brick.net
Craig C.
>
>Agreed, agreed, and agreed. However, you got one aspect wrong. The
>McD's coffee would not have blistered your ass. That's only a second-degree
>burn. The accident case involved coffee that caused *third degree
>burns*. The coffee was so hot it incinerated her skin. She had to
>have skin grafts.
>
Only a moron would put a paper container know to be full of a
steaming hot liquid between their legs, and then sit in the hot liquid
for several minutes after crusing the continer with their legs... I
know of three year olds with a heck of a lot more common sense than
that.
Craig C.
RobertR237
dorn" <ld...@compsol.net> writes:
>
>I really tired of this nations "I am a victim attitude! It someone else's
>fault." They should be saying " Ya I was a DUMBASS and its my fault!"
>All these silly lawsuits a started with that DUMBASS old lady that spilled
>her "too hot" coffee on her lap at the McDonalds drive through! I still get
>pissed when I think about. I was always raised to take responsiblity for
>your action good or bad.
>
>Lawrence
>
VERY WELL SAID! THANKS
Bob Reed
http://robertr237.virtualave.net/ (KIS Project)
KIS Cruiser in progress...2001 Oshkosh Odessy ;-) (I can hope!)
"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice, pull down your pants and Slide on the
Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freidman)
HERD J D
: John Devner cannot say "Ya I was a DUMBASS" - he's dead!
:
: McDonalds continued serving coffee at a much higher temperature than the
: industry standard even after receiving numerous complainds about burns.
:
: p.s. I did not sue the A&P who missed an AD on my pre-purchase annual, even
: though I'm now spending about what I paid for the plane for repairs.
What these blokes are saying, is that there is a difference between
incompetence and stupidity.
:
:
: lawrence and carey dorn wrote in message ...
: >I really tired of this nations "I am a victim attitude! It someone else's
: >fault." They should be saying " Ya I was a DUMBASS and its my fault!"
: >All these silly lawsuits a started with that DUMBASS old lady that spilled
: >her "too hot" coffee on her lap at the McDonalds drive through! I still get
: >pissed when I think about. I was always raised to take responsiblity for
: >your action good or bad.
: >
Well said.
Cheers,
Herdy. (Jon Herd)
David Glauser
judge the coffee. There is a colored zone that they are supposed to
use. I checked once and it was 140 to 150 degrees. I have also noticed
that they routinely ignore this, and often have the temperature above
180 degrees.
A few months ago my brother spilled a "grande" on his lap while
wearing shorts. It resulted in 2nd degree burns all over his wrist,
the inside of his thigh, and the um, entire groin area. Let's just say
Mr. Happy wasn't happy. No grafts needed, but lost all the skin
nonetheless. Glad it wasn't me. Starbucks paid all the bills, hoping
to avoid another McDonald's case, I'm sure. Funniest part was
immediately aftereards. Tom was mopping up the coffee and trying to
minimize the tissue damage (he's a firefighter, and so not totally a
stranger to burns). The counter lady was helping. The lady at the
start of the line began complaining loudly and demanding service. The
counter woman responded that she was busy, that a seriously hurt man
needed her help. The "lady" responded that she didn't care - she was
in a hurry and Starbucks should have more staff around so she could be
served immediately. She went on like this for a bit and Tom says he
thought the other customers were pretty close to homicide. Ain't
California grand?
On the old coffee theme, I used to work with an older gent by the name
of Hy. Hy worked 7AM to 7PM right up until he retired in his early
70's. He would come in early, go around to all the coffee pots left
over from the previous afternoon, and pour them together. He then
would microwave the mixture and drink it for his morning coffee. We
always had a good time watching for Hy to courteously offer a cup of
coffee to a new employee - they NEVER accepted twice.
Cheers, and totally OT
David
David Glauser
Craig C.
She was over 65 and had been going to that McDonalds for years
supposedly.
Craig C.
Al Mills
evidence that there was anything faulty about any parts in this crash.
Kevin O'Brien
>
>Val wrote:
>
>(Snip Reuters story)
>
>Ok, Gould Electronics tossed the heirs a bone here..
>
>Val, can honestly tell me that John in taking off without topping up the
>fuel in an aircraft he had allmost no time in had no contributing cause
>here?
>
>
>GRay-
>Take out the trash for mail.
GRay --
Just to point out, Val is a fan of John's who has in the past shared information
about the aviation side of his life here, I'm sure she was just posting this for
our information. You will note that she did not editorialise at all and merely
posted the Reuters despatch. If you have a complaint it is with Reuters, kindly
let go the rope and put the chair back under the feet of the messenger.
I'm glad she posted it here. I would have missed it otherwise. I expect we will
read news and comment on the aviation websites tomorrow. I also forwarded it to
Walter Olson along with the NTSB reports, for his Overlawyered website. (I
probably wasn't the only one).
Personally, I'm with you -- it takes iron yarbles to sue for an accident caused
by fuel mismanagement. But the US legal system is utterly corrupt. Not that it's
alone in that, or that this is anything new. Ever read 'Bleak House?'
cheers
-=K=-
'he was the very aristocrat of clerks...'
I need to get my CFI in the next 16 years so I can solo my nephew
Richard Riley
wrote:
>I have seen no one in this discussion present the slightest shred of
>evidence that there was anything faulty about any parts in this crash.
>
>> the faulty parts produced by the kitmaker, well...is it their fault if
>> they crash, or the kitmakers? Ref. the Mini-500....
The "Imperial" fuel selector valve that was in the plane (and was
standard in the Vari EZ and early Long EZ's) was made with a brass
cone and seat and was prone to gall and sieze. That's one reason
(probably the main reason) that the valve was relocated from the
firewall (in the Vari) to between the pilot's knees on the Long. In
the Vari there's a long torque tube between the handle and the valve,
as the valve gets stiff it can reach the point that the torque tube
winds up without turning the valve. In the Long, the handle is right
on the valve and you can twist hard on it.
Later the RC Allen valve, which doesn't sieze, became the standard.
The builder of Denver's airplane chose to put the valve (an Imperial)
on the firewall, with the handle behind the pilots left shoulder. The
valve was found halfway between the two positions, and turned freely.
But it's just POSSIBLE that the valve was stuck, and that Denver was
turned around and trying to deal with it, and that caused the
accident. That would mean that the valve became unstuck in the crash,
which is very, very unlikely, but there's enough there that settling
is probably the smart thing to do. I hope it didn't cost them too
much, but we'll probably never know
Vet Trek
>information about the aviation side of his life here, I'm sure she was just >
posting this for our information. You will note that she did not
> editorialise at all and merely
>posted the Reuters despatch. If you have a complaint it is with Reuters,
>kindly let go the rope and put the chair back under the feet of the >
messenger.
K,
Thank you for your support, you are exactly correct in why I posted the
article. Personally I was sickened and saddened that his family sued over this.
I can only guess that an attorney got a hold of John's grief stricken elderly
mother and convinced her there was a problem with the valve.
This weekend is the third annual memorial for John in Pacific Grove, CA (yes,
it's been 3 years since that infamous crash). I would like to take this
opportunity ahead of time to thank the Long EZ pilots who will be participating
in the fly by on Sunday evening.
I would also like to thank all the Long EZ pilots and all the people on this ng
that have generally been so patient in answering questions that we've had about
John's Long EZ and the crash.
In the meantime, I have 85 hours, mostly in a C172 (1 hour in a 6 place
Cherokee in Jamaica, but that's another story) and hope to have my license
soon. And I still wanna a Long EZ someday.
Val
I heard a singer whose songs were pure
About humans, our loves and our greeds
And this man when he sang even angry words
Had a soul that was deeply at peace
- Ellen Stapenhorst
Kevin O'Brien
"Al says...
>
>I have seen no one in this discussion present the slightest shred of
>evidence that there was anything faulty about any parts in this crash.
Quite true Al
The NTSB ascribes the crash to pilot error, entirely. Ultimately John failed to
fly the plane... if he were standing before us as a court of his peers he would
hang his head and admit that. NTSB notes as factors some of the design decisions
made in the plane.
NTSB short and synopsis: http://www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/LAX/98A008.htm
NTSB long narrative: http://www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/LAX/lnarr_98A008.htm
Of course, an aeroplane can be laid out from a behavioural or human interface
viewpoint in ways that either increase or decrease risk of making a human error.
That's why we have a standard layout of six key instruments, mixture and prop
controls that feel different from throttles, control locks that block the
ignition switch. Even still, humans keep finding more creative ways of making
errors, as well as making established ones with depressing regularity.
It might be interesting to start a thread on human interface, behavioural, and
usability design in aeroplanes.
cheers
-=K=-
Kevin O'Brien
says...
>In the meantime, I have 85 hours, mostly in a C172 (1 hour in a 6 place
>Cherokee in Jamaica, but that's another story) and hope to have my license
>soon. And I still wanna a Long EZ someday.
Yeah... old John was on to something there with that flying stuff. :)
When I was in Jamaica last year I didn't have time to link up with the JDF-AF
until near the end, but I have a standing offer to fly their 210 when I come
back (it was down for 100-hr when I showed up at the hangar logbook in hand).
Weird seeing a 210 in Army green. For a poor country I was impressed by the
quality of their people and maintenance. There is little GA there, considering
how useful it could be, and everybody begged me to fly back in as a visitor, so
I probably will someday.
I'm sure the memorial w/flyby will be moving (Richard Riley wrote a great post
to this group after his participation in the first one). And the rest of us will
hopefully learn something from this accident, that we don't repeat it.
God bless you & yours
Benton Holzwarth
> Even still, humans keep finding more creative ways of making
> errors, as well as making established ones with depressing regularity.
You can make things more and more fool-proof, but ya know, they
just keep making better and better fools.
> It might be interesting to start a thread on human interface, behavioural, and
> usability design in aeroplanes.
Here's a start, this bit went by on AVweb recently.
> GAMA AIMS TO MAKE COCKPITS MORE USER FRIENDLY: The
> General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) recently
> released "Recommended Practices and Guidelines for Part 23
> Cockpit/Flight Deck Design," which is designed to assist Part 23
> manufacturers in making a better cockpit. The publication focuses
> on maximizing the effective interaction between aircraft and their
> human manipulators and includes a collection of optimal
> cockpit-design layouts as derived from several years of
> human-factors research.
>
> NOTE: AVweb's NewsWire <http://avweb.com/n/?36a> includes a link to
> request a free copy of the GAMA publication.
The mentioned link takes you to <http://www.generalaviation.org/,>
and from there the 'Download' entry in the nav-bar takes you to a list
of files, several of which sounded kinda' interesting.
This particular report is about half way down the list, at the 5/18/00
mark, and is a 650k 'doc' file of 94 pages. With a quick scan of the
contents it appeared to be a well ordered collection of things to consider
when configuring a cockpit. The human-factors learnings for how to
organize the front office, how knobs and levers should operate, and
how important it is for them to be consistent.
Benton 2oct00
--
B C & G Holzwarth
bc...@teleport.com
Dave Hyde
> The mentioned link takes you to <http://www.generalaviation.org/,>
> and from there the 'Download' entry in the nav-bar takes you to a list
> of files, several of which sounded kinda' interesting.
The FAA 'human factors design guide'is available at
http://www.tc.faa.gov/act-500/hfl/products_index.htm
It's primarily intended for ground based designs, but much of the HF
stuff still applies. I've got the (a, rather) mil spec for human
factors in the basement, I'll dig it out someday.
Dave 'tome' Hyde
na...@brick.net
James L.
> Personally, I'm with you -- it takes iron yarbles to sue for an
accident caused
> by fuel mismanagement. But the US legal system is utterly corrupt.
You may make such a rash statement out of ignorance. If so, pardon
you, but America's legal system will go on protecting people personally
injured by the carelessness of others only so long as Americans are
aware that their justice system is even-handed.
You make assumptions you may not be entitled to make. Personally I
suspect the fuel valve functioned as it was designed but was claimed to
have been designed defectively. But then it would be rash for me to
make that speculation. In any event the ultimate decision would have
been for the jury, and apparently the defendant(s) opted out by
settling --- a common practice in that arena. I would also suspect the
figure was quite small in light of the actual damages if negligence
were in fact proven to a jury. But then again I over-speculate.
We pay a high price for our consitutional rights to sue and be sued,
but do these time-honored rights not deter the wrongdoer from failure
to exercise due care and in some way recompense the injured?
Not that it's
> alone in that, or that this is anything new. Ever read 'Bleak House?'
Yes, I have read _Bleak House._ It is about the corruption of
victorian England's Court of Chancery whereby the judges, sitting
without juries, and British barristers in conspiracy slowly bled an
estate of a deceased to death and often jailed (as in _Pickwick_) the
executor or administrator for debt whenever the money ran out. I don't
think "Suffer all wrong which could be done you before coming here!",
an outcry by Dickens in _Bleak House_ about the Court of Chancery, is
quite an appropriate condemnation of American courts, at least not yet
anyway.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Glen
willful ignorance at that. You know what I mean? Willful in the sense that
someone knows that the American people are being quietly ripped off by the
legal system ( remember, it's is the consumer who pays for it all in the
end, and no, it does NOT necessarily lead to safer products!) and for
secret reasons of their own they refuse to admit it, striking out at those
who decry it. Are you a lawyer by any chance?
Comanche72
>negligent by not reducing the temperature of the coffee. I won't buy coffee
>at McDonalds because IT'S TO DAMNED HOT!!!
My interest is usually just aviation but I have to weigh in on the coffee
issue. McDonalds uses the same temperature that other makers of
"Bunn-O-Matic", or whatever coffemaker sets in their product. Commercial
coffemakers are always hotter than what your Mr. Coffee would make. If they
weren't your coffee would be cold before you got where you were going or before
your order was completed. This is a "Blood sucking Lawyer", canard (see I got
aviation in there!) about too hot coffee. Okay, I'm through.
Dylan Smith
: John Devner cannot say "Ya I was a DUMBASS" - he's dead!
:
: McDonalds continued serving coffee at a much higher temperature than the
: industry standard even after receiving numerous complainds about burns.
That's why McDonald's Coffee was worth drinking. It was actually served
at the CORRECT temperature! The "industry standard" (can you point me
to something that says this is industry standard?) temperature, if
colder, makes for absolutely lousy coffee.
Coffee is supposed to be served scalding hot. If its kept or made at too
low of a temperature, it tastes awful. (I believe the lawsuit didn't
deter McDonald's from making good coffee - last time I had one there,
it was made at the right temperature). I think they just put "Caution, Hot!"
on their cups after the lawsuit.
--
Dylan Smith, Houston TX.
Flying: http://www.alioth.net/flying
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"
Bob Chilcoat
It never occured to me that I could sue someone. I always thought I was
just really, really stupid. COFFEE IS SUPPOSED TO BE HOT! I guess I WAS
really stupid -- I didn't sue. DUMB!
--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways - "Always spare landings for every
takeoff")
----------
"Dylan Smith" <dy...@alioth.net> wrote in message
news:8rdh27$fdk$3...@ausnews.austin.ibm.com...
Tracy R Reed
>We pay a high price for our consitutional rights to sue and be sued,
>but do these time-honored rights not deter the wrongdoer from failure
>to exercise due care and in some way recompense the injured?
They do not. Do you really think all of the aviation industry has been so
negligent and careless in their design and construction that everything now
costs much more than it should? Is it fair to those who are innocent that they
have to carry a lot of liability insurance because even though they design a
good product with attention to quality that some jury who knows nothing about
aircraft except that they seem to fall out of the sky regularly and kill people
might find them liable for pilot error?
Sometimes we all run into some bad luck. That bad luck is going to kill some of
us. Yet they always seem to find someone to squeeze for money.
No doubt our system is the best in the world but it is silly to think that it
is anywhere nearly as good as it possibly could be.
--
Tracy Reed http://www.ultraviolet.org
Warren & Nancy
the mouth after burning it. ;-)
Warren
RobertR237
writes:
>
>> Personally, I'm with you -- it takes iron yarbles to sue for an
>accident caused
>> by fuel mismanagement. But the US legal system is utterly corrupt.
>
>You may make such a rash statement out of ignorance. If so, pardon
>you, but America's legal system will go on protecting people personally
>injured by the carelessness of others only so long as Americans are
>aware that their justice system is even-handed.
>
>You make assumptions you may not be entitled to make. Personally I
>suspect the fuel valve functioned as it was designed but was claimed to
>have been designed defectively. But then it would be rash for me to
>make that speculation. In any event the ultimate decision would have
>been for the jury, and apparently the defendant(s) opted out by
>settling --- a common practice in that arena. I would also suspect the
>figure was quite small in light of the actual damages if negligence
>were in fact proven to a jury. But then again I over-speculate.
>
>We pay a high price for our consitutional rights to sue and be sued,
>but do these time-honored rights not deter the wrongdoer from failure
>to exercise due care and in some way recompense the injured?
>
What you fail to cover is that the legal system has grown into a LEGAL
BLACKMAIL system in which the defendant can not win even if proven to have done
no wrong. I suspect that the settlement in this case was far less than the
cost of litigation would have been even to prove no fault before a jury. Yes,
we pay a high price for the right to sue and be sued. We pay an even higher
price for the defense of our rights in the form of insurance and needless
litigation. The system, as it exists at the moment, sucks.
Dan Horton
these time-honored rights not deter the wrongdoer from failure to exercise due
care and in some way recompense the injured?<
Uh oh, looks like we have a member of the ATLA among us. Hey James, if
you're a lawyer, say so. A bit worse than leprosy in this forum. but it's the
trade you picked.
The answer is "No". Bad guys don't give a damn. Get a big judgement
against them and they just go bankrupt. Meanwhile companies run by honest men
and staffed by concerned individuals live in fear of a lawyer letter announcing
the end of their bank account. The plaintiff is often some idiot who has
raised the bar for idiot-proof design.
Yes, we need the right to sue. What we need even more is some limitations
on when and why you can sue. Acceptance of personal responsibility is a good
place to start.
Dan Horton
S. Ramirez
favor of being personally responsible for my actions, and everyone talks
about it, but why can't we get this implemented? It surely would solve a
lot of damn problems, not just the immediate one. More responsible
Americans would cause this country to straighten out a lot everywhere.
-Simon Ramirez
Russell Kent
> Yes, we need the right to sue. What we need even more is some limitations
> on when and why you can sue. Acceptance of personal responsibility is a
> good place to start.
To which Simon Ramirez replied:
> Why in the hell can't we get these politicians to do this, Dan? I am in
> favor of being personally responsible for my actions, and everyone talks
> about it, but why can't we get this implemented? It surely would solve a
> lot of damn problems, not just the immediate one. More responsible
> Americans would cause this country to straighten out a lot everywhere.
Simon,
I think there's the possibility of at least *one* Sociology PhD. thesis in the
explanation to your question. I'm not presenting one here in this forum,
where it is obviously outside the charter of the newsgroup. I'm certain you
could get all manner of responses on one of the "law" newsgroups if you really
care to discuss it.
Suffice it to say that tort law is in the state it is today because (in the
specific cases) our fellow citizens are unwilling to allow the "less capable"
among us to bear sole responsibility when they injure themselves. This
position is at odds, however, when we speak to our fellow citizens in the
general case: they uniformly bemoan the state of tort law and awards today.
And, BTW, one cannot legislate responsibile behavior any more than one can
legislate moral behavior.
Russell Kent
Charles K. Scott
"S. Ramirez" <sram...@deleet.cfl.rr.com> writes:
> Why in the hell can't we get these politicians to do this, Dan?
What, ah say WHAT a straight line..... because the politicians is all
lawyers down thar.
"What's he talkin bout" said the old timer listening to a politician
droning on for hours. "He don't say", said his companion.
Corky Scott
Al Mills
> The answer is "No". Bad guys don't give a damn. >Get a big
judgement against them and they just go >bankrupt. Meanwhile companies run
by honest men
> and staffed by concerned individuals live in fear of a >lawyer letter
announcing the end of their bank account. >The plaintiff is often some
idiot who has raised the bar >for idiot-proof design.
fool who crashed his airbike, TEAM won. So the damned fool sued again on
different grounds (The judge allowed it!) and TEAM folded for lack of funds
to defend itself again. TEAM did eventually win the second suit as well.
AL Mills
highflyer
>
> Yes, we need the right to sue. What we need even more is some limitations
> on when and why you can sue. Acceptance of personal responsibility is a good
> place to start.
I have always found it interesting. If you slip and break your leg on
my front porch, I am ASSUMED negligent and my homeowners insurance
company
will buy off your lawyer.
If you slip and break your leg on the sidewalk in the City Park you are
required to show that the city was not only negligent about fixing the
walk, but harbored INTENT to do harm.
Why do we have a dual standard. ALL liability lawsuits should be
required
to show "knowledge and intent" before liability is established, IMHO.
At the very least, the requirements for suit should be level for all
players.
--
HighFlyer
Highflight Aviation Services
highflyer
>
> And, BTW, one cannot legislate responsibile behavior any more than one can
> legislate moral behavior.
The CAA, which later became the FAA, was founded originally because
there
were entirely too many people in aviation who failed to excercise a
modicum of responsible behavior.
The CAR's, which later became FAR's, are the resulting attempt to
legislate responsible behavior.
We all know just how well they succeed and how it affects the cost of
everything "aviation related." ( Note obligatory aviation content! :-)
James L.
high...@alt.net wrote:
> Dan Horton wrote:
> >
> > Yes, we need the right to sue. What we need even more is some
limitations
> > on when and why you can sue. Acceptance of personal responsibility
is a good
> > place to start.
> > Dan Horton
>
> I have always found it interesting. If you slip and break your leg on
> my front porch, I am ASSUMED
No, that isn't the law, not in my state. And I doubt it is in yours.
negligent and my homeowners insurance
> company
> will buy off your lawyer.
On a slip and fall they usually fight tooth and nail against paying but
sometimes will pay a little nuisance value. It depends on why the
invitee slipped and fell and whether he was there as a business invitee
or just a guest. If he's a trespasser, you owe him practically nothing
in the way of due care, unless he's a child and you have an attractive
nuisance.
Golly, you guys like to oversimplify, don't you? Is that the way you
put your airplanes together, by oversimplifying?
>
> If you slip and break your leg on the sidewalk in the City Park you
are
> required to show that the city was not only negligent about fixing the
> walk, but harbored INTENT to do harm.
There's no way in hell you could EVER prove malicious intent. No way.
You flunk the bar, Highflyer.
>
> Why do we have a dual standard. ALL liability lawsuits should be
> required
> to show "knowledge and intent" before liability is established, IMHO.
>
> At the very least, the requirements for suit should be level for all
> players.
>
> --
> HighFlyer
> Highflight Aviation Services
>
Hey, Tony, straighten this guy out. (No way to straighten Horton out;
his head is case-hardened.)
Highflyer, what are you high on today? That's not the law. You
understand nothing about sovereign immunity or how it is waived by a
state or municipality, or about intent, which may be presumed under the
factual circumstances. There may be an appellate decision in your
state from which the "law" as you state it may be inferred. But I
doubt it. Moreover, you have made your statement overbroad, as if the
law in your state is the same in other states. And it nevah, nevah is.
You amateur lawyers ought to go back to your amateur homebuilding and
hangar-lying and quit pontificating in areas where you haven't a spark
of understanding or a whiff of knowledge.
James L. -- building a Whisky Lima
Kevin O'Brien
says...
<snip>
>She has feet firmly planted in both the aviation and Denverite
>communities.
Denverite? I guess we have to call his fans something, but it sounds like a
cult.
"FBI Spokesman Shootemall Letgodsortemout reiterated that the 208-mm howitzers
the agency has positioned around the Denverite compound are strictly defensive
in nature. The Denverite cult follows a gentle, bespectacled folk singer and
teaches love of life and reverence for nature. 'There's something fishy about
this,' Letgodsortemout says. The spokesman denied a raid is iminent. 'We'd like
to,' he admitted, 'but it's hard to get the CAP cadets in position.'"
Or how about: "Al Gore reiterated today that he had no idea the event at the
Denverite ashram was a fund-raiser. 'True, all these people in seventies clothes
were sticking money in my pockets, and I can see how that might look mighty
suspicious,' he said. 'But I *was* doing lap-dances.'
or: 'Jennifer Nimrod of Bakersfield, California barely noticed when her daughter
Emily started wearing sandals and beads. When acoustic guitar music replaced the
blare of Eminem from Emily's room, Mrs Nimrod *thought* she was seeing an
improvement. But Emily was keeping a sinister secret from her own mother. What
can *you* do -- when your child becomes a Denverite? I'm Mike Wallace...'
Kevin O'Brien
>
>
>
>> Personally, I'm with you -- it takes iron yarbles to sue for an
>accident caused
>> by fuel mismanagement. But the US legal system is utterly corrupt.
>
>You may make such a rash statement out of ignorance. If so, pardon
>you, but America's legal system will go on protecting people personally
>injured by the carelessness of others only so long as Americans are
>aware that their justice system is even-handed.
Only a lawyer, who personally profits from the rot in the system, could make a
statement that the system is even-handed. Neither the criminal, nor the civil,
nor the probate courts are in any way even handed. For one thing, they are all
run by the lawyers for the lawyers, and the nominal plaintiffs and defendants be
damned. In which way is the system even handed? Perhaps in that all comers are
ripped off by the Corleone family of the age, the legal 'profession.'
Most people who are personally injured are personally injured by carelessness,
if that's what you want to call it, of their own. The instant case of N555JD
being a perfect illustration. There were at least five points where the pilot
could have made a wiser decision and broken the chain of events that led to his
premature expiry. He made the dumb call all five times. There is NO point
where... not even the valve maker, but the company that owned the company that
made the valves, once (!) could have interrupted that chain.
>You make assumptions you may not be entitled to make.
Enumerate them, counselor.
> Personally I
>suspect the fuel valve functioned as it was designed but was claimed to
>have been designed defectively.
Yes, even though it worked finen after being fished off the ocean floor about a
week earlier.
> But then it would be rash for me to
>make that speculation. In any event the ultimate decision would have
>been for the jury,
Bamboozled and flummoxed by a bunch of irrelevant information and tendentious
statements by your brothers and sisters of the trial bar ...
> and apparently the defendant(s) opted out by
>settling --- a common practice in that arena.
Yes, just as most people in South Boston paid Whitey Bulger and Franny Fraine
not to burn their small businesses down. But when lawyers do it it isn't
extortion, because they control the entire, corrupt, system.
> I would also suspect the
>figure was quite small in light of the actual damages if negligence
>were in fact proven to a jury.
I'll agree there. If Acme valve company was carelessly making killer valves, a
jury would hammer them. But it's a long way to go from a bozo's improper
operation of a good valve to negligence, isn't it? Your brothers and sisters
would of course, argue that heartless old Acme was making killer valves 'just to
watch 'em die' to crib a line from the man in black. Even if they knew it was
untrue. After someone has been a lawyer for a while the truth is so completely
fungible to him that he's utterly unable to recognise a fact. It is a realm
where the meaning of 'is' maybe ain't. It is an amoral and centreless land of
corruption.
>We pay a high price for our consitutional rights to sue and be sued,
What are you calling 'we,' white man? As I see it *we* pay a high price to the
likes of *you* and your crooked cronies. Crooked judges, crooked lawyers,
crooked politicians. They're just as crooked here as anywhere down South, and
yetr Americans and Canadians look down on latin american culture as corrupt.
>but do these time-honored rights not deter the wrongdoer from failure
>to exercise due care and in some way recompense the injured?
Of course not. Acme made a perfectly good valve, they got sued anyway, because
they have more cash than John Doe who assembled the plane and Bob Schmo who
worked on it last. If Acme pays out, how are they deterred from 'failure to
exercise due care'? Any more than the shopkeeper who gets a visit from one of
Bulger's goons?
Recompense the injured... let me see... I do believe the injured party is dead
as a mackerel. No amount of money can correct that. If it's anyone's fault other
than his -- and it ain't -- can shaking this responsible party down help him in
any way? Not that I can see. Damages to third parties like wives, ex-wives,
kids, cronies, and any wino that some lawyer can pour into a suit and assert
some connexion to the deceased -- that's likewise pathetic. Anyone who really
loved the guy can't be compensated by money. Anyone who didn't shouldn't be. If
the decedent went out intestate and uninsured, it's rotten luck, and I guess he
ought to have been more careful in that, but if you're not careful flying a new
plane you have one hour in, when the hell WILL you be careful?
>Yes, I have read _Bleak House._ It is about the corruption of
>victorian England's Court of Chancery whereby the judges, sitting
>without juries, and British barristers in conspiracy slowly bled an
>estate of a deceased to death
And how is this different from the way that litigation is frequently conducted
today, for the sole and exclusive profit of the attorneys on both sides, without
regard to the interests of the clients? You rightly call that corruption, but
shrink from the word when I apply it to your workspace. It was then, and it is
now. That it is your living does not magically make it moral.
> and often jailed (as in _Pickwick_) the
>executor or administrator for debt whenever the money ran out.
We haven't gone quite so far in blurring the lines between criminal and civil
liability yet, but we're sure heading that way. (To be sure, in the 19th century
in Europe, prison was ONLY for debtors and political prisoners, and regular
criminals got capital or corporal punishment or transportation. Prison for crime
was an American reform).
> I don't
>think "Suffer all wrong which could be done you before coming here!",
>an outcry by Dickens in _Bleak House_ about the Court of Chancery, is
>quite an appropriate condemnation of American courts, at least not yet
>anyway.
You may have a point. The trial bar does not yet screw the plaintiffs as
thoroughly as the defendants. I believe that in the abscess known as the legal
system this is called 'leaving money on the table.'
Dan Horton
>(No way to straighten Horton out; his head is case-hardened.)<
And proud of it. So, are you a lawyer, and a member of the ATLA? If
you're gonna take a pompous position about punishing evil wrongdoers, at least
have the guts to admit your professional associations. And, BTW, to print your
last name.
>You amateur lawyers ought to go back to your amateur homebuilding and
hangar-lying <
Let's see now. In the average court case, 50% of the lawyers fail, but
quite often get paid anyway. You're right, professional liars do better.
>James L. -- building a Whisky Lima<
Nah, you're probably paying a professional shop to do it. The clue is
your attitude about "amateur homebuilders". Wimp.
Dan Horton
James L.
> your attitude about "amateur homebuilders". Wimp.
>
You're worthless with clues. Get that rear case to fit yet, Ichabod?
HERD J D
: >(No way to straighten Horton out; his head is case-hardened.)<
:
: >You amateur lawyers ought to go back to your amateur homebuilding and
: hangar-lying <
:
I won't comment on your deliberations about the US legal fraterntity ,
only to say you Amercians can keep your friggin' lawyers, however I find
the comments regarding homebuilding to be no better than a troll. It
wouldn'y be HOME building, idiot, if it was done in a factory.
Nearly all of the homebuilders here are dedicated people building their
passions to an extremely high standard.
Hand made, after all, is better.
So, get stuffed.
--
Cheers,
Herdy. (Jon Herd)
Dan Horton
Are you a lawyer, and a member of the ATLA? And do you have the guts to
print your name?
Dan Horton
James L.
State the following:
1. Whether you have ever been in a nasty divorce;
2. Whether you have ever been involved in litigation, and the details.
3. Whether you have ever been sued;
4. Whether you are a member of KKK, CCC, or League of the South;
5. Whether you have ever had an interest in a trade or business which
has been sued or involved in litigation;
6. Whether you have ever been subpoenaed as a witness, and the details;
7. Whether you have ever been convicted of a criminal offense;
8. Whether you have ever been charged with a criminal offense.
9 Whether you have ever given false answers on your application for an
FAA medical.
Q&A time, Danny, q&a time.
Nice try on the question about the professional shop. Danny, didn't
you know that licensing a homebuilt requires the licensee to verify,
under penalty of perjury, that he is the builder? You are a malignant
boy, Danny. But if it's all the same to you, no, I don't use a
professional builder and wouldn't commit a felony either, just so's I
could fly.
Now you go off and play with the rest of your bitter little groupies.
Dan Horton
>State the following:......<
Yep, he's a trial lawyer. Nope, he doesn't have the guts to print his
name. Thank you James.
Dan Horton
James L.
Was that little bit of a combustion a bowel cleanser for you?
(aside)Lordy, what have they done, dispatched the IRA to come over 'ere
and take out our respected trial bar?
Peter Gottlieb
"James L." <jam...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8rn9gs$66h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> Was that little bit of a combustion a bowel cleanser for you?
>
> (aside)Lordy, what have they done, dispatched the IRA to come over 'ere
> and take out our respected trial bar?
>
"Respected" ??? Only by themselves.
As has been pointed out previously, we have a "legal" system, not a
"justice" system here in the US. Very different!
And, yes, I have unfortunately had all too much contact with this system and
its players.
Peter
Peter Gottlieb
"Kevin O'Brien" <ke...@useorganisationasdomainname.com> wrote in message
news:8rjo4...@edrn.newsguy.com...
James L.
>
> "Respected" ??? Only by themselves.
>
> As has been pointed out previously, we have a "legal" system, not a
> "justice" system here in the US. Very different!
>
> And, yes, I have unfortunately had all too much contact with this
system and
> its players.
Got tagged at the courthouse for a tort or misbehavior, did you? Well,
that's what our system is for ---- accountability. We incorporated
English Common Law into our constitutional system, thanks to all those
wise Founders who were lawyers. May I suggest you consider another
country where official sentiment towards lawyers, and a distaste for
the rule of law, is like yours? Examples would be Libya, China, Iran,
Iraq, Cuba, Afghanistan.
Tony W,
in-depth discussion of this and similar topics?
Tony
Peter Gottlieb <pe...@NewYorkNERD.com> wrote in message
news:%tID5.8417$uO1.5...@typhoon1.ba-dsg.net...
>
> "James L." <jam...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8rn9gs$66h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> >
> > Was that little bit of a combustion a bowel cleanser for you?
> >
> > (aside)Lordy, what have they done, dispatched the IRA to come over 'ere
> > and take out our respected trial bar?
> >
>
>
> "Respected" ??? Only by themselves.
>
> As has been pointed out previously, we have a "legal" system, not a
> "justice" system here in the US. Very different!
>
> And, yes, I have unfortunately had all too much contact with this system
and
> its players.
>
> Peter
>
>
Peter Gottlieb
conclusions.
Remember, 99% of lawyers give the rest of the profession a bad name.
No tort, no misbehavior; I started the action, and I would have been very
happy if there had been any accountability or even fair play. In the end,
two parties lost, two won. Hint: the lawyers didn't lose.
Any time "law" rewards those who ignore it and punishes those who abide by
it, there is a big problem.
And, sir, for you to have such a nieve understanding of real world law, it
makes me wonder at your true amount of experience.
Or, perhaps there just simply isn't room for such old fashioned concepts as
morality and honesty in the system.
Peter
"James L." <jam...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8rnpa6$hni$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> >
> > "Respected" ??? Only by themselves.
> >
> > As has been pointed out previously, we have a "legal" system, not a
> > "justice" system here in the US. Very different!
> >
> > And, yes, I have unfortunately had all too much contact with this
> system and
> > its players.
>
>
Jerry Springer
>
> On Sat, 07 Oct 2000 18:16:41 GMT, James L. <jam...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> "Respected" ??? Only by themselves.
> >>
> >> As has been pointed out previously, we have a "legal" system, not a
> >> "justice" system here in the US. Very different!
> >>
> >> And, yes, I have unfortunately had all too much contact with this
> >system and
> >> its players.
> >
> >
> >Got tagged at the courthouse for a tort or misbehavior, did you? Well,
> >that's what our system is for ---- accountability. We incorporated
> >English Common Law into our constitutional system, thanks to all those
> >wise Founders who were lawyers. May I suggest you consider another
> >country where official sentiment towards lawyers, and a distaste for
> >the rule of law, is like yours? Examples would be Libya, China, Iran,
> >Iraq, Cuba, Afghanistan.
> >
> >
> >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >Before you buy.
>
>
> Unfortunately, there are people who have managed to make their living
> (to the tune of millions of other peoples dollars) by subverting the
> system and helping others to subvert it. Most of those people have the
> word "attorney" on their business cards somewhere.
>
> I notice you seeem to take personal offense at other people's dislike
> of such people and the system they have subverted. Bummer. You may not
> like it, but you (and the profession in general) had better pay
> attention to it.
>
> If the "law industry" would clean up it's act from within, it would go
> a long way towards restoring public confidence in the legal system by
> which they are employed. Instead, with haughtiness and scorn they just
> scoff at their detractors. That helps their cause SO much...as you are
> doing.
>
> I think our legal system is much better than others, but it can't last
> much longer when "Joe SixPack" only sees the ripoff artists. You guys
> ought to at least get a clue from the communists on the use of
> propaganda. Or even better, actually get a grip on your own people to
> make law the respected profession it once was. Yeah, I know, "fat
> chance".
>
> You may laugh at "Joe SixPack" with the double digit IQ, but if you
> can read history, you should be able to see that he's the one that
> hangs the elite from lamp posts when he gets ticked off enough.
>
> Geez, are we off-topic enough? Where are all you netcops? Observer?
> Roswell? All you nameless one-time "me, too" posters?
>
> Mike Patterson
Mike if you want a "me to" there it is. Only I am saying "me to"
because I am agreeing with what you wrote above very well put.
BTW did I say I have a great dislike for lawyers. A person
driving a vehicle from a multi million dollar company run a red
light and hit my wife and crippled her for life. And has cost us
and my work insurance company over $250,000 but because they could
hire the best lawyers money can buy we did not have a chance. Yes
this is off topic and yes I am bitter when a person can sue for
getting hot coffee spilled on them and win millions and we cannot
even get medical bills paid. Call me "Joe Six-pack" if you like but
I well be the first one to throw the rope around the lamp post.
When I see pompous jerk replies from people like James L I get a
little pissed.
Glen
four times as much for any part of an airplane than it should cost because
of tortphobia that this "system" is good! I'm restoring a plane and paying
through the nose and this is starting to make me angry hearing anyone
defending this. We won't slip into the dark ages because people can't get
awards for $100 million in bulls**t sue whoever has the bucks lawsuits, get
real.
RobertR237
writes:
>>
>> "Respected" ??? Only by themselves.
>>
>> As has been pointed out previously, we have a "legal" system, not a
>> "justice" system here in the US. Very different!
>>
>> And, yes, I have unfortunately had all too much contact with this
>system and
>> its players.
>
>
>Got tagged at the courthouse for a tort or misbehavior, did you? Well,
>that's what our system is for ---- accountability. We incorporated
>English Common Law into our constitutional system, thanks to all those
>wise Founders who were lawyers. May I suggest you consider another
>country where official sentiment towards lawyers, and a distaste for
>the rule of law, is like yours? Examples would be Libya, China, Iran,
>Iraq, Cuba, Afghanistan.
>
>
Respect for the Law and respect for Lawyers are two totally different things.
Mark J Grueninger
>
> Witness the TEAM aviation debacle, sued for defedtive materials by an inept
> fool who crashed his airbike, TEAM won. So the damned fool sued again on
> different grounds (The judge allowed it!) and TEAM folded for lack of funds
> to defend itself again. TEAM did eventually win the second suit as well.
> AL Mills
If the loser had to pay all lawyer fees and court costs it would cut down on
the idea of "sue for anything and maybe I will hit the lottery". If there were
the real chance they would have to cover the lawyers fee on both sides then
these bullshit suits would not even come to court.
Mark J Grueninger
Kevin O'Brien
<jam...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> Was that little bit of a combustion a bowel cleanser for you?
Actually my day brightens every time I think of that lawyer frantically
trying to escape from the sinking plane, and failing. I bet that was a
bowel cleanser for _him_. Do us a favour, James, and fly over water. A
lot. Don't sweat the fuel gages.
> (aside)Lordy, what have they done, dispatched the IRA to come over 'ere
> and take out our respected trial bar?
1. I have nothing to do with the IRA despite having an Irish name.
Considering that IRA has about 250 members and millions of people, most
of them out of Ireland, have Irish names, your assumption is peculiar.
I'm annoyed that you should associate me with a group that is almost as
hostile to civilisation as the plaintiffs bar. But someone who thinks
trial lawyers are a positive force in the world could probably believe
anything, so sure an I'll forgive you and ask the padre to say a few for
your soul.
2. 'respected trial bar'? Hmmm... I don't think _anyone_ can form that
phrase without his tongue firmly in his cheek. Lawyer or no.
cheers
-=K=-
Kevin O'Brien
<jam...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> official sentiment towards lawyers, and a distaste for
> the rule of law, is like yours? Examples would be Libya, China, Iran,
> Iraq, Cuba, Afghanistan.
You're mistaken James, at least in this instance:
In Cuba, law is a respected profession, just like here. Fidel Castro
himself trained as a lawyer. It's excellent training for glib and smooth
lying, a necessity for a leader of a Communist state. Lenin also was a
lawyer, as were Liebknecht, Trotsky, Dzerzhinsky (founder of the KGB --
nice chap). Ho Chi Minh was a lawyer.
You are also confusing the argument -- the tort system != the rule of
law. This is probably a fair rescponce to people (including myself) who
don't distinguish between lawyers in other fields and the corrupt
lawyers of the trial bar.
Name an aviation product that a lawsuit made safer. ??? I can think of
quite a number that lawyers made *less* safe. For an illustration, go to
the instrument panel of any plane... take a bonanza, for instance. Count
the placards -- almost all the more recent ones the result of legal
'minds'. Now, in an emergency, does having two dozen placards help, or
hinder? Look over the placards. How many reiterate something that's
common sense?
Let's talk about the technical advances in other industries that have
not come to aviation, or that come slowly, thanks to the involvement of
the trial bar. My car makes more than three times the horsepower of its
like-displacement ancestor of 25 years ago, and is more efficient -- it
actually burns less fuel to make thrice the power. The car is more
comfortable, safer if you're not an infant (where the actions of lawyers
have put your life at risk). Meanwhile my aero engine is back from a
reman. It has the same performance as one avalable even longer ago. The
aeroplane, were it still in production, would have no performance and
safety improvements over its original design.
Another example. It has taken over thirty years for composite airframes
to come to market in certified aviation, despite being proven in XA and
military aviation (neither of which is lucrative turf for the lawyers).
In fact, the reason many of us are IN xa in the first place is that the
attorneys managed to strangle progress in certified GA so completely
that only here, where the undercapitalisation of firms leaves lawyers
chasing plumper targets, is the ball being advanced on the field.
Finally, the effect of the trial-bar driven delay
Those of you who think I'm being unreasonable and James L (who dare not
speak his name) is defending a maligned profession should look at this
link:
http://home.nycap.rr.com/hittman/aug99/pointy.html
Right on target, and basically says it all. Or do we want to go into how
trial lawyers in one Texas firm routinely suborn perjury to try to get
big settlements in unsupported asbestos cases? And got caught? Mind you,
the people who were actually sick from asbestos, and there were many,
are mostly dead now.. the lawyers are now using pimped-up cases to
extend their life style. The makers are all bankrupt, leaving no one to
clean up the mess.
cheers
-=K=-
'over water James. No sweat, sharks will show you professional courtesy.'
Kevin O'Brien
ric...@berkutNOSPAM.com wrote:
> Let's say they are as passionate about Mr. Denver as some here are
> about the BD5 or automobile engines.
Or the tort system. For instance :(
cheers
-=K=-
Kevin O'Brien
Ramirez" <sram...@deleet.cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> Why in the hell can't we get these politicians to do this, Dan? I am in
> favor of being personally responsible for my actions, and everyone talks
> about it, but why can't we get this implemented?
Simon,
The largest contributing group to both political parties is listed by
the elections authority as 'lawyers and lobbyists.' Trial lawyers tend
to favour the democrats, other lawyers split.
In the 1996 election cycle, Al Gore called Texas tortsters to hit them
up for money. What about the tort reform bill they wanted to know? After
all, it was their livelihood. After President Clinton vetoed the bill,
the lawyers came across with six and seven figure contributions. Now, it
is technically a breach of logic to assume that something happened
because of something that happened before, just because it happened in
that sequence. That's called a 'post hoc ergo proper hoc' argument. Now
that you are aware of the dangers of the post hoc argument, I leave you
free to draw your own conclusions. This is simple one fragrant (and
flagrant) illustration based on publically available information, it
doesn't necessarily indicate the Dems are more cooked than the Repubs.
In this election cycle trial lawyers have outspent some other political
heavy hitters. They have outspent defence contractors by better than
five to one. They have outspent teachers' unions.
Tell us more about how corrupt it is in Cuba, James (which is of course,
the state you get when you let lawyers [Messrs F. and R. Castro] take
the helm).
Even in aviation lawyers are often bent. In the ongoing scandal over
fake Bell 204s, several of the indictees are members of the bar. (Now,
they may be perfectly innocent -- it's easy to indict somebody,
apparently unless you are the Boulder CO DA). Many of the more
sophisticated white collar and organised crime syndicates could not
operate today without lawyers (just like any other complex business).
cheers
-=K=-
PS I know of one hired gun who built quite a few high performance a/c
before being shut down by FAA. This gentleman confided in me that about
40% of his customers were lawyers (he said 'four in ten'), and they
almost all tried to barter legal services for his ILLEGAL services. One
would be customer attorney, irate at not being able to arrange a
discount, threatened to rat him out instead; he got the discount (I
guess if you're willing to perjure yourself on the form, extortion is a
small, incremental step, and if you're an attorney it's probably your
workaday reality anyhow). Other customers were doctors, dentists,
entrepreneurs and one FAA examiner(!) The argument HIS (Mr Hired Gun's)
lawyer made (this is hearsay, so...) when he fought the FAA, was that
FAA knew and tolerated his activity because they knew he was building
safer planes than what lawyers and doctors might put together... the ALJ
was not buying, but that's a kangaroo court anyway, you might as well
make you're argument amusing if you're gonna waste your breath in there.
-K
Kevin O'Brien
W," <techn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > No but he had time to get himself tanked up.
> > >
> > > Tony W.
> >
> >
> > The autopsy showed no drugs or alcohol in Denver's system but then,
> > you
> > knew that, didn't you...?
> > --
> > sparks
> > !-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -->
> > http://www.thehungersite.com/
> > the only free lunch on the net...
> > mailto:spark...@my-deja.com
>
> I heard otherwise but through unofficial sources that he'd been dipping
> into
> the Jack Daniels' before his flight. If he was sober, it was still
> stupid
> to take off without topping up the tanks. I don't go for a motorcycle
> ride
> without checking the fuel level much less go for a flight without doing
> the
> same.
Tony W. and all -- this is one of two rumours that appeared the day of
Denver's death (the other one being that he was despondent and committed
suicide). Both rumours have been exhaustively investigated and
thoroughly debunked. Mr Denver was stone sober when he died, and was at
a particularly happy time in his life; he was chuffed with his new
aeroplane for one thing.
It was, as many accidents are, a concatenation of numerous small and, in
themselves, insignificant errors that led to his unfortunate demise. As
I have said, there are at least five places I've seen where a single
small act would have broken the chain. In the end, it was failure to FLY
THE PLANE in an emergency that did him in. Frankly the valve could have
been made of cheese and fallen clean off the plane in flight, and if he
only FLEW THE PLANE he'd have come out right. There were e-landing
suitable places beneath him. he might have damaged the plane, but SCREW
THE PLANE.
cheers
-=K=-
Tony W,
whenever I repeat something I hear on a national news report I end up
looking stupid.
Tony
Kevin O'Brien <ke...@useorganisationasadomainname.com> wrote in message
news:kevin-F03E63.13490408102000@[209.155.56.93]...
Tony W,
If there are any lawyers on thins NG, don't take it personal and fame me.
What is the difference between a lawyer and a catfish?
One is a bottom dwelling, low life, slime sucker and the other is a fish.
Tony
Unknown
wrote:
Especially if the lawyers who take on these weak and questional cases
were the ones who would be on the hook to pay if their client couldn't
cover the costs. Far fewer insurance companies would be likely to
just pay a nuisance fee to be rid of the problem. This would have the
affect of leaving the lawers to be far more selective on which cases
they would be willing to file especially if that case was weak.
marca(AT) techline (DOT) com
(AT) = @ (DOT) = .
Dan Horton
<<You are not going to convince people who pay four times as much for any part
of an airplane than it should cost because of tortphobia that this "system" is
good!>>
"James L" thinks the system is good. After all, it's paying for his
"Whiskey Lima".
Let's see now. I'm clueless, but I'll jump out there and say that must
be a "White Lightning". Yeah, a simple little project that a busy defender of
truth and justice can knock out in his spare time. No professional help for
him. As he pointed out, that would be illegal and might eliminate his chances
of obtaining an airworthiness certificate after spending all his hard-earned
money. Wouldn't that be awful?
How about it guys? Can we find this airplane? Not many White Lightning
projects out there.
Dan Horton
Bob Chilcoat
Keeps the foreskin from slipping up over their faces.
--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways - "Always spare landings for every
takeoff")
----------
"Tony W," <techn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:k0dE5.52763$sB2.1...@news-east.usenetserver.com...
Tony W,
After 3 drinks a pig does not turn into a lawyer.
I always love a good lawyer joke.
Tony
Bob Chilcoat <view...@erolREMOVEs.com> wrote in message
news:8rsrf2$jd9$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
James L.
dhp...@aol.com (Dan Horton) wrote:
> Glen writes:
> <<You are not going to convince people who pay four times as much for
any part
> of an airplane than it should cost because of tortphobia that this
"system" is
> good!>>
Glen, welcome to the world of personal responsibility. Now deal with
it -- the fact you bought a pig in the poke -- and quit wailing. It's
your fault you chose that ragged miniplane and your fault those AD's
were missed. Kick yourself. Don't blame the A&P or the seller who
misrepresented it to you; accept your personal responsibility.
Gosh! Of all tomfool things to hear and the gumption of those what
thinks they have the right to point fingers at others for their own
foolishness and irresponsibility.
>
> "James L" thinks the system is good. After all, it's paying for
his
> "Whiskey Lima".
Ah, caught you barking up the wrong tree again, dumb bammian from the
land where functional illiteracy is cultivated and cherished. Every
wild guess you've made to date is a lie.
>
> Let's see now. I'm clueless, but I'll jump out there and say
that must
> be a "White Lightning". Yeah, a simple little project that a busy
defender of
> truth and justice can knock out in his spare time. No professional
help for
> him. As he pointed out, that would be illegal and might eliminate
his chances
> of obtaining an airworthiness certificate after spending all his hard-
earned
> money. Wouldn't that be awful?
> How about it guys? Can we find this airplane? Not many White
Lightning
> projects out there.
>
Have at it if you're game. And while you're contemplating it, be wary
that the quarrelsome grunts of a few misfit hangar apes may not be the
voice of the entire country.
Russell Kent
> Thanx and I have been set right on this several times. It seems that
> whenever I repeat something I hear on a national news report I end up
> looking stupid.
>
> Tony
Obviously it's time for you to get a better news source.
Russell Kent
Kevin O'Brien
> "James L" thinks the system is good. After all, it's paying for his
>"Whiskey Lima".
>
> Let's see now. I'm clueless, but I'll jump out there and say that must
>be a "White Lightning". Yeah, a simple little project that a busy defender of
>truth and justice can knock out in his spare time. No professional help for
>him. As he pointed out, that would be illegal and might eliminate his chances
>of obtaining an airworthiness certificate after spending all his hard-earned
>money. Wouldn't that be awful?
> How about it guys? Can we find this airplane? Not many White Lightning
>projects out there.
I also guessed White Lightning. Hmmm. I know where there's one that HAS flown
but is down for maintenance. The maintenance is being done by a hired A&P, not
the owner. Not sure if the owner is the builder. If the owner is 'James L.' I'll
know in a couple of days.
If it is his, and he bought the plane already registered, to have it maintained
and modified by an A&P is completely legal. Indeed to work on it himself would
be.
Hey, Whitey Bulger thinks 'extortion, racketeering and fraud' (to crib a line
from singer Jon Wasserman) are good, 'cause they're paying for his continued
tour of the casinos of North America, thanks to his friends in the FBI that
tipped him off. (They've changed their tune, and he's on the 10-most-wanted
now... will be a good source of money for some lucky lawyer when they finally
catch him. Maybe James L. Who says crime doesn't pay?)
cheers
-=K=-
Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.
Glen
"James L." wrote:
> In article <20001008204319...@ng-fu1.aol.com>,
> dhp...@aol.com (Dan Horton) wrote:
> > Glen writes:
> > <<You are not going to convince people who pay four times as much for
> any part
> > of an airplane than it should cost because of tortphobia that this
> "system" is
> > good!>>
>
> Glen, welcome to the world of personal responsibility. Now deal with
> it -- the fact you bought a pig in the poke -- and quit wailing. It's
> your fault you chose that ragged miniplane and your fault those AD's
> were missed. Kick yourself. Don't blame the A&P or the seller who
> misrepresented it to you; accept your personal responsibility.
>
> Gosh! Of all tomfool things to hear and the gumption of those what
> thinks they have the right to point fingers at others for their own
> foolishness and irresponsibility.
>
Not the Miniplane, see, you are NOT omniscient! It is a certified aircraft.
Everything else in here is not from me, so I hope you weren't trying to say
I said them, Life is too short to deal with you. Is that how you win
arguments? make people get so mad they just walk away?
Glen
>
> >
> > "James L" thinks the system is good. After all, it's paying for
> his
> > "Whiskey Lima".
>
> Ah, caught you barking up the wrong tree again, dumb bammian from the
> land where functional illiteracy is cultivated and cherished. Every
> wild guess you've made to date is a lie.
>
> >
> > Let's see now. I'm clueless, but I'll jump out there and say
> that must
> > be a "White Lightning". Yeah, a simple little project that a busy
> defender of
> > truth and justice can knock out in his spare time. No professional
> help for
> > him. As he pointed out, that would be illegal and might eliminate
> his chances
> > of obtaining an airworthiness certificate after spending all his hard-
> earned
> > money. Wouldn't that be awful?
> > How about it guys? Can we find this airplane? Not many White
> Lightning
> > projects out there.
> >
>
Dan Horton
>Ah, caught you barking up the wrong tree again, dumb bammian from the land
where functional illiteracy is cultivated and cherished. Every wild guess
you've made to date is a lie.<
Hmmm, I may be dumb, but have a good nose. I smell a little nervous
denial here. Hey dickhead, you wrote this:
<<On Sun, 24 Sep 2000 23:47:32 GMT, James L. <jam...@my-deja.com> wrote:
BTW, somebody should publish the link to El Roto's Europa site herein. I
haven't seen it in the thread so far. I'd like to see it. As a White
Lightning builder, I am fond of any flying machine made of glass reinforced
plastic.>>>
Ok guys, start looking for that White Lightning in the North Carolina
area, possibly around Ashville.
Gosh, I just had a thought between mouthfulls of grits. My illiterate
mind seems to recall that the folks who marketed the White Lightning kits were
based up that way, and run a completion shop too.
Enjoy your garden, buddy. That Whiskey Lima is gonna look good with
roses planted in it.
Dan Horton
Stevens R. Miller
Dan Horton wrote:
>
> Gosh, I just had a thought between mouthfulls of grits.
Do you find they survive reheating well? Next-day grits aren't as good,
and I've had no luck with freezing them.
James L.
Ho hum.
Brian Rauchfuss - PCD
Kevin O'Brien <ke...@useorganisationasadomainname.com> wrote:
>Let's talk about the technical advances in other industries that have
>not come to aviation, or that come slowly, thanks to the involvement of
>the trial bar. My car makes more than three times the horsepower of its
>like-displacement ancestor of 25 years ago, and is more efficient -- it
>actually burns less fuel to make thrice the power. The car is more
>comfortable, safer if you're not an infant (where the actions of lawyers
>have put your life at risk). Meanwhile my aero engine is back from a
>reman. It has the same performance as one avalable even longer ago. The
>aeroplane, were it still in production, would have no performance and
>safety improvements over its original design.
I just had to reply to your claim that the car engine is more fuel efficient
than an aircraft engine. In general this is not true. The car engine has
thrice the power with the same displacement due to running at a high rpm,
which hurts efficiency due to the increased friction. Car engines get
BSFC numbers around 0.45, similar to an aircraft engine. The best
aircraft engines with GAMinectors and leaned well can get below 0.40.
Brian
James L.
>
> I just had to reply to your claim that the car engine is more fuel
efficient
> than an aircraft engine. In general this is not true. The car
engine has
> thrice the power with the same displacement due to running at a high
rpm,
> which hurts efficiency due to the increased friction. Car engines
get
> BSFC numbers around 0.45, similar to an aircraft engine. The best
> aircraft engines with GAMinectors and leaned well can get below 0.40.
>
> Brian
>
You just went over -=K's=- head. He's not satisfied with being an
obscure buffoon. He must run his mouth and be a public one.
Peter Gottlieb
news:20001010022014...@ng-fu1.aol.com...
> area, possibly around Ashville.
>
I think the guy's a jerk too but when you start tracking someone down in my
book you've crossed the line. Leave him be. What goes around comes around,
he'll get his someday.
Peter
Dan Horton
>I think the guy's a jerk too but when you start tracking someone down in my
book you've crossed the line. Leave him be. What goes around comes around,
he'll get his someday.<
Well, actually I tend to agree with you, but this guy is a special case.
Unlike you and I, he won't print his real name under his opinions. Actually,
he has used several names and trolls quite a few newsgroups, insulting
everywhere he goes. He's gonna be a whole lot less insulting when the whole
world knows his name, address, and N-number.
As for "getting his someday", what could be more fitting than an FAA
refusal to grant an amateur-built airworthiness certificate for his
professionally-built big bucks airplane? The fun part is that he won't know if
it's gonna happen until it's time for the inspection.
Of course, I wouldn't turn him in. A fellow pilot wouldn't do that. But
gosh, there are so many folks out there who would, mostly in other newsgroups,
people who don't think anybody should be allowed to fly over their house with
an experimental airplane. He has pissed off hundreds of them.
Dan Horton
James L.
dhp...@aol.com (Dan Horton) wrote:
> Peter writes:
> >I think the guy's a jerk too but when you start tracking someone
down in my
> book you've crossed the line. Leave him be. What goes around comes
around,
> he'll get his someday.<
>
No, you don't, slimy wanker.
, but this guy is a special case.
I'll look you up in your courthouse and you'll be published. Wait and
see, scumbag.
> Unlike you and I, he won't print his real name under his opinions.
All of which must have grievously injured you, prurient juvenile bitch.
Actually,
> he has used several names and trolls quite a few newsgroups, insulting
> everywhere he goes. He's gonna be a whole lot less insulting when
the whole
> world knows his name, address, and N-number.
The caveat for you, therefore, is not to bring a knife to a gunfight,
or a .22 where there's a cornshucker.
>
> As for "getting his someday", what could be more fitting than
an FAA
> refusal to grant an amateur-built airworthiness certificate for his
> professionally-built big bucks airplane? The fun part is that he
won't know if
> it's gonna happen until it's time for the inspection.
You're funny and so are your cigarettes.
>
> Of course, I wouldn't turn him in. A fellow pilot wouldn't do
that. But
> gosh, there are so many folks out there who would, mostly in other
newsgroups,
> people who don't think anybody should be allowed to fly over their
house with
> an experimental airplane. He has pissed off hundreds of them.
>
> Dan Horton
>
>
Come along, stalking, little boy, and see if it's not as nice as you
rooting your nose up your beloved sow's ass as usual for you.
RobertR237
writes:
>
Yes, yes, RAH is so much more civilized now that BWB is gone and here is the
proof.
James L.
tr...@freeside.ultraviolet.org (Tracy R Reed) wrote:
> James L. <jam...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >We pay a high price for our consitutional rights to sue and be sued,
> >but do these time-honored rights not deter the wrongdoer from failure
> >to exercise due care and in some way recompense the injured?
>
> They do not.
Huh? They don't pay the injured, or they don't deter, or both?
Do you really think all of the aviation industry has been so
> negligent and careless in their design and construction that
everything now
> costs much more than it should?
Put that in numbers. Aircraft and their parts were expensive, even
exorbitant, long before the great post-war tort expansion of the 50's
and 60's. I see you like to put a premise which may not be true in
your questions.
Is it fair to those who are innocent that they
> have to carry a lot of liability insurance because even though they
design a
> good product with attention to quality that some jury who knows
nothing about
> aircraft except that they seem to fall out of the sky regularly and
kill people
> might find them liable for pilot error?
It takes more than a naive jury to find negligence. Do you have any
hard facts or authorities to support the premises you stuck into this
zany question?
>
> Sometimes we all run into some bad luck.
Bad luck is an act of god or perhaps the negligence of him who is
injured or killed and thus not compensable. A shoddy design which
causes injury or death is not bad luck. It's a tort.
That bad luck is going to kill some of
> us. Yet they always seem to find someone to squeeze for money.
What state of facts leads you to these conclusions? From such an
interesting character I see in your website, I would have expected you
to at least provide some anecdotal evidence before you rush to your
judgment.
>
> No doubt our system is the best in the world but it is silly to think
that it
> is anywhere nearly as good as it possibly could be.
Well, I agree with you. Therefore, it was quite an evil that Firestone
and Ford were able -- thanks to sweetheart courts cuddled up with the
big companies -- to negotiate sweetheart deals in wrongful death cases
sealing them up from the public's right to know, causing future
innocent, uninformed SUV purchasers to buy deathtraps when if they had
known the tires were unsafe, they might have contemplated the
consequential "bad luck" (as you call it) which befell them.
>
> --
> Tracy Reed http://www.ultraviolet.org
>
Interesting website, especially the material on Linux.
James L.
Charles...@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott) wrote:
> In article <mxJC5.32390$1H2.2...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>
> "S. Ramirez" <sram...@deleet.cfl.rr.com> writes:
>
> > Why in the hell can't we get these politicians to do this, Dan?
>
> lawyers down thar.
Coming from you, that is a rash statement. The courts may be made of
lawyers, many of them sympathetic with the apparent RAH consensus; but
Congress and the legislatures are not dominated by lawyers.
I got a kick out of your droning politician, BTW.
>
> "What's he talkin bout" said the old timer listening to a politician
> droning on for hours. "He don't say", said his companion.
>
> Corky Scott
James L.
>
> >
>
> Yes, yes, RAH is so much more civilized now that BWB is gone and here
is the
> proof.
>
> Bob Reed
> http://robertr237.virtualave.net/ (KIS Project)
> KIS Cruiser in progress...2001 Oshkosh Odessy ;-) (I can hope!)
>
At least one of the other lawyer-hating RAH groupies was decent enough
to point out that Horton's stalking and threats -- "tracking someone
down" as he called it -- crossed the line.
All this guttersniping started when I objected to all the ridiculous
assumptions made and inaccurate statements in the John Denver
settlement, and you lawyer-haters came out of the woodwork. I didn't
make the first cut and draw blood, if you're man enough to go back and
take a look. And I didn't initiate the personal attacks.
In addition I would say you are intelligent enough to understand why I
might go into a sharp defense mode when someone rabid like a psychopath
threatens my building project, suggests I have conspired to violate FAA
rules, calls on others to join in with him, and wants to publicize my N-
number in order to do harm.
We just buried my father, and one of my children was here from out of
town. I couldn't bring myself to tell you what the low-life said to
her by phone, but I can tell you it came from someone who surfs this
newsgroup. And if you are a father and the things said to her were
spoken to your child, you would have wanted to reach out and tear the
tongue out of his face. If I take up a new address elsewhere I would
never post in usenet under anything but a pseudonym, just as many do
here. Now my father's phone number, which he held faithfully for 40
years, is permanently tainted.
I think I can honestly say I have never menaced or stalked anyone in
usenet with threats, and anyone who does it is most likely a coward who
would sneak up on you from behind and backstab you.
One priceless lesson I have learned from usenet is the unfathomable
quality of human savagery expressible in words. "Sticks and stones can
break my bones, but words will never hurt me." Humph! This was a
bullshit lie my mother told me when I was five.
Yes, I have read some of your posts. You feeble thing, you can't hold
a candle to BWB, despite his occasional sniping, so in my opinion the
NG can do without you but would be drab and colorless without him. I'm
glad he's still here.
What's so funny about this is that I haven't practiced law in years and
years. Even funnier is the fact that the twelve and the judge never
get the blame for what happens at the courthouse. It's always the
lawyer who has pulled a fast one. I went to verdict before at least 50
different juries. They're not stupid. They possess a collective
intelligence and wisdom far above the heads of you lawyer-haters, and
(you can huff and squall about it all you want) it ain't going to
change without a supermajority of Congress and 2/3ds of the states.
Hell will freeze over first. You have to have a dumb jury to be
bamboozled by a slick lawyer. That may happen sometimes but it's
rare. If you have to go to court you don't want the judge to find the
facts for you; they are much less forgiving than juries. Humans have
feet of clay and juries understand that, but not judges, who are more
often than not already dead but just don't realize it. Try shaking
one's clammy hand sometime if you don't believe me and look at the
cyanosis on his cold flesh and feel the rigor mortis. But back to the
lawyer-haters.
As for lawyer-haters such as yourself and scumbags like Horton, it
probably wouldn't take much checking to find out why you have resolved
one sour experience with a lawyer against the whole profession, or you
have been hogwashed by the corporate press to think all of society's
problems flow from the lawyers and that if we could just get rid of
them those airframe and powerplant parts we have to pay so much for
would be reduced by 75% (so Glen could afford them) and Cessnas and
Pipers and Taylorcrafts would fill the skies and everybody could own
one and his own airstrip and avgas would be 25 cents a gallon.
Everybody has to have a bugbear, something or someone to blame.
Personal responsibility, remember? I got so when I went to the
airshows at Lakeland and Oshkosh, I wouldn't even tell what I did for a
living because invariably the lawyer jokes -- the ones I had heard a
hundred times before -- would be pulled out and passed around. And
then somebody, always a child in an adult's skin or a cro-magnon like
Horton, would try to start a fight. Despite this, the company of
pilots and builders is preferable to me to the company of lawyers. I
know the profession needs cleaning up but it's unfair to paint all
lawyers with the same broad brush. And you wouldn't believe the sleaze
in the judiciary, which draws bad lawyers like sh** draws flies. Well,
maybe you would. It's easy, though lazy and intellectually dishonest,
to think and shoot off your mouths with labels and stereotypes. I'm
even at fault for taking a poke at the judiciary, but it is rotten and
needs reform.
Now let's take this guy Guttlieb who is apparently from NY and hates
lawyers because he says he went into court as a plaintiff and was
stiffed by two. So he had a fool for a lawyer and he hates lawyers,
and although he's critical of Horton for stalking, he says "What comes
around goes and around, and he will get his sooner or later." So he's
not quite the slimy hypocrite Horton is because he just wishes me ill,
wishes me harm, but won't stoop so low as to act it out and slit the
fabric on my taildragger as Horton would. Of course, he's told you
just so much of his side of the story to make you think, "Oh, this guy
is another victim of the cursed legal profession." But, odds are, you
can take a good hard objective look at his case and see where he's
pulled some punches and made some missteps and things have worked
against his tragic flaw -- just like in Shakespeare's tragedies -- tiny
little quirky things have worked together to undo him, little moles of
reason like he talks about in _Hamlet,_ so he distills it all down
right easy like and simplifies it and blames the entire thing on the
lawyers. Stereotypical bugbears. Boogie-men. They are responsible
for his miseries 100%, and no amount of reasoning with him, not even a
personal visit from God Almighty, could convince him that lawyers
aren't devils incarnate.
Now I could bring up this show-off clown -=K=-, another slobbering
lawyer-hater, but I think he's already fairly much destroyed what
little credit he had and made a laughingstock of himself by running his
mouth cooking up fantastic relative efficiency numbers on auto
engines. If you believe this buffoon, mass extermination of the
lawyers would instantly solve all the world's problems. He should take
his personal testimony into misc.legal or alt.lawyers. Someone there
would be happy to hold his limp, fishy little hand and hear his whining.
I won't say lawyers haven't deserved a lot of the grief they get. They
do deserve some of it. The point is that too many sweeping
generalizations are made about them, and that whenever a guy takes a
swipe at them, if you take a good hard look at his story, he's fudging
about something. Not always, but most of the times I go looking I find
bugs in his story. Humans aren't honest, and the most monstrous lies
they tell to themselves, and then when they pass them on to others,
they are cocksure of their accuracy. Like Swift said, by satire you
hold a kind of mirror up to reveal the flaws of humanity, but everyone
who looks into the glass sees every other man but himself. And another
thing I've found to be almost ironclad truism is that when someone is
pissed at you you'll play hell getting him to tell you the REAL
reason. It may be embedded, it may be so deep down inside they don't
even know themselves, and you have to struggle mightily with them to
find out what the hell the beef is all about.
Now I want to finish up with all this off=topic meandering by telling a
little story about how they used to bury people in my little village.
The men would gather around the open grave and each of them recount a
warm anecdote about the dearly departed, how he was loved and lost,
some kind but true words, and nothing too mushy, but a warm memory.
Then after each short eulogy the surviving friend would take a little
handful of the freshly dug dirt and cast it down on the coffin and the
next friend would speak and so on.
Then the day came that they had to bury the shiftiest character in the
village, the town scoundrel who was a chicken-thief, cheated at the
card table, lay drunk on rotgut whisky, and beat his wife and
children. And the elders all gathered around the grave and looked down
inside where the sorry carcass lay. None of them had anything to say,
and finally the most respected amongst them, an old bush pilot with
keen blue eyes, stepped forward and said solemnly, "I don't have a
speech to make about old Dan here, but I'd like to say a few good words
about the valiant young men and women in the country who build their
own airplanes."
Stevens R. Miller
"James L." wrote:
> Congress and the legislatures are not dominated by lawyers.
James, you mostly give me the impression you know what you are talking
about, so I'm genuinely hoping you can point me to a source for a
statistic on this. I thought the federal Senate was mostly lawyers, at
least back in the 1980's. (It was mostly millionaires, in '84 or
thereabout; 86 of 100, or so I read somewhere.) Not that lawyers
writing laws bothers me much. Lawyers have all been to law school, and
I rather like the idea of people studying the subject before working in
the field. Other ways to get that education, of course, but law school
is a good one, too.
Charles K. Scott
James L. <jam...@my-deja.com> writes:
> I got a kick out of your droning politician, BTW.
That was a parody meant to sound like Foghorn Leghorn.
Corky Scott