Thoughts on Oshkosh

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

There is an overwhelming safety issue concerning tailwheel propeller
warbirds that absolutely has to be addressed AS A SINGLE ISSUE by the FAA
and the EAA before accidents like the one this week can be prevented.
I've seen this issue discussed peripherally in safety meetings at these
shows, and I've seen it addressed peripherally in the warbird community, but
I've never seen the issue of loss of visual cues due to lack of S taxi room
in a high density close in taxi environment dealt with as a MAJOR safety
issue directed at the community it affects.......tailwheel propeller
warbirds!

There is a HUGE problem involved in moving tailwheel warbirds like P51's,
F8F's TBM's, TBF's, Spitfires, Sea Furies...you name it.....in a ground
environment where there is limited room to S taxi these airplanes to clear
the nose while in motion.

I know the issue has been addressed in the pilot safety meetings and by
in-community newsletter, but it's not enough; not by a long shot!! You
simply can't put a P51 or a TBM in a mass of moving aircraft on the ground
in a taxi environment involving dissimilar aircraft in limited taxi space.
This in my opinion is one of the most dangerous ground scenarios you can
possibly imagine.

You taxi these fighters by constantly clearing the nose in front of you as
you yaw the airplane side to side. Your basic visual cue is a small area in
the lower sides of the windshield side panels. This results in a constant
blind area that you are both moving into and alternately checking visually.
This scenario has actually been addressed by the powers that be at Oshkosh,
as the people running this show are warbird oriented to say the least, but
the precautions obviously have not been enough on more than one occasion,
and most likely won't be enough again if something isn't done to improve the
ground safety situation out there.
On the face of it, radio contact and wing walkers should be enough, but
obviously there are flaws in this system. There are areas of transition
where handoffs are being missed, and individual airplanes are being allowed
to make position changes unassisted. It appears that in these areas the
accidents are happening.
NO tailwheel warbird should be allowed ANY ground movement at Oshkosh
without a wing walker.........PERIOD! It's just too dangerous. Pilots of
these airplanes can't see if they can't S taxi, and in many cases, there
just isn't sufficient room for the pilots of these airplanes to clear their
noses. Add to this deplorable situation the fact that the airplane in front
of a P51 or a TBM could be a Pitts, or some other extremely small airplane,
and you have the perfect recipe for a disaster.
FAA.......EAA......and the warbird community.........you people better start
realizing that the tailwheel issue taxiing these airplanes is important
enough an issue at Oshkosh that it gets addressed as one of the single most
important safety issues at this show and is handled in a manner dictated by
its importance and not as a general safety issue.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:47:59 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote in
t>::

>NO tailwheel warbird should be allowed ANY ground movement at Oshkosh
>without a wing walker.........PERIOD!

Your suggestion sound reasonable, and coming from someone with your
experience, it would probably be given the attention it deserves if it
were posted here:
https://secure.eaa.org/airventure/atc_feedback.html

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote

> There is a HUGE problem involved in moving tailwheel warbirds like P51's,
> F8F's TBM's, TBF's, Spitfires, Sea Furies...you name it.....in a ground
> environment where there is limited room to S taxi these airplanes to clear
> the nose while in motion.

I would go as far as telling the tailwheel warbird pilots that they are NOT
authorized to move on ANY taxiway without a motorbike wing walker. That is
the ONLY way to stop what happened Sunday.

No handoffs. The same escort, from startup to takeoff.
--
Jim in NC

[Steve Foley[_1_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>
> > There is a HUGE problem involved in moving tailwheel warbirds like
P51's,
> > F8F's TBM's, TBF's, Spitfires, Sea Furies...you name it.....in a ground
> > environment where there is limited room to S taxi these airplanes to
clear
> > the nose while in motion.
>
> I would go as far as telling the tailwheel warbird pilots that they are
NOT
> authorized to move on ANY taxiway without a motorbike wing walker. That
is
> the ONLY way to stop what happened Sunday.
>
> No handoffs. The same escort, from startup to takeoff.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

I wouldn't restrict it to warbirds.

If you can't see someone standing in front of your aircraft from the
cockpit, you need a wing walker.

[Jim Logajan]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> There is an overwhelming safety issue concerning tailwheel propeller
> warbirds that absolutely has to be addressed AS A SINGLE ISSUE by the
> FAA and the EAA before accidents like the one this week can be
> prevented.

I hesitate to suggest technical solutions since not everyone is comfortable
with using fancy technological solutions (and also because new problems may
be added), but why not require such aircraft to install a USB video camera
under the nose of the plane with the cable terminating at a low cost laptop
or tablet PC in the cockpit? The cameras are relatively low cost these days
(as low as $20! [1]) so the major cost is in the laptop or tablet PC.

[1] http://www.usbgear.com/USB-Cameras.html

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Steve Foley" > wrote

> I wouldn't restrict it to warbirds.

Smaller tailwheel birds have enough room that they can S-turn. You have to
draw a limit somewhere. There is no way you could escort every taildragger
at OSH.
--
Jim in NC

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 16:51:49 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote in >::

>"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>> There is an overwhelming safety issue concerning tailwheel propeller
>> warbirds that absolutely has to be addressed AS A SINGLE ISSUE by the
>> FAA and the EAA before accidents like the one this week can be
>> prevented.
>
>I hesitate to suggest technical solutions since not everyone is comfortable
>with using fancy technological solutions (and also because new problems may
>be added), but why not require such aircraft to install a USB video camera
>under the nose of the plane with the cable terminating at a low cost laptop
>or tablet PC in the cockpit? The cameras are relatively low cost these days
>(as low as $20! [1]) so the major cost is in the laptop or tablet PC.
>
>[1] http://www.usbgear.com/USB-Cameras.html


That is an obvious and appropriate solution; thanks for mentioning it.
Just as is done with motor home rear vision, it could be done on the
front of tail draggers. The question is, will it successfully be
approved by the FAA FSDO inspectors. And, is there a sunlight
readable LCD screen that will provide adequate visual information? If
the camera were blue tooth enabled, there wouldn't even be a necessity
for video cabling.

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>> There is an overwhelming safety issue concerning tailwheel propeller
>> warbirds that absolutely has to be addressed AS A SINGLE ISSUE by the
>> FAA and the EAA before accidents like the one this week can be
>> prevented.
>
> I hesitate to suggest technical solutions since not everyone is
> comfortable
> with using fancy technological solutions (and also because new problems
> may
> be added), but why not require such aircraft to install a USB video camera
> under the nose of the plane with the cable terminating at a low cost
> laptop
> or tablet PC in the cockpit? The cameras are relatively low cost these
> days
> (as low as $20! [1]) so the major cost is in the laptop or tablet PC.
>
> [1] http://www.usbgear.com/USB-Cameras.html

One reason would be that when taxiing an aircraft....any aircraft....total
attention should be outside the cockpit. This is especially true in the
tailwheel prop warbird situation. One solution I used often in tight and
busy places was to have a wing "sitter" out on my wingtip. This "sitter" was
assigned to me and went with me all the way into the parking spot. Totally
simple........and totally effective!
Dudley Henriques

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 16:51:49 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote:
> I hesitate to suggest technical solutions since not everyone is comfortable
> with using fancy technological solutions (and also because new problems may
> be added), but why not require such aircraft to install a USB video camera
> under the nose of the plane with the cable terminating at a low cost laptop
> or tablet PC in the cockpit? The cameras are relatively low cost these days
> (as low as $20! [1]) so the major cost is in the laptop or tablet PC.
>
> [1] http://www.usbgear.com/USB-Cameras.html

And if it were to be hooked to the aircraft's electrical system, it
now becomes a $9K item...

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 16:51:49 -0000, Jim Logajan >
> wrote:
>> I hesitate to suggest technical solutions since not everyone is
>> comfortable
>> with using fancy technological solutions (and also because new problems
>> may
>> be added), but why not require such aircraft to install a USB video
>> camera
>> under the nose of the plane with the cable terminating at a low cost
>> laptop
>> or tablet PC in the cockpit? The cameras are relatively low cost these
>> days
>> (as low as $20! [1]) so the major cost is in the laptop or tablet PC.
>>
>> [1] http://www.usbgear.com/USB-Cameras.html
>
> And if it were to be hooked to the aircraft's electrical system, it
> now becomes a $9K item...

On a P51; probably 10 :-))
Dudley Henriques

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 21:24:14 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:
> On a P51; probably 10 :-))

Yeah, the system would need to be some sort of portable configuration
so that it would be possible to keep the FAA from being involved in
it... These planes all have sliding canopies, don't they? How about
basically a perisope? Maybe the small CMOS camera on the end of a
telescoping pole that the pilot attaches to the side of the cockpit or
perhaps even holds in his hand? He could put it up high enough that
he could see in front of him or perhaps far enough over to the side
that he can effectively do the same thing that his taxiing S-turns did
for him... Hmmm... I wonder how tall it would need to be to see over
the engine...

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 21:24:14 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote:
>> On a P51; probably 10 :-))
>
> Yeah, the system would need to be some sort of portable configuration
> so that it would be possible to keep the FAA from being involved in
> it... These planes all have sliding canopies, don't they? How about
> basically a perisope? Maybe the small CMOS camera on the end of a
> telescoping pole that the pilot attaches to the side of the cockpit or
> perhaps even holds in his hand? He could put it up high enough that
> he could see in front of him or perhaps far enough over to the side
> that he can effectively do the same thing that his taxiing S-turns did
> for him... Hmmm... I wonder how tall it would need to be to see over
> the engine...

Trust me on this one...the last thing you need to improve the safety aspect
for taxiing an airplane like a P51 is something added to the mix that keeps
your head down in the cockpit :-)
Something I learned to do in the 51 while taxiing in was to hit the quick
release on my harness, lift myself up while leaning back against the seat
back while keeping my weight against the edge of the front rim of the seat.
That allowed me to put my leg weight on my heels while putting my eye level
just above the windshield bow and over the nose. Seldom used brakes anyway
taxiing, but if I did need them, all I had to do was to raise my feet up to
the top of the pedals.
A lot of pilots flying big iron fighters taxied this way when coming in. Bob
Hoover I remember doing it. Going out was another matter. You couldn't
release the harness going out :-)
The bottom line on taxiing a prop fighter is that in tight places coupled
with high density traffic around you, a wing walker is a VERY good thing to
have. I should think that at a show like Oshkosh, there would no end of
people wanting to volunteer to sit on the wingtip of a prop fighter while it
taxied in.
I know I never had any trouble finding people willing to do this for me.
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>
>> I should think that at a show like Oshkosh, there would no end of
>> people wanting to volunteer to sit on the wingtip of a prop fighter while
> it
>> taxied in.
>> I know I never had any trouble finding people willing to do this for me.
>
> Today, there is too much "lawyer fear" for the organizers to condone that
> practice. Shoot, you are not even supposed to sit in the back of a pickup
> truck, or golf cart, for the fear of someone falling out and cracking
> their
> head open! :-(
> --
> Jim in NC

Someday, if aviation historians gather in some dark august library at some
ivy league college somewhere; and look back at the tatters of what once was
American general aviation, they will agrue for hours on many issues, but all
will nod their heads in agreement on one thing; what killed the very heart
of what once made up American general aviation, was the American lawyer!

Dudley

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
>>what killed the very heart
>>of what once made up American general aviation, was the American lawyer!
>
> For every lawsuit against an aircraft manufacturer, there's
> at least one lawyer on the side of the manufacturer and one
> on the side of the person claiming the aircraft was
> defective because it didn't have a perfect anti-crash doodad
> installed. As far as the lawyers go, it's the only part of
> the process that's reasonably balanced. The final decision
> usually comes down to the jury or the judge or the laws they
> applied. If we don't like the decisions we're getting, it
> strikes me that going after the only balanced part doesn't
> make much sense. I'm more inclined to blame stupid juries
> than anyone else.

You'll never in a million years convince me of this argument. Not that what
I think has any bearing on anything :-))

This is the old " greedy people" argument. I don't buy it; never have; and
never will.
You can have an entire country full of greedy people, all wanting to sue
somebody for God knows what, and indeed, this is exactly what the lawyers
have created in American society....and nothing happens....absolutely
NOTHING....until the lawyer enters the lawsuit equation. You can have a
million people, all wanting to use the legal system for profit and personal
gain, but NOTHING happens unless there is a willing lawyer in this equation.
Lawyers advertizing for lawsuits and fishing the population for "customers",
and lawyers actively engaged in a constant quest to make money in the
lawsuit marketplace is where the blame lies; not with a greedy population.
In fact, if the absolute truth is desired, the American lawyer should be in
the greed equation to PROTECT the system from harm....not to cause that
harm!!!!!
Its the lawyers who have first created the lawsuit market by making the
lawsuit market not only available to the people, but desirable to the
people; then fished the market they created to produce maximum profit for
themselves and their "industry".
The bottom line is that the greedy people argument falls flat on its face
without the active participation of the American lawyer. No jury would in
place without a lawsuit having been filed. No lawsuit could be filed and
tried without the lawyer presenting it. No jury could award to a lawsuit and
indeed wouldn't even be in place in a courtroom without the active
participation of the American trial lawyer.
Its the lawyers raping the system that's the problem; not the greedy people
they are cleverly manipulating. Take the lawyer out of this equation and all
you have left is greedy people with no place to go to feed that greed!
Dudley Henriques

[Jay Beckman]

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
>>what killed the very heart
>>of what once made up American general aviation, was the American lawyer!
>
>For every lawsuit against an aircraft manufacturer, there's at least one
>lawyer on the side of the manufacturer and one on the side of the person
>claiming the aircraft was defective because it didn't have a >perfect
>anti-crash doodad installed.

But how does the person claiming a defect come to know or believe there's a
defect? Funny thing how lawsuits don't get filed *before* someone hires an
attorney.

>As far as the lawyers go, it's the only part of the process that's
>reasonably balanced. The final decision usually comes down to the jury or
>the judge or the laws they
>applied. If we don't like the decisions we're getting, it strikes me that
>going after the only balanced part doesn't make much sense. I'm more
>inclined to blame stupid juries than anyone else.

Then you have Melvin Beli who, when accused of being an Ambulance Chaser, is
said to have responded: "I am NOT an ambulance chaser...I get there BEFORE
the ambulance."

I tend to agree more with Dudley's sentiment simply because it seems no one
is even *allowed* to have any personal responsability anymore. The buzz
phrase used to be "pilot error" but now lawyers and legislators won't allow
that to suffice. Reminds me of the story abouit Mr and Mrs Smith who went
to see their son Johnny graduate from boot camp. They notice that Johnny is
on his right foot when everyone else in the platoon is on their left and
vice versa. Proudly, Mrs Smith says to Mr Smith: "Look honey, everyone's
out of step but Johnny...!"

Fly into IMC? Run it dry? Attempt to land below minimums? Stall/Spin
after a buzz job? Not my Johnny!!! Must be the fault of those evil
corporations that built Johnny's airplane!

Jay B

[RomeoMike]

What you describe sounds nice, but it's a naive view of reality. In this
country we have way too many lawyers. When I was in college the people
who didn't know what they wanted to do went to law school. They are
competing amongst themselves to make the big buck, leading to disgusting
behavior. They also become politicians and write laws favorable to
their profession, usually influenced by the powerful trial attorneys
groups, like the Trial Lawyers Assn. They are allowed to "ambulance
chase" in their ads on TV, etc. We've become a country where you can't
live with them or without them. That's not good. Yeah, juries are
stupid, but what group of people wrote the rules to allow them to have
the power to impose ridiculous awards and make judgments on things they
know nothing about? And what group fights jury and liability reform?
The group that benefits from the high awards...lawyers through their
lawyer representatives in state and federal government. Also, don't
forget that the defense lawyers are also making the big bucks, adding to
the cost of virtually everything.

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
>> what killed the very heart
>> of what once made up American general aviation, was the American lawyer!
>
> For every lawsuit against an aircraft manufacturer, there's
> at least one lawyer on the side of the manufacturer and one
> on the side of the person claiming the aircraft was
> defective because it didn't have a perfect anti-crash doodad
> installed. As far as the lawyers go, it's the only part of
> the process that's reasonably balanced. The final decision
> usually comes down to the jury or the judge or the laws they
> applied. If we don't like the decisions we're getting, it
> strikes me that going after the only balanced part doesn't
> make much sense. I'm more inclined to blame stupid juries
> than anyone else.

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

No problem. We disagree.
Dudley Henriques

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
>>This is the old " greedy people" argument. I don't buy it; never have; and
>>never will.
>
> I wasn't (intentionally) making a "greedy people" argument.
> I was making the argument that cases without merit should
> not result in any advantage for the person bringing the
> case, which would naturally result in less of them being
> brought.
>
>>You can have an entire country full of greedy people, all wanting to sue
>>somebody for God knows what, and indeed, this is exactly what the lawyers
>>have created in American society....and nothing happens....absolutely
>>NOTHING....until the lawyer enters the lawsuit equation. You can have a
>>million people, all wanting to use the legal system for profit and
>>personal
>>gain, but NOTHING happens unless there is a willing lawyer in this
>>equation.
>
> One could say the same thing about the judge, the jury and
> the law, without them, the case can't go forward. In fact,
> both sides can go to court without lawyers if they want to.
> If you think cases should not go to court, it's easy to stop
> by changing the law.
>
>>Lawyers advertizing for lawsuits and fishing the population for
>>"customers",
>>and lawyers actively engaged in a constant quest to make money in the
>>lawsuit marketplace is where the blame lies; not with a greedy population.
>
> I agree that these practices are reprehensible. If the
> government buried our tax money in open fields - and people
> dug up that money and stole it, I'd think the theft was
> reprehensible too, but I'd change the way the gov stored
> money, not outlaw maps and shovels.
>
> My point is that I've got no problem with legitimate cases
> being filed, and I've got no problem with each side having
> the best possible legal representation. I've got a problem
> with laws that allow recovery in situations that harm
> society and I've got a problem with juries who award damages
> when they shouldn't. What's wrong with a system that always
> comes to the right answer?
>
>>In fact, if the absolute truth is desired, the American lawyer should be
>>in
>>the greed equation to PROTECT the system from harm....not to cause that
>>harm!!!!!
>
> We agree here, but typically, you have two sides that both
> think they are doing the right thing. Which one is correct?
> It's the judge, jury and laws that determine that. If
> anything, the airplane manufacturer has more money and
> spends more on the defense, but still loses too often.
>
> This just strikes me as another failure to accept
> responsibility that is too prevalent in our society. No one
> wants to blame the poor jury - they were too stupid to know
> what they were doing and they were bamboozled by the wicked
> attorney on one side. No one wants to ask why weren't they
> bamboozled by the other (good) attorney (of course, we might
> dispute which one was the good one). No one wants to blame
> the poor widow bringing the case (we wouldn't want to call
> her "greedy" now would we, that's not polite, besides she's
> a widow, surely she deserves some recompense for her loss).
> We don't want to blame the laws made by our own elected
> officials. Those laws seem so fair - if someone causes an
> accident, they should pay.
>
> So who can we blame?
>
> --
> Do not spin this aircraft. If the aircraft does enter a spin it will
> return to earth without further attention on the part of the aeronaut.
>
> (first handbook issued with the Curtis-Wright flyer)

[Lakeview Bill]

Do a little research on "Tort Reform".

You'll probably find some solutions under that topic.



"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
> >No problem. We disagree.
> >Dudley Henriques
>
> OK, but do you mind if I ask how you would fix it? I'll
> tell you how I'd approach it. I'd look at bad decisions and
> the applicable law. If the case was correctly decided,
> according to the law, then I'd change the law. If it was
> incorrectly decided, then I'd try to figure out how we can
> get better decisions.
>
> How would you approach it? Would you prohibit people from
> hiring attorneys? Try to instill stronger ethics in
> attorneys or what? Prohibit lawsuits entirely? I'm
> genuinely interested as to what you think would help.
> --
> Do not spin this aircraft. If the aircraft does enter a spin it will
return to earth without further attention on the part of the aeronaut.
>
> (first handbook issued with the Curtis-Wright flyer)

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

This is exactly the type of exchange I wish to avoid. Its useless. I respect
your opinion and have no desire to change it. These "I'm right" "you're
right" threads simply go on and on accomplishing nothing.
I have stated my opinion clearly and it needs no further amplification. You
have done the same.
To continue on is nothing more than you using me as an instrument to present
why you are right and I am wrong and visa versa.
I learned a long time ago on these groups that engagement with people who
have solid opposing views is fruitless. I simply don't press on these
"opinion issues" any more.
Thank you
Dudley Henriques

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
>>No problem. We disagree.
>>Dudley Henriques
>
> OK, but do you mind if I ask how you would fix it? I'll
> tell you how I'd approach it. I'd look at bad decisions and
> the applicable law. If the case was correctly decided,
> according to the law, then I'd change the law. If it was
> incorrectly decided, then I'd try to figure out how we can
> get better decisions.
>
> How would you approach it? Would you prohibit people from
> hiring attorneys? Try to instill stronger ethics in
> attorneys or what? Prohibit lawsuits entirely? I'm
> genuinely interested as to what you think would help.
> --
> Do not spin this aircraft. If the aircraft does enter a spin it will
> return to earth without further attention on the part of the aeronaut.
>
> (first handbook issued with the Curtis-Wright flyer)

[RomeoMike]

I'd love to know how you'd solve this one (-:

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> RomeoMike > wrote:
>
>> What you describe sounds nice, but it's a naive view of reality.
>
> Perhaps, it's naive, but I find your view of reality too
> defeatist. I believe problems can be solved.
>
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
>>No problem. We disagree.
>>Dudley Henriques
>
> OK, but do you mind if I ask how you would fix it? I'll
> tell you how I'd approach it. I'd look at bad decisions and
> the applicable law. If the case was correctly decided,
> according to the law, then I'd change the law. If it was
> incorrectly decided, then I'd try to figure out how we can
> get better decisions.
>
> How would you approach it? Would you prohibit people from
> hiring attorneys? Try to instill stronger ethics in
> attorneys or what? Prohibit lawsuits entirely? I'm
> genuinely interested as to what you think would help.
> --


Right now there is little down side for an attorney or client to take a case
on a contingency basis.The client isn't out any money if they don't win. The
attorney's time spent on unsuccessful cases is just the cost of doing
business and in many if not most cases they can settle for something even
when they really don't think they can win in court.

There needs to be something there that costs the attorney and the client in
cases where there really isn't a case. How about three different rulings a
jury could make in any given case.

1. Guilty- Claimant wins.
2. Not Guilty- Claimant loses
3. This is a silly ass suit- Claimant and their lawyer pays 3x defense cost.

[Jose[_1_]]

> What's wrong with a system that always
> comes to the right answer?

It disagrees with me too often. <g>

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> How would you approach it? Would you prohibit people from
> hiring attorneys? Try to instill stronger ethics in
> attorneys or what? Prohibit lawsuits entirely? I'm
> genuinely interested as to what you think would help.

I'm not Dudley, but that has never stopped me from talking on Usenet.

I see the root problem as being the "jury of one's peers"... inasmuch as
one's peers are often unschooled in whatever it is that is necessary to
ajudicate some lawsuits. For example, how many on a jury about a crash
are actually pilots, aviation engineers, or controllers? Those are the
ones with the expertise to not be swayed by irresponsible emotional
arguments (such as the recent one holding a pilot who had a gear problem
responsible for a midair involving two other airplanes).

Sometimes a jury of ones peers is actually the best thing. But
sometimes not. When? ... that's the tricky question.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
>>This is exactly the type of exchange I wish to avoid.
>
> OK. I can respect that. I do think there is value in
> calmly discussing opposing viewpoints, but I don't want to
> push you. I don't think my viewpoint is permanently fixed,
> and I am interested in why other people see issues
> differently. I wish you well, Dudley.

No problem. Let me explain something to you if I may please.

These "personal opinion" topics can get to be a real PIA when they go beyond
the stage where two opponents have voiced strong and cogent comment
detailing their respective positions. In this case, in answering your first
response offering an opposing opinion (welcome of course as always ), I
stated clearly that "you won't change my opinion on this in a million
years".
After this initial exchange, what always happens on Usenet.....and I mean
without fail.......is that if the respondent again responds, it's a
challenge. It's not an offer to share opinion. It's not in any way
whatsoever someone being "interested in your opinions on this". It's simply
the beginning of an ever expanding exchange that always ends up with one
side trying to outdo the other side.
Frankly, I've about had it with this type of exchange on Usenet. The thread
creep is horrendous; the bad feelings are rampant; and who cares anyway?
In this case you would have had a light plane pilot and an ex fast airplane
driver arguing over who's right and who's wrong about lawyers. Who cares?
The exchange solves nothing.
There is, as I said, absolutely nothing you or anyone else in the world
could tell me that would change my actual experience with lawyers and
observing lawyer behavior over the fifty odd years I've been in aviation. In
fact, I'm more sure about lawyers than I am about the existence of God!
So posting to me telling me you are interested in my opinion after I have
already given it is merely challenging me to provide fodder for your
responses to whatever reasons I have for my position about lawyers.
When I post an opinion on a subject like this one, it's simply my
observation. I don't feel the need to provide anyone on Usenet with my
reasons for taking a position.
These OT threads are simply random stated opinion. There's no need to go
beyond the first exchange between two people with opposing arguments unless
you want to rumble.
I just don't care about "rumbling" any more.
Dudley Henriques

[Private]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>>
>>>This is exactly the type of exchange I wish to avoid.
>>
>> OK. I can respect that. I do think there is value in
>> calmly discussing opposing viewpoints, but I don't want to
>> push you. I don't think my viewpoint is permanently fixed,
>> and I am interested in why other people see issues
>> differently. I wish you well, Dudley.
>
> No problem. Let me explain something to you if I may please.
>
> These "personal opinion" topics can get to be a real PIA when they go
> beyond the stage where two opponents have voiced strong and cogent comment
> detailing their respective positions. In this case, in answering your
> first response offering an opposing opinion (welcome of course as
> always ), I stated clearly that "you won't change my opinion on this in a
> million years".
> After this initial exchange, what always happens on Usenet.....and I mean
> without fail.......is that if the respondent again responds, it's a
> challenge. It's not an offer to share opinion. It's not in any way
> whatsoever someone being "interested in your opinions on this". It's
> simply the beginning of an ever expanding exchange that always ends up
> with one side trying to outdo the other side.
> Frankly, I've about had it with this type of exchange on Usenet. The
> thread creep is horrendous; the bad feelings are rampant; and who cares
> anyway?
> In this case you would have had a light plane pilot and an ex fast
> airplane driver arguing over who's right and who's wrong about lawyers.
> Who cares? The exchange solves nothing.
> There is, as I said, absolutely nothing you or anyone else in the world
> could tell me that would change my actual experience with lawyers and
> observing lawyer behavior over the fifty odd years I've been in aviation.
> In fact, I'm more sure about lawyers than I am about the existence of God!
> So posting to me telling me you are interested in my opinion after I have
> already given it is merely challenging me to provide fodder for your
> responses to whatever reasons I have for my position about lawyers.
> When I post an opinion on a subject like this one, it's simply my
> observation. I don't feel the need to provide anyone on Usenet with my
> reasons for taking a position.
> These OT threads are simply random stated opinion. There's no need to go
> beyond the first exchange between two people with opposing arguments
> unless you want to rumble.
> I just don't care about "rumbling" any more.
> Dudley Henriques

Nicely said (as usual).

Having been fortunate to have read your words here for many years, I can
remember discussion that has degenerated into meanness and frustration and
personal attack. I have always maintained that Usenet, like aviation, is
all about maintaining control. With experience comes wisdom and discretion.

Warm regards and happy landings,

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

You are not capable of "touching a raw nerve" with me. Your insinuation that
you have simply reaffirms my already stated position that these
"discussions" lead to nowhere but escalating intensity.
I have tried every way I know how to disengage from you on this topic Mr.
Pattist. If you desire the last word, and I would believe this might be the
case, simply make that last comment and let's be done with it shall we?
Dudley Henriques


"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
>>After this initial exchange, what always happens on Usenet.....and I mean
>>without fail.......is that if the respondent again responds, it's a
>>challenge. It's not an offer to share opinion. It's not in any way
>>whatsoever someone being "interested in your opinions on this". It's
>>simply
>>the beginning of an ever expanding exchange that always ends up with one
>>side trying to outdo the other side.
>
> We disagree. I see the problems with aviation legal issues
> as a problem that can be solved. I'm not interested in
> your personal opinion of attorneys or trying to change your
> mind on that issue. Besides, that's OT and not suitable for
> discussion here. I am interested in how legal liability
> affects aviation and what can/should be done to address
> those problems.
>
> One thing that has been done is to limit the "liability
> tail" for old airplanes with the General Aviation
> Revitalization Act (GARA). It basically said you couldn't
> sue a general aviation manufacturer for an accident
> occurring more than eighteen (18) years after the delivery
> of the aircraft to the customer or dealer. It was a good
> idea.
>
> I was asking about your position, not because I wanted to
> change your mind, or even because I was really interested in
> what you thought about attorneys. I asked because I was
> genuinely wondering whether you thought attorneys were the
> cause of aviation's legal costs, and if so, what you thought
> could be done about it.
>
> Perhaps you just wanted to implement the quote from
> Shakespeare's King Henry VI, "THE FIRST THING WE DO, LET'S
> KILL ALL THE LAWYERS."
>
> While it's clearly different from yours, my personal opinion
> is that attorneys are no better, and no worse than other
> groups. There are some that are reputable, and some that
> will screw you to the wall for a dime. We have to have a
> system that controls the bad apples and prevents the
> inevitable existence of some from screwing up the entire
> aviation industry. The question is how to do that.
>
>>Frankly, I've about had it with this type of exchange on Usenet.
>
> Clearly I've touched a raw nerve. It wasn't my intention to
> do so.
>
>
> --
> Do not spin this aircraft. If the aircraft does enter a spin it will
> return to earth without further attention on the part of the aeronaut.
>
> (first handbook issued with the Curtis-Wright flyer)

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On 1 Aug 2006 10:39:01 -0500, T o d d P a t t i s t
> wrote:
> For every lawsuit against an aircraft manufacturer, there's
> at least one lawyer on the side of the manufacturer and one
> on the side of the person claiming the aircraft was
> defective because it didn't have a perfect anti-crash doodad
> installed.

http://grumman581.googlepages.com/lawyer-problem-solution

[RomeoMike]

Personally, I agree with those ideas. I guess I'm pessimistic about the
chances of bringing them about. I have seen attempts at tort reform
related to my business fail because of the power of the Trial Lawyers
Assn. on its lawyer-infested politician base. I just can't think of a
single citizen entity large enough to sway the politicians toward tort
reform. Wish there was one. Aviation interests need to somehow come
together with other groups adversely affected by the present system.
Blue skies!

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> RomeoMike > wrote:
>
>> I'd love to know how you'd solve this one (-:
>
> No magic bullets, but I'd like to see efforts made to get
> and allow more knowledgeable jurors. I think it would also
> help to bring in outside experts that represent the court
> and the public, not either side in a dispute. The outside
> guy would help the jury understand the technical issues.
> This would help keep "junk science" out of the courtroom.

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

Thank you for your reasoned and sensible approach.
"Be Safe"
Dudley Henriques

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
>>You are not capable of "touching a raw nerve" with me. Your insinuation
>>that
>>you have simply reaffirms my already stated position that these
>>"discussions" lead to nowhere but escalating intensity.
>
> I am the eternal optimist that calm and reasoned discussion
> is a worthwhile and constructive activity. When discussions
> escalate into personal attacks, I don't read them. I didn't
> see that happening here, but perhaps you are right that we
> shouldn't go any farther.
>
> Be safe, Dudley.
>
>
> --
> Do not spin this aircraft. If the aircraft does enter a spin it will
> return to earth without further attention on the part of the aeronaut.
>
> (first handbook issued with the Curtis-Wright flyer)

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 14:11:24 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>How about three different rulings a
> jury could make in any given case.
>
> 1. Guilty- Claimant wins.
> 2. Not Guilty- Claimant loses
> 3. This is a silly ass suit- Claimant and their lawyer pays 3x defense cost.

How about we just kill the losing lawyers? Natural selection is a
good thing, right?