Thoughts on Oshkosh

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...

"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

"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

"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

"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

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.

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)

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)

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)

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.