Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash

Thomas Borchert schrieb:

Personally, I think FLARM is a dead end, since it is a niche solution
not endorsed by any ATC authority and S mode, TCAS and ultimately ADS-B
do exactly the same thing,

No, they don't. The point of FLARM (besides low power consumtion) is
that it has some algorithms which are tweaked for glider operations.
Gliders tend to fly pretty near to each other (within meters is not
uncommon), be it circling in gaggles, be it shifting from one thermal to
the other. You don't want permanent alarms in those situations. But you
want an alarm when some glider one or two kilometers away approaches you
on a potential collision course. It's not tirvial to distinguish those
situations, especially the circling one, but the FLARM algorithms do an
amazingly good job, and they get even better with each version.


But I agree that FLARM is a very focused solution. Focused on preventing
glider to glider midairs. In Europe, we've had several such midairs
every year. Some pilots managed to bail out, but there was more than one
death each year. A thorough analysis shows that, because of its slim
silhouette, it's simply impossible to see a glider in time when it
aproaches you straight ahead, even when the weather is cristal clear and
you scan the horizon fully concentrated. But you can't scan the horizon
fully concentraded for 6 or 8 hours, which is the duration of a typical
glider cross country flight, and the weather isn't always cristal clear.
This situation led to the development of FLARM, developed by soaring
engineers for the soaring community.

All subsequent developments like the obstacle database are interesting
features by themselves, but were added later.

Stefan

Bob Noel wrote:
In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

How many political analysis have been exposed fabricating their facts
compared to the number of journalists who have exposed the corrupt
practices of politicians?

who watches the watchers?


The watcher watchers, of course.

Matt

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Matt,

Or Al Gore. Or the Hilary team.


At least they don't start wars and kill tens of thousands of people
(and thouands of Americans - for many, the others don't really seem to
count) based on blatant lies.


Only in your mind. I place the responsibility for the 9/11 attack
squarely on Clinton's shoulders. His inaction against the building
terrorist threat emboldened them and allowed them to plan and execute
their attack.

Matt

Dave J wrote:
Matt, I don't understand the intensity of your rhetoric. There is no
reason to call anybody stupid because you disagree with them. In fact,
our disagreement is, in my opinion, not as great as you seem to think.

I didn't call anyone stupid. I called the analogy stupid, which is was.


Like all people, some lawyers will "do the right thing" and some will
not. If you, as a client, are looking to do the wrong thing, you will
always be able to find legal assistance from someone. The primary
incentive is still with the client, who, despite the lawyer's take,
still stands to gain handsomely, with little or no risk of his own.
(This is actually better than the attorney working on a contingent
basis, who will invest his own time and stands to lose at least his
own investment.)

I do not agree that people are somehow not aware of the potential
spoils they can get out of the legal system without the lawyers
advertising. Well, some probably need the advertising, most certainly
do not. Heck, after hospital and crime dramas, courtroom dramas are
probably the next most popular TV show format. If you don't have a
clue how the system works, you have to have been living under a rock.

Finally, I fully agree that the incentives to sue are too great. The
risk/reward equation for the dabbling plaintiff is not appropriate.
The trick is to create a system that allows serious cases to go
through while discouraging garbage suits.

You believe that loser-pays would accomplish this. I, and many here
are suggesting that loser-pays may discourage the garbage, but it will
also discourage some serious cases. Your assertion that people with
valid claims always win and so need not worry about paying is only
true if you define validity based on the outcome. I believe reality
says otherwise; sometimes the wrong party loses.

Here's a variation on a theme other posters have mentioned: limit the
damages that the plaintiff can collect, but do not limit the damages
that defendant may have to pay, with the difference going to the
state, or some special victim's fund, or you can take the money out
back and burn it -- it really doesn't matter.

The important thing is that potential plaintiffs and their attorneys
have much less to gain -- diminishing their incentive to play, and
potential defendants still have a strong incentive to avoid being
asked to play.

I think a loser and loser's lawyer pays system would very effectively
accomplish this goal.

Matt

BDS wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote

Really? I've never had any of my guns talk to me and suggest I go out
and shoot someone. Lawyers are all the time trying to talk clients into
hiring them to sue someone. Bzzt! Please try again.

I agree that the lawyers in some of these cases are partially to blame and
have said that from the start.

It's sad though to see you defending people who can be so easily swayed to
lie and cheat if there is a little easy money involved, and that if someone
else was able to talk them into it, they are not then responsible.

I'm not defending plaintiffs who would do that. Where did you get that
from?


The way it should be is that each of us is responsible for our own actions,
regardless of what someone tries to convince us to do, and especially if we
know that what they are suggesting is dishonest and immoral.

Yes, we are all responsible for our actions as are the lawyers. I
believe that lawyers are the chief instigators in most large lawsuits.

Matt

Matt,

I place the responsibility for the 9/11 attack

What on earth does that have to do with the Iraq war?yone's?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Stefan,

I invite you to fly through the alps
with an underpowered light single.

How nice of you. But I have done that quite a bit, thank you.

No offense, but the tone in your message(s) is quite unnecessary.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert schrieb:

I invite you to fly through the alps
with an underpowered light single.

How nice of you. But I have done that quite a bit, thank you.

Actually, reading your post concerning the cables and always being able
to fly in regions where there's no such threat, I doubt it. Or maybe you
did and were just lucky.

No offense, but the tone in your message(s) is quite unnecessary.

Your tone isn't any better, believe me. Maybe it's a cultural thing
between a Nordlicht and a Bergler.

Stefan

Who flies close enough to the ground for these obstacles to be a factor?
Gliders, yes. Any powered aircraft? I hope not. So how many need this
level of information?

Anyone on an approach that isn't going well. You can argue that they
shouldn't be there, but that argument holds for every inadvertant ground
contact.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Thomas Borchert opined

Bear,

You see the surrounding of the Lake of Lucerne with small (private) and
big aerial passenger tramways. This obstacles are all defined in the
database of Flarm.


Yes, but...

Who flies close enough to the ground for these obstacles to be a factor?
Gliders, yes. Any powered aircraft? I hope not. So how many need this
level of information?

An E-6 did in Italy about 15 years ago.



-ash
Cthulhu in 2007!
Why wait for nature?