Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:34 AM - Re: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Dale Ensing)
2. 06:08 AM - Re: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Chuck Jensen)
3. 06:49 AM - Panel Face Overlay, Paint or Powder Coating? (FASTPILOTRV8@aol.com)
4. 07:05 AM - Re: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Bill Boyd)
5. 07:07 AM - Re: Panel Face Overlay, Paint or Powder Coating? (Ed Anderson)
6. 07:53 AM - Re: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Tracy Crook)
7. 08:41 AM - Re: Panel Face Overlay, Paint or Powder Coating? (Ed Anderson)
8. 08:44 AM - Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Bob Collins)
9. 10:00 AM - Re: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Tim Bryan)
10. 10:24 AM - Re: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Vanremog@aol.com)
11. 11:36 AM - Re: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Chuck Jensen)
12. 12:36 PM - Re: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Bob Collins)
13. 12:42 PM - Re: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Bob Collins)
14. 02:03 PM - Re: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Jeffery J. Morgan)
15. 04:31 PM - Re: Panel Face Overlay, Paint or Powder Coating? (n801bh@netzero.com)
16. 06:54 PM - Re: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Vanremog@aol.com)
17. 07:07 PM - It's flyable! (Bobby Hester)
18. 08:00 PM - Re: It's flyable! (Carlos A Hernandez)
19. 10:14 PM - Fw: Look! Up In The Sky! (Jim Jewell)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
The fire fighters were volunteers......correct? Do we hold volunteers to
the same standards as professionals? The airpark we live in is protected
by a volunteer fire department. While I hope they can do as well as the
professionals, I do not expect the same. It was my choice to take that
risk.
If the fire department didn't use their training and execute properly
for the accident that they responded to, they should be called on it.
How can you say that it is okay for them to not be held responsible for
not using their training and then turn and criticize the pilot for the
exact same thing? Pick a side.
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
Dale,
>From the briefs Bob posted, apparently, one of the reasons for finding
against the defendants was the lack of competence on the part of the
Rescue Team (i.e. tennis shoes, clothes not at the ready, wrong hose
hookup, water instead of foam). The implication was that the EAA was
responsible for this less than sterling performance by the Rescue Squad.
The question is "what standard is the EAA (or any flyin manager)
supposed to hold a Rescue Squad" such that it protects against claims of
incompetence? The best available in the local area? The best available
anywhere? Is the EAA supposed to make the Volunteer Fire Department run
demonstration tests for them to show competence? Is the EAA to require
5 practice drills on the part of fire and rescue squad? And what
standard is used to measure competence? Is 45 second response okay, but
44 second is not? The local Volunteer Fire Department is the best
available (even if not very good), does that mean the EAA is required to
contract with a Hook-n-Ladder fire crew from Washington, Dulles and have
them travel 5,000 miles to be at the ready because they are better, or
the best available?
All of these questions, some silly, some unanswerable, go to the issue
of what duty the EAA and Flyin Sponsors had, if any, to the guest flyers
beyond just having the local good-guy with some fire equipment
available. If the guest pilots had an unspoken, unwritten, unpublished
expectation that there would be fire-n-rescue with a high level of
competence available, then perhaps future flyin hosts should publish on
their web page and fliers:
"Note: No fire and no rescue services will be available and none should
be expected. If, while attending this flyin, you intend to crash and
burn, please arrange for your own fire and rescue services because we
have none. If this arrangement is not satisfactory, please stay away
and take your crash somewhere else."
Is a warning like this stupid? Probably, but then again, perhaps its
also prudent. It would certainly have presented the claimants in this
litigation with a higher level of proof.
Chuck Jensen
Dale Ensing wrote.....
The fire fighters were volunteers......correct? Do we hold volunteers to
the same standards as professionals? The airpark we live in is protected
by a volunteer fire department. While I hope they can do as well as the
professionals, I do not expect the same. It was my choice to take that
risk.
If the fire department didn't use their training and execute
properly for the accident that they responded to, they should be called
on it. How can you say that it is okay for them to not be held
responsible for not using their training and then turn and criticize
the pilot for the exact same thing? Pick a side.
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Panel Face Overlay, Paint or Powder Coating? |
On my quest for my rebuild of my RV8a panel to all electric plane (OP
Technologies) I have another question. Although I have seen thousands of RV, I
have not studied the finished panel face. I had a back-engraved overlay on my
old panel. I am looking for something that is simpler and can be changed
easily.
Are builders just painting or using powder coating or another alternative ?
Then what are builders using to lettering?
How do you hide the screws for the avionics stack (I don't want to rivet one
section)?
Looking for some great ideas and some failures and any input would be
greatly appreciated
Dane
N838RVRV8a
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
Thanks, Chuck. I'm going to use that in my announcements of future
fly-ins at my farm.
"Note: No fire and no rescue services will be available and none should be
> expected. If, while attending this flyin, you intend to crash and burn,
> please arrange for your own fire and rescue services because we have none.
> If this arrangement is not satisfactory, please stay away and take your
> crash somewhere else."
;-) I love it.
-Stormy
On 2/17/07, Chuck Jensen <cjensen@dts9000.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dale,
> From the briefs Bob posted, apparently, one of the reasons for finding
> against the defendants was the lack of competence on the part of the Rescue
> Team (i.e. tennis shoes, clothes not at the ready, wrong hose hookup, water
> instead of foam). The implication was that the EAA was responsible for this
> less than sterling performance by the Rescue Squad.
>
> The question is "what standard is the EAA (or any flyin manager) supposed to
> hold a Rescue Squad" such that it protects against claims of incompetence?
> The best available in the local area? The best available anywhere? Is the
> EAA supposed to make the Volunteer Fire Department run demonstration tests
> for them to show competence? Is the EAA to require 5 practice drills on the
> part of fire and rescue squad? And what standard is used to measure
> competence? Is 45 second response okay, but 44 second is not? The local
> Volunteer Fire Department is the best available (even if not very good),
> does that mean the EAA is required to contract with a Hook-n-Ladder fire
> crew from Washington, Dulles and have them travel 5,000 miles to be at the
> ready because they are better, or the best available?
>
> All of these questions, some silly, some unanswerable, go to the issue of
> what duty the EAA and Flyin Sponsors had, if any, to the guest flyers beyond
> just having the local good-guy with some fire equipment available. If the
> guest pilots had an unspoken, unwritten, unpublished expectation that there
> would be fire-n-rescue with a high level of competence available, then
> perhaps future flyin hosts should publish on their web page and fliers:
>
> "Note: No fire and no rescue services will be available and none should be
> expected. If, while attending this flyin, you intend to crash and burn,
> please arrange for your own fire and rescue services because we have none.
> If this arrangement is not satisfactory, please stay away and take your
> crash somewhere else."
>
> Is a warning like this stupid? Probably, but then again, perhaps its also
> prudent. It would certainly have presented the claimants in this litigation
> with a higher level of proof.
>
> Chuck Jensen
>
>
> Dale Ensing wrote.....
>
> The fire fighters were volunteers......correct? Do we hold volunteers to the
> same standards as professionals? The airpark we live in is protected by a
> volunteer fire department. While I hope they can do as well as the
> professionals, I do not expect the same. It was my choice to take that
> risk.
>
>
> If the fire department didn't use their training and execute properly for
> the accident that they responded to, they should be called on it. How can
> you say that it is okay for them to not be held responsible for not using
> their training and then turn and criticize the pilot for the exact same
> thing? Pick a side.
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Panel Face Overlay, Paint or Powder Coating? |
Dane, I used power coating back in 1997 and have been very please by its
resistance to scratches and color fade. However, if you do powered
coast be advised the thickness of the coating can "narrow" the diameter
of your instrument cut outs. If I were to power coast again, I would
enlarge the diameter of the cut-out holes by 1/32". You can file/scrape
out the powder coat inside the holes, but best to avoid it if possible.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: FASTPILOTRV8@aol.com
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 9:48 AM
Subject: RV-List: Panel Face Overlay, Paint or Powder Coating?
On my quest for my rebuild of my RV8a panel to all electric plane (OP
Technologies) I have another question. Although I have seen thousands
of RV, I have not studied the finished panel face. I had a
back-engraved overlay on my old panel. I am looking for something that
is simpler and can be changed easily.
Are builders just painting or using powder coating or another
alternative ?
Then what are builders using to lettering?
How do you hide the screws for the avionics stack (I don't want to
rivet one section)?
Looking for some great ideas and some failures and any input would be
greatly appreciated
Dane
N838RV
RV8a
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
>SNIP<
If the fire department didn't use their training and execute properly
for the accident that they responded to, they should be called on it.
How can you say that it is okay for them to not be held responsible for
not using their training and then turn and criticize the pilot for the
exact same thing? Pick a side. (emphasis added)
Gee, thought I had made my choice obvious. Others have already pointed
out this absurdity but it was not the fire department who had to pay. It
was the lawyers' usual victims (deepest pockets) that they went after.
The list of other absurdities in this case could fill a book but I think
enough have already been aired to 'Pick a side'.
Thanks to Chuck for that wonderful disclaimer. With your permission,
I'll include that in invitations to all future fly-ins here at Shady
Bend.
Tracy Crook
Do not archive
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List<http://www.matronics.com/Navig
ator?RV-List>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Panel Face Overlay, Paint or Powder Coating? |
Errr, need to pay more attention to the choice of words offered by my
spell checker{:<(. Regard all words of "power" in below message as
"powder."
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Anderson
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Panel Face Overlay, Paint or Powder Coating?
Dane, I used power coating back in 1997 and have been very please by
its resistance to scratches and color fade. However, if you do powered
coast be advised the thickness of the coating can "narrow" the diameter
of your instrument cut outs. If I were to power coast again, I would
enlarge the diameter of the cut-out holes by 1/32". You can file/scrape
out the powder coat inside the holes, but best to avoid it if possible.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: FASTPILOTRV8@aol.com
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 9:48 AM
Subject: RV-List: Panel Face Overlay, Paint or Powder Coating?
On my quest for my rebuild of my RV8a panel to all electric plane
(OP Technologies) I have another question. Although I have seen
thousands of RV, I have not studied the finished panel face. I had a
back-engraved overlay on my old panel. I am looking for something that
is simpler and can be changed easily.
Are builders just painting or using powder coating or another
alternative ?
Then what are builders using to lettering?
How do you hide the screws for the avionics stack (I don't want to
rivet one section)?
Looking for some great ideas and some failures and any input would
be greatly appreciated
Dane
N838RV
RV8a
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?RV-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
> Others' assertions that we need to know the minutiae of the case in order to
fully understand the nuanced but higher wisdom of a jury acting in a frivolous
suit against those who tried to help is nonsense.
I guess this is directed to me as I made the nonsensical suggestion that people
read the facts surrounding the case before spouting one way or another. Apparently
that concept doesn't work for you, and that's fine. But it works for me.
To me, it's the difference between knowing what I'm talking about and not knowing
what I'm talking about.
To me -- and again, I'm not saying that has to be anyone else's modus operandi
-- if you don't know the facts, you run the risk of looking ignorant.
One doesn't need to know nuance -- and of course I NEVER suggested folks needed
to know nuance -- one just needs to be interested in having more knowledge.
There are knowledgeable people. And there are ignorant people. Sometimes they end
up with the same conclusions. But one came about it accidentally. One came
about it intelligently. What route people take to reach the conclusion they reached
is up to them. I like mine just fine and so I wouldn't advise waiting for
me to apologize for it.
Do not archive
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-676#95676
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
Jeffery,
You are missing something very real in this case. The experts were the City
of Arlington and they got excused. Instead the EAA and NWEAA are being made
to answer for it. This is entirely wrong in spite of the whole case being
riddled with crap. If the experts are supposed to be help to a standard of
knowing what they are doing and we then excuse them from any liability for
not then what is their motive to better their actions? Unfortunately when
you sue the City, you sue us and is the reason they get excused. Maybe that
shouldn't be.
Tim
Do Not Archive
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeffery J. Morgan
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 10:13 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
Professionally trained folks are not just people passing by and we expect a
level of training, performance, and knowledge from them when responding. I
expect that police officer knows how to aim and fire his gun. I expect the
paramedic to know the drugs he is using and what their affect will be. I
expect that pilot of my airline plane to know how to navigate and use the
systems available to him. I hold all of them to a standard that is very
different then just someone trying help. To suggest that because the fire
department showed up, that is all that they need to do is ridiculous! I
cannot believe that I even read that in this group.
If the fire department didn't use their training and execute properly for
the accident that they responded to, they should be called on it. How can
you say that it is okay for them to not be held responsible for not using
their training and then turn and criticize the pilot for the exact same
thing? Pick a side.
Everyone is upset at what happened, but the family has a right to ask the
questions as to what happened. Hundreds of years ago it was just the
workers fault that they stuck their hand into the machines. Shouldn't have
had it there in the first place, right? OSHA has made the work place safer
and helped many people. That occurred by people questioning the experts.
There are examples all over the world around us.
Now, I am not suggesting that I agree or disagree with the results, but
will say that the idea that experts are excused is a bunch of bologna. They
should do it better, thus the expert title.
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vanremog@aol.com
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
In a message dated 2/16/2007 9:38:09 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
lors01@msn.com writes:
Wouldn't matter to me if he was dancing a jig and reciting the Gettysburg
address while burning to death. (am I going to hell for that?) People
around him did their personal best to save him but he died anyway. If
mistakes were made, well too bad, he obviously made the first and primary
mistake that caused his death and others should not have to pay for that
fact.
==========================
I have remained silent on this issue until now, but I have to agree with
Tracy's assertion of "any good Samaritan (professional or amateur) doing
their level best to help out someone in trouble is absolved of liability".
I want people to help others in need, even if they fail to succeed. Stuff
happens and you can't always put Humpty Dumpty back together again. This is
the sad fact, get over it, but learn from it.
Others' assertions that we need to know the minutiae of the case in order to
fully understand the nuanced but higher wisdom of a jury acting in a
frivolous suit against those who tried to help is nonsense. IMO, the issue
should have never come before the court.
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 833hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
http://forums.matronics.com
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
In a message dated 2/17/2007 8:45:47 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net writes:
One doesn't need to know nuance -- and of course I NEVER suggested folks
needed to know nuance -- one just needs to be interested in having more
knowledge.
There are knowledgeable people. And there are ignorant people. Sometimes
they end up with the same conclusions. But one came about it accidentally. One
came about it intelligently. What route people take to reach the conclusion
they reached is up to them. I like mine just fine and so I wouldn't advise
waiting for me to apologize for it.
============================
It occurs to me that more information is not necessarily enlightening, just
more sound and fury that fails to get us to the point. Information is not
necessarily knowledge and knowledge is not necessarily wisdom.
All I'm saying is that I believe that the basic precept of the case is
flawed from the get go and that free people pursuing their individual lives may
from time to time get themselves in trouble and when it is basically their
fault, that they find themselves in a situation, second parties responding cannot
guarantee a positive outcome. I'm advancing the proposition that that
should have doomed it from the start.
The best efforts of the subsequent response in this situation were
insufficient to overcome the initial stupidity (that of crashing a perfectly good
plane) and were not the cause of it. Maybe if the jury award were less punitive
to the EAA and more substantive to the local agency (like buying the response
team more equipment or additional training), I would be more okay with it.
We should put things in the proper perspective and sequence. I would call it
an act of god and move on.
Interesting conjecture though, re the language some would propose to add to
future fly-in waivers and had it in been in effect at Arlington whether or
not it would have protected the EAA in this case. Does the knowledge that
services will or will not be provided lead one to act more or less responsibly
as
an individual? When I fly into any airport in the country I have no
expectation that they will have emergency response capability on the premises.
It
would be nice, but I would never expect it and most people would be unwilling
to pay for it.
Do not archive.
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 833hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
GV wrote...
Interesting conjecture though, re the language some would propose to add
to future fly-in waivers and had it in been in effect at Arlington
whether or not it would have protected the EAA in this case. Does the
knowledge that services will or will not be provided lead one to act
more or less responsibly as an individual? When I fly into any airport
in the country I have no expectation that they will have emergency
response capability on the premises. It would be nice, but I would
never expect it and most people would be unwilling to pay for it.
Do not archive.
The posting I suggested was only partially facetious. If a hazard is
known to exist, if you "forewarn" a party of the hazard and advise them
to take care or avoid---such as lack of fire and rescue---and if they
subsequently and voluntarily fall victim to the known hazard; such as
flying into the flyin and having an accident, they have limited
recourse. Yes, they can sue (that only requires a $125 filing fee) but
prevailing in the suit will be very difficult. It's when there is an
unknown hazard (such as no fire and rescue, or an inept one) and they
can establish some reasonable expectation that there was going to fire
and rescue or there should have been fire and rescue available, that
they now have a viable cause of action....not necessarily a valid one,
but a potentially viable one.
So, a posted warning about no fire and rescue being available won't
protected you from getting sued in case of an accident, but its unlikely
that you'll get sued (and lose) over not having fire and rescue
available.
As best I could determine, the only basis that the plaintiff had for the
expectation that fire and rescue should be there is from the NWEAA and
EAA's own documents that said a fire and rescue should be contracted
with to provide services. This stipulation was probably inserted in the
document (which was certainly never read by the pilot) by the parties
trying to appear responsible and safe--but in fact, may have done
themselves in.
I was going to write that it was best to "promise nothing and do a
little", but even that is probably wrong. If you make no promise of
rescue services, but then ask the local fire department (from the
nearest town of Ineptville), the plaintiff lawyer will point out that
the very act of asking a fire department to stop by was an admission by
you that you recognized and acknowledged that the flyin being organized
was a dangerous and hazardous event, otherwise you wouldn't have asked a
fire department to stop by. And, in doing so, you had an obligation to
provide a decent, competent and capable rescue force for this dangerous
and hazardous event that you caused to happen. As they say, "no good
deed goes unpunished".
Chuck Jensen
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
I think that's a very good point. I think the message of the jury is if you
contract for services, your obligation and liability doesn't end when you
sign the contract. At that point, as near as I can tell, the EAA/NWEAA
couldn't just say "it's *their* problem now. Apparently the EAA/NWEAA had an
obligation to make sure that the standard of services was appropriate. I
believe there was a section in the testimony where the fly-in director
didn't know what level of services were provided, and I think the court was
saying that she should have. Again, I'm not saying I agree with this; I'm
not saying I don't agree with it. For one thing, I don't live in Washington
State and it's up to the people who do to change the law if this is, indeed,
the case and they find it inappropriate.
I suspect that other states would look at this differently. Others would
look at it similarly.
To the extent that this makes holding a fly-in impossible, I don't know. If
the court's ruling was as indicated above, and if the failure of the
NWEAA/EAA to check on what fire services were provided, and if the case
hinges on that fact, then some protection, I suppose, from similar suits
could be found by knowing what services were being provided, knowing the
standard of service that is required, and then comparing the two and if
something needs to be done to make them square, do it.
Bob
Do not archive.
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 11:58 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
Jeffery,
You are missing something very real in this case. The experts were the City
of Arlington and they got excused. Instead the EAA and NWEAA are being made
to answer for it. This is entirely wrong in spite of the whole case being
riddled with crap. If the experts are supposed to be help to a standard of
knowing what they are doing and we then excuse them from any liability for
not then what is their motive to better their actions? Unfortunately when
you sue the City, you sue us and is the reason they get excused. Maybe that
shouldn't be.
Tim
Do Not Archive
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
// It occurs to me that more information is not necessarily enlightening,
Well, that's a judgment an intelligent person could only make AFTER he/she
gets the information. Not before.
It's illogical to say that information you don't even have is worthless; you
can't know that without knowing what that knowledge is in the first place.
And, really, one has nothing to lose by taking the time to obtain knowledge,
unless one were afraid it would change one's mind. At that point, it's an
emotional response, not necessarily an intelligent one.
I go back to Joe Schumacher's constant advice on building RVs. "Take your
time." There's a reason for that. Sure, you might be late to the lynching,
but at least you don't end up with a barrel-ful of screwed up airplane
parts.
Do not archive
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
I didn't miss that, but was merely responding the assertion that trained
fire fighters should be excused for merely showing up and trying to put
on a show. Water instead of foam for example is a more than simple
mistake. Everyone should know from the time they are a little kid not
to put water on oil based fire. I don't agree at all that they had no
culpability in the event at all.
As for training, even volunteer departments are trained. States all have
requirements for folks to be on the squad. We could argue all day that
the level is or isn't different. If I live 15 minutes from the station,
I cannot expect a 45 second response to my call. That would be my choice
for location of living. I just cannot keep quiet on the idea that
someone would think that the trained folks should be excused.....
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 11:58 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
Jeffery,
You are missing something very real in this case. The experts were the
City of Arlington and they got excused. Instead the EAA and NWEAA are
being made to answer for it. This is entirely wrong in spite of the
whole case being riddled with crap. If the experts are supposed to be
help to a standard of knowing what they are doing and we then excuse
them from any liability for not then what is their motive to better
their actions? Unfortunately when you sue the City, you sue us and is
the reason they get excused. Maybe that shouldn't be.
Tim
Do Not Archive
________________________________
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeffery J.
Morgan
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 10:13 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
Professionally trained folks are not just people passing by and we
expect a level of training, performance, and knowledge from them when
responding. I expect that police officer knows how to aim and fire his
gun. I expect the paramedic to know the drugs he is using and what their
affect will be. I expect that pilot of my airline plane to know how to
navigate and use the systems available to him. I hold all of them to a
standard that is very different then just someone trying help. To
suggest that because the fire department showed up, that is all that
they need to do is ridiculous! I cannot believe that I even read that
in this group.
If the fire department didn't use their training and execute properly
for the accident that they responded to, they should be called on it.
How can you say that it is okay for them to not be held responsible for
not using their training and then turn and criticize the pilot for the
exact same thing? Pick a side.
Everyone is upset at what happened, but the family has a right to ask
the questions as to what happened. Hundreds of years ago it was just
the workers fault that they stuck their hand into the machines.
Shouldn't have had it there in the first place, right? OSHA has made
the work place safer and helped many people. That occurred by people
questioning the experts. There are examples all over the world around
us.
Now, I am not suggesting that I agree or disagree with the results, but
will say that the idea that experts are excused is a bunch of bologna.
They should do it better, thus the expert title.
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Vanremog@aol.com
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
In a message dated 2/16/2007 9:38:09 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
lors01@msn.com writes:
Wouldn't matter to me if he was dancing a jig and reciting the
Gettysburg address while burning to death. (am I going to hell for
that?) People around him did their personal best to save him but he
died anyway. If mistakes were made, well too bad, he obviously made the
first and primary mistake that caused his death and others should not
have to pay for that fact.
=
I have remained silent on this issue until now, but I have to agree with
Tracy's assertion of "any good Samaritan (professional or amateur) doing
their level best to help out someone in trouble is absolved of
liability". I want people to help others in need, even if they fail to
succeed. Stuff happens and you can't always put Humpty Dumpty back
together again. This is the sad fact, get over it, but learn from it.
Others' assertions that we need to know the minutiae of the case in
order to fully understand the nuanced but higher wisdom of a jury acting
in a frivolous suit against those who tried to help is nonsense. IMO,
the issue should have never come before the court.
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 833hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
http://forums.matronics.com
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Panel Face Overlay, Paint or Powder Coating? |
I painted my panel with Imron, installed all the stuff and then took the
whole thing down to the local trophy/ engraver. Sat down with her and s
he build all my labels. She gave me a bill for 70 bucks,I gave her a 40
dollar tip and both she and I were VERY happy.. There are a few pics of
my panel on my website.
do not archive
Ben
www.haaspowerair.com
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:o
ffice" />
On my quest for my rebuild of my RV8a panel to all electric plane (OP Te
chnologies) I have another question. Although I have seen thousands of
RV, I have not studied the finished panel face. I had a back-engraved o
verlay on my old panel. I am looking for something that is simpler and c
an be changed easily.
Are builders just painting or using powder coating or another alternativ
e ?
Then what are builders using to lettering?
How do you hide the screws for the avionics stack (I don't want to rivet
one section)?
Looking for some great ideas and some failures and any input would be gr
eatly appreciated
Dane
N838RV
========================
========================
========================
========================
=====================
<html><P>I painted my panel with Imron, installed all the stuff and then
took the whole thing down to the local trophy/ engraver. Sat down with
her and she build all my labels. She gave me a bill for 70 bucks,I gave
her a 40 dollar tip and both she and I were VERY happy.. There are a few
pics of my panel on my website.</P>
<P>do not archive<BR><BR><BR>Ben</P>
<P>www.haaspowerair.com<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR></P><FONT id=role_document
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:
schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman">On my quest for my rebuild of my RV8a panel to
all electric plane (OP Technologies) I have another question.<SPAN style
="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Although I have seen thousands of R
V, I have not studied the finished panel face.<SPAN style="mso-spaceru
n: yes"> </SPAN>I had a back-engraved overlay on my old panel. I a
m looking for something that is simpler and can be changed easily. <SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman">Are builders just painting or using powder coat
ing or another alternative ? <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </S
PAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times N
ew Roman" size=3>Then what are builders using to lettering? </FONT></P
>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times N
ew Roman" size=3>How do you hide the screws for the avionics stack (I
don't want to rivet one section)? </FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="mso-sp
acerun: yes"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3></FONT></SPAN> 
;</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times N
ew Roman" size=3>Looking for some great ideas and some failures and an
y input would be greatly appreciated </FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times N
ew Roman" size=3>Dane </FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times N
ew Roman" size=3>N838RV</FONT></P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT
-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';
mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language
: AR-SA">RV8a </SPAN></DIV></FONT><PRE><B><FONT face="courier new,cour
ier" color=#000000 size=2>
========================
===========
tp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List</A>
========================
===========
tronics.com</A>
========================
===========
</B></FONT></PRE>
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
In a message dated 2/17/2007 12:44:05 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net writes:
Well, that's a judgment an intelligent person could only make AFTER he/she
gets the information. Not before.
It's illogical to say that information you don't even have is worthless
==================================
Not worthless, just pointless in this case.
-GV
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I'm checked out and signed off ready to fly, the plane is checked out
and signed off ready to fly. Now if I could just get this weather to
cooperate...............
http://webpages.charter.net/bobbyhester/FinishingUpPg3.htm bottom of the page!
--
Surfing the web with my laptop from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my RV7A website: http://webpages.charter.net/bobbyhester/FinishingUpPg3.htm
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: It's flyable! |
Bobby Hester wrote:
>
> I'm checked out and signed off ready to fly, the plane is checked out
> and signed off ready to fly. Now if I could just get this weather to
> cooperate...............
>
> http://webpages.charter.net/bobbyhester/FinishingUpPg3.htm bottom of
> the page!
>
Congrats!! Must have pic's!! Many of them and a video maybe? I'm a long
ways away but I'm certainly happy for you! Fly safe!
Carlos in AZ
RV7A - emp done and saving up money for the wings
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fw: Look! Up In The Sky! |
From: "Jim Jewell in Kelowna" <jjewell@telus.net>
Subject: Look! Up In The Sky!
... it's a bird! It's a plane! Yes, by golly, it IS a plane!
Announcing the first flights of C-GIIG (Gigi) today, Feburary 17, 2007.
Gigi flies straight and true, with just a few small adjustments to do.
Many
thanks to all our friends for their support and help during the (less than)
10 year process. Only 9 years and 11 months to get her in the air!
Also many thanks to Chuck Ross for the test flights and faith in the girl.
The matronics lists played a big roll in making this dream a reality.
Thanks to you all,
Jim and Chris
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|