Los Angeles radio tower crash kills 2

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Andrew Rowley" wrote in message
...

If the hazard has been brought to the attention of the radio station,
and they decided against taking reasonable precautions due to the
cost, it doesn't look good. I doubt that the cost of installing strobe
lights would be particularly high, either, especially compared to the
cost of replacing the tower, an aircraft, or the cost of people's
lives.


The radio station did take reasonable precautions. They painted and
lighted
their tower in accordance with the regulations.

Minimally meeting regulations is not always enough to prove reasonable
precaution.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
m...

Minimally meeting regulations is not always enough to prove reasonable
precaution.


No, not with the sad state of the US judicial system.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
om...

Minimally meeting regulations is not always enough to prove reasonable
precaution.


No, not with the sad state of the US judicial system.

While I am not generally in favor of the way the US judicial system
seems to encourage people to sue, I don't see this particular
principle as a problem. If you can remove responsibility by meeting
regulations, then you need regulations to cover pretty much all
possible circumstances, and you end up with much more legislation than
you really want.

If you require some personal responsibility and common sense on top of
regulations, you can end up with similar (potentially better) results,
with greater freedom overall.

In article ,
Andrew Rowley wrote:

Minimally meeting regulations is not always enough to prove reasonable
precaution.

No, not with the sad state of the US judicial system.

While I am not generally in favor of the way the US judicial system
seems to encourage people to sue, I don't see this particular
principle as a problem. If you can remove responsibility by meeting
regulations, then you need regulations to cover pretty much all
possible circumstances, and you end up with much more legislation than
you really want.

If you require some personal responsibility and common sense on top of
regulations, you can end up with similar (potentially better) results,
with greater freedom overall.

or you end up with endless second-guessing and hindsight that isn't
20-20.

If the regulation isn't good enough, then don't bother with the
regulation.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

"Andrew Rowley" wrote in message
...

While I am not generally in favor of the way the US judicial system
seems to encourage people to sue, I don't see this particular
principle as a problem. If you can remove responsibility by meeting
regulations, then you need regulations to cover pretty much all
possible circumstances, and you end up with much more legislation than
you really want.

If you require some personal responsibility and common sense on top of
regulations, you can end up with similar (potentially better) results,
with greater freedom overall.


What's the purpose of the regulations regarding marking and lighting?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

"Andrew Rowley" wrote in message
...

While I am not generally in favor of the way the US judicial system
seems to encourage people to sue, I don't see this particular
principle as a problem. If you can remove responsibility by meeting
regulations, then you need regulations to cover pretty much all
possible circumstances, and you end up with much more legislation than
you really want.

If you require some personal responsibility and common sense on top of
regulations, you can end up with similar (potentially better) results,
with greater freedom overall.


What's the purpose of the regulations regarding marking and lighting?


Regulations provide minimum requirements. Meeting minimum requirements does
not guarantee freedom from liability. Just ask any auto or aircraft
manufacturer.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
news

What's the purpose of the regulations regarding marking and lighting?


Regulations provide minimum requirements. Meeting minimum requirements
does
not guarantee freedom from liability.


Does going beyond minimum requirements guarantee freedom from liability?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
news

What's the purpose of the regulations regarding marking and lighting?


Regulations provide minimum requirements. Meeting minimum requirements
does
not guarantee freedom from liability.


Does going beyond minimum requirements guarantee freedom from liability?


No but it could very well limit liability.

In article ,
"Dave Stadt" wrote:

What's the purpose of the regulations regarding marking and lighting?

Regulations provide minimum requirements. Meeting minimum requirements does
not guarantee freedom from liability. Just ask any auto or aircraft
manufacturer.

But what is the purpose of the minimum requirements? What's the objective?

If more than just meeting minimum requirements is expected of someone,
then those "minimum" requiremens aren't much good.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

If more than just meeting minimum requirements is expected of someone,
then those "minimum" requiremens aren't much good.

Isn't that how it is with flying? We have minimum requrements for
flying, but it is up to the pilot to realize that sometimes thosse
minimum requirements are not sufficient for safe flight.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.