![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I have managed at least three teams commercially on four projects in the
last 10 years, and at least two of those projects had over 200K lines of code. So I guess that would be a yes. Bug free? First, the pilot shouldn't be using the handheld in IMC unless... True. But pilots will do things they shouldn't do, and the equipment maker gets sued, whether they helped cause the crash or not. This is expensive even if they win. Your position appears to be It's not my position. I am proposing reasons why it isn't done. Whether is =should= be done is another question, but I can easily see why they don't do it. By that logic, we should just stop all technological development, because God forbid that someone innovates and makes something that is actually precise, useful, and more advanced than what is already in the cockpit? This is the logic behind a lot of aircraft design. I am not a lawyer, but I vaguely recall a case against (I think) Cessna which came down to "this design is bad and caused the crash. You knew it was bad because twenty years later you improved it". I don't know if Cessna won or lost, but the idea had traction. In any case, if someone deliberately takes an uncertified instrument and uses it as a primary instrument in IFR, they are violating the rules and I guess they are responsible for their own bad behavior. Well, the pilot does an SPT and kills somebody on the ground, who sues the pilot, the plane maker, the GPS maker, the airport where the plane took off from, and the stars in the sky. It comes down to who has more money from which to collect. If the pilot and his insurance is significantly less than the GPS maker and his insurance, then any sane lawyer will go after the GPS maker. The argument that the GPS maker enticed the pilot to use this device in IMC will likely gain traction against a judge and/or jury of non-pilots who see many other cases of enticement for profit. It =is= the pilot's fault. But the victim is dead and the GPS maker has more money. I wouldn't blame the GPS maker for being gun-shy about putting in a feature of less than dubious value in the face of this. I wish it were different. Jose -- The price of freedom is... well... freedom. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Garmin backing away from additional GDL-69 features for 430/530 products? | Andrew Gideon | Owning | 2 | September 9th 05 11:36 PM |
Inexpensive Garmin 430/530 question | vlado | Owning | 2 | May 19th 05 03:21 AM |
Pirep: Garmin GPSMAP 296 versus 295. (very long) | Jon Woellhaf | Piloting | 12 | September 4th 04 11:55 PM |
WAAS and Garmin 430/530 | DoodyButch | Owning | 23 | October 13th 03 04:06 AM |
Garmin 430/530 Questions | Steve Coleman | Instrument Flight Rules | 16 | August 28th 03 09:04 PM |