|
| 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 |
|
#11
April 16th 04, 09:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
"BllFs6" wrote in message
... WATCH OUT!!! These guys will fight to the death for the right to misspell losing! Check Google for the last flame war that erupted over this issue. As well they should...its the principal of the matter you know.... And those who abuse it are guilty of a capitol offense ..... And I for one will not take it lieing down... Hilarious, Blll !! You forgot "waiting with baited breath", though. ;-) 
|
|
#12
April 17th 04, 12:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Rich S." wrote in message ...
"Bob Babcock" wrote in message Loosing? LOOSING??? it's spelled LOSING fer cripe's sake! I'm going to have to scream if I read "loosing" instead of "losing" one more freaking time! WHY is this so difficult? Get a life, looser.
|
|
#13
April 17th 04, 01:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bob Babcock" wrote in message
om... "Rich S." wrote in message ... "Bob Babcock" wrote in message Loosing? LOOSING??? it's spelled LOSING fer cripe's sake! I'm going to have to scream if I read "loosing" instead of "losing" one more freaking time! WHY is this so difficult? Get a life, looser. Hey hey hey! Ol bob has shown us *he's* Mensa material.
|
|
#14
April 17th 04, 01:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Jack Idler" wrote in message ... "BllFs6" wrote in message ... WATCH OUT!!! These guys will fight to the death for the right to misspell losing! Check Google for the last flame war that erupted over this issue. As well they should...its the principal of the matter you know.... And those who abuse it are guilty of a capitol offense ..... And I for one will not take it lieing down... take care Blll Your right! Its enough! Oh, just go back into you're hanger and measure the cord of you're wing. Tim Ward
|
|
#15
April 17th 04, 02:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 20:45:50 GMT, "Felger Carbon"
wrote: "BllFs6" wrote in message ... WATCH OUT!!! These guys will fight to the death for the right to misspell losing! Check Google for the last flame war that erupted over this issue. As well they should...its the principal of the matter you know.... And those who abuse it are guilty of a capitol offense ..... And I for one will not take it lieing down... Hilarious, Blll !! You forgot "waiting with baited breath", though. ;-) That's legitimate it refers to the cat who ate the cheese and waited with baited breath. Ed
|
|
#17
April 17th 04, 03:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 18:34:46 -0700, Edwin B. Sullivan
wrote: I heard very second hand, so no details, that there were 2 separate successful Cirrus BRS deployments over the weekend. The paper article noted that there was a succesful deployment on another Cirrus in Texas 2 years ago. Perhaps you are hearing this info as the same weekend. ... No, there was a Cirrus under canopy in Florida this weekend also. Sounds like the chutes are working fine, kind of wonder about what's under them and who's driving it. If a pilot is not confident of his or her ability to safely land an aircraft in any given situation, they probably can't. In these cases, the CAPS is a good idea. Ultimately, I doubt you'll see a real change in the accident rates. I think we'll see a reduction in the number of off-airport forced landings as some pilots activate the CAPS systems. As some of these "landings" occasionally become crashes with fatalities, we'll probably see a net reduction in fatalities. In most situations, the argument can always be made that the pilot should have been able to land safely. But tapping on a keyboard is not the same as being aloft with a sick airplane. I tend to be reminded of the situation in WWI..."We don't give our pilots parachutes, as they'll be too willing to abandon their aircraft in an emergency." Ultimately, I think this issue will get resolved in the classic way: By the insurance companies, and by the courts. I think if Avemco, et. al, think they're paying out money they wouldn't have had to if the plane hadn't had a CAPS, they'll start upping the Cirrus rates. And if they find they pay out a lot less for Cirrus claims, they'll up the rates to everyone that DOESN'T have a CAPS. You can replace a lot of $300K Cirruses with what you'd shell out on a single wrongful death suit. I suspect at some point, a grieving widow will sue Cirrus, and the company will claim that the pilot had an onboard safety system and didn't chose to use it. If Cirrus wins...the product liability underwriters will probably force the other aircraft manufacturers to follow suit. Stay tuned.... Ron "Pass the popcorn" Wanttaja
|
|
#18
April 17th 04, 04:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rich S. wrote ...
Loosing? LOOSING??? it's spelled LOSING fer cripe's sake! I'm going to have to scream if I read "loosing" instead of "losing" one more freaking time! WHY is this so difficult? You either need to get a dictionary or check the facts of the story. The Texas plane had an aileron come loose. He did not lose it, it remained attached. The transitive verb as used is therefore quite correct: "loosing" not "losing". Daniel
|
|
#19
April 17th 04, 12:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#20
April 17th 04, 04:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 18:34:46 -0700, Edwin B. Sullivan wrote: I heard very second hand, so no details, that there were 2 separate successful Cirrus BRS deployments over the weekend. The paper article noted that there was a succesful deployment on another Cirrus in Texas 2 years ago. Perhaps you are hearing this info as the same weekend. ... No, there was a Cirrus under canopy in Florida this weekend also. Sounds like the chutes are working fine, kind of wonder about what's under them and who's driving it. If a pilot is not confident of his or her ability to safely land an aircraft in any given situation, they probably can't. In these cases, the CAPS is a good idea. Ultimately, I doubt you'll see a real change in the accident rates. I think we'll see a reduction in the number of off-airport forced landings as some pilots activate the CAPS systems. As some of these "landings" occasionally become crashes with fatalities, we'll probably see a net reduction in fatalities. In most situations, the argument can always be made that the pilot should have been able to land safely. But tapping on a keyboard is not the same as being aloft with a sick airplane. I tend to be reminded of the situation in WWI..."We don't give our pilots parachutes, as they'll be too willing to abandon their aircraft in an emergency." Ultimately, I think this issue will get resolved in the classic way: By the insurance companies, and by the courts. I think if Avemco, et. al, think they're paying out money they wouldn't have had to if the plane hadn't had a CAPS, they'll start upping the Cirrus rates. And if they find they pay out a lot less for Cirrus claims, they'll up the rates to everyone that DOESN'T have a CAPS. You can replace a lot of $300K Cirruses with what you'd shell out on a single wrongful death suit. I suspect at some point, a grieving widow will sue Cirrus, and the company will claim that the pilot had an onboard safety system and didn't chose to use it. If Cirrus wins...the product liability underwriters will probably force the other aircraft manufacturers to follow suit. Stay tuned.... Ron "Pass the popcorn" Wanttaja You're certainly right in saying "stay tuned". There are really at least three ways to look at this: 1) Insurance liability is limited to the amount stated in the policy, with $300,000 or $1,000,000 per accident being typical for personal injury liability; and hull coverage should be related to replacement value of the aircraft. Therefore, the insured risk for lives in the air and on the ground *should* be up to about 3.3 times the new value of the aircraft. (Disclaimer: I am not in the insurance business, I do not currently own or insure an aircraft, and I do not pretend to understand the nuances or legalities.) 2) Product liability seems to be virtually limitless, and I can see an argument being made to a jury that the chute should have been deployed automatically. If automation is eventually added, I can also see an argument being made that the aircraft "would not have been lost if the pilot had been allowed to land it." 3) I used to like the PA-38 (Tomahawk) despite the poor initial climb that made it much too vulnerable to an engine failure on departure; but the Cirrus scares the s__t out of me! In fact, I would go so far as to site the Cirrus as a reason to *only* fly aircraft which are certified for spins! Peter
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
