Time to revamp traffic patterns at non-towered airports?

On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 11:42:39 -0600, "Bill Denton"
wrote in Message-Id:
:


Would you be good enough to post a link supporting your assertion that: "it
is a basic and well established legal principle that you lose your right of
way if you are in violation of the laws or regulations"?

I haven't read all of the FAR's yet so I suppose that could be true in the
aviation world, but I can tell you that your supposition is totally false in
the larger world of US law.

I won a case in 1996 filed by an unlicensed building contractor who
was demanding payment. The judge found that the California law denied
unlicensed contractors legal remedy. I could research the statute,
and so can you: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html

Thank you, but your case is totally irrelevant.

In your case, someone was trying to recover on a contract. Since the
contractor was not licensed they could not legally enter into a contract.
Since they couldn't enter into a contract, there was no contract. And since
there was no contract, they couldn't recover.

Now consider this:

I am driving my car, and pull up and stop at a red traffic signal. The
driver behind me doesn't stop quickly enough, and breaks my tail light
window and bulb.

We quickly exchange license and information and return to our cars.

The traffic light turns green; can I proceed?

Let's look at the facts:

I have a green light, which grants me an explicit right-of-way through the
intersection.

I have a totally non-functional tail-light on my car, which is generally
some violation of the motor vehicle code.

So, under Mr. Patterson's interpretation, I would never be allowed to
proceed through the intersection unless I had a mechanic come to the
intersection to repair my tail-light.

Obviously, this would be silly, and it's not correct.

Normally, a grant of right-of-way is for a specific action(s). And the right
of way is normally granted for a period long enough to accomplish the
action. I could not take advantage of the right-of-way granted to me and
pull into the intersection and stop, blocking all other traffic. When the
light changed, granting a right-of-way to traffic coming from either side,
by right=of-way would end, barring special circumstances.

But, broken tail-light or no, I would be granted the right-of-way when the
light turned green.

One interesting point, if the light turned green, but an ambulance or
firetruck were coming into the intersection, in most jurisdictions my
right-of-way would be superseded by a "special" right of way normally
enjoyed by emergency vehicles.


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 11:42:39 -0600, "Bill Denton"
wrote in Message-Id:
:


Would you be good enough to post a link supporting your assertion that:
"it
is a basic and well established legal principle that you lose your right
of
way if you are in violation of the laws or regulations"?

I haven't read all of the FAR's yet so I suppose that could be true in
the
aviation world, but I can tell you that your supposition is totally false
in
the larger world of US law.

I won a case in 1996 filed by an unlicensed building contractor who
was demanding payment. The judge found that the California law denied
unlicensed contractors legal remedy. I could research the statute,
and so can you: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html

From: "Bill Denton"
Date: 2/9/2004 3:53 PM Central Standard Time

in most jurisdictions my
right-of-way would be superseded by a "special" right of way normally
enjoyed by emergency vehicles.


Now you just keep that in mind if ya see me on final. Some of my landings look
like an emergency in progress! Well I'm not that bad. mac

"Mackfly" wrote in message
...
Now you just keep that in mind if ya see me on final. Some of my landings
look
like an emergency in progress!

Then it wouldn't be you that has the right-of-way. It would be the fire
trucks coming to put your airplane out who have the right-of-way.

You need to review Mr. Patterson's post of 02/08/2004. That post formed the
root of this sub-thread, which is in fact about rights-of-way, not
automobile insurance.

Mr. Patterson made the statement: "if you are in violation of the laws or
regulations."

My broken tail-light example would have fallen under the parameters he
stated, so I felt no need to make the example a major felony.

But, in your insurance example, "fault" (actually liability) is normally a
fact determined by a court. There are a few exceptions, but a lack of
insurance is not one of them, to my knowledge...

"Saryon" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 15:53:38 -0600, "Bill Denton"
wrote:


Now consider this:

I am driving my car, and pull up and stop at a red traffic signal. The
driver behind me doesn't stop quickly enough, and breaks my tail light
window and bulb.

We quickly exchange license and information and return to our cars.

The traffic light turns green; can I proceed?

Let's look at the facts:

I have a green light, which grants me an explicit right-of-way through
the
intersection.

I have a totally non-functional tail-light on my car, which is generally
some violation of the motor vehicle code.

So, under Mr. Patterson's interpretation, I would never be allowed to
proceed through the intersection unless I had a mechanic come to the
intersection to repair my tail-light.

Obviously, this would be silly, and it's not correct.

Actually, I believe what Mr. Patterson is saying is that by the pure
fact that you do not have a NJ Auto Insurance policy in effect at the
time you are driving, any accident that you get into is automatically
considered your fault because you are illegally operating the vehicle
on public roads to begin with.

Under your facts, it's not illegal per-se for you to be operating the
vehicle with a broken tail light, it's an equipment violation that can
get you cited by the police until such a time as you get the vehicle
repaired.

That having been said, all I can find on New Jersey's DMV site
regarding insurance is:
( http://www.state.nj.us/mvc/cit_insur..._required.html )

"Required Documents
Your insurance company must give you a New Jersey Insurance
Identification Card for each vehicle under the policy.

You must keep the card in the vehicle and present it:

before inspection

when involved in an accident

when stopped for a traffic violation

when police officers stop you in a spot check
Failure to present the card may result in fines.
Driving an uninsured vehicle may result in fines, community service,
license suspension, and insurance surcharges."

However, I must admit that I haven't had the time to do any case
research into accidents involving uninsured drivers in NJ or any
legislation search for fault assessment. Someone who actually lives
in NJ would likely be better for that anyway as they may have a cite
off the top of their heads..

Luck.

"Christopher Sims" wrote in message
...
Re this discussion. Am I rite in thinking that over where you people come
from, you don't have mandatory radio calling for this scenario?

There is no requirement to use a radio, except in specific situations, all
of which involve air traffic control. Air-to-air communications is not
required.

Here in
Australia we have such procedure. If you were coming in to such an
airport
here you would make the following call. "All stations xx (where this is
the
name of the airport) this is RMH inbound 1000ft for landingon Runway 26
left." Perhaps you should think about going down the same path as us
ozys.

Should we spell the same as you too?

In any case, using a radio may or may not solve the "problem" being
discussed here. I'm sure you think it's a wonderful idea, but we have
plenty of airplanes over here that simply don't have radios, and it's a
mistake to think that the radio is a substitute for looking outside the
airplane.

Pete

Re this discussion. Am I rite in thinking that over where you people come
from, you don't have mandatory radio calling for this scenario? Here in
Australia we have such procedure. If you were coming in to such an airport
here you would make the following call. "All stations xx (where this is the
name of the airport) this is RMH inbound 1000ft for landingon Runway 26
left." Perhaps you should think about going down the same path as us ozys.
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Peter Duniho wrote:

Sounds to me like you both screwed up. Before wandering onto the
runway,
you should've positioned your airplane so you could see traffic
approaching
the runway,

I did. The entrance for the end of runway 06 at Kupper is roughly at 45
degrees
to the runway. He was doing a right hand pattern with a downwind at 300'
AGL,
using a circling downwind to final (ie. no base leg as such). Kupper uses
a left
hand pattern at 1000' AGL. He was still in his turn to final as he came
over the
tree tops. He was eventually banned from several local airports for his
approaches,
Solberg being one. Finally bought an airport so he could fly any way he
wanted.

and he should have gone around when you violated his
right-of-way as landing traffic.

He had no time to go around.

In any case, if I can mix it with King Airs and KC-135s in a Maule, the
sport
plane pilots can damn well fly the same patterns as the rest of us. No way
is it
safe to have traffic running base legs from both directions.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is
curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the
circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but
more
often to the physician than to the patient.

On 10 Feb 2004 04:00:23 GMT, (Mackfly) wrote in
Message-Id: :

Some of my landings look like an emergency in progress!

I've had that happen to me too. They rolled the fire trucks on one
particularly steep slipping descent into KSNA (John Wayne Airport).
The rate of descent must have been good enough to set off some ATC
alarm or something. Nobody said a word, but the fire fighters looked
a little disappointed as I taxied past them after landing.