Good news for private pilots' spouses

John Gaquin wrote:
"C. Massey" wrote in message news:xIM8g.15858

If the two pilots "failed to heed commands", I don't understand how
the FAA and the promoter can be at fault. I realize the word
"contributed" was used, but the way the article reads, it sounds
like pilot error.

Of course it was, predominantly. As the pilot, you just have to pay
attention. Its that simple. I'm sure the Fed and the event insuror
settled because it was cheaper and lower risk than going to trial,
where a weeping widow giving testimony would make short shrift of
objective legal analysis.

might be true. What a sad state of a legal system.

regards,
Friedrich


--
for personal mail please remove 'entfernen' from my emailadress

"Friedrich Ostertag" wrote in

might be true. What a sad state of a legal system.

Not the whole system. Don't be tempted to throw out the baby with the
bathwater. Tort Reform: serious, deep, systemic tort reform.

John Gaquin wrote:
"Friedrich Ostertag" wrote in

might be true. What a sad state of a legal system.

Not the whole system. Don't be tempted to throw out the baby with
the
bathwater. Tort Reform: serious, deep, systemic tort reform.

ACK

What strikes me most about the amounts payed in compensation for some
peoples own stupidity ist the fact, that few seem to realize that this
money is payed out of everyones pocket. The general public seems to go
along with such claims, siding with the "little man" against big, bad
corporations. But as the requirement to pay ridiculous claims now and
then to avoid even more expensive lawsuits is the same for all
corporations, none of them gains any advantage nor disadvantage from
it. The cost is just calculated into the pricing of all products.

regards,
Friedrich


--
for personal mail please remove 'entfernen' from my emailadress

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
news

"Friedrich Ostertag" wrote in

might be true. What a sad state of a legal system.

Not the whole system. Don't be tempted to throw out the baby with the
bathwater. Tort Reform: serious, deep, systemic tort reform.

Instituted by tort lawyers? Good luck!

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message news:9Os9g.17


Not the whole system. Don't be tempted to throw out the baby with the
bathwater. Tort Reform: serious, deep, systemic tort reform.

Instituted by tort lawyers? Good luck!

Difficult, to be sure, but note that I did use the word systemic to describe
the reform.

Dear, dear -- lawyers don't sue, clients sue. Remember, they're just a
tool, and should be handled only by responsible individuals with the
proper training.

Darn shame so many people think when someone dies, they've won the
lottery. You're not going to pass a law to change that.



John Gaquin wrote:
"Friedrich Ostertag" wrote in
might be true. What a sad state of a legal system.

Not the whole system. Don't be tempted to throw out the baby with the
bathwater. Tort Reform: serious, deep, systemic tort reform.

"Stella Starr" wrote in message
news:iqR9g.730827$084.110853@attbi_s22...
Dear, dear -- lawyers don't sue, clients sue.

Funny, I don't see too many cases where clients went into court alone.

Remember, they're just a tool, and should be handled only by responsible
individuals with the proper training.

Darn shame so many people think when someone dies, they've won the
lottery. You're not going to pass a law to change that.

Wow! Some really strained analogies.

"Of course it was, predominantly. As the pilot, you just have to pay
attention. Its that simple. I'm sure the Fed and the event insuror settled

because it was cheaper and lower risk than going to trial, where a weeping

widow giving testimony would make short shrift of objective legal
analysis."

The RV6A pilot didn't follow the FAA published arrival NOTAM and wasn't on
CTAF. Never seen a PA16 that could overtake an RV either. Funny how the
eye whitnesses that were in the airplane behind the two accident aircraft
had a different account than the controllers. Infact the controllers
account changed from the day of the accident 180 degrees 10 days later.




____________________________________
Posted via Aviatorlive.com
http://www.aviatorlive.com

"Steve Pierce" wrote in message
news:bdb60699c2718201cc6d7163d271f4a2@aviatorlive. com...
"Of course it was, predominantly. As the pilot, you just have to pay
attention. Its that simple. I'm sure the Fed and the event insuror settled

because it was cheaper and lower risk than going to trial, where a weeping

widow giving testimony would make short shrift of objective legal
analysis."

The RV6A pilot didn't follow the FAA published arrival NOTAM and wasn't on
CTAF. Never seen a PA16 that could overtake an RV either. Funny how the
eye whitnesses that were in the airplane behind the two accident aircraft
had a different account than the controllers. Infact the controllers
account changed from the day of the accident 180 degrees 10 days later.

What is this post in reference to?

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 16:55:47 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote in ::

What is this post in reference to?

http://ap.staugustine.com/pstories/s.../3864478.shtml