Thoughts on Oshkosh

"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

No problem. We disagree.
Dudley Henriques

OK, but do you mind if I ask how you would fix it? I'll
tell you how I'd approach it. I'd look at bad decisions and
the applicable law. If the case was correctly decided,
according to the law, then I'd change the law. If it was
incorrectly decided, then I'd try to figure out how we can
get better decisions.

How would you approach it? Would you prohibit people from
hiring attorneys? Try to instill stronger ethics in
attorneys or what? Prohibit lawsuits entirely? I'm
genuinely interested as to what you think would help.
--


Right now there is little down side for an attorney or client to take a case
on a contingency basis.The client isn't out any money if they don't win. The
attorney's time spent on unsuccessful cases is just the cost of doing
business and in many if not most cases they can settle for something even
when they really don't think they can win in court.

There needs to be something there that costs the attorney and the client in
cases where there really isn't a case. How about three different rulings a
jury could make in any given case.

1. Guilty- Claimant wins.
2. Not Guilty- Claimant loses
3. This is a silly ass suit- Claimant and their lawyer pays 3x defense cost.

What's wrong with a system that always
comes to the right answer?

It disagrees with me too often. g

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

How would you approach it? Would you prohibit people from
hiring attorneys? Try to instill stronger ethics in
attorneys or what? Prohibit lawsuits entirely? I'm
genuinely interested as to what you think would help.

I'm not Dudley, but that has never stopped me from talking on Usenet.

I see the root problem as being the "jury of one's peers"... inasmuch as
one's peers are often unschooled in whatever it is that is necessary to
ajudicate some lawsuits. For example, how many on a jury about a crash
are actually pilots, aviation engineers, or controllers? Those are the
ones with the expertise to not be swayed by irresponsible emotional
arguments (such as the recent one holding a pilot who had a gear problem
responsible for a midair involving two other airplanes).

Sometimes a jury of ones peers is actually the best thing. But
sometimes not. When? ... that's the tricky question.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

This is exactly the type of exchange I wish to avoid.

OK. I can respect that. I do think there is value in
calmly discussing opposing viewpoints, but I don't want to
push you. I don't think my viewpoint is permanently fixed,
and I am interested in why other people see issues
differently. I wish you well, Dudley.

No problem. Let me explain something to you if I may please.

These "personal opinion" topics can get to be a real PIA when they go beyond
the stage where two opponents have voiced strong and cogent comment
detailing their respective positions. In this case, in answering your first
response offering an opposing opinion (welcome of course as always ), I
stated clearly that "you won't change my opinion on this in a million
years".
After this initial exchange, what always happens on Usenet.....and I mean
without fail.......is that if the respondent again responds, it's a
challenge. It's not an offer to share opinion. It's not in any way
whatsoever someone being "interested in your opinions on this". It's simply
the beginning of an ever expanding exchange that always ends up with one
side trying to outdo the other side.
Frankly, I've about had it with this type of exchange on Usenet. The thread
creep is horrendous; the bad feelings are rampant; and who cares anyway?
In this case you would have had a light plane pilot and an ex fast airplane
driver arguing over who's right and who's wrong about lawyers. Who cares?
The exchange solves nothing.
There is, as I said, absolutely nothing you or anyone else in the world
could tell me that would change my actual experience with lawyers and
observing lawyer behavior over the fifty odd years I've been in aviation. In
fact, I'm more sure about lawyers than I am about the existence of God!
So posting to me telling me you are interested in my opinion after I have
already given it is merely challenging me to provide fodder for your
responses to whatever reasons I have for my position about lawyers.
When I post an opinion on a subject like this one, it's simply my
observation. I don't feel the need to provide anyone on Usenet with my
reasons for taking a position.
These OT threads are simply random stated opinion. There's no need to go
beyond the first exchange between two people with opposing arguments unless
you want to rumble.
I just don't care about "rumbling" any more.
Dudley Henriques

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
ink.net...

"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

This is exactly the type of exchange I wish to avoid.

OK. I can respect that. I do think there is value in
calmly discussing opposing viewpoints, but I don't want to
push you. I don't think my viewpoint is permanently fixed,
and I am interested in why other people see issues
differently. I wish you well, Dudley.

No problem. Let me explain something to you if I may please.

These "personal opinion" topics can get to be a real PIA when they go
beyond the stage where two opponents have voiced strong and cogent comment
detailing their respective positions. In this case, in answering your
first response offering an opposing opinion (welcome of course as
always ), I stated clearly that "you won't change my opinion on this in a
million years".
After this initial exchange, what always happens on Usenet.....and I mean
without fail.......is that if the respondent again responds, it's a
challenge. It's not an offer to share opinion. It's not in any way
whatsoever someone being "interested in your opinions on this". It's
simply the beginning of an ever expanding exchange that always ends up
with one side trying to outdo the other side.
Frankly, I've about had it with this type of exchange on Usenet. The
thread creep is horrendous; the bad feelings are rampant; and who cares
anyway?
In this case you would have had a light plane pilot and an ex fast
airplane driver arguing over who's right and who's wrong about lawyers.
Who cares? The exchange solves nothing.
There is, as I said, absolutely nothing you or anyone else in the world
could tell me that would change my actual experience with lawyers and
observing lawyer behavior over the fifty odd years I've been in aviation.
In fact, I'm more sure about lawyers than I am about the existence of God!
So posting to me telling me you are interested in my opinion after I have
already given it is merely challenging me to provide fodder for your
responses to whatever reasons I have for my position about lawyers.
When I post an opinion on a subject like this one, it's simply my
observation. I don't feel the need to provide anyone on Usenet with my
reasons for taking a position.
These OT threads are simply random stated opinion. There's no need to go
beyond the first exchange between two people with opposing arguments
unless you want to rumble.
I just don't care about "rumbling" any more.
Dudley Henriques

Nicely said (as usual).

Having been fortunate to have read your words here for many years, I can
remember discussion that has degenerated into meanness and frustration and
personal attack. I have always maintained that Usenet, like aviation, is
all about maintaining control. With experience comes wisdom and discretion.

Warm regards and happy landings,

You are not capable of "touching a raw nerve" with me. Your insinuation that
you have simply reaffirms my already stated position that these
"discussions" lead to nowhere but escalating intensity.
I have tried every way I know how to disengage from you on this topic Mr.
Pattist. If you desire the last word, and I would believe this might be the
case, simply make that last comment and let's be done with it shall we?
Dudley Henriques


"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

After this initial exchange, what always happens on Usenet.....and I mean
without fail.......is that if the respondent again responds, it's a
challenge. It's not an offer to share opinion. It's not in any way
whatsoever someone being "interested in your opinions on this". It's
simply
the beginning of an ever expanding exchange that always ends up with one
side trying to outdo the other side.

We disagree. I see the problems with aviation legal issues
as a problem that can be solved. I'm not interested in
your personal opinion of attorneys or trying to change your
mind on that issue. Besides, that's OT and not suitable for
discussion here. I am interested in how legal liability
affects aviation and what can/should be done to address
those problems.

One thing that has been done is to limit the "liability
tail" for old airplanes with the General Aviation
Revitalization Act (GARA). It basically said you couldn't
sue a general aviation manufacturer for an accident
occurring more than eighteen (18) years after the delivery
of the aircraft to the customer or dealer. It was a good
idea.

I was asking about your position, not because I wanted to
change your mind, or even because I was really interested in
what you thought about attorneys. I asked because I was
genuinely wondering whether you thought attorneys were the
cause of aviation's legal costs, and if so, what you thought
could be done about it.

Perhaps you just wanted to implement the quote from
Shakespeare's King Henry VI, "THE FIRST THING WE DO, LET'S
KILL ALL THE LAWYERS."

While it's clearly different from yours, my personal opinion
is that attorneys are no better, and no worse than other
groups. There are some that are reputable, and some that
will screw you to the wall for a dime. We have to have a
system that controls the bad apples and prevents the
inevitable existence of some from screwing up the entire
aviation industry. The question is how to do that.

Frankly, I've about had it with this type of exchange on Usenet.

Clearly I've touched a raw nerve. It wasn't my intention to
do so.


--
Do not spin this aircraft. If the aircraft does enter a spin it will
return to earth without further attention on the part of the aeronaut.

(first handbook issued with the Curtis-Wright flyer)

On 1 Aug 2006 10:39:01 -0500, T o d d P a t t i s t
wrote:
For every lawsuit against an aircraft manufacturer, there's
at least one lawyer on the side of the manufacturer and one
on the side of the person claiming the aircraft was
defective because it didn't have a perfect anti-crash doodad
installed.

http://grumman581.googlepages.com/la...oblem-solution

Personally, I agree with those ideas. I guess I'm pessimistic about the
chances of bringing them about. I have seen attempts at tort reform
related to my business fail because of the power of the Trial Lawyers
Assn. on its lawyer-infested politician base. I just can't think of a
single citizen entity large enough to sway the politicians toward tort
reform. Wish there was one. Aviation interests need to somehow come
together with other groups adversely affected by the present system.
Blue skies!

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
RomeoMike wrote:

I'd love to know how you'd solve this one (-:

No magic bullets, but I'd like to see efforts made to get
and allow more knowledgeable jurors. I think it would also
help to bring in outside experts that represent the court
and the public, not either side in a dispute. The outside
guy would help the jury understand the technical issues.
This would help keep "junk science" out of the courtroom.

Thank you for your reasoned and sensible approach.
"Be Safe"
Dudley Henriques

"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

You are not capable of "touching a raw nerve" with me. Your insinuation
that
you have simply reaffirms my already stated position that these
"discussions" lead to nowhere but escalating intensity.

I am the eternal optimist that calm and reasoned discussion
is a worthwhile and constructive activity. When discussions
escalate into personal attacks, I don't read them. I didn't
see that happening here, but perhaps you are right that we
shouldn't go any farther.

Be safe, Dudley.


--
Do not spin this aircraft. If the aircraft does enter a spin it will
return to earth without further attention on the part of the aeronaut.

(first handbook issued with the Curtis-Wright flyer)

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 14:11:24 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:
How about three different rulings a
jury could make in any given case.

1. Guilty- Claimant wins.
2. Not Guilty- Claimant loses
3. This is a silly ass suit- Claimant and their lawyer pays 3x defense cost.

How about we just kill the losing lawyers? Natural selection is a
good thing, right?