What is the future of WFFC?

[billvon 3,070]

>Someone had to start the blender. The blender had an operator. If
> you as the operator of the blender says "yes" go ahead and stand
> there "I should be able to avert from hitting you" then you as the
> operator "whether the guy standing in the way follows directions or
> not" are partially laible for the situation in the first place.


No, not at all. Take another example. You ask the pilot of an Otter about to taxi if you can film his takeoff. He says "Sure, stand in the landing area; I will fly by there." You then stand directly in front of the left-side engine. He starts to taxi and hits you. It is 100% your fault; you stood in a stupid place, contrary to his directions, and you died as a result.

[freeflir29 0]

BOOBIES!!!!

[rhino 0]

FUNNY!!! I just pm'd something very similar to that to someone.. lol

Let's say he said sure, stand in THIS spot down the runway. I'll take off before I get to you.. If he allows the man to stand in the runway, if he says YES he is accepting some of the responsability. Let's say the man stands on the wrong spot and gets hit by the plane. Yes he made a mistake by not following the pilots instructions but the root decision that let to the man getting hit by the otter was the pilot agreeing to it in teh first place.

It is a pilot's job to make sure his runway is clear before he takes off.

Actually.. With his direction and knowledge of safety, he should have said no, don't stand in the runway. If he says yes, he is assuming the risk that you are a dumbass. He is saying "yes" I am willing to take the chance of something bad happening for your benefit.

But please don't screw up because I don't want my balls in a sling..

[freeflir29 0]

Rhino...do you ever just sit around and argue with inanimate objects in your house just for fun?

[rhino 0]

All the time.. Why?? LOL

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

All the time..

I suspected as much...

[rhino 0]

I'm not trying to argue..

I'm trying to get everyone that is in denial to admit a simple fact,,

The sole blame isn't on the victum for being there when the otter pilot could have prevented it by applying the knowledge he had concerning the inherent dangers of standing on the runway and saying NO..

Simple..

Rhino

[TequilaGirl 0]

You are arguing - can't we all just get along.......

[diverdriver 6]

Hey Phree....how's that go again?

Neeeeeeeyyyyyyyyy.

Neeeeeyyyy

Neeeyy

Ney?



LOL......the sad thing is that it took me so long to get that the first time.

[rhino 0]

God Chromie was right.. You are sexy!!

I get along with everyone

[wildblue 7]

heh... I was going to do that a couple of posts ago
You have to throw some and and in there....

Quote

the sad thing is that it took me so long to get that the first time.

Don't worry, I'm pretty sure there's some that never got it at all

it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality

[jfields 0]

Quote

Don't worry, I'm pretty sure there's some that never got it at all

Huh? What? I haven't been paying attention.

<< Looks for the the "clueless" sign on my back. >>

[billvon 3,070]

>Let's say he said sure, stand in THIS spot down the runway. I'll take
> off before I get to you.

If that is the case, then you are correct. However, for this to make any sense in the situation we're talking about, the pilot of the helicopter would have had to tell the (future) victim to stand in a place he suspected would be in the path of the rotor disc. Is it your belief that this is what happened?

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

'm somewhat confused (oh, so what else is new? LOL). Why would the
decision taken by the FAA to not emergency-revoke the pilot's credentials
not be considered evidence? I mean, I see it kinda like this:


1. No, the invesigators were not there to actually witness it. However, the
cops responding to a traffic accident also are not there to witness it. They
merely gather witnesses statements, make a judgement as to who's at
fault, and put it into their report. The report is entered into evidence, and
used by the jury to come to a conclusion. How is this situation different?
And, unless I am greatly mistaken, the report writer is called to tesitfy as to
the report's authenticity, inasmuch as yes, they wrote it, yes this is what
they wrote.

Are you talking about eyewitnesses, or someone that made a decision to revoke a license based on what others told him.
If the FAA guy is an eyewitness, his evidence is valid, likje any other eyewitness. If his statement to the court goes like this:

FAA guy: "I decided to suspend Joe Blow's license because of what John Doe told me about the accident"

Lawyer: "Did YOU see the accident?"

FAA guy: "No, I based my decision on what John Doe told me that he had seen"

Lawyer: "Objection, your honor, hearsay"

Judge: "Sustained".

The suspension of the license is not, in and of itself, evidence of anything except the inspector's state of mind at the time.

Quote

2. Why do you consider FAA investigators not expert witnesses? If part of
their job is to investigate accidents such as this,

It isn't. That's the job of the NTSB, which is independent.


3. A fact which is important to the actual deliberation of the entirety of the
situation is what comes after the investigation. If it is noted in their
paperwork, and is a conclusion made by the investigators, how can that be
considered hearsay?

[freeflir29 0]

Bubba: Ey man...I think it moved....

Ewstus: Me too...kick it again.

Bubba: Wooohooo....Dij ya see em maggitts fly!!!

Ewstus: Heeyylll yeah!!! Want another beer?

[Guest]

Skydance settled out of court for the '98 tandem death.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[lummy 4]

Quote

Skydance settled out of court for the '98 tandem death.

3 years later, and how much in legal bills? I'm not sure why you brought that case up, but it would seem to me that it would show that a waiver isn't applicable when there is the possibility of negligence(alleged drug use).
and as a side note, IIRC, the father's goal ws to shut down the DZ, ODD way of seeking closure, vengeance perhaps?

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[Deuce 1]

Hi Gary. Snausages.

It's Wednesday. Day after tomorrow I'm skydiving all diggity damn day.

If you don't show up Sunday, I'll sue you

Chickety bow wow.

[lummy 4]

yeah, well, I may just sue YOU for not being there On Saturday... How do like THEM apples?

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[Deuce 1]

OK you rat-bastard, come over to my house on the way over and I'll let you jump in the bounce-house and have a cupcake.

Maybe some punch too. And we can stop some fights over who stuck their tongue out at who.

Let's settle out of court. See you Sunday, and I'll provide the water and gatorade.

Ba ba ba oooh ma mao mao

[lummy 4]

Quote

OK you rat-bastard, come over to my house on the way over and I'll let you jump in the bounce-house and have a cupcake.

Promise??? I want the cupcake with the pink sprinklies on it tho....

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[lotzafun 0]

I believe the s.o.l. (statute of limitations) on a civil lawsuit for wrongful death etc. is 2 years. Also, the suit can be filed in either Federal Court, the county where the incident occured or in the county/ies where the defendant(s) reside. This is the way it is in Texas and most states are similar. So, there may not be anything filed yet, but from what I have read (the mysterious video the brother-in-law alludes to that shows the deceased was not at fault), there will be a suit filed and they will go after whoever has the deepest pockets. So if you are poor or broke, you can be thankful on occassions such as this. I will try to find out more about the legal system in Ill.

[IMGR2 0]

[As the ONLY fucking person that ACTUALLY witnessed the accident I have a unique take on the matter. And NO I am not looking for an award. I just can't believe what I am hearing sometimes.
]


Boy you sound quite arrogant thinking everyone else that was on the aircraft and on the ground did not witness it also.

I have a very dear friend that saw it happen from the ground. And I don't belive she would lie about something like this.

You seem to be taking this very personal. Was everyone else blind-folded while you were "the ONLY fucking person that ACTUALLY witnessed the accident"?

My intent was to bring out awareness that we could be affected dearly by the FAA and insurance companies, not to start a verbal war about who knows more about the accident.

Bryan

[skybytch 273]

Quote

Was everyone else blind-folded while you were "the ONLY fucking person that ACTUALLY witnessed the accident"?

I think he's the only person posting in this thread who witnessed the accident.

[Ducky 0]

hmmmph

No deisre to debate it just taking adavantage of my RIGHT to free speech by voicing an opinion. The suing lil prick should be blackballed and beaten.


kwak

Sometimes your the bug, sometimes your the windshield. Sometimes your the hammer sometimes your the nail. Question is Hun, Do you wanna get hammered or do you wanna get nailed?????