aro

Your view may be influenced by being involved in large cases - but I think they are a minority. I'm talking about smaller cases, where the plaintiff would probably be very happy with a few tens of thousands as a settlement. No-one hires experts, no-one pays for a detailed investigation of the incident, and probably both sides minimize the number of actual lawyers involved. Most of the case is conducted by correspondence. Unless the sums involved are large, the insurance companies don't want to get involved in arguing duty of care and negligence in court. If the case is settled, both sides can claim a win in their weekly meeting: Plaintiff's lawyers: "We got a payout of $50,ooo for Joe Bloggs, which given the facts of the case is a good result." Insurance company: "We settled the Joe Bloggs case for $50,000. He was seeking $500,000 so we view this as a good result." Your cleaning gutters example is wrong. There is no guarantee that you will stay out of trouble. If he is injured, you might be sued. Insurance will probably pay out, if he will settle for a sum that makes it too expensive to go to court.

I do have a somewhat cynical view of the legal system, although I don't extend that to all lawyers. I am sure a few give the rest a bad name. And please don't ask me to listen to Andrew Bolt :-) One major problem is that the legal system is heavily weighted towards those with money, and those with power. Additionally, the people who make the choice to sue (or prosecute) have a distinct advantage as well - simply because they have that power to choose. I go back to my previous point however: what percentage of cases are settled without going to court? What influence do judges have over that, or the merits of the cases? The insurance companies probably can't be sure what actually happened, so in most cases they figure its safer to pay out a (relatively) small settlement than gamble on taking it to court. The personal injury lawyers know that, so push for as much as they can get before the insurance company decides it is worth fighting. Besides, getting money from an insurance company for an injured person can't really be wrong can it? That's what insurance is there for ;-) I actually do admire the legal profession, and there are many lawyers who do very good work. Unfortunately, sometimes money or expediency overrides justice. But my main argument is with the assumption that a case must have merit, or it would not exist.

You seem to have a rather naive view of the legal system. What percentage of cases are settled? If the case is settled, nobody has to prove anything. Most insurance cases seem to resemble a game of chicken more than Donoghue v Stevenson. Just because an allegation has been made that there was a breach of duty of care doesn't mean it happened - but generally, neither side wants to fight in court. I don't know anything about this specific case, but in many cases it appears that the lawyers look for soft targets with money (preferably insurance) rather than the party actually responsible. They figure the best result for their client is a payout from somebody, rather than a judgment against somebody else who might never actually pay.

In a glide, the direction of movement is not perfectly horizontal, you have a downward component as well. Drag is opposite the direction of motion, so in a glide it is not horizontal, there is an upward component. As the direction of movement has a downward component, gravity is partially acting in the direction of movement, and in opposition to the drag component.

Another point, don't be in a hurry to touch down anyway. At Jabiru speeds, in a normal landing you probably travel as far along the runway before touching down as you do after - maybe further.

1.3 * stall speed is a good rule of thumb, and certainly gives you an idea of how much margin you have in the recommended speed. However, there may be reasons the factory test pilot recommends something else, e.g control authority at lower speeds. The book figures are a good place to start. Another point to note, the manual recommends 65KIAS, but according to the IAS->CAS table this is actually closer to 6o knots. That makes it about 1.5 * stall speed which suggests you still have a reasonable margin. (Again, according to Jabiru website, check specific aircraft POH)

You will always fly past your aim point. Your aim point is only for the purposes of the approach, then you level out and flare, and you will always fly past it - how far depends on your speed. In a short field landing you will be slower, and won't fly as far past, but you will still fly past (unless you have a very abrupt arrival!) If you need to touch down exactly at a particular spot, you will adjust the aim point to a point before the actual touchdown spot. It does sound like you are a little too fast. If you are too fast the aircraft will be more sensitive to your back pressure, and more likely to climb again, which both mean it is easy to end up too high in the flare. The J170 manual online at the Jabiru site recommends 65KIAS for the approach speed, so that is the speed I would be aiming for (check your aircraft POH), preferably stable on speed by 200 feet. Trying to slow from 70 to 65 "over the fence" will also make you high - speed and height are both energy, so you will just trade one for the other. As for looking down the runway, the best advice I have heard is when the runway looks like a highway, look down the runway like you are driving a car. It's probably more like 3-400 metres ahead rather than the very end of the runway, but the important think is not looking right in front of the aircraft. It sounds like you have the idea there anyway. I would not recommend using the flight simulator for this, the last 20 feet is probably the time when the flight simulator is least helpful in showing what you need to look at and feel. There is no substitute for practice in the aircraft.