DarkSarcasm
-
Posts
1,081 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Store
Aircraft
Resources
Tutorials
Articles
Classifieds
Movies
Books
Community Map
Quizzes
Videos Directory
Everything posted by DarkSarcasm
-
I dunno, sounds a little too similar to the Darwin Award
-
In this weather, that mightn't be so bad really... :big_grin:
-
If the airlines are this much fun, perhaps I've made the wrong choice...
-
A loving tribute to the dedicated professionals at Northwest Airlines, October 21, 2009... Watch Now!
-
This is probably a fairly pointless question but I'm procrastinating over studying... I've read on the internet that in some places (particularly the US I think) there is a tradition of cutting and writing on the student's shirt that they wear for their first solo. My question is, is this tradition followed in Aus at all or is it just an American/overseas thing? (Partly curious in case I should be wearing old t-shirts to lessons for the next month just in case I solo! ) But yeah, do they do it here at all?
-
I noticed the difference with sidetone between passive and active sets too - with passive sets I usually can hardly hear myself which makes me freak that other people aren't hearing me either but with the Zulu I can hear myself just fine...maybe you just need more time to get used to the complete amazingness that is ANR :big_grin:
-
Hey, Just had a quick google and found a couple of emails for SportStar which you could try. One is in the US but it still can't hurt to email them I guess [email protected] [email protected] Also, maybe try emailing LightSpeed? Or contacting the Moorabbin Pilot Shop which is the Australian repair place for LightSpeed - he might have had other people with similar issues.
-
Do you mean where the manufacturer is the victim or the pilot? If I was acting for the manufacturer I'd do that so then if there were any I could say 'see he was already a silly sod, no matter what we tried it've likely all gone pear-shaped for him anyway'. Alternatively if I was acting for the pilot that would only help if the person didn't have any - although I'd still check so I could attempt to find a way to rebut it. I fear that we are getting too deep into discussion about our hypothetical court case and I think that might be my fault (it's just force of habit I guess) ADDITION: just read Qwerty's post below and realised that Turbo was referring to posts on forums like this for evidence of 'priors', oopsie. Now I've noticed that though, I completely agree with what he said. I guess I was too into my 'lawyer analysis' mindset
-
Yes, and I agree I would love to see a "No Intentional Smoking" sign though
-
The problem is that (nearly) everything is arguable two ways So, with the dangerous dog one, yes you're admitting that your dog is dangerous but the other person chose to take that risk and go where the dog was... With your argument about the Jab, I can see where you're coming from (and it is a good argument) but then there's also the argument that Jab warned you saying that it may be impossible to recover from certain spins so it was partly the guys fault for flying it in a way that could get him into that problem - i.e. Jab did actually warn him, he chose to take the risk As I said, everything is arguable two ways if you look at it in the right direction Note that I am still a student so this is all just me thinking, no research has been done and no advice is being given
-
I apologise if I have annoyed/offended anyone. I am a law student and tend to automatically think like one when it comes to things like this
-
As I said in an earlier post, I have never done a spin, haven't had any sort of spin training (yet at least) and have no idea how a spin works aerodynamically (re stress on the airframe etc). I also have no idea about the testing etc that an aircraft undergoes during manufacture etc. I'm just reading the placard the way a lawyer would likely read it if a court case occurred...
-
Oh please don't, when I'm eventually murdered I'd like to be surprised by the method used :big_grin:
-
It seems there's actually two discussions going on here 1. Can we spin the Jab under RA-Aus? Answer: no, because of the regs. Easy, clear, nobody's going out today to spin their Jab because we're all not stupid. 2. Is the placard worded wrongly? My Answer: yes, because it leaves the manufacturer open to liability if someone does die in an unintentional spin. Orion, yes if you spin and die you will be dead and not care what the placard said, but your family and Jabiru will care once the court case starts because there is inherent ambiguity in that statement. There is a potentially arguable implication that if you do spin it unintentionally then the aircraft will be able to handle it which leaves Jabiru open to potential liability. There is definitely an arguable implication that, if you unintentionally enter a spin, then the aircraft will survive If the manufacturers knew that there was absolutely no way ever that the aircraft could suvive a spin then the placard would probably say NO SPINS EVER ON RISK OF DEATH or something. But putting in the word 'intentional' leaves it open to argument should a court case ever arise on this matter
-
The purpose of these placards is (apart from trying to keep the pilot safe) largely reducing liability on the manufacturer so if something does happen the manufacturer can claim that they tried to stop it so they're less liable that it did happen With potentially ambiguous placards like these (i.e. are unintentional spins ok in that your aeroplane won't disintegrate in mid-air or something) they are leaving themselves open to potential liability when someone does eventually spin their plane and have an accident It's not the same as having ones like "no crashes" and "no running out of fuel" because the normal reasonable person would know that obviously doing these things would be rather bad for their health. Something like a spin is less clear than these and therefore more warning is needed Darky is showing her lawyer side...
-
The problem is that by putting the word 'intentional' in there then it is arguable that they are implying that it could survive an unintentional one if you were dumb enough to do that... One day someone is going to spin one and have an accident and lots of lawyers will be paid lots of money to argue about this placard...and it is potentially arguable both ways so a lot of lawyers could have a very interesting time in court
-
Alternatively the placard isn't as badly worded as people think Basically, "No intentional spins" means that, no you can't spin it ok, but if you scr*w up that badly and do spin it, it's not going to fall to pieces But note that I have never done a spin so I can't really comment on anything to do with that, I'm just saying how I would interpret the placard
-
I may be showing ignorance here...but does the "No intentional spins" sign have to be placed in VH registered Jabirus as well? I'm just thinking that if it's only required in RA-Aus registered aircraft then it's a way of saying that spins are possible (i.e. the plane won't disintegrate in the sky or something if it happens), but you're not allowed to do them on purpose because of the RA-Aus regs Just a suggestion anyway...
-
I agree, love the TPA, I can quote one section by heart (I'm not a nerd, I'm a law student )
-
This can apply to most laws methinks
-
I vote for this one (simply because I'd be amused every time I read it)
-
is vulnerable to green vegetables...
-
I would not complain if this happened... :big_grin:
-
Maybe I should find out when the 'Gen Y' years start, so I can see if he fits in too, he might accept it as an excuse then (Just in case it's not obvious, I'm not being serious)
-
Yeah, I definitely won't be flying solo without it. So far though, solo hasn't happened yet.... (soon hopefully though!) I do take my handbag with me, I just leave it in the boot of my car. I'm not going to need half the stuff I have in it while flying! Everything in there is important though, can't count anything as 'junk'
