Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

User Profile

Collapse

Profile Sidebar

Collapse
Gabriel
Gabriel
Senior Member
Last Activity: Today, 06:32
Joined: 2008-01-18
Location: Buenos Aires - Argentina
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
  • Source
Clear All
new posts

  • 0.799kg? Really? Any sane engineer would round it to 1. A very pedantic one to 0.8.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • That's because you have the wrong definition of impossible.

    Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in the world they’ve been given than to explore the power they have to change it. Impossible is not a fact. It’s an opinion. Impossible is not a declaration. It’s a dare. Impossible is potential. Impossible is temporary. Impossible is nothing....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied to F.A.O.: TeeVee
    Without really understanding law, it seems quite intuitive that all three the family of the deceased worker, the insurance company of the car owner and the car owner himself should be able to go against the worker who caused the accident and the employer. It seems that in the case of the victim against the employer, law defeats intuition. But I would expect that the others remain.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • The fact that it didn't help in one (or many specific) examples doesn't mean that it doesn't have the potential to help. The potential goodness of having an aural alert of a truck incoming into an area where passengers are evacuating amid fire, smoke and confusion is self evident.

    (and I know you didn't say that the SFO case proves that the sirens are useless, and you know I didn't say that you said it)

    In addition to all that, I suppose that sirens are standard equipment in all firetrucks and while airport firetrucks are quite specific they may be used in other applications, so probably it doesn't make sense to have a sirened design and siren-less design....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Video: 3 fire trucks responding, NONE of them using sirens ...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • I don't know how it appears in the official English translations of Cervantes's Don Quixote, but in Spanish it says "El hombre propone pero Dios dispone" that literally translates as "The man proposes but God disposes", which I believe is a known saying in English too. And it was not invented by Cervantes.

    Cervantes wrote it in the sequel (2nd part) of Don Quixote in the XVII century, but the first recorded appearance was in the Imitation of Christ (by Kempis, although that is disputed) in Latin as "Homo proponit, sed Deus disponit" (exact same translation) and is inspired in the Bible Proverbs 16.9 "In their hearts humans plan their course, but the Lord establishes their steps".

    The meaning of all these are that despite sound decision making and careful planning, things may not go as planned (for good or for bad), since there are always room for luck or fortuitous unforeseen situations to mess up with the plan.
    The...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • You are asking for sentiments and concerned that emotions guide our discussion? Aren't sentiment and emotion almost synonyms?

    In any case, you know my sentiment. Knowingly and intentionally violating the FARs, in a context other than "PIC's prerogative", and especially after you asked permission to the FAA to do so and they told you not, is unacceptable. And whether the result was 100% success, 50% success or 0% success matters zilch.

    My sentiment is that the FAA should have accepted their request for exception (after verifying the plan and safety measures to avoid injury or damage to others). But that doesn't matter regarding the previous point.

    Finally, the FAA found that the pilots violated the requirement to remain in their flight stations and the requirement of not engaging in reckless and careless flying endangering the life or property of another. I am not so sure I agree with the second violation. I think they took every measure...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Yes, I could open the link now. What cannot go unpunished is not that they destroyed a perfectly good Cessna. There is nothing illegal or could be argued immoral about destroying your own property, What can't go unpunished is that they knowingly and intentionally violated the regulations even after they the authority denied their request to do so.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Link is broken...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Except that we know that both engines and the landing gear were all ripped off....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • You don't need an uncontained engine failure to puncture the fuel tank. Ripping off an engine provides several effective ways of obtaining a good fuel leak both with and without puncturing the fuel tank.

    Although on a second thought the separation of the whole engine could be considered "uncontained engine failure" in some interpretation....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied to F.A.O.: TeeVee
    That's a good point. If the family of the affected employee cannot sue the employer for damages, perhaps the car owner can. Not only to repair the car, but also the rest of the costs incurred (legal cost, liability beyond insurance limit) and the intangible damages (inconvenience for car not available, mental and emotional stress and suffering, etc...)...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Not so sure if the aborted take-off is what initiated the runway excursion or if the runway excursion resulted in a aborted take off. And I doubt that the engines were knocked of by the deceleration. Unless the landing gear was knocked off by the deceleration also. Losing both the engines and landing gear seem to be the result of the high speed runway excursion over less-than-perfectly-even muddy terrain and crossing 3 taxiways in the process.

    http://avherald.com/h?article=4f8ab5a5&opt=0
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • I have a great acronym for that contraption: ADS-B....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • It would be very hard for the TCAS of a plane in final to tell a plane holding short from one lined up. I know you said "develop", but it would not be TCAS but something else (I mean, you can still call it TCAS, the name would still make sense, but the guts and working principles would need to be totally different)....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE6wqPxSx3Y

    http://avherald.com/h?article=4f883d01&opt=0
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • That is fascinating stuff (to me at least). Have you been following it up there or you just dropped the bomb and walked away?

    Also a subject that causes emotional distress to me and makes me feel like selling all my cars. The prospect of losing all my assets (except perhaps the homestead home) and having to declare bankruptcy, and not being able to pay for my kid's college or have a decent life after retirement, and all because I left my car at the dealer's for an oil change, is terrifying....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied to F.A.O.: TeeVee
    This of course was terrible for the victim who was killed and his family, and it is possible a life changing event for the person who caused the accident who will have to live with this for the rest of his life (depending on whether he is the type of person that gives a s**t or not).

    But it can be life-changing for the car owner too. Depending on how much is the claim, how much is covered by the comp law and how much by the car's insurance (liability limit in the policy), the owner may still be liable for an amount of money that he cannot afford and be forced to be indebt for a long time, or sell his house, or declare bankruptcy, or something like that. This doesn't seem fair at all for the car owner whose only fault was to leave his car at the dealer for an oil change (and being the owner of a dangerous item to begin with, but still!).

    I think that is not ok (perhaps even not constitutional in some way) that a comp law prevents you from suing your employee if...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied to F.A.O.: TeeVee
    I get it now. Comp law kicks in in lieu of a tort trial. I wonder how much is that comp. Would it be a fair compensation for damages? (similar to what you could obtain in a traditional way, by suing and reaching a negotiation or jury verdict)?
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied to F.A.O.: TeeVee
    I don't get what you are saying. The employee that resulted fatally inquired a) was working and b) is dead, so it meets the criteria you mention. Why does the lawyer that represents the killed employee (or his family) say that they can't go against the employer because of a "legal standard" that is involved? What you explains seems to mean the exact opposite (if I understood it correctly)....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:

No activity results to display
Show More
Working...
X