Pilots detained in Brazil

[handlesaregay]

What is so confusing? You said "darted, stood in the middle of the road, whatever." Those are not nebulous concepts that have vague meaning; darted and stood are two different acts. The difference, in this case, determines who could be found negligent.

If you un-intentionally run over a pedestrian who was lawfully using a crosswalk, because you were not paying attention, you're negligent.

If the pedestrian is jogging and darts out in front of you without leaving you time to stop, the jogger is negligent.

Besides, that's not traffic code I cited, that's Chapter 346 of the Wisconsin state statutes.

I don't have a problem with your confusion, it only means that when something like that does happen and a police man, who works solely in the interest of being your personal advocate against injustice, will take everything you say down on paper. If you say it wrong, there will be no correction later. Just babble to your advocate, the police man, and all will work out in good time.

My girlfriend rear-ended this other young woman, because my girlfriend was able to correctly articulate what happened, the driver of the rear-ended vehicle got a citation. That other driver was in the wrong.

That girl's mom was so mad that her daughter got a ticket for being rear-ended, that she came over to the house and was waving the ticket in the air, yelling and flailing arms...hahahahahaha. If she would have had balls, I would have kicked her in them.

There's nothing wrong with not knowing stuff or being confused, but it does suck when you have to pay for it.

Okay smartass here is what I ACTUALLY WROTE:

[I was driving by wondering what this kid was up to and as I glanced in my rearview mirror I saw another kid standing on the opposite side of the street completely in the shadows where I had just been. My heart skipped a beat because I was completely unaware of his presence until after I passed him because I was momentarily fixated on the other kid. If he would have been standing in front of my car I would have run right over him. Sure I could have said there were mitigating circumstances, poorly lit street, he was standing in the middle or the road, etc. But you could argue that I have the responsilbity to watch where I'm going at all times and if I hit something be it a kid, a dog, whatever.. it's my fault no matter what my "excuses" are. (Like taxiways under construction, poor runway markings, outdated charts, inattentive controller....)

Instead of addressing the actual point of my post you replied with an irrelvant cut and paste from the Wisconsin state statutes regarding pedestrians "darting" out in traffic. I tried to ignore it and get the discussion back on topic but you insist on hammering away at whatever point it is you're trying to make. So there is my original post, no where in it did I say anyone ran/darted/jumped in front of my car. Can we move on now? :uzi:

 

[FN FAL]

Okay smartass here is what I ACTUALLY WROTE:



Instead of addressing the actual point of my post you replied with an irrelvant cut and paste from the Wisconsin state statutes regarding pedestrians "darting" out in traffic. I tried to ignore it and get the discussion back on topic but you insist on hammering away at whatever point it is you're trying to make. So there is my original post, no where in it did I say anyone ran/darted/jumped in front of my car. Can we move on now? :uzi:

Why would you use a machine gun emoticon in your post, when you know for a fact that your reading comprehension and cognitive abilities prevent you from ever figuring out the rules and regulations of owning them?

For some reason you want to go on and on about, "accidents just happen".

That's not true...and I explained it to you several times.

I can summon purple dinosaurs and dancing teletubbies if that will help you out?

 

[handlesaregay]

Why would you use a machine gun emoticon in your post, when you know for a fact that your reading comprehension and cognitive abilities prevent you from ever figuring out the rules and regulations of owning them?

For some reason you want to go on and on about, "accidents just happen".

That's not true...and I explained it to you several times.

I can summon purple dinosaurs and dancing teletubbies if that will help you out?

What are you 5 years old? You sound like a kid throwing a temper tantrum. You misread my post as I very clearly pointed out and rather than simply acknowledging your error and moving on you want to keep clinging to your mistaken analysis like a dog with a bone. Do you want to attempt to explain to me again why the Wisconsin state statutes you posted regarding pedestrians suddenly darting out into traffic is relevant to my analogy of accidently running down a kid standing in the middle of the road? Can you answer this without the diversionary tactics and personal attacks? Or do you just want me to say:

"YES FN FAL. IN WISCONSIN IF A PEDESTRIAN DARTS IN FRONT OF YOUR CAR IT IS THEIR FAULT."

And so what if it is? You would have made an excellent point if I had actually said "a kid darted out in front of my car". Except I didn't say that. In your enthusiasm to tear apart my example you didn't read it very carefully. However at this point I'm not going to argue about it anymore. You seem more interested in being right all the time than participating in any kind of open exchange of ideas. Like political shouting matches on TV where at the end of the day everyone is still right where they started. This will more than likely be my last post on the subject.


Edit: Here is what you posted one last time for everyone's edification:


No pedestrian, bicyclist, or rider of an electric personal assistive mobility device shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk, run, or ride into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is difficult for the operator of the vehicle to yield

I don't see where it says anything about "standing in the middle of the road" in that pargraph. But I guess my reading comprehension isn't as good as yours. ​

 

[FN FAL]

I don't see where it says anything about "standing in the middle of the road" in that pargraph. But I guess my reading comprehension isn't as good as yours.

Drive over someone standing in the middle of the road and you'll get all the education you'll ever want.

 

[GeneralAv]

FN FAL, what is your deal? You're like an insane vulture with an accident/crime fixation and lastworditis.

 

[FN FAL]

FN FAL, what is your deal? You're like an insane vulture with an accident/crime fixation and lastworditis.

I'm insane because you guys don't know the definition of varying degrees of criminal negligence?

No, I'm insane to think that you guys would take a hint and realize that in the criminal justice system, there is no such thing as an accident.

Go ahead and do your best, I got lots of time and plenty of news stories to read...be one.

 

[FN FAL]

FN FAL, what is your deal? You're like an insane vulture with an accident/crime fixation and lastworditis.

Here you go...talk to the train:

Story originally printed in the La Crosse Tribune or online at

http://www.lacrossetribune.com





Man on train tracks killed while making obscene gesture at train
By The Associated Press

KENOSHA, Wis. — An 18-year-old man was struck and killed by a train as he reportedly stood on the tracks and made an obscene gesture at the train, the Kenosha Sheriff’s Department said Saturday.

Andrew J. Grosenick and Keith A. Lien, 18, both of Silver Lake, were using the tracks as a short cut home around 11:30 p.m. Friday, Lien told deputies.

Authorities say they believe both men were intoxicated at the time.

A train approached and both men got off the tracks, but Grosenick walked back onto the track, Lien told investigators.

The Wisconsin Central Railroad conductor told authorities he also saw Grosenick return to the track, raise his arm and “flip off” the train.

The train struck Grosenick, who was declared dead at the scene.

Lien was not injured but was taken to a hospital for what the sheriff’s department said was an “extreme state of intoxication.”

The accident remained under investigation.


All stories copyright 2000 - 2005 La Crosse Tribune and other attributed sources.

 

[pilot141]

What it comes down to is FN FAL being an internet a$$.

He came into the thread at post #39 on page three, and quickly derailed the thread into hair-splitting semantics. Add to that the fact that he must absolutely, positively have the last word and you have 4 pages of nonsense unrelated to the topic at hand.

USA Today ran a story today about the pilots in Brazil (remember them?) Seems they have a Brazilian lawyer working for them now. The article did quote someone as saying that the criminalization of accidents is an "alarming trend", citing the ATC guys in Switzerland in 2002 and a couple of others.

Anyone want to actually discuss what's going on with these guys and ignore the chaff?

 

[handlesaregay]

Anyone want to actually discuss what's going on with these guys and ignore the chaff?

You're right. I originally posted an article but I think I would rather get back on topic also.

 

[ackattacker]

USA Today ran a story today about the pilots in Brazil (remember them?) Seems they have a Brazilian lawyer working for them now. The article did quote someone as saying that the criminalization of accidents is an "alarming trend", citing the ATC guys in Switzerland in 2002 and a couple of others.

Anyone want to actually discuss what's going on with these guys and ignore the chaff?

I think this is the article you are talking about:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-10-10-aviation-debate_x.htm

Criminal investigations after an accident are part of "an increasing and alarming trend," said William Voss, president of the Flight Safety Foundation, a safety group. "This tends to get in the way of the safety investigation, whose purpose is to find the causes and prevent future tragedies," Voss said.
"There is nothing like the threat of criminal charges to put a chill on an accident investigation," said Peter Goelz, former managing director of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board.

 

[pilot141]

Yep, that's the one.

Heck, the Air Force figured this out years ago. The Safety Investigation Board (SIB) has no punitive power and you must talk to them. The Accident Investigation Board (AIB) is separate, and does have punitive power. Before you talk to the AIB you lawyer up and shut your mouth, because they must do their own investigation.

If the guys in Brazil are facing a combined safety/criminal investigation how talkative will they be? Has Brazil ever heard of the ASRS program?

The essential question is: what is your goal? Is it to punish whoever you can or to prevent another accident? Those two goals do not always coincide.

 

[Bringupthebird]

Does anyone know the history and background of these 2 pilots? Are they ex-airline or strictly GA or Other (ok, military might count, but it can't be the only excuse [heh, heh])

 

[pilot141]

The FO is a furloughed AA guy with a lot of jet experience.

 

[handlesaregay]

"There is nothing like the threat of criminal charges to put a chill on an accident investigation," said Peter Goelz, former managing director of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board.

You can say that again. Every person from the pilots to the guy responsible for checking the runway for debris could face manslaughter charges if they link them to a crash. Can you imagine it? Some poor guy driving a truck who didn't see a hunk of metal on the runway could face 300+ counts of involuntary manslaughter. At least that seems to be the way some people want it. "Well maybe they'll be more careful..." right?

 

[pilot141]

Well if you actually let the criminal lagal system have a go at aviation then you will end up with nothing being an "accident".

And as I pointed out before (with an attempt at humor and sarcasm that went over ONE person's head), it won't change a damn thing as far as pilots/controllers go. There are ALWAYS lives on the line (most importantly my own!) - lining up criminal charges won't make anyone more "careful". It will just get the lawyers more money.