Joined
·
15,012 Posts
You decide:
Tail touching is a neat trick, and displays a great deal of control over the model, BUT, it will put you into an INDEFENSIBLE position in a court of law, if an accident happens, WHETHER SUCH TAIL TOUCHING IS PART OF THE ACCIDENT, OR NOT....
INTENTIONALLY "banging" a "vital" control surface onto the ground will give the prosecution a way to pursue punative damages, or, perhaps, even CRIMINAL charges, of you have an "accident". Just how hard would you think it would be to convince a. typical. jury that the rudder is the "most vital" control surface. (They would be sold in the basis of a ship without a rudder is, out of control). Ironically, there is a case on record, where a full scale aerobatic pilot, flying a "One Design" aircraft, had a rudder cable break, and was unable to land the aircraft, and was forced to bail out, so don't even TRY to make the point that the rudder isn't necessary!
Think about this.....could you convince the widow of the person you killed that your actions in banging a vital control surface on the ground was reasonable? Please don't think you could say the rudder was not a "vital" control surface.....the prosecution will put as many 3-D fliers as necessary on the stand to ask them if they can hover without the rudder....."answer yes, or no, only"......how many do you think would answer "yes"??? Have you tried this??
Regardless of whether the crash was caused by the rudder, or even happened during a flight in which you "touched", the fact that you had INTENTIONALLY banged the rudder "a vital control surface" into the ground would cause a jury to consider if your actions were reasonable. Think about this....if an airline was to make it a habit of moving it's airliners around the ramp with a forklift pushing on the rudder, wouldn't you think that would become a factor in any lawsuit which came about as a result of an accident....even if there was no evidence that the rudder caused the crash???
I don't think any of us want to be put into that position, particularly when the solution is so simple......All you need to do is to extend the tailwheel back, behind the rudder, and you can touch the tailwheel to your hearts delight. You can bang that on the ground as much as you like, and no jury is going to be able to say this is negligence, or, unreasonable.
This rule is intended to reduce the likelyhood of a claim getting out of hand, perhaps including punative damages, of, even criminal charges (negligent homicide)...do you really think it's that rediculous a rule??
Dave Brown
This is my take on this fabulously contrived statement from Dave:
Putting an engine larger than the manufacturers recommendation is a neat trick, and displays a great deal of control over the model, BUT, it will put you into an INDEFENSIBLE position in a court of law, if an accident happens, WHETHER SUCH EXTRA POWER IS PART OF THE ACCIDENT, OR NOT....
INTENTIONALLY "overpowering" an airframe designed by the manufacturer for a certain sized engine will give the prosecution a way to pursue punative damages, or, perhaps, even CRIMINAL charges, of you have an "accident". Just how hard would you think it would be to convince a. typical. jury that a larger engine was necessary. (They would be sold in the basis of the manufacturers engine recommendation due to test flights). Ironically, there is a case on record, where a full scale aerobatic pilot, flying a "One Design" aircraft, had a firewall break free, and was unable to land the aircraft, and was forced to bail out, so don't even TRY to make the point that the extra engine is necessary!
Think about this.....could you convince the widow of the person you killed that your actions in putting a larger engine in the model was reasonable? Please don't think you could say the engine recommended wasn't adequate....the prosecution will put as many 3-D fliers as necessary on the stand to ask them if they can hover with the recommended engine....."answer yes, or no, only"......how many do you think would answer "yes"??? Have you tried this??
Regardless of whether the crash was caused by the excessive engine, or even happened during a flight in which you "barely fluttered" due to the extra power, the fact that you had INTENTIONALLY changed the engine "from manufacturers recommendation" would cause a jury to consider if your actions were reasonable. Think about this....if an airline was to make it a habit of moving it's airliners around the sky with a excessively large engines on the wing, wouldn't you think that would become a factor in any lawsuit which came about as a result of an accident....even if there was no evidence that the larger engine caused the crash???
I don't think any of us want to be put into that position, particularly when the solution is so simple......All you need to do is to strictly follow model manufacturers engine size guidlines, and you can push the throttle to your hearts delight. You can run that engine as much as you like, and no jury is going to be able to say this is negligence, or, unreasonable.
This rule is intended to reduce the likelyhood of a claim getting out of hand, perhaps including punative damages, of, even criminal charges (negligent homicide)...do you really think it's that rediculous a rule??
Dave Brown
I just hate somebody trying to make an empirical argument regarding something that bugs him, when the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT can be made over something a lot more common, yet equally "indefensible" in court.
I guess I just hate idiots.
Tail touching is a neat trick, and displays a great deal of control over the model, BUT, it will put you into an INDEFENSIBLE position in a court of law, if an accident happens, WHETHER SUCH TAIL TOUCHING IS PART OF THE ACCIDENT, OR NOT....
INTENTIONALLY "banging" a "vital" control surface onto the ground will give the prosecution a way to pursue punative damages, or, perhaps, even CRIMINAL charges, of you have an "accident". Just how hard would you think it would be to convince a. typical. jury that the rudder is the "most vital" control surface. (They would be sold in the basis of a ship without a rudder is, out of control). Ironically, there is a case on record, where a full scale aerobatic pilot, flying a "One Design" aircraft, had a rudder cable break, and was unable to land the aircraft, and was forced to bail out, so don't even TRY to make the point that the rudder isn't necessary!
Think about this.....could you convince the widow of the person you killed that your actions in banging a vital control surface on the ground was reasonable? Please don't think you could say the rudder was not a "vital" control surface.....the prosecution will put as many 3-D fliers as necessary on the stand to ask them if they can hover without the rudder....."answer yes, or no, only"......how many do you think would answer "yes"??? Have you tried this??
Regardless of whether the crash was caused by the rudder, or even happened during a flight in which you "touched", the fact that you had INTENTIONALLY banged the rudder "a vital control surface" into the ground would cause a jury to consider if your actions were reasonable. Think about this....if an airline was to make it a habit of moving it's airliners around the ramp with a forklift pushing on the rudder, wouldn't you think that would become a factor in any lawsuit which came about as a result of an accident....even if there was no evidence that the rudder caused the crash???
I don't think any of us want to be put into that position, particularly when the solution is so simple......All you need to do is to extend the tailwheel back, behind the rudder, and you can touch the tailwheel to your hearts delight. You can bang that on the ground as much as you like, and no jury is going to be able to say this is negligence, or, unreasonable.
This rule is intended to reduce the likelyhood of a claim getting out of hand, perhaps including punative damages, of, even criminal charges (negligent homicide)...do you really think it's that rediculous a rule??
Dave Brown
This is my take on this fabulously contrived statement from Dave:
Putting an engine larger than the manufacturers recommendation is a neat trick, and displays a great deal of control over the model, BUT, it will put you into an INDEFENSIBLE position in a court of law, if an accident happens, WHETHER SUCH EXTRA POWER IS PART OF THE ACCIDENT, OR NOT....
INTENTIONALLY "overpowering" an airframe designed by the manufacturer for a certain sized engine will give the prosecution a way to pursue punative damages, or, perhaps, even CRIMINAL charges, of you have an "accident". Just how hard would you think it would be to convince a. typical. jury that a larger engine was necessary. (They would be sold in the basis of the manufacturers engine recommendation due to test flights). Ironically, there is a case on record, where a full scale aerobatic pilot, flying a "One Design" aircraft, had a firewall break free, and was unable to land the aircraft, and was forced to bail out, so don't even TRY to make the point that the extra engine is necessary!
Think about this.....could you convince the widow of the person you killed that your actions in putting a larger engine in the model was reasonable? Please don't think you could say the engine recommended wasn't adequate....the prosecution will put as many 3-D fliers as necessary on the stand to ask them if they can hover with the recommended engine....."answer yes, or no, only"......how many do you think would answer "yes"??? Have you tried this??
Regardless of whether the crash was caused by the excessive engine, or even happened during a flight in which you "barely fluttered" due to the extra power, the fact that you had INTENTIONALLY changed the engine "from manufacturers recommendation" would cause a jury to consider if your actions were reasonable. Think about this....if an airline was to make it a habit of moving it's airliners around the sky with a excessively large engines on the wing, wouldn't you think that would become a factor in any lawsuit which came about as a result of an accident....even if there was no evidence that the larger engine caused the crash???
I don't think any of us want to be put into that position, particularly when the solution is so simple......All you need to do is to strictly follow model manufacturers engine size guidlines, and you can push the throttle to your hearts delight. You can run that engine as much as you like, and no jury is going to be able to say this is negligence, or, unreasonable.
This rule is intended to reduce the likelyhood of a claim getting out of hand, perhaps including punative damages, of, even criminal charges (negligent homicide)...do you really think it's that rediculous a rule??
Dave Brown
I just hate somebody trying to make an empirical argument regarding something that bugs him, when the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT can be made over something a lot more common, yet equally "indefensible" in court.
I guess I just hate idiots.
