Cat Driver wrote:And everyone should take your comments at face value stopsquawk.
Like this gem you posted on another thread?
They should probably mandate a "Condominium Avoidance Qualification" for pilots over 60 living flying from aerodromes situated near populated areas.
You are an idiot.
CD:
Not sure what I wrote to provoke that sort of response. Perhaps I came too close to supporting the comments of one of your many "enemies"? Or perhaps you think I'm part of the Transport Canada conspiracy we hear WAY too much about?
Whatever the case; my post was to illustrate how easy it is to arrive at an incorrect conclusion when you don't have all the facts. Much like the comment of mine you quoted, that when taken out of context as you did, you disquised the fact that it was, in fact, a sarcastic comment. That's a cheap trick used to discredit someone, a trick I see that you use a lot, just this morning in fact, in the INSTRUCTOR WAGES SURVEY thread.
Another cheap trick is name calling, which I won't engage in. But it's apparently not beneath your standards.
I'm embarrassed for you.
My apologies for continuing the hijack that CD started. I felt the need to respond to this childish personal attack.
I felt the need to respond to this childish personal attack.
Please try to curb the need. It may make you momentarily feel better, but it sure won't help things here much.
Lots of people hate me, and say terrible things about me, and continually attack me. I honestly don't know why they bother, but they do.
But I couldn't care less about them (shrug). It's not my job to make everyone happy, or to like me. Last time I checked, my name wasn't Mother Theresa.
Aw Hedley, you're taking all the fun out of it - I haven't attacked you (yet) because I haven't felt the urge but now I won't bother... and I thought 'everyone' was as sensitive as I am.
---------- ADS -----------
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
Two years later, and the pilot´s doctor has now been added to the lawsuit as a defendant, for failing to persuade the pilot to give up flying - as well as for failing to report the pilot´s medical condition to TC. Plenty of other defendants, as usual:
The Maple Ridge doctor who certified an 82-year-old pilot who flew his airplane into the Rosario Gardens apartment in 2007 has been added as a defendant in a lawsuit against the pilot's estate.
B.C Supreme Court Judge J. Gerow has approved an application to have Dr. Daniel K.C. Wong to be added to a lawsuit against the estate of Peter Garrison.
Jin Wu and Cheng Jin Zhang were at home in their ninth-floor condo at Rosario Gardens when the Piper Seneca airplane flown by Garrison sliced into their apartment on Oct. 19, 2007.
Garrison, who was 82, died. Wu and Zhang survived but sustained inujuries.
The elderly couple launched a lawsuit against Garrison's estate. Also named were New Piper Aircraft Inc., Doug Scott Aviation Repair, Daryl MacIntosh of Maxcraft Avionics Ltd., and the Attorney General of Canada.
Yes of course the *$%^ maggot lawyers will name everyone and anyone they can to try and attach blame. Surprised NAV Canada wasnt named as well. I hope the judge tosses it out and tells them if they want the american system of vindictivness to move the *&^ down there.
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by lilfssister on Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason:profanity
How can you tell which one is the pilot when you walk into a bar?....Don't worry he will come up and tell you.
Well, if they suffered a substantial loss how are they to be paid back for it ....... or do you expect them to just accept that fate decreed they were to have the equivalent of a lightning bolt come out of the sky and just say "well, gee ... I'm about to lose my life savings, and the place I live ... that's too bad?"
I am actually very happy to see the Doctor named. A known diabetic with heart trouble. That old crusty pilot shouldn't even have been driving a car. How about the poor driver of a car that goes off the end of 1 road and they said it was his medication..hang the doc
Bulawrench wrote:I am actually very happy to see the Doctor named. A known diabetic with heart trouble. That old crusty pilot shouldn't even have been driving a car. How about the poor driver of a car that goes off the end of 1 road and they said it was his medication..hang the doc
The doctor seems like a logical a person to name if indeed the pilot had known conditions that should have revoked his medical. But come on, naming The New Piper Company?? I'm guessing Maxcraft and the other fellow must have been the last people to touch the aircraft so by default they must have had something to do with it. The attorney General? I can't even fathom why they are named. It seems to be this will be a typical frivolous lawsuit aimed at squeezing any little bit of money they can out of as many as they can. They are hoping the insurance companies will settle out of court and life goes on. Except the premiums for insurance steadily climb and all of us eventually pay more trying to survive in this already cut throat industry. If we don't put a stop to this bullshit, we will end up like our sue happy neighbours.
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by SeptRepair on Fri May 02, 2014 12:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
How can you tell which one is the pilot when you walk into a bar?....Don't worry he will come up and tell you.
SeptRepair wrote:The attorney General? I can't even fathom why they are named.
I could be mistaken, but the Attorney General represents Canada at trial - thus naming the Attorney General is, in all likelihood, naming Transport Canada.
The doctor seems like a logical a person to name if indeed the pilot had known conditions that should have revolked his medical. But come on, naming The New Piper Company?? Im guessing Maxcraft and the other fellow must have been the last people to touch the aircraft so by default they must have had something to do with it. The attorney General? I can't even fathom why they are named. It seems to be this will be a typical frivilous lawsuit aimed at squeezing any little bit of money they can out of as many as they can. They are hoping the insurance companies will settle out of court and life goes on. Except the premiums for insurance steadily climb and all of us eventually pay more trying to survive in this already cut throat industry. If we dont put a stop to this bullshit, we will end up like our sue happy neighbours.
Well, a plane did crash into their apartment so I don't think I would cause it 'frivilous'. I'm guessing your opinion might be different if they had crashed into your home.
As I understand it (but I'm not a lawyer) the reason they are adding all these people to the lawsuit is not because they want to sue everyone in sight, it's simply because there is a time limit to file the civil lawsuit and if they waited until TC released their accident report it would be too late to do anything.
I struggle with the concept that if someone sues to recover a substantial loss .... likely many tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars, that they are suddenly guilty of committing a cash grab, driven by greed, abetted by opportunity.
I return to the question for those of you that feel the owners of the apartment shouldn't be suing ... "what is a person supposed to do when they have had almost everything they worked for in life taken away in a few moments by the actions of another?" Are they supposed to just say .. "well, I guess its fate. Excuse me sir, may I bother to ask you for directions to the nearest soup kitchen and hostel? Looks like that's our home for the rest of our lives."
To hear some of you, you'd think these apartment owners only bought the place because they knew sooner or later some guy would plow into it with a light plane and burn it up .... (hopefully when the owners were at the local shopping mall) ....... as if it were some elaborate trap as a part of a plan to sue the aircraft manufacturer as a big investment scheme rather than relying upon the power of compound interest through a banking institution. That apartment was a huge Venus Flytrap just waiting for some hapless pilot to come along and attempt to taste its sweet nectar, and got caught up in a frivolous lawsuit launched by a greedy couple just looking to upgrade from an apartment in Richmond to a nice condo in the South Pacific.
Im not questioning the validity of sueing to recoup losses. I question the validity of naming as many as you can in a lawsuit, and trying to pull down everyone with you. Sue the pilots estate. If the estate determines they are not at fault then let the estate decide to sue further. No one here has yet to explain to me why the New Piper Aircraft Company should be named. How many times do you see Ford, GM, Dodge get named in lawsuits when a car causes massive damage or the loss of life?
---------- ADS -----------
How can you tell which one is the pilot when you walk into a bar?....Don't worry he will come up and tell you.
There is a statutory time limit of two years from the date of harm for starting a civil claim here in BC. It is common practice to name everyone who could potentially be found responsible in any way. If the claim is against one person/entitity and the blame is found, after years of hearings and delays, to include a person/entity outside the original claim, then the claimant is out of luck.
The Old Fogducker wrote:I struggle with the concept that if someone sues to recover a substantial loss .... likely many tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars, that they are suddenly guilty of committing a cash grab, driven by greed, abetted by opportunity.
I return to the question for those of you that feel the owners of the apartment shouldn't be suing ... "what is a person supposed to do when they have had almost everything they worked for in life taken away in a few moments by the actions of another?" Are they supposed to just say .. "well, I guess its fate. Excuse me sir, may I bother to ask you for directions to the nearest soup kitchen and hostel? Looks like that's our home for the rest of our lives."
To hear some of you, you'd think these apartment owners only bought the place because they knew sooner or later some guy would plow into it with a light plane and burn it up .... (hopefully when the owners were at the local shopping mall) ....... as if it were some elaborate trap as a part of a plan to sue the aircraft manufacturer as a big investment scheme rather than relying upon the power of compound interest through a banking institution. That apartment was a huge Venus Flytrap just waiting for some hapless pilot to come along and attempt to taste its sweet nectar, and got caught up in a frivolous lawsuit launched by a greedy couple just looking to upgrade from an apartment in Richmond to a nice condo in the South Pacific.
The Old Fogducker
Well said.
SeptRepair wrote:Im not questioning the validity of sueing to recoup losses. I question the validity of naming as many as you can in a lawsuit, and trying to pull down everyone with you. Sue the pilots estate. If the estate determines they are not at fault then let the estate decide to sue further. No one here has yet to explain to me why the New Piper Aircraft Company should be named. How many times do you see Ford, GM, Dodge get named in lawsuits when a car causes massive damage or the loss of life?
The estate does not determine fault, the court does. If the court determines that "his estate" is not at fault, the estate does not then sue, the injured parties would have to. And, as widow pointed out correctly, there's a two year period in which to do so.
If the injured parties have not filed, then they are out of options.
