Quiz time!!

[texace]

Alright ya mugs, It's time for my weekly quizs! Are you up the the challenge?

Alright, this is an actual event, ya might have read about it in 1985.

Somewhere in Mississippi. A well-known and a very good pilot, agrees to take a young boy flying with him in his Champion Citabria. They take off and they begin do basic aerobatic maneuvers. Soon the man does a intentional spin. Lookers on the ground report he did 4 spins before recovering and going below the trees. The Champ strikes the ground with it's chin, killing the pilot and the boy. Later, investigators found a boy's shoe under the left rudder pedal in the back seat. They blamed it on the pilot.

The question is: Who's fault was it? The pilot's, or the boy's?

*edit: Yes this is a true story, but I just realized I might not want to piss someone off...I took any relation to myself or my family out of the post....

------------------
Lt. Col. Aaron "txace-" Giles of the 457th BG
    "Fait Accompli"
In arena: semperfi

[This message has been edited by texace (edited 01-27-2001).]

[TheWobble]

well its hard to call, the cause of the actual crash is most certinly the childs (shoe under peddal) however the argument to this could be that Your Uncle was responsible for the child, and thus the child's shoe.  I think it was the kids fault, but I could see how someone could take it either way.

[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 01-27-2001).]

[Jimdandy]

If this is a true story it is a very unfortunate accident. I know that there was absolutely no intention for the pilot to hurt the child. The child didn't want his shoe to come off and thus be killed. I think no blame should be associated on either what so ever. It is one of those things that happens in life that in my opinion can only be described as "an act of God." The child's parent gave permission for the boy to fly I assume. They knew what was at stake. The risk of the boys life was weighed against the preserved need for the boy to experience the plane ride. They my not have thought of there decision as being such at the time but that's exactly what it was. It was a gamble. You gamble every day when we get behind the wheel of a car with a child in it or put your child on the bus for school. Do I think the parents are to blame, NO. I would have let my child do it. It would have been the pilots fault if he had been standing on his head in the cockpit. It would have been the child's fault if he had grabbed the stick out of the pilots hand. There was no criminal negligence on either side. No faulty equipment. If the parents are suing then they are forgetting that they allowed him to ride and they taught the child how to tie his shoes. I am assuming this hole time that the parents of the boy gave permission and that they expected the pilot to do some type of stunt that was up to his discretion. If all of these assumptions are true I would be shocked that it wasn't argued this way in court.

PS If this is a true story about someone you know you better not get your butt in an uproar if some puts a point of view on here you don't want to hear. You posted it. I would never hang something like this out for the general public to play with on a bulletin board if it were that personal. Your asking for a real mud raking on this one from some real opinionated know it all bellybutton and we got some on here.

[This message has been edited by Jimdandy (edited 01-27-2001).]

[Nash]

Yup I think Jim is right. Just one of those unfortunate things. The parents assumed responsiblity for letting thier kid go up for aerobatic maneuvers (assuming they *knew* it was more than a mere sight seeing flight), and the pilot took responsibilty for having a kid with him where this kind of (freak) accident would be more likely to occur.

Nobody's, or *both's* fault... Just one of those things. Sad to hear though.

As a side note.... I had a friend die inna car wreck... He was driving, but had 5 passengers (station wagon). He was pinned under the steering wheel, there were a couple other people still in the car, and the rest were tossed clear out of it. I was right behind them, and when I came up on it, I'll never forget it... For some reason which I thought completely absurd - there were shoes scattered all OVER the place. Laced up and everything.

Draw yer own inference.



[This message has been edited by Nash (edited 01-28-2001).]

[Jimdandy]

G's can go WAY WAY up in a crash. Instantaneous G loads of 40 and 50 aren't unreasonable. My dad was a fireman and he had some weird stories about accidents. I have a friend that's tow truck driver and he has some real strange ones too. There was one accident I remember where this girl was driving her boy friends car and it was all done up for drag racing with a roll bar and harnesses. She got hit head on I think. When they found her there wasn't a scratch on her. She was strapped in tight in the harness. The impact was so hard it tore her organs loose inside her. I saw a documentary years ago on Formula One racing. At the time it was the most dangerous sport in the world. They showed slow motion footage of this track worker trying to run across the track to a wreck that had just occurred. In slow motion the cars were still a blur. The guy ran out and all you see is this blur go under him. It hit about ankle level. It threw him into the air and he was spinning so fast that in slow motion he was a blur. It spun EVERY stitch of clothing off of him. He hit the ground dead and naked.

[Toad]

You ought to see the "Release of Liability" statement that everyone that rides in my PT-19 has to sign.  

If it weren't so necessary, it'd be truly funny.

Even so, if disaster strikes (stuff happens) I still expect myself and/or my survivors to be sued till the cows come home.

I think I agree with Shakespeare in Henry VI, Part 2.