N9391M destroyed at KOSH

[T. Peterson]

23 minutes ago, druidjaidan said:

I guess that means you volunteer your plane as the landing pad next time? Or are you only talking about the actual pilots that were flying? I'm not particularly rich. What I'm looking at losing right now may be enough to keep me from owning a plane again.  All because I was parked in an unfortunate spot.

I'm very glad my family is ok, I'm glad the two occupants of the gyro were saved. I also firmly believe I am owned full compensation for my loss. This isn't some "guy runs out of fuel and dies, family sues Cessna because the plane didn't stop him from killing himself"

 

I am truly sorry about your airplane and I am even more grateful that your family is safe, but in my opinion EAA is not responsible for your loss. No organization can possibly imagine or prevent every type of accident. Oshkosh crams thousands of airplanes into tight quarters and this is inherently risky. You chose to participate indicating you were okay with the risk until something bad happened to you and now you feel you are owed. I simply disagree. This mindset has shut down many potential wonderful events because organizers will not risk the potential litigation. The abuses of tort law have also significantly contributed to the rising costs of GA. Accidents happen and even if I am a totally innocent victim, that alone does not grant me the right to go after someone else making them an innocent victim.  That is not to say there are not cases of gross negligence in which someone ought to be sued, but I don’t see that here.

[glbtrottr]

I am truly sorry about your airplane and I am even more grateful that your family is safe, but in my opinion EAA is not responsible for your loss. No organization can possibly imagine or prevent every type of accident. Oshkosh crams thousands of airplanes into tight quarters and this is inherently risky. You chose to participate indicating you were okay with the risk until something bad happened to you and now you feel you are owed. I simply disagree. This mindset has shut down many potential wonderful events because organizers will not risk the potential litigation. The abuses of tort law have also significantly contributed to the rising costs of GA. Accidents happen and even if I am a totally innocent victim, that alone does not grant me the right to go after someone else making them an innocent victim.  That is not to say there are not cases of gross negligence in which someone ought to be sued, but I don’t see that here.

Hmmmmm meh.

OP suffered a loss by no fault of his own.

- 2 aircraft crashed on top of his plane
- it happened during airventure
- OP’s family was present and may be legitimately traumatized, no matter how resilient OP and his family may claim to be.

I don’t know Wisconsin law (and I’m not a lawyer to boot, just someone who has managed tens of millions in litigation and have been in litigation since I was a puppy)…

I don’t know if contributory or comparative negligence applies based on Venue / jurisdiction.

EAA hires the controllers and it is their job to keep the traffic flow as needed. Airventure does not magically make the rules stop, and the operator of the venue does have some responsibility as to how the event is run. To say that flying into a high density airport bars a plaintiff from recovery sounds great in Utopia, but it’s hardly a panacea for high rates - and it’s wrong. That means we would limit our compensation by flying into class B airports or we would have a sliding scale for recovery depending on where the accident took place.

There were also reports that the responsible party was hotdogging the entire time. If Airventure didn’t take steps to remove him, ground him or change the pattern enough to prevent this, they too may be liable.

Moreover, if I was OP, I would be tweaked. My kids and wife would certainly be. I would seek therapy because the event involved loss, death, trauma and the fear of it going a worse direction - the loss of his airplane is only a part of the story. Un-litigious as we want to be, our laws are either criminal or civil - and short of suspensions and other punitive items, being made whole in our society where community barely exists and the dream of real restorative justice causes me to cackle in ridicule, the only thing. We get is MONEY.

[T. Peterson]

40 minutes ago, glbtrottr said:

Hmmmmm meh.

OP suffered a loss by no fault of his own.

- 2 aircraft crashed on top of his plane
- it happened during airventure
- OP’s family was present and may be legitimately traumatized, no matter how resilient OP and his family may claim to be.

I don’t know Wisconsin law (and I’m not a lawyer to boot, just someone who has managed tens of millions in litigation and have been in litigation since I was a puppy)…

I don’t know if contributory or comparative negligence applies based on Venue / jurisdiction.

EAA hires the controllers and it is their job to keep the traffic flow as needed. Airventure does not magically make the rules stop, and the operator of the venue does have some responsibility as to how the event is run. To say that flying into a high density airport bars a plaintiff from recovery sounds great in Utopia, but it’s hardly a panacea for high rates - and it’s wrong. That means we would limit our compensation by flying into class B airports or we would have a sliding scale for recovery depending on where the accident took place.

There were also reports that the responsible party was hotdogging the entire time. If Airventure didn’t take steps to remove him, ground him or change the pattern enough to prevent this, they too may be liable.

Moreover, if I was OP, I would be tweaked. My kids and wife would certainly be. I would seek therapy because the event involved loss, death, trauma and the fear of it going a worse direction - the loss of his airplane is only a part of the story. Un-litigious as we want to be, our laws are either criminal or civil - and short of suspensions and other punitive items, being made whole in our society where community barely exists and the dream of real restorative justice causes me to cackle in ridicule, the only thing. We get is MONEY.

“and I’m not a lawyer to boot, just someone who has managed tens of millions in litigation and have been in litigation since I was a puppy)…”
Is it fair to ask if you have a vested interest in litigation?

[glbtrottr]

34 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

“and I’m not a lawyer to boot, just someone who has managed tens of millions in litigation and have been in litigation since I was a puppy)…”
Is it fair to ask if you have a vested interest in litigation?

I don’t, until I do.

I’ve had property destroyed by uninsured motorists.

I’ve had people damage things of mine and believe they won’t pay or try to avoid it.

I’ve had a diesel shop change a gasket, drop a bolt in the intake,, and ruin an engine while arrogantly claim they didn’t do it.  12,000 later…

if our society was more polite, leave within their limits and pay their debts, who’d need litigation?

 

I’ve also managed businesses where investment partners want 20,000% return on their investment arbitrarily merely for fronting cash.

 

litigation sucks.  But I’ll betcha a subway sandwich the surviving pilot doesn’t have enough coverage to properly cover his liability…

if that’s the case, should OP walk away and  lose his airplane?

34 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

“and I’m not a lawyer to boot, just someone who has managed tens of millions in litigation and have been in litigation since I was a puppy)…”
Is it fair to ask if you have a vested interest in litigation?

 

[T. Peterson]

12 minutes ago, glbtrottr said:

I don’t, until I do.

I’ve had property destroyed by uninsured motorists.

I’ve had people damage things of mine and believe they won’t pay or try to avoid it.

I’ve had a diesel shop change a gasket, drop a bolt in the intake,, and ruin an engine while arrogantly claim they didn’t do it.  12,000 later…

if our society was more polite, leave within their limits and pay their debts, who’d need litigation?

 

I’ve also managed businesses where investment partners want 20,000% return on their investment arbitrarily merely for fronting cash.

 

litigation sucks.  But I’ll betcha a subway sandwich the surviving pilot doesn’t have enough coverage to properly cover his liability…

if that’s the case, should OP walk away and  lose his airplane?

 

I am very blessed as in my 64 years I have not had any of the negative experiences which you have listed. However if I had I would have gone after the perpetrators as they were demonstrably and directly at fault.

You alluded to the notion that if people would live responsibly we would not need litigation, but then you retreat to an emotional argument citing the OP’s loss. If you would encourage the OP to sue an innocent party are you not condoning the very behavior on one hand that you decry on the other?

It is truly lamentable that the OP lost his airplane, but two wrongs don’t make a right. I am well aware that tons of suits are decided on just this sort of emotional appeal. Right and wrong are decided not on the facts but rather on whether one party has the means with which to pay, actual culpability notwithstanding. The problem with this legal muddle headedness is once established leaves everyone of us on shaky ground. It matters not how responsibly or honestly we live, we are a single frivolous lawsuit away from being plunged into financial ruin at the whims of an emotional driven court. I am certainly not advocating for dismissing real and harmful negligence, but that should be the driving factor, not the loss of the airplane no matter how it tugs on our heart strings.

[Echo]

2 hours ago, JoshK said:

He was snotty about information that isn’t displayed but he told me I should know. I told him he was being unreasonable to expect me to know where he’s based when the info isn’t displayed on the mobile app. Then it devolved from there with one of the fanboi responses having a fit and telling me that I’m blocked from their display list. That’s where a few people got worked up; with the post you copied. Irregardless of the discussion about insurance and FAR happenings that others were discussing, myself included.

The byproduct of the entertainment has been seeing who feels the need to assert their own skin thickness by telling me mine is too thin and to stand by their man from the low-post newb that clearly doesn’t understand how Internet forums work.

It lets me know who is especially prone to getting riled up when given even the slightest off-kilter response.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If I may, without meaning to offend, know that this man served this online community for years and provided wisdom to many that sought help. I get that he rubbed you wrong, but come on man. What about stating to hundreds, maybe thousands of others a few words such as “I am new to this forum and it was not my intent to take away a valued member. I am sorry group.”  I would grovel like a child knowing what Clarence meant to many. Myself included. Okay, just trying to give a little perspective from the world wide neighborhood that is Mooneyspace. 
 

On a lighter note I will be picking up my new to me M20 Echo in a couple weeks…Super “E”xcited am I. 

[glbtrottr]

I am very blessed as in my 64 years I have not had any of the negative experiences which you have listed. However if I had I would have gone after the perpetrators as they were demonstrably and directly at fault.
You alluded to the notion that if people would live responsibly we would not need litigation, but then you retreat to an emotional argument citing the OP’s loss. If you would encourage the OP to sue an innocent party are you not condoning the very behavior on one hand that you decry on the other?
It is truly lamentable that the OP lost his airplane, but two wrongs don’t make a right. I am well aware that tons of suits are decided on just this sort of emotional appeal. Right and wrong are decided not on the facts but rather on whether one party has the means with which to pay, actual culpability notwithstanding. The problem with this legal muddle headedness is once established leaves everyone of us on shaky ground. It matters not how responsibly or honestly we live, we are a single frivolous lawsuit away from being plunged into financial ruin at the whims of an emotional driven court. I am certainly not advocating for dismissing real and harmful negligence, but that should be the driving factor, not the loss of the airplane no matter how it tugs on our heart strings.

Blessed indeed.

I didn’t “retreat” to an emotional argument. My argument was very factual. I cited some facts.

- op suffered a loss, which he graciously shared with us.
- the loss was not incurred by any fault of his own. He parked where directed, and EAA collected a fee, part of the $120+ million made by the group or brought to the area annually.
- EAA has no waiver of liability, “park at your own risk”, and even if they did, Wisconsin law may make it unenforceable
- emotion, including traumatic events not solicited by OP, given the accident or loss by OP and his family, may be or should be compensable. I didn’t write the law.
- one would have to be from a different planet to not discern OP was distraught - and if a party through their actions and willful negligence caused 2 people to die, and destroy OPs plane - needs to be responsible for their actions
- if you drive a car, even while sober, and are at fault for killing two other humans, the penal code in most states makes you answer to manslaughter charges. THAT is a job I’ve had before. That you’re flying instead of driving changes things only slightly.

I for one try to avoid conflict like the plague. But who am I to judge the OPs loss as appropriate or not? Casting his right to file a claim, let alone pursue litigation to make up due his loss as a “wrong” strikes me as judgmental and idealistic.

OP has already expressed dread going after EAA and that may be laudable or commendable. That’s very decent of him.

To say that filing a claim / suing for a substantial or very legitimate loss is akin to two wrongs making a right or me retreating to an emotional argument while living a double standard is wrong and fails to hold water under scrutiny.

[T. Peterson]

25 minutes ago, glbtrottr said:

Blessed indeed.

I didn’t “retreat” to an emotional argument. My argument was very factual. I cited some facts.

- op suffered a loss, which he graciously shared with us.
- the loss was not incurred by any fault of his own. He parked where directed, and EAA collected a fee, part of the $120+ million made by the group or brought to the area annually.
- EAA has no waiver of liability, “park at your own risk”, and even if they did, Wisconsin law may make it unenforceable
- emotion, including traumatic events not solicited by OP, given the accident or loss by OP and his family, may be or should be compensable. I didn’t write the law.
- one would have to be from a different planet to not discern OP was distraught - and if a party through their actions and willful negligence caused 2 people to die, and destroy OPs plane - needs to be responsible for their actions
- if you drive a car, even while sober, and are at fault for killing two other humans, the penal code in most states makes you answer to manslaughter charges. THAT is a job I’ve had before. That you’re flying instead of driving changes things only slightly.

I for one try to avoid conflict like the plague. But who am I to judge the OPs loss as appropriate or not? Casting his right to file a claim, let alone pursue litigation to make up due his loss as a “wrong” strikes me as judgmental and idealistic.

OP has already expressed dread going after EAA and that may be laudable or commendable. That’s very decent of him.

To say that filing a claim / suing for a substantial or very legitimate loss is akin to two wrongs making a right or me retreating to an emotional argument while living a double standard is wrong and fails to hold water under scrutiny.

We will just agree to disagree. Varied opinions make life interesting. Have a wonderful evening!

[MikeOH]

The OP most certainly deserves to be made whole again.  The pilots that failed to 'see and avoid' are the only ones responsible.  My belief is that it ends there; it sucks if they aren't adequately insured/net worth.  But I don't feel the EAA is any more responsible than ATC when an accident occurs at a 'regular' airport.  If you show me that the FAA pays out in those cases where the responsible party(s) cannot, I will re-evaluate my position.  I detest the legal practice of dragging in barely related parties simply because they have 'deep pockets.'

The worst example was the Carnahan crash where Parker-Hannifin was named and paid out some of the settlement even though the vacuum pump that they manufactured had NOT failed!  They just had 'the money'. They subsequently exited the vacuum pump business.  Can't blame them one bit.

[JoshK]

If I may, without meaning to offend, know that this man served this online community for years and provided wisdom to many that sought help. I get that he rubbed you wrong, but come on man. What about stating to hundreds, maybe thousands of others a few words such as “I am new to this forum and it was not my intent to take away a valued member. I am sorry group.”  I would grovel like a child knowing what Clarence meant to many. Myself included. Okay, just trying to give a little perspective from the world wide neighborhood that is Mooneyspace. 
 
On a lighter note I will be picking up my new to me M20 Echo in a couple weeks…Super “E”xcited am I. 

I offered that opportunity, he replied with another sarcastic remark. Then a third.

I’m not saying all of his 11,000+ posts are worthless post pumping. Nor did I say he didn’t contribute substantially. What I said was he’s rude without cause.

I started and continue to run a niche sector, public facing business. There are still a few folks in my industry who have or had attitudes like him: the old guy who assumes he knows more than the next guy and he’s rude about it. Most of them have closed shop or reduced their footprint to a small fraction of their previous influence because they were used to getting away with being rude to customers and other people telling the customer “yeah but he builds great stuff… wait for it and don’t ask questions or bother him”

That doesn’t fly these days. Telling someone to grovel around a new place simply because they’re new and they shouldn’t say anything to offend someone only perpetuates the situation. Now the feedback online is “yeah, so amd so builds great stuff but he’s an asshole and I can get the same quality work from a dozen other shops that don’t treat customers poorly.”

We help folks all the time who are not customers (yet) and even when it’s something easy/simple the basic respect to deal straight with them goes a long way. Doesn’t matter if it is one of the many forums, Facebook, or email traffic.

Why would it be required for me to endure snide remarks from someone about unpublished information that I am expected it to “just know”? Especially when I asked how/where and he gave me more sarcasm.

Nor was I the only one to call him out for being rude. Someone else commented about his responses and even others made comments about the prevalence of such behavior. In business we call it “sales repellent”. He’s free to behave as he likes, just as I’m free to call it as I see it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JoshK]

The OP most certainly deserves to be made whole again.  The pilots that failed to 'see and avoid' are the only ones responsible.  My belief is that it ends there; it sucks if they aren't adequately insured/net worth.  But I don't feel the EAA is any more responsible than ATC when an accident occurs at a 'regular' airport.  If you show me that the FAA pays out in those cases where the responsible party(s) cannot, I will re-evaluate my position.  I detest the legal practice of dragging in barely related parties simply because they have 'deep pockets.'
The worst example was the Carnahan crash where Parker-Hannifin was named and paid out some of the settlement even though the vacuum pump that they manufactured had NOT failed!  They just had 'the money'. They subsequently exited the vacuum pump business.  Can't blame them one bit.

Very fair points. I ran into a situation with a plaintiff who was primarily at fault (ignorance and inexperience) and another company that had a recall out for a faulty product. We were dragged in because we carry liability insurance and we were kept in because the plaintiff counsel wanted to use us as leverage to the other defendants to get someone to settle. Ultimately the ploy didn’t work and it never made it past the initial stages. The plaintiff got the nothing he deserved but my annual premiums jumped and have stayed high because of the history of a legal action in the prior 5 years. The plaintiff negligence continues to cost me money while having done nothing wrong.

I hope the OP is able to recover enough to replace his plane.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LANCECASPER]

12 hours ago, Echo said:

If I may, without meaning to offend, know that this man served this online community for years and provided wisdom to many that sought help. I get that he rubbed you wrong, but come on man. What about stating to hundreds, maybe thousands of others a few words such as “I am new to this forum and it was not my intent to take away a valued member. I am sorry group.”  I would grovel like a child knowing what Clarence meant to many. Myself included. Okay, just trying to give a little perspective from the world wide neighborhood that is Mooneyspace. 
 

On a lighter note I will be picking up my new to me M20 Echo in a couple weeks…Super “E”xcited am I. 

Great effort Echo but I doubt that appeal will work with Mr. Kunz. I ignored him so I won't be able to see his reply if he does respond, but the point he could never understand is that he was he was the one entering a forum where a lot of people knew a lot about each other - kind of like a family. Just because he was using a mobile device that didn't show what everyone else could see wasn't anyone else's fault.

His rude comment came first, to the effect of how were we all supposed to know you were in Canada Clarence? I'm sure it got a huge laugh out of everyone since everyone else in the forum knew Clarence was from Canada since we joked back and forth with him about that whenever we got the chance. Should Clarence have responded in kind? No. But he had no clue what JK wasn't seeing on his mobile device. Clarence never would have had to respond to defend himself if the insulting comment hadn't been made first. Will JK ever get that point? Based on the level of arrogance we've seen so far, I doubt it. I was the first to welcome him and he told me to have a nice life. Thanks, I will . . I made that decision years ago regardless of external circumstances . . lol

There's a lot of freedom out there - we can choose to do whatever we want in a lot of cases. But rather than making a complete fool out of himself, how about coming into a forum as the new guy and learn a little about people before you shoot your mouth off to someone who has helped hundreds of people on here free of charge at all hours of the night and weekend?

Thank goodness for the "ignore" feature. Hopefully he has ignored me as well.

[JoshK]

Great effort Echo but I doubt that appeal will work with Mr. Kunz. I ignored him so I won't see his reply if he does respond, but the point he could never understand is that he was he was the one entering a forum where a lot of people knew a lot about each other - kind of like a family. Just because he was using a mobile device that didn't show what everyone else could see wasn't anyone else's fault.
His rude comment came first, to the effect of how were we all supposed to know you were in Canada Clarence? I'm sure got a huge laugh out of everyone since everyone else in the forum knew Clarence was from Canada since we joked back and forth with him about that whenever we got the chance. Should Clarence have responded in kind? No. But he had no clue what JK wasn't seeing on his mobile device. Clarence never would have had to respond to defend himself if the insulting comment hadn't been made first. Will JK ever get that point? Based on the level of arrogance we've seen so far, I doubt it. I was the first to welcome him and he told me to have a nice life. Thanks, I will . . lol
There's a lot of freedom out there - we can choose to do whatever we want in a lot of cases. But rather than making a complete fool out of himself, how about coming into a forum as the new guy and learn a little about people before you shoot your mouth off to someone who has helped hundreds of people on here free of charge at all hours of the night and weekend?
Thank goodness for the "ignore" feature. Hopefully he has ignored me as well.

I though you ignored me? Clearly I’m still living in your head rent free.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Andy95W]

22 minutes ago, JoshK said:

I though you ignored me? Clearly I’m still living in your head rent free.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, he did ignore you, but since Echo quoted your post, Lance can see that you were a part of the conversation.

Your response above is reinforcing our opinion of you, however.

[glbtrottr]

I though you ignored me? Clearly I’m still living in your head rent free.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ugh.

I don’t speak for all of us.

But I do speak for me- and I’d like to believe “this isn’t us.”

There isn’t a single mooneyspacer whose head i would want to occupy “rent free.” Just sounds juvenile …


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JoshK]

No, he did ignore you, but since Echo quoted your post, Lance can see that you were a part of the conversation.
Your response above is reinforcing our opinion of you, however.

Ah, that makes sense. Many forums don’t show the quoted post if the ignore function is in place for the comment being quoted.

He’s pretty riled up about the whole thing. I re-read the start of the commentary and I still don’t see where my rude comment came first as claimed. Perhaps it is the issue of written word conveying 5% or less of the total intent of the communication.

If that is indeed the case then I apologize for hurting Lance’s feelings by replying to his friend’s statement. Maybe I missed the good nature of a post as intended and he saw the true intent because he knows the person. I read it, and continue to see it as having been rude for no reason. My initial reply was intended as straight communication, though it did admittedly devolve from there.

All in all, there seems to be a lot of hurt feelings over something that until tonight hasn’t caused me to give it more than passing thought. Are things regularly so serious around here? The original topic is serious and difficult but it’s not so much “on topic” at this point than it is “off topic”. Not my intention to start a bunch of hurt feelings though I did continue it along knowlingly, partly because I was intrigued by just how upset some folks got over something not even related to the topic at hand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JoshK]

Ugh.

I don’t speak for all of us.

But I do speak for me- and I’d like to believe “this isn’t us.”

There isn’t a single mooneyspacer whose head i would want to occupy “rent free.” Just sounds juvenile …


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s just a turn of phrase. Certain colloquialisms can pretty quickly demonstrate the age of someone, I’m guilty of being under 40 and having kids. Though I do have trouble understanding some of the slang that comes home from the school bus…

The meaning of this particular phrase is that someone is worked up enough about a topic that they’re unable to let it go and it’s sitting on their mind.

If you already knew that then please chalk my explanation up to what I mentioned above about written communication losing a huge portion of the intended total content.

On the topic of me offending people and calling someone’s responses rude: based on what I read and the intent I read from it, I thought it was unnecessary in response. If that wasn’t the intent meant by what appeared to be demeaning replies then I was out of line for firing back with intended curtness.

Since it’s still such a hot button for several folks on this topic I did take a look back at it and I certainly understand my replies as written: straight communication and then subsequently curt. If there wasn’t an initial intent to be snide to the new guy them I misread it and I apologize for that.

I will also say the following publicly as I’ve seen a tendency for people to be willing to be assholes publicly but then slink off and apologize in private if at all. If someone would kindly do me a favor and quote this response and tag Lance so he can see it again I would appreciate it. He, in particular, got a hotter reply from me than is warranted and he’s stated he was upset by it enough to ignore me. I read his initial reply as rather demeaning as well, while I thought it was intended that way but he says it was not. I’ll take that statement on face value and retract the vitriol I directed toward him.

I’m still not sure how to read Doc’s replies as not being patronizing at the least if it rude, but that’s his prerogative. We can certainly coexist. I’ll just make a mental note that he’s in Canada and that they do in fact have the internet even if it’s unclear if they have Tapatalk on a mobile platform (that last part is an attempt at humor, for those reading at home)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Andy95W]

20 minutes ago, JoshK said:

Ah, that makes sense. Many forums don’t show the quoted post if the ignore function is in place for the comment being quoted.

He’s pretty riled up about the whole thing. I re-read the start of the commentary and I still don’t see where my rude comment came first as claimed. Perhaps it is the issue of written word conveying 5% or less of the total intent of the communication.

If that is indeed the case then I apologize for hurting Lance’s feelings by replying to his friend’s statement. Maybe I missed the good nature of a post as intended and he saw the true intent because he knows the person. I read it, and continue to see it as having been rude for no reason. My initial reply was intended as straight communication, though it did admittedly devolve from there.

All in all, there seems to be a lot of hurt feelings over something that until tonight hasn’t caused me to give it more than passing thought. Are things regularly so serious around here? The original topic is serious and difficult but it’s not so much “on topic” at this point than it is “off topic”. Not my intention to start a bunch of hurt feelings though I did continue it along knowlingly, partly because I was intrigued by just how upset some folks got over something not even related to the topic at hand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think most people here will appreciate your two recent posts, and we all see that communicating in a forum type atmosphere like this can quickly escalate in ways that would never happen face-to-face.

The hurt feelings recently are because we lost a contributor who provided thousands of posts to answer people’s questions, free of charge.  He didn’t provide his time to generate business for his shop, he already serves as the primary MSC for a huge region in Canada and gets plenty of business.  Frankly, most of us couldn’t understand why Clarence (M20Doc) would spend so much time helping others for no benefit to himself.  But we were all glad he did.  I myself have been an A&P/IA for more than 20 years, and I learned a lot from him.

I’ll be the first to admit it: 98% of his posts were good and helpful, 1% extolled the virtues of the Piper Comanche, and 1% could be off putting when he got annoyed.  Unfortunately, you experienced that last 1% before seeing the 98%.

[MikeOH]

10 minutes ago, JoshK said:

It’s just a turn of phrase. Certain colloquialisms can pretty quickly demonstrate the age of someone, I’m guilty of being under 40 and having kids. Though I do have trouble understanding some of the slang that comes home from the school bus…

The meaning of this particular phrase is that someone is worked up enough about a topic that they’re unable to let it go and it’s sitting on their mind.

If you already knew that then please chalk my explanation up to what I mentioned above about written communication losing a huge portion of the intended total content.

On the topic of me offending people and calling someone’s responses rude: based on what I read and the intent I read from it, I thought it was unnecessary in response. If that wasn’t the intent meant by what appeared to be demeaning replies then I was out of line for firing back with intended curtness.

Since it’s still such a hot button for several folks on this topic I did take a look back at it and I certainly understand my replies as written: straight communication and then subsequently curt. If there wasn’t an initial intent to be snide to the new guy them I misread it and I apologize for that.

I will also say the following publicly as I’ve seen a tendency for people to be willing to be assholes publicly but then slink off and apologize in private if at all. If someone would kindly do me a favor and quote this response and tag Lance so he can see it again I would appreciate it. He, in particular, got a hotter reply from me than is warranted and he’s stated he was upset by it enough to ignore me. I read his initial reply as rather demeaning as well, while I thought it was intended that way but he says it was not. I’ll take that statement on face value and retract the vitriol I directed toward him.

I’m still not sure how to read Doc’s replies as not being patronizing at the least if it rude, but that’s his prerogative. We can certainly coexist. I’ll just make a mental note that he’s in Canada and that they do in fact have the internet even if it’s unclear if they have Tapatalk on a mobile platform (that last part is an attempt at humor, for those reading at home)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My opinion is that your take on this whole thing is spot on.  I didn't see that you started it; just responded in kind, and it went awry from there.  I, too, thought Lance's response was a bit demeaning.  And, I responded to his post that I thought it a bit of a double standard; apparently there are 'saints' that are allowed discretion in civility not extended to the rest of us! Oh, well.  

[JoshK]

Wait, he up and quit here because of my reply? That’s all it took or was it the straw that broke the camel’s back?

If he loves the Commanche we would probably get along well in person TBH. My biggest complaint with the Commanche an acquaintance owns is his struggle to maintain an airplane that hasn’t had newly manufactured parts available since 1974.

Such is life with these planes older than most of us. I like the old triple tail bellanca’s too. And I’ve gotten to make more than a few parts for a friend’s ‘46 CruiseAir because things for them simply don’t exist anymore.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[EricJ]

44 minutes ago, JoshK said:

He’s pretty riled up about the whole thing. I re-read the start of the commentary and I still don’t see where my rude comment came first as claimed. Perhaps it is the issue of written word conveying 5% or less of the total intent of the communication.

I wish you'd given that consideration to Clarence.

[JoshK]

I wish you'd given that consideration to Clarence.

I think I covered that two posts ago, just below the portion of my comment that you quoted. It seems you feel otherwise?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pinecone]

WRT to the loss of the airplane, that is why I have insurance.  I call the insurer, file a claim, they pay me, THEY decide who to subrogate and go after them to collect what they can.

No reason for me to spend time and effort.  Plus, if I sue, I have to pay the lawyer, either directly or via a LARGE portion of the recovery.

[A64Pilot]

1 hour ago, Pinecone said:

WRT to the loss of the airplane, that is why I have insurance.  I call the insurer, file a claim, they pay me, THEY decide who to subrogate and go after them to collect what they can.

No reason for me to spend time and effort.  Plus, if I sue, I have to pay the lawyer, either directly or via a LARGE portion of the recovery.

That’s it in a nutshell, it’s why I have insurence, to cover me.

Of course my insurence company will pay me and make me “whole” then go after whoever they can to recover expenses, but hopefully not to try to make a profit.

No need to involve Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe ambulance chasers, listening right now to one of their TV ads on how “I got in a wreck and Dan Newlin got me 1,000,000 dollars on TV”  so ambulance chasing has gotten out of control, making lawyers rich and costing the rest of us a not insignificant amount of money, it’s time for reform, but guess who’s in charge of that? Lawyers, so it’s kind of the fox watching the hen house.

For the younger crowd Dewey, Cheatem and Howe were make believe crooked Lawyers the three stooges would threaten others with. As that was roughly 80 years ago it seems crooked lawyers are nothing new, but I do think it’s gotten out of control.

I’ve looked it up, the ambulance chasers usually get about 40%, and almost never go to court as that takes time and effort, almost always they settle for what they can get without putting much effort in it, their model is many, many settlements end up being a significant amount of money.

I’m extremely suspicious with these excessive reward amounts you hear about continuously on TV and every billboard. 90% of people just don’t have either large insurence amounts nor large assets, the million dollars just doesn’t exist in most cases, so where do these large awards come from?

Only 8.8 % in the US have 1 mil in assets or more. Actually Google says it’s somewhere between 2% and 8.8% different sites quote different numbers. 

[aviatoreb]

I will miss Clarence here.  I dont know what happened an I was reading this thread to see what I can see in that regard in-between the story of a tragic accident.  Unfortunately its difficult to reconstruct since Clarence has erased his account.  we will miss you Clarence but thank you for all the time past that you sent with us and all the best!

JoshK, it wasn't a fantastic start and thank you for stopping what initially looked like doubling down.  many of us are familiar with each other for having interacted with each other on here for years.  So it may seem like an anonymous forum but it is not.  Just like walking in to a Lions club in a small town and walking up to one of the most long running and loved members and getting into a fight straight away, the benefit of the doubt goes to our long time friend even if the fight was symmetric.  That's natural.  I dont know, but I presume it was the straw that broke the camels back phenomenon and you brought that straw is all.  It was the initial defense and doubling down that started to congeal a stronger negative reaction.  My working behavior here is to try - try right? - to address people just as I would in person.  We are mostly sensible and welcoming people here and welcome aboard and love to here about your experiences, your rocket (I have one too) and all the other good stuff we talk about here.