Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by Unit74, Nov 6, 2015.
That's what the court of law decides if the business doesn't give a **** about its customers.
That's right, a jury of emotionally driven and easily manipulated "peers"
I'm not actually sure if the McDonald's thing went to a real jury but it doesn't change the fact that people can be easily swayed and motivated by shock and fear and big-corporation=bad
Incidentally, no one is forced to patronize McDonald's or any business.. if somebody prefers lukewarm stale coffee they're welcome to go elsewhere
Maybe you should go read up on the court case.
Actually, I think the exact opposite could be said about the masses who are on your side of the argument. McDonald's spent a lot of time and money with a PR campaign to sway and manipulate people into thinking that this was a frivolous lawsuit and is the poster child for ridiculous lawsuits. (https://web.archive.org/web/2012060.../frivolous-lawsuits-and-how-we-perceive-them/)
I wonder who are the ones that are really being emotionally driven and easily manipulated.
thanks for the link, I guess it did go to a jury of 12, I forgot that part of the story..
I can certainly see the argument from both sides. For me at least ultimately it comes right down to the temperatures quoted are in line with what freshly brewed hot coffee is supposed to be.. that to me is the crux of it. If freshly brewed coffee were closer to 100° and they were serving theirs at 200 then I see the issue. But they were serving exactly what people were buying, fresh hot coffee
To me it's sort of like ordering cheesecake at a restaurant knowing full well that your lactose intolerant and then suing the restaurant when you get sick..
Usually it's those around me that get sick...
To be fair though we're not talking freshly-brewed coffee. This is coffee that has been sitting around in a vat, but specially heated to keep it just below boiling.
I guess it depends on what your mental model of the coffee is. McDonalds were serving the coffee hot so that people could drive home or to work and still have it piping when they got there. If your mental model of how the coffee will be served is more like a diner, where the coffee will be drinkable pretty much as soon as you get it, you may have no idea how dangerous it is.
Looking at the case again, it's interesting that the damages the jury awarded were $200,000, but reduced by 20% to $160,000 as they felt that the woman shared some of the blame.
The $2.7 million on top of that was purely punitive due to the evident callous disregard that McDonald's held the hundreds of people they were burning. The $2.7 million was chosen to match two days worth of estimated coffee revenue for McDonald's.
But don't get facts get in the way of a good argument.
Suing McD's for selling hot coffee is like suing Porsche (or Ducati) for selling a vehicle that will exceed posted speed limits. If you spill the hot coffee or crash the "hot" vehicle, you may be injured. Same as with a hammer. You can hurt yourself badly with one of those.
That didn't stop Paul Walker's father and daughter (actor in Fast and Furious movies) from suing Porsche because the Carrera GT he died in was supposedly a dangerous death trap. Porsche settled out of court, terms unknown.
No dumber than surviving family suing Cessna for $34M from fatal crash due to worn seat track that was deferred maintenance.
YES! A thousand times yes!
I came to post this and you beat to it. That was tough from all angles. Granted, a Judge did find Porsche not at fault https://www.thedrive.com/news/2893/porsche-cleared-of-wrongdoing-in-paul-walker-crash-case
The family would have had a much better chance of suing the tire manufacturers for not designing rubber that doesn't turn into something resembling Delrin after 9 years.
Even when the company is found not liable how many millions did they have to spend to defend themselves? The legal system in this country is run by lawyers who just want the money.
And she didn't get 2.7 million. She was awarded $480,000 in punitive damages. But after appeal, she and McDonald's settled for an amount less that $600,000. Just another fact that our corporate overlords want us to keep in the forefront of our minds. "She was awarded millions of dollars for spilling coffee on herself! Frivolous lawsuits! American greed!" The reality is that she originally asked McDonald's just to cover her medical bills and loss of income for the grand total of $20,000. That's it. That's all she wanted. McDonald's offered her $800.
I think people miss the point of the coffee lawsuit. It wasn't that the coffee was hot. It was that is was way hotter than any human could reasonably consume, hotter than allowable by industry standards, and hot enough to cause injury.
So anyway, S-n-F anyone?
(What’s the furthest thread stray ever, without being locked?)
We could start talking about Oshkosh...
What is the industry standard? Not snark, but a genuine question. Our Breville brews at 200* and can be adjusted up to 204..
Burns start happening around 120-130.. is that the standard?
I am so lost on this.. I feel like I'm living in some kind of alternate reality. Coffee is near boiling when brewed, and typically served hot whether your grabbing it from DUNKS or sbux, or whatever, no reasonable person just starts chugging coffee when it's fresh, whether it's 120 or 204. The safe temperature for chicken is 160*, this can also burn you.. but no one is cranking down chicken fresh off the grill either
Anyway, maybe I'm in the minority here but people should carry themselves as reasonable autonomous adults. Instead of suing someone "holy crap that was hot!" maybe be more careful with the lid next time?
I'm just happy that we have finally moved on, without hope of recovery, to lawyer-bashing. Peter was really getting too much flak in this thread when we kept it on-topic for the past 5 years.
I think he was getting the appropriate amount of flak.
We were so tied up with the engine but remember PM sill had dubious pitot/static readings.. presumably in an effort to remedy this he's bought one of the Piper style vanes. HOWEVER, in his infinite wisdom he's mounting it in the exact same freaking location on the belly of the aircraft by the existing static!!! why?! He always comes right up to the finish line then does something that completely defies traditional logic
why? I’m guessing because that’s where the pitot system is already run to....
I can think of two reasons why he is replacing the static port with a blade mounted in the same location:
1. The plumbing is there.
2. He does not know why the readings are inaccurate or where a better location might be. Changing multiple variables at once without a reason is not going to lead to better knowledge. He is changing the least expensive variable to adjust (distance of static port from fuselage skin) first. I have no problem with that.
^haha, just trying to get us back on track here
I totally agree with changing one thing at a time.. BUT, the location under the belly is such an odd spot I would assume this would be a good time to just pop the thing out on the wing like the way most everyone else does it
There might even be a big crack through the middle of the left one which would simplify running the lines....
The irony of you getting spun up about this, then admitting you don't know the facts, but still relying on it as evidence that people can be emotionally manipulated....
whether it went to a jury or not was not the crux of this. The core fact is the coffee was the temp that coffee is supposed to be. I made this point well known about why I got spun up. It was no unreasonably hot relative to the temperature coffee is supposed to be. Someone spilled it, got burned, sued, and won. The fact that it went to jury just adds insult. Anyway.. if you want to discuss tort law I'm happy to debate but let's do so via PM so we can get back to Raptors, pitots, PM, and Audi engines.
PM has had some accomplishments that go largely unnoticed:
1) He had the confidence to design an aircraft.
2) He designed the aircraft
3) What he designed is aesthetically pleasing, if not similar to other designs.
4) He acquired the funding to build it.
5) He built it.
6) He test flew his own design.
7) He survived an in-flight emergency and landed safely.
8) He’s digging in to rebuild and continue.
9) He’s provided hours of entertainment through YouTube and this website.
10) He’s done what most of us only DREAM of doing.
PM has shown impressive fortitude and perseverance throughout this project. Does he always do the right thing? Absolutely not! Was using an Audi powerplant the right decision? Probably not. But whatever the outcome in this saga, he’s done no worse than hundreds of others (and way better) that attempt the same thing and never make it through the first flight. I hope that this story ultimately ends in a safe aircraft with PM remaining healthy, even if the aircraft falls way short of its original design goals.
We are only on page 65. We haven’t had a chance to get around to the positives yet.
The handling of the engine out was the first time through this whole saga that I've been genuinely impressed with him
I suppose some credit is also due for the sheer tenacity of it all
https://ihsvoice.com/2015/11/03/so-..., she sued,the employee acting as Leatherface.
These post about flaws in the legal system have ZERO to do with the thread topic, and cry out for their own thread.
Yeah, really guys. Lots of folks want to watch this guy's progress (or lack thereof). You don't need to derail this thing and send it into locked land talking about some old court case.
I think a transfer pump to equalize the fluid levels in the cups on each side makes a lot more sense.
That would be the BMW solution, so yeah.
i will say he handled it well, however, like the majority of the pilot world, he was way to late in declaring an emergency. as a general rule pilots wait to long to tell ATC "im declaring an emergency" when the oil pressure dropped to the point that the alarm went off, instead of saying in need to return to the airport, he should have declared at that point. Its a point I harp on because seconds sometimes count.
Not only do they matter sometimes but it’s often only possible to determine if they matter in a post event review.