The ultimate quiet quitting
2 Likes
On a serious note thatās the thing. Get mental health assistance and walk away after a lengthy sick leave.
I donāt understand why they didnāt do a buddy system.
1 Like
1 Like
1 Like
First hot meal Iāve had on an airplane in ages
2 Likes
If theyād only used keyboard shortcuts, this wouldnāt have been a problem.
2 Likes
If you get served something you donāt want, ctrl+z. If you want seconds, ctrl+y.
2 Likes
If you want something else, ctrl+h if you have something in mind, or F9 if you feel lucky.
1 Like
Up until recently, ctrl+alt+del fixed a lot of problems.
2 Likes
Sledgehammers and chainsaws took care of the rest.
3 Likes
I agree with the ruling that they both shared the fault. I would hope that somebody flying a Black Hawk would be better at reading maps (assuming the snowmobile trails were shown). Driving > 65 mph at night with tinted goggles on a snowmobile trail seems pretty risky though.
The landowner gave both permission to use the area. I can see the split responsibility, but outdriving your headlights at night is pretty stupid on any vehicle. I would countersue for damage to the helicopter.
Eh, the helicopter should not be parked on an actively used snowmobile trail.
Yes, the driver of the snowmobile should not have been outdriving his headlights (especially with tinted goggles) but the government is not going to get money off of that guy. Suing him would be a waste of time.
Maybe the landowner could be sued by the federal government as this accident should have been reasonably foreseen.
I think heās got 3M or so.
OK, I am being a little ridiculous. To me, if there is shared responsibility the losses on both sides should be taken into account, with recompense flowing in relation to degree of responsibility and damages caused. Perhaps that was taken into account at trial, I donāt know.
I assume so.
Iām not aware of any maps being available to pilots/co-pilots of military helicopters. And they certainly will not show items that are not of military interest. What Iāve read about that story, the pilot did talk to someone to get permission to land there, but was not told that the area was used for things other than being an airfield:
In peace time, I think it is incumbent for the military to have their vehicles clearly marked if theyāre occupying space that could be used by civilians.
But in this case, I think what the govāt liability would be for all medical costs plus lost wages plus some amount of interest on the lost wages. But not damages for pain/suffering nor punitive damages.
Does the war exclusion apply?
Itās an interesting question. Apparently the airport was built in 1943 as a navy base and then got bombed around it then. Not sure if this runway was there then.