Sowas gibts nur in den USA....

[N5528P]

Mahlzeit,

Hab gerade eine Email von einem Freund aus den USA bekommen:

Geht darum, dass in North Carolina demnächst ein Gesetz verabshciedet werden soll, dass es verbietet Laser Pointer oder Ähnliches auf Luftfahrzuge zu richten.

Die Bundesgesetze verbieten das bereits für internationale Flüge und Flüge zwischen den Bundesstaaten, jedoch nicht für Flüge die innerhalb von NC bleiben.

Schon irgendwie krank, dass so ein Sachgesetz in jedem Bundesstaat einzeln verabschiedet werden muß - das nenntn ma dann "Föderalismus"...

LG, Bernhard

[N5528P]

Und noch etwas Lustiges - wundert mich bis jetzt noch nichts davon gehört zu haben:

Offenbar gibt (gab) es am Reagan National Aiport in Washington eine besondere Sicherheitsvorschrift: 30 Minuten nach dem Start und vor der Landung müssen die passagiere auf ihren Sitzen bleiben, da das LFZ in dieser Zeit besonders nahe an sensiblen Gebäuden wie dem Pentagon, dem Weißen Haus und dem Capitol vorbeifliegt.

Diese Regel wurde jetzt wieder abgeschafft...
WAS BRINGT DAS?

BW

[Eule]

WAS BRINGT DAS?

BW

Willkommen im Land der begrenzten Unmöglichkeiten ...

[SubStyle]

naja sieht man eh wie man sich an die gesetze gehalten hat. ich sag nur 11 september 2001 mit pentagon *g*

[N5528P]

naja sieht man eh wie man sich an die gesetze gehalten hat. ich sag nur 11 september 2001 mit pentagon *g*

Gibts ja erst seit 9/11, aber trotzdem: Welcher Terrorist wird sich von dieser Idee abhalten lassen?

Bernhard

[z142]

Wer hat im Endeffekt nur die Unannehmlichkeiten durch solchen Stuß? Der normale Passagier.
Das ist aber nicht nur in den Staaten so, in Europa denken sich ja die schlauen Damen und Herren in Brüssel ja auch genug Blödsinn aus, wo der erste Punkt, warum das gemacht wird, der 11.September angeführt wird.

Was haben tausende Kameras in London gebracht? Nix.
Es wird nur mehr eingeschränkt, aber die Leute, die es treffen sollte, die machen unbehelligt weiter.

[N5528P]

Wer hat im Endeffekt nur die Unannehmlichkeiten durch solchen Stuß? Der normale Passagier.

Stimme Dir komplett zu - hat nur eine zusätzliche Facette.
Man kann z.B. ideal Wirtschaftspolitik mit gewissen Massnahmen betreiben: Wieviele Flieger amerikanischer Linien mußten bis jetzt umkehren?

Bernhard

[z142]

Stimme Dir auch vollkommen zu, und das ist ja die größte Schweinerei.
Unter dem Deckmantel Terrorismusgefahr bzw. 11.September wird da soviel gedreht und gewendet wie man es will.

Und wer trägt den Schaden???

Das hat nichts mehr mit Verhütung von gefährlichen Angriffen zu tun, das ist nur mehr Paranoia und auch Gefährdung der Betriebssicherheit in der Luftfahrt.

Und Europa lässt sich da auf den Kopf sch.....

[N5528P]

Ich kanns nur unter "Humor" ablegen....
Ich hab die meisten Amis eigentlich gemocht, aber ich überlege mir egrade dort hinzufahren.

Originalartikel findet ihr hier bei USAtoday.

Bernhard

Sense vs. air safety
No sense. What do Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Ingrid Sanden's baby daughter have in common?
Each has been flagged as a potential terrorist based on the government's "no-fly list" and stopped from boarding flights.

The well-known senator, who is 73, and Sanden's daughter, who was 23 months old when she was delayed last fall at the Phoenix airport, were cleared for their flights — eventually. The same list snared an infant in June. All three faced delays and hassles because their names were the same or similar to those of suspected terrorists on the government's watch lists.

Computers automatically check all travelers against the lists, which are a collection of wanted criminals, suspected terrorists and various other bad guys put together by government agencies, some without much identifying data.

The lists, which have grown to include tens of thousands of names, occasionally catch innocent travelers, even some chewing on rattles. The mistakes not only delay and embarrass the fingered fliers (or their parents), but they also waste time that could be better spent looking for real threats.

Nearly four years after Sept. 11, 2001, the government is still fiddling around the edges of the problem. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has told airlines not to deny boarding to children younger than 12, even if their names are similar to people on the no-fly list. Duh. And it has an ombudsman to help people wrongly identified.

As helpful as that might be, the trouble is far more basic. The government has stumbled repeatedly in trying to develop a credible system to separate fliers who deserve extra scrutiny from fliers who don't.

New ideas are in development, most notably a "registered traveler" program that could allow pre-screened fliers to pass quickly though security. But when authorities can't separate babies from suicide bombers, it's hard to have confidence in the system.

Common sense. Since 9/11, government officials have been struggling not just with who to let through airport checkpoints, but also what. Because the hijackers used box cutters, a long list of sharp objects and potential weapons was quickly banned.

In 2002, TSA loosened up a bit on the items fliers could take on board. No longer prohibited were tweezers, nail files and corkscrews, things any traveler might have in a purse or carry-on.

Now, according to news accounts, security watchdogs are considering more changes in their effort to balance safety and hassle.

Some make sense, such as making travelers take off their shoes only if they've set off a metal detector or been flagged for extra screening. And giving screeners more discretion to determine whom they pat down.

But other ideas are breathtakingly foolish. For example, removing a ban on ice picks and bows and arrows.

Unless a passenger is headed for an avalanche or an archery match, it's hard to imagine why he or she would need to carry such things on board. Hardened cockpit doors now protect the pilots. But not surprisingly, flight attendants are upset about potential danger.

It's doubtful fliers are interested in dumping sensible restrictions. What they do want are standards they can count on at every airport and flights that are safe from terrorists and explosive devices. That's where the government ought to focus its attention.

Sensational. This month's accident in Toronto dramatized better than any warning why airline passengers ought to pay attention to safety messages at the start of every flight. When an Air France jet skidded off the runway and erupted in flames, all 309 passengers and crew escaped alive. Getting the exit doors open quickly helped them scramble to safety.

But how many exit-row passengers really study the instructions on how to open those doors? How many fudge when they proclaim they'll know what to do in an emergency?

Airlines have struggled for years to capture fliers' attention. Southwest attendants sing some of their messages. Independence Air has been using recorded messages, starring personalities such as James Carville and Mary Matalin, to nudge fliers awake.

Now, a United Airlines flight attendant — we don't know her name but we'd like to — has found a better way to make sure fliers can do their jobs. A passenger on a flight last fall from Washington, D.C., to Jacksonville told us that the attendant gave fliers the instruction card, asked them to read it and promised to be back. Minutes later, she returned — and gave them a quiz. Lucky for them, everybody passed.

So was United or the Association of Flight Attendants excited to harness this small, savvy, ingenious approach? Perhaps make it part of safety training?

Not really. Spokesmen for both displayed little interest.

Smart ideas often bubble up from the rank and file. They can improve air safety, but only if folks in charge are smart enough to grab them and fly.

[Guest]

Im Bundesstaat Florida ist es bei Strafe verboten beim Sex eine andere Stellung als die Missionarstellung zu verwenden. ICH LIEBE DIE USA Vielleicht ist es dann auch bald verboten überhaupt PAXe in die Flieger zu lassen...das wär doch am sichersten *g*

Ohhh say, Can you see.......

[N5528P]

NO COMMENT

Aero-Analysis: Sit Down, Strap In, Shut Up
...And Out Goes Y-O-Your Suit Against Southwest

Grace Fuller and her
sister, Louise Sawyer, wanted money. Southwest Airlines had money.
A nursery rhyme was going to be their ticket.

Now they've lost with a judge, a jury, and an appeals court --
and Southwest gets to keep its money, at least, whatever it hasn't
paid to lawyers defending the airline from lawsuit lotto.
Knowledgeable attorneys estimate Southwest's defense costs in the
six figures.

As the sisters were indigent (what are they doing flying then?),
their attorney, Scott A. Wissel, was appointed by the court. This
means he was compensated at least partly by public funds (we're
told that many lawyers work for below their normal scale on
indigents' cases, in effect contributing that excess value of their
time).

We can understand how an airline winds up in court after a
crash, but how does a nursery rhyme on an otherwise routine flight
trigger a lawsuit? The facts of the case were not in major dispute.
Fuller and Sawyer were among the scrum of people boarding the
plane.

Flight Attendant Jennifer Cundiff picked up the microphone to
urge people to get moving, and she did it, she thought, with zany
good humor: "Eenie, meenie, minie, moe," she said. "Pick a seat, we
gotta go!"

If you haven't flown
Southwest, it doesn't assign seats. Passengers select their own.
And the Southwest flight crews, both cockpit and cabin, are noted
for their high-spirited hijinks -- enough so that other airlines
have begun imitating classic Southwest shticks like, "thank you for
flying with us and remember that no one loves you, or your money,
like Southwest Airlines."

But the plaintiffs alleged that the rhyme in question was a
racist insult aimed at them personally. (There was, apparently,
once a version of this rhyme that contained an offensive reference
to blacks). Grace Fuller claimed that hearing the rhyme was such an
insult to her that she had an immediate epileptic seizure on the
plane, and another one after arriving at her destination, that left
her bedridden for a week.

Despite these claims of mental-stress-induced health problems,
either Fuller nor Sawyer sought psychological treatment or
counseling, the appeals court noted.

Back in 2004, the trial judge weeded out some of the farther-out
claims of "emotional distress" under state law, and sent the rest
of the case, claims of violation of civil rights, to jury trial.
During the trial, it emerged that Cundiff and other SWA FAs had
long used the nursery rhyme, and she had no idea (nor did this
writer until covering this
story) that it can be offensive to blacks, because of the existence
of a version that contains a hateful and demeaning epithet.

In January, 2004, a jury in the Federal District Court in Kansas
City, Kansas, ruled that Fuller and Sawyer's civil rights were not
violated, exonerating Southwest Airlines and Cundiff, and leaving
the sisters with nothing to show for their efforts.

After the trial court
smackdown, attorney Wissel opted out of the case. Sawyer and Fuller
proceeded to appeal on their own (calling to mind an ancient
lawyers' aphorism about the man who represents himself having a
fool for a lawyer). Among other things in their appeal, they
demanded a new lawyer at public expense.

A three judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit rejected
that
claim, and everything else in the appeal, unanimously
and resoundingly.

The appeal advanced some novel, and other
long-since-discredited, theories. The sisters believed that the
court should pay the expenses of their chosen expert witness; that
they didn't get a fair trial because no blacks were on the jury;
that the judge showed prejudice by calling "eenie meenie" a
"nursery rhyme" (which is the same thing they called it). Most
amazing of all, they wanted the trial overturned because their
lawyer was formerly a clerk for the judge (wouldn't most litigants
want a lawyer who knew the judge well?) and they now wished they
had challenged some of the jurors that they didn't challenge on the
first go-round.

A legal appeal is not a do-over retrial of the underlying case
("de novo" as attorneys call it), and appeals courts in the
American system have limited powers. In most cases, appeals
chambers defer to the facts found in the trial court, and unless
the appellant can show that the trial court was wrong on matters of
law, or the fact-finders stepped outside their legal role, the life
of an appeal is hard and short. That was the case here.

The sisters can still
petition for the entire court to hear their case, but given its
rocky reception in the courts so far -- and their lack of success
in getting a contingency-fee attorney on board -- it would be
unlikely to profit them much.

It's a good deal for the law firm handling Southwest's defense,
though. Litigation defense attorneys don't work on contingency:
they take cash, cash equivalents, and first born children (OK, we
made up the bit about children).

And it's a safe bet that Jennifer Cundiff won't be cheering
passengers with happy rhymes in quite the carefree manner that she
did before being smeared as a racist. But somehow "Sit down, strap
in, shut up," doesn't convey the image that Southwest's marketing
is reaching for.

(Note: Aero-News acknowledges the tireless efforts of Walter
Olson and Ted Frank of http://www.overlawyered.com,
whose original reporting brought this wacky case to our
attention).

[N5528P]

Mit unerschütterlicher Zuverlässigkeit machen sich die Amis lächerlich: Was auf viele europäischen Flughäfen Standard ist, nämlich das Gepäck nur dann mitgeht wenn auch der zugehörige Pax an Bord ist, dürfte sich noch nicht in die USA herumgesprochen haben.

Bernhard

Man's Hypothetical Question Leads To His Very Real Arrest
A 68-year-old man who missed his Northwest Airlines flight from Windsor Locks, CT to Minneapolis Thursday was arrested after he asked a gate agent "what if there's a bomb" in his baggage.

According to media reports, Mahmoud Abouelleil was upset after discovering the flight he was supposed to be on had already left the gate. His checked baggage was already onboard the airplane. While discussing the situation with gate agents, authorities say he then asked one of the agents "what if there's a bomb in my bag?"

The question prompted airport officials to immediately call the plane back to the gate, and the bomb squad was called in to search Aboulleil's baggage. No bomb was found, and the flight departed after an approximately two-hour delay.

Aboulleil was detained for questioning, and was charged with falsely reporting an incident. He was later released after posting $1,000 bond, and is scheduled to be arraigned October 4.

Needless to say, Aboulleil did not make his flight.

Originalartikel zu finden unter: http://www.aero-news.net/news/commair.cfm?ContentBlockID=5862c21b-a2dd-45f9-93b8-39dd9987b9af&Dynamic=1

[N5528P]

Ein Schelm wer sich an den Vorfall mit der Maersk - Maschine Anfang dieser WOche erinnert...

Southwest boots woman for shirt
Lorrie Heasley to sue for being asked to leave a flight because of her politically charged T-shirt.
October 6, 2005: 4:15 PM EDT

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Southwest Airlines kicked a woman off one of its flights over a political message on her T-shirt, the airline confirmed Thursday, and published reports say the passenger will sue.

Lorrie Heasley, of Woodland, Wash., was asked to leave her flight from Los Angeles to Portland, Ore., Tuesday for wearing a T-shirt with pictures of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and a phrase similar to the popular film title "Meet the Fockers."

A spokesman for Southwest Airlines (up $0.24 to $15.25, Research) told CNN that the airline used the "common sense" approach when they decided to escort Heasley from the plane in Reno, Nevada, during a stopover between Los Angeles and Portland, Ore.

The airline felt that the T-shirt was offensive and that other passengers would be outraged by it, the spokeswoman said, adding that the incident is about "decency."

"I have cousins in Iraq and other relatives going to war," Heasley told the Reno Gazette-Journal. "Here we are trying to free another country and I have to get off an airplane in midflight over a T-shirt. That's not freedom."

According to the airline spokeswoman, Heasley was asked to leave after she refused to cover up her T-shirt, an account that conflicts with Heasley's version in the Gazette-Journal.

Heasley told the newspaper that she agreed to cover her shirt with a sweatshirt, but it slipped as she slept. After she was ordered to wear her T-shirt inside-out or leave, she and her husband chose to leave, the paper said.

The 32-year-old lumber saleswoman said in the report that no one from Southwest said anything about the shirt while she waited near the gate at Los Angeles International Airport, nor did anyone mention the shirt as she boarded the aircraft.

Southwest Airlines (up $0.24 to $15.25, Research) spokeswoman Marilee McInnis told the Gazette-Journal that the airline's contract with the Federal Aviation Administration contains rules that say the airline will deny boarding to any customer whose conduct is offensive, abusive, disorderly or violent or for clothing that is "lewd, obscene, or patently offensive."

FAA spokesman Donn Walker told the newspaper that no federal rules exist on the subject.

"It's up to the airlines who they want to take and by what rules," he was quoted as saying. "The government just doesn't get into the business of what people wear on an aircraft."

Heasley wants Southwest to reimburse her and her husband for the last leg of their trip and pay for her gasoline, a $68 rental car from Avis and a $70 hotel bill, according to reports.

Originalartikel zu finden unter: http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/06/news/fortune500/southwest_shirt/index.htm

[davidkunz/VIE]

[TWA/VIE]

die dame ist vielleicht schon am weg nach cuba..........??

m

[N5528P]

Welche eine Überraschung!

Raptor Program Costs Compared to Those of the Super Hornet
By MICHAEL FABEY

It costs more to develop a revolutionary, supersonic fighter jet than to build an aircraft based on an existing design, says a report released Oct. 10 by Rand Corp., “Lessons Learned from the F/A-22 and F/A-18E/F Development Programs.”

.........

Original zu finden unter: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1164774&C=america

[Stefan767]

Ach wie gut das wir Österreicher die perfekten Menschen sind ...
Und das unsere Politiker nur über die wichtigen Dinge reden (zb Marmelade vs. Konfitüre, neue Bundeshymne, 1000. Diskussion über Abfangjäger, uvm.) ...

[N5528P]

Ach wie gut das wir Österreicher die perfekten Menschen sind ...
Und das unsere Politiker nur über die wichtigen Dinge reden (zb Marmelade vs. Konfitüre, neue Bundeshymne, 1000. Diskussion über Abfangjäger, uvm.)

Das ist keineswegs so und sollte auch nicht impliziert werden durch meine Postings. Ich habe, wie ich in mehreren Diskussionen schon geschrieben habe, bei mittlerweile 3 Aufenthalten in den USA (AC, CA, NM) auch sehr gute Erfahrungen gemacht.

Trotzdem habe ich den Eindruck, dass gewisse politische Dummheiten gepaart mit einem den Amerikanern als Gruppe einzigartigen Nationalismus in den USA mehr Nährboden haben als bei uns... gebe Dir aber Recht, wenn Du der Meinung bist das wir uns mit rasantem Tempo in die Richtung der USA entwickeln. Blöderweise übernehmen wir nicht die vernünftigen Dinge...

Bernhard

[N5528P]

Wie können Terroristen dem Flugverkehr am meisten schaden?

Sie spielen den Behörden ein paar gefälschte Pässe zu, wo der Herr Osama unter den Decknamen Meier und Huber gelebt hat...

US No-Fly List Vexes Travelers
December 15, 2005

Sarah Zapolsky was checking in for a flight to Italy when she discovered her 9-month-old son's name was on the United States' "no-fly" list of suspected terrorists.

"We pointed down to the stroller, and he sat there and gurgled," Zapolsky said, recalling the incident at Dulles Airport outside Washington in July. "The desk agent started laughing... She couldn't print us out a boarding pass because he's on the no-fly list."

Zapolsky, who did not want her son's name made public, said she was initially amused by the mix-up. "But when I found out you can't actually get off the list, I started to get a bit annoyed."

Zapolsky isn't alone.

According to the Transportation Security Administration, more than 28,000 people have applied to the TSA redress office to get on the "cleared list," which takes note of individuals whose names are similar to those on the terrorism watch list, but does not guarantee an end to no-fly list hassles.

The TSA does not reveal how many or which names are actually on the list, and complaints do not get names removed since they refer to suspected terrorists. The best innocent travelers can hope for is a letter from the TSA which it says should facilitate travel, but is no panacea.

In addition to babies, the victims of mistaken identity on the no-fly list have included aging retirees and public figures such as Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Republican Representative Don Young of Alaska and Democratic Representative John Lewis of Georgia.

"It's a significant problem," said Brenda Jones, the spokeswoman for Rep. Lewis, who travels by plane at least twice a week. She said the congressman had written to the TSA, but "he is still on the no-fly list, and the problems persist."

The classified no-fly list was adopted after September 11, 2001 to prevent suspected terrorists from getting on aircraft or coming to the United States. Airlines must check passenger names against the list before they are allowed to get on a plane.

While the number of suspected terrorists on the list is unknown, aviation sources estimate it includes tens of thousands of names, if not more.

TSA spokesman Christopher White said the agency had seven people working full-time on processing applications to get on the cleared list. Considering the number of applications, that works out to more than 4,000 complaints per redress officer.

"We do take the cleared list very seriously, and it's also important for us to focus on the right people. It does us no good to focus on the wrong John Doe," White said.

Cleared individuals receive a letter from the TSA which says "we have provided sufficient personal information to the airlines to distinguish you from other individuals" but cautions that "TSA cannot ensure that your travel will be delay free."

John Graham, a 63-year-old former State Department official, said his TSA letter had not helped at all.

"I'm at a point now where I don't really care whether my name is on the list as a mistake, as mistaken identity, or whether someone at TSA does intend to hassle me. The fact is, there's a total absence of due process," he said.

The American Civil Liberties Union calls the no-fly list system unconstitutional, saying it treats people as guilty without a trial and unfairly deprives them of freedoms. It also says the system is an inaccurate and ineffective security method.

Despite efforts by the TSA to address complaints and concerns about the no-fly list, ACLU attorney Reggie Shuford said very little had changed to improve the process.

"We continually hear from people being caught up on the no-fly list with the same frustrating experiences and inability to get off the list," he said.

Peter Johnson, a retired bibliographer at Princeton University, said travel became "hellish" after he discovered his name was on the no-fly list in August 2004.

"I'm not sure if what's behind this is an effort to simply control people or if it's largely mismanagement and poorly conceptualized programming," Johnson said, adding a TSA official had told him there were more than 2,000 other Peter Johnsons in the United States who reported similar problems.

Originalartikel zu finden unter: http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1134686873.html

[N5528P]

Regelmäßig gibt es Nachschub...

Obwohl ich manchmal den Eindruck habe, dass ich den USA Unrecht angedeihen lasse - es gibt auch genügend Juristen in Europa denen ich so etwas zumuten würde:

Eine Cessna fliegt während dem Anflug gegen einen Truck, die Versicherung des Trucks muß bezahlen - pbwohl die Unfallursache eindeutig erkennen lässt, wer schuld war...

Bernhard

Courts Rule Truck Insurer Must Pay Claim In Collision With Airplane
C150 Hit Truck While On Approach To Land

While the crew at Aero-News freely admits to being wholly and completed biased on the side of aviation in almost all matters... even we must admit this one is rather strange, at least on the surface.

Two Michigan courts have ruled the insurer of a truck hit by a Cessna 150L (file photo of type, above) as the aircraft was on approach for a short-field landing at North Cedar Airport (MI73) must pay $18,000 for damage to the airplane, which nosed over after clipping the truck and came to a rest upside-down in a nearby field.

The May 2003 incident occurred outside Cedar Springs, MI when pilot Richard DeGraw and his wife, Karol, were attempting to land on a rain-softened turf runway when the aircraft clipped the truck hauling broken concrete. The truck was lawfully driving on a road adjacent to the field, according to media reports.

Fortunately, both the two passengers aboard the Cessna as well as the truck's driver, Kevin Gould, survived the accident, although Karol DeGraw received serious injuries.

The NTSB Probable Cause report states Richard DeGraw's "inadequate glidepath and his failure to maintain obstacle clearance" was the primary cause of the accident, with the truck a contributing factor.

The report also observed DeGraw would have needed to fly a 28 degree glideslope in order to avoid an 11-foot-tall truck being driven on the road off the approach end of the runway, far steeper than the 3 degree standard -- although as a private airport, MI73 does not need to comply with federal regulations.

All's well that ends well... until, that is, the truck's owner, Dean Wall, received a letter from the DeGraws stating a claim had been filed against his company's insurance provider, Cincinatti Insurance, seeking payment for damage to the totalled airplane.

Dean Wall, founder of Dean's Landscaping in Sand Lake and the truck's owner, said he got a letter from the DeGraws a few weeks after the crash. It said a claim was filed against his insurance company, seeking payment for the damage to the totalled aircraft.

The case first went to trial in November 2004, and the court agreed: Wall's insurance provider had to pay the bill for damage to the plane... that hit the company's truck.

"I think it's absolutely absurd and asinine," Wall told The Grand Rapids Press earlier this week. "It's unbelievable."

It's also, apparently, the law -- at least in Michigan. The DeGraws' lawyer, J. Paul Janes, argued successfully in both the original case and a subsequent appeal by Cincinnati Insurance that Michigan's no-fault insurance statute only calls for compensation in property-damage cases that occur in collisions between motor vehicles designed to be driven upon roads and things that are not, when the collisions do not occur upon roads.

Janes successfully argued since the 150L was not a highway vehicle -- and since it struck the truck and never actually touched the road surface -- the accident didn't occur "upon" a road. (And yes, even the definition of the word "upon" was argued... complete with dictionaries.)

In briefs filed with the court, Cincinnati Insurance lawyer David Campos argued that the definitions of "motor vehicle" and "upon a road" were too narrow and not what the no-fault statute intended. The court didn't buy it.

While Campos is magnanimous in defeat -- even stating the no-fault law is, by and large, a good thing to have -- he still says changes are needed.

As for DeGraw, he has yet to receive a dime from Wall's insurance company -- although Wall already has a $59,000 claim against his policy, reflecting the costs of taking the case to trial.

Originalartikel zu finden unter: http://www.aero-news.net/news/genav.cfm?ContentBlockID=1f43095b-286e-4cd0-9da9-3e22c7b5746d&Dynamic=1