Cojawfee posted:

There are enough of these videos that it has to be practically impossible for an axe throwing establishment to get insurance.

ekuNNN posted:

poo poo POST MALONE posted:

An escape room where you have to throw axes to get out.

chitoryu12 posted:

I actually did an escape room where you had to reveal a code by shooting targets with a BB gun. Unfortunately it was chained down.

zedprime posted:

How do the feathers end up in a vehicle to fall out?

"Stay back" placards are magic legal runes that mean anything you don't have the object in hand, stuck in the windshield, or on dash cam, you're not going to get any compensation from the other vehicle because it was an uncontrollable road pebble and obviously the government's problem.

It might be a hollow victory but a lot of insurance companies cover windshield work with a minimal claim process and reduced or no deductible because getting cause is getting blood from a stone but they absolutely do not want you using a compromised windshield.

Phanatic posted:

Ah, so less “can’t” and more “won’t.”

As for rules of evidence, the guy’s uploading these videos himself. They’re totally admissible as evidence. 804(b)(3), they’re totally statements against his own interest. That’s just a dodge on the part of someone at the FAA. Disappointing.

Platystemon posted:

Thanks. I knew there were exceptions in the rules of evidence large enough to drive a (Swift) truck through and that that probably fell under one of them.

It’s weird for the FAA to falsely hide behind the rules of evidence. Maybe they’re envisioning someone other than the pilot as the videographer, but so what? Find who the videographer is and subpoena them. Isn’t safety investigation the FAA’s job?

Platystemon posted:

Thanks. I knew there were exceptions in the rules of evidence large enough to drive a (Swift) truck through and that that probably fell under one of them.

It’s weird for the FAA to falsely hide behind the rules of evidence. Maybe they’re envisioning someone other than the pilot as the videographer, but so what? Find who the videographer is and subpoena them. Isn’t safety investigation the FAA’s job?

Cyrano4747 posted:

I know nothing of the specifics, so this is just the basest of conjecture, but the whole thing smells a lot to me of a under-funded, over-committed agency trying to put resources where they'll do the best. This guy is probably just going to kill himself and whoever is dumb enough to get in an airplane with him. Meanwhile, if they investigate it that's investigators who are chasing after him rather than looking for the hosed poo poo that could drop an airliner. There are plenty of dumb little regional airlines who catch poo poo from the FAA for unsafe bullshit. Google around about Spirit Airlines for a good example. The last biggie I heard of is they had engine parts rain down on part of Detroit. Not everything they have to deal with is that extreme, but there's a lot of ongoing investigations of dumb poo poo.

Kind of like how the IRS doesn't even bother investigating tax fraud if it's below a certain threshold.

Cyrano4747 posted:

Kind of like how the IRS doesn't even bother investigating tax fraud if it's below a certain threshold.

ekuNNN posted:

From that document, in one of many injury reports:

It already happened before a couple of times and they covered it up and continued operating the ride, and they still didn't get convicted for anything apparently.
That's some nice functioning legal system you guys have over there

Green Intern posted:

Platystemon posted:

Thanks. I knew there were exceptions in the rules of evidence large enough to drive a (Swift) truck through and that that probably fell under one of them.

It’s weird for the FAA to falsely hide behind the rules of evidence. Maybe they’re envisioning someone other than the pilot as the videographer, but so what? Find who the videographer is and subpoena them. Isn’t safety investigation the FAA’s job?

quote:

First, FAA inspectors are being reminded they have "no authority to direct or suggest" that a flying video you posted on the Internet be removed, according to the new policy. It's your First Amendment right to upload any video you want. Safety inspectors are also being reminded by top agency brass that a video alone is "ordinarily not sufficient evidence" to determine whether any FARs have been broken. A video purporting to show something legally questionable must also be "authenticated" by the FAA inspector before any enforcement action is taken.

The FAA crafted the policy after one of its safety inspectors sent a threatening letter to the owner of a remote-control quadracopter who filmed beachgoers from on high in Florida a few months back. There was nothing particularly dangerous about the flight or the filming, but because the UAV owner posted the video to YouTube, and because YouTube is a for-profit website that shows ads and gives uploaders a few pennies or dollars for their trouble, the flight had crossed the line into a "commercial operation," this inspector warned.

quote:

In all cases, the FAA must have acceptable evidence in support of all alleged facts
in order to take legal enforcement action. Inspectors are reminded that:

Electronic media posted on the Internet is only one form of evidence which may be used
to support an enforcement action and it must be authenticated;

Electronic media posted on the Internet is ordinarily not sufficient evidence alone to
determine that an operation is not in compliance with 14 CFR; however, electronic media
may serve as evidence of possible violations and may be retained for future enforcement
action; and

Inspectors have no authority to direct or suggest that electronic media posted on the
Internet must be removed.

Green Intern posted:

Smiling Jack posted:

Video evidence is weird. You almost always either need an admission "yeah that's me in the video", a witness "yes, I was there and I did a formal, court-approved identification procedure and that's him in the video" or absolutely picture-perfect quality where a jury is sure that's the defendant in the video and other independent evidence that the act took place.

Green Intern posted:

Pepperoneedy posted:

Who needs lockout/tagout for high-voltage electrical work when you have piece of cardboard taped over switch?

MisterOblivious posted:

lockout-tagout locks are the weakest loving locks you can buy

MisterOblivious posted:

It never ceases to give me a giggle that lockout-tagout locks are the weakest loving locks you can buy, with bodies made of plastic, but they're super challenging to pick. You can just bash them off with a hammer, but if you try and pick them you have to be a moderately skilled lock-picker with a bunch of specialized tools and dozens of hours of experience.

quote:

The security pins are there to prevent claims that a LOTO lock was picked open either during or after an accident, which is a claim that could be made to shift fault for an accident from a negligent technician to the company. Likewise most LOTO locks use ball-bearing lockup to avoid claims of shimming the lock.

It's all about avoiding lawsuits and false claims.

Cyrano4747 posted:

...
Google around about Spirit Airlines for a good example. The last biggie I heard of is they had engine parts rain down on part of Detroit. Not everything they have to deal with is that extreme, but there's a lot of ongoing investigations of dumb poo poo.

Green Intern posted:

quote:

The meat processing industry has been utilising a range of gloves for personal protection for many years. Several reports have examined the suitability of the gloves specifically highlighting some of the negative elements of the chain mail version1. Traditionally the gloves have been used during the boning process and have been very effective in protecting the users across a range of processes. With the continuing modernisation of factories an increase in the number of high powered band saws has resulted, and as such an examination of the suitability of this glove style for this specific processing role (band saw operations) is required.

Opinions on the suitability of existing chain mail gloves for band saw operation vary greatly from state to state, and in fact from factory to factory. Although the recognition of the risks associated with band saw use is generally universal2, the acceptance of the chain mail gloves as a suitable form of protection is not. For example; NSW Work Cover meat processing guidelines do not encourage the use of the gloves3; however in in the processing plant visited during the project orientation it is mandatory to wear the glove during band saw operations. Acknowledging that the majority of personal opinions is heavily polarised towards the negative, suggesting the wearing of a glove of any type is definitely not suitable and inherently unsafe, operators in the visited processing plant are persisting with the glove with seemingly positive results. Interviews conducted during the project orientation suggest injury rates are continuing to improve. The positive nature of these results however is complicated by the fact that gloves are not the only form of personal protection and factories have continually improved OH&S procedures in order to reduce the risks of injury to band saw operators4. The improvements have been aimed at addressing factors such as operator fatigue, inexperience, and low concentration levels which also contribute to the likelihood of an operator receiving a band saw blade injury. Processing plants now consider safety to have many levels but ultimately in the event of an accident where the wearer is using a chain mail glove, management at the visited plant view the stainless steel chain mail glove as a valuable last line of defence.

Icon Of Sin posted:

Didn’t give a poo poo about my mom’s fingernail, that’s for drat sure