lewy - I've long been an advocate of having "technical juries" - i.e. a small panel of experts who know what they (or you in the dock) are talking about. More a tribunal than a court case. Juries are supposed to be made up of your peers. I suggest you wouldn't find too many with a pilot's licence.
Many juries have convicted people wrongly in the face of common sense because they want to believe the authorities rather than the facts (wanting to get home quicker probably has a lot to do with it). As an example, you or I would appreciate that the h/v curve is normally advisory and not validated for approaches anyway, but if you land badly in a hotel and some lawyer persuades them them otherwise...........
"to inquire into matters of fact ". Juries don't inquire, except perhaps a Grand Jury. And they are very often not presented with exonerating facts either.
Your definition is OK for law college but not for the real world. Mine may be a little cynical and facetious, but I suspect it's much closer to the truth, with all due respect to the people who genuinely wish to do their civic duty. The essential point is that you will have to explain your actions and decisions to people who simply may not understand, so fly accordingly (Sasless has it right). I'm sure an expert witness or two out there will have something to add.
"Failing to update the navigation system"? Where's the law that says you have to use it?
phil
Last edited by paco; 21st February 2012 at 17:59.