Oregon RV-10 Accident Leads to $35-Million Lawsuit

[BillL]

Originally Posted by az_gila

I must admit to never looking closely at my FloScan transducer.

But my surprise from the pictures is that we use 3/8 tubing for all of our fuel lines and yet the fuel gets passed though a hole that is less than 1/8 inch diameter in the FloScan.

I do like the idea of more detailed instructions, but it seems to me that it might be opening any authors up for liability too using the process in this law suit.

Yes, Gil, I was surprised as well. It is the same (diameter) on the red cube. I was inspecting it to see how smoothly the fuel flow would be coming into it to understand sensitivity. Not only is it small, it is sharp edged, and a large diameter gap from the transition of the inlet tube - NPT OD, then down to the 1/8" (or so). From this, I would be surprised if the inlet bends would affect the flow reading.

Fuel lube is plain old silicone. (one is urged to verify yourself)

BTW - permatex #2 and #3 are cleanable with isopropyl (rubbing) alcohol. (Cheaper than MEK )

EDIT: Section 5 states "Perm#2 and TiteSeal for fuel sealants" It does not say what not to use, like RTV, Reclaimed Dauber mud, etc.

[ijustwannafly]

Question

Since we are talking about liability

What happens when you sell a used RV?
Your the manufacturer

So you sell your plane and does that mean you are forever liable if that plane crashes?

If so I don't see how anyone would want to build anymore if you can never sell your plane without carrying millions of dollars of insurance like a manufacture has to.

[az_gila]

Originally Posted by ijustwannafly

Question

Since we are talking about liability

What happens when you sell a used RV?
Your the manufacturer

So you sell your plane and does that mean you are forever liable if that plane crashes?

If so I don't see how anyone would want to build anymore if you can never sell your plane without carrying millions of dollars of insurance like a manufacture has to.

Maybe OK after 18 years...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genera...talization_Act

[ijustwannafly]

Originally Posted by az_gila

Maybe OK after 18 years...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genera...talization_Act

Might see my project for sale then in the classified

Not sure I need to loose my life and home 20 years down the road if I sell the plane. This is just total lunacy. It's not something I considered until today.

So now not only is building one of these things insanely expensive but it's not worth on average half of what you paid to build when you sell only to be held liable for the rest of your days if some ding bat puts a smoking hole in the ground because of something they did or didn't do.

Anyone looking for a 7 kit?

Sorry sort of off topic but relevant to the conversion

[DaleB]

Originally Posted by RVDan

The attorneys have an incorrect citation. It should be 23.955. The scary part is that they are inferring that kit built aircraft should meet the part 23 regulations.
This seems disputable on so many levels.

It depends on your point of view, I suppose. WE understand fully that Experimental planes are just that. Taking the RV-10 as an example, I suppose it's true that we E/AB types consider an RV-10 to be superior in most ways to, say, a 40 year old 182. And some of them, maybe even most of them, are. But there's no guarantee that any ONE specific RV-10 is safe. The builder/pilot has control over that, whereas with a certified airplane you know (let's assume we have set aside reality for now, we're talking about lawyers and juries) that the airplane was built to a known standard and has been religiously maintained by highly trained professionals.

The point the plaintffs' attorney seems to want to make here is that experimental aircraft should not be permitted to exist, or at least that experimental kit manufacturers should not be allowed to exist. From their point of view, whatever we may think f it, an experimental aircraft should probably be flown only by professional test pilots. We mere amateurs should certainly not be allowed to endanger unsuspecting passengers, and probably shouldn't be flying at all. We have to be protected from ourselves.

I can understand the logic. I disagree, and I'm sure the rest of us do as well, but experimental aviation is not the only area that comes under attacks like this. There are people who believe we need to be protected from all possible sources of "danger", and the only way to do so is to regulate and/or sue all possible sources of the "danger" out of existence.

[RV7A Flyer]

Originally Posted by Auburntsts

That's because the little girl was the pilot's granddaughter.

Ah, now it makes even *more* sense.

Nearly every time I've personally known a pilot who got killed in an airplane, the family NEVER admitted that it might be the pilot's own fault. No way, he was TOO GOOD of a pilot, he was VERY CAREFUL, he had LOTS OF EXPERIENCE, blah blah blah.

Families just can't bring themselves to admit that *maybe* their loved one screwed up or made a mistake or even was just not that great a pilot. So they have to find something else to blame.

I've seen it time and again...and it usually results in a lawsuit against the FBO, the manufacturer, the fuel supplier, a parts vendor...SOMEBODY has to have been at fault, and it just *can't be their dearly departed loved one*.

[Bill Boyd]

Originally Posted by DaleB

It depends on your point of view, I suppose. WE understand fully that Experimental planes are just that. Taking the RV-10 as an example, I suppose it's true that we E/AB types consider an RV-10 to be superior in most ways to, say, a 40 year old 182. And some of them, maybe even most of them, are. But there's no guarantee that any ONE specific RV-10 is safe. The builder/pilot has control over that, whereas with a certified airplane you know (let's assume we have set aside reality for now, we're talking about lawyers and juries) that the airplane was built to a known standard and has been religiously maintained by highly trained professionals.

The point the plaintffs' attorney seems to want to make here is that experimental aircraft should not be permitted to exist, or at least that experimental kit manufacturers should not be allowed to exist. From their point of view, whatever we may think f it, an experimental aircraft should probably be flown only by professional test pilots. We mere amateurs should certainly not be allowed to endanger unsuspecting passengers, and probably shouldn't be flying at all. We have to be protected from ourselves.

I can understand the logic. I disagree, and I'm sure the rest of us do as well, but experimental aviation is not the only area that comes under attacks like this. There are people who believe we need to be protected from all possible sources of "danger", and the only way to do so is to regulate and/or sue all possible sources of the "danger" out of existence.

This has nothing to do with protecting anyone form danger. It is a cash-grab; let's not dignify it by calling it less than what it is. There may be a handful of winners in this victim lotto, but there will be multiplied losers everywhere you look.

-Stormy

[RV7A Flyer]

Originally Posted by DaleB

The point the plaintffs' attorney seems to want to make here is that experimental aircraft should not be permitted to exist, or at least that experimental kit manufacturers should not be allowed to exist. ...There are people who believe we need to be protected from all possible sources of "danger", and the only way to do so is to regulate and/or sue all possible sources of the "danger" out of existence.

Don't read too much into that verbiage in the pleading. That's an attorney pumping up his case to make the airplanes sold by Van's and the accessories sold by others out to be as dangerous and unairworthy as possible. I doubt the attorney cares one way or the other about EAB aircraft, and in fact, if EABs went away, it would be one less way for him to make money.

The problem is the attempt to hold the kit supplier and the parts supplier liable for the error of the *builder*.

I doubt the FARs on EABs will change in any way because of any particular civil lawsuit/money grab.

[Mel]

Originally Posted by ijustwannafly

Might see my project for sale then in the classified
Not sure I need to loose my life and home 20 years down the road if I sell the plane. This is just total lunacy. It's not something I considered until today.
So now not only is building one of these things insanely expensive but it's not worth on average half of what you paid to build when you sell only to be held liable for the rest of your days if some ding bat puts a smoking hole in the ground because of something they did or didn't do.
Anyone looking for a 7 kit?
Sorry sort of off topic but relevant to the conversion

It might be worth mentioning here that to my knowledge, no builder has ever been successfully sued over an amateur-built aircraft accident.
I know of a few attempts, but none were ever successful.
On the other hand, if you are concerned, maybe you should not sell your aircraft.

[tjo]

Originally Posted by Bill Boyd

This has nothing to do with protecting anyone form danger. It is a cash-grab; let's not dignify it by calling it less than what it is. There may be a handful of winners in this victim lotto, but there will be multiplied losers everywhere you look.

-Stormy

Amen, brutha!

And in the end, I don't believe there are any winners, but that's just my opinion.

Tim