What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread Drift - Tort Reform

I lived in the UK for over 3 years and in the Netherlands for 4. They do not have near the number of lawsuits for one reason. If you sue and lose, you have to pay all the costs of the person you sued plus court costs.

That forces someone to make sure there is a real case before suing or risk making themselves bankrupt.

Of course this will never happen here since so many lawyers make too much money from the lawsuit culture we have developed in the US.
 
DaleB said:
Oh, no. A lot of attorneys will make a lot of money on this. Everyone else gets screwed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but I bet they have a hard time living with themselves. They make sure that it all looks good on the outside though.

Tim
 
Lawsuits

The late John Thorp allegedly was sued three times regarding T18 and was successful in defending all three times. Story at the time was the T18 builders donated the funds for the defense.
Aircraft Spruce and Specialty owns the rights and sells planes for numerous older designs. Apparently they are not very concerned about liability.
 
tjo said:
Yeah, but I bet they have a hard time living with themselves. They make sure that it all looks good on the outside though.
Click to expand...
Nah. If you talk to these guys, they're True Believers. They wouldn't do this for a living if they hadn't already convinced themselves of the "value" of what they do. A lot of them would still be totally in love with themselves no matter what they did.
 
az_gila said:
Mel,
This one was sort of successful, living in West LA at the time I remember the accident and lawsuit.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1097158.html
The insurance company would not pay out because of a fuel system modification and lack of returning to Phase I testing.
I presume the pilot was then held responsible for the garage he destroyed and the DWP power lines.
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/GeneratePDF.aspx?id=LAX95LA180&rpt=fa
Click to expand...

Not sure why you "presume" that the pilot was successfully sued.
The insurance company denied the claim because the first time the aircraft was modified and not re-certificated, the airworthiness certificate became invalid. After that the aircraft could not be legally flown at all, thereby making the insurance invalid.

And I will repeat, if anyone is concerned about this, it would be best to not sell an amateur-built aircraft.
 
Mel said:
Not sure why you "presume" that the pilot was successfully sued.
The insurance company denied the claim because the first time the aircraft was modified and not re-certificated, the airworthiness certificate became invalid. After that the aircraft could not be legally flown at all, thereby making the insurance invalid.

And I will repeat, if anyone is concerned about this, it would be best to not sell an amateur-built aircraft.
Click to expand...

I think if your not concerned about this to some extent you are foolish.

There are not many people i know that start an RV build with the intent of NEVER selling the plane. Matter o fact i know several people that just enjoy building and not flying. So they build planes and sell them almost immediately.

If the builders livelihood is on the hook for say FOREVER that is something vans needs to start making new builders aware of. Obviously they are not going to do this unless one law states that they have to. After hearing that I can never potentially sell my airplane without a high risk of loosing my home someday I'm not sure i would start a build again to be 100% honest. I just don't have the resources to fight a major lawsuit and i can tell you that sometimes life circumstances change. Not everyone can afford to never sell there airplane. What happens if you have a major medical emergency in the family. Your all of a sudden hit with 250K in medical bills that insurance won't pay or some other unforeseen event.
I know tons of builders including myself that spend months deciding to take on the project. Calculating this and that. Finances, shop space tools etc
Spread sheets after spread sheets.

You never hear of builders considering that they can never sell the plane they build. Its just never really been discussed at length to my understanding.

Maybe something some of us should of factored in initially before deciding to build. Myself highly included
 
Keystrokes are forever....

Just a reminder that every keystroke that is typed in here is available to both sides of the legal system.

Me? I'm shutting up.

v/r,
dr
 
Wow, I've been out of town for a few days and didn't check VAF forums much, and today I check in and this thread is very active. Not much to add here, but I am interested in the different viewpoints. Also, very sad deal for the pilot's family, regardless of how the legal matters are settled.
 
Among the tragedies of this tragedy is the pilot didn't listen to an A&P who saw him engaging in the incorrect and dangerous practice and did it anyway.

In learning how to build airplanes, we have to listen to the people who know more than us, and we have to be better at determining who those people are.

Also a useful talent when trying to read about a lawsuit. :*)
 
Last edited:
As another general point about lawsuits and insurance, having insurance does somewhat protect you, but having insurance also invites lawsuits because insurance companies like to settle quickly, and they have deep pockets. A small company with shallow pockets and no insurance is much less likely to be sued because the lawyers know there is not much available.
 
Since we are talking about liability

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

The defendants were sued for products liability. AND sued Vans for "negligence" in regular tort.

Elements of Negligence
Duty (do you have a duty to someone you never sold anything to, like the passengers?)
Breach of Duty
Causation (your negligence caused the damage)
and Damages.

Interesting point.

Elements of strict lliability in tort (also called products liability)

The manufacturer sold the product in the course of its business.
The product was sold in a defective condition that was unreasonably dangerous when the product was put to a reasonably anticipated use.
The defective product was used in a manner reasonably anticipated.
The consumer was damaged as a direct result of the defective condition that existed when the product was sold.

So, in my non-opinion, the maker of the Vans, selling to someone else, and 2nd owner then does those modifications then there is no "causation" between anything the maker (you) did that caused the death of the new owner.

If you do any modification then you best disclose, disclose, disclose and get the buyer to sign that you told him everything and told him that he must hire a qualified a and p faa certified expert to determine airworthiness.

Sticky stuff you bring up.
 
RVDan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually I think they were trying to cite 23.1337 (c) "Fuel flowmeter system. If a fuel flowmeter system is installed, each metering component must have a means to by-pass the fuel supply if malfunctioning of that component severely restricts fuel flow."

Still doesn't apply to experimentals.
 
I really don't understand where all this surprise comes from.

When you register your amateur-built aircraft, you list yourself as "The Builder"! Who else did you think would be liable?
The kit manufacturer has no control over how you build the aircraft.
The DAR/FAA Inspector only certifies that the aircraft meets amateur-built regulations.

You, the builder, are the one certifying that the aircraft is "in a condition for safe operation."
 
Last edited:
Jerry Cochran said:
....religious and since I live close by I just pray I can be on that jury if there even is one...
Click to expand...

That public statement would be more than enough to ensure you never will. Of course during voir dire , you would almost certainly be asked if you know anything about aviation, and be disqualified. Knowing anything about or having any sort of experience with the subject matter of a case is generally enough to have at least one of the attorneys reject you. They really don't want anyone who could question their logic or perhaps introduce real world information into a jury deliberation.
 
From the FloScan page

History of FloScan Aircraft Flow Transducers

In 1972, Aerosonics, (a leading U.S. avionics manufacturer at the time) began testing the Series 200 flow transducers to determine its suitability for use in general aviation aircraft. Prior to that time there had not been a generally acceptable transducer for this application. The company required a fuel flow transducer which would withstand the vibration of an aircraft engine. It also had to meet the important FAA regulation regarding blocked rotor pressure drop which could not be more than 1.5 times the spinning rotor pressure drop. Our design far surpassed the test requirement since a blocked rotor does not change the pressure drop of a FloScan flow transducer.

A blocked rotor in the sentence may mean a stopped rotor and blocked passage. If the FloScan doesn't have an internal bypass and these are used on certified aircraft, is an external bypass installed with a check valve per FAR 23.1337 (c)? Does anyone know?
 
Flying again! said:
I lived in the UK for over 3 years and in the Netherlands for 4. They do not have near the number of lawsuits for one reason. If you sue and lose, you have to pay all the costs of the person you sued plus court costs.

That forces someone to make sure there is a real case before suing or risk making themselves bankrupt.

Of course this will never happen here since so many lawyers make too much money from the lawsuit culture we have developed in the US.[/QUOTE

I agree with the above! We need Tort Reform! Trouble is, lawyers write the laws!
Click to expand...
 
Pmerems said:
History of FloScan Aircraft Flow Transducers

In 1972, Aerosonics, (a leading U.S. avionics manufacturer at the time) began testing the Series 200 flow transducers to determine its suitability for use in general aviation aircraft. Prior to that time there had not been a generally acceptable transducer for this application. The company required a fuel flow transducer which would withstand the vibration of an aircraft engine. It also had to meet the important FAA regulation regarding blocked rotor pressure drop which could not be more than 1.5 times the spinning rotor pressure drop. Our design far surpassed the test requirement since a blocked rotor does not change the pressure drop of a FloScan flow transducer.

A blocked rotor in the sentence may mean a stopped rotor and blocked passage. If the FloScan doesn't have an internal bypass and these are used on certified aircraft, is an external bypass installed with a check valve per FAR 23.1337 (c)? Does anyone know?
Click to expand...

I'm having trouble making some of these things line up...seems to me, from the NTSB report, the fuel was blocked from *ever getting INTO the transducer to block the rotor/impeller in the first place* (looked to me like the big hunk of RTV blocked the inlet hole in the machined portion of the transducer where the AN fitting went).

In other words, the transducer was just the point at which the fuel system got blocked. It could have been blocked anywhere if that's what he was using for "sealant". It wouldn't matter what transducer was there, and whether it had an *internal* bypass or not, would it?

What I consider more important is that pilot *failed to land under control*...he stalled it:

"The airplane felt like it stopped and the warning came on that the airplane was slow started going off and the screens flickering on and off. The pilot tried to pull up and spiraled down harder to the ground." (NTSB files, statement of female passenger)

Unfortunately, the NTSB report will not be admissible as evidence.
 
BTW, here are the NTSB's list of Probable Causes:

Aircraft-Aircraft systems-Fuel system-(general)-Incorrect service/maintenance - C
Personnel issues-Task performance-Maintenance-Installation-Owner/builder - C
Personnel issues-Task performance-Use of equip/info-Aircraft control-Pilot - C
Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Performance/control parameters-Airspeed-Not attained/maintained - C
Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Performance/control parameters-Angle of attack-Not attained/maintained - C
Findings Legend: (C) = Cause, (F) = Factor

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
A total loss of engine power due to fuel starvation because of a blocked fuel line that resulted from the pilot’s improper maintenance
practices and the pilot’s subsequent failure to maintain adequate airspeed while attempting a forced landing, which led to the airplane
exceeding its critical angle-of-attack and experiencing an aerodynamic stall.

I don't see anything that points to Van's or Floscan in there, do you? Not that it makes any difference whatsoever to the people filing the suit...
 
epaslick said:
Actually I think they were trying to cite 23.1337 (c) "Fuel flowmeter system. If a fuel flowmeter system is installed, each metering component must have a means to by-pass the fuel supply if malfunctioning of that component severely restricts fuel flow."

Still doesn't apply to experimentals.
Click to expand...

It appears that for the installed flow meter almost the same requirement is in 23.955. Generally what both rules are about though is meeting the flow requirements with a locked rotor condition, a reasonably anticipated condition. The flowscan transducer is used in many certified applications. The rules assume that the sensor rotor has failed and stops rotating (blocked). Early transducers could create excessive pressure drops in that condition. I know when certifiyng flow transmitters, that is how the rules are applied at least for any of the STC's I've worked. We actually modify a transducer to lock up the rotor by gluing the bearings to lock the rotor and run the pressure drop test. I don't think system contamination from large chunks of stuff were what either of these rules are about.

The bypass discussed in the rules is a bypass around the turbine or paddle wheel that creates the signal in the transducer. The flowscan sensor uses a wheel that does not significantly obstruct flow and allows fuel to bypass around the locked rotor of the transducer. Some other sensors do a similar thing when necessary with a bypass internal to the sensor, not actually a line around the sensor. Ref AC23-16A
 
Jordan1976 said:
Please don't use the McDonalds suit as examples of extreme tort cases. The woman was in a car that was parked, wasn't in the driver's seat, and literally almost died from the burns. This would have been somewhat excusable, except McDonalds had thousands of reports of the same issue.

She originally asked McDonalds to cover her $20,000 medical costs. When they treated her badly, she then filed a lawsuit. The final verdict was $649,000, or about 10 hours of coffee sales by McDonalds. Hardly "big money". Also, $200K was the actual damages, but $480,000 was "punitive" because McDonalds was aware of the issue.

There's a great movie on this called Hot Coffee. It's far from black and white.
Click to expand...

It's worse than that. The McDonald's people got on the stand and proceeded to repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot with a 12-gauge, arguing that people buying their coffee weren't intending to drink it immediately but instead were getting it to consume later (yeah, right; we all know better). They used the words "unfit for consumption" multiple times in reference to their coffee, because the temperature was significantly higher than that of other restaurants and caused 3rd degree burns in a couple seconds. And they argued that they knew of hundreds of incidents of people receiving 3rd degree burns from the coffee, but they weren't concerned, because the number was too small to worry about.

In saying all this, they ticked off the jury by managing to come across as completely callous... umm... body cavities. That's why the jury initially awarded her millions in punitive damages.
 
Mel said:
I really don't understand where all this surprise comes from.

When you register your amateur-built aircraft, you list yourself as "The Builder"! Who else did you think would be liable?
The kit manufacturer has no control over how you build the aircraft.
The DAR/FAA Inspector only certifies that the aircraft meets amateur-built regulations.

You, the builder, are the one certifying that the aircraft is "in a condition for safe operation."
Click to expand...

Why is anyone liable at all?

How about a thing called due diligence. You buy a used airplane. Its your responsibility before you fly the thing to make sure its air worthy.
Just like the FAA says, primary responsibility lies with the PIC

Now here is the only thing that might save you. You don't have the repair man cert for that plane that you bought used. So for things like annuals you must pay an A and P with inspection authority

If the plane goes done after for something say fuel related of say a rod end nut falls off i would think the A and P would be liable or the shop he works for etc.

What kind of liability does an A and P have exactly?
Asking a serious question because I've never had any experience with one.


Liability is everyone i agree. You get in your car and drive down the road and get in an accident you are liable. Thats why we have insurance.
However you can't get insurance for building an rv7 and selling it lsat i checked.

Hypotetically speaking
What happens when a guy buys a say an andair fuel valve of the classified of a hypothetical website. A month later the plane crashes and its found to be the fuel valve.
Is someone going to sue the guy that sold the used fuel valve or worse.... sue the hypothetical site that it was listed on under the classifieds.........
 
Last edited:
ijustwannafly said:
You never hear of builders considering that they can never sell the plane they build. Its just never really been discussed at length to my understanding.

Maybe something some of us should of factored in initially before deciding to build. Myself highly included
Click to expand...

Now you've heard of one. In all honesty I have not made a decision and probably won't until the day comes when I can no longer safely fly. But taking a chain saw to the -10 and hauling it away to the dump is a very real option.
 
ijustwannafly said:
Why is anyone liable at all?

How about a thing called due diligence. You buy a used airplane. Its your responsibility before you fly the thing to make sure its air worthy.
Just like the FAA says, primary responsibility lies with the PIC

Now here is the only thing that might save you. You don't have the repair man cert for that plane that you bought used. So for things like annuals you must pay an A and P with inspection authority

If the plane goes done after for something say fuel related of say a rod end nut falls off i would think the A and P would be liable or the shop he works for etc.

What kind of liability does an A and P have exactly?
Asking a serious question because I've never had any experience with one.


Liability is everyone i agree. You get in your car and drive down the road and get in an accident you are liable. Thats why we have insurance.
However you can't get insurance for building an rv7 and selling it lsat i checked.

Hypotetically speaking
What happens when a guy buys a say an andair fuel valve of the classified of a hypothetical website. A month later the plane crashes and its found to be the fuel valve.
Is someone going to sue the guy that sold the used fuel valve or worse.... sue the hypothetical site that it was listed on under the classifieds.........
Click to expand...

No individual can afford $30 million in liability coverage.
Most small shops and A&Ps have few real assets ('real' to a lawyer means a half million or more) so lawyers leave them alone (note the builder is apparently not a defendant in this suit) or, if sued, they just declare bankruptcy and move on.

I do know of a number of highly qualified pilots who have not obtained a CFI certificate solely due to liability concerns (unlile most CFIs they had substantial assets, and their personal lawyers told them that no way they should instruct.)
 
One of the first things I talk about in my public forums and presentations is:
If you want to build an airplane, then build an airplane!
If you want an airplane, buy an airplane.

Everyone is not cut out to be a builder and there's nothing wrong with that.

If the liability of selling your homebuilt bothers you that much, maybe you should consider buying one.
 
Back in the day, when Rutan Aircraft Factory was in business, they always had 2-3 lawsuits at any point in time that Burt had to fight. He fought all of them and never lost. He closed RAF because he got tired always fighting these **** suits and the resources it diverted. Point is, he never lost.

This builder was just plain stupid thinking you can build an airplane like you might build a house. I know a person who knew the builder and he said the builder made many "short cuts" and "cheaped out" where ever he could. It sounded to me like the plane was an accident waiting to happen. Trouble is, there are those out there who just don't respect the need to be diligent in their builds and maintenance. This guy was clearly a post child for this.
 
ijustwannafly said:
I think if your not concerned about this to some extent you are foolish.

There are not many people i know that start an RV build with the intent of NEVER selling the plane. Matter o fact i know several people that just enjoy building and not flying. So they build planes and sell them almost immediately.

If the builders livelihood is on the hook for say FOREVER that is something vans needs to start making new builders aware of. Obviously they are not going to do this unless one law states that they have to. After hearing that I can never potentially sell my airplane without a high risk of loosing my home someday I'm not sure i would start a build again to be 100% honest. I just don't have the resources to fight a major lawsuit and i can tell you that sometimes life circumstances change. Not everyone can afford to never sell there airplane. What happens if you have a major medical emergency in the family. Your all of a sudden hit with 250K in medical bills that insurance won't pay or some other unforeseen event.
I know tons of builders including myself that spend months deciding to take on the project. Calculating this and that. Finances, shop space tools etc
Spread sheets after spread sheets.

You never hear of builders considering that they can never sell the plane they build. Its just never really been discussed at length to my understanding.

Maybe something some of us should of factored in initially before deciding to build. Myself highly included
Click to expand...

It's always a good idea to check out the EAA web site before building an airplane and if you do you will find a good Sport Aviation article from 2000:

http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-...r-homebuilders-buying-and-selling-a-homebuilt

So I don't think you can claim the info isn't out there.

Oliver
 
Lawsuit Weak on Substance

As has been previously mentioned, precedents for these types of lawsuits are overwhelmingly NOT in the Plaintiff’s favor.

Regarding the claims made in this lawsuit, let’s not get our collective panties in a knot just yet. As is the norm, Plaintiff’s attorney has made numerous “assertions” in the complaint. Assertions are merely claims, not facts, and in this case after reading the complaint I find the claims to be long on hyperbole and short on substance – i.e., extremely difficult to prove.

For example, the claim is made that companies (like Van’s) have “…exploited the technicalities of the FAA’s 51% regulation…” and “…mass-produced dangerous and untested experiments…” The problem with this claim is that the FAA did in fact test the RV-10 kit and found that it WAS in compliance with the 51% rule.

In another claim they state “…In this manner, the "builder," by assembling the aircraft, qualifies for the FAA's "experimental" category, and is granted permission to fly the aircraft without the kit manufacturer or the builder completing the extensive testing and engineering analysis required to demonstrate the aircraft's compliance with the FAA's minimum safety standards for certified aircraft…” Again, current law does NOT require either the kit manufacturer or the builder to do the same testing and engineering analysis required for certified aircraft.

Subsequent claims articulate equally spurious assertions.

Unfortunately, we live in the most litigious society on the planet. Anyone with “standing” can file a lawsuit and claim just about anything. And too often, the truth is a long lost spectator in these matters. But thankfully, making claims and PROVING them are two different things.

Yes, Vans will have to spend some money to defend in this action. Businesses get sued all the time, and a company like Vans will have liability insurance for such situations. Moreover, liability insurance carriers typically take on the bulk of defense costs in litigation. Vans may even settle for some highly-discounted figure. But from what I’m reading in this complaint, I wouldn’t be too concerned about Plaintiff prevailing and Vans being forced out of business.
 
Last edited:
spatsch said:
It's always a good idea to check out the EAA web site before building an airplane and if you do you will find a good Sport Aviation article from 2000:

http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-...r-homebuilders-buying-and-selling-a-homebuilt

So I don't think you can claim the info isn't out there.

Oliver
Click to expand...

I never said it didn't exist. I openly admitted that I never thought of the subject. Please excuse me for not reading an article that was printed 15 years prior to me purchasing an airplane kit. Please excuse me as a new builder for not factoring that in my numerous other calculations I was making. Honesty never goes without punishment.

I should be shunned and raked over the coals apparently.
Also I find it interesting that out of everyone commenting Im the only one on the planet that is concerned with selling his airplane down the road. I guess im in the company of a bunch of millionaires that don't have to worry about such things.
Funny everyone is so quick to tell me that I "guess im not a builder" or im crazy because I didn't think about this before hand but no one focused (except for one post) what the topic of conversation really was.

so ill say it again.
If you sell it, the buyer doesn't have the repair man cert
AKA you are now stuck with having it inspected. IMHO which apparently means **** the liability is now on the A and P who inspects the airplane annualy? That was a question not a statement.

Topic 2

What happens when you hypothetically buy a used part on a forum and it kills you. Your going to tell me that your liable for the rest of your life because you sold a $300 fuel selector on a forum 20 years ago?

Those were the two discussions I was interested in. Not being crucified and questioned as to me being a builder or a buyer. Apparently a builder can not be concerned about being sued. somewhere in the builders handbook there must be a list of attributes that I missed. One of them must say YOU CAN NOT FEAR FOR THE LIVLIHOOD OF YOUR FAMILY

I guess I missed that checkbox


Ill make no further comments on this thread. Its a tragedy and I'm sorry for the loss of life.
 
WhiskeyMike said:
Unfortunately, we live in the most litigious society on the planet. Anyone with ?standing? can file a lawsuit and claim just about anything. And too often, the truth is a long lost spectator in these matters. But thankfully, making claims and PROVING them are two different things.

Yes, Vans will have to spend some money to defend in this action. Businesses get sued all the time, and a company like Vans will have liability insurance for such situations. Moreover, liability insurance carriers typically take on the bulk of defense costs in litigation. Vans may even settle for some highly-discounted figure. But from what I?m reading in this complaint, I wouldn?t be too concerned about Plaintiff prevailing and Vans being forced out of business.
Click to expand...

And the Floscan guys, too.

Sure they have insurance, and for all we know, Van's has been sued numerous times. What chaps my hide is that even though the insurance companies settle out of court (the most likely course of action here), they're not going to lose money. They'll up their rates to Van's and the other manufacturers the cover, who will then pass it on to...you guessed it...us.

And all because somebody can't accept that their god-like pilot/builder didn't do the right things. In their minds, it HAS to be the fault of the plane/engine/fuel/equipment/avionics/ATC/other guy...
 
Is there a reason I would not want to just form a corporation to own and build my plane? I am just an employee and not liable that way. If the only asset was the plane, what is the risk?
 
On a certified a/c the A&P is responsible only for work he performs (at the time he completes it). When he signs a condition inspection on an experimental he is on the hook for "condition for safe flight". But, tomorrow morning the "owner/operator" is now responsible. Also, I'm with Mel on this. If you want something enough, you should forge through and a liability fight may be part of your dues. Somebody's gotta pay dues.
 
rockwoodrv9 said:
Is there a reason I would not want to just form a corporation to own and build my plane? I am just an employee and not liable that way. If the only asset was the plane, what is the risk?
Click to expand...

Many people do this. I run across it almost every day.
I have talked with several attorneys and they all say the same thing.
"It really doesn't give you relief from liability because essentially, you are the corporation."
To my knowledge, it not been tested under these parameters.
 
Well, this thread didn't go at all where I had hoped it might. Thanks to all who responded, especially with regard to identifying and fixing safety issues.

Probably my least favorite term in the world is "pilot error." I'm beginning to think "builder error" might be a close second. It don't think it does any good to assign blame to any individual or organization after an accident, because it doesn't help us prevent these incidents from happening again. Maybe that's how the legal system is supposed to work, but as many have mentioned, all that really happens is insurance rates go up and more restrictive laws get passed.

Does that mean I think pilots and builders shouldn't be held accountable for their actions or inactions? Just the opposite. Personal aviation is one of the few activities left in this country where the individuals involved are aware of the risks, and accept responsibility for the safe outcome of every flight. It's hard, and the burden is heavy. That's what makes it great.

Nobody sets out to build an unairworthy plane, and nobody rolls down the runway expecting a CFIT or LOC-I event to end their day. But these things keep happening anyway, and I feel like it's up to us to do what we can to stop them, while still exercising our freedom to build and fly.


[ed. OP closed his own thread. dr]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top