What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Doug Nebert

jay.pearlman

Well Known Member
It is with great sadness that I inform you that Doug Nebert has passed away. He was a contributor to our forum as he built and tested his RV-10 which he finished in August 2010. Anyone who has seen the plane will recognize the city skyline painted across the fuselage. Last Saturday, on a flight to Seattle from his home in Oregon, his plane crashed and Doug did not survive. The reason for the crash is not known.
 
Very sorry to hear about this. I remembered his first flight in VA in 2010 and saw him at Osh 2012. Hoping his step daughter makes a quick recovery.
 
Accident occurred Saturday, May 31, 2014 in Toldeo, OR
Aircraft: NEBERT VANS RV-10, registration: N62DN
Injuries: 2 Fatal,1 Serious.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators either traveled in support of this investigation or conducted a significant amount of investigative work without any travel, and used data obtained from various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.

On May 31, 2014, about 1620 Pacific daylight time, a single-engine experimental Nebert Vans RV-10, N62DN, experienced a loss of power and departed control flight while the pilot was maneuvering for a forced landing in Toledo, Oregon. The private pilot and four-year old passenger were fatally injured; the adult passenger sustained serious injuries. The airplane was registered to and being operated by the pilot under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. The personal flight departed Newport Municipal Airport, Newport, Oregon with a planned destination of Seattle, Washington. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan had been filed.

Numerous witnesses located in Toledo reported observing the airplane flying at a low altitude from the north. The witnesses reported hearing no sound from the airplane's engine and saw it progressively descend in altitude. The airplane approached the Georgia Pacific paper mill and made a steep turn to the left. The airplane subsequently made a rapid descent and impacted terrain in a nose-low near-vertical attitude.

The surviving passenger recalled the flight although was heavily medicated during the recounting of the events that transpired. She stated that she was in the aft right seat and her daughter was buckled in a car seat positioned in the aft left seat. Luggage was strapped in the front right seat in an effort to compensate for the aft weight. The departure seemed normal and the pilot commented that the engine sounded the best ever had prior. The airplane continued the takeoff climb through some cloud wisps and ascended above a lower cloud cover, with an overcast layer above.

The passenger further stated that suddenly the engine experienced a total loss of power, which she described as the airplane stopping forward motion and there was no engine sound. An alarm sounded and shortly thereafter, all of the airplane electric system failed. She recalled observing the screen in front of the pilot flickered and then went blank. The pilot was busy pressing buttons and maneuvering levers and indicated that they were going to land at the closest airport [which was Toledo]. The airplane descended through clouds heading toward the airport. The pilot stated that they were going to make it to the airport and he was looking for a place to land. The airplane made an alert sound, which she thought indicated the airplane was moving too slow. The pilot made a left turn and tried to pull up but the airplane spiraled down harder to the ground.

The accident site was located in the paper mill adjacent to the Yaquina River in Toledo, Oregon, with the debris confined to the immediate area near the main wreckage. The closest airport to the accident was in Toledo, Oregon and was located 0.7 nm for the accident site on a heading of 192-degrees. The wreckage came to rest in a flat area which was a portion of dirt road on the perimeter of the mill. Surrounding the site were 20 ft high stacked bales of crushed cardboard boxes and a railroad track with parked train cars. Additionally, a northwest-southeast oriented 12 ft-diameter tubular conveyer was near the accident site that was about 70 feet high and 1,625 ft long.

The main wreckage, which consisted of nearly the entire airplane, was on a heading of 310 degrees. The initial point of impact consisted of a ground scar and disrupted dirt located about 25 feet and on the bearing of 220 degree from the cockpit section of the main wreckage. Embedded in the dirt were fragments of red lens and shards of paint and fiberglass, consistent with the left wing impacting first.
 
Very sad and what worries me here is that it seems that an electrical failure occured just after the engine failure. Very puzzling and very sad.
 
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...sf/2015/10/family_of_girl_4_who_perished.html

This is the only reference i found to the crash. I just saw this posted related to this crash. Vans and Floscan being sued for $35,000,000. I would think the suit has zero chance of winning, esp. in Van's home county. However, it is still time and expense instead of doing what they do best and in supporting all of us.

Does anyone know, do these get handled by an insurance company?

Van's Exploits Regulatory Loophole to Mass-Produce "Kit" Airplanes while Avoiding Critical Design, Safety, and Airworthiness Requirements.
 
Last edited:
I knew Doug and helped him move his 10 to Manassas for final assembly before he moved to Oregon. Doug ws a stand up guy but this lawsuit is total BS. I read the report and IMO he screwed up plain and simple. A tragedy but not Vans or Floscans fault.
 
The NTSB report states that the builder bought the RV10 kit in October 2009 and obtained the C of A 10 months later in August 2010.

Does anyone know how the builder was able to build this aircraft in less than 10 months.
 
The NTSB report states that the builder bought the RV10 kit in October 2009 and obtained the C of A 10 months later in August 2010.

Does anyone know how the builder was able to build this aircraft in less than 10 months.

I think that was the date of purchase for the Finish kit. I know that he was already working on his project before I started mine in the Fall of 2006.
 

Unfortunately, I believe that NTSB findings are not admissible as evidence in a court case. It seems likely that the named defendants had party status during the investigation, and will be able raise their findings for a defense.
If you are interested in the plaintiff's allegations, here is the link. http://media.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/other/experimental.crash.suit.pdf
 
sadness and concerns

I didnt remember this accident. But after reading some of the posts, and the NTSB report, all of this became very sobering. As a vendor that supplies fuel system components, its scary. WE all do our best to provide products, but we are assuming and hoping that the installs are also correct. It concerns me that a tragic accident happened, but now, a lawsuit that potentially could effect all vendors in the experimental world.
Vans will have to fight, as will Flo Scan, and others involved. In the long run, it doesnt appear to me that a vendor component was at fault, but a small series of little things led to the fuel starvation. None of us like this, but is make us wake up, take a step back, and look at things alittle differently.

Tom
 
If you are interested in the plaintiff's allegations, here is the link. http://media.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/other/experimental.crash.suit.pdf

I read the entire complaint and it is remarkable how easy a person with knowledge of the subject can rebuke every paragraph. That said, juries and judges with little or no knowledge will rule on this and there is no way to predict the outcome of this.

To us it's a frivolous suit, but to a laymen in today's society it's a way to get the government to step in and protect us from all those "uncertified" planes that keep falling from the sky and try to kill us all.
 
What galls me is this is Doug's own family suing Vans and Floscan even though I'm of the firm belief the evidence points to this accident was being purely Doug's fault. I realize this is not this first time litigation of this sort has occurred and it won't be the last, but I'm royally irritated nevertheless. I guess because of the way the suit is worded more than anything. Loophole my ***.
 
...I'm of the firm belief the evidence points to this accident was being purely Doug's fault.
Even if that's true, I'm of the firm belief that we shouldn't be slagging the dead in writing in a public forum. It does nothing to contribute to the community.

Let the evidence speak for itself, and let people can draw their own conclusions privately. Let's focus on what exactly happened that put the pilot in the unfortunate situation of an emergency landing after an engine failure, and how we can prevent that from happening again.
 
Even if that's true, I'm of the firm belief that we shouldn't be slagging the dead in writing in a public forum. It does nothing to contribute to the community.

Let the evidence speak for itself, and let people can draw their own conclusions privately. Let's focus on what exactly happened that put the pilot in the unfortunate situation of an emergency landing after an engine failure, and how we can prevent that from happening again.

To each his own. I knew Doug so I'm comfortable calling it like I see it as it pertains to the basis for litigation.
 
What galls me is this is Doug's own family suing Vans and Floscan ...

This. My family knows that I accept the risks of flying and that the components in my RV-6A are tested and have been working safely since 2008. They also know that I will put the same care into my RV-10. Similarly, every Young Eagle signs the waiver. Yet I know that if something happens to me and/or a passenger, there will be no control over what the survivors, especially goaded by a lawyer and/or insurance company, will do. And banning all lawsuits is throwing the baby out with the bathwater - there are suits with merit out there and it is not always easy to tell which are which outside of a court (or sometimes even in court). This has been madness since long before McDonalds was forced to warn people that putting a hot drink between your legs was dangerous and no end is in sight.
 
I have mixed feelings about this post inasmuch as I don't want to be unduly critical, especially toward Doug or his family.

I ask, however, putting myself in the position of a builder, could I imagine having used RTV as a thread sealant? Hopefully not, but could I rule it out? No. What about leaving out a bypass? How many times has someone said "...hey, it's experimental...."

Now, what if someone came along and, looking at the RTV on the AN fittings, said uh-oh - that's not good and should be fixed. Here is the question for all of us - would we take the information and act on it (or at least get a second opinion / additional research on the validity of the advice) or do we push on (possibly to our peril).

My sense is that the hand of evil did not strike this airplane out of the sky -there was a warning. That we may not always heed these is an issue. Regardless of the merits of the allegations or the outcome of the lawsuit, I think it's worth considering.

Dan
 
Hey guys...if you listen close, you'll hear a whole lot of "Amen" in the air.

However, (1) this really is a memorial thread, and anyway, (2) if it turns into another festival of "lawsuits make me mad", the moderators will just lock it up.

Dan Baier's comment above is a good example of productive posting.
 
I agree with you

I've been watching from afar and really think we need to shut this one down. No amount of venting here will change our society right now with regards to the justice system. Right or wrong. The attorneys everywhere have their agenda (and I will not venture an opinion on that) and we have ours--which is to have fun in Experimental aviation. We need to stay focused on that.
We can't control what others do. Yes, we can go on and on about how it might affect us, but in reality, it is a lot of wasted, non-productive cycles that can better be spent on our dreams, as well as learning from the mistakes/misfortunes of others.
We stand on the shoulders of giants who have gone before us. Let's keep contributing so others may follow.

Vic
 
Comments

Hi all: Couple of comments: When us local guys started out on this wild flying RV stuff 30 years ago, we and our close friends/family who flew with us were the only ones with skin in the game. Spectacular experience in cheap, awesome planes (some of my steam gauges still in my panel came from wrecks in 1985). Things changed when pilots commonly bought their planes and did not build them: lots of money chasing performance. Then, along come the -10 and the Lancair 4, and there are people at risk who a jury is likely to think expected the plane to have the same safety as a certificated plane (notwithstanding the sticker). I mention this because my view is that the perspective that is important is not the RV community (which we all probably can reach some rough agreement about...!), but the jury pool perspective. If some nut (me?) kills himself in a plane he built, BFD. If the same guy kills a 4 year old...in a kid seat...My view is this is a when, not if, situation....at some point, 8-12 people in a box are going to hit somebody...I am a defense lawyer; I have a 1986 -4 I built and continue to fly; I don't like it; and I am highly confident it will happen....and the walls may well come tumbling down.

Hi to Vic Syracuse! I remember your shiny -4 in 84-85....I still have my 86 N95JF and still based at STS. Best, John
 
Floscan 201vs. 231

I looked at the pictures - shouldn't the larger Floscan 231 be used with a carb / gravity fuel flow system? And steel AN fittings not aluminum? Don
 
How to fight back at frivolous lawsuits.

I am watching this case, I don't know if it is the first case against our "industry" but it is the first that has got my attention.

I agree playing the blame game is unproductive (who among us has not sinned)

The public thinks that "certified" are inherently safer as "theoretically" the construction and maintenance is done by qualified people.

When there were only a few of us scratchbuilders we didn't attract the attention but with the proliferation of kit builts and the companies that produce them becoming more litigiously attractive, it was inevitable.

We are under attack.

So how do we fight to protect our industry.

I have a suggestion.

Start a gofundme.com.

There are 20k people following this website, if half of them give $10 that is $100k. Make it available to Vans and Floscan.

This affects all of us no matter the type of build we do. Spread the word.

Maybe the alphabets could pick up the ball.

Let the legal community know we will fight vigorously to protect our right to fly.

Let them know from this day forward,,,if you are going to take a run at us you better have deep pockets.

Works for the NRA.
 
Holy small world ... Being new around here, I just discovered this thread ... I knew Doug many moons ago, when I worked in the geospatial field, which he was also a part of. Super nice guy.

I also kept hearing of this whole "RTV in the fuel system kills people", and now I discover it actually killed someone I knew ...

So sad ... regardless of where lies the fault.

Was a little distressed to see the law suit, but no laws were broken by any one that I can tell ... ?
 
Update?

So I know that legal battles take a long time, but it's been almost 5 months since there has been anything in the news on this. Does anyone know if there has been a resolution yet?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top