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.

aeropunk

Active Member
Tragic.

The suit claims that Van's Aircraft exploited a Federal Aviation Administration loophole for "experimental" planes -- also known as "homebuilt" or "amateur-built" planes. The FAA doesn't require the same rigorous testing for homebuilt planes as it does for professionally built planes, the suit states.

"Van's recklessly sells its aircraft kits to ordinary consumers by ensuring them that even though those consumers are deemed the 'builder' of the aircraft, they do not need any experience or special knowledge to safely assemble the aircraft, but can safely assemble the aircraft by following Van's detailed assembly plans and utilizing Van's support," the suit states.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...sf/2015/10/family_of_girl_4_who_perished.html
 
If nothing else comes out of this tragedy, I do think the lawsuit points to a couple of common issues that we as a community could improve upon.

For those that haven't read the NTSB report, it seems to suggest that a tiny drop of RTV sealant used on the threads of the fuel fitting on the fuel flow transducer worked its way into the inlet port of the transducer, starving the engine of fuel.

Both the FAA and EAA are now citing fuel starvation accidents and fuel system testing as one of the "low-hanging fruit" that amateur builders and kit manufacturers can focus on to reduce the fatal accident rate of experimental aircraft.

The lawsuit in question mentions the following:

a. The subject transducer utilized an AN fitting that required use of a sealant that was not specified and was not sold with the transducer;

b. The subject transducer required use of unspecified third-party products, and defendants (the manufacturer) failed to provide appropriate instructions and specifications for sealing at the AN fitting;

c. The subject transducer did not utilize a fitting that incorporated its own seal;

d. The subject transducer failed to incorporate an adequate by-pass to prevent a blockage from causing loss of fuel flow to the engine

In my own build, I have struggled with many gray areas in the process where "tribal knowledge" seems to be the only resource for how to complete certain tasks -- and that includes the fuel system. Questions like: "Where should I locate my Red Cube?" or "What type of sealant for NPT threads?" or "Sealant on flared fittings?" come up all the time on this forum, and are usually followed with a laundry list of varying opinions, methods, anecdotes, and statements such as "350+ hours and it still works for me!!"

I think we can all agree that official resources like AC 43.13 are sometimes vague or less-than-helpful in some way. Gray areas like recommended torque specs, safety wiring guidelines, etc. are sometimes hard to come by for specific applications and the general reference guides often aren't much help.

I don't mention these things in an attempt to assign blame. But I do think, especially with items like the fuel system on RV aircraft, there could be assembled a fairly specific set of documentation on what to do and not do in its construction. I know we're all experimenters, but the reality is there are only a handful of commercial fuel system components that RVers generally use, and the documentation of their installation and use could be more complete.

And yes, this documentation should include a list of approved thread sealants, and where, if, and when to use them. It should include torque specs for all commonly-used fuel fittings and methods for applying the correct torque. It should include basic tenets of fuel system design, such as if and when a fuel bypass might be required and how it is constructed. And it should include methods and techniques for periodic inspection and maintenance.

These are just my two cents, but I think there's ample evidence that we have plenty of room for improvement in these areas. There are lots of smart people on this forum, whether it be engineering expertise, years of maintenance experience, etc., and I think we could work toward improving the builder education process.
 
Last edited:
If nothing else comes out of this tragedy, I do think the lawsuit it points to a couple of common issues that we as a community could improve upon.

For those that haven't read the NTSB report, it seems to suggest that a tiny drop of RTV sealant used on the threads of the fuel fitting on the fuel flow transducer worked its way into the inlet port of the transducer, starving the engine of fuel.

Both the FAA and EAA now citing fuel starvation accidents and fuel system testing as one of the "low-hanging fruit" that amateur builders and kit manufacturers can focus on to reduce the fatal accident rate of experimental aircraft.

The lawsuit in question mentions the following:



In my own build, I have struggled with many gray areas in the process where "tribal knowledge" seems to be the only resource for how to complete certain tasks -- and that includes the fuel system. Questions like: "Where should I locate my Red Cube?" or "What type of sealant for NPT threads?" or "Sealant on flared fittings?" come up all the time on this forum, and are usually followed with a laundry list of varying opinions, methods, anecdotes, and statements such as "350+ hours and it still works for me!!"

I think we can all agree that sometimes official resources like AC 43.13 are sometimes vague or less-than-helpful in some way. Gray areas like recommended torque specs, safety wiring guidelines, etc. are sometimes hard to come by for specific applications and the general reference guides often aren't much help.

I don't mention these things in an attempt to assign blame. But I do think, especially with items like the fuel system on RV aircraft, there could be assembled a fairly specific set of documentation on what to do and not do in its construction. I know we're all experimenters, but the reality is there are only a handful of commercial fuel system components that RVers generally use, and the documentation of their installation and use could be more complete.

And yes, this documentation should include a list of approved thread sealants, and where, if, and when to use them. It should include torque specs for all commonly-used fuel fittings and methods for applying the correct torque. It should include basic tenets of fuel system design, such as if and when a fuel bypass might be required and how it is constructed. And it should include methods and techniques for periodic inspection and maintenance.

These are just my two cents, but I think there's ample evidence that we have plenty of room for improvement in these areas. There are lots of smart people on this forum, whether it be engineering expertise, years of maintenance experience, etc., and I think we could work toward improving the builder education process.

Brian,

Well said! Having recently completed my 9A I struggled a lot with these questions. I was able to find the answers to how to do this stuff, but it took a lot more work to find what I would have thought would be easy questions, than I would have liked.

-Dan
 
It's probably worthwhile if future readers/searchers readily can see the consequences of very poor builder judgement in as many threads as possible. Besides, the other thread was begun as a memorial, and as such, is inappropriate for accident analysis and/or commentary.

Fuel system issues remain the No.1 cause of EAB accidents. This builder made a fuel system modification within one to three weeks of flying passengers, here a mother and a small child. It's not known if any significant hours were flown in the interim. One might argue that the situation required a formal return to Phase 1 with a logbook entry. Although logbooks don't in themselves prevent accidents, a logbook entry would indicate that the builder was cognizant of the risks of fuel system modification.

The builder installed the transducer's NPT fittings with orange silicone. That's a major build error in itself. The only solid or solid-cure sealant in a fuel system should be the polysulfide tank sealer. The inlet screens and/or inline filter protect the downstream small orifices in the unlikely event of loose polysulfide sealant.

Although the use of silicone to seal fuel system NPT threads is bad practice, a builder might still get away with it, IF the sealant was sparingly applied to the male thread only, and screwed in one time only, as should always be the case with any sealant. Here the builder apparently compounded the silicone error; in order to push that much cut and extruded silicone down into the base recess of the female half, he had to have installed, removed, and reinstalled the fitting at least once. When a fitting is disassembled, the female recess should be cleaned of prior sealant, stripped metal, or collected rust and dirt, as anything in the female thread tends to get pushed into the fitting when the male is re-inserted. I don't think there is any practical way to ensure full removal of cured silicone from female threads.

If you have used an improper sealant when assembling an airplane, do yourself (and us) a favor...rebuild the system, with careful blow-outs and flushing. Throw away all the contaminated fittings. Then fly a new Phase 1.

Please don't think that "It's been in there a long time now, so it must be OK". Recall that a chunk of loose blue silicone sealant almost got the RV-1 now hanging in the EAA museum. It had migrated to the inlet orifice of the Facet fuel pump. Nobody knows how it got in there. For sure it was a long time ago, as none of the volunteers who worked on the airplane at RV Central were dumb enough to use it. That's the really dangerous thing about silicone; it can hang on to a surface for years, then break loose without warning.

What is a safe NPT thread sealant choice? Hopefully others will offer favorites. Mine is old-fashioned brown liquid Permatex, sparingly applied as above. If I wish to reuse a fitting, it soaks away in MEK.

 
Last edited:
RTV?

This is really sad for those involved and as a father of 12 and 8 year old girls, my heart really goes out to the family.

One thing that continues to jump out is the use of RTV as a thread sealant in a fuel system. I have NEVER heard of this being the norm. Can someone expand on this?
 
It's probably worthwhile if future readers/searchers readily can see the consequences of very poor builder judgement in as many threads as possible. Besides, the other thread was begun as a memorial, and as such, is inappropriate for accident analysis and/or commentary.

I think Dan's on the right track here
 
I have always used Fuel Lube on tapered fittings installed in the fuel system.

https://www.aircraftspruce.com/pages/ep/lubricants/ezturnlube.php


Rob Hickman
N402RH RV-10

for what it's worth, i've done a lot of business (fine tuning) with the GAMI injector guys, they say they've made more money off the consequences of Fuel lube than they care to admit, especially when it's installed on the fuel injector/spider

i can't imagine that installing it further upstream protects you from eventual gunking, but hard to say, they even warned me not to apply too much to the fuel cap o-rings, and to instead use MMO or just 100LL to lube those

Certainly not saying you're wrong or mislead Rob, just sharing what I've encountered, this of course is not a "your engine may quit" warning, just a "you may clog an injector or something else" warning, and you're getting it secondhand, take that with a grain of salt!
 
Is this thread appropriate at this time?

Lets be careful we do not unwittingly provide evidence to a case before the courts.
 
FAR 23.1137(C)?

The lawsuit references FAR 23.1137 (C). Can't seem to find it on the internet. Does anyone have the link or copy to review?
 
The lawsuit references FAR 23.1137 (C). Can't seem to find it on the internet. Does anyone have the link or copy to review?

First and for most, FAR part 23 does not apply to experimental amateur-built aircraft. 23.1(a) specifically states "....issue of type certificates, and changes to those certificates, for airplanes in the normal, utility, acrobatic, and commuter categories."

Experimental amateur-builts are certificated under 21.191(g).

And 23.1125 jumps to 23.1141. This from my 2015 FARs.
 
Last edited:
Sad story but...

While any accident is tragic and changes/ends lives....

We have chosen to partake in an inherently dangerous hobby, and mix "homebuilt" on top of that. I am not making excuses or saying anything specific.....but lawsuits like this can destroy our hobby and Vans.

No different then dismantling all the kids playground equipment or not letting kids play with balls or touch football anymore. Sad.

I cant help but think of the mcdonalds hot coffee lawsuit. Now the cup has to say "hot" and someone got big money. What a joke. If you are building an airplane to fly your butt and loved ones in.....ask for help and learn what you are doing. Its is a complicated project..its not lego.... Its not someone elses fault you made critical/fatal errors.
 
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
 
The lawsuit references FAR 23.1137 (C). Can't seem to find it on the internet. Does anyone have the link or copy to review?

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.
 
I cant help but think of the mcdonalds hot coffee lawsuit. Now the cup has to say "hot" and someone got big money. What a joke.

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.
 
Last edited:
Interesting

This case will be true test to the safeguards that our forefathers put into place when they developed the "experimental" category. The limited liability exposure of this category has allowed our sport to grow at a phenomenal rate and has been the poster child of general aviation. The builder, not Van's, used RTV in a fuel application which had predictable and devastated results. The lawsuit makes a statement to the effect that Van's products are inferior to "Certified" aircraft. I'm sure the "Certified" market would love to see the Experimental category go by the way of the doo doo bird. However, I don't think one can make the case that Van's products are inferior or less safe than a "certified" product. If anything, I think the safety record is pretty impressive for the RV. This lawsuit, for better or worse, will have an impact on our sport. I just hope something good comes out of it.
cj
 
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. :eek:

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.
 
This is extremely bad for everyone. The families and the companies involved and also the rest of us that are currently building.

No good will come of this for anyone. The money won't fill the losses and the rest of us will more then likely end up screwed over this.
If not by some new laws or legislation it will be by our resale values plunging lower then they already are. Not to mention although they are totally unrelated I'm sure some idiot will find a way to relate this to 3rd class medical reform or the PBOR2.


Its sad to say but as many people know its cheaper to buy one of these then it is to build anymore. We already concede to a loosing financial proposition strictly because we enjoy the hobby and thats the cost of doing business. I don't think anyone on here started building an RV because they thought they would profit.

The thing that gets me is the verbage used.


"the more lenient safety standards allow Van's Aircraft to sell its kits at a cheaper price than professionally built aircraft. That has allowed the company to gain a leg up on competitors that don't sell kits."


Thats like saying hey the helicopter company makes more money then the learjet because they are not held to the same standards. Well yea dummy, of course they are not held to the same standards. They are not the same product or in the same market!
Vans does not compete in the certified airplane market so why would you compare a kit plane manufacture to a certified one? They are not the same product and fall under different safety guidelines.

It comes down to the fact that people want satisfaction in one way or another. They don't care who they get it from but they want it so bad they can taste. It makes there blood boil and there heart break

There is no doubt that the little girl was the cutest little thing and my heart breaks for the family. However, vans is not the problem here. They didn't build the plane and the fault found by the NTSB was something (sadly and unfortunately) allegedly done by the builder. Its a tragic and saddening ACCIDENT nothing more.

This is truly upsetting. I always say its what i don't know that will kill me. In this case RTV. Another reason why VAF is an indispensable tool and community of learning.
 
Last edited:
Law suit

Matthew Clarke is the **** attorney. The aircraft list the a/c as experimental ,posted in view of the Pax. and they should know that. Suing for big bucks is only going to raise the cost to the rest of us builders. Years ago Cessna quite building single engine a/c due to law suites. Will this happen to home built a/c. As I recall we signed a release when we purchased our kits.
 
As I recall we signed a release when we purchased our kits.

As everyone is about to find out, but attorneys would have told you all along, that release doesn't mean jack s**t in a court of law. You can't sign away someone *else's* rights (like the survivors and their right to sue for damages).

The most likely outcome here is the same one we usually see: the insurance companies will settle with the plaintiffs for some undisclosed amount, because it's cheaper to settle than to go to court (and risk losing for much more, as has happened many times with aviation-related lawsuits).
 
Although I am not....

....religious and since I live close by I just pray I can be on that jury if there even is one...
 
As everyone is about to find out, but attorneys would have told you all along, that release doesn't mean jack s**t in a court of law. You can't sign away someone *else's* rights (like the survivors and their right to sue for damages).

The most likely outcome here is the same one we usually see: the insurance companies will settle with the plaintiffs for some undisclosed amount, because it's cheaper to settle than to go to court (and risk losing for much more, as has happened many times with aviation-related lawsuits).

Unfortunately, you are spot on. The insurance companies will settle to avoid having a lengthy and expensive jury trial. The plaintiff's counsel would no doubt weed out any knowledgable jurors during voir dire.
It is not a far stretch to ponder the downstream effects of the resultant increase of liability insurance premiums by Vans and FloScan.
 
From Gil:

"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."

This is true, Gil. And in alot of cases we DO offer pretty detailed instructions. HOWEVER-------at least in our situation----we fabricate hoses to a builders configuration, so we assume that they are capable of doing the install.
Now is does occur to me that if we have detailed instructions, and have something worded wrong, they we'll be getting a visit from some civil deputy with a letter from some lawyer (possibly clueless, and no offense to those on this forum that do have a clue), representing someones estate over stress damages by picking up the wrong wrench, and having a heart attach because I worded the instructions wrong.

Sounds pretty crazy doesnt it? Well-----some of us vendors really think long and hard about the products we produce, and the way we do things. We can test things until blue in the face, and it sometimes doesnt matter. We all make assumptions that the builder can do things properly. In our case, leaving a B Nut loose, kinking or twisting (almost closed) a hose, having them lay on exhaust, etc, are all things we typically cant control, like RTV in a fuel transducer and in a fuel line. But, others dont see it that way. But---frankly it scares me more than flying---
Tom
 
Sad but true

You can't sign away someone *else's* rights (like the survivors and their right to sue for damages).

Or minors and on and on.

I no longer fly Young Eagles because of liability issues.
 
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.
The problem I see with this argument is that Vans is NOT McDonalds. In fact, I don't think there is any company within the aviation industry that would be comparable to McDonalds. When one starts thinking that $649,000 (10 hours of coffee sales) is "Hardly 'big money' " for a company, then there is a skewed sense of entitlement happening.

Sir, $649,000 is "big money", whether you are dirt poor or you own the world! Perhaps in your world being able to have access to a wealth of money means one can afford to throw away any sum of money in a lawsuit, but I fail to see where having wealth or not having wealth is a relevant factor in the notion that such a sum is "big money" or not.

This will certainly come to light in this case to think that "big money" in a law suit will prevent another future catastrophe. On the other hand, if this suit does makes it through the courts intact, perhaps it may very well contribute to the prevention of another catastrophe. The only problem is it will do so because it forced the shut down of a very successful company, an entire industry, and way of life for many individuals. Since no one will be able to afford the costs there will be no one out there flying these death contraptions, and there will no longer be anyone out there to sue. Problem solved! :mad:
 
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. :eek:

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 

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
 
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.
 
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*.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
BTW...this kind of **** is precisely why my family has *explicit* instructions from me that, in the event I get killed while flying my plane, they are NOT to sue Van's, any manufacturer, supplier, etc.

Some yoyo runs into me mid-air and it's his fault, well, have at 'em, but they are not to go after manufacturers (because *I* built the plane and *I* take the responsibility for it).
 
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.

Hi mell

I was being sarcastic in sense but it sure does bring to lite an entirely new concern.

I hope your stats are correct above. That would be reassuring.
The whole world is just sue happy today. Its really sad. We should be mourning the less of these good people and instead the first phone call is not to someone for consoling, hug or family gathering. Its to the first lawyer they can get to.

I live on colorado and everyone all winter long drives up and down I70 back and forth to the ski country. All over I70 there are huge billboards all winter long for attorneys and guess what they say!

"Did you get injured in a skiing accident this weekend! CALL ME NOW! I CAN GET YOU MONEY!"

Its really sad
 
Last edited:
One of my medical partners asked me about 10 years ago, "What do you fear more? Someone breaking into your home or the justice system."

Sobering answer for me. I suspect Van's answer is the same as mine.

If more people found themselves on the risk side of liability, maybe more eyes would be opened to the problem that all these suits cause.
 
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.

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
 
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.

Unfortunately if you are sued you have to spend tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees to prove you are not guilty. Even if you win, you lose. In the John Denver mishap the estate sued all previous owners as well as the builder. I have no idea what it cost them to defend themselves. I did read that Boeing spent over $1 million in legal fees defending itself, after the Russians shot down a Korean 747.
 
Life insurance

There is another possibility here. Say the pilot had a life insurance policy of several or even many millions. The guy dies and the insurer pays out the face value of the policy. Then they go looking for someone to make them whole ( subrogation). Thus they sue anyone with $$$$ or insurance coverage like a manufacturer has. Buried in the fine print of the life policy is your authorizing them to sue on your behalf.

The family may not want to sue and yet they are obligated to be named as the plaintive by the life policy.

That is why in this non lawyers opinion getting a buyer of your aircraft to commit by what ever means to not sue can be circumvented by a previous contract, the life insurance.

As an aside I started and ran my own mfg company for 30 years. There were only a very few months that I was not defending myself against lawsuits. I never lost one but I shudder to think about all the $$$ that were spent by myself and my insurance company to defend against them.

Gary Specketer
 
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.
I wasn't talking about the attorneys. Their goal is cash extraction, pure and simple. I was talking about the potential jury pool. Not everyone believes that people should take any responsibility for their own actions (or lack thereof). Those people often find their way onto juries, and that's what keeps a lot of lawyers in business.
And in the end, I don't believe there are any winners, but that's just my opinion.
Oh, no. A lot of attorneys will make a lot of money on this. Everyone else gets screwed.
 
Last edited:
should we split this off into a safety thread?

All comments are welcome, even if the topic is meandering a lot.

my thoughts: what's RTV? I mean, what does that really stand for?
we throw aviation acronyms around like LITW ( leaves in the wind!)
True, a guy building in his basement has the responsibility to research and use the appropriate product, but hey, it's NOT all that easy sometimes. If you are in another country, or listen to some know-it-all builder next door, you are at about 50/50 odds to use the wrong stuff.
EZ-turn, FUEL-lube, just where do you learn the true approved uses, sources, and ingredients of these things? A&P skool?

Frankly, I don't even know what a fuel cube does, but read the threads with great interest. I'll be sure to research it when I need to.

I think my Dad told me, any sealant that you can SEE, probably ain't sealing anything. The gobs of red you see oozing out of some assemblies gives one pause to consider the knowledge and skills of the assembler.
 
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.

Could be, Mel. The problem becomes who among us can afford to defend the suit? How many hours at $250+/hour would it take to bankrupt most of us?
The real problem is the system that allows this type of case to even be filed. Liability reform has been marginally addressed by Congress and the President's proper use of a pen decades ago. However, (IMHO) the stroke of the pen was not broad enough, and certainly as applies in the instant case. It is interesting that many of us that sit behind our keyboards pontificating about aviation liability, would not think of sending their thoughts to their elected representatives. Yeah, yeah....Thats what we pay our EAA dues for, right?! On that note, we should also be lighting up the airwaves at the EAA demanding that they take an active role in assisting Van's and FloScan in their defense. The EAA should at very least file an amicus brief citing the responsibilities of the builder, assistance available via Tech Counselors, information available in multitudes of FAA manuals and industry publications, and the oversight of DAR's during the build and final sign off.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top