|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

02-05-2012, 08:51 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 321
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce
2 Weeks to TAXI-----Please
You can build a car in 4 hours if it goes down an assembly
line.
|
That's great! All I can think about is how to set up an assembley line for my 7 I'm going to build!! Maybe I can do it like I build sandwiches....
Great write up Bruce! All good info.
__________________
Bob
RV-10 QB Here 8-25-19
RV-7
My brain shows a remarkable capacity to not willingly accept information that it considered useless.
|

02-13-2012, 07:16 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 6,797
|
|
Vic, I applaud you for being willing to stick your neck out. But, to be a bit critical, remember the quote that evil will triumph as long as good men do nothing. I think you should call the FSDO if you see these kind of violations. The guy in the hangar across from me has lost his medical, for good reasons. I suspect he's still flying. If I actually see him, I'll call the FSDO. To protect him, to protect the public, to keep my insurance rates down. We all have something to lose here.
Folks, if you think the FAA's policies are wrong, then work to change them. But the fact is, the FAA doesn't think you should buy an aircraft that doesn't meet all their usual certification standards.
I think it's a miracle that the FAA made an exception and allows homebuilts at all. They did so under the promise of "builder's enjoyment or education" only. There was never any intention to allow 'hired guns'. My fear is that one day they will over-react in a way that's easy for them to enforce: they will require the registered owner to show proof of 51% of the work, ALWAYS. e.g., effectively ban the after-completion sale of homebuilt aircraft. And that would hurt us all, right in the pocket book.
|

02-13-2012, 07:22 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 6,797
|
|
re: lawsuits.
I believe John Denver's estate sued the original builder, as well as deeper pockets such as ACS.
And note, it doesn't matter if you win or not. The cost to simply defend such a suit will bankrupt many builders.
|

02-13-2012, 08:07 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Cumming, GA
Posts: 610
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobTurner
I think it's a miracle that the FAA made an exception and allows homebuilts at all.
|
Miracle? Exception? Aviation was started by home builders. Now it is considered a miracle that our government allows the individual to create? I don't know if it upsets me more that you think we're lucky or that you might be right.
__________________
Don Hall
N517DG - RV7 - Flying!
Ticked Van's Hobbes meter at #6110, 3/7/09
|

02-13-2012, 09:30 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,516
|
|
Don Hall,
Brilliantly put.
__________________
Ernst Freitag
RV-8 finished (sold)
RV-10 Flyer 600 plus hours
Running on E10 mogas
Don't believe everything you know.
|

02-13-2012, 09:59 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Brisbane Qld. Aust.
Posts: 2,271
|
|
Quote:
This entire argument is bizarre and surreal.
I'm 'buying' an experimental a/c built professionally by the exact same people who supply the kit to be built under the amateur regs. It might be unintentionally offensive to some, but universal opinion so far is that the 'pro-built' versions are superior quality to the amateur built versions in most respects, though that's not to say the amateur built versions are not decent and perfectly acceptable (and sure, they look good from the outside).
You don't have to build your aircraft to be highly knowledgable about it (though with the right attitude this may indeed help), nor does building your aircraft make you highly competent to operate it.
Sorry. No offence intended. Just realism. There's a phobia about 'check-book' building which is really barking up the wrong tree, IMHO. It's all about the attitude of the owner. Not who builds it.
|
Dutchie has hit the nail on the head here, I want to bang it in a bit harder. (by the way that is cheque book for us down here  )
In Mike's case he is getting a highly specialised aerbatic machine. It is probably in everyones interest that it be "pro-built", but under such circumstances he should not have the maintenance authority on it like I have on my RV10. The reason being is that a certified machine has a maintenance programme and manuals etc etc, the homebuilt not always. So the original builder has knowledge that the non builder does not. You are just relying on a LAME to have this kind of knowledge in lieu.
Onto the folk like Jay and others who provide a professional building service to others who need help in certain areas......ALL THE SAFER, because chances are they would be far higher risk profiles for planes built without such expert help. I had plenty, I did not need it for avionics and engine but the rivetting etc I did.
So....a fully cheque book built aeroplane is fine, and much safer in most cases if it does not include a maintenance authority. A professionally assited build is probably the optimum for all but the serial builders who have done it all over and over, so long as they are not producing junk in the first place.
Some 100% owner/homebuilts I would not fly or stand too close to, in fact would rather they be in another country altogether  .
DB 
|

02-14-2012, 09:25 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Mojave
Posts: 4,652
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobTurner
re: lawsuits.
I believe John Denver's estate sued the original builder, as well as deeper pockets such as ACS.
And note, it doesn't matter if you win or not. The cost to simply defend such a suit will bankrupt many builders.
|
The mere possibility of a lawsuit does not in itself increase your risk. In the US we can be sued by anybody for anything so we are ?at risk? as soon as we get out of bed. You could be sued by the next owner of your current car, or you could be sued because your last post has offended someone... Why should a homebuilt airplane be any different? After all, lawsuits are expensive for both parties, so there needs to be some assurance that the lawsuit will not only succeed, but also pay off. In other words, it needs to be a good financial investment for the plaintiff. If we?ve learned anything, it?s that the risk of a lawsuit is directly proportional to the certainty of a judgment and the size of the potential payout. It makes very little sense to sue someone if: (A) there is essentially no case law supporting a favorable judgment; and (B) the defendant has very little money.
Considering the litigious nature of the US, I see it as a good sign that homebuilders continue to be poor targets for successful lawsuits.
__________________
WARNING! Incorrect design and/or fabrication of aircraft and/or components may result in injury or death. Information presented in this post is based on my own experience - Reader has sole responsibility for determining accuracy or suitability for use.
Michael Robinson
______________
Harmon Rocket II -SDS EFI
RV-8 - SDS CPI
1940 Taylorcraft BL-65
1984 L39C
|

02-14-2012, 09:55 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 57AZ - NW Tucson area
Posts: 10,011
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toobuilder
The mere possibility of a lawsuit does not in itself increase your risk. In the US we can be sued by anybody for anything so we are “at risk” as soon as we get out of bed. You could be sued by the next owner of your current car, or you could be sued because your last post has offended someone... Why should a homebuilt airplane be any different? After all, lawsuits are expensive for both parties, so there needs to be some assurance that the lawsuit will not only succeed, but also pay off. In other words, it needs to be a good financial investment for the plaintiff. If we’ve learned anything, it’s that the risk of a lawsuit is directly proportional to the certainty of a judgment and the size of the potential payout. It makes very little sense to sue someone if: (A) there is essentially no case law supporting a favorable judgment; and (B) the defendant has very little money.
Considering the litigious nature of the US, I see it as a good sign that homebuilders continue to be poor targets for successful lawsuits.
|
Two items
1 - The grieving widow on the stand makes for a sympathetic jury even with a weak case, and a wish for insurance companies to pay out rather than go to trial - the quite objectionable "cost of defense" pay-out.
2 - Even if the defendants have no money, throw in a few more on the list to be sued and some states (CA is one) will make then pay all even if they are only 1% liable - the "deep pockets" rule.
In the Airpark lawsuit I was involved with, Walter Engines US paid out a substantial sum over a Legend accident. The amazing thing (to me as an engineer, not a lawyer) was the they had never touched the engine in question. It was bought as a communist govt. air force run-out before the main Walter plant even existed as a private company.
__________________
Gil Alexander
EAA Technical Counselor, Airframe Mechanic
Half completed RV-10 QB purchased
RV-6A N61GX - finally flying
Grumman Tiger N12GA - flying
La Cholla Airpark (57AZ) Tucson AZ
Last edited by az_gila : 02-14-2012 at 09:58 AM.
|

02-14-2012, 10:50 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Mojave
Posts: 4,652
|
|
Unfortunately, grieving widows and mothers testify in jetski, motorcycle, car, skiing, etc, accidents as well. And it is even more unfortunate that there are lawyers out there who will use every conceivable angle to ensure they both get a big payday.
My point was not that we in the homebuilt world are free from the risk of being sued, rather, we seem to be better off than most. The sad truth is that we are at risk of being sued for dozens of actions we perform every day? Just keeping it in perspective, that?s all.
__________________
WARNING! Incorrect design and/or fabrication of aircraft and/or components may result in injury or death. Information presented in this post is based on my own experience - Reader has sole responsibility for determining accuracy or suitability for use.
Michael Robinson
______________
Harmon Rocket II -SDS EFI
RV-8 - SDS CPI
1940 Taylorcraft BL-65
1984 L39C
|

02-14-2012, 11:04 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 57AZ - NW Tucson area
Posts: 10,011
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toobuilder
.....
My point was not that we in the homebuilt world are free from the risk of being sued, rather, we seem to be better off than most. The sad truth is that we are at risk of being sued for dozens of actions we perform every day? Just keeping it in perspective, that?s all.
|
I agree... but "following the rules" is usually a pretty good defense...
Which is what this thread is about.
__________________
Gil Alexander
EAA Technical Counselor, Airframe Mechanic
Half completed RV-10 QB purchased
RV-6A N61GX - finally flying
Grumman Tiger N12GA - flying
La Cholla Airpark (57AZ) Tucson AZ
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:51 AM.
|