gbigs Posted October 26, 2015 Report Share Posted October 26, 2015 Van's Aircraft is warning that a $35 million lawsuit filed against it in Oregon might actually be an indictment of the whole kit aircraft business. http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Vans-Lawsuit-Seen-As-Attack-On-Kit-Industry-225066-1.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted October 26, 2015 Report Share Posted October 26, 2015 If you kill your self and your loved ones due to blatant stupidity...I'm not so quick to cast aspersions or call names. Some may recall that I had a very rough engine over desolate SE GA, likely caused by a similar misapplication of RTV or equivalent. In my case it was a tiny amount spread on a float bowl gasket*, but it could have had the same consequences. A pilot may look at a given maintenance mistake and know they'd never make that one. But Lord knows, unless one is a perfect mechanic, there are plenty of gotcha's awaiting the slighted misstep. *I've since learned that a thin coating of grease is the preferred method to hold those gaskets in place - when gas hits grease it just dissolves, to no ill effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted October 26, 2015 Report Share Posted October 26, 2015 BTW, below is what is surmised to have brought the RV10 down: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted October 26, 2015 Report Share Posted October 26, 2015 I'm not so quick to cast aspersions or call names. Some may recall that I had a very rough engine over desolate SE GA, likely caused by a similar misapplication of RTV or equivalent. In my case it was a tiny amount spread on a float bowl gasket*, but it could have had the same consequences. A pilot may look at a given maintenance mistake and know they'd never make that one. But Lord knows, unless one is a perfect mechanic, there are plenty of gotcha's awaiting the slighted misstep. *I've since learned that a thin coating of grease is the preferred method to hold those gaskets in place - when gas hits grease it just dissolves, to no ill effect. I didn't name call. Are you saying this suit appears to have merit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted October 26, 2015 Report Share Posted October 26, 2015 I didn't name call. Are you saying this suit appears to have merit? Well, calling "blatant stupidity" on the part of the builder is kinda like name calling, no? The courts will decide on the merit. As hashed out on POA, it will likely come down to Vans instructions and recommendations and standard assembly practices. I'd say Vans is not at fault at this juncture, but I've not heard the case presented yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted October 26, 2015 Report Share Posted October 26, 2015 Well, calling "blatant stupidity" on the part of the builder is kinda like name calling, no Name calling on this forum is a cardinal sin, I didn't commit it. "Kinda like" is a pretty low bar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted October 26, 2015 Report Share Posted October 26, 2015 Not only is there the misuse of RTV sealant but there is also the fact that this guy couldn't fly engine out and dead stick his RV. Its a tragedy for sure, my point is that it is time to sue Vans when they screw up, not when you screw up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackwhickman Posted October 26, 2015 Report Share Posted October 26, 2015 Am I correct that the NTSB said there should have been a bypass around the fuel flow transducer? I have a fuel flow transducer in my Cessna. The arrangement is via an STC. No bypass around it. I'm not sure what they are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted October 26, 2015 Report Share Posted October 26, 2015 Most people do not have a bypass around the transducer. Matter of fact I don't think have have ever seen one. That's why there is supposed to be a filter before the bypass as described in most installation documents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Posted October 27, 2015 Report Share Posted October 27, 2015 Am I correct that the NTSB said there should have been a bypass around the fuel flow transducer? I have a fuel flow transducer in my Cessna. The arrangement is via an STC. No bypass around it. I'm not sure what they are talking about. I believe the lawsuit claims the deficiency is that there was not a bypass. Edit: Which an improperly installed bypass (improper use of RTV) would have caused the same problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anticept Posted October 27, 2015 Report Share Posted October 27, 2015 The problem with trying to make a bypass is controlling how it will be triggered. Unlike oil system bypasses which can operate on pressure, a fuel flow is not so easy. We could install switches, but there are already a lot of them, how many more do we need? And now, what about continued testing and maintenance of the bypass valve? This is just a lawyer looking for a payday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Koerner Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 Dearest wife, children or other family members, I fly because I enjoy it. I fully understand that statistically general aviation is fantastically dangerous. I try to improve the odds through diligence, training and caution. However, at some point the odds may have their way. Should that happen, please do not sue anyone. Hopefully my life insurance and our savings will be sufficient for you to live comfortably (especially without the airplane costs J) without the need for a legal settlement. Lawyers claim that lawsuits are necessary to get manufactures to address safety issues - that the tort process improves aircraft safety. That’s bunk. All it does is drive up product liability costs. Aviation history is replete with experienced aircraft manufactures, with perfectly good designs, driven out of business when the market will no longer bear the price increases needed to cover increased insurance costs. And what happens next? Smaller manufactures, with less experience, step in to fill the void. That does not increase safety - it compromises it. And all the while aircraft, parts and services get more and more expensive, driving pilots further and further from the airport. The FAA, AOPA and EAA have excellent processes in place whereby we can learn from the experiences and mistakes of others. There is no need for lawsuits. Again, regardless of the circumstances, it is my express wish that you not sue anyone… unless they fly their UAV through my windscreen, in which case I would like you to sue their pants off. Mike Koerner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishAl Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 Is it not right to say that the builder is the legal manufacturer of the aircraft, and therefore the liability for manufacturing errors lies with him? There is a distinction between manufacturing errors and design errors on the part of the kit supplier. So if omitting a bypass is not a design fault, (as evidenced by their absence from many aircraft), then the liability is the manufacturer's, not the designer's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted October 28, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 The crux of the issue is not Van's making the plane. The complainant alleges Van's kit, parts and instructions were insufficient to make a safe aircraft. And further, that Van's is encouraging customers who may not have the proper skills to build the kits and fly the planes. If they prevail in court, all kit makers will be affected. Tort reform in the USA has been crippled by the American Association for Justice (AAJ), formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA) and the Democrats that get money from them... Britain has loser pays all court and lawyer costs and that has led to a drastic reduction in such lawsuits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anticept Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 What I fail to see is how any omission of a bypass would be considered a defect. These provide additional layers of safety, yes, but if the original design fails, how often will you find it a defect with the part, vs improper use or maintenance? If we start requiring bypasses for everything, and a bypass fails, then by extension of that same thought process, the bypasses need a bypass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishAl Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 I agree, Anticept - I can't identify any sound basis for the suit. I have a fuel flow transducer in my Cessna. The arrangement is via an STC. No bypass around it. The complainant alleges Van's kit, parts and instructions were insufficient to make a safe aircraft. If certified aircraft don't need a bypass to be deemed safe, how can Vans be held liable for not recommending one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishAl Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 Britain has loser pays all court and lawyer costs and that has led to a drastic reduction in such lawsuits. If the plaintiff loses in this case, who pays costs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anticept Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 Plaintiff pays both parties legal fees. I am a string supporter of the english rule, but with a cap. That cap is whoever's legal fees are lower. If a corporation brings suit against me, putting tens of millions into it, and I only have a 25k lawyer, then it is at their risk. Even if they win, whatever the case was has to be worth tens of millions to them, because I would only be obligated 25k of their fees. Conversely, if I went after them and they chose to spend tens of millions in defense fees, I still am only liable for 25k. The logic is that they chose to spend that much on the case, they can't use that as a deterrent to discourage me from suing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted October 28, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 If the plaintiff loses in this case, who pays costs? The English rule provides that the party who loses in court pays the other party's attorney's fees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_%28attorney's_fees%29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishAl Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 Interesting.... A lawsuit that's really nothing more than a game of financial Chicken. I think the English have it on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.