Jump to content

Van's Lawsuit


gbigs

Recommended Posts

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.

 

13276533225_74f12e3ddc_z.jpg

 

5655330885_bf4971eb69.jpg

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...