Liabilities of the A/HB builders

[wanttaja]

Notice the make of each EXP/AHB aircraft in FAA data base.

it will contain the builder's name, it will not be VAN'S RV? it will be (Doe's) RV.

No, check my earlier post, where I named a number of RVs which had "Vans Aircraft" as the manufacturer but were not connected to the company itself. Most of my examples didn't list a builder name. Try N94TB, for example.

Also, over 30 Fly Babies just list "Bowers" as the Manufacturer name, and Pete didn't build them.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[PPC1052]

Wow. Lots of discussion regarding how many angels can dance on the head of a pin here.

Seems that there is no dispute that 1) there is no known legal bar to a suit againt the amature builder for construction defects, 2) that there seems to be little empirical evidence that these suits occur anything but rarely.

I would just add that there are a lot of reasons why such claims would not make their way all the way up to a reported decision. Understanding that plaintiffs' lawyers want money, not justice, they would prefer a settlement to a trial, they would prefer a judgment against a solvant/deep pocket defendant (preferably one with insurance) rather than an individual, and they don't care what theory they get the judgment on.
In order to see a reported amature built liability case, you would need 1) an accident, 2) involving an allegedly defective aircraft, 3) involving an aircraft that was sold (if it hadn't been sold, they would probably just sue the owner based on his pilot operations (or would at least include that as part of the claim) because that would likely be an insured risk), 4) causing harm to a third party (I am assuming generally the purchaser would have a big uphill battle given likely waiver forms, and assumption of the risk issues, 5) the harm was large enough to warrant pursuit of an expensive lawsuit, 6) the aircraft was less than the 18 years of GARA, as well as what ever statute of repose would apply under the applicable state law (my state, for example, has a 10 year statute of repose.), and 7) there is no settlement. How often has this fact pattern actually occured? Of course, that it rarely if ever has occured doesn't mean it couldn't happen today.

 

[vintage cessna]

Wow. Lots of discussion regarding how many angels can dance on the head of a pin here.

Seems that there is no dispute that 1) there is no known legal bar to a suit againt the amature builder for construction defects, 2) that there seems to be little empirical evidence that these suits occur anything but rarely.

I would just add that there are a lot of reasons why such claims would not make their way all the way up to a reported decision. Understanding that plaintiffs' lawyers want money, not justice, they would prefer a settlement to a trial, they would prefer a judgment against a solvant/deep pocket defendant (preferably one with insurance) rather than an individual, and they don't care what theory they get the judgment on.
In order to see a reported amature built liability case, you would need 1) an accident, 2) involving an allegedly defective aircraft, 3) involving an aircraft that was sold (if it hadn't been sold, they would probably just sue the owner based on his pilot operations (or would at least include that as part of the claim) because that would likely be an insured risk), 4) causing harm to a third party (I am assuming generally the purchaser would have a big uphill battle given likely waiver forms, and assumption of the risk issues, 5) the harm was large enough to warrant pursuit of an expensive lawsuit, 6) the aircraft was less than the 18 years of GARA, as well as what ever statute of repose would apply under the applicable state law (my state, for example, has a 10 year statute of repose.), and 7) there is no settlement. How often has this fact pattern actually occured? Of course, that it rarely if ever has occured doesn't mean it couldn't happen today.

Right, now you are also starting to understand how this world works. Like, you know, just because my body hasn't spontaneously combusted today, doesn't mean it won't happen tomorrow . Like, this whole new world that has opened up to me , is like, really cool.

 

[vintage cessna]

Wow. Lots of discussion regarding how many angels can dance on the head of a pin here.

Seems that there is no dispute that 1) there is no known legal bar to a suit againt the amature builder for construction defects, 2) that there seems to be little empirical evidence that these suits occur anything but rarely.

I would just add that there are a lot of reasons why such claims would not make their way all the way up to a reported decision. Understanding that plaintiffs' lawyers want money, not justice, they would prefer a settlement to a trial, they would prefer a judgment against a solvant/deep pocket defendant (preferably one with insurance) rather than an individual, and they don't care what theory they get the judgment on.
In order to see a reported amature built liability case, you would need 1) an accident, 2) involving an allegedly defective aircraft, 3) involving an aircraft that was sold (if it hadn't been sold, they would probably just sue the owner based on his pilot operations (or would at least include that as part of the claim) because that would likely be an insured risk), 4) causing harm to a third party (I am assuming generally the purchaser would have a big uphill battle given likely waiver forms, and assumption of the risk issues, 5) the harm was large enough to warrant pursuit of an expensive lawsuit, 6) the aircraft was less than the 18 years of GARA, as well as what ever statute of repose would apply under the applicable state law (my state, for example, has a 10 year statute of repose.), and 7) there is no settlement. How often has this fact pattern actually occured? Of course, that it rarely if ever has occured doesn't mean it couldn't happen today.

I just love these "perfect storm" stories. Do you have any more?

 

[PPC1052]

I just love these "perfect storm" stories. Do you have any more?

Actually. Yes I do. But I don't quite understand where you are going with this.

 

[vintage cessna]

Actually. Yes I do. But I don't quite understand where you are going with this.

How about this. Someone, put up something real, rather than hypothesis that are not grounded in fact. People keep looking for reason, after all these years, why there is no case law, or even real people who are home builders crying how they got sued.

Is the best legal argument that there is no money in it? Not going to win any moot court contests with that one.

 

[PPC1052]

How about this. Someone, put up something real, rather than hypothesis that are not grounded in fact. People keep looking for reason, after all these years, why there is no case law, or even real people who are home builders crying how they got sued.

Is the best legal argument that there is no money in it? Not going to win any moot court contests with that one.

I am not sure what moot court contests you're refering to. Additionally, I am not sure where it is you disagree with what I said.

 

[airguy]

I'm not a lawyer and I've never polled a jury - but an attorney considering a liability case against a builder has to know that the average juror he's going to be preaching to knows nothing about aviation in general and even less than that (meaning disinformation) about experimental aviation, and will consider anything "experimental" in aviation to be blatantly unsafe on face value. All the defense has to do is to undeniably show that the buyer knew the aircraft was experimental, and the jurors will be thinking "He had it coming to him then, flying in something like that."

 

[JeffDG]

How about this. Someone, put up something real, rather than hypothesis that are not grounded in fact. People keep looking for reason, after all these years, why there is no case law, or even real people who are home builders crying how they got sued.

Is the best legal argument that there is no money in it? Not going to win any moot court contests with that one.

How about this...Someone put up something real, rather than a hypothesis that is not grounded in fact, that E-AB builders are any different from any other manufacturer with respect to strict liability for the aircraft they build. People keep looking for a reason, after all these years, why there is no case law that they are any different.

 

[Alexb2000]

I'm not a lawyer and I've never polled a jury - but an attorney considering a liability case against a builder has to know that the average juror he's going to be preaching to knows nothing about aviation in general and even less than that (meaning disinformation) about experimental aviation, and will consider anything "experimental" in aviation to be blatantly unsafe on face value. All the defense has to do is to undeniably show that the buyer knew the aircraft was experimental, and the jurors will be thinking "He had it coming to him then, flying in something like that."

Fair argument the owner/pilot/builder should know, but what about the guy who buys a used RV from Bill Gates, loses a wing while dog fighting, and plows into a kindergarten? Those teary eyed parents sitting in court wondering aloud how anyone could build an airplane in their garage with no prior experience, then have the wing come off, and not be responsible would be tough to ignore. I expect those parents would all have a 8 figure check and a lifetime license for MS office before the first day of voir dire. Of course unless the press got a hold of it none of us would have a clue, so we'd still be arguing about precedent.

 

[weilke]

In order to see a reported amature built liability case, you would need 1) an accident, 2) involving an allegedly defective aircraft, 3) involving an aircraft that was sold (if it hadn't been sold, they would probably just sue the owner based on his pilot operations (or would at least include that as part of the claim) because that would likely be an insured risk), 4) causing harm to a third party (I am assuming generally the purchaser would have a big uphill battle given likely waiver forms, and assumption of the risk issues, 5) the harm was large enough to warrant pursuit of an expensive lawsuit, 6) the aircraft was less than the 18 years of GARA, as well as what ever statute of repose would apply under the applicable state law (my state, for example, has a 10 year statute of repose.), and 7) there is no settlement. How often has this fact pattern actually occured? Of course, that it rarely if ever has occured doesn't mean it couldn't happen today.

Go crash an Epic that was built by someone with a 10mil net worth, kill a young executive with 3 kids in the process and see how quickly that chain of liability is tied together (if it is not the grieving widow who invites the builder to the party, it will be her husbands life insurer, Pratt&Whitney in a cross-appeal or Garmin who will make sure there are other pockets to dip into).

 

[wanttaja]

And IYO the estimated time required to unravel the entire fact situation would be more or less than an hour?

It's OK, Wayne, I charged you the corporate rate.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[wabower]

The Czech is in the male.

It's OK, Wayne, I charged you the corporate rate.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[PPC1052]

Go crash an Epic that was built by someone with a 10mil net worth, kill a young executive with 3 kids in the process and see how quickly that chain of liability is tied together (if it is not the grieving widow who invites the builder to the party, it will be her husbands life insurer, Pratt&Whitney in a cross-appeal or Garmin who will make sure there are other pockets to dip into).

I generally agree with this logic. (Although not every state (mine, for example) allows a defendant to bring a third-party claim to bring in non-named defendants.)

That being said, I am involved in a case right now where the decedent's estate's attorney is not willing to name the manufacturer of a certified aircraft, even though there is some evidence of mechanical failure (the NTSB has not finished its investigation, but there is certainly enough to support the filing of the complaint at this time.) Why not? He doesn't want to spend the money, and he thinks he's got a clear shot at the pilot and and the corporation that owned it. I say this not to suggest that what you are saying is necessarily wrong, or not well reasoned. As I said, I agree with your point. I just find it an interesting factual counterpoint.

The point I was trying to make earlier is that this whole argument seems pointless. Legally, there is no reason in the world that I know of why an amature builder would have any legal protection from claims brought by third parties. The circumstances under which such a claim would be made are extremely rare, but certainly could occur. My office is filed with matters where bad things, however improbable or unlikely, actually occured.

 

[vintage cessna]

How about this...Someone put up something real, rather than a hypothesis that is not grounded in fact, that E-AB builders are any different from any other manufacturer with respect to strict liability for the aircraft they build. People keep looking for a reason, after all these years, why there is no case law that they are any different.

If the difference between an E-AB builder and Cessna Aircraft company, and the difference between an AB-EXP aircraft and a Part 23 aircraft, is not readily apparent to you, then it would take way too much effort to convince you otherwise.

Some people would sell an AB-EXP, some would let their fears prevent that. If I came into possession of an AB-EXP, I would sell it. The buyer would be told in writing what it is , there is no warranty, no guarantee of workmanship or materials, and that it was assembled by an amateur . It is what it is.

 

[JeffDG]

If the difference between an E-AB builder and Cessna Aircraft company, and the difference between an AB-EXP aircraft and a Part 23 aircraft, is not readily apparent to you, then it would take way too much effort to convince you otherwise.

Some people would sell an AB-EXP, some would let their fears prevent that. If I came into possession of an AB-EXP, I would sell it. The buyer would be told in writing what it is , there is no warranty, no guarantee of workmanship or materials, and that it was assembled by an amateur . It is what it is.

So, that's a "No" then?

 

[PPC1052]

If the difference between an E-AB builder and Cessna Aircraft company, and the difference between an AB-EXP aircraft and a Part 23 aircraft, is not readily apparent to you, then it would take way too much effort to convince you otherwise.

Some people would sell an AB-EXP, some would let their fears prevent that. If I came into possession of an AB-EXP, I would sell it. The buyer would be told in writing what it is , there is no warranty, no guarantee of workmanship or materials, and that it was assembled by an amateur . It is what it is.

Well, I think their point was that the"as-is", no-warranty sale would only afford protection against claims by the buyer, but it affords no protection against claims by injured third parties. You might have an argument that the passenger assumed the risk due to the word "Experimental" placarded all over, but the person on the ground whose home was hit by the aircraft wouldn't be bound by any disclaimer of warranty.

 

[vintage cessna]

So, that's a "No" then?

No case law on this very narrow subject, right. Perhaps because potential suits never went anywhere.

I can relate to you what the aviation attorney on the EAA webinar said. And that is , when he explained to the plaintiffs attorney what the nature of an AB-EXP was, and he was able to produce the EAA form that the buyer signed,they disappeared. He also advised to use the EAA seller forms and have the forms reviewed by an attorney in the State where the sale was to be made.

So, evidently, there are lawyers out there willing to take on this kind of thing until they are aware of what is involved.

 

[JeffDG]

No case law on this very narrow subject, right. Perhaps because potential suits never went anywhere.

I can relate to you what the aviation attorney on the EAA webinar said. And that is , when he explained to the plaintiffs attorney what the nature of an AB-EXP was, and he was able to produce the EAA form that the buyer signed,they disappeared. He also advised to use the EAA seller forms and have the forms reviewed by an attorney in the State where the sale was to be made.

So, evidently, there are lawyers out there willing to take on this kind of thing until they are aware of what is involved.

So, you go around and have folks on the ground sign your waiver then before you fly? Because your "form" that the buyer signs has precisely zero weight with anyone else but the buyer. Look up the term "privity of contract"...But then, of course, since there's no case law on it, that doesn't apply to E-AB either, right?

 

[weilke]

That being said, I am involved in a case right now where the decedent's estate's attorney is not willing to name the manufacturer of a certified aircraft, even though there is some evidence of mechanical failure (the NTSB has not finished its investigation, but there is certainly enough to support the filing of the complaint at this time.) Why not? He doesn't want to spend the money, and he thinks he's got a clear shot at the pilot and and the corporation that owned it.

Which illustrates the fact that the decision who gets involved in a lawsuit is typically a calculated one that is based on the likelihood to prevail and the potential payout in the case of success. To prove negligence of the pilot and to collect the insurance coverage and then some requires a lot less up front investment from the plaintiff and plaintiffs attorney than a product liability lawsuit. Now the same case, a pilot with no assets who decided to fly his plane without liability insurance, and the calculus on whether it is worth pursuing the airframe manufacturer (or the machine shop who put the burr on the needle valve and caused the carburetor bowl to overflow) has shifted.

I say this not to suggest that what you are saying is necessarily wrong, or not well reasoned. As I said, I agree with your point. I just find it an interesting factual counterpoint.

Oh, you can say that I am wrong, I usually am, just ask my lovely bride .

The point I was trying to make earlier is that this whole argument seems pointless. Legally, there is no reason in the world that I know of why an amature builder would have any legal protection from claims brought by third parties. The circumstances under which such a claim would be made are extremely rare, but certainly could occur. My office is filed with matters where bad things, however improbable or unlikely, actually occured.

What is pointless is discussing this with someone who sticks his fingers in his ears and sings la-lalalalaa-all-certified-pilots-are-poopyheads--la-lalalalaaa.

Thanks for your knowledgeable input to this thread.

 

[vintage cessna]

Well, I think their point was that the"as-is", no-warranty sale would only afford protection against claims by the buyer, but it affords no protection against claims by injured third parties. You might have an argument that the passenger assumed the risk due to the word "Experimental" placarded all over, but the person on the ground whose home was hit by the aircraft wouldn't be bound by any disclaimer of warranty.

The guy who sold the aircraft is no longer the operator, the owner is. The new owner assumed all the risk when he bought it. The owner knows full well what the aircraft is, and made a conscience decision to fly it and he is now the one that has to make sure the aircraft is safe to fly.

Come on, if the product liability laws that Cessna is held accountable to also applied to home builders, don't you think it would have happened by now?

Frankly, with as old as the certified fleet is getting, there may be more risk selling one of those. So much could have happened to an aircraft in 40 years or so and so much could have slipped through the cracks. There may have been a part put on your aircraft that was not an approved part that you don't know about , but as owner you are supposed to know.

 

[PPC1052]

Which illustrates the fact that the decision who gets involved in a lawsuit is typically a calculated one that is based on the likelihood to prevail and the potential payout in the case of success. To prove negligence of the pilot and to collect the insurance coverage and then some requires a lot less up front investment from the plaintiff and plaintiffs attorney than a product liability lawsuit.

Bingo.

 

[N801BH]

John Denver would be a worst-case buyer. He was survived by a young child, and he had a history of high earnings.

Not all accident victims sue.... I bet ALOT of families of the deceased accept the fact the death was caused by flying an experimental and there are risks involved...


Case in point..... my hangar mate was killed in a CGS Hawk a few years ago... John was a VERY good pilot, flew his own Citation jet, was a crop duster and I am sure he could have flown a kitchen table if it had enough HorsePower strapped to it.... He had a wife, kid and a "high" income job... His estate did not sue anyone, they realized he died doing what he loved and moved forward...

John was worth 22 BILLION and the 9th richest person in the world..... He was a great guy, humble and modest and John Walton lived a very entertaining life... to put it mildly......

Godspeed John......


Moral of the story.......... Not everyone is going to sue someone if the ***** hits the fan...

 

[PPC1052]

The guy who sold the aircraft is no longer the operator, the owner is. The new owner assumed all the risk when he bought it. The owner knows full well what the aircraft is, and made a conscience decision to fly it and he is now the one that has to make sure the aircraft is safe to fly.

When you say something like this, you show your misunderstanding of American jurisprudence. It's okay. Not everyone is lawyer, nor need they be. So when I say this, I don't mean to be insulting in any way to any non-lawyer. But there is no legal support for the argument that a sale will terminate your liability as the builder to third parties.

Come on, if the product liability laws that Cessna is held accountable to also applied to home builders, don't you think it would have happened by now?

Well, there was the example given in the John Denver accident. So it does seem to have happened at least once. And, as I posted earlier, you really do need to have that "perfect storm" (great term, I hope you don't mind that I borrowed it) for that to happen as a practical matter. So the fact that there are few examples to show isn't surprising.

Frankly, with as old as the certified fleet is getting, there may be more risk selling one of those. So much could have happened to an aircraft in 40 years or so and so much could have slipped through the cracks. There may have been a part put on your aircraft that was not an approved part that you don't know about , but as owner you are supposed to know.

Hence, the GARA protections. Of course, as a non-builder, there would be no basis for imposing liability for product defects on a mere seller.

 

[vintage cessna]

When you say something like this, you show your misunderstanding of American jurisprudence. It's okay. Not everyone is lawyer, nor need they be. So when I say this, I don't mean to be insulting in any way to any non-lawyer. But there is no legal support for the argument that a sale will terminate your liability as the builder to third parties.




Well, there was the example given in the John Denver accident. So it does seem to have happened at least once. And, as I posted earlier, you really do need to have that "perfect storm" (great term, I hope you don't mind that I borrowed it) for that to happen as a practical matter. So the fact that there are few examples to show isn't surprising.




Hence, the GARA protections. Of course, as a non-builder, there would be no basis for imposing liability for product defects on a mere seller.

If you are a lawyer, it would behoove you to listen to the EAA webinar on this very subject. The webinar is not conducted by a layman but by an experienced aviation attorney. The webinar is not a propaganda piece. You guys do continuing education and stuff like that, right.

Some people consider lawyers some kind of wizards, I don't. They just may know more about a particular subject, but if one can read, anyone has the ability to know what a lawyer knows.

 

[PPC1052]

If you are a lawyer, it would behoove you to listen to the EAA webinar on this very subject. The webinar is not conducted by a layman but by an experienced aviation attorney. The webinar is not a propaganda piece. You guys do continuing education and stuff like that, right.

Some people consider lawyers some kind of wizards, I don't. They just may know more about a particular subject, but if one can read, anyone has the ability to know what a lawyer knows.

True. But you do need to know a lot of background information to understand what a particular case or statute means.

I might check out the webinar, but from what you have said, I can tell there is nothing there that conflicts with anything that I have said.

 

[vintage cessna]

True. But you do need to know a lot of background information to understand what a particular case or statute means.

I might check out the webinar, but from what you have said, I can tell there is nothing there that conflicts with anything that I have said.

So a client tells you he wants to sell his E-AB, and wants to access the risk. He is worth 2 million and is a bottom line type of guy and wants to know the chances of losing a lawsuit if the E-AB crashes due to faulty workmanship. He wants to know the risk on a scale of 1-10. What do you say.

Another scenario, AB-EXP crashes and kills pilot. Pilot bought aircraft from an individual worth mega bucks . Cause of crash faulty workmanship, or so it seems. Family wants you to take case on a contingency basis. Do you?

Oh, and let"s add a bystander killed on the ground and that family also wants you to pursue the case on a contingency basis. Action against the builder, of course.

 

[Henning]

Apparently some certified owners are reluctant to sell as well, didn't Dick Collins destroy his P-210 rather than sell it?

 

[Jim Logajan]

Slim pickings of remotely relevant cases using Google Scholar. I found these two involving crashes of experimental or kit-built airplanes that may (or may not) shed some light on how some of the issues that come up play out in court.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...as_sdt=2006&case=12065962034416743516&scilh=0

In the above case, the court spends much time determining whether the following disclaimer is covered by Colorado law against unconscionable contract terms:

Buyer expressly waives any and all claims arising from structural integrity, performance, flight characteristics, mechanical failures, and safety against QUICKIE AIRCRAFT CORPORATION.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...as_sdt=2006&case=13157484569146267104&scilh=0

The above case seems to be one wherein the wrong jurisdiction was chosen in which to file the lawsuit. It may be that subsequent lawsuits were filed in appropriate jurisdictions, though that would have added to the litigation expense.

 

[weilke]

Apparently some certified owners are reluctant to sell as well, didn't Dick Collins destroy his P-210 rather than sell it?

Which made no sense as in a certified aircraft, a 'as is where is, with known and unknown defects' sale does get you off the hook (beyond the liability to the buyer for undisclosed defects that you should have known about).

 

[Henning]

Which made no sense as in a certified aircraft, a 'as is where is, with known and unknown defects' sale does get you off the hook (beyond the liability to the buyer for undisclosed defects that you should have known about).

Yeah, made me suspect there was a bit of maintenance and modification fairy work on the plane.

 

[N801BH]

Which made no sense as in a certified aircraft, a 'as is where is, with known and unknown defects' sale does get you off the hook (beyond the liability to the buyer for undisclosed defects that you should have known about).

Hmmmm...

Let's put the shoe on the "other" foot....

You built an experimental and flew it 2000 hours with no structural problems.. You sell it and the new buyer proceeds to rip the wings off on the first flight...

You argue in court that your plane was properly built and had a multiyear and 2000 hours of flight time on it...... The new owner clearly pulled too many G's and was killed doing that......

Why can't a EAB seller use the " 'as is where is, with known and unknown defects'" defense ??

 

[Jim Logajan]

Slim pickings of remotely relevant cases using Google Scholar. I found these two involving crashes of experimental or kit-built airplanes that may (or may not) shed some light on how some of the issues that come up play out in court.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...as_sdt=2006&case=12065962034416743516&scilh=0

In the above case, the court spends much time determining whether the following disclaimer is covered by Colorado law against unconscionable contract terms:

Buyer expressly waives any and all claims arising from structural integrity, performance, flight characteristics, mechanical failures, and safety against QUICKIE AIRCRAFT CORPORATION.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...as_sdt=2006&case=13157484569146267104&scilh=0

The above case seems to be one wherein the wrong jurisdiction was chosen in which to file the lawsuit. It may be that subsequent lawsuits were filed in appropriate jurisdictions, though that would have added to the litigation expense.

One more that owners of amateur built aircraft need to be mindful of: when making changes, you may void your insurance coverage if the change could be considered a "major change" and don't give FAA notification (even if you change things back the way they were):

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...&as_sdt=2006&case=6241550713310461673&scilh=0

 

[Henning]

Hmmmm...

Let's put the shoe on the "other" foot....

You built an experimental and flew it 2000 hours with no structural problems.. You sell it and the new buyer proceeds to rip the wings off on the first flight...

You argue in court that your plane was properly built and had a multiyear and 2000 hours of flight time on it...... The new owner clearly pulled too G's and was killed doing that......

Why can't a EAB seller use the " 'as is where is, with known and unknown defects'" defense ??

Of course they can, and even more disclaimers that a jury may or may not disregard. 80% of the human population is stupid and they are not disqualified from jury duty.

 

[N801BH]

............. 80% of the human population is stupid and they are not disqualified from jury duty.

Agreed 100%...

 

[weilke]

Why can't a EAB seller use the " 'as is where is, with known and unknown defects'" defense ??

A seller can. A manufacturer can't.

 

[Tom-D]

In the case of the John Denver accident we knew who the builder was because it was a used aircraft registered by the builder then sold.

when you buy an unfinished project, then complete and register it, who becomes the builder ?

IMHO it would be pretty easy to prove the person who finished the project did inspect and approve of the build standard/workmanship, of the parts they bought. (or why would they buy them?) Thus be responsible for the over all quality of the aircraft.

 

[N801BH]

In the case of the John Denver accident we knew who the builder was because it was a used aircraft registered by the builder then sold.

when you buy an unfinished project, then complete and register it, who becomes the builder ?

IMHO it would be pretty easy to prove the person who finished the project did inspect and approve of the build standard/workmanship, of the parts they bought. (or why would they buy them?) Thus be responsible for the over all quality of the aircraft.

Good point.........

All the more reason for the estate to sell you the Cozy...

 

[Tom-D]

No, check my earlier post, where I named a number of RVs which had "Vans Aircraft" as the manufacturer but were not connected to the company itself. Most of my examples didn't list a builder name. Try N94TB, for example.

Also, over 30 Fly Babies just list "Bowers" as the Manufacturer name, and Pete didn't build them.

Ron Wanttaja

Read the letter of limitations for each home built, that is where I see each one has " BUILDERS NAME-TYPE' for aircraft manufacturer.

Example "Jones CoEZ" ---- "Smith Celebrity"

 

[Tom-D]

Good point.........

All the more reason for the estate to sell you the Cozy...

I wish….. >

As I understand this, it has been several years since the builder passed, I do not know if the project was registered in his name or even if it was finished or not.

I was hoping for a response from the family, but nothing as yet.