Vans Aircraft sued for $35M

Why did they ever decide on the term experimental :dunno:

It just has bad connotations to it.
 
EppyGA said:
Why did they ever decide on the term experimental :dunno:

It just has bad connotations to it.
Click to expand...
well it has many uses....other than to operate E-AB aircraft.:rolleyes2:

§21.191 Experimental certificates.

Experimental certificates are issued for the following purposes:

(a) Research and development. Testing new aircraft design concepts, new aircraft equipment, new aircraft installations, new aircraft operating techniques, or new uses for aircraft.

(b) Showing compliance with regulations. Conducting flight tests and other operations to show compliance with the airworthiness regulations including flights to show compliance for issuance of type and supplemental type certificates, flights to substantiate major design changes, and flights to show compliance with the function and reliability requirements of the regulations.

(c) Crew training. Training of the applicant's flight crews.

(d) Exhibition. Exhibiting the aircraft's flight capabilities, performance, or unusual characteristics at air shows, motion picture, television, and similar productions, and the maintenance of exhibition flight proficiency, including (for persons exhibiting aircraft) flying to and from such air shows and productions.

(e) Air racing. Participating in air races, including (for such participants) practicing for such air races and flying to and from racing events.

(f) Market surveys. Use of aircraft for purposes of conducting market surveys, sales demonstrations, and customer crew training only as provided in §21.195.

(g) Operating amateur-built aircraft. Operating an aircraft the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who undertook the construction project solely for their own education or recreation.

(h) Operating primary kit-built aircraft. Operating a primary category aircraft that meets the criteria of §21.24(a)(1) that was assembled by a person from a kit manufactured by the holder of a production certificate for that kit, without the supervision and quality control of the production certificate holder under §21.184(a).

(i) Operating light-sport aircraft. Operating a light-sport aircraft that—

(1) Has not been issued a U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate and does not meet the provisions of §103.1 of this chapter. An experimental certificate will not be issued under this paragraph for these aircraft after January 31, 2008;

(2) Has been assembled—

(i) From an aircraft kit for which the applicant can provide the information required by §21.193(e); and

(ii) In accordance with manufacturer's assembly instructions that meet an applicable consensus standard; or

(3) Has been previously issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category under §21.190.
Click to expand...
 
EppyGA said:
Why did they ever decide on the term experimental :dunno:

It just has bad connotations to it.
Click to expand...

I agree, but in this case it will help Vans.

There is a movement kicked around to use "Non Certified" instead of "Experimental". Vans RV series of planes are no longer " Experimental" IMHO. They are tested aircraft that when flown within their parameters are safe. Clearly, Vans, EAA, and any manufacturer of RTV does not condone the use of RTV for pipe thread sealant. That is still "experimentation" , but not in the eyes of any aircraft building standards.

I'm surprised the builder passed the FAA airworthiness inspection. Most inspectors would have caught this error in building.
 
Last edited:
I agree that this is total BS! The sad part is that Vans will have to pay to defend it's self when the claim should have never been filed to begin with. I hope Vans doesn't settle and they go to court to win and set the precedent for future idiots.

I had something similar happen to me, granted on a much smaller scale. I had a company file a lean on my airplane for work that the mechanic failed to pay for. The lien should have never been filed in the first place as it did not conform to the lien rules in NC. When I called the clerk of court her response was (It's not my job to decide when a lien can be filed, I just process them). Luckily after pointing out the lien laws in NC to the company and their lawyers, and the fact that I was willing to fight this with AOPA council they backed down and dropped the lien.
 
Geico266 said:
There is a movement kicked around to use "Non Certified" instead of "Experimental". Vans RV series of planes are no longer " Experimental" IMHO. They are tested aircraft that when flown within their parameters are safe. Clearly, Vans, EAA, and any manufacturer of RTV does not condone the use of RTV for pipe thread sealant. That is still "experimentation" , but not in the eyes of any aircraft building standards.
Click to expand...

I remember reading an old Peter Garrison column where he bristled at the language of the experimental placard required in his Melmoth. At the very least he wanted it to read "May not comply" as opposed to "Does not comply".

Also reminds me of an old James Carville line "We weren't just experimenting with marijuana --- we pretty much knew what we were doing."
 
Jim_R said:
I wasn't able to access the netzero site, but the NTSB public docket (including all photos/attachments) is available here:
http://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/hitlist.cfm?docketID=57129
Click to expand...

Pretty damning evidence. I don't see this going very far in the courts. The cause of the accident is clearly fthe fault of the builder using an unbelievable amount of RTV (which should not have been used on threads in the first place) as a thread sealant and it blocked the fuel flow. :mad2::mad2::mad2:
 
DJTorrente said:
I remember reading an old Peter Garrison column where he bristled at the language of the experimental placard required in his Melmoth. At the very least he wanted it to read "May not comply" as opposed to "Does not comply".

Also reminds me of an old James Carville line "We weren't just experimenting with marijuana --- we pretty much knew what we were doing."
Click to expand...

:rofl:

:yes:
 
Geico266 said:
Pretty damning evidence. I don't see this going very far in the courts. The cause of the accident is clearly fthe fault of the builder using an unbelievable amount of RTV (which should not have been used on threads in the first place) as a thread sealant and it blocked the fuel flow. :mad2::mad2::mad2:
Click to expand...

He generously applied it :hairraise:
 
I'm pretty sure that same transducer is in at least one STC meaning they are installed on certified aircraft too.

That would imply that even though there is no internal bypass incase of blockage, it was FAA approved.

I don't think the cubes are any different in that regard (competitors transducer)
 
Last edited:
Fearless Tower said:
Not so sure it has anything to do with 'today's' society'. I've been hearing that line for 40 years, and I'm pretty sure it's been going longer than that.
Click to expand...

May be IYHO. I have heard it more and more in my line of work in the last 10 years. More and more people looking for an easy hand out. Always trying to blame to the companies for what turns out to be consumer errors and sometimes simple misunderstandings. . . 40 years ago you didn't have billboards that say, "I sue auto manufacturers" like you do today. Further, you didn't have TV ads saying, "I sue lawyers". I would argue that society has most definitely evolved in this regard in the last 40 yrs.
 
zwaustin said:
May be IYHO. I have heard it more and more in my line of work in the last 10 years. More and more people looking for an easy hand out. Always trying to blame to the companies for what turns out to be consumer errors and sometimes simple misunderstandings. . . 40 years ago you didn't have billboards that say, "I sue auto manufacturers" like you do today. Further, you didn't have TV ads saying, "I sue lawyers". I would argue that society has most definitely evolved in this regard in the last 40 yrs.
Click to expand...

But it hasn't really.

When I was a kid in the 70s, I vividly remember my parents and grandparents saying those exact same words. Have you forgotten all the aviation lawsuits in the 80s?

Ambulance chasers are not a recent phenomenon. The internet makes advertising easier, but they were still there and just as prolific long ago.
 
It's not just the "loser pays" system in Europe, it's also the punitive damages, which won't fly in Europe.
If Vans WAS guilty in a case like this in Europe, they would pay maybe 50k or thereabouts. No money in it for greedy worthless no-win-no-pay lawyer scumbags there.
 
Sigh.....
Looks like VAF deleted the entire discussion on the law suit. A real shame it had some good information in it.

-Dan
 
LDJones said:
The most the lawyer will get out of this is token nuisance settlement...if that.
Click to expand...

Based on the sketchy reports I have seen so far, I think you are probably right. They are reported to be alleging more of a case against the FAA for allowing homebuilts than against Vans directly, so a motion to dismiss the pleadings may be in order. It sounds like they may have a problem alleging a design defect unless there are more facts than the aircraft suffered an engine failure and stalled it while gliding in. Without a design defect, the suit should not get past first base legally, never mind getting to a jury.

However, the allegations involving the FAA might be enough for the defendant to pull it into federal court, even if diversity jurisdiction is absent.
 
N801BH said:
VAF is REAL good at " sanitizing " their forum if it doesn't fit their agenda...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Your right,and I find that sad. I don't think they realize they do a lot more harm than good trying to hide this sort of things.

I cave dive, and the accident analysis can be quite brutal, but it is invaluable, and I firmly believe is a big part of why fatalities have dropped by huge amounts over time.

-Dan
 
I'm surprised it has happen already,.
I have zero faith in our tort system, get the right jury and anything is possible. Didn't Lycoming lose a suit because a guy flew into a mountain with his perfectly running engine?
 
OkieAviator said:
http://media.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/other/experimental.crash.suit.pdf

There's the filing if anyone wants to read it. This should be an easy defense for Vans and Floscan... they will deflect negligence straight to the builder.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link to the complaint. There seems to be only one argument to me that might get traction and that is the allegation that there was a lack of instruction regarding the sealant. To win on that one plaintiff will have to show that the sealant was the cause and that Van's really did not provide any guidance on the subject. There is a bunch of ways to defend that.

The other is a negligent marketing argument which are generally hard to win. The allegations about Van's gaming the system may raise federal defenses such as primary jurisdiction and arguing that the suit must fail because it does not violate an applicable federal statute.

All that being said, the law firm filing this suit is an experienced aviation firm and they think it is worth a shot, so maybe they have a good argument to get to a jury.
 
zwaustin said:
May be IYHO. I have heard it more and more in my line of work in the last 10 years. More and more people looking for an easy hand out. Always trying to blame to the companies for what turns out to be consumer errors and sometimes simple misunderstandings. . . 40 years ago you didn't have billboards that say, "I sue auto manufacturers" like you do today. Further, you didn't have TV ads saying, "I sue lawyers". I would argue that society has most definitely evolved in this regard in the last 40 yrs.
Click to expand...

About 40 years ago, the SCOTUS ruled that attorneys had the constitutional right to advertise. Thus started the problem.
 
Kristin said:
All that being said, the law firm filing this suit is an experienced aviation firm and they think it is worth a shot, so maybe they have a good argument to get to a jury.
Click to expand...

Young attorney though. Would speculate he figures it's worth a shot and at least some billable hours. Hoping to get it to trial or a settlement I would guess.
 
dweyant said:
Sigh.....
Looks like VAF deleted the entire discussion on the law suit. A real shame it had some good information in it.

-Dan
Click to expand...

Does not surprise me at all. What they don't understand over on VAF is that they open themselves up to the very liability they are trying to avoid. Deleting useful information about accidents and how to avoid them may save lives. Deleting the threads with that information in them leaves them open to liability claims if the information is correct. :dunno: :rolleyes2:
 
Last edited:
weilke said:
The lawsuit readily admits that the builder was an idiot. The claim is that the very act of selling kits of aircraft exploits a 'loophole' and that it is the fault of Vans and FloScan that the builder used improper materials.
Click to expand...

Like I said, Vans had better have had their assembly manual be clear on the subject of assembly of the fuel system and the correct products to use.

It's very much true that the kit manufacturers do exploit the regs, quite legally. A vast majority of the planes built from kits are done so because the certified market doesn't satisfy the demand for certain type of aircraft very well and it is a budget way to a brand new airplane that couldn't otherwise be afforded.

The kit market depends entirely on the secondary used market. If the regs were to be amended to state that the title of an E/AB plane was to be non transferable and the only person that could legally own the completed kit was the original builder, the kit industry would collapse and die overnight. When Vans fans proudly boast that more new Vans planes enter the registry than any other plane maker in the world, it becomes clear that there is a "loophole" being exploited.

Let me state now, that I am not against Vans, kit builders or the current state of the E/AB community. In fact I am a long time EAA member and think that what goes on in the E/AB world is crucial to our continuing leadership in the international aviation industry. I actually applaud E/AB and wish desperately that there were a way to turn older certified planes into a status like E/AB. My point here is to try explain my concerns about the upcoming legal battles for E/AB going forward.

I am certainly no fan of lawyers.

I have said this for years now, but sadly I believe that Vans will become the victim of their own success. This lawsuit will likely fail, but there will be more and more like it as Vans aircraft continue to "roll off the assembly line". They have gotten big enough to "be noticed". :(
 
Dav8or said:
Like I said, Vans had better have had their assembly manual be clear on the subject of assembly of the fuel system and the correct products to use.

It's very much true that the kit manufacturers do exploit the regs, quite legally. A vast majority of the planes built from kits are done so because the certified market doesn't satisfy the demand for certain type of aircraft very well and it is a budget way to a brand new airplane that couldn't otherwise be afforded.

The kit market depends entirely on the secondary used market. If the regs were to be amended to state that the title of an E/AB plane was to be non transferable and the only person that could legally own the completed kit was the original builder, the kit industry would collapse and die overnight. When Vans fans proudly boast that more new Vans planes enter the registry than any other plane maker in the world, it becomes clear that there is a "loophole" being exploited.

Let me state now, that I am not against Vans, kit builders or the current state of the E/AB community. In fact I am a long time EAA member and think that what goes on in the E/AB world is crucial to our continuing leadership in the international aviation industry. I actually applaud E/AB and wish desperately that there were a way to turn older certified planes into a status like E/AB. My point here is to try explain my concerns about the upcoming legal battles for E/AB going forward.

I am certainly no fan of lawyers.

I have said this for years now, but sadly I believe that Vans will become the victim of their own success. This lawsuit will likely fail, but there will be more and more like it as Vans aircraft continue to "roll off the assembly line". They have gotten big enough to "be noticed". :(
Click to expand...

Ha.... You should see Zenith's instructions for building one of their planes...:rolleyes2::yikes:
 
Dav8or said:
I have said this for years now, but sadly I believe that Vans will become the victim of their own success. This lawsuit will likely fail, but there will be more and more like it as Vans aircraft continue to "roll off the assembly line". They have gotten big enough to "be noticed". :(
Click to expand...

Vans has been successfully fending off these frivolous lawsuits for thirty years. They've gotten good at it, and have continuously improved their CYA practices along the way. I think they'll be just fine.
 
LDJones said:
Vans has been successfully fending off these frivolous lawsuits for thirty years. They've gotten good at it, and have continuously improved their CYA practices along the way. I think they'll be just fine.
Click to expand...

I agree...:yes:
 
OkieAviator said:
Young attorney though. Would speculate he figures it's worth a shot and at least some billable hours. Hoping to get it to trial or a settlement I would guess.
Click to expand...

The attorney that signed the complaint may be young, but a decision to take a case on contingency, which this surely is, gets made at the top levels of the firm.
 
Dav8or said:
Like I said, Vans had better have had their assembly manual be clear on the subject of assembly of the fuel system and the correct products to use.
Click to expand...

The manual has a section on pipe threaded fittings which are used in the fuel, brake, and oil systems as they are on most, if not all, GA aircraft. The important highlights from the section germaine to this discussion, are a sealant is mandatory, a couple of examples of what to use are provided, the use of Fuel Lube is "prohibited", and use of teflon tape is "not recommended" due to the potential for a piece to cause a blockage.
 
LDJones said:
Vans has been successfully fending off these frivolous lawsuits for thirty years. They've gotten good at it, and have continuously improved their CYA practices along the way. I think they'll be just fine.
Click to expand...

Yeah, after they pay out the ass for legal fees ! Just fine, you're completely in the right but you got to pay $100,000 just to prove it. What a great system - NOT !
 
Our jury system has huge flaws when the case pivots on technical issues beyond the ken of the bemused average jury member. Medical and aviation claims, patent disputes (especially software such as one-click checkout of the shopping cart), and complex financial documents are prime examples where the jury could be replaced with 5th graders and no one would be able to tell the difference.

When the case involves he-said-she-said the jury system works pretty well because we all have BS meters in our head that have been finely tuned since childhood. And juries are quite good at nullifying the state when it is intent on ignoring the outraged citizenry - i.e. the abused wife who finally blows her neanderthal husband away and the jury lets her walk and the prosecutor throws a tantrum.

In my experience of delivering testimony from having been the EMR doc who treated someone; the complexities of medical decision making are vastly beyond the non professional. The jury may think they understand after the 'experts' finish their competing dog and pony show but if I were the defendant I would prefer a gaggle of cynical 5th graders over the hypnotized jury.
I have not been in an aviation related case but I can see where what you and I as pilots have a gut understanding of and no amount of slick graphics is going to change that, the lay jury can be lead around by the nose.
I have long held that certain types of legal disputes need an expert jury (a jury of peers) and that there should be a new legal profession of Jury Member with a baccalaureate degree and a license for this etype of cases.
 
Dav8or said:
Like I said, Vans had better have had their assembly manual be clear on the subject of assembly of the fuel system and the correct products to use.
Click to expand...

The builder has many choices when building his plane. Many of the parts will be sourced from a kit, others will be sourced from other places like Spruce. Any assembly manual is a suggestion and it is the very nature of experimental that you could bolt the wings on upside down and it would still be legal. There are ACs and other knowledge sources available to mechanics on how to assemble AN fittings. EAB aircraft are built by amateurs and history shows that they are more likely to crash due to mechanical issues. The fact that many builders do a particular task for the first time is probably part of that record.

It's very much true that the kit manufacturers do exploit the regs, quite legally. A vast majority of the planes built from kits are done so because the certified market doesn't satisfy the demand for certain type of aircraft very well and it is a budget way to a brand new airplane that couldn't otherwise be afforded.
Click to expand...

A 'loophole' suggests that you can do something illegal just because the letter of the law doesn't allow prosecution due to a narrow legal issue that makes it not apply to a particular case. The FAA recognizes kit manufacturers as integral part of the EAB world and works with them on safety issues if they arise. If the agency that regulates aviation considered the entire kit market a 'loophole', they would have closed it a long time ago. If the IRS finds a tax shelter that they consider a loophole, they fix the regs in the next rulemaking process.

The only 'loophole' is where manufacturers build you the entire plane with their staff and just have the 'builder' come by to sign work log entries. In a couple of weeks with a few hours of his own work, a single 'builder' has now 'built' a turboprop comparable in complexity to a Socata TBM. I am not sure that that is what was intended with the EAB regs.

I have said this for years now, but sadly I believe that Vans will become the victim of their own success. This lawsuit will likely fail, but there will be more and more like it as Vans aircraft continue to "roll off the assembly line". They have gotten big enough to "be noticed". :(
Click to expand...

'Bob' who sells you a $200 plan set for his 'Bobs Velo' plywood byplane with an ad in the back of the EAA magazine is certainly a smaller target for a lawsuit than a company the size of Vans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top