See, that's the problem that the defendants will have to deal with. The kit is marketed to everybody. Vans claims that you need no previous skills, or knowledge. In short, almost anybody can do it they say. Then they provide somewhat ambiguous installation instructions with merely suggestions in it. Nowhere do the instructions seem to prohibit the use of RTV.
Vans makes no such claims. There are beginner building classes specifically for Vans kits. They use the terms " able to use ordinary shop tool skills" that can be taught. Besides, this accident was caused by the improper use of materials, not poor construction of the airframe.
The instructions are explicitly clear and detailed. Vans preaches sticking to the plans, that deviations from the plans are at your own risk and not advised.
The Aircraft standards handbook is the Bible for building an airplane. No where in there does it mention using RTV as a thread sealant.
One would assume that something as important of a project as building an airplane should include exact instructions with no room for guessing, or "asking strangers for help and advice", or consulting further publications. It seems to me that when you market your product to everyone, including the lowest common denominator, it should be complete with step by instructions and detailed parts and materials lists. In other words, as idiot proof as possible.
How many Vans Aircraft have you built? Have you even taken the time to look at the plans? Have you taken the time to talk to anyone building an airplane? Ask them what standards do they use? Would they chose RTV for a thread sealant on a fuel system? What would they have chosen? How would they rationally make that decision?
The instructions are exact and explicit. Vans provides technical support from their engineers every business day. All you have to do is call. I have called them dozens of times over the years. They are more than helpful, courteous, and eenthusiastic about helping anyone with questions about their aircraft, even if you didn't build the plane.
The courts will have to decide if this assumption of mine is valid and if so, did Vans do a proper job with the instructions. I hope that no one here thinks I have it in for Vans, the E/AB community, people building their own airplanes. I'm just voicing this stuff to make discussion on the topic, rather than the usual post crash analysis of- "The pilot was a total idiot! I would never do that!!"
Your assumptions and stated facts are not in evidence, and are clearly wrong. Build a Vans airplane, repair a dozen Vans aircraft, become a tech counselor for the EAA, work OSH builders forums for 10 years and get back to me.
Finally, please provide any evidence, any manufacturers information, any FAA, EAA, any standards at all that allow the use of RTV as a thread sealant on fuel lines. Any information at all, please.
The point is we live in a free country and this builder decided to "experiment" on his own plane (after it was certified as air worthy by the FAA) to use UNAPPROVED materials for the application according to industry standards, the RTV manufacturers instructions, and the aircraft standards booklet supplied by Vans, and UNAPPROVED materials according to the Flowscan installation manual.
His choice cost him and his granddaughter their lives, and I am deeply sorry about that. It was not the fault of Vans Aircraft or Flowscan. It was his own damn fault for not following instructions for building, not flying the airplane first, and allowing it to stall and crash. Vans had NOTHING to do with that at all.
