Van's RV-10 down in Marin Headlands - two dead

Very sad. Looks like a possible VFR into IMC. Fog was thick by the golden gate today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Looks like the guy it was registered to recently sold it and wasn't on board.

I wish people would just get their instrument ratings and fly IFR more.
 
Understandably, LSA pilots would also be more cautious when flying in marginal conditions. But I agree that there is no reason to not work on those skills just in case the worst happens.

An RV10 is definitely not an LSA and certainly a great IFR platform as well.
 
2078e0efdb809c1c3a104226f8061372.jpg


It was pretty foggy by the golden gate yesterday. The plane came down in some pretty steep terrain. Doesn’t look like it spun in though. They were on live ATC asking for flight following to half moon bay which is a few miles south of the golden gate. NorCal told them to stay clear of the bravo. That was the last transmission. Very sad.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
Dave Anderson said:
I wish i could get my instrument rating as an LSA pilot just to have the skills to prevent this and know more.
Click to expand...
You can get the skills to 180 back out of a cloud you just flew into or climb up out of a layer you know will have a low top like in this instance, without getting rated. I don’t think there are many planes out there that don’t have the instrumentation to do that.
 
How the heck can you get all those ratings & types without an IFR?
SMH
 
luvflyin said:
You can get the skills to 180 back out of a cloud you just flew into or climb up out of a layer you know will have a low top like in this instance, without getting rated. I don’t think there are many planes out there that don’t have the instrumentation to do that.
Click to expand...
The autopilot in my plane has that as a feature on the Garmin panel. Although learning that skill is necessary, I'm learning in my situation AP could save my life.
 
Dave Anderson said:
The autopilot in my plane has that as a feature on the Garmin panel. Although learning that skill is necessary, I'm learning in my situation AP could save my life.
Click to expand...

I have the same feature on my simple Trio A/P that turns the plane back towards where it came from. My plan as a VFR only pilot is to do all I can to never have to use that resource.
 
Dave Anderson said:
The autopilot in my plane has that as a feature on the Garmin panel. Although learning that skill is necessary, I'm learning in my situation AP could save my life.
Click to expand...
When I said most planes have have the ‘instrumentation’ needed to fly IMC I wasn’t meaning auto pilots. Airspeed, altimeters, turn coordinators/needle and ball, stuff like that. But yeah, auto pilots are a thing to. But ya gotta know how to use them. Use them wrong and they can kill you.
 
Reading this, a question popped into my head I didn't immediately have an answer for. Now this looks like vfr into imc. But being an eab that's been sold, would the builder have any liability if it was poor workmanship that caused a failure?
 
Racerx said:
Reading this, a question popped into my head I didn't immediately have an answer for. Now this looks like vfr into imc. But being an eab that's been sold, would the builder have any liability if it was poor workmanship that caused a failure?
Click to expand...

That has been brought up before. So far I'm not aware of a case where someone was eaten out of house and home over a lawsuit arising from an experimental they built then sold and subsequently crashed. My bet is that EABs will continue to crash as all manners of recreational use airplanes can, builders continue to build and sell.

But I'm not a builder, so I don't follow the latest worry-wart liability hypotheticals of that sector of the hobby. Maybe it's something that creates hesitation in builder's minds. As a future buyer of a completed EAB, I hope such a liability never comes to pass, as it would kill the resale market.
 
hindsight2020 said:
That has been brought up before. So far I'm not aware of a case where someone was eaten out of house and home over a lawsuit arising from an experimental they built then sold and subsequently crashed. My bet is that EABs will continue to crash as all manners of recreational use airplanes can, builders continue to build and sell.

But I'm not a builder, so I don't follow the latest worry-wart liability hypotheticals of that sector of the hobby. Maybe it's something that creates hesitation in builder's minds. As a future buyer of a completed EAB, I hope such a liability never comes to pass, as it would kill the resale market.
Click to expand...
Excerpt from EAA's recommended EAB seller/builder agreement:

PURCHASER HEREBY WAIVES AND RELEASES ______________________ THE BUILDER/SELLER FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS, LOSES, DEMANDS OR LIABILITY OF EVERY KIND WHICH SUCH PERSON OR PERSONS MAY HAVE, OR CLAIM TO HAVE, AGAINST SAID BUILDER/SELLER BY REASON OF ANY INJURY, DEATH OR PROPERTY DAMAGE OF ANY KIND SUSTAINED WHILE BEING AN OWNER, AN OPERATOR, A PILOT, OR A PASSENGER IN THIS AIRCRAFT. THIS WAIVER AND RELEASE IS BINDING ON THE HEIRS, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES AND ASSIGNS OF THE PURCHASER, SUBSEQUENT OWNER, PILOTS AND PASSENGERS.
Click to expand...

and

AIRCRAFT IS SOLD ON AN AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS BASIS FOR REASON THAT THE BUILDER OF AIRCRAFT WAS AN AMATEUR BUILDER AND AIRCRAFT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE FEDERAL SAFETY REGULATIONS FOR STANDARD CERTIFICATED AIRCRAFT, SELLER DISCLAIMS ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS OF ANY KIND OR NATURE WHATSOEVER TO PURCHASER AND ANYONE ELSE INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS OF AIRWORTHINESS, MERCHANTABILITY, AND/OR FITNESS FOR PURPOSE, EXCEPT SELLER AGREES THAT AIRCRAFT WILL BE DELIVERED WITH AN APPROPRIATE BILL OF SALE IN THE STANDARD FAA FORM. FURTHER SELLER MAKES NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS OF ANY KIND OR NATURE WHATSOEVER THAT AIRCRAFT IS COMPLETE, AIRWORTHY, INSURABLE, FIT FOR SERVICE, OR CAPABLE OF BEING LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED FOR ANY FLIGHT, USE, OR OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES OF ANY KIND OR NATURE WHATSOEVER. PURCHASER ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES THAT AS OWNER OF AIRCRAFT, PURCHASER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS AERODYNAMICS AND STRUCTURAL CONCEPT AND FOR THE PERFORMANCE AND FITNESS FOR PURPOSE OF EVERY PART AND PIECE OF AIRCRAFT. ADDITIONALLY, SELLER DISCLAIMS ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS OF ANY KIND OR NATURE WHATSOEVER TO PURCHASER AND ANYONE ELSE FOR ANY FLYING OR GROUND HANDLING CHARACTERISTIC, FOR THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY, OR FOR ANY FEATURE, PART OR COMPONENT OF AIRCRAFT.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Salty said:
Excerpt from EAA's recommended EAB seller/builder agreement:<trimmed>
Click to expand...
I don't believe one can waive gross negligence, nor do I believe you can waive the rights of someone else not a minor. The waiver might show a court the buyers state of mind at purchase but it will not prevent a lawsuit.

Nauga,
and a boy named Sue
 
IDK if it would have helped but while he had radio contact, the four C's rule comes to mind. Maybe when told to remain clear of bravo, he could say unable and confess, get vectors. Not having to navigate could help reduce workload. Maybe? Could be he wasn't in trouble at that point I guess.

4 C's
Climb, communicate, confess, comply (or something like that)
 
nauga said:
I don't believe one can waive gross negligence, nor do I believe you can waive the rights of someone else not a minor.
Click to expand...

I've sold a few experimental aircraft over the years and I've always believed that a properly executed waiver is a good thing. But I agree that no waiver can remove the rights of anyone else.

I'm not suggesting that a poorly built airplane was to blame in this case as it may have been that the new owner wasn't familiar enough with the new to him airplane.
 
Salty said:
Excerpt from EAA's recommended EAB seller/builder agreement:

and
Click to expand...

Problem is the deceased signed that, but not the party/parties suing; spouse, parents, children, siblings, passenger's family, etc.

Sad how litigious this country is.

As we know, statistically the cause was the pilot. Even then, the passenger got in the plane of their on free will. I wish people would quit "grieving" through the lawsuit lottery.



Wayne
 
wayne said:
Problem is the deceased signed that, but not the party/parties suing; spouse, parents, children, siblings, passenger's family, etc.

Sad how litigious this country is.

As we know, statistically the cause was the pilot. Even then, the passenger got in the plane of their on free will. I wish people would quit "grieving" through the lawsuit lottery.



Wayne
Click to expand...
THIS WAIVER AND RELEASE IS BINDING ON THE HEIRS, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES
Click to expand...

I think the problem is that anybody can sue for anything despite paperwork.
 
Racerx said:
would the builder have any liability if it was poor workmanship that caused a failure?
Click to expand...
FWIW: tort liabilty knows no boundaries regardless of signed agreements. However it is rarely seen in the EAB world. Some say its because there are no "deep pockets" to pay large judgements or offset the higher costs of such actions. But it has happened and could happen in the right circumstance. I know of one EAB helicopter tort suit and John Denvers heirs suing Kitfox, ACS, etc is a another that comes to mind.
 
Bell206 said:
FWIW: tort liabilty knows no boundaries regardless of signed agreements. However it is rarely seen in the EAB world. Some say its because there are no "deep pockets" to pay large judgements or offset the higher costs of such actions. But it has happened and could happen in the right circumstance. I know of one EAB helicopter tort suit and John Denvers heirs suing Kitfox, ACS, etc is a another that comes to mind.
Click to expand...
Why would John Denvers Heirs sue Kitfox?
 
John Denver's heirs sued the builder (and maybe Rutan?), Kitfox had nothing to do with it, he wasn't flying a Kitfox, he was flying a LongEZ.

As I understand it, waivers might help if the person who signed the waiver sues, but they do nothing if the person's heirs sue, because you can't sign away anybody else's rights. That said, successful lawsuits against E-AB builders or sellers pretty much don't exist, though it may not stop somebody from trying. As @Bell206 said, no deep pockets makes it not worth the shyster's time.
 
I'm not about to draw any conclusions and may be missing something, but the only "Mike Briar" I could find on the FAA pilot registry is a "Scott Michael Briar" who was issued a student pilot certificate in 1995 and has chosen to have his address concealed. Search criteria was only Last Name "Briar."

EDIT -

The news reports got his last name spelled incorrectly; it's Briare (ends in "e").
Michael Benedict Briare.jpg
 
Last edited:
Bell206 said:
I thought Kitfox had something to do with the fuel valve installed in his EZ? But its been a while so I can easily be wrong on that point.
Click to expand...
Family settled with aircraft spruce and Gould. This despite Denver being denied a medical after a couple dui's.
 
exncsurfer said:
IDK if it would have helped but while he had radio contact, the four C's rule comes to mind. Maybe when told to remain clear of bravo, he could say unable and confess, get vectors. Not having to navigate could help reduce workload. Maybe? Could be he wasn't in trouble at that point I guess.

4 C's
Climb, communicate, confess, comply (or something like that)
Click to expand...

Easy to remember:
  • Control
  • Climb
  • Call
 
Here's the Flight Aware data as seen in Google Earth. I've added altitude and ground speed data from the log. Data points in RED are ADSB reports, and in green are radar reports (first one from NorCal Tracon, rest from Oakland Center).

There's one pirep from over SFO almost two hours after the accident, showing SCT 012, tops 025. Another from Napa (APC) about an hour before the accident shows bases as 020, tops 025.

I don't know how accurate the radar ground speed reports are if the a/c is maneuvering. That said, it's showing some fairly low ground speed values at times. The radar that would have been tracking that is (I believe -- can someone confirm?) on Mt. Tamalpias just to the North a few miles, so those locations from Oakland Center should be pretty accurate.

Maybe the U-turn over San Francisco is where ATC told him to remain clear of Bravo...?

Anyway, just some more grist for the mill.
 

Attachments

  • GE-Map.jpg
    GE-Map.jpg
    254.3 KB · Views: 62
OK, you take off from a SAC area airport VFR with good weather, scenic flight. As you get closer to SFO you see some low clouds, fog, now you decide to ADJUST your planned flight. Isn’t that what’s supposed to happen??

Sorry, just injecting some aviation 101 into the discussion.
 
Salty said:
I think the problem is that anybody can sue for anything despite paperwork.
Click to expand...

Sadly that is true. I've also been told by lawyers that you can't sign your minor children's right to sue, which I thought rather odd. I can sign a waiver to allow them to participate in activities, but not sign a waiver that they won't sue if I get hurt doing an activity. :confused:
 
Racerx said:
Reading this, a question popped into my head I didn't immediately have an answer for. Now this looks like vfr into imc. But being an eab that's been sold, would the builder have any liability if it was poor workmanship that caused a failure?
Click to expand...

I once defended someone who sold a used Cessna 172 to a broker, who then sold it to another purchaser who crashed into a field on his trip back home from buying it with his CFI/A&P in the right seat who helped him with the purchase. So, anything is possible.
 
exncsurfer said:
IDK if it would have helped but while he had radio contact, the four C's rule comes to mind. Maybe when told to remain clear of bravo, he could say unable and confess, get vectors. Not having to navigate could help reduce workload. Maybe? Could be he wasn't in trouble at that point I guess.

4 C's
Climb, communicate, confess, comply (or something like that)
Click to expand...
Being told to remain clear of the Bravo should have nothing to do with this. The Floor of the Bravo is well above obstacles in that area. He was electing to fly well below it to do some sightseeing.
 
luvflyin said:
Being told to remain clear of the Bravo should have nothing to do with this. The Floor of the Bravo is well above obstacles in that area. He was electing to fly well below it to do some sightseeing.
Click to expand...
Yeah, not implying airspace avoidance had anything to do with it. I'm just saying it may have helped to get ATC assistance with navigation to help get back to vmc.(if it was vfr into imc that was the cause) We don't know if it was, or how much time he had in imc before it was too late. I just mentioned 'Bravo' because I think that was the last transmission.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top