 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jchang10
Joined: 05 Jul 2006
Posts: 227
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gengrumpy
Joined: 07 May 2013
Posts: 131
Location: Tullahoma, TN
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:24 pm Post subject: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
 |
|
Here is a link to the actual lawsuit. What a crock of crap filed against Van’s!
http://media.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/other/experimental.crash.suit.pdf
| Quote: | On Oct 19, 2015, at 8:50 PM, Jae Chang <jc-matronics_rv10(at)jline.com (jc-matronics_rv10(at)jline.com)> wrote:
--> RV10-List message posted by: Jae Chang <jc-matronics_rv10(at)jline.com (jc-matronics_rv10(at)jline.com)>http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=113733http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2015/10/family_of_girl_4_who_perished.htmlI found this previous posting on this crash in Oregon. Looks like it is coming back to Vans as a lawsuit. Lawsuit linked in the article. This is just sad all around.-- #40533 RV-10First flight 10/19/2011Phase 1 Done 11/26/2011do not archive
|
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lyleapgmc
Joined: 19 Feb 2014
Posts: 57
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:55 pm Post subject: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
|
|
This is just one example, among many, of the greed of lawyers. When they awake in the morning all they see is dollar signs. The lullaby they sing to their children at bed time consists of the repeated sound of a cash register. They bend, distort and expand without limit any fact or rumor they can get their grubby little hands on.
They also believe, as most liars do, that repeating a lie will make it true. Witness the repetition in the law suit. It only says the same thing about four times, if not by verbatim repetition then by reference. Do lawyers get paid by the word count in the complaint?
This smacks of the same idiocy when an RV-6 crashed with the stick tied back by the passenger seat belt. The pilot's death was alleged to be the fault of the fire department's slow response to the crash.
Lyle Peterson
An innocent bystander until some lawyer finds my name.
Do not archive
On 10/19/2015 9:20 PM, Miller John wrote:
[quote] Here is a link to the actual lawsuit. What a crock of crap filed against Van’s!
http://media.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/other/experimental.crash.suit.pdf
[b]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Saylor
Joined: 11 Jan 2015
Posts: 207
Location: GILROY, CA
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2015 7:18 pm Post subject: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
|
|
This tragic accident was avoidable by following standard practices.
Hopefully it's heard by an aviation judge, who would see all kinds of flaws with the "arguments" the suit presents.
--Dave
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 6:50 PM, Jae Chang <jc-matronics_rv10(at)jline.com (jc-matronics_rv10(at)jline.com)> wrote:
[quote]--> RV10-List message posted by: Jae Chang <jc-matronics_rv10(at)jline.com (jc-matronics_rv10(at)jline.com)>
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=113733
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2015/10/family_of_girl_4_who_perished.html
I found this previous posting on this crash in Oregon. Looks like it is coming back to Vans as a lawsuit. Lawsuit linked in the article. This is just sad all around.
--
#40533 RV-10
First flight 10/19/2011
Phase 1 Done 11/26/2011
do not archive
===========
-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
===========
FORUMS -
eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
===========
b Site -
     -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===========
[b]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
_________________
--Dave
KWVI |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flyboy(at)gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2015 7:22 pm Post subject: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
|
|
Infuriating.
"Van's recklessly sells its aircraft kits to ordinary consumers by
ensuring them that even though those consumers are deemed the 'builder'
of the aircraft, they do not need any experience or special knowledge to
safely assemble the aircraft, but can safely assemble the aircraft by
following Van's detailed assembly plans and utilizing Van's support,"
the suit states."
Vans recklessly sells its kits to inept pilots incapable of performing
the most basic task required of a pilot: fly the airplane. Worse, the
lawyers of the families of said inept pilots would like to ruin it for
the rest of us. I'd like to hope Van's fights, but I'm sure they cave
with a settlement large enough to encourage the sharks.
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2015 7:37 pm Post subject: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
|
|
All the defense attorney needs is a copy of AC 43-13 to blow that
lawsuit to shreds.
It's a PITA for Vans but that's the way the world is today.
Anybody can sue anybody if they have the money ..... or the smell of it.
Linn
On 10/19/2015 11:15 PM, David Saylor wrote:
| Quote: | This tragic accident was avoidable by following standard practices.
Hopefully it's heard by an aviation judge, who would see all kinds of
flaws with the "arguments" the suit presents.
--Dave
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rleffler
Joined: 05 Nov 2006
Posts: 680
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:11 am Post subject: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
|
|
Just ready it makes you wonder what type of aviation expert was retained to assist with writing the claims documented in the suit.
Clearly it wasn't an A&P that ever installed a fuel transducer or knows how to install fuel transducers. I would think the fact that they are also in certified aircraft, will make the reckless claims more difficult to prove. Of course the countless threads on VAF and other sites about using sealant (or the lack thereof) on an fittings is directly opposing their claims.
This will be a great distraction to Van's. Let's just hope that both companies have adequate liability insurance so that they will be rigorously defended. I would hate to see either company fold due to lack of insurance. It would greatly impact EAB industry.
While I have empathy for Doug's step daughter, I don't agree with her approach. she is just going after the deepest they can find. It's just another instance of why the US needs tort reforms.
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 19, 2015, at 10:20 PM, Miller John <gengrumpy(at)aol.com (gengrumpy(at)aol.com)> wrote:
[quote]Here is a link to the actual lawsuit. What a crock of crap filed against Van’s!
http://media.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/other/experimental.crash.suit.pdf
| Quote: |
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
//forums.matronics.com
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
|
[b]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
_________________
Bob Leffler
N410BL - Phase I
http://mykitlog.com/rleffler |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
john(at)trollingers.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:04 am Post subject: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
|
|
Reading the comments is so depressing.. People have no clue about the experimental aviation community and just condemn it for no reason. Ugh...
john
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 5:39 AM, Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com (rv(at)thelefflers.com)> wrote:
[quote]Just ready it makes you wonder what type of aviation expert was retained to assist with writing the claims documented in the suit.
Clearly it wasn't an A&P that ever installed a fuel transducer or knows how to install fuel transducers. Â I would think the fact that they are also in certified aircraft, will make the reckless claims more difficult to prove. Â Of course the countless threads on VAF and other sites about using sealant (or the lack thereof) on an fittings is directly opposing their claims.
This will be a great distraction to Van's. Â Let's just hope that both companies have adequate liability insurance so that they will be rigorously defended. Â Â I would hate to see either company fold due to lack of insurance. Â It would greatly impact EAB industry.
While I have empathy for Doug's step daughter, I don't agree with her approach. she is just going after the deepest they can find. It's just another instance of why the US needs tort reforms.
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 19, 2015, at 10:20 PM, Miller John <gengrumpy(at)aol.com (gengrumpy(at)aol.com)> wrote:
| Quote: |
get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
|
[b]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rv10flyer(at)live.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 7:11 am Post subject: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
|
|
The NTSB makes this case pretty clear- http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20140531X15032&key=1
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows: - A total loss of engine power due to fuel starvation because of a blocked fuel line that resulted from the pilot’s improper maintenance practices and the pilot’s subsequent failure to maintain adequate airspeed while attempting a forced landing, which led to the airplane exceeding its critical angle-of-attack and experiencing an aerodynamic stall.
Seems that floscan and Vans must fight this as its obviously not either of their faults. The end result is higher insurance for others if either caves into this.
From: Bob Leffler (rv(at)thelefflers.com)
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 2:39 AM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause
Just ready it makes you wonder what type of aviation expert was retained to assist with writing the claims documented in the suit.
Clearly it wasn't an A&P that ever installed a fuel transducer or knows how to install fuel transducers. I would think the fact that they are also in certified aircraft, will make the reckless claims more difficult to prove. Of course the countless threads on VAF and other sites about using sealant (or the lack thereof) on an fittings is directly opposing their claims.
This will be a great distraction to Van's. Let's just hope that both companies have adequate liability insurance so that they will be rigorously defended. I would hate to see either company fold due to lack of insurance. It would greatly impact EAB industry.
While I have empathy for Doug's step daughter, I don't agree with her approach. she is just going after the deepest they can find. It's just another instance of why the US needs tort reforms.
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 19, 2015, at 10:20 PM, Miller John <gengrumpy(at)aol.com (gengrumpy(at)aol.com)> wrote:
[quote] Here is a link to the actual lawsuit. What a crock of crap filed against Van’s!
http://media.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/other/experimental.crash.suit.pdf
| Quote: |
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
//forums.matronics.com
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
|
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
[b]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
civengpe
Joined: 14 Feb 2011
Posts: 105
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 7:24 am Post subject: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
|
|
Does anybody know what sealant he used?
Shannom On Oct 20, 2015 10:16, "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)live.com (rv10flyer(at)live.com)> wrote:[quote] The NTSB makes this case pretty clear- http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20140531X15032&key=1
Â
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows: - A total loss of engine power due to fuel starvation because of a blocked fuel line that resulted from the pilot’s improper maintenance practices and the pilot’s subsequent failure to maintain adequate airspeed while attempting a forced landing, which led to the airplane exceeding its critical angle-of-attack and experiencing an aerodynamic stall.
Seems that floscan and Vans must fight this as its obviously not either of their faults. The end result is higher insurance for others if either caves into this.
Â
Â
From: Bob Leffler (rv(at)thelefflers.com)
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 2:39 AM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause
Â
Just ready it makes you wonder what type of aviation expert was retained to assist with writing the claims documented in the suit.
Â
Clearly it wasn't an A&P that ever installed a fuel transducer or knows how to install fuel transducers.  I would think the fact that they are also in certified aircraft, will make the reckless claims more difficult to prove.  Of course the countless threads on VAF and other sites about using sealant (or the lack thereof) on an fittings is directly opposing their claims.
Â
This will be a great distraction to Van's.  Let's just hope that both companies have adequate liability insurance so that they will be rigorously defended.   I would hate to see either company fold due to lack of insurance.  It would greatly impact EAB industry.
Â
While I have empathy for Doug's step daughter, I don't agree with her approach. she is just going after the deepest they can find. It's just another instance of why the US needs tort reforms.
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 19, 2015, at 10:20 PM, Miller John <gengrumpy(at)aol.com (gengrumpy(at)aol.com)> wrote:
[b]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jchang10
Joined: 05 Jul 2006
Posts: 227
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 7:36 am Post subject: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
|
|
Unfortunately, it is those same people, without a clue, who sit on juries. They lay out their argument that Van's says anyone without prior experience can build a safe and reliable airplane using their design and instructions. This is where they failed, they argue. There was a time when Van's only supplied the airframe. There was no official firewall forward plans, wiring, or maybe even finishing plans. Maybe Van's avoided considerable liability back then. However, the kits have been getting more and more complete and detailed. Kits are being finished faster than ever. Did this just open them up to greater liability? What is going to happen when this happens for a 2nd third or 10th time? Or is this already the 10th time? No idea.
Unfortunately, Van's is at the forefront of this kit building industry. They are the canary in the coal mine, it seems. I have to think this will have some affect on us all and the future of the kit industry. I love Van's as they are and hate to see changes forced on them because of civil suits. Imagine what kind of company they would be with more lawyers than engineers. They may win every case, but the company and products i love today would be gone. Is it just inevitable like watching your child growing up? Sigh.
[quote]--
#40533 RV-10
First flight 10/19/2011
Phase 1 Done 11/26/2011
do not archive[b]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
_________________
#40533 RV-10
First flight 10/19/2011
Phase 1 Done 11/26/2011 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
john(at)trollingers.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 7:54 am Post subject: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
|
|
RTV I believe..
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Shannon Hicks <civeng123(at)gmail.com (civeng123(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
[quote]
Does anybody know what sealant he used?
Shannom On Oct 20, 2015 10:16, "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)live.com (rv10flyer(at)live.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | The NTSB makes this case pretty clear- http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20140531X15032&key=1
Â
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows: - A total loss of engine power due to fuel starvation because of a blocked fuel line that resulted from the pilot’s improper maintenance practices and the pilot’s subsequent failure to maintain adequate airspeed while attempting a forced landing, which led to the airplane exceeding its critical angle-of-attack and experiencing an aerodynamic stall.
Seems that floscan and Vans must fight this as its obviously not either of their faults. The end result is higher insurance for others if either caves into this.
Â
Â
From: Bob Leffler (rv(at)thelefflers.com)
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 2:39 AM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause
Â
Just ready it makes you wonder what type of aviation expert was retained to assist with writing the claims documented in the suit.
Â
Clearly it wasn't an A&P that ever installed a fuel transducer or knows how to install fuel transducers.  I would think the fact that they are also in certified aircraft, will make the reckless claims more difficult to prove.  Of course the countless threads on VAF and other sites about using sealant (or the lack thereof) on an fittings is directly opposing their claims.
Â
This will be a great distraction to Van's.  Let's just hope that both companies have adequate liability insurance so that they will be rigorously defended.   I would hate to see either company fold due to lack of insurance.  It would greatly impact EAB industry.
Â
While I have empathy for Doug's step daughter, I don't agree with her approach. she is just going after the deepest they can find. It's just another instance of why the US needs tort reforms.
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 19, 2015, at 10:20 PM, Miller John <gengrumpy(at)aol.com (gengrumpy(at)aol.com)> wrote:
|
| Quote: |
get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
|
[b]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim Olson
Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2871
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 7:54 am Post subject: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
|
|
I believe it was standard RTV. If I remember right, it
was used on the threads of NTP fittings?
Either way, you don't want RTV used on ANY fuel fittings.
Or in the fuel tanks.
Tim
On 10/20/2015 10:20 AM, Shannon Hicks wrote:
| Quote: | Does anybody know what sealant he used?
Shannom
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gengrumpy
Joined: 07 May 2013
Posts: 131
Location: Tullahoma, TN
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:06 am Post subject: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
|
|
….and no teflon tape!
grumpy
| Quote: | On Oct 20, 2015, at 10:51 AM, Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> wrote:
I believe it was standard RTV. If I remember right, it
was used on the threads of NTP fittings?
Either way, you don't want RTV used on ANY fuel fittings.
Or in the fuel tanks.
Tim
On 10/20/2015 10:20 AM, Shannon Hicks wrote:
> Does anybody know what sealant he used?
>
> Shannom
>
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
n520tx(at)gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:11 am Post subject: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
|
|
Attached the NTSB report images. Pictures worth thousands of words.
On 10/20/2015 10:51 AM, John Trollinger wrote:
| Quote: | RTV I believe..
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Shannon Hicks <civeng123(at)gmail.com
<mailto:civeng123(at)gmail.com>> wrote:
Does anybody know what sealant he used?
Shannom
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
| Description: |
|
Download |
| Filename: |
570028.pdf |
| Filesize: |
483.55 KB |
| Downloaded: |
315 Time(s) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carl.froehlich(at)verizon
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:14 am Post subject: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
|
|
We are a nation where anyone can sue anyone for any reason at anytime. The only people who win are the lawyers. As most elected officials in Washington are lawyers, is it any wonder why no one is taking action against such abuse of the legal system? My guess is the $35M number is just a play for them to settle out of court – and it wouldn’t happen if it didn’t work.
This is yet another example why a huge chunk of the cost for your RV and Lycoming engine goes toward them paying for lawyers and liability insurance. At some point aircraft and aviation part vendors go out of business. The lawyers move on to the next field and we are left with another nail in the General Aviation coffin.
Carl
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jae Chang
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 11:33 AM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause
Unfortunately, it is those same people, without a clue, who sit on juries. They lay out their argument that Van's says anyone without prior experience can build a safe and reliable airplane using their design and instructions. This is where they failed, they argue. There was a time when Van's only supplied the airframe. There was no official firewall forward plans, wiring, or maybe even finishing plans. Maybe Van's avoided considerable liability back then. However, the kits have been getting more and more complete and detailed. Kits are being finished faster than ever. Did this just open them up to greater liability? What is going to happen when this happens for a 2nd third or 10th time? Or is this already the 10th time? No idea.
Unfortunately, Van's is at the forefront of this kit building industry. They are the canary in the coal mine, it seems. I have to think this will have some affect on us all and the future of the kit industry. I love Van's as they are and hate to see changes forced on them because of civil suits. Imagine what kind of company they would be with more lawyers than engineers. They may win every case, but the company and products i love today would be gone. Is it just inevitable like watching your child growing up? Sigh.
| Quote: | | -- #40533 RV-10First flight 10/19/2011Phase 1 Done 11/26/2011do not archive &===================== |
http://forums.matronics.com[/url] - List Contribution Web generous nbsp; --> http://www.matronics.com/c=[/b] [/quote]
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gengrumpy
Joined: 07 May 2013
Posts: 131
Location: Tullahoma, TN
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:52 am Post subject: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
|
|
Plumbing lines not in accordance with plans for my RV10 nor RV8. Where’s the return line?
Where would he get the idea that RTV is ok to use on fuel lines? That’s what flared AN fittings are for….only thing that should ever be used on the threads is fuel lube….
What a shame.
grumpy
| Quote: | On Oct 20, 2015, at 11:07 AM, Ron Walker <n520tx(at)gmail.com> wrote:
Attached the NTSB report images. Pictures worth thousands of words.
On 10/20/2015 10:51 AM, John Trollinger wrote:
> RTV I believe..
>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Shannon Hicks <civeng123(at)gmail.com
> <mailto:civeng123(at)gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Does anybody know what sealant he used?
>
> Shannom
>
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
| Description: |
|
Download |
| Filename: |
570028.pdf |
| Filesize: |
483.55 KB |
| Downloaded: |
230 Time(s) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim Olson
Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2871
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 9:26 am Post subject: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
|
|
While I find the whole lawsuit, from the TONE of the lawsuit,
to the fact that it even exists, completely offensive, there
are a couple points that I find probably more offensive than
most. I am offended that they think "ordinary" people
cannot build their own plane. As far as I'm concerned, it is
"ordinary" people who design space ships, airliners, nuclear
submarines, and everything else in the world. We're ALL
ordinary people. We just work with things we're passionate
about. And what of the actual RULE of the FAA law that permits
us to build our plane...for RECREATION and EDUCATION. That
states right there that we do it to LEARN. Which IMPLIES
that we DO NOT KNOW already. So no, we don't have to be
aeronautical engineers, we are ordinary people, who may or
may not know, but we are to LEARN. He may have been a nice
guy, but clearly, he did not learn a couple of important
things...but it is nobody but his own fault. And, assuming
his panel had the standard passenger warning placard, it
was posted there for view by anyone that rode along, along
with the big "experimental" placards that are to be made
obvious. So anyone climbing in the plane is already on thin
ice for a lawsuit just by entering the doors.
But the other thing I find offensive is when a family, or
spouse, or anyone, after the fact, decides to start a
lawsuit against a kit company, or really in most cases, ANY
of these aviation businesses, after someone dies. Even
though companies do occasionally make mistakes, they need to
remember that we as aviators did this due to a passion,
a drive, and a love for aviation. For them to then start
a lawsuit that will only serve to RESTRICT our abilities to
use that passion, drive, and love for the hobby, that is
MOST CERTAINLY NOT what the pilot would have wanted.
In fact, I'd have to dig for it now, but I believe I have it
stated in my written and notarized will, that if I die in
my homebuilt airplane, I specifically DO NOT WANT my family
or anyone else to sue anyone over the crash, because my love
of aviation prevents me from wanting to inflict any
harm on the industry.
Now, if a company has known flaws, and then covers them up,
I'd change positions. Think VW with their coverup of the
emissions....if they have a problem and try to hide it,
I'd maybe think "go for the juggular". Companies need to
act with ethics. But clearly in this lawsuit, that is not
the issue. There was no ethical issue, no cover-up. Van's
didn't knowingly do anything wrong, and even wasn't negligent
in doing anything. They just produce parts, and there are
countless resources that people can additionally use to get
more information....he apparently didn't care enough to
read ANY documentation on fuel systems and RTV. His fault,
not theirs.
Now, one additional thing. We all know the 51% rule, right?
And everyone understands that it is 51% of the tasks that
are ON THE TASK list, right? So it's not really 51% of
the building...you don't have to count engine building, paint,
avionics wiring, and many many things. Why is this? Because
there are tasks that are just complex enough that they
expect a lot of builders will farm them out. This means that
they ASSUME that many builders who may feel up to the task
of building an airplane, may not feel up to the task to do
every last thing on their own. This again, implies that we
are not SUPPOSED to be experts. We are amateurs. Our
official designation is more like "Experimental Amateur Built"
for a reason....it clearly describes us.
And nowhere have I seen Van's promote that anyone can build
an airplane with solely the plans and Van's technical support.
I'd say that not only does Van's but everyone else, from the
FAA to the EAA, encourage the builder to dive in and get
lots of extra support.
Oh, and for the record...maybe I'll get lucky and the lawyers
will read this sentence...
Page 37-3 in the plans states:
"When installing fluid fittings with pipe threads do not use
Teflon tape. Use instead fuel lube or equivalent pipe thread
sealing paste."
I'd agree with the comment that we need tort reform. We need a
lot of things, and much of it needs to change in D.C.
Tim
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gengrumpy
Joined: 07 May 2013
Posts: 131
Location: Tullahoma, TN
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 9:45 am Post subject: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
|
|
Well stated, Tim!
Maybe somebody can give a copy of this to the pilot’s daughter-in-law.
grumpy
| Quote: | On Oct 20, 2015, at 12:22 PM, Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> wrote:
While I find the whole lawsuit, from the TONE of the lawsuit,
to the fact that it even exists, completely offensive, there
are a couple points that I find probably more offensive than
most. I am offended that they think "ordinary" people
cannot build their own plane. As far as I'm concerned, it is
"ordinary" people who design space ships, airliners, nuclear
submarines, and everything else in the world. We're ALL
ordinary people. We just work with things we're passionate
about. And what of the actual RULE of the FAA law that permits
us to build our plane...for RECREATION and EDUCATION. That
states right there that we do it to LEARN. Which IMPLIES
that we DO NOT KNOW already. So no, we don't have to be
aeronautical engineers, we are ordinary people, who may or
may not know, but we are to LEARN. He may have been a nice
guy, but clearly, he did not learn a couple of important
things...but it is nobody but his own fault. And, assuming
his panel had the standard passenger warning placard, it
was posted there for view by anyone that rode along, along
with the big "experimental" placards that are to be made
obvious. So anyone climbing in the plane is already on thin
ice for a lawsuit just by entering the doors.
But the other thing I find offensive is when a family, or
spouse, or anyone, after the fact, decides to start a
lawsuit against a kit company, or really in most cases, ANY
of these aviation businesses, after someone dies. Even
though companies do occasionally make mistakes, they need to
remember that we as aviators did this due to a passion,
a drive, and a love for aviation. For them to then start
a lawsuit that will only serve to RESTRICT our abilities to
use that passion, drive, and love for the hobby, that is
MOST CERTAINLY NOT what the pilot would have wanted.
In fact, I'd have to dig for it now, but I believe I have it
stated in my written and notarized will, that if I die in
my homebuilt airplane, I specifically DO NOT WANT my family
or anyone else to sue anyone over the crash, because my love
of aviation prevents me from wanting to inflict any
harm on the industry.
Now, if a company has known flaws, and then covers them up,
I'd change positions. Think VW with their coverup of the
emissions....if they have a problem and try to hide it,
I'd maybe think "go for the juggular". Companies need to
act with ethics. But clearly in this lawsuit, that is not
the issue. There was no ethical issue, no cover-up. Van's
didn't knowingly do anything wrong, and even wasn't negligent
in doing anything. They just produce parts, and there are
countless resources that people can additionally use to get
more information....he apparently didn't care enough to
read ANY documentation on fuel systems and RTV. His fault,
not theirs.
Now, one additional thing. We all know the 51% rule, right?
And everyone understands that it is 51% of the tasks that
are ON THE TASK list, right? So it's not really 51% of
the building...you don't have to count engine building, paint,
avionics wiring, and many many things. Why is this? Because
there are tasks that are just complex enough that they
expect a lot of builders will farm them out. This means that
they ASSUME that many builders who may feel up to the task
of building an airplane, may not feel up to the task to do
every last thing on their own. This again, implies that we
are not SUPPOSED to be experts. We are amateurs. Our
official designation is more like "Experimental Amateur Built"
for a reason....it clearly describes us.
And nowhere have I seen Van's promote that anyone can build
an airplane with solely the plans and Van's technical support.
I'd say that not only does Van's but everyone else, from the
FAA to the EAA, encourage the builder to dive in and get
lots of extra support.
Oh, and for the record...maybe I'll get lucky and the lawyers
will read this sentence...
Page 37-3 in the plans states:
"When installing fluid fittings with pipe threads do not use
Teflon tape. Use instead fuel lube or equivalent pipe thread
sealing paste."
I'd agree with the comment that we need tort reform. We need a
lot of things, and much of it needs to change in D.C.
Tim
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lyleapgmc
Joined: 19 Feb 2014
Posts: 57
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:06 am Post subject: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
|
|
Right on spot! I hope too that the lawyers on both sides read this.
We won't get tort reform until everyone, and I mean everyone, shouts
from the roof tops that we need it. We can most certainly not count on
the flawmakers at any level of government to see what is really needed.
They only pass laws that will get them votes from the uninformed.
I would surely love to have a $175,000 a year, plus benefits, part time job.
Lyle
On 10/20/2015 12:22 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
| Quote: |
While I find the whole lawsuit, from the TONE of the lawsuit,
to the fact that it even exists, completely offensive, there
are a couple points that I find probably more offensive than
most. I am offended that they think "ordinary" people
cannot build their own plane. As far as I'm concerned, it is
"ordinary" people who design space ships, airliners, nuclear
submarines, and everything else in the world. We're ALL
ordinary people. We just work with things we're passionate
about. And what of the actual RULE of the FAA law that permits
us to build our plane...for RECREATION and EDUCATION. That
states right there that we do it to LEARN. Which IMPLIES
that we DO NOT KNOW already. So no, we don't have to be
aeronautical engineers, we are ordinary people, who may or
may not know, but we are to LEARN. He may have been a nice
guy, but clearly, he did not learn a couple of important
things...but it is nobody but his own fault. And, assuming
his panel had the standard passenger warning placard, it
was posted there for view by anyone that rode along, along
with the big "experimental" placards that are to be made
obvious. So anyone climbing in the plane is already on thin
ice for a lawsuit just by entering the doors.
But the other thing I find offensive is when a family, or
spouse, or anyone, after the fact, decides to start a
lawsuit against a kit company, or really in most cases, ANY
of these aviation businesses, after someone dies. Even
though companies do occasionally make mistakes, they need to
remember that we as aviators did this due to a passion,
a drive, and a love for aviation. For them to then start
a lawsuit that will only serve to RESTRICT our abilities to
use that passion, drive, and love for the hobby, that is
MOST CERTAINLY NOT what the pilot would have wanted.
In fact, I'd have to dig for it now, but I believe I have it
stated in my written and notarized will, that if I die in
my homebuilt airplane, I specifically DO NOT WANT my family
or anyone else to sue anyone over the crash, because my love
of aviation prevents me from wanting to inflict any
harm on the industry.
Now, if a company has known flaws, and then covers them up,
I'd change positions. Think VW with their coverup of the
emissions....if they have a problem and try to hide it,
I'd maybe think "go for the juggular". Companies need to
act with ethics. But clearly in this lawsuit, that is not
the issue. There was no ethical issue, no cover-up. Van's
didn't knowingly do anything wrong, and even wasn't negligent
in doing anything. They just produce parts, and there are
countless resources that people can additionally use to get
more information....he apparently didn't care enough to
read ANY documentation on fuel systems and RTV. His fault,
not theirs.
Now, one additional thing. We all know the 51% rule, right?
And everyone understands that it is 51% of the tasks that
are ON THE TASK list, right? So it's not really 51% of
the building...you don't have to count engine building, paint,
avionics wiring, and many many things. Why is this? Because
there are tasks that are just complex enough that they
expect a lot of builders will farm them out. This means that
they ASSUME that many builders who may feel up to the task
of building an airplane, may not feel up to the task to do
every last thing on their own. This again, implies that we
are not SUPPOSED to be experts. We are amateurs. Our
official designation is more like "Experimental Amateur Built"
for a reason....it clearly describes us.
And nowhere have I seen Van's promote that anyone can build
an airplane with solely the plans and Van's technical support.
I'd say that not only does Van's but everyone else, from the
FAA to the EAA, encourage the builder to dive in and get
lots of extra support.
Oh, and for the record...maybe I'll get lucky and the lawyers
will read this sentence...
Page 37-3 in the plans states:
"When installing fluid fittings with pipe threads do not use
Teflon tape. Use instead fuel lube or equivalent pipe thread
sealing paste."
I'd agree with the comment that we need tort reform. We need a
lot of things, and much of it needs to change in D.C.
Tim
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
