Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:12 AM - Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause (Bob Leffler)
2. 05:04 AM - Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause (John Trollinger)
3. 08:11 AM - Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause (Pascal)
4. 08:24 AM - Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause (Shannon Hicks)
5. 08:36 AM - Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause (Jae Chang)
6. 08:54 AM - Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause (John Trollinger)
7. 08:54 AM - Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause (Tim Olson)
8. 09:06 AM - Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause (Miller John)
9. 09:11 AM - Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause (Ron Walker)
10. 09:14 AM - Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause (Carl Froehlich)
11. 09:52 AM - Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause (Miller John)
12. 10:26 AM - Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause (Tim Olson)
13. 10:45 AM - Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause (Miller John)
14. 11:06 AM - Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause (Lyle Peterson)
15. 11:36 AM - $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause (bruceflys)
16. 12:36 PM - $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause (Bob Turner)
17. 01:12 PM - Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause (Linn Walters)
18. 01:17 PM - Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause (Kelly McMullen)
19. 01:38 PM - Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause (Werner Schneider)
20. 01:42 PM - $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause (Bob Turner)
21. 01:47 PM - lawsuit (David)
22. 02:21 PM - Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause (Shannon Hicks)
23. 03:08 PM - Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause (Miller John)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
Just ready it makes you wonder what type of aviation expert was retained to a
ssist with writing the claims documented in the suit.
Clearly it wasn't an A&P that ever installed a fuel transducer or knows how t
o install fuel transducers. I would think the fact that they are also in c
ertified aircraft, will make the reckless claims more difficult to prove. O
f course the countless threads on VAF and other sites about using sealant (o
r 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 compa
nies have adequate liability insurance so that they will be rigorously defen
ded. I would hate to see either company fold due to lack of insurance. I
t would greatly impact EAB industry.
While I have empathy for Doug's step daughter, I don't agree with her approa
ch. she is just going after the deepest they can find. It's just another in
stance of why the US needs tort reforms.
Sent from my iPad
> On Oct 19, 2015, at 10:20 PM, Miller John <gengrumpy@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Here is a link to the actual lawsuit. What a crock of crap filed against V
an=99s!
>
> http://media.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/other/experimental.cras
h.suit.pdf
>
>> On Oct 19, 2015, at 8:50 PM, Jae Chang <jc-matronics_rv10@jline.com> wrot
e:
>>
>>
>> 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 c
oming 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
>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
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=3
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=3
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=3
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
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: $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@thelefflers.com> wrote:
> 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 usi
ng
> 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 rigorous
ly
> 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@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Here is a link to the actual lawsuit. What a crock of crap filed against
> Van=99s!
>
>
> http://media.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/other/experimental.cra
sh.suit.pdf
>
> On Oct 19, 2015, at 8:50 PM, Jae Chang <jc-matronics_rv10@jline.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
>
> *
>
> 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 <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 <http://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 <http://www.matronics.com/cont
ribution>
> 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
>
> *
>
> *
>
===========
onics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>
===========
===========
om/contribution>
===========
>
> *
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: $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_i
d 140531X15032&key=1
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows:
a.. A total loss of engine power due to fuel starvation because of a
blocked fuel line that resulted from the pilot=99s improper
maintenance practices and the pilot=99s 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
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 2:39 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: $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@aol.com> wrote:
Here is a link to the actual lawsuit. What a crock of crap filed
against Van=99s!
http://media.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/other/experimental.cra
sh.suit.pdf
On Oct 19, 2015, at 8:50 PM, Jae Chang <jc-matronics_rv10@jline.com>
wrote:
<jc-matronics_rv10@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
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
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
Does anybody know what sealant he used?
Shannom
On Oct 20, 2015 10:16, "Pascal" <rv10flyer@live.com> wrote:
> The NTSB makes this case pretty clear-
> http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_i
d 140531X15032&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=99s improper main
tenance
> practices and the pilot=99s subsequent failure to maintain adequ
ate 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 o
f
> their faults. The end result is higher insurance for others if either cav
es
> into this.
>
>
> *From:* Bob Leffler <rv@thelefflers.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 20, 2015 2:39 AM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: $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 usi
ng
> 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 rigorous
ly
> 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@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Here is a link to the actual lawsuit. What a crock of crap filed against
> Van=99s!
>
>
> http://media.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/other/experimental.cra
sh.suit.pdf
>
>
> On Oct 19, 2015, at 8:50 PM, Jae Chang <jc-matronics_rv10@jline.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
>
> *
>
> 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 <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 <http://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 <http://www.matronics.com/cont
ribution>
> 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.matronic
s.com/Navigator?RV10-List>">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List <h
ttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>
> href="http://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>">http:/
/forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution <http://www.matronics.com/c
ontribution>">http://www.matronics.com/c <http://www.matronics.com/c>
> *
>
> *
>
===========
onics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>
===========
===========
om/contribution>
===========
>
> *
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| 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.
**
--
#40533 RV-10
First flight 10/19/2011
Phase 1 Done 11/26/2011
do not archive
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
RTV I believe..
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Shannon Hicks <civeng123@gmail.com> wrote
:
> Does anybody know what sealant he used?
>
> Shannom
> On Oct 20, 2015 10:16, "Pascal" <rv10flyer@live.com> wrote:
>
>> The NTSB makes this case pretty clear-
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_
id 140531X15032&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=99s improper mai
ntenance
>> practices and the pilot=99s subsequent failure to maintain adeq
uate airspeed
>> while attempting a forced landing, which led to the airplane exceedin
g 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@thelefflers.com>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 20, 2015 2:39 AM
>> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
>> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: $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 us
ing
>> 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 rigorou
sly
>> 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@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> Here is a link to the actual lawsuit. What a crock of crap filed agains
t
>> Van=99s!
>>
>>
>> http://media.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/other/experimental.cr
ash.suit.pdf
>>
>>
>> On Oct 19, 2015, at 8:50 PM, Jae Chang <jc-matronics_rv10@jline.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=113733
>>
>> http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2015/10/famil
y_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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>> 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 <http://www.matronic
s.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 <http://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 <http://www.matronics.com/con
tribution>
>> 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.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?RV10-List>">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List <
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>">http:
//forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution <http://www.matronics.com/
contribution>">http://www.matronics.com/c <http://www.matronics.com/c>
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List <http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>
>> tp://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution <http://www.matronics.com/
contribution>
>>
>> *
>>
>> *
>
===========
onics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>
===========
===========
om/contribution>
===========
>
> *
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: $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:
> Does anybody know what sealant he used?
>
> Shannom
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
.and no teflon tape!
grumpy
> On Oct 20, 2015, at 10:51 AM, Tim Olson <Tim@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
>>
>
>
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: $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:
> RTV I believe..
>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Shannon Hicks <civeng123@gmail.com
> <mailto:civeng123@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Does anybody know what sealant he used?
>
> Shannom
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: $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@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jae Chang
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: $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.
--
#40533 RV-10
First flight 10/19/2011
Phase 1 Done 11/26/2011
do not archive
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
Plumbing lines not in accordance with plans for my RV10 nor RV8.
Where=99s the return line?
Where would he get the idea that RTV is ok to use on fuel lines?
That=99s what flared AN fittings are for.only thing that
should ever be used on the threads is fuel lube.
What a shame.
grumpy
> On Oct 20, 2015, at 11:07 AM, Ron Walker <n520tx@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@gmail.com
>> <mailto:civeng123@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Does anybody know what sealant he used?
>>
>> Shannom
>>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: $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
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
Well stated, Tim!
Maybe somebody can give a copy of this to the pilots daughter-in-law.
grumpy
> On Oct 20, 2015, at 12:22 PM, Tim Olson <Tim@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
>
>
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: $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:
>
> 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
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
NTSB reports are not admissible in court. The plaintiff will pay "expert witnesses"
to support her case while the defendants will hire other experts to refute
them.
But beyond the possible builder error cause of the accident, the case could turn
on the defendants "failure to warn" a novice builder not to use RTV as a fuel
line sealant. Section 5 of the manual only forbids fuel lube and Teflon tape.
Yes we have all seen the superfluous warnings on products that seem so obvious,
but they are a defense against these kinds of claims
Preparation and a full trial could cost each side up to $100,000. Rather than
spend those sums, and risk a lay jury's verdict, the defendants' insurance companies
often settle for a few hundred thousand dollars. That could be the strategy
here.
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 wrote:
> >
> > Does anybody know what sealant he used?
> >
> > Shannom
> >
> >
> >
>
--------
RV-10 UC
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448136#448136
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
Does Vans even carry insurance? Many small companies like this don't bother. Instead,
they pay out most of the profits (dividends, salaries, etc) so the company
itself is not worth anything like $30 million. Van may decide that he's had
enough, hand them the keys to the building and walk away. Truely a sad state
of affairs.
I'm pretty sure that I'm required to inform all passengers of the experimental
nature of the airplane. I guess that's for those who cannot read. What's next?
Reading the definition of 'experimental' from a dictionary?
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448137#448137
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
On 10/20/2015 2:33 PM, bruceflys wrote:
>
> NTSB reports are not admissible in court.
I did not know that.
Can you direct me to where you found that???
Linn
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
There is no return line for any RV built to plans, because all Lycoming
engines that Vans sells have RSA injection which uses NO return line,
never has. Only Continental fuel injection uses a true return line.
Airflow Performance uses a purge line.
On 10/20/2015 9:48 AM, Miller John wrote:
> Plumbing lines not in accordance with plans for my RV10 nor RV8. Wheres the
return line?
>
> Where would he get the idea that RTV is ok to use on fuel lines? Thats what
flared AN fittings are for.only thing that should ever be used on the threads
is fuel lube.
>
> What a shame.
>
> grumpy
>
>> On Oct 20, 2015, at 11:07 AM, Ron Walker <n520tx@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@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:civeng123@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Does anybody know what sealant he used?
>>>
>>> Shannom
>>>
>>>
>>>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
John did probably talk about the bypass line for the fuel filter?
This was a RV-10 with an carburetor not injection.
Werner
On 20.10.2015 22:13, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> There is no return line for any RV built to plans, ........
>
> On 10/20/2015 9:48 AM, Miller John wrote:
>> Plumbing lines not in accordance with plans for my RV10 nor RV8. Wheres the
return line?
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com wrote:
> On 10/20/2015 2:33 PM, bruceflys wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > NTSB reports are not admissible in court.
> > I did not know that.
> >
>
> Can you direct me to where you found that???
> Linn
I do not have a reference but I'm pretty sure this is correct. NTSB didn't want
the cost of getting involved, so Congress specifically exempted their findings
from being used in civil lawsuits. The lawyers have to duplicate the findings
at their own expense (that is, the clients' expense).
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448141#448141
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Some may not be aware:
Some states have laws on the books as an attorney and doctor preservation
societies; they are called family limited partnership laws. Since laws can
not be written to exclude the rest of us, you might examine whether your
state has family limited partnership laws which you can use.
Partnership can be setup with unique tax ID; the basic provisions are that
the partnership is established for 98 years. The partnership can be sued and
judgments can occur; however the judgment is in the form of a charging order
at a monthly rate which has two important provisions. Judgment is not due
until the partnership terminates and assets remain; meanwhile the IRS has
determined that the accrued charging order is taxable income in the year
accrued. Hence the plaintiff and lawyer may receive compensation up to 98
years in the future (if the heirs have not spent it all) and they have
enjoyed paying current year taxes on all accrued income. Note IRAs etc. are
not subject to judgment anyway. Bank accounts must be established for the
tax ID and other assets (i.e. real estate etc) must be titled to the
partnership. Assets which are titled to a trust or individual name must
documented lien to the partnership. The general partners have full authority
to use partnership assets as required.
I am not an attorney so I do not know whether these laws can protect RV10
owner's assets in other states.
General Partner,
Trustee,
And individual
"know when to sign which title"
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
"Section 5 of the manual only forbids fuel lube and Teflon tape." Did I
miss something? I just reread section 5 and did not see the prohibition of
fuel lube. Page 37-3 of the plans states "...do not use Teflon tape. Use
instead, fuel lube or equivalent pipe thread sealing paste."
Shannon
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 1:33 PM, bruceflys <bruceflys@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> NTSB reports are not admissible in court. The plaintiff will pay "expert
> witnesses" to support her case while the defendants will hire other experts
> to refute them.
>
> But beyond the possible builder error cause of the accident, the case
> could turn on the defendants "failure to warn" a novice builder not to use
> RTV as a fuel line sealant. Section 5 of the manual only forbids fuel lube
> and Teflon tape. Yes we have all seen the superfluous warnings on products
> that seem so obvious, but they are a defense against these kinds of claims
>
> Preparation and a full trial could cost each side up to $100,000. Rather
> than spend those sums, and risk a lay jury's verdict, the defendants'
> insurance companies often settle for a few hundred thousand dollars. That
> could be the strategy here.
>
>
> 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 wrote:
> > >
> > > Does anybody know what sealant he used?
> > >
> > > Shannom
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --------
> RV-10 UC
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448136#448136
>
>
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
Werner is correct, I was mistaken.
After looking at the plans again, there is a single drawing that depicts the setup
shown in the NTSB report.
I should have reviewed the plans before commenting, not realizing that there was
another pump and transducer setup that could be used.
My RV8 setup is the same as in my RV10, so I was only thinking of that installation.
And in looking at the NTSB pictures a bit closer, on those fittings with no flare
to make the seal, use of fuel lube would have been the correct choice.
If you look closely at the RTV shown in the NTSB pictures, it appears that there
was a glob that was the culpirt to block fuel from going through the Flow-Scan
to the engine.
Replacing the Flow-Scan in the tunnel with the plane all put together is, as we
all know, a very hard place to work in and could certainly lead to being a bit
sloppy with whatever he used for thread sealant.
grumpy
> On Oct 20, 2015, at 3:35 PM, Werner Schneider <glastar@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>
> John did probably talk about the bypass line for the fuel filter?
>
> This was a RV-10 with an carburetor not injection.
>
> Werner
>
> On 20.10.2015 22:13, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>> There is no return line for any RV built to plans, ........
>>
>> On 10/20/2015 9:48 AM, Miller John wrote:
>>> Plumbing lines not in accordance with plans for my RV10 nor RV8. Wheres the
return line?
>
>
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|