I am beginnng to see red

[bustr]

This is like suing Cabela's because a family member purchased one of their muzzle loader kits. Then killed themselves and one of their children sitting next to the family member by using smokeless pistol ammunition powder instead of black powder when they fired it the first time. This is a common scenario although not very frequent fortunately.

The only other culpable people might be the AP mechanic and FAA inspector who signed off at every stage. The article says the fuel flow TX was defective and they are also suing that company. With experimental aircraft, do you have to get a sign off when you install that device? This article has to have been released after the accident report for the lawyer to know specifically to include the instrument manufacture. Who would know before the accident report with the pilot being dead at the crash site?

They are suing over the child's death because the mother unfortunately laid there giving CPR to her daughter until the EMT arrived and pronounced her dead. So she wants many pounds of flesh and may never regain the level of sanity she enjoyed before the accident.

Greif and vengeance drive this part of the legal industry. I wonder if the family was contacted first by their lawyer or did they contact the lawyer? Which ever way it went down, the photos in the article were chosen to win the case in the public sphere. The venue has been polluted so to say for a jury pool. And the amount they want, is small enough to suggest the plaintiff is willing to accept an out of court settlement for a lesser amount that won't put the company out of business.

[pembquist]

To me it didn't read like Vans were being sued because their product is lacking or dangerous. They're being sued because they specifically market their kits to idiots like this guy, who then endanger or kill innocent people with it. Kit 'experimental' planes were never intended to be as prolific as they are today by the lawmakers. A revision of the laws could very well be in order.

I think you are conflating the plaintiffs argument with the reason Vans is being sued. It seems self evident that the reason they are being sued is that they have deep enough pockets to make it worthwhile.

The notion that Vans targets "idiots" for marketing is just preposterous. At what point is a component, material, or design vendor responsible for the incorrect use of their products as opposed to defect?

One reason this rattles cages is that aviation tends to elevate personal responsibility as proactive decision making and a "buck stops here" mentality are important parts of flying safely.

The builder/pilot was a person, and he made a mistake. He doesn't need to be denigrated, he paid several times over for his mistake. I never met the man but I would suspect that if he is like most other builders he would never want this lawsuit to be attatched to him in anyway.

The laws that regulate experimental amateur built in the USA are unique in the world. They have enabled an industry and helped foster a market that has kept piston single GA from atrophying. Most if not all GA piston innovation in the last 35 years has come about because of the experimental world.

When you write "a revision of the laws could very well be in order" it sounds like you don't have an opinion or knowledge regarding the existing laws but are just kind of throwing it out there.

We are never going to legislate our way into a perfect world, free from tragedy; however we can legislate our way into a world of diminished ambition and potentiality.

[FLS]

The article presents the plaintiff's viewpoint. It's about as "fair and balanced" as anything else in the news. The fact that the family can sue is a good thing. It's only bad if they win when they don't have a valid complaint.

[WaffenVW]

The laws that regulate experimental amateur built in the USA are unique in the world. They have enabled an industry and helped foster a market that has kept piston single GA from atrophying. Most if not all GA piston innovation in the last 35 years has come about because of the experimental world.

When you write "a revision of the laws could very well be in order" it sounds like you don't have an opinion or knowledge regarding the existing laws but are just kind of throwing it out there.

That right there is my point. When the laws were created home built aircraft was little more than a curiosity, a hobby for a very small group of enthusiasts. Today it's an industry that, according to those statistics, have a 10% share of the total aircraft fleet in the country. When there's one home built plane out of a thousand it is a curiosity. When it's one in ten it is a public safety concern. One thing is for certain, children have no business being anywhere near something classified as 'experimental'. And if it is as you say that these laws are unique to the USA in the world one cannot help but wonder why that is.

[FLS]

... And if it is as you say that these laws are unique to the USA in the world one cannot help but wonder why that is.

It's because of our tradition of liberty. We may build high performance machines and play with them. We may make our own decisions.
As much as that has been eroded what liberty we still have is still a good thing.

[WaffenVW]

I find that slightly amusing, but mostly just sad. Other countries have home built kit planes too, but they're designed to a normal category, not as experimental aircraft. I saw a TV series on TLC or Discovery many years ago where an Englishman built a kit plane at home. Once in a while, at certain stages in the construction a gov official would come and inspect the work he had done and sign off on it. He had to make several corrections if I remember correctly. After he had built the plane he learned to fly in it.

Home built kit planes are not unique to the USA, but the 'experimental' category probably is.

[WaffenVW]

Found it.

[Shuffler]

Could be a good thing to get this decided once and for all in a court.

It is one's choice to buy or not buy a kit plane. Her step-grandfather made that choice. It is one's choice to decide to get into a kit plane... the child's mom made that choice. Seems the people at fault are pointing fingers at everyone else.

[colmbo]

but they're designed to a normal category, not as experimental aircraft.

The "experimental" category is a certification status and has little to do with how much experimentation is being done of the aircraft.

The B-24 I flew was licensed in the Experimental category yet it was a factory built aircraft.  If the FAA would get of it's butt and create an amateur built category it would take away the scare factor of experimental.

[bustr]

Vans has no responsibility for the mental state or capability of the purchaser. To get the plane off the ground, unless he owns a very large tract of land and could have isolated himself. He had to pass face to face inspection of himself by an AP mechanic and an FAA inspector. If the man was a moron as an aviator, those two as professionals would have eventually been aware of it.

This law suite is the same kind of argument that Beretta should be liable for every person killed or harmed with one of their fire arms aside from a manufacturing defect. I doubt the step grandfather was a stupid man. It takes a bit of ability to go through the process of getting a kit into the air. It also took the step grandfather having achieved his private ticket previously to getting into building his kit. That in itself is a baseline of intelligence. Not to long term temperament and attention to details.

The lawyer will have to destroy the step grandfather's memory to his family and friends by convincing a jury the man was a moron who couldn't be trusted in the process of proving Vans targets morons. No moron no case.

Waffen, did you follow the link to the article with the child's picture? I will bet you did, and that was why the picture was included. Normally out of respect for the family you don't post pictures of children that age related to tragedies like this during the first few weeks of the tragedy. So this is a later article to announce the suit after the crash report was released. The jury pool has been polluted in the court of public opinion.

It is an old sad trick if this goes to court and Vans lawyers cannot get a change of venue. And it helps out of court settlements look better than being associated with the picture of that child which the mother had to give permission to be released to the public because the child was under age. If Vans wants to keep it's reputation in tact, destroying the mother by making her look vengeful and frivolous will be the outcome along with showing the step grandfather was not a consciences pilot who killed his grand daughter as a consequence. Settling out of court will leave doubts which could impact sales during an economic downturn. No one will come out of this feeling good about themselves.

It didn't look like this included wrongful death, so the lawsuit would go through a civil process which has a lower bar to meet in proving anything. That may be why the child's picture was included in the article on the off chance. In civil court you do not need a unanimous verdict by all 12 jurors. It's something like 3\4 of the jury to find against you depending on the state. And if you are good at the selection process or hire a good firm who helps you with the process. And in some states the jury gets to have a say in damages side from the initial amount asked for.

This whole thing is going to stink, and more laws will not fix intelligent human beings who are going to do what they want, and kill themselves as a consequence.

[pembquist]

Waffen you are insinuating that laws that cover British homebuilts would have prevented this accident. However you have not enumerated any difference in the laws except the difference in design standard.  You do not appear to know much about the FAA regulations regarding experimental homebuilt aircraft, you do not appear to know what the laws are in any other country that allows homebuilts beyond what you have gleaned from  tv documentary about somebody building a Europa in the UK and yet you feel free to suggest that American laws are somehow retrograde and obsolete.

If we just removed GA entirely from the picture there would be a huge drop in the accident rate so somewhere between that scenario and no regulations whatsoever lies the best compromise. Even with that best compromise you are going to have deaths and injuries, so I would argue that this accident does not mean that you don't have the best compromise already.

[FLS]

Home built kit planes are not unique to the USA, but the 'experimental' category probably is.

It seems it's just the word 'experimental' that is bothering you rather than the actual safety condition of the aircraft.

[WaffenVW]

I'm not personally bothered by any of this.

[FLS]

I'm not personally bothered by any of this.

I didn't think you were. I meant bothered in the sense that you were reading too much into the connotation of 'experimental' when it's just the name of a broad category of aircraft.

[saggs]

When it's one in ten it is a public safety concern.

Why, because they are called "experimental"  The kit industry is not full of crazy and unsafe designs like you seem to think.  Manufactures must get FAA approval to sell a kit, and each completed kit must be signed off by a DAR to receive an airworthiness certificate, and even after that you must fly a 40hr "phase one" time alone in the aircraft before you can legally take passengers.  As an A&P mechanic I can tell you that I have seen far more certified aircraft suffer from neglected or improper maintenance then experimentals.


 

One thing is for certain, children have no business being anywhere near something classified as 'experimental'.

Why... because the word EXPERIMENTAL scares you.  There is no magic fairy dust sprinkled by the FAA gods in OK city on Cessnas or Pipers or Cirruses that make them more safe then homebuilts. Would you feel differently the same aircraft was registered in Europe or Canada so that it wasn't called "EXPERIMENTAL".

 

And if it is as you say that these laws are unique to the USA in the world one cannot help but wonder why that is.

They are not really, Vans and other kit companies sell kits all over the world, and they are all the same design, and all built the same. People can of course deviate from that design, but if in doing so it becomes dangerous, then said airplane would not pass an airworthiness inspection.



WAffenVW...

You really need to get this idea out of your head that one category of aircraft is more dangerous then another just because of an arbitrary name, like I already said, 90% of GA accidents are down to human factors.  This one was no different, he did not follow standard maintenance procedures, and he failed to maintain control of aircraft in unpowered flight.  Both human factors.  Vans is not responsible to ensure that their customers are not morons.  That falls under the realm of personal responsibility.

Also remember that the "experimental" category is more then just kits and home builts.  Many of the classic warbirds you see are registered as experimental, just to make maintenance easier (hard to find certified parts for many of them).