Liabilities of the A/HB builders
- Thread starter Tom-D
- Start date
I suspect you're thinking of West Publishing's case law books, which started by covering only those cases. I think more modern databases are more encompassing, but all require subscriptions.wabower said:
Slim pickings of remotely relevant cases using Google Scholar. I found these two involving crashes of experimental or kit-built airplanes that may (or may not) shed some light on how some of the issues that come up play out in court.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...as_sdt=2006&case=12065962034416743516&scilh=0
In the above case, the court spends much time determining whether the following disclaimer is covered by Colorado law against unconscionable contract terms:
Buyer expressly waives any and all claims arising from structural integrity, performance, flight characteristics, mechanical failures, and safety against QUICKIE AIRCRAFT CORPORATION.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...as_sdt=2006&case=13157484569146267104&scilh=0
The above case seems to be one wherein the wrong jurisdiction was chosen in which to file the lawsuit. It may be that subsequent lawsuits were filed in appropriate jurisdictions, though that would have added to the litigation expense.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...as_sdt=2006&case=12065962034416743516&scilh=0
In the above case, the court spends much time determining whether the following disclaimer is covered by Colorado law against unconscionable contract terms:
Buyer expressly waives any and all claims arising from structural integrity, performance, flight characteristics, mechanical failures, and safety against QUICKIE AIRCRAFT CORPORATION.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...as_sdt=2006&case=13157484569146267104&scilh=0
The above case seems to be one wherein the wrong jurisdiction was chosen in which to file the lawsuit. It may be that subsequent lawsuits were filed in appropriate jurisdictions, though that would have added to the litigation expense.
One more that owners of amateur built aircraft need to be mindful of: when making changes, you may void your insurance coverage if the change could be considered a "major change" and don't give FAA notification (even if you change things back the way they were):
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...&as_sdt=2006&case=6241550713310461673&scilh=0
Here's some of what he wrote about his decision in his book "The Next Hour":jsstevens said:
"The other limiting factor on airframe life is fatigue. Airframes are subjected to fatigue testing on the ground during the certification process. An airframe is put into a machine and the structure is loaded and unloaded in a repetitive manner to simulate the fatigue wear that comes from flying, especially in turbulence.
This is good testing and so far it has served well. As airplanes get older, though, you have to wonder about the cumulative effects of both corrosion and fatigue. And, under the present system, the only way that we are really going to learn about airframes failing is when they actually start failing. In most cases, older airplanes will likely lose their viability because of maintenance costs and parts availability long before they reach whatever actual life limit might be out there.
In 2007 I made the decision to retire the pressurized 210, P210, that I had flown for 8,963.44 hours in 28 years, five months and 13 days. I had gotten my money’s worth out of the airplane and in my mind it was worn out. P210s have had a bad reliability record over the years and while I spent a ton of money maintaining mine, I had been having trouble keeping everything on the right side of what I consider to be perfect shape.
There was another factor in my decision to put the airplane down. Years ago, when the airplanes were first being built, I asked a Cessna engineer how many hours he thought one would last. He said the amount of testing done so far was probably equal to about 10,000 hours of flying. My airplane was getting close to that.
Some people thought I was nuts to scrap an airworthy airplane but I was and still am comfortable with the decision. I had gone a lot of places and done a lot of things with the airplane and knew it as well as a pilot could ever know an airplane. And when I felt like the airplane whispered “enough” into my ear, I thought I should listen.
A lot of mechanically-related problems come after pilots don’t listen when an airplane suggests it is not a good idea to go flying. If everything isn’t working perfectly before takeoff, then it’s time to taxi back and seek help. Even after taking that precaution, there will always be times when something will malfunction after the airplane is airborne. How a pilot deals with the airborne problem has everything to do with the happiness of the ending."
Hmmm. I'm not sure if you or Henning know, or are simply failing to recall, that the FAA made some significant changes to the so-called 51% rule in 2009 to address the very issues you are both discussing. The FAA is interested in how homebuilts were and are being bought and put together, otherwise they would not have expended the effort to update and clarify those rules. And then send out teams to aircraft kit manufacturers to check on compliance.wabower said:
They've also been checking into how well SLSA manufacturers are complying with the ASTM requirements.
They are now interested in how they are being flown and crashed, but at least in recent years they were first expending more effort on the building of the aircraft. Oddly their own analysis showed that their own rules made it harder to accomplish the transition training that was found would help reduce crashes.
I don't know, but I have an answer anyway.wabower said:
As far as I can tell, the funding and labor should not be arranged so as to violate the underlying regulation, which is:
"(g) Operating amateur-built aircraft. Operating an aircraft the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who undertook the construction project solely for their own education or recreation."
The foundation of the regulation appears to be one of meeting the allowed motivations. Whatever the facts of a particular situation seem to show. So there isn't likely to be simple answers to your questions because there wasn't enough information to form answers.
I do know that the FAA does not seem to disallow "serial builders" - guys who build and sell, one after the other. They may even make some money for their labors. But so long as they are not making a living off it, however that is measured, it seems to be allowed. Enforcement of the regulation seems to involve more subjective judgement and grey areas than most regulations.
No difference. My point of posting, if I had any point at all, was to point out that the FAA did try to act on the building aspect fairly recently and the end result was essentially no changes of significance seem to have resulted. The paperwork changed some. There is a bit more clarity on some of the things are allowed and disallowed. But all minor stuff.wabower said:
The FAA tried and failed to find a way to root out the bad guys in a way that didn't require field agents doing detective work ($$) or implement regulations that would close down homebuilts entirely.
Anyway, I just reviewed the exchange between you and Henning and realize I have no idea what fundamental points you are disagreeing on - or agreeing on. I'll just exit by this door over here....