Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Yeah, our society has become about shedding liability while eliminating accountability; As there is ZERO excuse for running out of gas in an airplane (your example), the pilot should be fully accountable for the resultant situation.
I am an A&P mechanic and pilot. I’d be interested in buying your scrap. Give me a good price and I’ll give you a receipt for your scrap. I’ll come dismantle it, get it with a truck and haul it off.
I'd like to see hard evidence of this statement. Not single cases, or anecdotes, but numbers of actual cases involving fuel starvation and the percentages for various outcomes. REAL data.
My view is it is the opposite. ten years ago I worked with a guy who drove an eight or ten year old Kia/Hyundai (I forget which). Every day in the parking lot he took the time to install The Club on his steering wheel. One day we arrived at the same time and I waited for him to walk in together and I asked him why he installed the security device when there were many more desirable cars in the parking lot. His reply made all the sense in the world. He said that he could not afford full coverage and most full coverage deductibles would be at least half the value of his car even if he could so if someone DID happen to choose his car to steal he couldn't afford to replace it right now as all his money was going to his parents assisted living. He could not afford to lose. Perhaps the OP is in retirement years and losing his home and/or a big chunk of cash would be devastating.
I thought for sure that you were going to say that someone stole the "Club" and left the car!
That is only true if the engine has a Lycoming data plate. No data plate no lawyer can prove whose parts went into the engine. Lycoming , ECI/Continental, Superior and in the case of EAB numerous no certified parts. Pistons, rings lifters, camshafts are a few examples.
that perfectly sums up my thoughts on the matter. The reason we see so few lawsuits in the Experimental world, IMHO, is that most people with large net worths (i.e. targets for contingency lawyers) do not build airplanes in their garage. There are a few, but the majority build EAB, because they don't have a $1M lying around to buy a cirrus.
Pretty sure $1M wouldn’t touch a new cirrus.
And yet, all those thousands of EABs being bought and sold every year. They must have really crappy attorneys, eh?
$1 mil: A Twin Comanche, couple of Pitts's, Super Cub, and a decent hangar.
Current Cirrus price is $1.2 mil and change. One year backorder.
Nope…that would be your mission, not mine.
that wasn't really my point. More that those with cash burning a hole in their pocket will tend to buy a plane vs build one. Not saying that we are all building planes to save $, but more that those with large asset pools tend not to.
I also have an RV-6A and would be happy to scrap yours for you. How does $5,000 sound? I accept Zelle or Venmo.
Seriously, post the specifics of the airplane and list it for sale.
is the airplane still airworthy? Would it be something that a new owner could put some updates to maybe new prop, engine, avionics and have a good airplane? I am hunting for a project that is very close to flying or is flying and needs updates? If your plane as been reliable for 22 years why cant it continue!I also have an RV-6A and would be happy to scrap yours for you. How does $5,000 sound? I accept Zelle or Venmo.
His lawyer freind has him convinced he could be sued if he sold it. I sent a PM offering to buy it as scrap. No engine or avionics. As is where is, no warranty, expressed or implied, and he can make the bill of sale say anything he would like.
This just doesn’t seem like a difficult task to me. Two teenagers on Red Bull with sledgehammers could probably do it in 30 minutes. I mean, you could give it to a demolition derby. The options seem endless.
Only Sheldon "Torch" Lewis understood Richard. Torch is long gone. At a certain FBO where Richard rented airplanes only the CEO or VP was allowed to rent Richard an airplane. Due to Richards proclivity for flying in weather so bad that the birds were walking. I enjoyed Leighton Collins's writing. I still have a huge collection of Air Facts.This just doesn’t seem like a difficult task to me. Two teenagers on Red Bull with sledgehammers could probably do it in 30 minutes. I mean, you could give it to a demolition derby. The options seem endless.
I’m reminded of the time that Richard Collins chose to scrap his 210. He could have done so without any fanfare, but apparently his real need was to TELL people that he was… a guy who would scrap a 210. It was about making a statement, or something. Not sure I understand it, but it’s a free country.
Interesting, and I wonder how that would be applied in practise to an amateur-built. By the wording you've given, the "manufacturer" may own it for 30 years after it was built, and then be liable for 18 years *after that* when they sell it. Makes me think that any amateur-built aircraft completed should immediately be "sold" to the builder, by the builder, to show a sale occurred at time of manufacture and trigger the start of the 18 year clock.
I don't know that the applicability of this to EAB has ever been established, but it's an interesting point. For standard certified airplanes, The 18 year GARA clock starts ticking upon manufacture of the airplane. For EAB It seems reasonable that this would mean upon issue of the airworthiness certificate, not when it's sold by the builder/first owner.
This..... Is why you did not get a response from the builder.
And that
right there, says it all.I think this illustrates the key point that some responses on this thread fail to understand. Yeah, that scenario is stupid, and yeah it's not fair. But it costs nothing for a a lawyer that makes his/her living suing people for 30% of the eventual settlement to throw it against the wall and see if it sticks so you see this kind of shotgun approach. On the other side, the defendant can't just say "that's stupid" and ignore it, so it costs a significant amount to defend against it.
Well, it *does* cost the attorney...if it's a waste of their time, that's lost billable hours.
This isn't going to work for a couple of simple reasons. first, the mortgage holder has a means to enforce that for the life of the mortgage, i.e. if you don't comply they can just add their own insurance and add the premium to your monthly payment, then drop teh foreclosure hammer if you don't pony up.
You'd also have to require that the buyer enforce that requirement on all subsequent owners. Pretty tough to do.
House, car, retirement funds...all protected by law from creditors. As for the rest? It's a risk I'd be willing to accept. Still waiting to hear about the massive uptick in the numbers of lawsuits (successful or otherwise) against builders.
IANAL, but I do know that contracts can be written to include all sorts of things, even things that one might not necessarily think at first blush are possible. It was just a wild idea, anyway. But hey, who knows? Best thing to do? Ask a lawyer with experience in aviation.
Again, IANAL, but I think the only way this works is if it's an IRrevocable trust. Trusts are for estate management, not liability protection.
Wow, I didn't know about this.
