Destroy a/c vs selling; avoid liability

OkieAviator said:
Yes he did... I think it had to do with his sentimental attachment to his plane and feeling it was tired and needed to retire too...
Click to expand...

I think one factor in Collins' thinking was hull condition. His 210 was a pressurized plane, it had been through a lot of cycles, and there's a point where it can't take more.
 
I think either the owner was 1) OCD, or 2) got spooked by the plane at some point. The plane could have just as easily become a restaurant decoration or wind indicator somewhere. It looks like he did scavenge wheel pants, molded parts, engine prop; I guess he's not too worried about liability there.

This just kind of reminds me of stories of people whose wills include euthanizing their pets after their death, even if the pets have willing adopters.


pbramlett said:
Didn't Richard Collins do this with his Cessna P210? Had it destroyed/taken apart rather than sell it flying.

I remember reading something about it in Flying several years ago.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it had 9,500 hours on it. He sold it to an operation who parted it out, I beleive. Still unnecessary, IMO.

TFulwider said:
This is not a unique thing. There are many builders that have scrapped their planes as opposed to selling them. In fact, Burt Rutan suggested in his newsletters that builders either destroy their planes or donate them to museums rather than sell.
Click to expand...

Now that makes sense. You sell more kits when there are fewer planes in the market place. Maybe Vans recommends trashing your plane after 10 years.
 
A Tragic Pile of Twisted Metal

I caught this video on the "House of Rapp" blog that I read occasionally.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zLO5Sem6Ew

The story originated from a pilot on the SoCal Van’s RV list who shared a video of an RV-8 builder dismantling and destroying his carefully crafted airplane. The reason? Liability concerns. Not sure I believe that, but that's what he's saying. Absolute insanity. Warning: This video will absolutely make you sick. What an incredibly stupid thing to do. You can read the entire story on the House of Rapp website:

http://www.rapp.org/archives/2015/11/tragic/
 
Re: A Tragic Pile of Twisted Metal

If the liability can blow back to the builder or his heirs, and if the builder is worth millions, I can see the logic in his decision.
 
Re: A Tragic Pile of Twisted Metal

Sorry about that duplicate thread thing. Won't happen again.
 
I have a friend that built a long easy ,he flew it for years. Then he destroyed it after removing and selling the engine. He didn't want any warranty problems.
 
How many hours to build this plane?
Did he spend more time building it than flying it?
 
PPC1052 said:
This is not necessarily true.

Why do people keep posting absolute statements about legal propositions? How many times do I have to tell you guys that this changes from state to state?
Click to expand...

Under what conditions and in which states can my actions waive my wife or children's right to sue for their losses? This has always been taught to me as an absolute by the insurance industry.
 
Last edited:
Brad Z said:
I think either the owner was 1) OCD, or 2) got spooked by the plane at some point. The plane could have just as easily become a restaurant decoration or wind indicator somewhere. It looks like he did scavenge wheel pants, molded parts, engine prop; I guess he's not too worried about liability there.

This just kind of reminds me of stories of people whose wills include euthanizing their pets after their death, even if the pets have willing adopters.




Yeah, it had 9,500 hours on it. He sold it to an operation who parted it out, I beleive. Still unnecessary, IMO.



Now that makes sense. You sell more kits when there are fewer planes in the market place. Maybe Vans recommends trashing your plane after 10 years.
Click to expand...

He doesn't hold liability for supplied parts, he holds liability for assemblies he manufactured from them.
 
Dr. O said:
Focus men, focus....
The purpose of an LLC is not to protect you from being sued (it cannot and will not - you can and will be sued)
The purpose is to make it economically undesirable to the attorney to spend time for a zero return.
Put all your possessions into LLC's/Trusts (separate ones for each major item, car, boat, plane, PWC, home, cottage, etc.)
At that point you have a ZERO net worth
- and all contingency fee lawyers have nightmares over that -
Oh yeah, they can get a judgement and garnishee your wages - but they know they cannot force you to work (that damned Indentured Servitude law).
At which point in discovery where your submitted financial statement shows that you own nothing and have nothing but the clothes on your back, the lawyer yawns tells his client he needs to go to the restroom and is never seen again :rofl:
Click to expand...

An LLC can own an experimental but there has to be a person named as the as the manufacturer. That stays on the data plate no matter who owns it. Don
 
yakdriver said:
An LLC can own an experimental but there has to be a person named as the as the manufacturer. That stays on the data plate no matter who owns it. Don
Click to expand...

Right, the LLC can shield you from owner and operator liability, but not manufacturer. Since an individual manufactured it and not a corporation, there is still personal liability applicable. However if all their major assets are in the trust then the low return issue comes back into play.
 
Last edited:
I've heard of this happening in the past. Thing is, if the individual is that high a value, then the loss of the airframe is trivial compared to the liability it generates. I would be less likely to destroy it as to hang it from the ceiling, though.
 
steingar said:
I've heard of this happening in the past. Thing is, if the individual is that high a value, then the loss of the airframe is trivial compared to the liability it generates. I would be less likely to destroy it as to hang it from the ceiling, though.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think that destroying it goes too far, a nicely built airframe is a piece of industrial art that could have been repurposed as a decoration or even a piece of playground equipment rather than beer cans, although he got a better cash return this way. I respect the intention, but not the action.
 
bugsiegel said:
How many hours to build this plane?
Did he spend more time building it than flying it?
Click to expand...

I can all but guarantee he spent more time building. I doubt many RVs have been in the air more hours than it took to build.
 
StinkBug said:
I can all but guarantee he spent more time building. I doubt many RVs have been in the air more hours than it took to build.
Click to expand...

That's a fact, you don't build a plane to get flying value, that's for sure. You build a plane to get creative value, which for many is the driving force.
 
StinkBug said:
I can all but guarantee he spent more time building. I doubt many RVs have been in the air more hours than it took to build.
Click to expand...


I think you'd be surprised. There are some pretty high time RVs out there. And, quite a few on their 2nd and 3rd owners.
 
Took me 1400 hrs to build a quick build RV7 and I'm an experienced builder. A Southwest pilot bought mine and is still happy with it after 31/2 years. Don
 
Henning said:
Under what conditions and in which states can my actions waive my wife or children's right to sue for their losses? This has always been taught to me as an absolute by the insurance industry.
Click to expand...

Well, that is wrong. Sorry.

As long as their claim is derivative, then you can waive their claim, at least in my state. I am not licensed to practice in 50 states, but I will say I doubt mine is the only one. I can just tell you it's not universally true.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top