Destroy a/c vs selling; avoid liability

Yes, finding the right airplane is a long journey, and finding the right buyer when you are ready to sell is not just the first person that shows up with the correct amount of money anymore. Sadly this is going to be the end of many birds in this country.
 
Yeah, the builder/destroyer was stupid. Experimental planes are bought and sold all the time. There was no need for that, unless he knew he screwed up building it and would be putting other people's lives in danger by selling it to them without telling them about known problems. Even then, it would be difficult to prove.
 
I believe I could cut one up with an ax and a chain saw. I did see two men demolish a C150 with their bare hands and body mass once.

Once my Uncle told me " if you haven't been sued you aren't making enough money".
He was once sued by the family a buyer of a certified airplane when he ran it out of fuel and crashed. He still owed money on the aircraft.:dunno:
 
Last edited:
Actually, I think anyone with significant assets should avoid being named as the builder of a plane that will be sold.

People who buy used planes sometimes die in crashes. Then what happens? Well, since we live in a pathetically litigious country, the estates look for somebody to sue for millions of dollars. If your name is on the plate and you live in a beaten-up trailer and look like a penniless pensioner, then you have nothing to worry about. They can't get blood from a turnip.

However, if your name is on the plate and you've got a lifestyle that suggests a nice plump retirement account -- well then, that estate will go after you. And you will no longer have any liability insurance in your role as the long-ago builder. Your possible loss in a lawsuit could be millions, much more than the hull was worth in a resale. So better to crush the hull instead of letting a trial lawyer crush you and your family.

A solution might be to incorporate before building, load the corporation with debt, and put the corporation's name on the plate as the amateur builder.
 
Last edited:
Let'sgoflying! said:
Seen? did not find in a search.
many of the YT comments suggest not necessary
(I wondered about just preserving it in a barn for heirs to sell)

http://www.rapp.org/archives/2015/11/tragic/
Click to expand...

I assume that this guy destroys cars instead of selling them because if they are involved in a crash the previous owner could be sued for improper maintenance.

Or, on second thought. One should assume that this person doesn't own or drive a car. That's where your REAL liability risk exists.
 
I think the dude was warped(or just somewhere on the OCD spectrum) and had to take it apart for closure/peace of mind/weirdness. Liability was just an excuse to cover desires that are a bit off the norm. Way too nice a job taking it apart, If you just wanted to beat liability you'd use a Sawzall and a Torch.
 
NoHeat said:
Actually, I think anyone with significant assets should avoid being named as the builder of a plane that will be sold.

People who buy used planes sometimes die in crashes. Then what happens? Well, since we live in a pathetically litigious country, the estates look for somebody to sue for millions of dollars. If your name is on the plate and you live in a beaten-up trailer and look like a penniless pensioner, then you have nothing to worry about. They can't get blood from a turnip.

However, if your name is on the plate and you've got a lifestyle that suggests a nice plump retirement account -- well then, that estate will go after you. And you will no longer have any liability insurance in your role as the long-ago builder. Your possible loss in a lawsuit could be millions, much more than the hull was worth in a resale. So better to crush the hull instead of letting a trial lawyer crush you and your family.

A solution might be to incorporate before building, load the corporation with debt, and put the corporation's name on the plate as the amateur builder.
Click to expand...


Yup...

That is / was my plan of action....
 
NoHeat said:
Actually, I think anyone with significant assets should avoid being named as the builder of a plane that will be sold.

People who buy used planes sometimes die in crashes. Then what happens? Well, since we live in a pathetically litigious country, the estates look for somebody to sue for millions of dollars. If your name is on the plate and you live in a beaten-up trailer and look like a penniless pensioner, then you have nothing to worry about. They can't get blood from a turnip.

However, if your name is on the plate and you've got a lifestyle that suggests a nice plump retirement account -- well then, that estate will go after you. And you will no longer have any liability insurance in your role as the long-ago builder. Your possible loss in a lawsuit could be millions, much more than the hull was worth in a resale. So better to crush the hull instead of letting a trial lawyer crush you and your family.

A solution might be to incorporate before building, load the corporation with debt, and put the corporation's name on the plate as the amateur builder.
Click to expand...

I'm of the same mind, but a corporation can't fully protect against liability if there is only one individual involved in the construction of a plane.

I'd be of the mind to destroy a plane that I built rather than take potential liability. The litigation environment is getting worse, not better.
 
not going to work. form 8130 requires the names of all builders be listed. the word individuals is used throughout the regs on EAB. the FAA will not issue a AWC for an EAB with a corporation listed as the builder.

bob
 
Last edited:
unsafervguy said:
not going to work. form 8130 requires the names of all builders be listed. the word individuals is used throughout the regs on EAB. the FAA will not issue a AWC for an EAB to a corporation.

bob
Click to expand...

Really???:confused:
 
UngaWunga said:
Yeah, the builder/destroyer was stupid. Experimental planes are bought and sold all the time. There was no need for that, unless he knew he screwed up building it and would be putting other people's lives in danger by selling it to them without telling them about known problems. Even then, it would be difficult to prove.
Click to expand...


That.

I'd wager it wasn't exactly an airworthy example.
 
N801BH said:
Really???:confused:
Click to expand...


21.191 (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.

form 8130 which must also be submitted requires the names of all PERSONS who constructed the aircraft.

a EAB may be registered to a corporation, but the builder must be listed as a person.

bob
 
James331 said:
That.

I'd wager it wasn't exactly an airworthy example.
Click to expand...

Video text says it flew 750 hours, A RV with that much time 'should' be sound. My money is on crazy OCD builder.
 
unsafervguy said:
the FAA will not issue a AWC for an EAB with a corporation listed as the builder.

bob
Click to expand...

I don't know about the AWC, but the registration for sure. It will take only ten seconds to convince yourself. Just visit this FAA search page, and type "LLC" for the name of the manufacturer and RV-10 for the model number. You will get a dozen examples.
 
unsafervguy said:
21.191 (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.

form 8130 which must also be submitted requires the names of all PERSONS who constructed the aircraft.

a EAB may be registered to a corporation, but the builder must be listed as a person.

bob
Click to expand...


Is the builder considered the Manufacturer ?:dunno:
 
i stand corrected, I was told years ago when I built mine that it was not allowed.
 
UngaWunga said:
Yeah the builder/destroyer was stupid. Experimental planes are bought and sold all the time. There was no need for that, unless he knew he screwed up building it and would be putting other people's lives in danger by selling it to them without telling them about known problems. Even then, it would be difficult to prove.
Click to expand...

It really depends on the financial position of the builder, because he not protected under tort law from manufacturer liability. If your airplane is a major component of your net worth, then the risk of selling it is comparatively low. If you have $20k in the plane and your net worth is 7+ figures, then the risk of selling the plane is comparatively high. Waivers do not work either, because the buyer cannot wave his family's rights.
 
Henning said:
It really depends on the financial position of the builder, because he not protected under tort law from manufacturer liability. If your airplane is a major component of your net worth, then the risk of selling it is comparatively low. If you have $20k in the plane and your net worth is 7+ figures, then the risk of selling the plane is comparatively high. Waivers do not work either, because the buyer cannot wave his family's rights.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
I think that was dumb personally, but assuming he stripped all the valuable parts out and just scrapped the airframe I bet he could actually make back more money by selling all the pieces than if he sold it whole.
 
I suspect that firearms will also find this end as recently I heard that some states are finding the seller responsible for crimes or fatal shootings after the legal sale of a legal firearm.
 
What about that 18 year of liability exposure rule? Would that apply? You don't hear about it much anymore but there was a lot of fanfare when it was introduced. It is too early in the morning for me to look up.
 
Getonit said:
What about that 18 year of liability exposure rule? Would that apply? You don't hear about it much anymore but there was a lot of fanfare when it was introduced. It is too early in the morning for me to look up.
Click to expand...

Unless you have manufacturer's liability, it'll still cost $50k or better to defend. No law written is done so in a way to cut lawyers out of work.
 
unsafervguy said:
21.191 (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.

form 8130 which must also be submitted requires the names of all PERSONS who constructed the aircraft.

a EAB may be registered to a corporation, but the builder must be listed as a person.

bob
Click to expand...

OK, now look up the definition of 'person' in FAR 1.
 
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:
 
Henning said:
Waivers do not work either, because the buyer cannot wave his family's rights.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
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...

We just had this discussion in another thread within the last week and a lawyer stated that what you are suggesting won't help at all. They can sue the trusts.
 
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.

Still, it's very said to see such a beautiful machine destroyed like that.
 
Fearless Tower said:
We just had this discussion in another thread within the last week and a lawyer stated that what you are suggesting won't help at all. They can sue the trusts.
Click to expand...

If the alleged tortfeasor still owns the trust, or the LLC, it might possibly still be seized to satisfy a debt. Where someone might be able to protect themselves is to create an entity to own his stuff, then give that entity irrevocably away. For example, create a trust with the sole beneficiary (or an LLC with the sole owner) as your child, then put the home in the trust (or LLC), and retain a life estate in the home. That could create various other issues (for example income, gift, or property tax liabilities, etc.) that are beyond my knowledge base, but that's the gist of the strategy. Again, these rules are state law dependent, and will vary from state to state.
 
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...

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...

StinkBug said:
I think that was dumb personally, but assuming he stripped all the valuable parts out and just scrapped the airframe I bet he could actually make back more money by selling all the pieces than if he sold it whole.
Click to expand...

Guarantee that. The fuselage kit is maybe $20K or so... maybe it had some issues and it was worth more to strip and sell vs repair and sell.
 
How much does a complete RV sell for used? How much can you get for a good condition Lycoming, prop, wheels, avionics, various plumbing bits to other RV builders, etc. etc. etc.

I've parted out enough cars to know that selling things whole is easier, but not more profitable. When I look at aircraft parts on ebay I can see that the are a whole lot more profitable than car parts.
 
I like the story about the two guys who destroyed the airplane with their bare hands! Could they do a DC3!? Let me know I want to watch.
 
StinkBug said:
How much does a complete RV sell for used?
Click to expand...

Prices seem to be all over the place. Prior to starting my RV-10 build I looked around and found RV-10s (4 seat model) going from $120K - $240K. The variation seemed to be in Glass vs Steam, 2 prop vs 3, interior options ect. I've seen what appear to be quality RV7s going for $60K with about 1000 hours on them.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
I like the story about the two guys who destroyed the airplane with their bare hands! Could they do a DC3!? Let me know I want to watch.
Click to expand...
Short lived TV show "Human Wrecking Ball" you might find it on Youtube. It was harder than they thought it would be . I watched because It was interesting to see how they did it , I doubt they would handel something larger.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
I like the story about the two guys who destroyed the airplane with their bare hands! Could they do a DC3!? Let me know I want to watch.
Click to expand...

I could destroy a DC-3 with two fingers, but I wouldn't be the first to do so.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top