Liabilities of the A/HB builders

Henning said:
:confused: What's wrong with providing kits that don't violate the 51% rule? Besides that, there have been several rules in the mean time that have dealt with the COMMERCIAL builders.
Click to expand...
FTFY..

When you use professionals the craft is no longer Amateur built… get the terms right or the nit pickers will get ya :)
 
vintage cessna said:
Chill. I never said there is no risk. You say a home builder is a manufacturer, the EAA attorney thinks otherwise, take it up with him.
Click to expand...

And two people have posted legal definitions of "manufacturer", which clearly include E-AB builders...but you just keep telling folks to bury their heads in the sand.

It's in EAA's best interest for people to ignore liability. Their lawyer has a vested interest in the matter.

The definition's not all that complicated. Perhaps you can parse out how E-AB is "different" that it doesn't apply to them, regardless of the fact that they clearly fall within the plain English reading of the definition.
 
Note that my references were posed as questions rather than answers relative to the participation levels of various co-owners of the kits. Do you know?

Jim Logajan said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...
 
JeffDG said:
And two people have posted legal definitions of "manufacturer", which clearly include E-AB builders...but you just keep telling folks to bury their heads in the sand.

It's in EAA's best interest for people to ignore liability. Their lawyer has a vested interest in the matter.

The definition's not all that complicated. Perhaps you can parse out how E-AB is "different" that it doesn't apply to them, regardless of the fact that they clearly fall within the plain English reading of the definition.
Click to expand...


The EAA attorney that conducted the webinar is a member of the EAA legal council. His interest was to provide the membership with information and his experience and insight on the topic so they could make more informed decisions.

I don't advise anyone to bury their head. There is not a lot of info out there on this particular topic, at least I have provided an informed source to start with.

Does the FAA consider a true home builder a manufacturer? They are the government agency that has been empowered to regulate aircraft manufacturing.
 
JeffDG said:
And two people have posted legal definitions of "manufacturer", which clearly include E-AB builders...but you just keep telling folks to bury their heads in the sand.

It's in EAA's best interest for people to ignore liability. Their lawyer has a vested interest in the matter.

The definition's not all that complicated. Perhaps you can parse out how E-AB is "different" that it doesn't apply to them, regardless of the fact that they clearly fall within the plain English reading of the definition.
Click to expand...

While you're at it, post the legal definition of "merchant". Maybe that definition will cover those people that sell crap on their lawn on Saturday mornings. I'm starting to think they need to be held more accountable.
 
wabower said:
Note that my references were posed as questions rather than answers relative to the participation levels of various co-owners of the kits. Do you know?
Click to expand...

I don't know, but I have an answer anyway. :D

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.
 
So how is any of that different as a result of the 2009 rules you quoted?

Jim Logajan said:
I don't know, but I have an answer anyway. :D

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.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
So how is any of that different as a result of the 2009 rules you quoted?
Click to expand...

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.

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....
 
Jim Logajan said:
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.

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....
Click to expand...

Jim, What they actually did was define " Amateur built" and clarified the 51% rule as any aircraft that is not built by professional builders such as Cessna, and Piper or those who manufacture a complete ready to fly aircraft.
That now brings us to the place where we can farm out all tasks to build an Amateur built aircraft.
 
vintage cessna said:
Does the FAA consider a true home builder a manufacturer? They are the government agency that has been empowered to regulate aircraft manufacturing.
Click to expand...

The FAA has precisely zero to do with tort suits and product liability.
 
JeffDG said:
The FAA has precisely zero to do with tort suits and product liability.
Click to expand...

Right , unless they are called to give expert testimony or explain what a regulation means.

I'm done with this.

On one hand , there are people saying, with no case law to back it, or even reliable anecdotes, that a home builder is a manufacturer.

On the other hand, there is an experienced aviation attorney , who has successfully represented home builders in legal actions, saying they are not.

If I had to make a decision, which hand wins?
 
vintage cessna said:
Product labeling has nothing to do with torts?
Click to expand...

Depends who is suing. If it is the buyer, most certainly there is an effect. If it is the mother of the schoolchild that was killed when the wing separated as the plane was passing over the playground at recess, no. Remember, when suits are filed, everybody possible gets named.
 
Henning said:
Depends who is suing. If it is the buyer, most certainly there is an effect. If it is the mother of the schoolchild that was killed when the wing separated as the plane was passing over the playground at recess, no. Remember, when suits are filed, everybody possible gets named.
Click to expand...

In which case, the best chance of success is against the dang fool who bought and operated the airplane. Not like the owner hasn't been warned what he chooses to operate.

True, there could be a sea change in law. In which case, never sell or scrap. Makes sense in a society that has things like "cash for clunkers".
 
Tom-D said:
Jim, What they actually did was define " Amateur built" and clarified the 51% rule as any aircraft that is not built by professional builders such as Cessna, and Piper or those who manufacture a complete ready to fly aircraft.
That now brings us to the place where we can farm out all tasks to build an Amateur built aircraft.
Click to expand...

And this might bring us back to the definition of manufacturer. Would it not stand to reason that whoever built the majority of the airplane is the manufacturer?
 
Dav8or said:
And this might bring us back to the definition of manufacturer. Would it not stand to reason that whoever built the majority of the airplane is the manufacturer?
Click to expand...

Do you consider Apple the manufacturer of an iPad, or the company in China that physically built it?
 
JeffDG said:
The FAA has precisely zero to do with tort suits and product liability.
Click to expand...

No, they don't, but they do have an opinion on what an aircraft manufacturer is and that is likely to direct the course of the suit.
 
Dav8or said:
And this might bring us back to the definition of manufacturer. Would it not stand to reason that whoever built the majority of the airplane is the manufacturer?
Click to expand...

If the law ever views Amateur Built in the same light as Cessna or Piper, that will be the end of that segment of aviation.
 
Dav8or said:
No, they don't, but they do have an opinion on what an aircraft manufacturer is and that is likely to direct the course of the suit.
Click to expand...

Someone still has to pay the lawyers and it isn't FAA. You can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
 
Henning said:
Do you consider Apple the manufacturer of an iPad, or the company in China that physically built it?
Click to expand...

The big difference is this- Apple has strict control over how the product is to be produced and every single iPad must conform to Apple's specs. There is no leeway for the Chinese factory to deviate from the plans. In addition, Apple controls how the parts and manufactured. In effect, the Chinese factory is just contract labor under Apple's direction.

Van's on the other hand sells a box of parts and an assembly manual as a suggestion and is done with it. They have no control over how it turns out, nor do they care. They basically say, "Follow our directions and the result will be our standard RV-X, but do as you like. It's your experiment."

Yes Apple is the manufacturer of the iPad. Vans is the manufacturer of airplane parts that can be made into an aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Obtained from the EAA's website. Note the last paragraph. Don't know if it's true or not. I've done some searching in 8130.2 but couldn't find anything relevant.

Is the 24 month transponder test (per FAR 91.217 & 91.413) required for a homebuilt aircraft? How about the pitot static test (FAR 91.411)? If so, can this be done by the builder of the aircraft?

If you have a transponder installed in your aircraft, you must comply with the testing requirements. The requirements of 14 CFR 91.215, 91.217, and 91.411 apply to all aircraft with such equipment installed, regardless of certification category.

If you fly your aircraft under IFR, you must comply with the pitot/static test requirements called out in 14 CFR 91.411. As with transponders, this regulation applies to all aircraft, regardless of certification category.

The FAR’s authorize the "manufacturer" of the aircraft to conduct the tests However, the builder of an amateur-built aircraft does not meet the FAA’s definition of a manufacturer. The FAA, in Order 8130.2, defines a manufacturer as a Production Approval Holder (PAH). Some examples of a PAH would be the holder of a Production Certificate (PC), a Parts Manufacturing Authority (PMA), and Technical Standards Order Authorization (TSOA). An amateur builder does not fit this definition. Thus, the amateur-builder cannot perform the transponder and pitot/static tests on his/her homebuilt.

​
 
mvferrer said:
Obtained from the EAA's website. Note the last paragraph. Don't know if it's true or not. I've done some searching in 8130.2 but couldn't find anything relevant.



The FAR’s authorize the "manufacturer" of the aircraft to conduct the tests However, the builder of an amateur-built aircraft does not meet the FAA’s definition of a manufacturer. The FAA, in Order 8130.2, defines a manufacturer as a Production Approval Holder (PAH). Some examples of a PAH would be the holder of a Production Certificate (PC), a Parts Manufacturing Authority (PMA), and Technical Standards Order Authorization (TSOA). An amateur builder does not fit this definition. Thus, the amateur-builder cannot perform the transponder and pitot/static tests on his/her homebuilt.

​
Click to expand...

If this is how the FAA views it, I guess no one manufacturered the kit plane and yet it exists. Vans doesn't have, a PC, PMA, or TSOA either.
 
Dav8or said:
If this is how the FAA views it, I guess no one manufacturered the kit plane and yet it exists. Vans doesn't have, a PC, PMA, or TSOA either.
Click to expand...

Correct, there is no manufacturer, there is however a builder. Grock the difference?
 
wsuffa said:
Someone still has to pay the lawyers and it isn't FAA. You can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

Fortunately, so far, no one has taken much of a ride. Attorneys don't get paid unless they win, and if they don't think they can win they don't file. The client, when told this is not going to finance it.

Again, if anyone knows of an actual case, let's hear it. Amateur Built aircraft subject to the same PL as Cessna? People, please quit saying not deep enough pockets. There is at least one lawyer on record as saying that other lawyers have started actions against home builders, but walked away when they discovered what an AB-EXP was. And they are not Cessnas.
 
Dav8or said:
If this is how the FAA views it, I guess no one manufacturered the kit plane and yet it exists. Vans doesn't have, a PC, PMA, or TSOA either.
Click to expand...


VANs is not an aircraft builder, they are a kit manufacturer.
 
Tom-D said:
VANs is not an aircraft builder, they are a kit manufacturer.
Click to expand...

Right, which does not make them the 'Aircraft Manufacturer' By the FAA's definitions, amateur built aircraft have no manufacturer, they have builders.
 
Henning said:
Correct, there is no manufacturer, there is however a builder. Grock the difference?
Click to expand...

I don't know the word grock, but I see your point. However, in the end it will be the courts who decides the definition as it applies to liability. Saying no body manufactured this thing, so no one has liability isn't going to cut it. Grieving widow wants her money and the jury wants to give it to her. It has just yet to come. Some one is always to blame.

It may come to pass that because a company like Vans does nearly all the design work, builds for profit, does a lot of promotion, makes claims for performance and safety, builds nearly half the plane and has deeper pockets than the builder, that they will be the best target and the focus of the suit. I think I said as much back on page one that it's the kit manufacturers that need to cover their hides.
 
Last edited:
Dav8or said:
If this is how the FAA views it, I guess no one manufacturered the kit plane and yet it exists. Vans doesn't have, a PC, PMA, or TSOA either.
Click to expand...

Well , if the FAA is suppose to regulate aircraft manufacturers, and the FAA says a home builder is not a manufacturer, what is a poor lawyer to do? Target the owner/operator instead?
 
vintage cessna said:
Well , if the FAA is suppose to regulate aircraft manufacturers, and the FAA says a home builder is not a manufacturer, what is a poor lawyer to do? Target the owner/operator instead?
Click to expand...

They will do as they always do, target everyone and see what shakes out. Again, the kit manufacturer is the juiciest target in this hypothetical product liability suit.
 
Dav8or said:
I don't know the word grock, but I see your point. However, in the end it will be the courts who decides the definition as it applies to liability. Saying no body manufactured this thing, so no one has liability isn't going to cut it. Grieving widow wants her money and the jury wants to give it to her. It has just yet to come. Some one is always to blame.

It may come to pass that because a company like Vans does nearly all the design work, builds for profit, does a lot of promotion, makes claims for performance and safety, builds nearly half the plane and has deeper pockets than the builder, that they will be the best target and the focus of the suit. I think I said as much back on page one that it's the kit manufacturers that need to cover their hides.
Click to expand...

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't make decisions based on " someday it will happen". If you own an old Part 23 airplane, and don't want it anymore, you may want to scrap it because the "deep pocket" manufacturer is not on the hook any longer.
 
And by the way, how many of you Part 23 owners are complying with all those SB's that manufacturers have issued? If you don't, could be construed as negligence .
 
bbchien said:
What does that have to do with the price of eggs?
Click to expand...

Just a correlation to the perceived difference in liability between selling a home built and factory built plane I would imagine. If you did not do all the SBs on a plane you sold, you would have about the same level of exposure as someone selling an experimental home built, namely "very little".
 
bbchien said:
What does that have to do with the price of eggs?
Click to expand...

Severe thread drift, I know. But it would be interesting to explore the liability of selling an old Part 23 airplane VS an AB-EXP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top