RV-10 Build Error & LOC Lawsuit Dismissed

GRG55 said:
I am not a lawyer, but in my decades in business have had to deal with a variety of legal disputes.
My position has always been a negotiated resolution is better than going into a court room. Even a deal on the courthouse steps beats going inside.

As long as there is a chance to negotiate both parties have the ability to influence and control the outcome. Once inside that is completely lost. You may think you have an airtight case, but there is always the chance the judge rules against you. A negotiated resolution doesn't mean one believes they are guilty or at fault, it's merely good risk management in most business situations.
Click to expand...

I've heard the judge who I was bailiff for say almost those exact words dozens of times.
 
I remember another POA thread about this incident, and it had photos of the fuel system parts. It was a distribution block with flared tubing and fittings IIRC. The threads and the machined block were literally covered in red Permatex.

Looking at the photos was like viewing pictures of a shooting or car wreck caused by a drunk. Death caused by ignorance.

As most of us know, flared tubing joints are dependent on the seal between the flared tubing end and the matching machined distribution block, not any sort of goo. Lubricating the threads of the flare fitting allows the application of maximum pressure. Teflon tape, sealant, RTV, etc. is not needed and should not be introduced. Some people use "Fuel Lube", which I believe is actually the name of a product.

I've never worked on aircraft fuel systems, but I have installed flared tubing systems in a bunch of cars ranging from dirt track sprinters to IndyCar to a 400 MPH Bonneville streamliner. I have used dry graphite for a thread lubricant, which has always worked well.

EDIT: I read the NTSB report, which says "The Van's Aircraft build manual states in section 37, Fuel System, "When installing fluid fittings with pipe threads do not use Teflon tape. Use instead, fuel lube or equivalent pipe thread sealing paste."

The recommended use of "pipe thread sealing paste" is technically correct, because it is referring to the installation of "pipe threads", not joints made up with flared tubing. However, the Van's manual is deficient in that it fails to discuss flared joints, which are made leakproof by the application of force to the metal-on-metal contact.

I would guess that most joints in the fuel systems in Van's aircraft are flare type and not tapered pipe threads.

Standard pipe threads are tapered, and the use of the "sealing paste" pretty much performs the same function as I mentioned above; it lubricates the threads allowing them to be tightened to the point of preventing the passage of any fluid through the threads.

Most people assume that "pipe dope", teflon tape, etc. prevents the threads from leaking by "sealing" the space between the threads and fitting, when it actually acts as a lubricant allowing the threads to be made up closely and thus leaktight. There is probably also a seal made by the substance on some microscopic level, but I think the interference fit between the metal parts is more important.

Anyway I'm surprised that the Van's manual is not more explicit, and that it fails to properly address flared tubing joints.
 
Last edited:
IIRC, the pilot was the builder and the tragedy is that he and his young child perished in the accident. The family sued, as often happens after losses of this type.

While I agree the suit was baseless and resolved correctly I am sympathetic to the plaintiffs and their very real loss.

There's plenty of discussion of this case over on VAF for those who are interested.
 
I think the pilot was the child's grandfather. His daughter was in the back seat with the child; she survived.
 
3393RP said:
Anyway I'm surprised that the Van's manual is not more explicit, and that it fails to properly address flared tubing joints.
Click to expand...

Not a builder or a real mechanic here, but most kit documents I've seen, leave everything firewall-forward to the builder or an engine nsfwlltion manual not written/provided by the airframe kit maker. The only fuel line stuff is from the tanks to the fittings forward of the firewall. Beyond that, it's up to you.

Maybe Vans stuff is different than the stuff I've read. Don't know, but just pointing it out for completeness.
 
3393RP said:
Anyway I'm surprised that the Van's manual is not more explicit, and that it fails to properly address flared tubing joints.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it is possible in a build manual to document every "do" or "do not" in the construction of an aircraft. You'd literally have to turn the manual into the "lite" version of the A&P course to accomplish that. Vans provides tech support via e-mail and phone to bridge these gaps. Also, we have Tech Counselors, FAA Inspectors, DAR's, online forums, builder communities, 43.13 and a number of other resources to help with these issues. It is up to the builder to use these assets. IIRC, this builder was explicitly advised by others against the use of RTV in this application, but ignored the advice.
 
3393RP said:
I would guess that most joints in the fuel systems in Van's aircraft are flare type and not tapered pipe threads.

Standard pipe threads are tapered, and the use of the "sealing paste" pretty much performs the same function as I mentioned above; it lubricates the threads allowing them to be tightened to the point of preventing the passage of any fluid through the threads.

Most people assume that "pipe dope", teflon tape, etc. prevents the threads from leaking by "sealing" the space between the threads and fitting, when it actually acts as a lubricant allowing the threads to be made up closely and thus leaktight. There is probably also a seal made by the substance on some microscopic level, but I think the interference fit between the metal parts is more important.

Anyway I'm surprised that the Van's manual is not more explicit, and that it fails to properly address flared tubing joints.
Click to expand...

I think I had 10 ea pipe thread connections and 20 ea flare connections in my upgraded 5052 Al tubing(kit comes with 3003 soft Al). Lots of room for builder error in the fuel system, hence the large amount of EAB accidents compared to certified due to fuel exhaustion. There are several more factory made hoses with flare connections too that are include in Van's fwf kit.
 
3393RP said:
I think the pilot was the child's grandfather. His daughter was in the back seat with the child; she survived.
Click to expand...
I think the survivor was his step-daughter, sitting in right rear seat. 4 yr old in Graco car seat on left rear. Baggage in copilot seat. Stall spun to the left.
 
RV10flyer said:
I think I had 10 ea pipe thread connections and 20 ea flare connections in my upgraded 5052 Al tubing(kit comes with 3003 soft Al). Lots of room for builder error in the fuel system, hence the large amount of EAB accidents compared to certified due to fuel exhaustion. There are several more factory made hoses with flare connections too that are include in Van's fwf kit.
Click to expand...

Yep, that has been my impression of EAB as a result of several fatal accidents by builder owner acquaintances through the years. A complete non-standarized c-fk of fuel system component placement decisions and assembly QC. I can bank on the predictability of behavior of my PA-28 fuel system, not so with EAB. A bridge too far for me. I used to be jelly of their ability to save on maintenance parts cost, but considering the opportunity cost of wide variances in outcome based on pandora's box original builds, I'm no longer enamored with the siren song of EAB. Not saying it's a non-starter for everyone, but as a non-builder, it kinda is for me.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Yep, that has been my impression of EAB as a result of several fatal accidents by builder owner acquaintances through the years. A complete non-standarized c-fk of fuel system component placement decisions and assembly QC. I can bank on the predictability of behavior of my PA-28 fuel system, not so with EAB. A bridge too far for me. I used to be jelly of their ability to save on maintenance parts cost, but considering the opportunity cost of wide variances in outcome based on pandora's box original builds, I'm no longer enamored with the siren song of EAB. Not saying it's a non-starter for everyone, but as a non-builder, it kinda is for me.
Click to expand...

No reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. Being jealous of the parts costs doesn't have to preclude using the correct parts (just minus the magic FAA stamps) and building things correctly. There's real honest to goodness A&Ps who can assist (even by being paid) with things builders don't understand well.

Builders can get professional help, but usually don't. Nothing stopping them from doing so, since the point of the build by nature and regulation is, "education", after all.

EAB still offers great bang for the buck. It's the EAB resale market for a non-builder that can be a trap for young players and a big one, at that. But your initial assessment was correct, the parts, even correct parts, can be gotten much cheaper... the build quality does need serious scrutiny if you're going to buy one, though, and it's the concept of whether the correct parts were assembled correctly that gets gray.
 
Many builders will not ask for free help, advice or just a QC inspection. Although I spent 5 yrs as a UH-60 crewchief, 4 yrs overhauling Allison/P&W turbine engines, and 18 in the HVAC business...I still had no less than 8 other builders/A&P's and finally the DAR look my plane over. The one DAR is ALL that is required and many may not be familiar with your EAB.

Van's kits are very complete with good instructions, but their are sections that some should really get help and the use proper tools. The fuel system being #1. Flight controls rigging/torquing #2. Electrical System #3. Most, including myself get the avionics and harness built by SteinAir or Stark. Most also get exterior paint and upholstery done by pros, as I did too. I still spent over 2200 hrs in two years exactly from the first rivet to first flight. I did my own test flying, wore nomex suit, but would not recommend that to someone not intimately very familiar with ALL of their systems and emergency procedures. Talk about adrenaline like nothing ever before. My family, CFI, aprt mgr, radios, fire extiguishers, crash axe, fire dept on standby.
 
denverpilot said:
No reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. Being jealous of the parts costs doesn't have to preclude using the correct parts (just minus the magic FAA stamps) and building things correctly. There's real honest to goodness A&Ps who can assist (even by being paid) with things builders don't understand well.

Builders can get professional help, but usually don't. Nothing stopping them from doing so, since the point of the build by nature and regulation is, "education", after all.

EAB still offers great bang for the buck. It's the EAB resale market for a non-builder that can be a trap for young players and a big one, at that. But your initial assessment was correct, the parts, even correct parts, can be gotten much cheaper... the build quality does need serious scrutiny if you're going to buy one, though, and it's the concept of whether the correct parts were assembled correctly that gets gray.
Click to expand...

I hear ya on the not throwing the baby out with the bath water, but it kinda becomes a non-choice for non-builders. As one who falls in that demo, I wish we could just dispense with this 51% platitude and just move on already. Take my money and a waiver of liability signature, I'll slap the EXP sticker on it myself, and just build me an sleeker, lighter more modern airplane, built to much better standards and QC than I ever could (even if I had the inclination for such an undertaking), for cheaper than I can operate an outdated and orphaned certified six banger can with 10 AMU gear pivots and 1,069 recurring unobtanium-part-laden ADs for simpleton 150knots.

But ooooh no, you gotta put your family at risk if you wanna play in EAB. It's the resale market blue light special up in here at the John Denver school of vice-grip flying, for the non-builder who wishes to fly before the end of the g-d decade.

I get it. Litigious society. So we have to devise these legal safety-counterproductive distinctions, to get to play at all. Oh well. I'll keep surviving my certified extortion until they allow professional-EXP to run above ground, or I run out of discretionary money. :D
 
Thanks to everyone for the comments on my post. I learned some things!
 
Cessna Exec I spoke with said about 50% of their single piston engine plane's price was product liability insurance.

Last Year Cessna lost a $10M suit from a pilot with commercial, multi-engine, and jet ratings who over ran the runway in his shiny new Citation Mustang. Pilot claimed Cessna should have know better that he was not qualified to fly a Citation Mustang and not sold him the plane. Jury found for the plaintiff.

-NordicDave
 
NordicDave said:
Cessna Exec I spoke with said about 50% of their single piston engine plane's price was product liability insurance.

Last Year Cessna lost a $10M suit from a pilot with commercial, multi-engine, and jet ratings who over ran the runway in his shiny new Citation Mustang. Pilot claimed Cessna should have know better that he was not qualified to fly a Citation Mustang and not sold him the plane. Jury found for the plaintiff.

-NordicDave
Click to expand...
I can't find anything about that case. Who was the plaintiff and which court was the case before? There is always more to the story and I want to read this one.
 
NordicDave said:
Cessna Exec I spoke with said about 50% of their single piston engine plane's price was product liability insurance.

Last Year Cessna lost a $10M suit from a pilot with commercial, multi-engine, and jet ratings who over ran the runway in his shiny new Citation Mustang. Pilot claimed Cessna should have know better that he was not qualified to fly a Citation Mustang and not sold him the plane. Jury found for the plaintiff.

-NordicDave
Click to expand...

The execs say that quite a bit, but nobody looking at the numbers they publish has been able to make the direct liability cost correlation. It may be true or it may be creative accounting. They also claim a landing gear saddle takes thousands of dollars to make, theses days.

Also curious what case that was, seems like this is the first time I'm hearing of it, and that's not the sort of case which wouldn't have been discussed around the 'net pretty heavily.
 
It would not be surprising if Cessna blames or over-inflates the liability viewpoint as it's easier for customers to accept a greedy lawyer/plaintiff over corporate greed.
 
NordicDave said:
It would not be surprising if Cessna blames or over-inflates the liability viewpoint as it's easier for customers to accept a greedy lawyer/plaintiff over corporate greed.
Click to expand...
Actually it's the insurance company that gains the most by spreading lies and misinformation about personal injury lawsuits. They get three benefits. First, they raise their premiums. Second, they get fearful state legislators to pass laws that make it harder to succeed in a claim on their policy. Third, they can easily get fearful citizens on the jury to help ensure that the claims that don't settle before trial still don't require them to pay out. This is the easiest way to maximize the profitability of a business that writes liability insurance policies.

Of course, Cessna is no less a profit seeking entity than its insurance carrier. But it at least has a physical product to sell, with lots of regulation that sets a standard for product quality and safety. I won't rule Cessna out, but it may just be getting the same half-truths from its insurance carrier as everyone else is.
 
When you go into court you are putting your fate into the hands of twelve people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty. Norm Crosby
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top