Vans Aircraft sued for $35M

Means that I would do what Brian mentioned and look online at where to buy one of those two products. If after that I'm still confused about what to use I would call Vans builder support and ask them.

Or use the search function over on VAF to get the answers, or post the question and they would be happy to help. Better yet call an EAA Technical Counselor (I am one) and they would be glad to visit your shop and instruct you on the correct procedures and products to use. RTV as thread sealant would gather a lot of attention from any EAA TC.

I just search VAF for "thread sealant" and got pages and pages of information. Nothing mentions RTV. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
What amazes me is grown up people who decide to build a plane and have NEVER mated NPT fittings in their life....:confused::confused:......:redface:

From "Van's Aircraft" web site:

"Many prospective builders are understandably anxious about the skills involved in constructing an airplane. The fact is that most RVs are built by people who have never built an airplane before. Many have never built anything before. Building an RV does not require any special skill, but it does demand attention, commitment and perseverance."
 
Really ?

If they had lived would they have a different case?

Ummm... there would be no case and that's my point. Without the engine stopping, there would likely be no crash and no lawsuit. The lawsuit is about the engine stoppage and the NTSB even lists it as the primary cause of the crash, so it is not likely that the defense will spend much if any time on poor piloting skills and "What he shoulda done..." with regards to successfully getting the plane on the ground without injury.

Like I said, it is pretty much irrelevant to this lawsuit, but feel free to damn the pilot all to hell for being idiot builder and crappy pilot here if you want.

What if the engine quit 100' over condominiums, or a thick wooded forest, or over rocky mountains? Then we would all just be saying, "Poor bastard, I guess his time was up." but because so many here think they are super above average pilots that can put 'er down anywhere and walk away, we are quick to condemn.

They say we train for this sort of thing, but it's partly BS. We only train for it when it's totally safe and in a safe area.

Anybody here train to do a dead stick landing to a full stop in the yard of a paper mill? I haven't. I agree, that in principle he should have done whatever to not stall the plane and should perhaps looked for a better place to put it down. The two of them might well be alive now if that and been the case... or not. No way to know. Nobody knows how well they will do on this test until there is that ultimate pop quiz. One has to figure in the fact that this guy was flying his pride and joy of how many years of construction as well as his young grandchild (?). When it became clear that this was going to all go horribly wrong and it very likely was going to end in bent metal and injuries, he likely froze in denial and pulled back to delay the inevitable and made it much, much worse.

In short, he was human and not a great pilot, or a great airplane builder. That's what sometimes happens when you let just anybody be a pilot, or build their own plane.
 
I'm sure their lawyers wisely counseled them to NOT tell the builder what to use. That opens a much bigger can of worms.

I guess we'll find out which way is better for Vans. So far they have done well, let's hope they prevail again! :yes:
 
That is silly, and simply untrue. Van's specifies specific products to use all the time. They also refer to the aircraft spandards book for products, techniques and other specs. RTV is not listed for thread sealant. This is a simple case of the builder using the wrong product in the wrong application.

Means that I would do what Brian mentioned and look online at where to buy one of those two products. If after that I'm still confused about what to use I would call Vans builder support and ask them.

Or use the search function over on VAF to get the answers, or post the question and they would be happy to help. Better yet call an EAA Technical Counselor (I am one) and they would be glad to visit your shop and instruct you on the correct procedures and products to use. RTV as thread sealant would gather a lot of attention from any EAA TC.

See, that's the problem that the defendants will have to deal with. The kit is marketed to everybody. Vans claims that you need no previous skills, or knowledge. In short, almost anybody can do it they say. Then they provide somewhat ambiguous installation instructions with merely suggestions in it. Nowhere do the instructions seem to prohibit the use of RTV.

One would assume that something as important of a project as building an airplane should include exact instructions with no room for guessing, or "asking strangers for help and advice", or consulting further publications. It seems to me that when you market your product to everyone, including the lowest common denominator, it should be complete with step by instructions and detailed parts and materials lists. In other words, as idiot proof as possible.

The courts will have to decide if this assumption of mine is valid and if so, did Vans do a proper job with the instructions. I hope that no one here thinks I have it in for Vans, the E/AB community, people building their own airplanes. I'm just voicing this stuff to make discussion on the topic, rather than the usual post crash analysis of- "The pilot was a total idiot! I would never do that!!"
 
See, that's the problem that the defendants will have to deal with. The kit is marketed to everybody. Vans claims that you need no previous skills, or knowledge. In short, almost anybody can do it they say. Then they provide somewhat ambiguous installation instructions with merely suggestions in it. Nowhere do the instructions seem to prohibit the use of RTV.

Vans makes no such claims. There are beginner building classes specifically for Vans kits. They use the terms " able to use ordinary shop tool skills" that can be taught. Besides, this accident was caused by the improper use of materials, not poor construction of the airframe.

The instructions are explicitly clear and detailed. Vans preaches sticking to the plans, that deviations from the plans are at your own risk and not advised.

The Aircraft standards handbook is the Bible for building an airplane. No where in there does it mention using RTV as a thread sealant.

One would assume that something as important of a project as building an airplane should include exact instructions with no room for guessing, or "asking strangers for help and advice", or consulting further publications. It seems to me that when you market your product to everyone, including the lowest common denominator, it should be complete with step by instructions and detailed parts and materials lists. In other words, as idiot proof as possible.

How many Vans Aircraft have you built? Have you even taken the time to look at the plans? Have you taken the time to talk to anyone building an airplane? Ask them what standards do they use? Would they chose RTV for a thread sealant on a fuel system? What would they have chosen? How would they rationally make that decision?

The instructions are exact and explicit. Vans provides technical support from their engineers every business day. All you have to do is call. I have called them dozens of times over the years. They are more than helpful, courteous, and eenthusiastic about helping anyone with questions about their aircraft, even if you didn't build the plane.

The courts will have to decide if this assumption of mine is valid and if so, did Vans do a proper job with the instructions. I hope that no one here thinks I have it in for Vans, the E/AB community, people building their own airplanes. I'm just voicing this stuff to make discussion on the topic, rather than the usual post crash analysis of- "The pilot was a total idiot! I would never do that!!"

Your assumptions and stated facts are not in evidence, and are clearly wrong. Build a Vans airplane, repair a dozen Vans aircraft, become a tech counselor for the EAA, work OSH builders forums for 10 years and get back to me.

Finally, please provide any evidence, any manufacturers information, any FAA, EAA, any standards at all that allow the use of RTV as a thread sealant on fuel lines. Any information at all, please.

The point is we live in a free country and this builder decided to "experiment" on his own plane (after it was certified as air worthy by the FAA) to use UNAPPROVED materials for the application according to industry standards, the RTV manufacturers instructions, and the aircraft standards booklet supplied by Vans, and UNAPPROVED materials according to the Flowscan installation manual.

His choice cost him and his granddaughter their lives, and I am deeply sorry about that. It was not the fault of Vans Aircraft or Flowscan. It was his own damn fault for not following instructions for building, not flying the airplane first, and allowing it to stall and crash. Vans had NOTHING to do with that at all.
 
Last edited:
what's the latest on this lawsuit?
 
I have to smile at those who suggest that the plans could or should have specifically said not to use RTV as a fuel thread sealant. Can you imagine how many pages would be taken up if one were to list everything "not" to use in the construction of an airplane? Much better to list approved materials and warn that any deviation is at the risk of the builder alone.
 
Thank goodness common sense prevailed for once. It's sad that they even had to spend the money to fight this at all.
 
Great news, indeed. It was a frivolous suit and I'm glad it was dismissed. I'm sorry that lives were lost, but in no way should the burden be placed on Van's.
 
The letter isn't clear why it was dismissed. It may well be it was dismissed because Van's agreed to settle. The letter certainly seems calculated to convey that the case was dismissed due to the lack of merit. But it does not explicitly so state.
 
The letter isn't clear why it was dismissed. It may well be it was dismissed because Van's agreed to settle. The letter certainly seems calculated to convey that the case was dismissed due to the lack of merit. But it does not explicitly so state.

Suits where the parties settle are not "dismissed," they are "settled."
 
Suits where the parties settle are not "dismissed," they are "settled."

Not true. When cases are settled, then the parties file a stipulation of dismissal. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_41 Cases where the court rules in favor of a party on the merits after a trial or on summary judgment, they are resolved by a judgment. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_54 This is an area where lawyers can be hyper-technical (pedantic, really). This is why I don't put too much stock in what a layperson says about the type of resolution. It's not because the layperson is stupid, it's just that a layperson has no real reason to know the difference.
 
Last edited:
Federal rules of civil procedure have no bearing on this case. It was filed in Oregon (state) Circuit Court for the County of Marion.
 
Back
Top