bob@decvax.UUCP (Robert Bismuth) (03/18/85)
A recent court judgement has awarded over $300,000 in
compensation damages to a builder of a Quickie aircraft.
The company has filed Chapter 11 and is attempting to appeal
the judgement. They are seeking the support of all Quickie
builders and any other homebuilders or aviation enthusiasts.
Though facts are always difficult to discern from the
various journalistic reports, it would seem that a home
builder has successfully sued the kit designers after making
substantial change to the design. So far as I have
discovered, the individual moved the instrument bulkhead
rearward (this is a structural) and when the oil temperature
line wouldn't reach the guage, then drilled and tapped a new
hole in the engine crankcase. Swarf was NOT cleaned out of
the hole and the engine was run up to speed. Of course the
engine failed in the workshop, and the propeller came off
and was destroyed.
The builder then carved a new prop instead of buying a
replacement - he had never carved a prop before. The engine
was returned to Quickie, who offered to replace it at cost
(generous on their part). He elected not to purchase the
replacement engine, but to send his to a friend who ran an
auto-engine rebuild shop. The crank was re-ground but the
bearings were not replaced with oversized ones. When the
plane was finally test flown, with oil leaking from the
engine crankcase and with the home made prop, it crashed at
the end of the runway.
In addition to the self inflicted-modifications,
reports indicate that the builder had not computed the den-
sity altitude for the test flight and it was above the capa-
bilities of a correctly constructed Quickie airframe.
The law suit was won on the grounds that Quickie had
advertised that ANY pilot could build and fly the plane.
Though the pilot was not physically hurt in any major way,
the damages were awarded for "psychological stress".
If this judgment is not successfully appealed, then it
will set a bad precedent increasing the liability of home-
built designers and plan/kit vendors. It could well end the
majority of homebuilding. This situation is something that
any pilot or enthusiast, particularly EAA members, should
give some degree of support to. Even if support only takes
the form of a letter it is worth while.
Coincidentally, Senator Robert Kasten (Wisconsin) has
introduced a bill in the Senate (bill S-100) providing some
curbs on product liability suits by providing some defini-
tion of the responsibilities of those who buy and use pro-
ducts. This is the second time he has introduced such a
bill - the first died a "committee death". This sort of
legislation could have helped the Quickie situation. It
certainly would help reduce the cost of new GAMA produced
aircraft.
For those who don't realize it, each year's aircraft
production carries the cost of the liability insurance for
ALL those produced to date. It's a Catch-22: higher
insurance means higher prices which in turn means less
demand and that mean the insurance cost is spread over a
smaller production run which means higher prices .... that's
a big reason why new aircraft prices are REALLY escallating!
If you would like to lend support, try writing to or
contacting your local Senators and Congressmen to at least
make sure the bill gets to the floor(s) for a full debate.
bob
(decvax!bob)
Disclaimer:
Please note that this article does not reflect anyone's
opinions other than my own and I don't even guarantee the
accuracy of all the information. Furthermore, all state-
ments are made without prejudice to any of the involved par-
ties.doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (03/20/85)
According to the write-up in Aviation Consumer, the builder had
indeed built a number of propellors previously. But that doesn't
make much difference in the overall complexion of the story...
--
Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{hao,ihnp4,decvax}!noao!terak!doug