Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:27:40 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-3311559@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=70.62.14.124; envelope-from=r.simon@ustek.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Any liability lawsuits?
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
In-Reply-To: <redirect-3310035@logan.com>
Thread-Topic: [LML] Re: Any liability lawsuits?
Thread-Index: AclL3UY2x1w7dCmrRwiwxeuaiTyuMw==
From: "Lancair" <lancair-esp@ustek.com>

I am told this would not give you protection. =20

Example given: An enginless aircraft is not airworthy.  If someone were
to buy and install an engine (Continental FADAC, modified Subaru, Delta
Hawk diesel, whatever) and pronounce the aircraft fit for flight, and
the engine were to fail causing a loss, better believe that the engine
manufacturer would be sued - along with the guy who installed it, the
one who recommended it, the line boy who fueled it, etc.=20

The manufacturer of my aircraft is USTEK Inc., with me as the designated
repairman.  So a lawsuit for loss of N301ES would name USTEK as the
aircraft manufacturer, me as mechanic, Lance N. as designer, Joe B. as
component manufacturer, and maybe the LML for disseminating potentially
dangerous advice and encouragement.  It's a screwed-up legal system but
perhaps better than the alternative.  Or maybe not.  An alternative is
that the government control all aspects of aviation, accept all
responsibility, and pay all claims.  (sorry - I'll quietly step down
from my soapbox).

Robert M. Simon
ES-P N301ES

________________________________

From: H & J Johnson [mailto:hjjohnson@sasktel.net]=20
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 7:50 PM
Robert I've often pondered this. What if you sold the aircraft as
'un-airworthy' w/ the caveat that the buyer would have to do a complete
inspection to deem it airworthy again..