Show Posts
31
Hangar Flying / FAA rules for buying a Long-EZ 'disassembled'
« on: August 27, 2005, 09:41:57 AM »
Theoretical situation:
Assume an ardent aviator learns of another stalwart flyer, a person of unlimited means (having just won a lottery) who now chooses to join the jet set and buy a surplus Lockheed F-104. Said big $$$$$ bubba in his haste to make room in his hangar agrees to sell to the party of the first part (ardent aviator) his sterling steed, well kept, Long-EZ for ˝ price, and the deal is consummated.
Our ardent aviator then launches a few weeks later, and for still unknown reasons fails to get airborne and plows through the fence at the end of his departure runway, and smacks squarely into the middle of a school bus full of third graders on a field trip to the zoo.
Ardent’s widow immediately brings a legal action against the EZ’s former owner for negligence (and whatever else her zany attorney can think of) in the construction of the EZ, in which she asserts he ultimately caused the untimely death of her beloved. Several parents of the third graders who were in the school bus closely follow with suits of their own.
Where will deep-pockets big $$$$$ bubba be then, regardless of whether he was in any way to blame?
For how long has it been the American way to (when in trouble) sue everyone in sight, especially anyone of means?
Assuming any, even very well built, experimental aircraft when sold; who takes the bigger risk (and chance), the buyer, or the seller?
Even if big $$$$$ bubba above had had the foresight to totally disassemble the EZ in question and sell it to Ardent in pieces, what attorney would not find just cause in the aforementioned scenario to sue Bubba for both negligence in the original construction, and attempt to defeat the regulations governing the building and/or resale of an experimental aircraft?
Ah, such a conundrum.
Assume an ardent aviator learns of another stalwart flyer, a person of unlimited means (having just won a lottery) who now chooses to join the jet set and buy a surplus Lockheed F-104. Said big $$$$$ bubba in his haste to make room in his hangar agrees to sell to the party of the first part (ardent aviator) his sterling steed, well kept, Long-EZ for ˝ price, and the deal is consummated.
Our ardent aviator then launches a few weeks later, and for still unknown reasons fails to get airborne and plows through the fence at the end of his departure runway, and smacks squarely into the middle of a school bus full of third graders on a field trip to the zoo.
Ardent’s widow immediately brings a legal action against the EZ’s former owner for negligence (and whatever else her zany attorney can think of) in the construction of the EZ, in which she asserts he ultimately caused the untimely death of her beloved. Several parents of the third graders who were in the school bus closely follow with suits of their own.
Where will deep-pockets big $$$$$ bubba be then, regardless of whether he was in any way to blame?
For how long has it been the American way to (when in trouble) sue everyone in sight, especially anyone of means?
Assuming any, even very well built, experimental aircraft when sold; who takes the bigger risk (and chance), the buyer, or the seller?
Even if big $$$$$ bubba above had had the foresight to totally disassemble the EZ in question and sell it to Ardent in pieces, what attorney would not find just cause in the aforementioned scenario to sue Bubba for both negligence in the original construction, and attempt to defeat the regulations governing the building and/or resale of an experimental aircraft?
Ah, such a conundrum.