What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Parting out an airframe

I think carefully vetting the buyer, to make sure he/she is COMPETENT and not braindead, would go further to protect you as a seller than anything else.

What a lot of people don't think about is that in the case of a casualty, you will more than likely be dealing with the family of the buyer.

When I sell an amateur-built aircraft, I have the purchaser's next of kin sign the disclaimer as witness. Nothing is guaranteed, but this at least shows that the next of kin understands to situation.
 
What a lot of people don't think about is that in the case of a casualty, you will more than likely be dealing with the family of the buyer.

When I sell an amateur-built aircraft, I have the purchaser's next of kin sign the disclaimer as witness. Nothing is guaranteed, but this at least shows that the next of kin understands to situation.

A proper purchase agreement with liability waivers should greatly helps reduce the risk associated with sale of a EAB aircraft.
EAA has excellent purchase agreement.
The form has place for the spouse to sign.
You could change it to next of kin.
 
I think carefully vetting the buyer, to make sure he/she is COMPETENT and not braindead, would go further to protect you as a seller than anything else.

There is a lot of emphasis placed by the BUYER upon making sure the aircraft is in good condition - in my opinion the SELLER needs to be making the same evaluation of the buyer.

I am more concerned about who the buyer eventually sells the plane to. I have no input on that transaction but am still part of the liability tail.
 
I'm generally of the position that we shouldn't be destroying perfectly good aircraft in the name of avoiding all legal risk. I take that position because I just don't see evidence that the legal risk actually is significant.

But the rumors run rampant.

What gets me is the number of A&P's that will bend your ear bitching about attorneys, legal risk, nanny state, etc. ... who then we catch doing all kinds of shortcuts. Check/clean the oil screen? Never. Set/check the valve clearance on a cylinder change? Nope. Correctly calculate W&B? Nope. Correct wire size for a 30A fuse? Nope. I cannot understand their professed terror while simultaneously inviting trouble by not doing their job properly.

All that said ... there are *some* planes that need to be scrapped.
 
I think carefully vetting the buyer, to make sure he/she is COMPETENT and not braindead, would go further to protect you as a seller than anything else.

There is a lot of emphasis placed by the BUYER upon making sure the aircraft is in good condition - in my opinion the SELLER needs to be making the same evaluation of the buyer.

The big problem here it that it is not just the person buying your plane. You are the builder and your name is on the data plate as well as with the FAA registration. You will always be the manufacturer of the plane no matter how many times it changes hands. I am sure the risk goes down some with multiple sales, but cessna still gets sued every time a 50 year old plane goes down and kills someone. Sadly they end up losing a lot of these or at least they did before the 90's legislation that doesn't apply to EAB. WHy does everyone think that things will be different for them? I fully understand that Cessna has access to a large bank roll and most builders don't. IMHO, this is the difference. HOWEVER, if the builder has access to a large bank roll, the fear is real. If they don't have a lot beyond a house and a retirement account (generally can't be taken in a law suit in most states), then the risk couldn't be any lower, as no lawyer will take it on; The vast majority of this kind of work is done on contingency.

It is my belief that a very small number of EAB builders have enough cash or assets at their disposal to attract an attorney to file against them and this is the reason for the VERY small amount of EAB litigation. However, this can be a false sense of security for a builder that does not fall into that category. Almost no atty will take on a contingency case if there is not enough money available from the defendant to cover their costs plus a profit.
 
Last edited:
By some of the logic here, one should never become an A&P, do young eagles flights, take an airport kid up for a flight, take your buddy along on a $100 burger run, fly over any populated area. You can imagine the possible outcomes, I don't need to spell them out.
 
Sell it abroad

From whatI understand as it was explained tome many years ago that if you sold it abroad then different rules apply

Rob
 
By some of the logic here, one should never become an A&P, do young eagles flights, take an airport kid up for a flight, take your buddy along on a $100 burger run, fly over any populated area. You can imagine the possible outcomes, I don't need to spell them out.

The big difference in what you are describing and the topic under discussion is control. The scenarios you mentioned involve our actions in our aircraft (A&P excepted) and we have something to do with the outcome of the flights. When our aircraft is sold we no longer have any control over what happens to it in the future. This is why some may wish to just avoid this situation altogether and retire the aircraft. You may not agree with this line of thinking but we should respect the owner's prerogative to make whatever decision they think is best for their situation. We usually don't appreciate someone telling us what to do with our finances.... ;)
 
Last edited:
If they don't have a lot beyond a house and a retirement account (generally can't be taken in a law suit in most states), then the risk couldn't be any lower, as no lawyer will take it on; The vast majority of this kind of work is done on contingency.

A good example of where personal finance and experimental aircraft ownership intersect beyond simply the ability to build and maintain an aircraft, and generally is my strategy… Try to keep the vast majority of my wealth in primary home, 401k/403b accounts, and (in my state) IRA accounts. I intentionally don’t keep much in a taxable brokerage account or savings. Not sure I have much an attorney could go after even if I were to have significant net worth. I suppose an umbrella liability policy might also help but I’m not sure many umbrella policies will cover general aviation(??).

I too hate to see a good airplane destroyed but neither do I fault the owner. Just because there have not been (many? any?) successful suits that have gone to trial does not mean that a lot of cases haven’t been settled under the table/under the radar at signicant cost before they get to trial.
 
Last edited:
I suppose an umbrella liability policy might also help but I’m not sure many umbrella policies will cover general aviation(??).

I have looked and you will not find ANY that cover aircraft. It is an industry standard exclusion. These policies specifically cover negligence and that has been shown historically to be more easily proven in the aviation space, so no one touches it at any price.
 
Last edited:
A good example of where personal finance and experimental aircraft ownership intersect beyond simply the ability to build and maintain an aircraft, and generally is my strategy… Try to keep the vast majority of my wealth in primary home, 401k/403b accounts, and (in my state) IRA accounts. I intentionally don’t keep much in a taxable brokerage account or savings. Not sure I have much an attorney could go after even if I were to have significant net worth. I suppose an umbrella liability policy might also help but I’m not sure many umbrella policies will cover general aviation(??).

I too hate to see a good airplane destroyed but neither do I fault the owner. Just because there have not been (many? any?) successful suits that have gone to trial does not mean that a lot of cases haven’t been settled under the table/under the radar at signicant cost before they get to trial.

This is why I just shrug when everybody says "don't worry about it." You just cannot make that claim without knowing someone else's financial situation. The simple fact that the EAA says it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it will never happen. We have already seen folks trying to sue Vans, because they have the money and/or insurance coverage. I have all confidence that the builder would have also been included in those if they had meaningful and accessible assets.
 
Last edited:
From whatI understand as it was explained tome many years ago that if you sold it abroad then different rules apply
Sell it to someone in Canada, to date there has not been a successful lawsuit brought against a former owner or builder of an Amateur-Built aircraft in Canada. And suing a US builder from here would be difficult.
 
Back
Top