Liability

[VictorBravo]

I finally realized why I have not gotten any sort of an official or authoritative ruling from the TOC and/or Foundation, in response to my questions about the spars and the mystery doublers.

The fear of a lawsuit. Or the fear of someone even threatening a lawsuit.

That's chicken sh*t.

I suspect that this owner's club and the associated non-profit foundation exists solely to promote the enjoyment and safe operation of this type airplane, to offer technical assistance to owners and restorers, to be a repository for historical and technical information and to keep that information available to owners so they can do proper maintenance and upkeep.

That is certainly the reason that most type clubs and foundations exist.

Withholding the kind of information I inquired about (or looking the other way) flies in the face of everything that I believe this group should be standing for.

It is also STUPID and puts these entities in a WORSE legal position than if they participated in the technical discussions.

Example:
1. Bill asks for clarifications and help getting to the bottom of the confusing Gilberti / Harer STC. The club and the foundation stand on the sidelines, covering their eyes, ears and mouth like the three "see no evil" monkeys. They have the answers, they know the real story, or they have the ability to figure it out for certain. But their lawyer tells them to hide under a rock shivering in fear of a lawsuit, and they don't give Bill the answer to the mystery.

2. Bill proceeds with his STC upgrade, using whatever other hearsay information is available, and does the best he can without the real answer.

3. Bill's plane folds up like an accordion in turbulence one fine day while flying Young Eagles flights, the smashed airplane falls onto a crowded school playground.

4. The club and foundation think they are out of harm's way because they didn't offer any technical advice.

5. The lawyers come out from under their rocks and figure out who they are going to blame for the tragedy. The FIRST question they ask the foundation and club's lawyer is this.... "You mean to tell me that your club had the factory drawings and engineering info, that they could have given Bill this information that would have allowed him to figure out what the answers to the STC mystery were, and that if Bill had this information he would have been able to put the plane back together correctly and prevent this tragedy... and your guys REFUSED to lift a finger to help him???? How many other tragedies could you guys have prevented if you made an effort to use this treasure trove of information and type-specific experience you have???"

The ensuing legal blood bath would be no better or worse than the lawsuit they were afriad of in the first place.

If not for the purposes that I assumed, what actually is the purpose of the Taylorcraft Owner's Club and the Foundation?

[jgerard]

Re: Liability

I think that most people on this forum have no clue about the answers you were seeking, more of a don't know instead of won't share. I appreciate all the help I have received from the group in the past and will continue to participate and provide input on subjects related to the limited amount of aviation knowledge and experience I have.

Jason
N43643

[VictorBravo]

Re: Liability

[QUOTE=Ron Coleman]You are right Victor. You need some advice.
If you don't think that your plane will be safe, don't fly it. Especially over a crowded school yard.

You may have missed my point Ron. I believe I have found out (to my satisfaction) that it is not structurally needed to install the extra thin doublers. I believe they are shims to take up extra space because of a later, slightly larger fitting. Just today I got a package of 1939, 1940, and 1945 drawings, many of which were amended and noted up to about 1948, and none of them show anything about the 1/32" plywood doublers. The drawings show a lot of shims that are to be used as needed, or if such and such part does not fit correctly, etc.

At least one model of Taylorcraft was factory certified to 1500 pounds without these doublers.

The point I was trying to illustrate is that if the Club or the Foundation, as an official entity, doesn't want to get involved in this type of technical detective work because they are afraid they would be exposed to liability, they are wrong. One lawyer would sue them because they didn't help just as fast as another lawyer would sue them if they did help.

If I didn't think that my airplane was in a safe configuration, I would not fly it over a schoolyard or a anywhere else that I could not land safely. That reference was to add color... bright red hopefully... to my point.

Bill

[crispy critter]

Re: Liability

I think what Bill is trying to say is that your "damned if you do,and damned if you don't".So why not do the right thing in your heart and mind and take a legal risk once in a while.
On the other hand,I went through this same thing a year or so ago.Nobody could tell me exactly what was needed,some told me there were NO mods(except one size bigger fuel line)to go from a BC12D to a BC12D-85(no electrics and 1280 gross) but then come to find out that they were wrong.Everyone I talked to that was supposed to know it all had a different opinion and the rest commented on the opinions of others or said nothing at all.So,I found myself a set of drawings that I was told I wasn't allowed to have,then I went to a friend with the FAA who used to be the best damn tube and fabric mechanic in the eastern US(before he got a job with the FAA)and ask for his advice.He told me to do this,this,this,and that then submit it to him on a 337 for a one time STC.However,instead of going threw all that trouble of taking my wings back apart for a lousy extra 20 ponies under the cowl I decided to do the smart thing and up the hp to 100hp(O200 without electrics)and we got it approved with a gross wieght increase up to 1320lbs.

[Dano"T"]

Re: Liability

I agree with Jason....Most of us have no clue what to say...rather than offer advice on something we know nothing about, we chose to stand by and listen...hoping that someone out there knew exactly what to tell Bill about his dilema. I own a Converted BC-12D and I was as Interested in the solution as anyone. I had no advice to give....sorry. Maybe someone will.

[birdlegs]

Re: Liability

Re: the 85hp/spar upgrade, I recall a thread from a guy from Idaho having flown his 85hp BC12D for some 30 years with the stock spars, He seemed like he didn't have any issues at all.......whats his secret?

[Robert Lees]

Re: Liability

85hp BC12D for some 30 years with the stock spars

The spars are not a horsepower issue...it is a gross weight issue. We have approval for a modified BC12D here in the UK, with an 85 bolted on to the 65hp mount, with no mods to the spars. Gross weight remains at 1200lbs, however.

[M Jones]

Re: Liability

went flying this evening...there was a blush of rose tinted ground haze with the trees and silos popping up through like mushrooms and toadstools. The air was as smooth as honey and I flew in large curving trails, the engine mumbling quietly over corduroyed patches of beans and corn. when the sun tossed rusted streamers of dust above me, i floated back through a murmuring blanket of lift to the grass and into the shadows under the trees. i wish you could have been with me.

Ron C

Hey Ron,

If you ever have, or plan to write a book with an Aviation theme, I would buy it. You seem to put into words what we've probably all felt.

Thanks!

[VictorBravo]

Re: Liability

Ron,

If this club and foundation are positioned as "we don't know nothing...you're on your own", then they are probably not fulfilling their original objectives.

EVERYONE agrees that the final responsibility for safe operation lies with the IA and the owner/operator.

However, if the club and foundation have knowledge and resources that will allow an owner or IA to have real world knowledge about the airplane, then the club or foundation should be self-obligated to make the info available. They can have as many dissclaimers and signed liability releases as the need...I'd gladly sign it myself.

All the club or foundation would have had to say in this case is something like:

"The drawing 2569 plywood doublers were shims that took up the extra room if one set of spars were different from another. Taylorcraft MAY HAVE USED spars from different sawmills or vendors, and this would have PROBABLY accounted for the need for an on-demand set of shims. There is no engineering data in the foundation's files that shows these doublers as being a necessary strength or flight loads component. There are several different interpretations of the STC, but we are not aware of any one interpretation that would create an unsafe flight condition. There are no known cases of the LACK of these #2569 doublers causing an in-flight failure"

Bill