EddieWeeks

You know........ I read that thread and I found it to be very informative.
I don't know who this guy is, and don't really care but there is some good
information about what is right and wrong about test flying Planes.

I found nothing in that whole thread, out of line or distasteful.
There was some name calling at the beginning in one post only,
then everyone who chimed in was VERY mature and only
tried to add constructively to the thread.

Then out of the Blue, just as they were narrowing down
on what really what happened, BAM, it was closed.....

Can someone explain to my why it was closed ?
(Here. not in a PM)

I just don't get it.....

I guess I will not find out what the circumstances
have to be for me to be liable to test flying a plane.

If there is a logical explanation or is someone
broke some RCU rule, I apologies in advance.

Eddie Weeks

DiannaM

THis is why I rarely fly someone elses plane. If I do I hand the Tx back in about 10 seconds.

I have heard a standard speach that BV reps give before helping out I think it is a good one.


OOPS it is Matt Carroll on the new wifes account!

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

Me again,

Another potential consequence of this judgement is the impact to homeowners insurance.

There is another thread here where JPO is trying to collect info on which insurance companies have favorable language with regard to model airplanes.

Well a settlement like that described in this closed thread can have a very chilling affect on the insurance people. I know of a case where a local guy made a claim against another flyer for a shootdown of his turbine.

THe shooter's homeowners policy ended up paying, but the word I heard was the affected insurance company was disgusted to learn about the liability they were carrying, insuring $8000 plus toy airplanes. They made it clear they would not be writing any more policies covering model airplanes.

I hope the JPO finds what it is looking for.

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

Well, the RCU rules make it quite clear that posts are not allowed to be made, that are "harmful" or "defamatory" to others. Despite your "one post only" comment above, there were in fact several posts that could easily be considered to fall into the above categories... regardless of whether they were true or not.

Other than that ... Bob (Sideshow) clearly and politely asked that we give him some time to consult with another jet mod in order to decide what if anything needed to be done about the thread, and he locked the thread for now to ensure that it could not get too far out of hand while he was consulting with Ben. Why then, is it so difficult for some to allow him that time ?

Bear in mind that Bob's full-time job is something much more important than playing mom to us, and that despite the 2+ hours per day of their time that the mods are each required to donate in order to keep this forum flowing as smoothly as possible, it does still take a while to sort some things out, so a little patience would not be out of place here.

Gordon

sideshow

My Feedback: (11)

I appreciate the confidence Gordon.....


Eddie, the aforementioned thread was closed because it seemed to be morphing into something that would have been an out-of-control he-said-she-said kind of thing and I wanted to check with Ben to see what he thought. I PM'd back all (totaling 1) those who expressed concern over it's closing.

From what I could ascertain, there are a lot of contradictory stories. I know, or have spoken to, a lot of those who made the statements and have no reason to doubt any of them and I respect all of them.

The jet community is unique, in that it's so small and tightly knit. Most everyone knows, or has heard of, most everyone else. I think the message of the thread was a very poignant one (I'll get back to this). All of the whispers and pointing done in the pits cannot be duplicated here. Even if I were king (I'm more like the RCU village fool) I wouldn't allow it. I understand the urge to tell fellow pilots about a person that you think is bad news or is less-than-straight-and-narrow when it comes to business (R/C) dealings but not in such a public forum....not in it's magnitude, but in it's type. The internet, in it's ability to remain anonymous, is unique and startling....IP's notwithstanding.

Back to the point of the original thread. It's a great lesson. Know who your friends are...know what the expectations are...if you don't, ask. If you're unsure.....get it in writing. It's a little sad...but better sad than out 10K.

This thread can remain open to discuss the point....not the people behind the point.



reason for edit: grammar

Edgar Perez

My Feedback: (13)

Hi

Can you quote the speech? We may need to use it from now on at the local field.[]

Regards,
Edgar

Woketman

My Feedback: (6)

Yes, ditto that Matt. I think we'd all like to hear the BVM speech. Thanks.

JetflyerJ

My Feedback: (67)

Well My sincere apologies Bob for putting you in the position that I did and those of you that found the thread Defamatory, insulting or out of hand. My point was to give everyone a heads up dealing with certain people; again I apologize to RCU and those of you that took this the wrong way.


Regards................. Johnny Hernandez

Silver182

My Feedback: (2)

Well, I'm going to side with Eddie..... Being a grammar policeman is I guess at times needed, but stopping free flow of thought and expression is totally another thing. "Libel" "written defamation," can be dealt with by the parties who believe they've been defamed.....

My vote is for open thought and speech and let the chips fall where they may...i.e. locking a thread doesn't stop any perceived defamation, when the written word is published the deed is done. I suppose legal counsel has advised RCU to lock down or remove any thread that might harbor defamation, so that RCU can’t be drawn into a legal dispute as easily. An so life goes in the 21st century......
Lee H. DeMary
AMA 36099

aparchment

Two, wait no, four words --- "tort reform" and "individual responsibility."

Back to the subject of test flying -- I agree completely that the test pilot should be absolved of all responsibility for damage if he/she accepts the job of testing the plane. If you don't know the person well perhaps you should also say something like "don't do anything crazy" as a just in case. On the other hand if someone borrows your plane and damages it, they should either pay for the damage or fix it to your satisfaction.

I too would like to hear that BVM "standard speech." If I don't hear it here maybe I will get to hear it from David first hand this summer :-)

Antony

Steve S

My Feedback: (54)

My thoughts about it are this,I understand that guidelines/rules have to made & followed on RCU but on the otherhand I think there is times when certain circumstances warrant words or action that the general public as a whole should see.When you have a less than honest guy who is out to take people for a ride,and bring harm to people who work hard as hell for their money then I totally feel that it should be brought out in the open so people can be warned & not fall into the same trap or situation.Take the thread for instance that was started in here about the loser who was fradulantly selling the 2000.00 bandit then he tried to do the same with a P80.If not for the thread that got started he may have shafted one of us out of money and gotten away with it.Alot of guys dont browse the classifieds everyday so its important to have a post in here that can alert or direct concern to protect our investmests.I feel after reading Johnny's thread that this was his only intention & it held great relevance I think.Just my 2 cents on the subject


Steve

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

Okay - let's run with that thought for a moment : since you admit that there "are times" when you think such posts should be allowed, rather than suggesting that all possible allegations should be allowed --are you saying that the mod's need to donate even more free time in order to investigate each allegation sufficiently to determine whether a "warning about a less than honest guy" is valid or not, in order to determine whether a given allegation may remain published here on RCU ? If so, I hope some of you folks are going to volunteer your time to help them with that extra work, as well as to take moral & legal responsibility for any errors you make in acting as judge & jury.

As it is, when the mod's know for certain that a given person is attempting to commit fraud etc (as in the guy from the UK who kept trying to sell non-existent jet stuff), then they do allow carefully worded warnings to be published. When there is any doubt, however, of the voracity of the allegations, then short of taking a few days unpaid leave to go investigate all sides of the story, the best they can do is make a judgement call exactly as they have done in this case, and often that requires giving the benefit of the doubt. During the time that I was doing mod duty, you would not believe how many impassioned calls I got about "If you could only spare a few hours to listen to my side of the story, I'm sure you would find that with some further research you would agree that I am right". Sadly, there are not enough hours in the day to spend a few hours on researching everyone's allegations.

Always consider these kind of things from the other side. If a few people posted comments here about you, that painted you in a very poor light, should they be allowed to remain here as a warning to the general public about how you are less than honest ? Or, if the mods are not 100% sure that you are in fact a crook, should they prevent the assasination ?

... and that's just looking at it from a "non-legal" point of view. The legalities are a whole 'nuther ball-game. As are Marc's right to decide what sort of content he wants on his site - so if he feels that cat-fights of the he-said-she-said variety are counter-productive in achieving the goals he has for his site, then as owner that is his right.

BTW, even the fact that the original thread has been left up intact, rather than being deleted or censored, opens the mod's up to allegations of bias - it could be argued that they are allowing the allegations to stand. So, no matter what they do, someone is probably gonna be upset at the mod's.

Also, consider the fact that the thread was digressing to some extent into irrelevancies. Some people complained about an individual being a flake - well, one of the guys making those allegations is the biggest flake I know, yet I still like him. Some people mentioned deals being broken and implied financial loss - well, one of the guys contributing to that thread still owes me money from over 3 years ago that he has not repaid despite numerous reminders, yet I still like him. There was mention of the fact that one individual hit a fence with his aircraft - well, I've hit a fence too, the guy mentioning the fact has hit the fence, and I've watched the pilot who crashed the aircraft previously fly someone else's giant-scale aircraft smack into a fence when his landing was not lined up with the runway - yet he's still a very good pilot whom I like. The point I'm trying to make, is that while various allegations have some "soap opera" appeal, and may even be true, I fail to see how any of those factors has any bearing on who is responsible for the crashed aircraft.

As mentioned earlier, I take full responsibility for anyone else's aircraft that I fly, unless otherwise stated; if I ask someone else to help me with my aircraft, then I personally absolve them of all responsibility. That's just me though - each and every one of you should determine your own position, and simply make it clear when you are involved in either flying someone else's aircraft, or asking someone else for help. Once that has been done, one's history of flaking, flying into fences, kicking dogs, farting in church, or any other such data is basically irrelevant - e.g. if I ask to fly your aircraft, and you tell me that I am responsible for any loss, then the fact that you hit a fence a while ago does not nullify that agreement.

One last point I would add - anyone who lets a non-turbine-experienced and non-waivered pilot fly his turbine aircraft at an AMA site is asking for trouble, and should consider himself lucky if the only loss is the aircraft.

Gordon

[Edit : fix typo]

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

Boy Gordon you must type fast......great post as usual BTW.


Back in the day I had my first BVM plane test flown by one Chris Huhn (former BVM employee and current rep). I drove from LA up to the Morgan Hill jet event, and waited for him to fly my BVM Viper after the event on Sunday.


Before he went up, he told me very diplomatically that he would do everything in his power to inspect the plane and get it flying without incident, but if anything did happen he could not take responsibility. Of course I never expected anything other than that deal, so I was happy.

For those of you that do not know him Chris is the archetype of a good rep. Of course my experience was great.

I see many of you say when you fly someone elses plane you are 100% responsible. Others say when you offer to let someone fly your plane, you take all of the risk. I think many of us think this way. Make that MOST of the guys I fly with. Leaves some ambiguity.

THis is why people that know me know I do not really like to fly other people's planes. I don't like all of that responsibility. Having lost 3 of my own jets (MIDAIR AND 2 LOCKOUTS) in the last couple of years I sure don't want to loose someone elses! And I rarely let somone else fly my plane (unless it is a Rookie or something without a year of work in it), just because if it crashed I would not want this type of thing to get between friends.

Shui

My Feedback: (2)

When I fly other people's airplanes or jets (OPJ's), this is what I say -

Someone asks me to fly or test fly there aircraft -

Okay, I check over the aircraft and ask the owner that it has all been gone through, range checked, etc. If they sound shady about it, I perform the checks, otherwise I trust in them. Depending on the aircraft and engine combo, I double check the flying surfaces (hinging/linkages/etc).

Then I make it clear that they are asking me to fly there aircraft, and I assume NO responsibility if something happens. I also stress that I will do everything in my power to save the aircraft if something happens.

I have had 1 mishap where a radio locked out on a test flight (on landing) and it peeled over and went in, it was heartwrenching, but the owner took responsibility. Turned out to be a mistake on the installation of certain parts.

See ya,
[link=http://www.daveshulman.com]David Shulman[/link]

Tom Antlfinger

My Feedback: (24)

AMA Document 522 has been around for quite a while addressing this issue.....it officially is an Instructor's Release, but could also be re-worded to be a Test Flyer's Release.....having something in writing goes a long way to prevent a major he-said/she-said hassle after the fact.....it not only addresses property damage, but the significantly more important, bodily injury.......

Several recent post address this issue in one of the other forums on RCU....forgot which one it was....but saw it within the last week or two.....

Tom

Dave Presta

My Feedback: (3)

I can completely understand the reasons for locking out the post from RCU and I have no problem with that. I apologize if any of my words caused this to happen, I will watch myself more closely from now on.
I spoke to the pilot who was sued and had a conferance call with me, him, and Johnny last night because Johnny wanted to know what happend and more importantly the words that were exchanged between pilot and owner. As he was telling me his side of the story I realized that it did not really matter what happend to the plane that caused it to go down (as far as this topic is concerned) it was more important to me, for my oppinion on who's responsobility the loss was, as to how the pilot came to fly the plane in the first place. This is only my oppinion and I know others feel differently and that is the reason for this post, to express each others oppinion of who is responsible when a plane is lost. The pilot told me that the words that were exchanged were like so.
They were at a T-34 race and the pilot was eating his lunch when the owner came up to him at the break and asked him if he would like to fly his jet. The pilot looked up and said yes. They went out to the flightline and the owner of the plane took it off and was flying the plane full throttle and handed over the transmitter. The pilot told me that he was doing some shallow turns and some 4 point rolls and was in a shallow turn to come back to the runway when it would not take the opposite correction that he was giving it and the plane rolled over and went in.
Now I am not trying to start another topic of what you think happend to the plane, that would be a whole other thread that none of us have the correct info to form a really viable oppinion of. The only person who really knows what happend, in my opinion, is the person who was flying the plane at the time it went in.... but that is not the issue.
The issue is that given the information of how the pilot came about flying the plane that ultimately crashed do you think that he should be responsible for replacing the aircraft?
I understand what the moderators were talking about when they said that it was getting out of hand with he-said-she-said, and that we were getting off the point.....I along with everyone else do that often.
I look forward to hearing others oppionions and lets try to stay on track.

Dave
(the biggest flake Gordon knows, one of the guy's who have hit the fence, and most likely the one who still ows him money)

Gordon, If I still owe you money remind me again.....'cause I forgot

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

If I were for some reason asked to replace the judge in this case, then in order to try to answer your question in an unbiased manner, rather than just siding with a friend, I would want a few more questions answered:

1) Does the owner of the aircraft agree that the exchange was as quoted above ? i.e. do both sides agree on that point, or are we again at a he-said-she-said impasse with no independent corroboration ?

2) What speed, throttle setting, etc were present at the time that the aircraft was said to not respond to the control input ? Was the aircraft's failsafe configured, and if so, did it activate (For instance, was there a plume of white smoke to indicate that the engine did an uncommanded shut-down) ? These factors may help determine whether the lack of response from the aircraft was an equipment failure, or whether there could be any validity in the assertion I heard from the owner that the cause appeared to be the pilot getting caught out by throttle lag and the lack of response compared to a prop-plane that has prop-wash over the control surfaces immediately upon throttle advance.

3) Most important of all. What was the agreement that they made about responsibility in the event of a mishap ? In my opinion that is the key. If they made an agreement, what was it ? If the failed to make such an agreement, then it seems to me that both bear responsibility to some extent.


We seem to have established by now that in the case at hand we are no longer talking about a situation where someone asked a more experienced guy to do the first test flight of the aircraft for him, but that it was a simple case of one person giving another a chance to fly his aircraft. Since this seems to no longer be a case of an experienced guy doing a less experienced guy a favor, and absent any prior agreement about responsibility, I personally would expect them to share the costs involved... especially since it is established IMO that both were in the wrong anyway - one in handing control of his aircraft to a non-waivered pilot at an AMA field, the other for flying a turbine aircraft at an AMA field without a waiver. Neither party seems to be absolutely "snow-white" in this case, so neither party should, in my opinion, walk away scott-free. Perhaps one should pay for most of the major parts and the other should put up the time & effort to build them up, or they somehow asses the cost of the completely built aircraft, and split it in some way.

Gordon

Dave Presta

My Feedback: (3)

Gordon, I agree.
I was also told by the pilot that he did offer to share the financial loss and the owner did not think that he should be out any money and wanted more re-imbersment then what was offered. Now once again, I am just telling you what I heard from one side so for arguments sake lets not assume that I am taking sides. I have also heard the same as you from the owners recount of what the reason the plane crashed, like I said earlier none of us, especially myself who was not there, can side either way for why the plane crashed. I do completely agree with you as that none of us have enough evidence to come up with a very substantial opinion.
The question of who is responsible? I also agree with Gordon that there is not enough information to decide weather one person takes the financial loss or if it should be shared...
I think that there was some valuable lessons that did come out of this post and I think all of us will be much more careful the next time we ask, or are asked to, fly someone elses plane.
Thanks for all the good info, and I will see you all in florida Jets.
Dave

Doug Cronkhite

My Feedback: (34)

I guess my thoughts are much like yours Dave. If this person asked to fly the jet, then he is assuming responsibility for it, but if the owner offered it to him to fly. then the owner should take responsibility for the loss of the aircraft. If I offer to let someone fly one of my airplanes.. all I ask is they not take unnecessary risks with the airplane, but if something should fail, it would have failed regardless of who was holding the transmitter, and that's the end of it.

Johng

My Feedback: (4)

Is the original thread still up? I wanted to catch up on what I missed. I didn't see it.

jetpilot

My Feedback: (48)

A good friend of mine asked me if I wanted to fly his jet and I said sure. Instead of doing some race track laps I decided to push it really hard and throw it around like it was mine. Well I got it in a flat spin and crashed the crap out of it. Whoops!!! Completely my fault. Sorry Joe!!
Scott