Bizarre... Unreal... And Other Words to Describe The Legal Attack Against Van's and FloScan As A Tragedy Is Manipulated To Blame The 'Deep' Pockets

Commentary and Opinion By James R. Campbell, ANN CEO/Editor-In-Chief

I'm having a hard time getting my thoughts encapsulated in light of the facts that continue to emerge from what appears to be yet another attack on an aviation icon. I'm a bit outraged and more than a little concerned...

A tragedy has taken place.... and apparently, someone MUST be blamed -- especially if that blame can be placed on those who have the most to pay... thought they may, in fact, have little to no actual responsibility on the matter at hand.

The Anti-Aviation Lawsuit Lottery has hit Van's Aircraft (again) and FloScan, the company that built a fuel-flow transducer installed on an aircraft that crashed, killed two, and severely injured a third.

The resultant lawsuit is filled with some of the most aggressive language we've yet seen in one of these sickening proceedings -- we are truly aghast at what Atty Matthew Clarke is willing to say, on the record, in a public document... when we clearly believe that his wholesale accusations of wrong-doing on the part of Van's, FloScan and the amateur-built aircraft industry are without foundation and not based on actual fact.

If people like you or I made such wild accusations in other publications or venues, without the 'benefit' of being an Atty trying to tug at the potential jury pool/public's heartstrings with vicious/wild accusations (IMO), we'd probably get our asses sued off.

For the record, as an 18000+ hour Test Pilot with extensive experience in this aspect of aviation, as well as several hundred hours in a host of RV designs (including several iterations of the RV-10), I find no evidence to support Clarke's contentions that Van's knowingly "mass-produces aircraft of untested, unproven, and unsafe designs."

I know FOR A FACT that Van's engages in an aggressive test program of their aircraft (and have seen them at work doing so), so I believe that Clarke is wrong on that point... The RV series, and the RV-10 in particular, are well proven aircraft that have demonstrated excellent performance, stability, and structural properties (under extensive and varied regimes) over the course of the number of years, so I believe Clarke to be wrong yet again (and, on observation, he seems consistently questionable on aeronautical issues throughout the suit)...

And as to Van's Aircraft being 'unsafe' -- well, I simply have to call 'bullshit' on that one (sorry for the language, but I'm really amazed at what this suit alleges and strong language seems appropriate). Van's Aircraft are well-built, well-designed, and I've flown dozens of them without fear of placing myself in any undue peril. Mind you, ANY aircraft can be operated unsafely, but the company designs and their established configurations have not exhibited any significant safety concerns in the experiences I've had with this design series. Mind you, problems have cropped up, and been corrected -- but I can point to far more problematic aircraft in the Certified world, than anything from Van's -- especially in the last decade or so.  

What happened, simply, is this... according to EXPERT NTSB documentation following the accident that befell N62DN, the aircraft owner/operator made some poor decisions concerning the installation of a powerplant accessory. The affiliated engine failure was dealt with poorly, and subsequent/errant decision making led to a non-survivable impact scenario that took two lives, while a third person was severely injured. No one has to tell me how tragic an aircraft accident can be... the pain associated with losing someone you love is nearly unbearable... as I know six years after the fact in my own experience... but the awful tragedy of this loss does not require the system to conveniently blame the deepest pockets a Lawyer can find... but solely those with the ability to directly affect the outcome... and according to EXPERT data, that appears to be the pilot.

I feel for all those involved because a true tragedy has taken place... BUT -- this is a foolish case (IMO), and I see little or no reason for it to be brought outside of it being the latest entrant in the American Legal Systems anti-aviation litigation lottery.

Further; Clarke really strains credibility when he seems to infer that FAA Certification is some kind of pseudo-guarantee of safety... when this same Atty has attacked numerous aircraft companies in cases where the product was not only certified (and in some cases, allegedly operating without fault), but had been for quite some time.

Further; he makes no mention of the fact that Certification has become an innovation-prohibitive process -- in many cases due to legal action, and that Experimental aviation has led the way toward incorporating Safety features and Innovations that are only now finding their way onto the Certificated mainstream markets. As a matter of fact, fear of litigation has been mentioned as a factor in the decision-making processes leading to slower implementation of aircraft innovations and improvements... since each new improvement can be used by a creative lawyer to 'prove' the inadequacies of the prior iteration.

And, of course, there is this inescapable bit of information:

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
A total loss of engine power due to fuel starvation because of a blocked fuel line that resulted from the pilot’s improper maintenance practices and the pilot’s subsequent failure to maintain adequate airspeed while attempting a forced landing, which led to the airplane exceeding its critical angle-of-attack and experiencing an aerodynamic stall.

I fail to see where Mr. Clarke has ANY legitimate/verifiable/expert reason to assign blame to either Van's or FloScan. I just just don't see it... but then again, I'm not a lawyer looking for a pay-day... and that may affect my vision in such matters.

I could go on... but I really want to dig into this further... there are some other aspects of this that truly beg investigation and discussion... and we will pursue them -- aggressively. More info to follow... but as long as aviation has to content with a legal system that allows for this kind of unmitigated "Bravo-Sierra" we have an exceedingly tough road of us if we are to survive.

One Final Note: I was, initially, pleased to get a callback from Atty Matthew Clarke late today... I was polite in my many concerns over the language he used in his suit, the conclusions he raised, and the fact that the direct experience I have had in this matter with the RV series (which is considerable) did not jive with what he was trying to argue. After just a few short minutes, Mr. Clarke accused me of having an agenda (guilty as charged... my agenda was trying to understand how he could make statements that did not correlate with my experience, knowledge and observations over the course of more than 4 decades of aviating)... and following that, he hung up on me.

Sigh...

Aviation has many issues dragging it down the gravity well (and we're working our hearts out to solve them)... The legal system is but one of the most serious factors in the continuing malaise that blankets the aviation world. This needs to be fixed.

FMI: ANN Readers: What Do YOU Think?, Lawsuit, NTSB Factual Report, NTSB Probable Cause Report