Peter wrote:
I would like to see that evidence. I say this because this topic has been done on every forum I have ever been on (a number, since 2002, though nowadays I hardly ever visit others than EuroGA) and nobody ever showed any evidence.
The evidence (or rather testimonies of manufacturers) were all around in the GA magazines. I’m sure you can find it in old issues of Flying or Pilot.
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
Imagine riding this in Scandinavia
I do not think that Scandinavia is the free haven it used to be since before Mrs Gro Harlem-Brundtland became prime minister of Norway in the 80’s. She pretty much outlawed any use of power crafts in Norwegian mountains and woods. Almost to a point where only the Saamis are allowed to use snow scooters, motorcycles and helicopters in the great outdoors. Most lakes are out of bounds to floatplanes. The sea is OK.
Canada on the other hand, and Alaska are still nice places AFAIU.
Aviathor wrote:
I do not think that Scandinavia is the free haven it used to be since before Mrs Gro Harlem-Brundtland became prime minister of Norway in the 80’s. She pretty much outlawed any use of power crafts in Norwegian mountains and woods.
Sweden is still part of Scandinavia and you can land seaplanes more or less anywhere you want.
Although not strictly speaking Scandinavia, what’s the situation in Finland?
I think the contract is a direct effect of dismissing certification in favor of a self-declaration of compliance by the manufacturer. But if it takes only 10k$ per aircraft to mitigate the risk of being sued as a manufacturer in the US, product liability costs can’t be that bad.
No doubt that they will find their share of people to sign that stuff. Although for the same investment I’d buy a real fun toy and a real travelling machine and still have plenty dollars left for gas and engines.
Finland is similar to Sweden. A seaplane is legally a boat once in contact with water. Generally speaking, you can operate very freely. Common sense is welcome, though.
Peter wrote:
Nobody has ever posted any accounts showing any figures supporting this line, so I think it’s a myth.
I would have thought that such deals come with a confidentiality agreement. So you’re left with rumors.
But, even in Europe, you can exclude all sorts of liabilities if the buyer is a company and many individuals do buy their planes via a company.
Which brings up the question of how does it work when you sell it.
I would have thought that such deals come with a confidentiality agreement
It’s probably true that standard limited company published accounts may not show the money paid on insurance (the UK rules have one threshold at 4.2M but I have no idea what the US rules are) but you would think that for all the song and dance which the mfgs make over product liability inflating costs massively blah blah blah, they would publish some figures 
For example, Icon’s new contract requires all buyers to satisfactorily complete company-authorized flight training; maintain their aircraft at authorized service centers; carry flight data recorders that show how their airplanes are being flown in case of an accident; and agree not to sue Icon unless the NTSB determines a crash is the company’s fault.
…
Icon also leaves in place a $5,000 charge for customers who sell their airplanes to buyers that don’t sign the company operating contract. (Icon does offer one sweetener: A $5,000 credit toward a new Icon aircraft for sellers that do get buyers to sign the Icon contracts.)
When buying an Icon A5, you are not getting an airplane, you are also poring money into a system designed to keep you from suing them. Why would anyone do that?
