Yet another example of how certification assures quality and safety in GA 
Well, yes, but someone will quickly turn this around and say that this is an example of a properly functioning QA system. Humans will screw up from time to time and you need a system which limits the damage.
In the non certified world, this sort of thing doesn’t have to come into the open. The engine manufacturer could just keep quiet. Have Rotax never had a QA issue?
Have the homebuilt avionics makers never had any bugs which could kill somebody? I am sure they have but with their “this is for VFR only disclaimers” they cannot be gone after because nobody will crash in VMC due to an avionics issue 
Obviously I think what has happened is really crap, but it happens and will happen again…
Peter wrote:
In the non certified world, this sort of thing doesn’t have to come into the open. The engine manufacturer could just keep quiet.
How would a manufacturer of uncertified equipment be in a different position legally in case there is damage (e.g. loss of life)? I do not see how that would make any difference.
You are suggesting the liability picture on uncertified aircraft is the same as on certified aircraft. It may be so, maybe in some countries, but it would totally amaze me if it was so.
Do product liability laws apply differently if the same engine is mounted on an uncertified aircraft?
Let me rephrase – do liability laws applying to commercial product manufacturers (Rotax, L, C…) become moot in case their product is used on an uncertified plane? I would suggest not.
Where would I find a source for stricter product liability on certified aircraft? I highly doubt such laws exist in the EU or the US.
achimha wrote:
Where would I find a source for stricter product liability on certified aircraft? I highly doubt such laws exist in the EU or the US.
Certification works exactly opposite. It will protect the producer from liability issues by producing according to some TSO authorization. A non-certified product only claims that it will “work”. A (non-certified) Rotax engine for instance is simply an engine you can mount a propeller on, and it will produce thrust. The usage of it, and any eventual accident that particular usage can cause, is your responsibility. That is the basic concept behind microlight and experimental aircraft.
Rotax have had tons of SBs, so the idea that non-certified manufacturers just could keep quiet is wrong. I mean, theoretically he could, but he wouldn’t remain very long in the business, because he is indeed liable for the product working according to guarantees and general regulations.
Peter wrote:
Well, yes, but someone will quickly turn this around and say that this is an example of a properly functioning QA system
Someone probably will, but the nonsense of such an idea is staggering. For one, it is all too obvious that this bug was not found by any quality assurance system, but by users that had their engine blow up for no apparent reason. It’s the lack of QA at Lycoming that causes this, and (50-60? year old) certification is no substitute for QA in manufacturing.
LeSving, can you point out what legal framework allows Rotax to escape product liability?
The “engine producing thrust” is the sine qua non of powered flight, so I’d highly doubt a commercial engine manufacturer could weasel out of a tort liability suit by saying “the plane was not certified” if the engine fails due to wrong parts being used.
Warranty registration for a Rotax engine apparently involves the owner signing this form. that delineates between certified and non-certified engines. I’ve always found the melodramatic disclaimer for Rotax non-certified engines to be amusing
Obviously anybody can take any company to court in an attempt to prove liability related to a product. I think the reality when they do so is that any approved manufacturing process that goes along with producing a certified product adds extra tools for the lawyer, especially if the company did not effectively follow the approved production QA process.
That is cute, but exculpatory agreements do not stand the test of tort law case in most US states, not to mention napoleonic law jurisdictions.
cf:
Wheelock vs. Sport Kites, Inc. (1993) 839 Fed. Supp. 730 (Hawaii).
Westlye vs. Looks Sports, Inc. (1993) 17 Cal. App. 4th 1715, 1747, 22 Cal. Rptr. 2d 781; See also Olsen vs. Breeze, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal. App. 4th 608, 55 Cal. Rptr. 2d 818; Weiner vs. Mt. Airy Lodge, Inc. (1989) 719 F. Supp. 342 (Penn).
