Brodhead Pietenpol Association

Original Posted By: "Jack"
Subject: Pietenpol-List: M.Perez Hints videos I realize that Mike has taken some rather direct lumps in his decision to use non standard materials in his Piet build by his own choice. Not being an attorney but with several years working in the Safety and Health profession interfacing with insurance, legal and liability issues. The questionof liability seems to jump out to me that: If Mike Perez in his hints video shows, illustrates, demonstrates or mentions that he is using stainless in the construction of a part that requires4130 and another builder uses that same material suffers an accident or catastrophic failure of the part made of non called out materials, what is Mike liability in that situation. I would estimate that it would be enormous as by showing, saying or demonstrating he is guiding or influencing the view to follow his steps. Although that may not be the intent of Mikes message it may become the perception of the viewer which I believe comes to be the issue of the legal process. What did the viewer do on the basis of the instructions either directly or implied by the videos he purchased from a personhe believed to be an expert and experienced builder?Does Mike Perez an expert by virtue of the sales of his video product and is he liable for the consequence of unsuspecting builders following his implied expert advice in building the Pietenpol?I am afraid Mike in his efforts to share information may be treading on dangerous ground, however not being an attorney I am only asking the questions and speculating on the legal ramifications as either general liability of other legal recourse in the event of an incident related to his hints video series.JohnQuietly contemplating the potential for disaster without trying to recreate the flames series of his past posting on the material choices debates________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: Ryan Mueller
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: M.Perez Hints videos

Original Posted By: "Clif Dawson"
Lawyers would not be able to, or want to, proceed withthese humungous outragiously huge lawsuits if yourlaws and judges were like ours here in Canada. Here,mostly anyway, you're not likely to get more than anycosts that you can prove to have suffered and/orfuture cost such as loss of work. "Pain andsuffering" is mostly discounted. You USians can anddo sue for P&S. That's where the unscrupulous getyou.Clif Dan, I don't disagree with your contempt for the trade, it does however make one skidish in everything we publish of attempt to make available in the market place and to the public. I have no affinity for the litigious nature of our society howeve, I have seen that side and the thought of being taken to the cleaners in a well intended offering is frightening at best. So I was curious as to the liability such offerings may bring with them in the best intent. After many years in the safety consulting business and corporate America it seems like each step requires sever scrutiny and concern with the thought how can I be held liable for what appears to be in good intent. I am asking the question and not advocating that he stop nor continue, its more a curiosity on my part and he as the rest of us can do as we see fit in the offering and or providing information to the public. John________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: "Charles Campbell"
Try here. I have the manuals, operating, overhaul and parts,from them;https://www.esscoaircraft.com/c-6986-ly ... __________

Original Posted By: "Bill Church"
Just using a common sense approach, the passenger warning would seem to be evenMORE necessary if the only indication that the aircraft is in the experimentalcategory was the NX registration letters, as opposed to the 2" EXPERIMENTALsign that must be clearly visible to them as they enter the plane. It just doesn'tmake sense that passengers would be expected to know what the letter X means.Of course, common sense rarely comes into play in these matters. :)Bill C.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: M.Perez Hints videos

Original Posted By: Jim Markle
Getting back to John's original question, and relating specifically to Mike's Hintvideos, the website now states that the videos are for entertainment purposes,and that the changes have not been flight tested or proven.Now, I'm no attorney (I don't even play one on TV), but posting such a disclaimerseems to be standard practice in such matters.Sometimes even the obvious needs to be spelled out in no uncertain terms. For instance,last week I had a package of peanuts that was labeled with a warningthat this product had been processed in a facility that processes peanuts andother nuts. Well, duh, I thought... and then I realized that a person might beallergic to other nuts, but not peanuts, and in THAT case, it would be very importantfor them to know that those peanuts MIGHT be contaminated with othernuts. Bill C.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 18:07:12 -0600 (GMT-06:00)

Original Posted By: gboothe5(at)comcast.net
Kelly the fuse half looks too good for a test. Looks like it needs to fly.--------Jerry Dotson59 Daniel Johnson RdBaker, FL 32531Started building NX510JD July, 2009wing, tailfeathers done, fuselage rollingusing Lycoming O-235Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: M.Perez Hints videos