Fairchild Club Forum

Posted: **Sun Nov 25, 2001 7:23 pm**

'I am looking for a 3/8 tube to 3/8 tube Imperial on/off fuel control valve
probably with part number 100-HD. This valve is pictured in Wag Aero and
other catalogs, but they say they are not being manufactured. This is used
on an early PA-12 on/off valve.

Does anyone know where I can find a valve such as this.

Thanks'

Posted: **Sun Nov 25, 2001 8:37 pm**

'Just for your info.

The valves are no longer being produced due to greedy lawyers, greedy family
members and so on. This all stems from the John Denver accident and lawsuit
that was settled out of court by the supplier and the manufacture. Good luck
on the finding of old bench stock.

Jamie S. Treat A&P/IA

Visit my Web Site:
http://hometown.aol.com/ftreat9191/AIRCRAFTRESTORATIONREPAIRindex.html">Aircraft Restoration & Repair

Meet my Family
http://hometown.aol.com/ftreat9191/TreatFamilyHomePage.html">Treat Family Home Page

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]'

Posted: **Mon Nov 26, 2001 9:03 am**

'Jamie,

Please remember in any trial all 12 jurors must find the manufacturer was
negligent before any money is awarded the pilot or pilot's family. In such
a suit, "expert" testimony in necessary to establish liability. So I guess
you must include greedy engineers or A&P/IAs in your causes. Their paid
opinion would have been necessary before any award or settlement was
reached. On the other hand, most pilots, family members, lawyers and
A&P/IAs are good folks and probably have a legitimate complaint. There are
bad elements in all groups, but I find there are usually two sides to every
story and you almost never get them from any one source and absolutely never
get them from the media who sensationalize every story to sell newspapers or
get ratings.

Of course these are just my thoughts as both a lawyer and a Fairchild fan.

Scott

----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: [fairchildclub] Fuel Control Valve

> Just for your info.
>
> The valves are no longer being produced due to greedy lawyers, greedy
family
> members and so on. This all stems from the John Denver accident and
lawsuit
> that was settled out of court by the supplier and the manufacture. Good
luck
> on the finding of old bench stock.
>
> Jamie S. Treat A&P/IA
>
> Visit my Web Site:
> http://hometown.aol.com/ftreat9191/AIRCRAFTRESTORATIONREPAIRindex.html
">Aircraft Restoration & Repair
>
> Meet my Family
> http://hometown.aol.com/ftreat9191/TreatFamilyHomePage.html">Treat
Family Home Page
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> fairchildclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

'

Posted: **Mon Nov 26, 2001 9:54 am**

'Scott,

I agree. But when a fuel valve works beyond its design limits, and did not contribute to the power failure due to there must be fuel in the tanks in order for the engine to operate, one must wonder where our court systems are going. Expert testimony by the manufacture, designers, NTSB and so on all agreed it was not the valve that caused the problem, only the location was a contrib factor. That goes back to the builder, but the builder had no deep pockets. If fuel was in the tanks the valve position would and did provide full power operation for hours of operation.

I have an agreement with my wife, if anything happens to me in any aircraft, it was my decision to fly, that is the risk. NO sueing will occur.

Jamie'

Posted: **Mon Nov 26, 2001 12:23 pm**

'Jamie,

Thanks for your thoughts. I certainly agree that if the manufacturer was
not negligent in design, that it should have no liability. Fortunately the
law also agrees. No negligence means no liability. Although none of us are
privy to all documents relevant to the John Denver case, some experts must
have thought that the manufacturer was negligent. I certainly hope so or it
would have been foolish to settle. Sounds like the manufacturer's experts
had the stronger opinion. Maybe they should have let the jury tell the
family that there was no liability.

Okay, I'll get off my soap box. Hope I haven't tried your patience!

Scott

----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: [fairchildclub] Fuel Control Valve

> Scott,
>
> I agree. But when a fuel valve works beyond its design limits, and did not
contribute to the power failure due to there must be fuel in the tanks in
order for the engine to operate, one must wonder where our court systems are
going. Expert testimony by the manufacture, designers, NTSB and so on all
agreed it was not the valve that caused the problem, only the location was a
contrib factor. That goes back to the builder, but the builder had no deep
pockets. If fuel was in the tanks the valve position would and did provide
full power operation for hours of operation.
>
> I have an agreement with my wife, if anything happens to me in any
aircraft, it was my decision to fly, that is the risk. NO sueing will occur.
>
> Jamie
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> fairchildclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

'

Posted: **Mon Nov 26, 2001 12:35 pm**

'Scott,

Not at all, my brother is an lawyer, glad to have him in the family.

Jamie'

Posted: **Mon Nov 26, 2001 6:24 pm**

'Many times guys its cheaper for the mfg and the ins carrier to settle
even if there is no liability on their part. The coust of defending a
high profile case can get real spendy. Also I would suppect the reasion
the valve is no longer mfg. is the insurance company raised the cost of
coverage to the point where it was no longer feasiable to produce.

As an insurance adjuster for most of my life I've seen companies pay
claims that just ripped me a new one. But the dollars rules in many cases.

John
9165H

Shipman wrote:

> Jamie,
>
> Thanks for your thoughts. I certainly agree that if the manufacturer was
> not negligent in design, that it should have no liability. Fortunately the
> law also agrees. No negligence means no liability. Although none of us are
> privy to all documents relevant to the John Denver case, some experts must
> have thought that the manufacturer was negligent. I certainly hope so or it
> would have been foolish to settle. Sounds like the manufacturer's experts
> had the stronger opinion. Maybe they should have let the jury tell the
> family that there was no liability.
>
> Okay, I'll get off my soap box. Hope I haven't tried your patience!
>
> Scott
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
> To:
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 9:53 AM
> Subject: Re: [fairchildclub] Fuel Control Valve
>
>
>
>>Scott,
>>
>>I agree. But when a fuel valve works beyond its design limits, and did not
>>
> contribute to the power failure due to there must be fuel in the tanks in
> order for the engine to operate, one must wonder where our court systems are
> going. Expert testimony by the manufacture, designers, NTSB and so on all
> agreed it was not the valve that caused the problem, only the location was a
> contrib factor. That goes back to the builder, but the builder had no deep
> pockets. If fuel was in the tanks the valve position would and did provide
> full power operation for hours of operation.
>
>>I have an agreement with my wife, if anything happens to me in any
>>
> aircraft, it was my decision to fly, that is the risk. NO sueing will occur.
>
>>Jamie
>>
>>
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>>fairchildclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>>
>>
>>
>>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>
>>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> fairchildclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>

'

Posted: **Tue Nov 27, 2001 8:30 am**

'Very true. Of course, the "cost of defense" settlement only works if there
is some proof of liability. Without that, the threat of the anyone going
forward with a case is hollow. It wouldn't make sense for them to spend a
great deal of money on a claim they are likely to lose. In my experience,
an insurance company won't pay a dime, and rightfully so, without some proof
of liability.

Thanks for your thoughts.

----- Original Message -----
From: "jawebb"
To:
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 6:23 PM
Subject: Re: [fairchildclub] Fuel Control Valve

> Many times guys its cheaper for the mfg and the ins carrier to settle
> even if there is no liability on their part. The coust of defending a
> high profile case can get real spendy. Also I would suppect the reasion
> the valve is no longer mfg. is the insurance company raised the cost of
> coverage to the point where it was no longer feasiable to produce.
>
> As an insurance adjuster for most of my life I've seen companies pay
> claims that just ripped me a new one. But the dollars rules in many cases.
>
> John
> 9165H
>
> Shipman wrote:
>
> > Jamie,
> >
> > Thanks for your thoughts. I certainly agree that if the manufacturer
was
> > not negligent in design, that it should have no liability. Fortunately
the
> > law also agrees. No negligence means no liability. Although none of us
are
> > privy to all documents relevant to the John Denver case, some experts
must
> > have thought that the manufacturer was negligent. I certainly hope so
or it
> > would have been foolish to settle. Sounds like the manufacturer's
experts
> > had the stronger opinion. Maybe they should have let the jury tell the
> > family that there was no liability.
> >
> > Okay, I'll get off my soap box. Hope I haven't tried your patience!
> >
> > Scott
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From:
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 9:53 AM
> > Subject: Re: [fairchildclub] Fuel Control Valve
> >
> >
> >
> >>Scott,
> >>
> >>I agree. But when a fuel valve works beyond its design limits, and did
not
> >>
> > contribute to the power failure due to there must be fuel in the tanks
in
> > order for the engine to operate, one must wonder where our court systems
are
> > going. Expert testimony by the manufacture, designers, NTSB and so on
all
> > agreed it was not the valve that caused the problem, only the location
was a
> > contrib factor. That goes back to the builder, but the builder had no
deep
> > pockets. If fuel was in the tanks the valve position would and did
provide
> > full power operation for hours of operation.
> >
> >>I have an agreement with my wife, if anything happens to me in any
> >>
> > aircraft, it was my decision to fly, that is the risk. NO sueing will
occur.
> >
> >>Jamie
> >>
> >>
> >>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >>fairchildclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > fairchildclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> fairchildclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

'

Fairchild Club Forum

Re: Fuel Control Valve

Fuel Control Valve

Re: Fuel Control Valve

Re: Fuel Control Valve

Re: Fuel Control Valve

Re: Fuel Control Valve

Re: Fuel Control Valve

Re: Fuel Control Valve

Re: Fuel Control Valve