Essay, Research Paper: Liability In Homebuilt Aircraft

Barnett, 1
Homebuilt aircraft are considered to be the fastest growing segment of aviation during the last two decades. Naturally with the increase in these aircraft will also come an increase in accidents. Accidents like the 1997 Long E-Z crash that killed John Denver have raised questions about who is legally liable: the kit manufacturer, amateur builder, or pilot? (Kolczynski, 1) Homebuilt aircraft liability litigation is expected to develop into a booming new industry in the coming future.
During the 1970s and 80s production of single engine factory built aircraft has virtually come to a halt. With many product liability lawsuits, which led to large verdicts against the manufacturers of the single engine aircraft, manufacturers slowly dropped out the single engine aircraft business. With no more single engine aircraft being built used single engine aircraft have dramatically increased in price. These events have led to an increase in homebuilt aircraft that cost a fraction of the price of a previously owned Cessna, Beechcraft, or Piper. Another boost to homebuilt aircraft has been the FAA. In the role of promoting air commerce, the FAA has supported regulations and advisory circulars that encourage the development of homebuilt aircraft; for example Advisory Circular 20.27d. (Kolczynski, 2) According to this anybody can buy plans and parts and obtain a special airworthiness certificate to operate the aircraft in the experimental category if the amateur builder does more than 50% of the fabrication or assembly, and does solely for his own education or recreation. (Kolczynski, 2)
Homebuilt aircraft are built a few different ways. Some of these aircraft are built from scratch using plans from a designer. Others are purchased in kits consisting of plans, pre-fabricated parts, and some raw materials. Once a builder acquirers a kit he/she is required to do the majority of the fabrication and assembly of the kit. During the assembly the homebuilder needs to have the
Barnett, 2
aircraft inspected by a FAA approved inspector. (Kolczynski, 4) A construction log needs to be maintained with photographic documentation of the building process. After the aircraft is completed, it is required to have the marking “Experimental” on the fuselage. (Kolczynski, 4) Next, the homebuilder must submit a FAA form 8130.7 along with the progress log to the FAA for a post-construction inspection of the new aircraft. After the inspection, a special airworthiness certificate is issued with operating limitations that the airplane may be flown only within a limited geographical test area for a certain number of hours. After completion of these proving flights, the restrictions are lifted and the homebuilt aircraft can be flown like any other general aviation aircraft. An experimental class aircraft can legally carry passengers, but it can not be used to carry passengers for compensation or hire. (Kolczynski, 4)
Product liabilities for homebuilt kits are designed to protect consumers. The consumers of homebuilt aircraft are different depending on whom we are talking about. The person purchasing a homebuilt aircraft kit is a consumer and so are passengers that ride in the aircraft after it is completed. If the manufacturer of the airplane kit has a defect in the product then the manufacturer is liable for that. If the homebuilder puts the plane together negligently then the builder is held liable.
The kit manufacturer has continued product liability for the plans and parts beyond the fist purchaser of the kit. This liability comes from possible defects in the design of the aircraft or the instructions accompanying the design. Liability can also come from a lack of adequate warnings, which should have come with the designs. In addition, misrepresentation made about the finished product including performance characteristics is a liability paid by the manufacturer. If the kit manufacturer selected sub-standard materials for any of the parts or components sold as part of the

Barnett, 3
kit the manufacturer can be exposed to liability. Kit manufacturers being a commercial seller of a massed produced product are held to a higher standard than a homebuilder. (Kolczynski, 5)
Liability for homebuilders depends on certain things. A homebuilder buys plans, components, and raw materials from a kit manufacturer. The builder follows the design and uses all part in the kit without modification. After the proper inspection, the homebuilder is issued the temporary airworthiness certificate. If a crash occurs because of a product defect, which can be traced, to the original design or kit components, the kit manufacturer will be held liable. If the homebuilder does not follow the design and kit assembly instructions, or modifies a portion of the design or components, he can be held liable if the plane crashes. The kit seller will have to show that the finished product is not in conformity with his design or that his components have been significantly altered.
Kit manufacturers have a few things on their side: Modification of the original design and sometimes-pilot error. Even with modification of homebuilt, manufacturers are still held liable because courts will protect the consumers at the expense of the manufacturer. (Kolczynski, 7) Take the John Denver crash for instance. On October 12, 1997 a Long-EZ piloted by John denver crashed at about 5:30 in the afternoon in the Pacific Ocean near Monterey, California. Denver was an experienced pilot with over 2,750 flight hours. He had flown a number of factory built aircraft but this Long E-Z was his first homebuilt. According to the NTSB investigators, Denver was practicing takeoffs and landings at Monterey Peninsula Airport. Denver was departing to the west when the airplane banked sharply and crashed into the ocean from an altitude of approximately 350 feet. The plane had only fifteen gallons of fuel onboard in the main tank when Denver took off.
Barnett, 4
The fuel selector handle was positioned in an awkward place, directly behind the pilots left shoulder. The NTSB stated that a probable cause of the accident was the pilots’ diversion of attention from the operation of the aircraft. It is believed that Denver inadvertently applied the right rudder while attempting to manipulate the fuel selector handle, which resulted in a loss of control of the airplane. The report states that Denver was responsible for inadequate pre-flight planning. The NTSB identified his failure to refuel the airplane when in a low fuel condition as casual because it left him groping about the cockpit in an attempt to select fuel at a low altitude. The board blames the crash primarily on pilot error. Two errors were also blamed on the original homebuilt owner. The first error was to locate the unmarked fuel selector handle in a hard to access position. The second error was placing unmarked and uncalabrated fuel quantity site gages in the cockpit. The safety board also commented on Denver’s inadequate transition training from traditional factory built aircraft to a homebuilt. (Kolczynski, 8) If litigation were to be pressed in this case from the known facts it looks like the original kit manufacturer would not be to blame.
Training is a major concern in the airplane kit manufacturing business. Pilots need to be properly trained and certified to fly a homebuilt. Some insurance companies require training before providing insurance.
Homebuilt aviation is a risky business for kit companies, and will always be. Who is liable in homebuilt crashes just depends on various factors. Homebuilders need to keep good records and receive proper training before flying. I believe the homebuilt industry will continue to grow, no matter the law suits because of the love of aviation and the prices charged for a new factory manufactured aircraft.


Liability For Homebuilt Aircraft


Business Law and Ethics
Citations
Kolczynski, Phillip J. Liability For Homebuilt Aircraft WWW.Avweb.com

Barnett, 1
Homebuilt aircraft are considered to be the fastest growing segment of aviation during the last two decades. Naturally with the increase in these aircraft will also come an increase in accidents. Accidents like the 1997 Long E-Z crash that killed John Denver have raised questions about who is legally liable: the kit manufacturer, amateur builder, or pilot? (Kolczynski, 1) Homebuilt aircraft liability litigation is expected to develop into a booming new industry in the coming future.
During the 1970s and 80s production of single engine factory built aircraft has virtually come to a halt. With many product liability lawsuits, which led to large verdicts against the manufacturers of the single engine aircraft, manufacturers slowly dropped out the single engine aircraft business. With no more single engine aircraft being built used single engine aircraft have dramatically increased in price. These events have led to an increase in homebuilt aircraft that cost a fraction of the price of a previously owned Cessna, Beechcraft, or Piper. Another boost to homebuilt aircraft has been the FAA. In the role of promoting air commerce, the FAA has supported regulations and advisory circulars that encourage the development of homebuilt aircraft; for example Advisory Circular 20.27d. (Kolczynski, 2) According to this anybody can buy plans and parts and obtain a special airworthiness certificate to operate the aircraft in the experimental category if the amateur builder does more than 50% of the fabrication or assembly, and does solely for his own education or recreation. (Kolczynski, 2)
Homebuilt aircraft are built a few different ways. Some of these aircraft are built from scratch using plans from a designer. Others are purchased in kits consisting of plans, pre-fabricated parts, and some raw materials. Once a builder acquirers a kit he/she is required to do the majority of the fabrication and assembly of the kit. During the assembly the homebuilder needs to have the
Barnett, 2
aircraft inspected by a FAA approved inspector. (Kolczynski, 4) A construction log needs to be maintained with photographic documentation of the building process. After the aircraft is completed, it is required to have the marking “Experimental” on the fuselage. (Kolczynski, 4) Next, the homebuilder must submit a FAA form 8130.7 along with the progress log to the FAA for a post-construction inspection of the new aircraft. After the inspection, a special airworthiness certificate is issued with operating limitations that the airplane may be flown only within a limited geographical test area for a certain number of hours. After completion of these proving flights, the restrictions are lifted and the homebuilt aircraft can be flown like any other general aviation aircraft. An experimental class aircraft can legally carry passengers, but it can not be used to carry passengers for compensation or hire. (Kolczynski, 4)
Product liabilities for homebuilt kits are designed to protect consumers. The consumers of homebuilt aircraft are different depending on whom we are talking about. The person purchasing a homebuilt aircraft kit is a consumer and so are passengers that ride in the aircraft after it is completed. If the manufacturer of the airplane kit has a defect in the product then the manufacturer is liable for that. If the homebuilder puts the plane together negligently then the builder is held liable.
The kit manufacturer has continued product liability for the plans and parts beyond the fist purchaser of the kit. This liability comes from possible defects in the design of the aircraft or the instructions accompanying the design. Liability can also come from a lack of adequate warnings, which should have come with the designs. In addition, misrepresentation made about the finished product including performance characteristics is a liability paid by the manufacturer. If the kit manufacturer selected sub-standard materials for any of the parts or components sold as part of the

Barnett, 3
kit the manufacturer can be exposed to liability. Kit manufacturers being a commercial seller of a massed produced product are held to a higher standard than a homebuilder. (Kolczynski, 5)
Liability for homebuilders depends on certain things. A homebuilder buys plans, components, and raw materials from a kit manufacturer. The builder follows the design and uses all part in the kit without modification. After the proper inspection, the homebuilder is issued the temporary airworthiness certificate. If a crash occurs because of a product defect, which can be traced, to the original design or kit components, the kit manufacturer will be held liable. If the homebuilder does not follow the design and kit assembly instructions, or modifies a portion of the design or components, he can be held liable if the plane crashes. The kit seller will have to show that the finished product is not in conformity with his design or that his components have been significantly altered.
Kit manufacturers have a few things on their side: Modification of the original design and sometimes-pilot error. Even with modification of homebuilt, manufacturers are still held liable because courts will protect the consumers at the expense of the manufacturer. (Kolczynski, 7) Take the John Denver crash for instance. On October 12, 1997 a Long-EZ piloted by John denver crashed at about 5:30 in the afternoon in the Pacific Ocean near Monterey, California. Denver was an experienced pilot with over 2,750 flight hours. He had flown a number of factory built aircraft but this Long E-Z was his first homebuilt. According to the NTSB investigators, Denver was practicing takeoffs and landings at Monterey Peninsula Airport. Denver was departing to the west when the airplane banked sharply and crashed into the ocean from an altitude of approximately 350 feet. The plane had only fifteen gallons of fuel onboard in the main tank when Denver took off.
Barnett, 4
The fuel selector handle was positioned in an awkward place, directly behind the pilots left shoulder. The NTSB stated that a probable cause of the accident was the pilots’ diversion of attention from the operation of the aircraft. It is believed that Denver inadvertently applied the right rudder while attempting to manipulate the fuel selector handle, which resulted in a loss of control of the airplane. The report states that Denver was responsible for inadequate pre-flight planning. The NTSB identified his failure to refuel the airplane when in a low fuel condition as casual because it left him groping about the cockpit in an attempt to select fuel at a low altitude. The board blames the crash primarily on pilot error. Two errors were also blamed on the original homebuilt owner. The first error was to locate the unmarked fuel selector handle in a hard to access position. The second error was placing unmarked and uncalabrated fuel quantity site gages in the cockpit. The safety board also commented on Denver’s inadequate transition training from traditional factory built aircraft to a homebuilt. (Kolczynski, 8) If litigation were to be pressed in this case from the known facts it looks like the original kit manufacturer would not be to blame.
Training is a major concern in the airplane kit manufacturing business. Pilots need to be properly trained and certified to fly a homebuilt. Some insurance companies require training before providing insurance.
Homebuilt aviation is a risky business for kit companies, and will always be. Who is liable in homebuilt crashes just depends on various factors. Homebuilders need to keep good records and receive proper training before flying. I believe the homebuilt industry will continue to grow, no matter the law suits because of the love of aviation and the prices charged for a new factory manufactured aircraft.


Liability For Homebuilt Aircraft


Business Law and Ethics
Citations
Kolczynski, Phillip J. Liability For Homebuilt Aircraft WWW.Avweb.com

Barnett, 1
Homebuilt aircraft are considered to be the fastest growing segment of aviation during the last two decades. Naturally with the increase in these aircraft will also come an increase in accidents. Accidents like the 1997 Long E-Z crash that killed John Denver have raised questions about who is legally liable: the kit manufacturer, amateur builder, or pilot? (Kolczynski, 1) Homebuilt aircraft liability litigation is expected to develop into a booming new industry in the coming future.
During the 1970s and 80s production of single engine factory built aircraft has virtually come to a halt. With many product liability lawsuits, which led to large verdicts against the manufacturers of the single engine aircraft, manufacturers slowly dropped out the single engine aircraft business. With no more single engine aircraft being built used single engine aircraft have dramatically increased in price. These events have led to an increase in homebuilt aircraft that cost a fraction of the price of a previously owned Cessna, Beechcraft, or Piper. Another boost to homebuilt aircraft has been the FAA. In the role of promoting air commerce, the FAA has supported regulations and advisory circulars that encourage the development of homebuilt aircraft; for example Advisory Circular 20.27d. (Kolczynski, 2) According to this anybody can buy plans and parts and obtain a special airworthiness certificate to operate the aircraft in the experimental category if the amateur builder does more than 50% of the fabrication or assembly, and does solely for his own education or recreation. (Kolczynski, 2)
Homebuilt aircraft are built a few different ways. Some of these aircraft are built from scratch using plans from a designer. Others are purchased in kits consisting of plans, pre-fabricated parts, and some raw materials. Once a builder acquirers a kit he/she is required to do the majority of the fabrication and assembly of the kit. During the assembly the homebuilder needs to have the
Barnett, 2
aircraft inspected by a FAA approved inspector. (Kolczynski, 4) A construction log needs to be maintained with photographic documentation of the building process. After the aircraft is completed, it is required to have the marking “Experimental” on the fuselage. (Kolczynski, 4) Next, the homebuilder must submit a FAA form 8130.7 along with the progress log to the FAA for a post-construction inspection of the new aircraft. After the inspection, a special airworthiness certificate is issued with operating limitations that the airplane may be flown only within a limited geographical test area for a certain number of hours. After completion of these proving flights, the restrictions are lifted and the homebuilt aircraft can be flown like any other general aviation aircraft. An experimental class aircraft can legally carry passengers, but it can not be used to carry passengers for compensation or hire. (Kolczynski, 4)
Product liabilities for homebuilt kits are designed to protect consumers. The consumers of homebuilt aircraft are different depending on whom we are talking about. The person purchasing a homebuilt aircraft kit is a consumer and so are passengers that ride in the aircraft after it is completed. If the manufacturer of the airplane kit has a defect in the product then the manufacturer is liable for that. If the homebuilder puts the plane together negligently then the builder is held liable.
The kit manufacturer has continued product liability for the plans and parts beyond the fist purchaser of the kit. This liability comes from possible defects in the design of the aircraft or the instructions accompanying the design. Liability can also come from a lack of adequate warnings, which should have come with the designs. In addition, misrepresentation made about the finished product including performance characteristics is a liability paid by the manufacturer. If the kit manufacturer selected sub-standard materials for any of the parts or components sold as part of the

Barnett, 3
kit the manufacturer can be exposed to liability. Kit manufacturers being a commercial seller of a massed produced product are held to a higher standard than a homebuilder. (Kolczynski, 5)
Liability for homebuilders depends on certain things. A homebuilder buys plans, components, and raw materials from a kit manufacturer. The builder follows the design and uses all part in the kit without modification. After the proper inspection, the homebuilder is issued the temporary airworthiness certificate. If a crash occurs because of a product defect, which can be traced, to the original design or kit components, the kit manufacturer will be held liable. If the homebuilder does not follow the design and kit assembly instructions, or modifies a portion of the design or components, he can be held liable if the plane crashes. The kit seller will have to show that the finished product is not in conformity with his design or that his components have been significantly altered.
Kit manufacturers have a few things on their side: Modification of the original design and sometimes-pilot error. Even with modification of homebuilt, manufacturers are still held liable because courts will protect the consumers at the expense of the manufacturer. (Kolczynski, 7) Take the John Denver crash for instance. On October 12, 1997 a Long-EZ piloted by John denver crashed at about 5:30 in the afternoon in the Pacific Ocean near Monterey, California. Denver was an experienced pilot with over 2,750 flight hours. He had flown a number of factory built aircraft but this Long E-Z was his first homebuilt. According to the NTSB investigators, Denver was practicing takeoffs and landings at Monterey Peninsula Airport. Denver was departing to the west when the airplane banked sharply and crashed into the ocean from an altitude of approximately 350 feet. The plane had only fifteen gallons of fuel onboard in the main tank when Denver took off.
Barnett, 4
The fuel selector handle was positioned in an awkward place, directly behind the pilots left shoulder. The NTSB stated that a probable cause of the accident was the pilots’ diversion of attention from the operation of the aircraft. It is believed that Denver inadvertently applied the right rudder while attempting to manipulate the fuel selector handle, which resulted in a loss of control of the airplane. The report states that Denver was responsible for inadequate pre-flight planning. The NTSB identified his failure to refuel the airplane when in a low fuel condition as casual because it left him groping about the cockpit in an attempt to select fuel at a low altitude. The board blames the crash primarily on pilot error. Two errors were also blamed on the original homebuilt owner. The first error was to locate the unmarked fuel selector handle in a hard to access position. The second error was placing unmarked and uncalabrated fuel quantity site gages in the cockpit. The safety board also commented on Denver’s inadequate transition training from traditional factory built aircraft to a homebuilt. (Kolczynski, 8) If litigation were to be pressed in this case from the known facts it looks like the original kit manufacturer would not be to blame.
Training is a major concern in the airplane kit manufacturing business. Pilots need to be properly trained and certified to fly a homebuilt. Some insurance companies require training before providing insurance.
Homebuilt aviation is a risky business for kit companies, and will always be. Who is liable in homebuilt crashes just depends on various factors. Homebuilders need to keep good records and receive proper training before flying. I believe the homebuilt industry will continue to grow, no matter the law suits because of the love of aviation and the prices charged for a new factory manufactured aircraft.


Liability For Homebuilt Aircraft


Business Law and Ethics
Citations
Kolczynski, Phillip J. Liability For Homebuilt Aircraft WWW.Avweb.com

Barnett, 1
Homebuilt aircraft are considered to be the fastest growing segment of aviation during the last two decades. Naturally with the increase in these aircraft will also come an increase in accidents. Accidents like the 1997 Long E-Z crash that killed John Denver have raised questions about who is legally liable: the kit manufacturer, amateur builder, or pilot? (Kolczynski, 1) Homebuilt aircraft liability litigation is expected to develop into a booming new industry in the coming future.
During the 1970s and 80s production of single engine factory built aircraft has virtually come to a halt. With many product liability lawsuits, which led to large verdicts against the manufacturers of the single engine aircraft, manufacturers slowly dropped out the single engine aircraft business. With no more single engine aircraft being built used single engine aircraft have dramatically increased in price. These events have led to an increase in homebuilt aircraft that cost a fraction of the price of a previously owned Cessna, Beechcraft, or Piper. Another boost to homebuilt aircraft has been the FAA. In the role of promoting air commerce, the FAA has supported regulations and advisory circulars that encourage the development of homebuilt aircraft; for example Advisory Circular 20.27d. (Kolczynski, 2) According to this anybody can buy plans and parts and obtain a special airworthiness certificate to operate the aircraft in the experimental category if the amateur builder does more than 50% of the fabrication or assembly, and does solely for his own education or recreation. (Kolczynski, 2)
Homebuilt aircraft are built a few different ways. Some of these aircraft are built from scratch using plans from a designer. Others are purchased in kits consisting of plans, pre-fabricated parts, and some raw materials. Once a builder acquirers a kit he/she is required to do the majority of the fabrication and assembly of the kit. During the assembly the homebuilder needs to have the
Barnett, 2
aircraft inspected by a FAA approved inspector. (Kolczynski, 4) A construction log needs to be maintained with photographic documentation of the building process. After the aircraft is completed, it is required to have the marking “Experimental” on the fuselage. (Kolczynski, 4) Next, the homebuilder must submit a FAA form 8130.7 along with the progress log to the FAA for a post-construction inspection of the new aircraft. After the inspection, a special airworthiness certificate is issued with operating limitations that the airplane may be flown only within a limited geographical test area for a certain number of hours. After completion of these proving flights, the restrictions are lifted and the homebuilt aircraft can be flown like any other general aviation aircraft. An experimental class aircraft can legally carry passengers, but it can not be used to carry passengers for compensation or hire. (Kolczynski, 4)
Product liabilities for homebuilt kits are designed to protect consumers. The consumers of homebuilt aircraft are different depending on whom we are talking about. The person purchasing a homebuilt aircraft kit is a consumer and so are passengers that ride in the aircraft after it is completed. If the manufacturer of the airplane kit has a defect in the product then the manufacturer is liable for that. If the homebuilder puts the plane together negligently then the builder is held liable.
The kit manufacturer has continued product liability for the plans and parts beyond the fist purchaser of the kit. This liability comes from possible defects in the design of the aircraft or the instructions accompanying the design. Liability can also come from a lack of adequate warnings, which should have come with the designs. In addition, misrepresentation made about the finished product including performance characteristics is a liability paid by the manufacturer. If the kit manufacturer selected sub-standard materials for any of the parts or components sold as part of the

Barnett, 3
kit the manufacturer can be exposed to liability. Kit manufacturers being a commercial seller of a massed produced product are held to a higher standard than a homebuilder. (Kolczynski, 5)
Liability for homebuilders depends on certain things. A homebuilder buys plans, components, and raw materials from a kit manufacturer. The builder follows the design and uses all part in the kit without modification. After the proper inspection, the homebuilder is issued the temporary airworthiness certificate. If a crash occurs because of a product defect, which can be traced, to the original design or kit components, the kit manufacturer will be held liable. If the homebuilder does not follow the design and kit assembly instructions, or modifies a portion of the design or components, he can be held liable if the plane crashes. The kit seller will have to show that the finished product is not in conformity with his design or that his components have been significantly altered.
Kit manufacturers have a few things on their side: Modification of the original design and sometimes-pilot error. Even with modification of homebuilt, manufacturers are still held liable because courts will protect the consumers at the expense of the manufacturer. (Kolczynski, 7) Take the John Denver crash for instance. On October 12, 1997 a Long-EZ piloted by John denver crashed at about 5:30 in the afternoon in the Pacific Ocean near Monterey, California. Denver was an experienced pilot with over 2,750 flight hours. He had flown a number of factory built aircraft but this Long E-Z was his first homebuilt. According to the NTSB investigators, Denver was practicing takeoffs and landings at Monterey Peninsula Airport. Denver was departing to the west when the airplane banked sharply and crashed into the ocean from an altitude of approximately 350 feet. The plane had only fifteen gallons of fuel onboard in the main tank when Denver took off.
Barnett, 4
The fuel selector handle was positioned in an awkward place, directly behind the pilots left shoulder. The NTSB stated that a probable cause of the accident was the pilots’ diversion of attention from the operation of the aircraft. It is believed that Denver inadvertently applied the right rudder while attempting to manipulate the fuel selector handle, which resulted in a loss of control of the airplane. The report states that Denver was responsible for inadequate pre-flight planning. The NTSB identified his failure to refuel the airplane when in a low fuel condition as casual because it left him groping about the cockpit in an attempt to select fuel at a low altitude. The board blames the crash primarily on pilot error. Two errors were also blamed on the original homebuilt owner. The first error was to locate the unmarked fuel selector handle in a hard to access position. The second error was placing unmarked and uncalabrated fuel quantity site gages in the cockpit. The safety board also commented on Denver’s inadequate transition training from traditional factory built aircraft to a homebuilt. (Kolczynski, 8) If litigation were to be pressed in this case from the known facts it looks like the original kit manufacturer would not be to blame.
Training is a major concern in the airplane kit manufacturing business. Pilots need to be properly trained and certified to fly a homebuilt. Some insurance companies require training before providing insurance.
Homebuilt aviation is a risky business for kit companies, and will always be. Who is liable in homebuilt crashes just depends on various factors. Homebuilders need to keep good records and receive proper training before flying. I believe the homebuilt industry will continue to grow, no matter the law suits because of the love of aviation and the prices charged for a new factory manufactured aircraft.


Liability For Homebuilt Aircraft


Business Law and Ethics
Citations
Kolczynski, Phillip J. Liability For Homebuilt Aircraft WWW.Avweb.com





Word Count: 5081