Lawsuit Madness - OMG

Status
Not open for further replies.
danielabernath said:
Poh says 1 gal is unusable, so you had 2.5 usable, that's 30 min worth of fuel. Per FAR 91.151 that's Not enough to legally take off.

comment. You are incorrect. "facts are stubborn things"
Click to expand...

You cannot legally take off with 30 minutes of fuel. What part of that don't you get?

You need 30 minutes of fuel left in the tanks once you've arrived at your intended destination. Taking off to head there with a total of 30 minutes of fuel violates the law. Period. Fact. Stubborn fact. As soon as you take off the fuel level will be below the 30-minute mark, and dropping fast as you climb at full power. More stubborn facts.

Physics is full of stubborn facts, and no amount of verbiage will change them.

Besides, relying on the fuel gauges in any airplane is well-known foolishness. And the dipstick can lie, too, if the airplane isn't perfectly level and not being jostled by the wind. In any case, you chose to cut things extremely fine and got caught, as most anyone else would if they did this.

Dan
 
Last edited:
what was the quantity of usable fuel remaining ?
I've answered that question. You all want to make up things and then say that I was not in compliance with FAR.

Issue: Even if what you say is true, how does that prove or disprove anything at issue in this litigation?

CTSW's with 8 GALLONS in one tank and no fuel the other tank suffered from fuel starvation. (Read the complaint, would ya? www.aspecialdayguide.com/bernathresume.htm )

So in your learned opinion if 8 gallons of fuel would take him to an airport one hour and 50 minutes away but he crashed an hour and 50 minutes from his destination and was killed it was because of not having enough fuel? The aircraft had enough fuel to reach Sisters. Your flawed and incorrect assumption that I didn't have enough fuel to reach Sisters in 6 minutes with the fuel in the tanks is just silly.

If you are going to keep making that silly point over and over again and can't see the plane illogic of it then I can't see how I can proceed in educating you. I don't know what you guys do for a living but I wouldn't bother to take the law school entrance exam.
 
Last edited:
danielabernath said:
what was the quantity of usable fuel remaining ?
I've answered that question. You all want to make up things and then say that I was not in compliance with FAR.

Issue: Even if what you say is true, how does that prove or disprove anything at issue in this litigation?

CTSW's with 8 GALLONS in one tank and no fuel the other tank suffered from fuel starvation. (Read the complaint, would ya? www.aspecialdayguide.com/bernathresume.htm )
Click to expand...

You said the fuel stick said 3.5 gallons. The POH says 1 gallon is unusable. At 5GPH that's 30 minutes worth of fuel. Please explain how you were legal to fly in compliance with 91.151. No one here can see how. Please explain. Most of us aren't lawyers and could use the advice.
 
vintage cessna said:
Fuel gauges only indicate usable fuel.
Click to expand...

He claims to have used a stick, which indicated, at most, fuel for 42 minutes of level flight, if every single drop in the tank were usable. In fact, according to his own statement, the stick showed him to have fuel enough for only 30 minutes of level flight.

And that assumes that you actually believe anything that Abby tells anyone. Considering the length of his flight, and his known history of falsehood, I have to assume some combination of the following:

1, that he failed to properly install the fuel cap, and/or
2, he failed to reduce fuel consumption after takeoff, and/or
3, he's simply lying about the amount of fuel that was in the tank.
 
danielabernath said:
what was the quantity of usable fuel remaining ?
I've answered that question. You all want to make up things and then say that I was not in compliance with FAR.

Issue: Even if what you say is true, how does that prove or disprove anything at issue in this litigation?

CTSW's with 8 GALLONS in one tank and no fuel the other tank suffered from fuel starvation. (Read the complaint, would ya? www.aspecialdayguide.com/bernathresume.htm )
Click to expand...

FWIW, I don't think any regulation was violated when you took off.

But you haven't answered my question. We know how much usable fuel there was prior to takeoff, we don't know how much fuel remained after landing. Are we to assume there was still an ample amount of fuel remaining or do you have some sort of proof?
 
danielabernath said:
Exactly how much usable fuel, based on time, did you actually have left in the tanks?

 Read the official documents:
"The fuel guage said between 3 to 5 gallons.
The stick from Flight Design said 3.5 gallons.
OR34 to Sisters Eagle Airport."

FD says that 5 gallons an hour fuel consumption.

Except for the secret, intentionally hidden Fight Design-defect there was enough fuel. I did not run out of fuel. Simple.
Click to expand...

A direct answer to the direct questions. Very good. We are getting somewhere. Thank you.

If that was the amount actually in the tanks, then yes, you had enough in the ONE TANK to get there. Unfortunately, by your own admission, there was no fuel in the other tank, therefore any fuel system deriving its source of fuel from a combination of two fuel tanks requires that the fuel combining area remain full of fuel. Any uncoordinated maneuver, even for brief periods of time, can unport that area rather quickly. Knowing that one tank is empty should prompt you to either transfer fuel to even the load out, or make sure that the fullest tank remains higher than the empty tank by deliberately flying uncoordinated in the opposite direction.

I fly an aircraft that has two engines and three fuel tanks. I have to constantly monitor the third tank, because, even if the other tanks are full, if the third tank runs out, it can be pretty disastrous. The other tanks can have more than twenty gallons of unusable fuel in depending on the attitude of the aircraft. If I am on an extended descent, I can have over 40 gallons of fuel that is unusable in that attitude. That, sir, is what is called, "knowing your aircraft's systems." You need to try that.

The Flite Design is not the only aircraft with that type of fuel design. And coordinated flying is not always accomplished, even when you try. Seeing how uneven your tanks empty is a good thing to learn in your aircraft, so that you don't end up emptying a tank and attempting to "run on empty."
 
danielabernath said:
Read the official documents:
"The fuel guage said between 3 to 5 gallons.
The stick from Flight Design said 3.5 gallons.
OR34 to 6K5."
Click to expand...

By "official documents" do you mean the allegations in your complaint? If so, your complaint alleges that the left tank was empty and the right tank had "3 to 4 gallons," not 5 gallons. No mention of a "stick."

danielabernath said:
FD says that 5 gallons an hour fuel consumption.
Click to expand...

That's really not a correct statement of fact in that your POH from Flight Design, at least the one I found online, says that you burn 7.1 GPH during climb-out, and between 4.9 to 6.6 GPH for cruise.

But even if you've got only 5 GPH in your head for some reason, perhaps as a rule of thumb, the fact that you had 2-1/2 gallons of usable fuel means that you only had enough fuel for 30 minutes of flight (i.e. the required fuel reserve AFTER you got there) such that its absolutely clear that 91.151 prohibited you from taking off. It's just math.

Drink a nice scotch, dismiss your complaint, be a man, and get back to enjoying life.
 
Flight Design CTSW crashed with 8 gallons in one tank.

Lets say there is a FAR that say I have to have my airplane number on the tail and I said, "I don't like that FAR so I'm going to paint over it."

In my hypothetical: My painting over the tail number, although a violation, has nothing to do with the fuel starvation caused by Flight Design, its failure to warn, its failure to instruct, its intentional decision to put US pilot's lives in danger by not telling US pilots of the danger and the instruction to deal with the defect as ordered to by the CAA.

Again, I violated no FAR. "Facts are stubborn things."
 
Drink a nice scotch,(I don't drink. Bottle to throttle, going on 65 years)
dismiss your complaint, (sure, hand me a check)
be a man, (standing up for all you sheep-le is a manly thing)
and get back to enjoying life. (I'm having a great time.)
 
Aztec Driver said:
A direct answer to the direct questions. Very good. We are getting somewhere. Thank you.

If that was the amount actually in the tanks, then yes, you had enough in the ONE TANK to get there. Unfortunately, by your own admission, there was no fuel in the other tank, therefore any fuel system deriving its source of fuel from a combination of two fuel tanks requires that the fuel combining area remain full of fuel. Any uncoordinated maneuver, even for brief periods of time, can unport that area rather quickly. Knowing that one tank is empty should prompt you to either transfer fuel to even the load out, or make sure that the fullest tank remains higher than the empty tank by deliberately flying uncoordinated in the opposite direction.

I fly an aircraft that has two engines and three fuel tanks. I have to constantly monitor the third tank, because, even if the other tanks are full, if the third tank runs out, it can be pretty disastrous. The other tanks can have more than twenty gallons of unusable fuel in depending on the attitude of the aircraft. If I am on an extended descent, I can have over 40 gallons of fuel that is unusable in that attitude. That, sir, is what is called, "knowing your aircraft's systems." You need to try that.

The Flite Design is not the only aircraft with that type of fuel design. And coordinated flying is not always accomplished, even when you try. Seeing how uneven your tanks empty is a good thing to learn in your aircraft, so that you don't end up emptying a tank and attempting to "run on empty."
Click to expand...

You are actually bolstering his case. If the POH says nothing about flight with one tank indicating empty, and that is the reason the engine quit, he has a point. You presuppose a degree of knowledge of fuel systems that is not realistic of most recreational flyers.
 
danielabernath said:
Flight Design CTSW crashed with 8 gallons in one tank.

Lets say there is a FAR that say I have to have my airplane number on the tail and I said, "I don't like that FAR so I'm going to paint over it."

In my hypothetical: My painting over the tail number, although a violation, has nothing to do with the fuel starvation caused by Flight Design, its failure to warn, its failure to instruct, its intentional decision to put US pilot's lives in danger by not telling US pilots of the danger and the instruction to deal with the defect as ordered to by the CAA.

Again, I violated no FAR. "Facts are stubborn things."
Click to expand...

So you're not going to explain how you were in compliance with 91.151?
 
A direct answer to the direct questions. Very good. We are getting somewhere. Thank you.

If that was the amount actually in the tanks, then yes, you had enough in the ONE TANK to get there. Unfortunately, by your own admission, there was no fuel in the other tank, therefore any fuel system deriving its source of fuel from a combination of two fuel tanks requires that the fuel combining area remain full of fuel. Any uncoordinated maneuver, even for brief periods of time, can unport that area rather quickly. Knowing that one tank is empty should prompt you to either transfer fuel to even the load out, or make sure that the fullest tank remains higher than the empty tank by deliberately flying uncoordinated in the opposite direction.

I fly an aircraft that has two engines and three fuel tanks. I have to constantly monitor the third tank, because, even if the other tanks are full, if the third tank runs out, it can be pretty disastrous. The other tanks can have more than twenty gallons of unusable fuel in depending on the attitude of the aircraft. If I am on an extended descent, I can have over 40 gallons of fuel that is unusable in that attitude. That, sir, is what is called, "knowing your aircraft's systems." You need to try that.

The Flite Design is not the only aircraft with that type of fuel design. And coordinated flying is not always accomplished, even when you try. Seeing how uneven your tanks empty is a good thing to learn in your aircraft, so that you don't end up emptying a tank and attempting to "run on empty."
__________________
Bryon
Click to expand...

I've answered all of that in the complaint www.aspecialdayguide.com/bernathresume.htm
 
So you're not going to explain how you were in compliance with 91.151?

1. I was in compliance. Read the facts.
2. Even if what you allege is true (it isn't) it is irrelevant to Flight Designs egregious conduct. Again a Flight Design CTSW suffered crashing fuel starvation with EIGHT GALLONS in one tank.
 
danielabernath said:
You took up with 2.5 gallons of useable fuel on board.
Wrong
Click to expand...

That is based on your own statements. If you have 3.5 gallons in one tank, you have at best 2.5 gallons useable.

Some regulations are silly. Others like the fuel reserve rules are written in blood.
 
danielabernath said:
So you're not going to explain how you were in compliance with 91.151?

1. I was in compliance. Read the facts.
2. Even if what you allege is true (it isn't) it is irrelevant to Flight Designs egregious conduct. Again a Flight Design CTSW suffered crashing fuel starvation with EIGHT GALLONS in one tank.
Click to expand...

No facts have been presented sir. Can you please explain here?

Per two you successfully have shown that a CTSW will take off and fly with only 3.5 in one tank, so I'm having a hard time buying that it won't fly on 8.
 
weilke said:
That is based on your own statements. If you have 3.5 gallons in one tank, you have at best 2.5 gallons useable.

Some regulations are silly. Others like the fuel reserve rules are written in blood.
Click to expand...

You don't read a fuel gauge and then subtract unusable to determine usable. The gauge is going to indicate usable, that is why the regulation requires fuel gauges to indicate 0 when all usable is gone but there is still unusable remaining.
 
Some regulations are silly. Others like the fuel reserve rules are written in blood.

So are products liability class action lawsuits against aircraft manufacturers who don't care if you live or die as long as they make a profit (Flight Design www.aspecialdayguide.com/bernathresume.htm )

McGee v. Cessna is another recent example. Cessna just made up numbers out of the blue for the POH. Caravan Passengers died. Lawsuits do good things.
 
bartmc said:
You said the fuel stick said 3.5 gallons. The POH says 1 gallon is unusable. At 5GPH that's 30 minutes worth of fuel. Please explain how you were legal to fly in compliance with 91.151. No one here can see how. Please explain. Most of us aren't lawyers and could use the advice.
Click to expand...
More to the point, 5 GPH is at cruise. Don't forget that there is Taxi & Run up, plus the climb to account for. He was under 30 minutes reserve long before he started.

Daniel,

As the PIC YOU are responsible for knowing your aircraft's systems. If your aircraft does not have a fuel selector switch it is the your job to ensure that you never run one tank completely dry. It does not take an aeronautical engineer to figure that out. No one needs to hold your hand and tell you this. Know your systems or don't fly.

I still cannot get past the fact that you did a precautionary landing because you were low on fuel, but then took off again. It's a fool's game and you let yourself get suckered into it. I landed for fuel one night only to find out that the FBO was closed and fuel was not available. I could have taken off again in search of fuel. Instead I grabbed my pillow and blanket, and slept in the crew van for the night. Guess what? I arrived at home alive and am still able to fly that aircraft.

I know that you have no intention of learning from anyone on this forum. My advice for you is to give up flying. Do it for yourself. Do it for your wife.

-Jim
 
danielabernath said:
Some regulations are silly. Others like the fuel reserve rules are written in blood.

So are products liability class action lawsuits against aircraft manufacturers who don't care if you live or die as long as they make a profit (Flight Design www.aspecialdayguide.com/bernathresume.htm )

McGee v. Cessna is another recent example. Cessna just made up numbers out of the blue for the POH. Caravan Passengers died. Lawsuits do good things.
Click to expand...

I find it interesting that you refuse to state how much fuel was in the tank after landing. You did look, didn't you? Is that what those pictures of the fuel stains on the wing are for? Are we to believe that all the fuel was forced out of the tank through the vent due to impact?
 
I truly hope you don't get a red cent for your idiotic decision to take off without fueling after landing and confirming you were low on fuel but I know enough of our broken legal system that it's possible you could be enough of an annoyance to warrant a settlement. It's evident to most of the experienced flyers on this board that your attitude puts you at risk of more incidents that put yourself and others in danger.
 
Just to pick at nits: the regs say you need the 30 min reserve before you take off, not after you land.

>>
§ 91.151 Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.

(a) No person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed—

(1) During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes;
...
<<

Does the POH (like some I've seen) give the estimates of fuel burn during startup and taxi?

How much fuel was actually left in the tanks?
 
I still cannot get past the fact that you did a precautionary landing because you were low on fuel, but then took off again.

Again (and again) the fuel starvation occured NOT because there wasn't enough fuel. There was enough fuel for another half hour of flight. It was the design defect of the CTSW of which I was not warned and not instructed.
Please remember that ten or 12 CTSW's have crashed because one tank was empty and the other had 8 gallons (for one example).
Are all those pilots, stupid poo poo heads as well? Is the CAA stupid Poo Poo Heads because they ordered Flight Design to instruct pilots on the dangerous propensities of their CTSW and how to avoid dying?
I think some of these guys are putting me on.
Fuel was in the tank for another 30 minutes of flight.
Crash had nothing to do with the amount of fuel in the tank but with Flight Designs KNOWN TO THEM design defect. Simple.
 
vintage cessna said:
I find it interesting that you refuse to state how much fuel was in the tank after landing. You did look, didn't you? Is that what those pictures of the fuel stains on the wing are for? Are we to believe that all the fuel was forced out of the tank through the vent due to impact?
Click to expand...

He might have looked, but to accurately stick the tanks, the aircraft has to be level.
 
I'm seriously considering renting an apartment for a month and getting an OR drivers license just in the hope of being picked for jury duty. It's a long shot of being picked but it would be a blast in the jury room explaining how this "case" is nothing more than an attempt at extortion.

It may just be easier to contact FD directly and offer my expert testimony on the FARs to put this to bed within 3 minutes of the first question being asked.
 
Matthew said:
Just to pick at nits: the regs say you need the 30 min reserve before you take off, not after you land.

>>
§ 91.151 Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.

(a) No person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed—

(1) During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes;
...
<<

Does the POH (like some I've seen) give the estimates of fuel burn during startup and taxi?

How much fuel was actually left in the tanks?
Click to expand...

He took off with 30 min worth of fuel. He was illegal the second he departed.
You can't become illegal in the air after taking off legally.

He won't be discussing how much was left in the tanks.
 
danielabernath said:
Again (and again) the fuel starvation occured NOT because there wasn't enough fuel.
Click to expand...

One of the first things FAA does is measure the fuel remaining in the tanks. This is one sure way to know there was enough fuel in the tank(s). This measurement wasn't done, was it?
 
Kiddo's Driver said:
More to the point, 5 GPH is at cruise. Don't forget that there is Taxi & Run up, plus the climb to account for. He was under 30 minutes reserve long before he started.

Daniel,

As the PIC YOU are responsible for knowing your aircraft's systems. If your aircraft does not have a fuel selector switch it is the your job to ensure that you never run one tank completely dry. It does not take an aeronautical engineer to figure that out. No one needs to hold your hand and tell you this. Know your systems or don't fly.

I still cannot get past the fact that you did a precautionary landing because you were low on fuel, but then took off again. It's a fool's game and you let yourself get suckered into it. I landed for fuel one night only to find out that the FBO was closed and fuel was not available. I could have taken off again in search of fuel. Instead I grabbed my pillow and blanket, and slept in the crew van for the night. Guess what? I arrived at home alive and am still able to fly that aircraft.

I know that you have no intention of learning from anyone on this forum. My advice for you is to give up flying. Do it for yourself. Do it for your wife.

-Jim
Click to expand...

Why would fuel flow stop if one tank was empty? Best source to learn how to operate your aircraft would be the POH. You need to look at some of these foreign made LSA POH's.
 
You landed when you ran out of fuel in one tank: Good move.
You took off without fuel in one tank: Bad move.
 
I truly hope you don't get a red cent **if that occurs I will be happy that the NTSB has a discussion with Flight Design as to why they did not follow through on the CAA order to warn CTSW drivers as they did for the European pilots.

for your idiotic decision to take off without fueling after landing and confirming you were low on fuel **again, I was in full compliance with all laws and rules. The amount of fuel was adequate but the plane suffered fuel starvation because of the secret and deadly design defect**
but I know enough of our broken legal system that it's possible you could be enough of an annoyance to warrant a settlement. **I've had 3 lawyers read the complaint and they all say that it has merit**
It's evident to most of the experienced flyers on this board that your attitude puts you at risk of more incidents that put yourself and others in danger **that is incorrect. Please read the complaint instead of take the word of some of these posters before you speak www.aspecialdayguide.com/bernathresume.htm
BUT, I must compliment you on actually using your true name unlike these internet heros

Over 1000 people have read the complaint and less than one half of one percent have sqwaked on this board.
As a lawyer, i am used to people not understanding the law and falling for the insurance company propaganda of a "broken legal system." When you get injured or someone you loves gets injured by a product where the manufacturer knew of the defect but decided to not tell you for fear that they would have to spend money, then I believe your opinion about obtaining compensation from the manufacturer will change.
 
Last edited:
bartmc said:
He took off with 30 min worth of fuel. He was illegal the second he departed.
You can't become illegal in the air after taking off legally.

He won't be discussing how much was left in the tanks.
Click to expand...

I was just pointing out some inconsistencies in how the rule had been explained in a couple of posts.
 
danielabernath said:
I still cannot get past the fact that you did a precautionary landing because you were low on fuel, but then took off again.

Again (and again) the fuel starvation occured NOT because there wasn't enough fuel. There was enough fuel for another half hour of flight. It was the design defect of the CTSW of which I was not warned and not instructed.
Please remember that ten or 12 CTSW's have crashed because one tank was empty and the other had 8 gallons (for one example).
Are all those pilots, stupid poo poo heads as well? Is the CAA stupid Poo Poo Heads because they ordered Flight Design to instruct pilots on the dangerous propensities of their CTSW and how to avoid dying?
I think some of these guys are putting me on.
Fuel was in the tank for another 30 minutes of flight.
Crash had nothing to do with the amount of fuel in the tank but with Flight Designs KNOWN TO THEM design defect. Simple.
Click to expand...

Good luck explaining to a jury how you landed due to fuel conserns, then departed without refueling in direct violation of a regulation written to protect against fuel exhaustion. Then more luck explaining to them how a ctsw won't fly with 8 gallons in one tank yet you managed to get one airborne with only 3.5.
 
ood luck explaining to a jury how you landed due to fuel conserns, then departed without refueling in direct violation of a regulation written to protect against fuel exhaustion. Then more luck explaining to them how a ctsw won't fly with 8 gallons in one tank yet you managed to get one airborne with only 3.5.

No problem.

Again, if I violated the FAR on having my driver license with me, did that somehow cause the airplane to crash? (I had my DR with me).
The airplane crashed because of fuel starvation which Flight Design knew about but refused to warn US pilots about. Ten to twelve CTSW's have crashed.
This is getting boring. A CTSW with 8 gallons in one tank crashed of fuel starvation. I've said it enough.

The lunatic fringe who are posting here who think that an aircraft manufacturer should not warn pilots of a design defect that could kill them and their wife? Is that what you're saying. Anyone, I'm bored. I've explained it all.
 
Last edited:
bartmc said:
Good luck explaining to a jury how you landed due to fuel conserns, then departed without refueling in direct violation of a regulation written to protect against fuel exhaustion. Then more luck explaining to them how a ctsw won't fly with 8 gallons in one tank yet you managed to get one airborne with only 3.5.
Click to expand...


Don't stop him now...:no:...

He is digging a deeper grave with every post...:):yes::D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top