Lawsuit Madness - OMG

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by danielabernath View Post
dismiss your complaint, (sure, hand me a check)
Thanks for clarifying your real motives.
__________________
Sky Arrow 600 E-LSA - N467SA
Home Base - Copperhill, TN (1A3)

You can hand me a check too. So, if the life or death of American pilots doesn't move Flight Design to act ethically and obey the law then only thing that will convince them to act ethically is pay. I sue today so some other CTSW pilot's widow doesn't sue later.
 
danielabernath said:
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.
Click to expand...

No you haven't. Tell us how much fuel was in the tank AFTER your forced landing. How are you going to prove you didn't run out of fuel if you can't prove how much fuel was in the tank AFTER the forced landing?
 
danielabernath said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes but the FAR you busted was to prevent what you wound up doing.
 
danielabernath said:
Originally Posted by danielabernath View Post
dismiss your complaint, (sure, hand me a check)
Thanks for clarifying your real motives.
__________________
Sky Arrow 600 E-LSA - N467SA
Home Base - Copperhill, TN (1A3)

You can hand me a check too. So, if the life or death of American pilots doesn't move Flight Design to act ethically and obey the law then only thing that will convince them to act ethically is pay. I sue today so some other CTSW pilot's widow doesn't sue later.
Click to expand...

Noble
 
Yes but the FAR you busted was to prevent what you wound up doing.
Aircraft had fuel.

I sue today so some other CTSW pilot's widow (AND HIS CHILDREN, AND HIS PASSENGER'S WIDOW), doesn't sue later.
 
danielabernath said:
Yes but the FAR you busted was to prevent what you wound up doing.
Aircraft had fuel.
Click to expand...

Not the legally required minimum amount (enough to reach destination + 30 minutes).

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
 
Not the legally required minimum amount (enough to reach destination + 30 minutes).

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
1. Had enough fuel to meet the regulation as you mentioned.
2. Even if what you speculate was true (it isn't), it is irrelevant to the design defect, failure to warn and failure to instruct by Flight Design which caused thehne fuel starvation,
3. Don't type messages on your cell phone as you drive. You're going to cause a deadly collision and I might be hired by your victims. (and their families)
 
danielabernath said:
Does anyone have a link to his complaint? www.aspecialdayguide.com/bernathresume.htm
Click to expand...

Yeah, I read it. Your only evidence offered that you had ample fuel when the engine quit is the fuel stain on the wing, allegedly caused by fuel being forced through the vent due to impact. Are we to assume that inspection of the tank revealed no usable fuel remaining but that can be explained by the fuel loss through the vent?
 
What if we assumed that a pilot suffered this fuel starvation and turned the key off. Then waited 5 seconds or so and then turned the engine back on and the engine roared back to life for 3 to 5 seconds and then stopped again.
What does that mean if we assume that for hypothetical purposes?
 
danielabernath said:
Not the legally required minimum amount (enough to reach destination + 30 minutes).

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
1. Had enough fuel to meet the regulation as you mentioned.
2. Even if what you speculate was true (it isn't), it is irrelevant to the design defect, failure to warn and failure to instruct by Flight Design which caused thehne fuel starvation,
3. Don't type messages on your cell phone as you drive. You're going to cause a deadly collision and I might be hired by your victims. (and their families)
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm sitting at my house typing this, but thanks for your concern. And per the information you have given earlier, you had only 30 minutes fuel remaining before you ever took off. Even a brain dead lawyer such as yourself can see that doesn't add up to destination + 30.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
 
danielabernath said:
What if we assumed that a pilot suffered this fuel starvation and turned the key off. Then waited 5 seconds or so and then turned the engine back on and the engine roared back to life for 3 to 5 seconds and then stopped again.
Click to expand...

Got any VERIFIABLE proof by another human or a data logging device that actually happened ....:dunno::dunno:...
 
danielabernath said:
What if we assumed that a pilot suffered this fuel starvation and turned the key off. Then waited 5 seconds or so and then turned the engine back on and the engine roared back to life for 3 to 5 seconds and then stopped again.
What does that mean if we assume that for hypothetical purposes?
Click to expand...

Could be drinking water.
 
danielabernath said:
What if we assumed that a pilot suffered this fuel starvation and turned the key off. Then waited 5 seconds or so and then turned the engine back on and the engine roared back to life for 3 to 5 seconds and then stopped again.
What does that mean if we assume that for hypothetical purposes?
Click to expand...

That you sucked air into your fuel line.
 
danielabernath said:
What if we assumed that a pilot suffered this fuel starvation and turned the key off. Then waited 5 seconds or so and then turned the engine back on and the engine roared back to life for 3 to 5 seconds and then stopped again.
What does that mean if we assume that for hypothetical purposes?
Click to expand...

Were you running Mogas with ethanol?
 
danielabernath said:
What if we assumed that a pilot suffered this fuel starvation and turned the key off. Then waited 5 seconds or so and then turned the engine back on and the engine roared back to life for 3 to 5 seconds and then stopped again.
What does that mean if we assume that for hypothetical purposes?
Click to expand...

The fuel unported due to uncoordinated flight aggravating the low fuel situation.

Then coordinated flight was reestablished (or he got uncoordinated in the opposite direction) temporarily rectifying the unported fuel issue.
 
danielabernath said:
What if we assumed that a pilot suffered this fuel starvation and turned the key off. Then waited 5 seconds or so and then turned the engine back on and the engine roared back to life for 3 to 5 seconds and then stopped again.
What does that mean if we assume that for hypothetical purposes?
Click to expand...

It might also mean you ran out of fuel because you decided to knowingly takeoff without enough to get there, and then you and your jostling self found another 1/2 teaspoon worth in your float bowl.

Pure gold.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielabernath View Post
What if we assumed that a pilot suffered this fuel starvation and turned the key off. Then waited 5 seconds or so and then turned the engine back on and the engine roared back to life for 3 to 5 seconds and then stopped again.
What does that mean if we assume that for hypothetical purposes?
That you sucked air into your fuel line.

Interesting. Eh? any real experts on fuel systems and not just internet giants?
internet-expert.jpg
 
danielabernath said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielabernath View Post
What if we assumed that a pilot suffered this fuel starvation and turned the key off. Then waited 5 seconds or so and then turned the engine back on and the engine roared back to life for 3 to 5 seconds and then stopped again.
What does that mean if we assume that for hypothetical purposes?
That you sucked air into your fuel line.

Interesting. Eh? any real experts on fuel systems and not just internet giants?
internet-expert.jpg
Click to expand...

It seems that three of us that replied seriously to your post all agreed "sucked air" and one other guy said "water" AKA "Not gas"

Ever had a car/motorcycle/lawnmower run out of gas going uphill or downhill then start again when on flat ground..... THAT.
 
The fuel unported due to uncoordinated flight aggravating the low fuel situation.

Then coordinated flight was reestablished (or he got uncoordinated in the opposite direction) temporarily rectifying the unported fuel issue.

You are adding facts to the hypothetical. Assume that at no time was pilot uncoordinated but did have his nose down. (Flight Design CTSW's have crashed from fuel starvation in the very common flight heading of aircraft nose down...read the complaint www.aspecialdayguide.com/bernathresume.htm )
 
danielabernath said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielabernath View Post
What if we assumed that a pilot suffered this fuel starvation and turned the key off. Then waited 5 seconds or so and then turned the engine back on and the engine roared back to life for 3 to 5 seconds and then stopped again.
What does that mean if we assume that for hypothetical purposes?
That you sucked air into your fuel line.

Interesting. Eh? any real experts on fuel systems and not just internet giants?
internet-expert.jpg
Click to expand...

Hey, I for one don't think you should suffer fuel starvation if there is still 2 or 3 gallons usable remaining. But you refuse to say what the post accident inspection of the fuel tank revealed. What happened to other CT's is not relevant to your case if you don't have any evidence that there was ample fuel.
 
Ever had a car/motorcycle/lawnmower run out of gas going uphill or downhill then start again when on flat ground
A judge would not permit you to testify in comparing your expertise with a lawn mower/motorcycle, etc.
Do we have any REAL experts on fuel systems?
 
Hey, I for one don't think you should suffer fuel starvation if there is still 2 or 3 gallons usable remaining

Upon what facts, experience, study do you base this bold statement?
 
danielabernath said:
The fuel unported due to uncoordinated flight aggravating the low fuel situation.

Then coordinated flight was reestablished (or he got uncoordinated in the opposite direction) temporarily rectifying the unported fuel issue.

You are adding facts to the hypothetical. Assume that at no time was pilot uncoordinated but did have his nose down. (Flight Design CTSW's have crashed from fuel starvation in the very common flight heading of aircraft nose down...read the complaint www.aspecialdayguide.com/bernathresume.htm )
Click to expand...

OK, nose down situation aggravated the low fuel situation, momentarily distracted, the plane leveled off temporarily rectifying the unported fuel.

Those dumb folks at the FAA have actually (believe it or not) thought about this scenario, since fuel sloshes all around in the fuel tanks when the plane is in flight. They even did something better than a placard, they created a regulation for it. I believe it's FAR 91.151.

Read the regs http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_91-151.html
 
danielabernath said:
Hey, I for one don't think you should suffer fuel starvation if there is still 2 or 3 gallons usable remaining

Upon what facts, experience, study do you base this bold statement?
Click to expand...

You're not even smart enough to realize that statement is favorable to you?
 
danielabernath said:
Ever had a car/motorcycle/lawnmower run out of gas going uphill or downhill then start again when on flat ground
A judge would not permit you to testify in comparing your expertise with a lawn mower/motorcycle, etc.
Do we have any REAL experts on fuel systems?
Click to expand...

Are you or anyone else going to testify what the post accident inspection of the fuel tanks revealed? Or , is the picture of the fuel stains on the wing your only proof of ample fuel?
 
danielabernath said:
Ever had a car/motorcycle/lawnmower run out of gas going uphill or downhill then start again when on flat ground
A judge would not permit you to testify in comparing your expertise with a lawn mower/motorcycle, etc.
Do we have any REAL experts on fuel systems?
Click to expand...

I was just trying to break down combustion engines and fuel systems to something you might be capable of operating, though good point, it's probably not relevant.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielabernath View Post
The fuel unported due to uncoordinated flight aggravating the low fuel situation.

Then coordinated flight was reestablished (or he got uncoordinated in the opposite direction) temporarily rectifying the unported fuel issue.

You are adding facts to the hypothetical. Assume that at no time was pilot uncoordinated but did have his nose down. (Flight Design CTSW's have crashed from fuel starvation in the very common flight heading of aircraft nose down...read the complaint www.aspecialdayguide.com/bernathresume.htm )
OK, nose down situation aggravated the low fuel situation, momentarily distracted, the plane leveled off temporarily rectifying the unported fuel.

Those dumb folks at the FAA have actually (believe it or not) thought about this scenario, since fuel sloshes all around in the fuel tanks when the plane is in flight. They even did something better than a placard, they created a regulation for it. I believe it's FAR 91.151.

Read the regs http://www.flightsimaviation.com/dat...rt_91-151.html
Not the facts of the hypothetical. 3.5 gallons to 4 gallons of fuel. 4 to 5 minutes into flight. Engine stops. turn off key. turn on key, engine roars back and then stops.
Those are the facts of the hypothetical.
 
Are you or anyone else going to testify what the post accident inspection of the fuel tanks revealed? Or , is the picture of the fuel stains on the wing your only proof of ample fuel?

I checked using the fuel tube guage and the fuel tin stick a few minutes earlier. The picture shows that fuel splashed all over the starboard wing through the little vent hole. Cap was on tight so that the port faced forward.

I'm going to bed as with all this internet excitment...
I will make a bet. We shall travel to Redmond Oregon and I will pay you $10,000 for each gallon of fuel that we drain from the tank. 503 367 4204 call me and I'll pick you up from the airport.

img4.jpg
 
Last edited:
danielabernath said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielabernath View Post
The fuel unported due to uncoordinated flight aggravating the low fuel situation.

Then coordinated flight was reestablished (or he got uncoordinated in the opposite direction) temporarily rectifying the unported fuel issue.

You are adding facts to the hypothetical. Assume that at no time was pilot uncoordinated but did have his nose down. (Flight Design CTSW's have crashed from fuel starvation in the very common flight heading of aircraft nose down...read the complaint www.aspecialdayguide.com/bernathresume.htm )
OK, nose down situation aggravated the low fuel situation, momentarily distracted, the plane leveled off temporarily rectifying the unported fuel.

Those dumb folks at the FAA have actually (believe it or not) thought about this scenario, since fuel sloshes all around in the fuel tanks when the plane is in flight. They even did something better than a placard, they created a regulation for it. I believe it's FAR 91.151.

Read the regs http://www.flightsimaviation.com/dat...rt_91-151.html
Not the facts of the hypothetical. 3.5 gallons to 4 gallons of fuel. 4 to 5 minutes into flight. Engine stops. turn off key. turn on key, engine roars back and then stops.
Those are the facts of the hypothetical.
Click to expand...

Does 3.5 gallons at take off give you a 30-minute fuel reserve after reaching your destination? Yes or no.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
 
I have 30 years experience in fuel systems operating with carburetors and fuel injection as a technician and engineer. FD has already received my offer to provide complimentary expert testimony (I have been classified as an expert in multiple court jurisdictions) to refute your allegations.
 
danielabernath said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielabernath View Post
The fuel unported due to uncoordinated flight aggravating the low fuel situation.

Then coordinated flight was reestablished (or he got uncoordinated in the opposite direction) temporarily rectifying the unported fuel issue.

You are adding facts to the hypothetical. Assume that at no time was pilot uncoordinated but did have his nose down. (Flight Design CTSW's have crashed from fuel starvation in the very common flight heading of aircraft nose down...read the complaint www.aspecialdayguide.com/bernathresume.htm )
OK, nose down situation aggravated the low fuel situation, momentarily distracted, the plane leveled off temporarily rectifying the unported fuel.

Those dumb folks at the FAA have actually (believe it or not) thought about this scenario, since fuel sloshes all around in the fuel tanks when the plane is in flight. They even did something better than a placard, they created a regulation for it. I believe it's FAR 91.151.

Read the regs http://www.flightsimaviation.com/dat...rt_91-151.html
Not the facts of the hypothetical. 3.5 gallons to 4 gallons of fuel. 4 to 5 minutes into flight. Engine stops. turn off key. turn on key, engine roars back and then stops.
Those are the facts of the hypothetical.
Click to expand...

Are you getting what I've been asking you, or are you avoiding the question?What fuel you claim to have prior to take off won't make your case. What will make your case is some evidence, post accident that you had ample fuel. Why won't you say what the post accident inspection of your fuel tanks revealed? The fuel tanks didn't rupture, did they?
 
Does 3.5 gallons at take off give you a 30-minute fuel reserve after reaching your destination? Yes or no.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Great Scott, stop texting while you're driving!?
Read the POH. 2 lawyers have reviewed this and are confident that I was fully in compliance with all rules and regulations.
 
danielabernath said:
Does 3.5 gallons at take off give you a 30-minute fuel reserve after reaching your destination? Yes or no.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Great Scott, stop texting while you're driving!?
Read the POH.
Click to expand...

Not driving, idiot. Answer the questions that are asked of you.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
 
danielabernath said:
I'm going to bed as with all this internet excitment...
I will make a bet. We shall travel to Redmond Oregon and I will pay you $10,000 for each gallon of fuel that we drain from the tank. 503 367 4204 call me and I'll pick you up from the airport.
Click to expand...
Wait, you want me to fly to Oregon so you can pay me nothing? I'll have to pass on that offer.
 
cheap weenie said:
Not driving, idiot. Answer the questions that are asked of you.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
ANSWER THE QUESTION! Why should I type to you if it will cause an accident. I could be held liable for your negligence!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top