Lawsuit Madness - OMG

Status
Not open for further replies.
Merits of the law suit aside, I have noticed significant differences between the C162 POH and European LSA POH's. One example being take off data. I have seen some POH's that just list take off distance on a standard day with no way to compute distance for other than non standard conditions.
 
  1. We're dealing with a lawyer, so there's no sense introducing logic into the argument. How could his extrordinary lack of judgement be his fault? Every lawyer knows, if you run out of fuel when you knew there was very little there to begin with is the fault of the manufacturer and CFI.:mad2:
  2. In his own post, he gives us the hyper-large text of the placard - MONITOR FUEL SIGHT GAUGES REGULARLY.
    BOTH GAUGES MUST SHOW SOME FUEL.
    LAND IF NO FUEL IS SEEN IN EITHER SIGHT GAUGE
    Then argues it says nothing about taking off. REALLY???
He's a danger to himself and everyone who flies anywhere near him. Deep down I was hoping this was just another troll, but trolls don't usually go through all the trouble of writing such a long complaint to back up their total lack of judgement. Let's just hope the jury has at least one ounce of intellegence and throws the case out. (But that's probably too much to hope for.)
 
What idiot takes off with insufficient fuel?
 
wanttaja said:
Five gallons an hour at cruise... how much of your short flight was at full power (e.g., takeoff)?

Half-gallon unusable in each tank, according to the manual. So you're down to 2 gallons at takeoff. 14 CFR Part 91 requires a half-hour reserve AT ARRIVAL, not at time of takeoff.

I am also curious as to how you established you had 3-4 gallons of fuel remaining before takeoff. You mention "your gauge," does this mean you used an unapproved tool to measure the fuel?

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

I believe FD provides a calibrated dip stick with left and right tank markings. I would assume such a tool would give usable fuel readings only.
 
Last edited:
vintage cessna said:
Merits of the law suit aside, I have noticed significant differences between the C162 POH and European LSA POH's. One example being take off data. I have seen some POH's that just list take off distance on a standard day with no way to compute distance for other than non standard conditions.
Click to expand...

They should all be off the runway in 1000ft, why bother people with the details ?

Some of the old Cessna booklets were like that. 'All operations of the aircraft are normal' is all the little flyer that came with a 150 back in the day used to say.
 
A Google search for "uneven fuel flow wing tanks" shows 7.3 Million hits. This isn't a secret. Almost every time I fly my CTsw, one side or the other is a gallon or two different. You can't fly a CT without knowing this. No big deal... unless you are down to your last gallon. In the LSA world, the CT has among the largest capacity for fuel, if not the largest. There is plenty of capacity so that you shouldn't have to worry about about the last couple of gallons.

When Flight Design created the CT, they had to decide: Fuel valve or no fuel valve. They decided that, considering the number of accidents related to poor fuel valve management, they would opt for no valve and live with the possibility of minor uneven fuel flow. The resulting system has worked well for the 1,800 or so flying Worldwide.

Site tubes and dip sticks are only accurate if the plane is in the exact right position. Few know the "right" position or take the time to figure it out. The rest of us assume it's close, but error on the side of safety.
 
Last edited:
weilke said:
They should all be off the runway in 1000ft, why bother people with the details ?

Some of the old Cessna booklets were like that. 'All operations of the aircraft are normal' is all the little flyer that came with a 150 back in the day used to say.
Click to expand...

Minimum fuel required for take off may be a "detail" worth mentioning.
 
vintage cessna said:
Minimum fuel required for take off may be a "detail" worth mentioning.
Click to expand...

The rulebook back in 1920 said 'no man shall take up the flying apparatus without having fuel on board', this is just so fundamental that it is sad it would have to be mentioned in a operating handbook.
 
Taking off with inadequate fuel reserves. And that is after LANDING SAFELY because of concerns about fuel starvation.

Not availing oneself of all information related to the flight - I would argue that not knowing the basics about the plane you're friggin' flying qualifies. The fuel flow issue is well know for this plane - as the plaintiff himself admits in his lawsuit.

Shoot, the guy tried to actively commit suicide, and did so knowingly and with intent. He failed in his mission so instead he's suing somebody else. Oh, the irony.
 
weilke said:
The rulebook back in 1920 said 'no man shall take up the flying apparatus without having fuel on board', this is just so fundamental that it is sad it would have to be mentioned in a operating handbook.
Click to expand...

Would I take off under the conditions described? No. But , if we are to believe what he said, that there was at least 3 gallons of usable fuel left and he experienced fuel exhaustion after three minutes of flight, then something is amiss.
 
vintage cessna said:
Would I take off under the conditions described? No. But , if we are to believe what he said, that there was at least 3 gallons of usable fuel left and he experienced fuel exhaustion after three minutes of flight, then something is amiss.
Click to expand...

Uncoordinated flight most likely.
 
weilke said:
The rulebook back in 1920 said 'no man shall take up the flying apparatus without having fuel on board', this is just so fundamental that it is sad it would have to be mentioned in a operating handbook.
Click to expand...

How would a powered aircraft get aloft without fuel on board?
 
Another weird thing. He mentioned it was a 6 minute flight. It takes 6 minutes just to enter a pattern and land. Is there such a thing as a 6 minute flight?
 
John221us said:
Another weird thing. He mentioned it was a 6 minute flight. It takes 6 minutes just to enter a pattern and land. Is there such a thing as a 6 minute flight?
Click to expand...

yes. well, it's more like a 5 minute flight, then 1 minute of best glide speed.
 
vintage cessna said:
Would I take off under the conditions described? No. But , if we are to believe what he said, that there was at least 3 gallons of usable fuel left and he experienced fuel exhaustion after three minutes of flight, then something is amiss.
Click to expand...

Yes, something is amiss. His aeronautical decision making is amiss.

He is not alone. This has been done before.
 
Re: Hello from Daniel A. Bernath, lawyer

danielabernath said:
www.aspecialdayguide.com/bernathresume.htm
Hello from Dan Bernath to the Community I am not permitted to speak to.
If any of you have any warning about fuel starvation when one CTSW tank is empty then please tell me where I, a light sport pilot, could find it.
I told you about my experience to save lives.

I told the people at ctflier about my lawsuit after Flight Design refused to negotiate.
Nobody, but you appears to have actually read the complaint.
I was flying in strong headwinds. I checked my fuel and from the sight guage had appx 4 gallons of fuel. I landed at a small airport at Sisters WHIPPET.
I got out of the plane and used my guage to check my fuel levels.
Left wing had nothing. Right wing had between 3 and 4 gallons.
Pilot at WHIPPET told me that Sisters had more fuel and was "six minutes" away.
Flight Design says that with 3 gallons I should at least 20 minutes of flying.
Then the event occured. I coasted for a few seconds and turned off the key. I then turned the key back on and it roared back but then stopped after about 3 seconds.
Flight Design knows about this design defect as it has been ordered by the British CAA to place the warning sign (that you see reproduced in my complaint). Flight Design has not warned its American pilots.
This is called negligence per se.
CTFlier will allow people to discuss me and this crash but has stopped me from even reading it on my usual computer. That seems rather un american,now doesn't it? Falsely state what I said in the complaint and then attack the straw man that you set up with false information.
Daniel A. Bernath 503 367 4204 in case you'd like to talk to me directly
Click to expand...

You took off with an empty tank and 3-4 gallons in the other? Dumb, but you survived. Most people would be embarrassed and call it a learning experience. Then you're going to sue? That's just asinine. What's the usable in a CTsw anyway? Looks like 2 gallons are unusable... You took off with 10 minutes fuel in strong winds? :lol:

No, it doesn't seem unamerican, unless the site is run by the government. Unfortunately, it's not unamerican to bring assanine frivolous lawsuits against companies due to a plaintiffs greed and/or own stupidity.

Let me guess, everyone is is wrong, except you?

You'd be the only pilot I know who looked at fuel gauges for anything other to see if they still work in some capacity.
 
vintage cessna said:
Would I take off under the conditions described? No. But , if we are to believe what he said, that there was at least 3 gallons of usable fuel left and he experienced fuel exhaustion after three minutes of flight, then something is amiss.
Click to expand...

I see no mention of the word "usable", I'm not sure this can be assumed,
 
Someone remind me, when is it that any fuel gauge is 'required' by regulation to be accurate?

'Gimp
 
Last edited:
AcroGimp said:
Someone remind me, when is it that any fuel gauge is 'required' by regulation to be accurate?

'Gimp
Click to expand...

THere is NO requirement for accuracy.

The only requirement is that E represents minimum usable fuel.
 
RotorAndWing said:
One that believes he will make out ($$$) in a lawsuit. :nonod:
Click to expand...

And with that money he will buy a fast, fancy airplane that will get far ahead of him and the next accident will kill him.

Projecting of blame is addressed in the Canadian Flight Instructor manual. It's not uncommon. If I were his instructor I would have been inclined to dismiss him from the school for his own safety and the safety of our airplanes.

The saddest thing is a life wasted because he can't accept responsibility.

Dan
 
John221us said:
Another weird thing. He mentioned it was a 6 minute flight. It takes 6 minutes just to enter a pattern and land. Is there such a thing as a 6 minute flight?
Click to expand...

He said he was going from OR34 to 6K5, which are 4.7 nm apart.

I bet dollars to donuts (or is that another thread?) that a few of the critics would, on seeing 3 to 4 gallons usable in a Rotax driven LSA, have also attempted the flight.

With respect to a civil lawsuit, I can't see the FAA regs being terribly useful to the defendants. Suppose the engine had seized up instead - would a takeoff with less than regulation fuel really have made the manufacturer less culpable? Not that I can see. Same logic but with fuel starvation while still having allegedly usable fuel.

The issue would be proving that he had the fuel he claimed he had on takeoff. If NTSB finds usable fuel in one of the tanks, then I suspect the fellow has some wind in his legal sails, and not just his own hot air.
 
In case anyone is interested, attached is a more readable copy of the complaint (though the photos posted to that website did not reproduce well in the document).

Mr. Bernath, you have quite a resume. Thank you for your service. I'm very sorry about your accident. You should seek professionally detached legal counsel and representation. You know better than to argue your case a forum like this.
 

Attachments

  • DABernath Complaint 13cv1778 DOr.pdf
    773.1 KB · Views: 80
Jim Logajan said:
He said he was going from OR34 to 6K5, which are 4.7 nm apart.

I bet dollars to donuts (or is that another thread?) that a few of the critics would, on seeing 3 to 4 gallons usable in a Rotax driven LSA, have also attempted the flight.

With respect to a civil lawsuit, I can't see the FAA regs being terribly useful to the defendants. Suppose the engine had seized up instead - would a takeoff with less than regulation fuel really have made the manufacturer less culpable? Not that I can see. Same logic but with fuel starvation while still having allegedly usable fuel.

The issue would be proving that he had the fuel he claimed he had on takeoff. If NTSB finds usable fuel in one of the tanks, then I suspect the fellow has some wind in his legal sails, and not just his own hot air.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but I guarantee that I would be slipping the whole way with wing that had fuel in it a bit high or transferred some fuel across. Actually, I would have landed at an airport that indicated services on the chart before I couldn't see fuel in the sight glasses.
 
CT4ME said:
A Google search for "uneven fuel flow wing tanks" shows 7.3 Million hits. This isn't a secret. Almost every time I fly my CTsw, one side or the other is a gallon or two different. You can't fly a CT without knowing this. No big deal... unless you are down to your last gallon. In the LSA world, the CT has among the largest capacity for fuel, if not the largest. There is plenty of capacity so that you shouldn't have to worry about about the last couple of gallons.

When Flight Design created the CT, they had to decide: Fuel valve or no fuel valve. They decided that, considering the number of accidents related to poor fuel valve management, they would opt for no valve and live with the possibility of minor uneven fuel flow. The resulting system has worked well for the 1,800 or so flying Worldwide.

Site tubes and dip sticks are only accurate if the plane is in the exact right position. Few know the "right" position or take the time to figure it out. The rest of us assume it's close, but error on the side of safety.
Click to expand...
My 182 has the same amount of fuel in both times only when they are both full. After that they drain at different rates and one(typically the right has less fuel in it) until I fill them up again. I fly on both tanks always, and even with the crossfeed one tank is typically less. However, I do not see how this situation could lead to a fuel exhaustion situation if one is carefully monitoring their fuel resources. The occurance of fuel exhaustion in this case seems to me to be more of a piloting defect than a manufacturing defect.
 
Is this guy better or worse to society than freeloading welfare folks? I'm serious here. I submit, as a member of society I'd rather carry the lazy than scum like Mr. sue the world for me being stupid. Has to be cheaper, right?
 
Captain said:
Is this guy better or worse to society than freeloading welfare folks? I'm serious here. I submit, as a member of society I'd rather carry the lazy than scum like Mr. sue the world for me being stupid. Has to be cheaper, right?
Click to expand...
Yes, because at the end of the day someone has to pay for defending these frivilous lawsuits which is the consumer of the product. Though I think we should put welfare folks to work doing something for the money the government gives them.
 
His complaint includes a picture of a fuel cap, what is that object protruding from the cap?
 
1. Special damages of $94,000,
2. General Damages of $1,ooo,ooo,
3· Punitivedamagesof$8,750,000,
4. Triple damages of $282,000 for unfair business practices,
s. Attorney fees,
6. Prejudgmentinterest, 6. Costsofsuit,
Click to expand...

That's an interesting figure, all in all over $10,000,000 for failing to engage his own brain. He should sue himself for failure to think as well.
 
Btw, we're being trolled right? This isn't real is it? I mean, OP brings up the case of a retard suing for his own stupidity and then the exact same retard shows up with a new account and makes his first posts? That can't really happen can it?
 
I was put on jury duty for a civil lawsuit for three weeks. The first day all the jurors knew the lawsuit was stupid, but we had to sit through three weeks of trial and deny the guy $57 million. I ended up loosing around $300 on transportation and food. This guy is selfish and doesn't care about other peoples time or money.
 
Captain said:
Btw, we're being trolled right? This isn't real is it? I mean, OP brings up the case of a retard suing for his own stupidity and then the exact same retard shows up with a new account and makes his first posts? That can't really happen can it?
Click to expand...

The complaint was filed an docketed in Federal District Court, Oregon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top