Lawsuit Madness - OMG

Status
Not open for further replies.
You can't hurt the image of GA, this guy IS the image of GA as the general population views it anyway.
 
nofuel.jpg
 
With interconnected tanks, the unusable for both tanks has to be applied to the total fuel available. According to his own statements, he took off with between 2 and 3 gallons useable.
 
1. Why do you assume that I did any maneuver?
2. Why do you assume that I was doing a sideslip, turn or anything other than straight and level flight?
Did you read the complaint where the UK pilot had nearly full fuel in one tank and empty in the other and crashed?
If you had read the complaint instead of read what other people said of the complaint, would it change your expert opinion?

Federal Rules of Evidence RULE 705. DISCLOSING THE FACTS OR DATA UNDERLYING AN EXPERT’S OPINION

Unless the court orders otherwise, an expert may state an opinion — and give the reasons for it — without first testifying to the underlying facts or data. But the expert may be required to disclose those facts or data on cross-examination.
 
Last edited:
please don't feed the trolls.
 
Thanks for the advise to not feed the trolls but this is useful. I know Flight Design-defect, will be using all these same arguments and I will be quite armed to deflect them one by one.

All trolling aside...

Please, again, if you fly a Flight Design CTSW or know someone who does, save some lives here and tell him about the CAA order to Flight Design to place this in all the british CTSW's:

MONITOR FUEL SIGHT GAUGES REGULARLY.
BOTH GAUGES MUST SHOW SOME FUEL.
LAND IF NO FUEL IS SEEN IN EITHER SIGHT GAUGE.

I've even made it big enough so that you can print out this page and scotch tape it into your cockpit of your deadly Flight Design CTSW-defect.

No such warning in the American Flight Design-defect CTSW.

Now, in contrast, looking to the Cessna 162:

Sec. 2.1 of Skycatcher
POH
WARNING
TAKEOFF IS PROHIBITED IF EITHER SIGHT GAGE
INDICATES LESS THAN 1/4 TANK OF FUEL OR FUEL
LEVEL IS BELOW THE BOTTOM OF THE FUEL
INDICATOR TAB.

Two other lawyers have stated this is a clear case of products liability, failure to warn and failure to instruct, among other things. (and they arn't as colorful as me, by the way).
 
Last edited:
21. US Pilot’s CTSW engine suffers fuel starvation: NASA report Narrative: aircraft CTSW NASA ASRS Report 739488, May 2007 I kept climbing until I knew I was power off gliding distance from the runway. At that point I closed the throttle again and the engine not only lost power but came to a complete stop. (Not wind-milling anymore.) Left tank of the flight design was empty. Right tank had 8 gals. This is a 31.5 gal system so we are saying that one quarter of the total fuel was still on board the aircraft. The ct flight design burns 4-5 gph. So I should have been good for at least another hour and a half. Also there is no option for switching tanks with a fuel selector and there is no auxiliary fuel pump like you have on most other GA aircraft. The only conclusion we could come up with logically was fuel starvation in the left tank and no options to access the fuel in the right tank.
 
danielabernath said:
1. Why do you assume that I did any maneuver?
2. Why do you assume that I was doing a sideslip, turn or anything other than straight and level flight?
Did you read the complaint where the UK pilot had nearly full fuel in one tank and empty in the other and crashed?
If you had read the complaint would instead of read what other people said of the complaint, would it change your expert opinion?
Click to expand...

This exemplifies my problem with the Sport Pilot rating, people just aren't understanding the fundamentals of the ADM process, and obviously it's not just here, the guy in the UK obviously didn't understand that he had a major system malfunction that would only allow him to access half of his fuel, even though he watched one tank empty while the other stayed full.

To you Daniel I will ask, did you try to stand on the rudder into a bit of a skid to hold the wing with fuel high so it would assure that the fuel covered the pick up port?
 
danielabernath said:
Thanks for the advise to not feed the trolls but this is useful. I know Flight Design-defect, will be using all these same arguments and I will be quite armed to deflect them one by one.

All trolling aside...

Please, again, if you fly a Flight Design CTSW or know someone who does, save some lives here and tell him about the CAA order to Flight Design to place this in all the british CTSW's:

MONITOR FUEL SIGHT GAUGES REGULARLY.
BOTH GAUGES MUST SHOW SOME FUEL.
LAND IF NO FUEL IS SEEN IN EITHER SIGHT GAUGE.

I've even made it big enough so that you can print out this page and scotch tape it into your cockpit of your deadly Flight Design CTSW-defect.
Click to expand...
Then why did you take off with one tank empty? Clearly it violates what you just posted? You really must start to think for yourself. If you are cheap and lazy of thought and effort, aviation will kill you. Even if you win this suit, if you do not change your mindset, you will die a multi millionaire in the not too distant future.
 
I will leave you with some assumptions.
Flight from WHIPPET to SISTERS is due west and could take 5 minutes.
Assume for discussion that there was no maneuvering other than climb.
Assume that Flight Design knew that there was a defect, (that it corrected in 2008 with the CTLS), so that planes with 8 gallons of fuel in one tank but empty in the other would stop engine.
Assume that if you are about 1000 feet or so over terrain that you may not have time to stand on a rudder as the engine stops.
Assume that FD made a conscious decision to hide the fact of this deadly design defect to help sales and lawsuits for a defective product, attempted to keep it a secret from their biggest market-the American pilots.
Assume those things. Assume for purposes of this that all facts in the complaint are true.
Once again, I'm done here. Thanks for the people who pointed out that the Cessna company warned pilots but to save .50 cents, Flight Design didn't bother and their CTSW Flight Design-defect planes are crashing/falling out of the sky.
Assume that CTSW pilots will now sue Flight Design-defect for breach of warranty for a particular purpose, warranty of merchantability at least and recover what the CTSW with defects is worth, compared to what they paid. (taking as evidence Flight Designs abandonment of the CTSW fuel design in 2008 to build the CTLS)
Discuss.
 
Last edited:
danielabernath said:
Assume that Flight Design knew that there was a defect, (that it corrected in 2008 with the CTLS), so that planes with 8 gallons of fuel in one tank but empty in the other would stop engine.

Assume that if you are about 1000 feet or so over terrain that you may not have time to stand on a rudder as the engine stops.
Discuss.
Click to expand...

1) All engines will stop if they start sucking air instead of fuel. You are required to be familiar with the systems in any aircraft you are flying.

2) Stand on a rudder?:confused: WTH would you do that?

3) You forgot to mention that buying a LSA magically relieves the pilot of PIC responsibility and always looking out for the safety of the flight- including emergencies. In other words- WHY, WHY would you be 1000ft over terrain and NOT instantly ready to react in case of: engine stop, downdraft, rotors, CFIs, etc...?
 
danielabernath said:
I will leave you with some assumptions.
Flight from WHIPPET to SISTERS is due west and could take 5 minutes.
Assume for discussion that there was no maneuvering other than climb.
Assume that Flight Design knew that there was a defect, (that it corrected in 2008 with the CTLS), so that planes with 8 gallons of fuel in one tank but empty in the other would stop engine.
Assume that if you are about 1000 feet or so over terrain that you may not have time to stand on a rudder as the engine stops.
Assume that FD made a conscious decision to hide the fact of this deadly design defect to help sales and lawsuits for a defective product, attempted to keep it a secret from their biggest market-the American pilots.
Assume those things. Assume for purposes of this that all facts in the complaint are true.
Once again, I'm done here. Thanks for the people who pointed out that the Cessna company warned pilots but to save .50 cents, Flight Design didn't bother and their CTSW Flight Design-defect planes are crashing/falling out of the sky.
Assume that CTSW pilots will now sue Flight Design-defect for breach of warranty for a particular purpose, warranty of merchantability at least and recover what the CTSW with defects is worth, compared to what they paid. (taking as evidence Flight Designs abandonment of the CTSW fuel design in 2008 to build the CTLS)
Discuss.
Click to expand...

At 1000' you will have approximately a mile and a half of glide range minimum. Figuring a best glide speed of 65 or so you will have about a minute and a half to step on the rudder. Since you already knew which tank was empty and which had fuel in it and understood that the fuel pickup is on the wing root side of the tank, from the time the fuel unported and the engine died, it should have taken about 1 second for you to step on the rudder and another 3-5 seconds for the engine to come back to life. Now, one thing I know is that you fly with your feet inactive. How do I know this? That is why the fuel unported, you were uncoordinated. You know why the engine came back to life and then died again? Because as soon as the engine shut down, the prop effects disappeared and the fuel ported again and refilled the fuel system until the engine came to life and the prop effects left un countered caused an uncoordinated condition again which unported the fuel. You also failed to educate yourself, a quick Google search turns up millions of hits, so no matter how much CT tried to 'hide this problem' it was far from obfuscated. Caveat Emptor my good sir.

Spend some of that money on some more training before you kill yourself.
 
Last edited:
Daniel,
Do you need a warning placard to tell you not to drink the contents from your gascolator?

Uneven fuel flow in dual-wing-tank systems is not a “deadly defect” or even a defect. It is just the nature of the design. You saw that every time you fueled your bird. Did it ever take the exact same amount of fuel on each side? As far as banking, and slosh goes, even a 4 year-old knows they won’t get the last bit of a milkshake with the cup tilted away from their straw.
As far as determining how much fuel you had, you know the fuel dip-stick accuracy is only close, at best. How the airplane sits on the ground can affect the reading dramatically, up or down. Do you need a placard for that, too?

In an attempt to avoid minor embarrassment and inconvenience, you decided to take off knowing you were at risk of running out of fuel. Now you’ve embarrassed yourself 1,000 times worse through your litigious actions. I understand embarrassment is an internal thing, and I have a feeling you don’t feel embarrassment easily. I can easily say you’ve embarrassed most pilots. And lawyers.

It's very sad that you've decided to "help" other pilots through a frivolous lawsuit. Most other pilots would have gotten on forums and related their experience. Of course, you would have found that the issue of dual wing tank fuel feeding has been discussed at length.

Your "help" will do nothing but hurt people and make aviation more expensive. The economy has most of the aviation industry hanging by a thread. I'm sure Flight Design is struggling to keep the doors open. Your "help" could close them and leave hundreds of CT flyers in the lurch. Other companies will bow out, fearing the wrath of a frivolous lawsuit.

The honorable thing to do would be to drop the lawsuit, apologize for the over-reaction, and hope Flight Design doesn’t sue you for besmirching their reputation.

Apparently you've lost your love of flying, because if you continue with this lawsuit, you won't find anybody to sell you a plane, rent you a plane, work on your plane, insure you, or fly with you.
 
Assume that I was not uncoordinated in flight, not manuevering, and like the man who 8 gallons in his right tank and zero in his left tank but the engine stopped.

Without much work I located about EIGHT pilots were just as educated about this design defect of Flight Design and their planes went down or their CTSW engine went out.

Failure to warn. Failure to instruct. These are well respected torts and it is a pity that the 50 state legislatures that passed these laws are in disagreement with you.

I am sure that I have saved lives by bringing this deadly design Defect CTSW Flight Design to the attention of pilots.
 
Last edited:
danielabernath said:
Assume that it was 400 feet to less than 1000 feet.
Click to expand...

Still could have ported the fuel back up and finished the flight if you understood they dynamics involved. It was the lack of holding coordinated flight that was the final link in your accident chain. I've spent half my flying career working below 100', I've always had time to react to problems.
 
Just for general reference, he is not a Troll. He is a bad attorney (a good one wouldn't discuss ongoing litigation in public), and a poor pilot, but he truly believes that he is right. It makes him uninformed , stubborn and annoying, but not a Troll.
 
I'm not going to comment any further because I gave you'all assumptions to assume. I also expect that you would actually read the Complaint as it is fact based with Flight Design's knowledge of the defect, and their being ordered to inform UK pilots and their refusal to warn us Yankees.
You can make all the ad hominem attacks on me that you wish but you'll also have to make those same personal attacks on all the other light sport pilots who have been victims of Flight Designs design defect, failure to warn and failure to instruct.
I saved lives here. And you?
Over and Out.
 
danielabernath said:
I'm not going to comment any further because I gave you'all assumptions to assume. I also expect that you would actually read the Complaint as it is fact based with Flight Design's knowledge of the defect, and their being ordered to inform UK pilots and their refusal to warn us Yankees.
You can make all the ad hominem attacks on me that you wish but you'll also have to make those same personal attacks on all the other light sport pilots who have been victims of Flight Designs design defect, failure to warn and failure to instruct.
Over and Out.
Click to expand...

I really don't care about the suit, it's of no concern to me, if you succeed in getting the US planes placarded, that would be fine, however even the $10MM won't solve the real problem and that is your personal lack of knowledge.

That is what I'm trying to fill in here for you, what you could have done to break the accident chain. You had several opportunities where you failed to make the correct decision, at any point all the way to the ground you had the opportunity to save it but you didn't. Your lack of knowledge goes all the way to the last line of your response above. "Over and Out" is a line from a Movie, in reality they are contradictory. Over means you are waiting for a response in a dialogue, Out means the dialogue is complete.

You assume you know far more than you do, and you are accepting no fault in this accident which is one part another's failure, and 5 parts your failure. Rather than wanting to learn from this accident how you could improve, you want others to improve you. If there is anything you should have learned is that your improvement is incumbent on you alone.
 
Last edited:
danielabernath said:
You can make all the ad hominem attacks on me that you wish but you'll also have to make those same personal attacks on all the other light sport pilots who have been victims of Flight Designs design defect, failure to warn and failure to instruct.
Click to expand...

What I stated about your skill as a pilot and attorney is factual and as such not an ad-hominem attack.

I saved lives here. And you?
Click to expand...

About two that I can claim this week.
 
If this was the UK then you'd have a valid lawsuit. This isn't the UK and certification standards are different. Just because the CAA thought a warning was justified doesn't mean the FAA thinks the same. You do realize there are many differences in the way the FAA with FARs and CAA with JARs and others operate. I suggest you try and sue the FAA for not mandating a useless placard. I don't think that will go over well since the FARs you violated trump any placard applicability.

You've done nothing to help other pilots or contribute to aviation. If you truly cared about pilots and safety in aviation then you would submit a change to the FAA to mandate the pointless warning. Instead, all you've done is stumble upon a certification difference between the U.S. and the U.K. and now you're trying to exploit it as a loop hole in attempt to make a buck. If you are awarded any money as a result of your frivolous lawsuit, all it will is hurt the LSA industry and those of us who are safe pilots and comply with the FARs.
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
You've done nothing to help other pilots or contribute to aviation. If you truly cared about pilots and safety in aviation then you would submit a change to the FAA to mandate the pointless warning.
Click to expand...

If he wanted to contribute to aviation, he would talk to anyone who would listen about his screw-up.

I took off with an empty tank. I ran out of fuel. Dont do what I did.
 
danielabernath said:
Assume that I was not uncoordinated in flight, not manuevering, and like the man who 8 gallons in his right tank and zero in his left tank but the engine stopped.
Click to expand...

You want us to assume that a fuel line was plugged?

You want us to assume that you weren't flying one wing a little low?

You want us to assume the unlikely?

Given the facts as stated, it is quite reasonable to assume that you were flying with the one wing just a liittle low which caused one tank to go dry and the other tank to not supply the last little bit of fuel that was left.

I am sure that I have saved lives by bringing this deadly design Defect CTSW Flight Design to the attention of pilots.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't assume that at all.

Now, you say there is a design defect that somehow causes the engine to qiuit. What is the defect? Can you articulate how the design went wrong? How should it have been designed differently?
 
I took off with an empty tank. I ran out of fuel. Dont do what I did.
Click to expand...
Student pilot here, but that sure seems to sum it up.
 
danielabernath said:
Assume that I was not uncoordinated in flight, not manuevering, and like the man who 8 gallons in his right tank and zero in his left tank but the engine stopped.

Without much work I located about EIGHT pilots were just as educated about this design defect of Flight Design and their planes went down or their CTSW engine went out.

Failure to warn. Failure to instruct. These are well respected torts and it is a pity that the 50 state legislatures that passed these laws are in disagreement with you.

I am sure that I have saved lives by bringing this deadly design Defect CTSW Flight Design to the attention of pilots.
Click to expand...

The guy with the full tank in one wing, empty in the other had an obstruction issue, that is an occurrence, not a defect.

That you found eight others ignorant of how their fuel system works and what various anomalous indications indicate and how to best react to them does not surprise me in the slightest. You have chosen the route of certification that requires the least training and effort on your part. If you fail to ask for education, it is not incumbent on anyone to force it on you. Another potential that exists here is that you are on psychiatric medications that preclude you getting a medical. Considering the complaint you posted above, I would make bets on ADHD.
 
Time to ignore this thread.

Don't mud wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and the pig loves it.
 
danielabernath said:
I'm not going to comment any further because I gave you'all assumptions to assume. I also expect that you would actually read the Complaint as it is fact based with Flight Design's knowledge of the defect, and their being ordered to inform UK pilots and their refusal to warn us Yankees.
You can make all the ad hominem attacks on me that you wish but you'll also have to make those same personal attacks on all the other light sport pilots who have been victims of Flight Designs design defect, failure to warn and failure to instruct.
I saved lives here. And you?
Over and Out.
Click to expand...

You may being saving lives. But only by making aviation that much more expensive that fewer people will be able to afford to fly. You are a leech. An enabled leech, but leech all the same.

You know you screwed up. But rather than being thankful your boneheadedness didn't kill you this time you instead lash out and stomp your feet. Sue away little man, I suppose it's your right. But know, deep down, your not a good person.
 
I'm sorry but do you really need a little placard to tell you not to take off when you are out of fuel?

You thought something might not be right, you landed the plane, you checked the fuel, you saw there was not enough for 30 minutes of flight, you got in the plane and took off, and you ran out of gas and crashed. There were several opportunities for you to break the accident chain, yet you kept on pushing and mass a series of poor choices.

This is YOUR fault and no one else's. Period. You were the pilot in command. You were responsible for the safe conduct of the flight. No one else. You and you alone.

Hell, common sense says don't take off if you can't determine how much fuel you have on board, or don't know.
 
I think this is the appropriate placard needed here.
 

Attachments

  • heres-your-sign.jpg
    heres-your-sign.jpg
    18.1 KB · Views: 17
If saving lives was the plaintiff's intent, then this would not involve a lawsuit. It would require him to take ownership of his own failings as a pilot, and go out and give "Never Again" presentations to the pilot community.

Thank you to the earlier poster who noted that unporting of fuel flow is a concept a preschooler can understand.
 
I'll bet dollars to kippers that the UK pilot didn't sue anybody. Because in the UK they have 'loser pays'.

We should have that here.
 
I have done what Flight Design-defect refused to do. I warned you. I informed you to put the same warning sign into your CTSW that the Skycatcher requires and the CTSW's in the UK require but the Yankee versions don't have. So, tell your CTSW buddies to put the warning into their cabins. With this thread and with this lawsuit the news will go out and we will now have fewer CTSW crashing into terrain.

Strict Liability and
Product Liability
PRODUCT LIABILITY
• The legal liability of manufacturers, sellers, and
lessors of goods to consumers, users and
bystanders for physical harm or injuries or
property damages that are caused by the goods.
WARRANTY LAW
• Under the Uniform Commercial Code, certain
warranties can arise in a contract for sale of
goods.
• Consumers and others can recover from any
seller for losses resulting from a breach of:
– express warranties
– implied warranties.
2
Product Liability:
Negligence
A manufacturer is liable for its failure to exercise due care to any
person who sustained an injury proximately caused by the
manufacturer’s negligence with regard to any of the following:
Misrepresentation
• A manufacturer may also be liable for any
misrepresentations (tort of fraud) made to a
consumer or user of its product if the
misrepresentation causes the consumer or user
to suffer injury.

Section 402A of the
Restatement (Second) of Torts
1. One who sells any product in a defective
condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or
consumer or to his property is subject to liability
for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate
user or consumer or to his property, if
a. the seller is engaged in the business of selling
such a product, and
b. it is expected to and does reach the user or
consumer without substantial change in the
condition in which it is sold.
Requirements of Strict Product
Liability
• the product is defective when the manufacturer sells it,
• the manufacturer is normally engaged in the business of
selling it;
• the product is unreasonably dangerous to a user or
consumer because of its defective condition (not required in
all states);
• the plaintiff suffers physical harm to self or property as a
result of using or consuming product,
• which is proximately caused by the defective condition of
the product; and
• the product must not have been substantially changed.
Product Defect and Strict
Liability Claims
• Ordinarily, a plaintiff must show that a product
was so defective as to be unreasonably
dangerous or that either:
– The product was dangerous beyond the
expectation of an ordinary consumer
– A less dangerous alternative was economically
feasible for the manufacturer, but the
manufacturer failed to produce it.

Inadequate Warnings
• At what point does the manufacturer’s
responsibility for consumer safety end and the
consumer’s responsibility for his or her own safety
begin?
• Courts generally try to balance the policy of
protecting consumers with the policy that
manufacturers cannot be the absolute insurers of the
safety of all products on the market.
Other Applications of Strict
Liability
Bystanders
• Manufacturers and other
sellers are liable for
harms suffered by
injured bystanders due
to defective products.
Suppliers of Components
• Suppliers of component
parts are strictly liable
for defective parts that,
when incorporated into
a product, cause injuries
to users.
 
Last edited:
EAGLES LYRICS


"Get Over It"


I turn on the tube and what do I see
A whole lotta people cryin' "Don't blame me"
They point their crooked little fingers ar everybody else
Spend all their time feelin' sorry for themselves
Victim of this, victim of that
Your momma's too thin; your daddy's too fat

Get over it
Get over it
All this whinin' and cryin' and pitchin' a fit
Get over it, get over it

You say you haven't been the same since you had your little crash
But you might feel better if I gave you some cash
The more I think about it, Old Billy was right
Let's kill all the lawyers, kill 'em tonight
You don't want to work, you want to live like a king
But the big, bad world doesn't owe you a thing

Get over it
Get over it
If you don't want to play, then you might as well split
Get over it, Get over it

It's like going to confession every time I hear you speak
You're makin' the most of your losin' streak
Some call it sick, but I call it weak

You drag it around like a ball and chain
You wallow in the guilt; you wallow in the pain
You wave it like a flag, you wear it like a crown
Got your mind in the gutter, bringin' everybody down
Complain about the present and blame it on the past
I'd like to find your inner child and kick its little ass

Get over it
Get over it
All this bitchin' and moanin' and pitchin' a fit
Get over it, get over it

Get over it
Get over it
It's gotta stop sometime, so why don't you quit
Get over it, get over it
 
That says it all, Upstate... perfect. Give a listen, Dan...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top