Lawsuit Madness - OMG

Status
Not open for further replies.
bullwinkle said:
I fly a CTSW, and have been following this guy for a while on sportpilottalk.com, where he uses the name 'ussyorktown'. It seems nearly every post he makes there is about some really terrible idea that he is using in his flying.
Click to expand...

Last I looked, he asked to be banned from sportpilottalk.com. He may or may not have removed himself. Over on ctflier.com, he's trying the same act as over here with exactly the same response.

Looks like he's going from one forum to another, trying to find one that's sympathetic to his rant.

My only suggestion for him? Go over to the Scientology forum. They'll probably welcome him with open arms.

Oh, wait. Travolta & Cruise are both pilots. Wonder what their reaction would be.
 
JeffDG said:
So, you took off with "20 minutes of flying" fuel, for a "six minutes" flight, right?

So, that means you planned your flight with 14 minutes of reserve fuel, less than half of the minimum required by regulations.
Click to expand...

Regulations schmegulations. If there was no placard staring him in the face, it's the manufacturers fault. :roll eyes:
 
dead·ly
ˈdedlē/Submit
adjective
1.
causing or able to cause death.
"a deadly weapon"
synonyms: fatal, lethal, mortal, death-dealing, life-threatening; More
 
JeffDG said:
Pretty much sums up your actions, yes.
Click to expand...
No, as much as wish his actions were deadly, the very fact that he survived suggests they were not not and now we are here reading and responding to his inane dribble. I think we need to merge this thread with the Pete Fleming thread, they seem to have, much in common...and fun was had by all.
 
murphey said:
9. Thought you weren't going to respond anymore? Thought you were gonna go away?
Click to expand...

This is specifically NOT referencing any person, real or fictitious, but is just meant as a general observation/question...

If some hypothetical individual did not have the requisite self control and "chest bumped" a judge, would you really expect this hypothetical individual to have the self control not to continue to post to a thread where he or she was being disparaged?

Just wonderin'... :dunno:
 
Last edited:
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...

Yep. KMWC-KUES in the Mooney the other day was 5.5 minutes, and that's far from my shortest flight.

My 2nd-shortest flight would probably be one of the numerous 3M0-KBPK hops - Those are under 3 minutes.

I did make a flight more recently that was even shorter, but now I can't remember what it was. Getting "old" sucks. :(
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Yep. KMWC-KUES in the Mooney the other day was 5.5 minutes, and that's far from my shortest flight.

My 2nd-shortest flight would probably be one of the numerous 3M0-KBPK hops - Those are under 3 minutes.
Click to expand...

Can we assume both of those are flight times?

I ask, because starting up, taxiing and doing a run-up all take time - and fuel, of course. And when we're talking minimal fuel loads, every drop counts!

And if one follows FAA/AIM guidance, doing the recommended traffic pattern at the destination takes time and fuel as well. If one as so little fuel as to not even be able to fly a pattern, I still think one should not have launched in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Maybe we should screw with this guy.

For example, whenever he posts if the time stamp ends on an even minute we all violently agree with whatever he just said. If it ends in an odd minute we all violently disagree.
 
JeffDG said:
Dear God no. What kind of idiot are you for agreeing with such a harebrained proposal. May you be drawn and quartered by four large horses.

(Note the timestamp on your post)
Click to expand...

I violently disagree. May you jump on a bicycle and find it has no seat.
 
Last edited:
Jim Logajan said:
Actually all one can say is that the FAA had no problems with the paperwork (or if they did have problems they were eventually corrected.) Given how LSA certification works there could be lots of problems with LSA designs that haven't shown up yet. However, scary as that may sound I really like the self certification concept.
Click to expand...
I don't think the FAA just sits on its hands when they think something is not safe. Zenith had lots of FAA attention to its wing spars in the 601XL. This appears to be a tradeoff decision between fuel selector valves and a so-so both tank system. Both approaches can cause a pilot to have fuel problems, for different reasons. It is hard to say that a fuel selector valve like the one on a Piper Cherokee would have had fewer fuel related accidents.
 
upstateny said:
I violently disagree. May you jump on a bycycle and find it has no seat.
Click to expand...

You make an excellent point. You have made excellent use of dramatic imagery that is sure to get your point across. Well done.
 
More dramatic imagery
8a28fd98_internet_tough_guys.jpg


Assume the following instructors did not know Flight Design's deadly design flaw until CTSW Flight Design crash.
1. CFI at #1 school U interviewed at Aurora and told him about buying a ctsw for training,
2. US Air pilot, CFI
3. 2. New Zealand owner of flight school, CFI and airline pilot
4. Aussie at that school CFI
5. CFI at #1 school
6. CF1 at #2 school
7. CF1 at #2 school,
8. CFI at #3 school
9. CFI who is airline pilot who signed me off
10. CFU faa certified instructor who signed my light sport, flying in the light sport ctsw
 
Last edited:
danielabernath said:

Assume the following instructors did not know Flight Design's deadly design flaw until CTSW Flight Design crash.
1. CFI at #1 school U interviewed at Aurora and told him about buying a ctsw for training,
2. US Air pilot, CFI
3. 2. New Zealand owner of flight school, CFI and airline pilot
4. Aussie at that school CFI
5. CFI at #1 school
6. CF1 at #2 school
7. CF1 at #2 school,
8. CFI at #3 school
9. CFI who is airline pilot who signed me off
10. CFU faa certified instructor who signed my light sport, flying in the light sport ctsw
Click to expand...

Now, ask all those people the follow-up question of whether they would take off with 2.5Gal useable fuel in an aircraft with interconnected tanks.
 
danielabernath said:
...
Assume the following instructors did not know Flight Design's deadly design flaw until CTSW Flight Design crash.
1. CFI at #1 school U interviewed at Aurora and told him about buying a ctsw for training,
2. US Air pilot, CFI
3. 2. New Zealand owner of flight school, CFI and airline pilot
4. Aussie at that school CFI
5. CFI at #1 school
6. CF1 at #2 school
7. CF1 at #2 school,
8. CFI at #3 school
9. CFI who is airline pilot who signed me off
10. CFU faa certified instructor who signed my light sport, flying in the light sport ctsw
Click to expand...

Your post would have been funny if you would have stopped at the poster.

One quick question, you went through eight CFIs before finding one who would sign you off?
 
danielabernath said:
More dramatic imagery
8a28fd98_internet_tough_guys.jpg


Assume the following instructors did not know Flight Design's deadly design flaw until CTSW Flight Design crash.
1. CFI at #1 school U interviewed at Aurora and told him about buying a ctsw for training,
2. US Air pilot, CFI
3. 2. New Zealand owner of flight school, CFI and airline pilot
4. Aussie at that school CFI
5. CFI at #1 school
6. CF1 at #2 school
7. CF1 at #2 school,
8. CFI at #3 school
9. CFI who is airline pilot who signed me off
10. CFU faa certified instructor who signed my light sport, flying in the light sport ctsw
Click to expand...


Did you consider that none of these experienced pilots didn't warn you about this alleged "deadly defect" because said defect does not exist? The defect was your operation of the aircraft. How many times in your training were you reminded to "keep the ball in the cage"? That was the warning if adhered to would have prevented this unbalanced condition. You also provided further evidence of your own failure above with the picture of the fuel stained wing from failing to properly secure the fuel cap.
 
Last edited:
danielabernath said:
More dramatic imagery

Assume the following instructors did not know Flight Design's deadly design flaw until CTSW Flight Design crash.
1. CFI at #1 school U interviewed at Aurora and told him about buying a ctsw for training,
2. US Air pilot, CFI
3. 2. New Zealand owner of flight school, CFI and airline pilot
4. Aussie at that school CFI
5. CFI at #1 school
6. CF1 at #2 school
7. CF1 at #2 school,
8. CFI at #3 school
9. CFI who is airline pilot who signed me off
10. CFU faa certified instructor who signed my light sport, flying in the light sport ctsw
Click to expand...

You're a patriot and a saint. We need more like you in aviation. Someone with the guts to expose the truth. If it weren't for you having the wherewithal to put yourself out there and fight "the man" the death toll in these deadly machines would keep piling up. You've probably saved thousands if not millions of lives. I think $10,000,000 is cheap for your service to the community. I wouldn't have bothered for a dime less than $15,000,000. We owe you a great debt.
 
danielabernath said:
Assume the following instructors did not know Flight Design's deadly design flaw until CTSW Flight Design crash.
1. CFI at #1 school U interviewed at Aurora and told him about buying a ctsw for training,
2. US Air pilot, CFI
3. 2. New Zealand owner of flight school, CFI and airline pilot
4. Aussie at that school CFI
5. CFI at #1 school
6. CF1 at #2 school
7. CF1 at #2 school,
8. CFI at #3 school
9. CFI who is airline pilot who signed me off
10. CFU faa certified instructor who signed my light sport, flying in the light sport ctsw
Click to expand...

It's tough for instructors to know about something that doesn't exist. Follow the logic: If it was a "deadly design flaw" you wouldn't be here brothering us with your constant drivel.

If your motives are so altruistic, to warn other CTSW pilots of your perceived problem, why do you need $10M? Go chase an ambulance.
 
Henning said:
Did you consider that none of these experienced pilots didn't warn you about this alleged "deadly defect" because said defect does not exist? The defect was your operation of the aircraft. How many times in your training were you reminded to "keep the ball in the cage"? That was the warning if adhered to would have prevented this unbalanced condition. You also provided further evidence of your own failure above with the picture of the fuel stained wing from failing to properly secure the fuel cap.
Click to expand...

That's really the point.

As I said earlier, I was not impressed by the CT's fuel system the first time I took a look at the plane. I would have preferred a header or collector tank in the system. Of course, that would have had its drawbacks, too, especially in a crash; so there's certainly plenty of room for disagreement on that point.

But even having stated that I was not impressed by the fuel handling, that doesn't make it a "defect." It's a characteristic, a quirk, an issue, whatever you care to call it; but it's also something that's well-known and that a competent pilot needs to keep in mind.

Compare it to the wonderful "fuel gauge" on a J3 Cub, if you like. It's a vertical wire through the gas cap with a cork on the bottom. From time to time they get a bit bent and stop moving as the fuel level goes down. Does that mean you can keep flying indefinitely because the wire's not moving?

Your forced landing was the result of your own poor ADM, probably contributed to by uncoordinated flight that resulted in the out-of-balance fuel level condition. Whatever you choose to say in court, I hope that privately you take responsibility for your own actions, and learn from them.

-Rich
 
Kiddo's Driver said:
One quick question, you went through eight CFIs before finding one who would sign you off?
Click to expand...

Figuring 15 hours of dual, that means that he got 7 of them to suffer through 2 hours each, and the one who signed him off only had to put up with him for an hour.

He got signed off on his checkride just so they wouldn't have to fly with him again.
 
SoloEqs said:
Figuring 15 hours of dual, that means that he got 7 of them to suffer through 2 hours each, and the one who signed him off only had to put up with him for an hour.

He got signed off on his checkride just so they wouldn't have to fly with him again.
Click to expand...

:rofl::rofl:

Probably the same story with the DPE...
 
I am once again - loathe to comment in this thread, but possibly should clarify. In the instructor list, line item 6 and 7 are not instructors of the "CFI"(Cert Flight Inst) variety, but of the "CF1" type at school #2, and line item 10 is a "CFU". I can't find anything related to aviation, but perhaps this is some kind of Light Sport deal of which I'm unaware.
 
docmirror said:
I am once again - loathe to comment in this thread, but possibly should clarify. In the instructor list, line item 6 and 7 are not instructors of the "CFI"(Cert Flight Inst) variety, but of the "CF1" type at school #2, and line item 10 is a "CFU". I can't find anything related to aviation, but perhaps this is some kind of Light Sport deal of which I'm unaware.
Click to expand...

A CFU is a "Certified Flight Unicorn", which is required to convert being a dumbass who took off with less than legal minimum fuel reserves into a victim.
 
docmirror said:
I am once again - loathe to comment in this thread, but possibly should clarify. In the instructor list, line item 6 and 7 are not instructors of the "CFI"(Cert Flight Inst) variety, but of the "CF1" type at school #2, and line item 10 is a "CFU". I can't find anything related to aviation, but perhaps this is some kind of Light Sport deal of which I'm unaware.
Click to expand...

"See? FU!"
 
1. Conjecture but no evidence of:
uncoordinated flight,
2. evidence is that this condition occurred on other CTSW that were in the pattern
3. with EIGHT gallons in one tank,

My early estimate is that this deadly design defect (fuel starvation with adequate fuel in one tank) has happened at least EIGHT times crash Flight Design CTSW.
My goal is to educate other CTSW drivers of this deadly design defect, failure to warn and failure to instruct that may kill them if they don't put a plaque like the one that Cessna 162s have and like the one Flight Design has been ordered to put into their CTSW craft in the UK but Flight Design couldn't be troubled to spent the postage and .25 cents to send one to its American CTSW drivers.
You can speculate and make things up all day long. Just read the complaint as it is full of the facts.
img3.jpg


Products Liability lawsuit reasoning: In Greenman, Traynor cited to his own earlier concurrence in Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 24 Cal. 2d 453, 462 (1944) (Traynor, J., concurring). In Escola, now widely recognized as a landmark case in American law,[6] Justice Traynor laid the foundation for Greenman with these words:

“ Even if there is no negligence, however, public policy demands that responsibility be fixed wherever it will most effectively reduce the hazards to life and health inherent in defective products that reach the market. It is evident that the manufacturer can anticipate some hazards and guard against the recurrence of others, as the public cannot. Those who suffer injury from defective products are unprepared to meet its consequences. The cost of an injury and the loss of time or health may be an overwhelming misfortune to the person injured, and a needless one, for the risk of injury can be insured by the manufacturer and distributed among the public as a cost of doing business. It is to the public interest to discourage the marketing of products having defects that are a menace to the public. If such products nevertheless find their way into the market it is to the public interest to place the responsibility for whatever injury they may cause upon the manufacturer, who, even if he is not negligent in the manufacture of the product, is responsible for its reaching the market. However intermittently such injuries may occur and however haphazardly they may strike, the risk of their occurrence is a constant risk and a general one. Against such a risk there should be general and constant protection and the manufacturer is best situated to afford such protection. ”
The year after Greenman, the Supreme Court of California proceeded to extend strict liability to all parties involved in the manufacturing, distribution, and sale of defective products (including retailers)
 
Last edited:
danielabernath said:
1. Conjecture but no evidence of:
uncoordinated flight,
2. evidence is that this condition occurred on other CTSW that were in the pattern
3. with EIGHT gallons in one tank,

My goal is to educate other CTSW drivers of this deadly design defect, failure to warn and failure to instruct that may kill them if they don't put a plaque like the one that Cessna 162s have and like the one Flight Design has been ordered to put into their CTSW craft in the UK but Flight Design coudn't spent the postage and .25 cents to send one to its American CTSW drivers.
You can speculate and make things up all day long. Just read the complaint as it is full of the facts. www.aspecialdayguide.com/bernathresume.htm
Click to expand...

You didn't have 8 gallons.

If your missions was to educate. There's a guy on this board who crashed his plane (not a CTSW) due to fuel starvation, and I believe he honestly believes it was the result of a fuel unporting issue. I'm on the fence about it, but I'll take him at his word. He's here. he could give you some advice about how he approached the NTSB/FAA etc.. (and it may even be documented here). The one thing he didn't do, is sue the manufacturer for 10,000,000 George Washingtons.

Just cut the BS. You're suing for your bank account. The best way I know of for your "alleged" message to be ignored in the pilot community, is to sue a manufacturer.

We had a guy like you at the airport, lawyer ambulance chaser type. Not an FBO in the area would rent to him.. planes always seemed to be checked out. He had the audacity to spew some of this BS at the airport once.... no more renting for him.
 
danielabernath said:
1. Conjecture but no evidence of:
uncoordinated flight,
2. evidence is that this condition occurred on other CTSW that were in the pattern
3. with EIGHT gallons in one tank,

My early estimate is that this deadly design defect (fuel starvation with adequate fuel in one tank) has happened at least EIGHT times.
My goal is to educate other CTSW drivers of this deadly design defect, failure to warn and failure to instruct that may kill them if they don't put a plaque like the one that Cessna 162s have and like the one Flight Design has been ordered to put into their CTSW craft in the UK but Flight Design couldn't be troubled to spent the postage and .25 cents to send one to its American CTSW drivers.
You can speculate and make things up all day long. Just read the complaint as it is full of the facts.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's already been established by your comments on here that you took off with insufficient fuel.

Oh yeah, I'm sure the plaintiff's side of a $10,000,000 lawsuit is just chocked full of facts.
 
Facts are stubborn things. John Adams
Saying the same thing wrong over and over doesn't change the facts. Here is a fact. Having 3 to 4 gallons of fuel in one tank (and the other empty) AND having 8 gallons of fuel in another CTSW's tank (and nothing in the other) will cause a CTSW to stop sending fuel to the engine.
There is no evidence of uncooirdinated flight.
Letter to NTSB and FAA, 'when engine stopped, pilot turned off the engine and then turned it back on. Engine started up again for 4 or 5 seconds and then stopped again."
I know that a lot of internet tough guys like to troll to raise the temperature but the facts are the facts. Even if you think that I should let Flight Designs intentionally not warning us just pass, I know that will not get them to reform their deadly ways. This lawsuit will and as the Justices at the Court of Appeals say, the burden of their defects are to be borne by the mfr as he is most easily able to make safe products or warn or instruct.
I think as a lawyer I am tasked with the burden of not only getting relief for my clients but educating them. Flight Design knew about this design defect. Flight Design was told by the CAA to warn pilots and put a warning in their cabins. Flight Design did not come up with a fix to the design defect. Flight Design did not warn that there was a design defect and did not instruct me or any other US pilot on how to avoid its deadly effects. Flight Design made an intentional decision to NOT spent the money to warn pilots as that would probably affect their C4 roll out. A letter to FD using strong language would cause FD and other mfrs to change nothing.
I have brought this issue to the center of discussion. This will all be presented methodically to a jury, an expert witness will explain it all to the jury and Flight Design will lose the money it thought it would save by not warning CTSW pilot of this deadline design flaw. http://www.aspecialdayguide.com/bernathresume.htmOther mfrs will NOT act in the same fashion as Flight Design and you and I as pilots will be safer. At Cessna, etc. they are discussing the Flight Design negligence and are making decisions right now, "Look what happened when Flight Design didn't warn its CTSW pilots about normal operation fuel starvation. Lets not make the Flight Design mistake." Thats our system and roughly speaking, it makes us all safer.
 
Last edited:
This is a good example of why aviation has become so expensive for all of us: greed by the opportunistic few that find fault with everything they can. When I learned to fly there were very few placards in the airplane; we were taught to THINK and take responsibility for our actions. The current generations (after the Baby Boomers, it appears) have learned, through all sorts of psycho mumbo-jumbo they're fed in daycare and school and by indulgent parents, that they are Number One, full of self-esteem, full of themselves, arrogant, faultless. So they go out and fly and crash airplanes (because they're not so smart after all) and sue the pants off everyone in sight, and the governments react by chaining us with more rules and requirements and demanding placards for everything, as if the pilot will read them all before every flight and thereby prevent an accident.

Cessna says that a third or more of the price of an airplane goes into liability insurance to protect themselves. That probably applies to fuel, maintenance, training, everything. Could you imagine a 33% cut in the cost of flying if people just stopped being stupid and irresponsible?

Ain't gonna happen.

Dan
 
Dan Thomas said:
When I learned to fly there were very few placards in the airplane; we were taught to THINK and take responsibility for our actions. The current generations (after the Baby Boomers, it appears) have learned, through all sorts of psycho mumbo-jumbo they're fed in daycare and school and by indulgent parents, that they are Number One, full of self-esteem, full of themselves, arrogant, faultless. So they go out and fly and crash airplanes (because they're not so smart after all)
Click to expand...

The V-Tail Bonanza got its reputation as the doctor killer all because of these full of themselves, arrogant, faultless, current generation kids. :confused:
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top