Lawsuit Madness - OMG

Status
Not open for further replies.
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
OOPS.

Did somebody forget to do something after the accident?

"At the time of publication of this preliminary report, the pilot had not provided a verbal or written statement to the NTSB regarding the circumstances of the accident." (8-19 -2013)
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20130903X23635&key=1

One would think that someone interested in getting the word out for safety would be right on top of that. http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/forms/6120_1web_nopwx.pdf
Click to expand...
No, no...

The only way to "educate" people about this is to get a multi-million dollar judgement against the aircraft manufacturer because they let a dumbass like him fly the plane.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
OOPS.

Did somebody forget to do something after the accident?

"At the time of publication of this preliminary report, the pilot had not provided a verbal or written statement to the NTSB regarding the circumstances of the accident." (8-19 -2013)
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20130903X23635&key=1
Click to expand...

That's just funny. He put in his statement to the deputy that he estimated that he hasd 30 minutes of fuel when he took off. Well, he is a lawyer and 'barrister', doesn't seem to be too god at reading regs though.
 
weilke said:
That's just funny. He put in his statement to the deputy that he estimated that he hasd 30 minutes of fuel when he took off. Well, he is a lawyer and 'barrister', doesn't seem to be too god at reading regs though.
Click to expand...

Hence why his complaint has this:
33. Plaintiff has suffered embarrassment, attorney fees to protect himself against governmental investigations regarding his piloting, freight and horror prior to impact with the terrain and in facing the FAA and other federal agencies, personal injury to his body and mind and property damage in an amount to be proved at trial.
Click to expand...

"freight and horror". Was he carrying freight in his LSA too?:lol:
 
JeffDG said:
Hence why his complaint has this:


"freight and horror". Was he carrying freight in his LSA too?:lol:
Click to expand...

He never claimed to be a good lawyer.

That phrase from his ramblesuit suggests that the FAA has already asked him some pointed questions.
 
SoloEqs said:
I don't think the plane has a Bernoulli's Principle placard.

Too bad he didn't think of it in time to add that to the lawsuit, he could have gone for 20 million!
Click to expand...

Well if we need that placard, then Newton's Three Laws of Motion should also be on placards.
 
bartmc said:
More money? His motive is to raise awareness.. Not money.
Click to expand...

Somehow, I believe his motive is self-promotion and nothing else. And he's indulging in a manner that harms everyone else.

Dan - can you honestly and truthfully state that
1) you've never exceeded a speed limit in your car?
2) you've never performed a "rolling stop" at a stop sign?
3) you've never violated the "right on red ONLY after full stop and ONLY if there's no oncoming traffic"?

and the list goes on and on and on.

Now, to paraphrase another poster - SHUT UP and GO AWAY.

You find NO sympathy here.
You have violated US Federal rules (14 CFR.xxx)
You have no justifiable reason to continue flying with your hostile & dangerous attitude.
You are the poster child why aviation continues to get more expensive, soon to be pricing even the lowest possible price aircraft out of the median-income.

You're continued attempt to reiterate claims is the classic "proof by repeated assertion". No matter how many times you beseige us with the allegation that a placard will solve a problem, that a placard will EVER prevent a problem, you lose.

My cousin is a personal injury attorney and even he finds your claims to be stupid.

You are a disgrace to the legal profession. You are a disgrace to General Aviation.
 
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...

At the time you departed did you have adequate VFR fuel reserves of useable fuel as required by FAA regulations?

Yes, or No...?
 
EppyGA said:
Any bet this thread suddenly disappears some day?
Click to expand...

Or he'll come on ala David Moselin and demand that all of his posts be removed as they are hurting his reputation in the real world.
 
Re: Hello from Daniel A. Bernath, lawyer

Doggtyred said:
At the time you departed did you have adequate VFR fuel reserves of useable fuel as required by FAA regulations?

Yes, or No...?
Click to expand...

Not according to the statement he made to the local LEOs, as quoted in the NTSB report.
 
JeffDG said:
Not according to the statement he made to the local LEOs, as quoted in the NTSB report.
Click to expand...

Facts Schmacts. Don't let such trivial things get in the way of a multi-million dollar lawsuit against ... everyone, not for the money, of course, but to protect future pilots of this death machine.
 
Question for Dan.
Per
NTSB said:
Estimating that he had sufficient fuel for approximately 30 more minutes of flight, he departed for Sisters.
Click to expand...

and

FAR § 91.151
(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;

It seems you were in direct violation of the FAR, by your own account.

Perhaps you could use a large font and tape FAR § 91.151 to your panel and the problem is solved?
 
I think I finally found out who the sign 'Don't eat the little biscuits' on the urinal is for :idea: .
 
CT4ME said:
Or... Fearing that his flight fuel planning didn’t consider the winds, he stopped short of his destination, only to confirm he was very low on fuel.
QUOTE]

If he made a precautionary landing because he was worried about high fuel consumption, it seems like it would be pretty easy to argue he was aware of the importance of fuel.
Click to expand...
 
kontiki said:
CT4ME said:
Or... Fearing that his flight fuel planning didn’t consider the winds, he stopped short of his destination, only to confirm he was very low on fuel.
QUOTE]

If he made a precautionary landing because he was worried about high fuel consumption, it seems like it would be pretty easy to argue he was aware of the importance of fuel.
Click to expand...

That's a good argument - until he took off again without adding fuel!
Click to expand...
 
I find only about 5% of these postings being helpful. Otherwise, it is like being on a middle school playground at recess.
*Again, this is a classic case of products liability, intentional and negligent fraud, personal injury.
*Flight Design had a design defect and corrected it in 2008.
*Flight Design did not warn the drivers of the CTSW of the design defect.
*Flight Design did not instruct drivers of the CTSW of the design defect.
*Flight Design was ordered by the CAA to put signs in cockpits to DO NOT TAKE OFF UNLESS THERE IS FUEL SHOWING IN EACH SITE GAUGE but Flight Design intentionally chose not to warn US pilots.
*Flight Design CTSW have crashed with 8 gallons in one tank and nothing in the other.
*Flight Design CTSW have crashed in this common condition in coordinated flight (e.g. the nose of the aircraft is pointing down).
*Flight Design fixed this design flaw by scrapping the CTSW and selling the CTLS.
*At least 10 CFI's knew I flew a CTSW or flew in this CTSW with one tank empty and said not a thing about the danger (it was Flight Designs little secret of this deadly design defect).
*All Flight Design needed to do was issue a service bulletin but it would not even spend that minimal amount of money to avoid death and injury from its secret design defect.
*For this aggregiously bad behavior, juries have awarded hundreds of millions of dollars in punitive damages to punish callous businesses like Flight Design and to deter other business from following Flight Design's callously deadly misconduct (e.g. Both Flight Design and Cessna have been accessing and reading www.aspecialdayguide.com/bernathresume.htm and this thread. )
*The Pilots Bill of Rights says you have no obligation to directly talk to the FAA or the NTSB and upon advise of my AOPA lawyer, I exercised my rights under the US Constitution and the Pilots Bill of Rights. I recommend that when you encounter the FAA or the NTSB that you speak to them only through your AOPA lawyer.
*Lawyers are quite used to hearing attempts at insulting them. If you say something that I've done wrong then I will correct it. If you call me a poopy-head or its equivalent, then I ignore it.
Again, I'd like to thank the 5% who provided commentary other than middle school attempts to insult. This has been very helpful to the CTSW drivers who now have placed the CAA required sign in their US CTSW (number unknown) because of this thread.
www.aspecialdayguide.com/bernathresume.htm
 
Last edited:
5% of people agreeing with you seems a bit high.

I read the text of the PBOR, and there is no language in there that affects the requirements in 49 CFR 830.5(a). Not only must you talk to the NTSB, you must do it immediately. The regulation spells out exactly what you have to tell them in 49 CFR 830.6.

The PBOR has language affecting enforcement proceedings, but not NTSB notification.

You're a lawyer and didn't read the text you're citing? Really?

This is clearly a frivolous lawsuit. At least you're not claiming explicitly that you're doing it for other pilots. As another pilot, I'd really rather you admit you screwed up and drop this silly lawsuit. Very few of us are going to respect your lack of PIC responsibility.

And the logic here is astounding. The manufacturers you are suing have accessed your web page as evidence you've convinced them? No, it's evidence of just how far over the edge you've gone. You're going to be defending your mental state and qualifications on the stand. And not very successfully.
 
Last edited:
Mko: your legal interpretation is incorrect. Pursuant to the rights and law that I previously provided to you I am in full compliance with all requirements.

I have covered everything that you mention in the preceding posting.

Cessna is looking at this misconduct by Flight Design and probably saying "sure glad we put that plaque in our cockpits!" Having been sued for putting fake data into the Caravan's POH, I am sure that Cessna is more careful these days.

What is Flight Design doing? Looking at their callous indifference to the safety of pilots, passengers and people on the ground-I couldn't hazard a guess.
 
Last edited:
danielabernath said:
Mko: your legal interpretation is incorrect. Pursuant to the rights and law that I previously provided to you I am in full compliance with all requirements.

I have covered everything that you mention in the preceding posting.
Click to expand...

And how might that be? Provide the section and paragraph in the PBOR that you're claiming invalidates 49 CFR 830.5(a). You're a lawyer. Shouldn't be hard at all, right?
 
danielabernath said:
Mko: your legal interpretation is incorrect. Pursuant to the rights and law that I previously provided to you I am in full compliance with all requirements.

I have covered everything that you mention in the preceding posting.

Cessna is looking at this misconduct by Flight Design and probably saying "sure glad we put that plaque in our cockpits!" Having been sued for putting fake data into the Caravan's POH, I am sure that Cessna is more careful these days.

What is Flight Design doing? Looking at their callous indifference to the safety of pilots, passengers and people on the ground-I couldn't hazard a guess.
Click to expand...

You do realize that your never going to convince a pilot that taking off with one tank empty and the other having less then 3 gallons of usable fuel is anything other then a real stupid idea, right? Try pedaling your nonsense to a web site that is dedicated to stupid tricks instead of one that is full of pilots.
 
danielabernath said:
What is Flight Design doing? Looking at their callous indifference to the safety of pilots, passengers and people on the ground-I couldn't hazard a guess.
Click to expand...

You mean like your callous indifference to the safety of yourself and people on the ground when you took off with less than minimum VFR fuel reserves?

The only proven violation is your own here. By your own admission, you violated FARs. But for you taking off with below minimum fuel, none of this would have happened. Add a 91.13 in there, and you're good to go.
 
"I'm not going to comment any further because I gave you'all assumptions to assume...Over and Out." - Daniel A. Bernath



quote-an-honest-man-s-word-is-as-good-as-his-bond-miguel-de-cervantes-217631.jpg
 
Last edited:
I was not in violation of any rule or law. I would direct your attention to my previous posting as you are merely repeating yourself with questions I have addressed.

One other thing; I am Daniel A. Bernath, Esq. 10335 sw Hoodview Drive, Tigard OR 97224 503 367 4204 ussyorktowncvs10@yahoo.com

and who are all you brave posters here with fake names?
 
danielabernath said:
I was not in violation of any rule or law. I would direct your attention to my previous posting as you are merely repeating yourself with questions I have addressed.
Click to expand...

We did read your previous posts. By describing the situation, you made it clear you were in violation of at least two and probably three regulations. Your claims otherwise do not fit the facts you have presented.

Especially the fuel minimums. If you were in compliance with that regulation, your case doesn't exist.
 
You do realize that your never going to convince a pilot that taking off with one tank empty and the other having less then 3 gallons of usable fuel is anything other then a real stupid idea, right? Try pedaling your nonsense to a web site that is dedicated to stupid tricks instead of one that is full of pilots.

I would direct your attention to the TEN CFIs, with the majority of them flying in this CTSW with one tank empty having no opinion about the danger.
Assume that the pilot at WHIPPET airfield, who had flown from his strip to Sisters hundreds of times, saw me check the tanks with Flight Design's stick and heard my announcement, and assume he said "its only 3 minutes away. You've got enough fuel."
Anyway, if you are going to keep repeating yourself then I'm not going to respond. But if you come up with something new other than "you're a poopy head" then I won't respond.
 
Last edited:
danielabernath said:
I was not in violation of any rule or law. I would direct your attention to my previous posting as you are merely repeating yourself with questions I have addressed.

One other thing; I am Daniel A. Bernath, Esq. 10335 sw Hoodview Drive, Tigard OR 97224 503 367 4204 ussyorktowncvs10@yahoo.com

and who are all you brave posters here with fake names?
Click to expand...

So, then you lied to the LEO at the scene when you said you took off with 30 minutes of fuel?
 
Who was PIC on this flight? Was it any of the 10 CFIs or the pilot at Whippet?

I thought not.

14 CFR 91.3(a). Or do you claim the PBOR excuses you from that as well?
 
danielabernath said:
I was not in violation of any rule or law. I would direct your attention to my previous posting as you are merely repeating yourself with questions I have addressed.

One other thing; I am Daniel A. Bernath, Esq. 10335 sw Hoodview Drive, Tigard OR 97224 503 367 4204 ussyorktowncvs10@yahoo.com

and who are all you brave posters here with fake names?
Click to expand...

Mine's not fake, and I still think you're a posturing idiot who feels the need to sue someone to prove to yourself you're not an idiot that nearly killed himself because he forgot to do his due diligence. The question is, if you lose this case, will your ego be so devastated that you'll find no recourse but to kill yourself anyway? You act like it's everybody else's responsibility to protect your life when in fact it is yours and yours alone.
 
danielabernath said:
*The Pilots Bill of Rights says you have no obligation to directly talk to the FAA or the NTSB and upon advise of my AOPA lawyer, I exercised my rights under the US Constitution and the Pilots Bill of Rights. I recommend that when you encounter the FAA or the NTSB that you speak to them only through your AOPA lawyer.
Click to expand...

Please provide your interpretation of PL 112-153 that says so when it comes ot the accident notification to the NTSB. By your own statement, you are some sort of lawyer, this shouldn't be too hard.
 
JeffDG said:
So, then you lied to the LEO at the scene when you said you took off with 30 minutes of fuel?
Click to expand...

Even if he told the truth, that's under the minimum required by 14 CFR 91.151(a)(1).

Of course, with the numbers he gave, it was a lie.
 
As Flight Design is reading these, I will say that if you ask me a question that I have already answered then I won't respond.
They will have to conduct discovery and stand a jury trial and I'll provide all information, although the complaint is very comprehensive.
www.aspecialdayguide.com/bernathresume.htm
 
danielabernath said:
I violated no rule or regulation. Could you provide your legal analysis for your bold statement above? www.aspecialdayguide.com/bernathresume.htm
Click to expand...

  • You told the local LEO you took off with 30 minutes of fuel
  • Part 91 requires that at departure you have enough fuel to make your desination + 30 minutes
  • It is physically impossible to take off with 30 minutes of fuel and have legal VFR reserves
  • So, you either lied to the police, or you violated Part 91. I suspect the latter
  • Since you landed due to low fuel, and then took off without adding fuel, it's almost certain you violated 91.13, and operated in a Careless or Reckless manner

So, which is it: Were you lying then (to the LEO about your fuel at takeoff), or are you lying now (I violated no law or rule)? Both cannot be true.
 
danielabernath said:
I violated no rule or regulation. Could you provide your legal analysis for your bold statement above?
Click to expand...

It's been said before, but I'll spell it out for you.

14 CFR 91.151(a)(1) requires you to have enough fuel to make it to the destination, and then fly around for 30 minutes after that assuming cruise performance. That's a complete flight with takeoff, landing and pattern, run-up, and pre-takeoff taxi, plus 30 extra minutes at cruise. 3 gallons of fuel is not enough to do that, even for a few-minute flight. You violated that regulation.

Of course, it doesn't matter to you, 'cause you're right even when you're wrong. Also of course, no one but you is going to buy into that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top