Lawsuit Madness - OMG

[RotorAndWing]

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.

No, this guy is a lawyer. He knows that several of the defendants will settle out of court and this will never see a courtroom.

This is legalized theft and shakedown brought to you via the US legal system and the many State Bar Associations, and of course the Trial Lawyers Associations.

 

[douglas393]

No, this guy is a lawyer. He knows that several of the defendants will settle out of court and this will never see a courtroom.

This is legalized theft and shakedown brought to you via the US legal system and the many State Bar Associations, and of course the Trial Lawyers Associations.

Unfortunately, not only are you right, but you do not even have to be a lawyer to pull off this scam. I was the victim of such a scam pulled on me by a dishonest contracting company from Pompano Beach, which was hired to do repairs to my home after hurricane Charley. I just got the "honor" of paying them to settle the lawsuit they filed against me after they abandoned the job on my home. This evidently is the their modus operandi and they have used it successfully numerous times. I was unfortunately the stubborn one who decided to fight them, and at the end of the day (well 7 years) of fighting I paid more in lawyers fees, than the damage to my house cost to repair.

 

[fsuseminole]

No, this guy is a lawyer. He knows that several of the defendants will settle out of court and this will never see a courtroom.

This is legalized theft and shakedown brought to you via the US legal system and the many State Bar Associations, and of course the Trial Lawyers Associations.

Im glad the company being sued did not back down. It ended up costing the man millions in legal fees. ( He tried to sue other companies as well, lasted three years before he gave up.) It also only cost the fortune 100 company a few million to defend themselves.

 

[CT4ME]

His complaint includes a picture of a fuel cap, what is that object protruding from the cap?

air vent.

 

[Kiddo's Driver]

I've slept in a crew van over night with more fuel in my tanks than that. I fueled up in the morning and continued my trip. My life is worth more than the grief you get for arriving later than expected.

BTW, this is a Rotax. How freakin' hard is it to buy auto gas?

Jim

 

[Norman]

He's the type of guy who would walk down the railroad tracks listening to his ipod then sue (assuming he survived) when he gets hit by a train.

 

[Geico266]

He's the type of guy who would walk down the railroad tracks listening to his ipod then sue (assuming he survived) when he gets hit by a train.

We could only hope he would do that.

Stupid is as stupid does.

 

[steingar]

I just hopes the defense gets to use this thread to demonstrate how the plaintiffs should have known better. They probably won't, and he'll probably win. He'll either bully them to make a settlement or they'll get a jury as stupid as the one of convicting Lycoming of making a bad engine on an aircraft that crashed at full power because of misloading.

 

[Gary F]

This is one case where the plaintiff would not want to be judged by his peers, other pilots.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Newton published the laws of gravity in 1687. And, even before that, it was known that water runs down hill.

This is not new news. You should be suing yourself not CT.

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

Well, this looks like the opportunity for a teaching moment, not for the "victim", as he already seems to have his agenda in place, but perhaps for some of the folks here who may not fully grasp what might have happened when one tank is still showing fuel yet the engine won't run.

As described, (and most likely due to flying uncoordinated like the second image below, although other causes like a venting issue are possible) a pilot may end up in a situation where he/she has landed at an airport without fuel service available.

Said pilot opens the fuel caps, can measure a small amount of fuel in one tank, and zero in the other tank. Note that some of that precious fuel he/she did measure is below the fuel pickup and is unusable as well.

Now imagine what happens if a particularly bold pilot calculated that he/she theoretically had enough fuel to fly, perhaps, another 6 minutes regardless of reserve requirements.

Further suppose that a particular pilot does not understand (or care about) the fancy footwork required to keep the ball centered, and happens to fly in a somewhat uncoordinated manner - unfortunately keeping the tank with fuel just a bit lower than the empty tank.

It would then not be too hard to visualize a situation where all of the remaining fuel may become unusable, below the level of the pickup tube, due to that gravity thingy a poster mentioned earlier.

This is an example of unporting, or filling the fuel system with air instead of 100LL.

This is also why it is so important to understand the mechanics of the systems in your plane, as well as not violating regs like minimum fuel!

Even a flashy piece of glass in the panel denoting the exact amount of fuel left in the tank would not have helped this pilot out here.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

This can't be for real. From the link posted:

When on leave from the Navy he took and passed the Michigan driver license test with 100% correct answers.

Seriously? In a list of one's accomplishments, that goes in there?

This has got to be a joke.

 

[Henning]

This can't be for real. From the link posted:Seriously? In a list of one's accomplishments, that goes in there?

This has got to be a joke.

I did that on my 16th birthday, next day I went back and did it for motorcycle.

 

[weilke]

This can't be for real. From the link posted:Seriously? In a list of one's accomplishments, that goes in there?

This has got to be a joke.

That resume does read like it is a product of the 'The Onion'.

 

[poadeleted21]

This can't be for real. From the link posted:Seriously? In a list of one's accomplishments, that goes in there?

This has got to be a joke.

I saw a resume once that had "Is good at reading maps"

 

[Jeff Oslick]

Is his name Pete Fleming? :ROFL:

The more I think about this, I think what we have here is a real-life troll (not just the internet kind).

 

[poadeleted21]

Well, this looks like the opportunity for a teaching moment, not for the "victim", as he already seems to have his agenda in place, but perhaps for some of the folks here who may not fully grasp what might have happened when one tank is still showing fuel yet the engine won't run.

As described, (and most likely due to flying uncoordinated like the second image below, although other causes like a venting issue are possible) a pilot may end up in a situation where he/she has landed at an airport without fuel service available.

Said pilot opens the fuel caps, can measure a small amount of fuel in one tank, and zero in the other tank. Note that some of that precious fuel he/she did measure is below the fuel pickup and is unusable as well.

Now imagine what happens if a particularly bold pilot calculated that he/she theoretically had enough fuel to fly, perhaps, another 6 minutes regardless of reserve requirements.

Further suppose that a particular pilot does not understand (or care about) the fancy footwork required to keep the ball centered, and happens to fly in a somewhat uncoordinated manner - unfortunately keeping the tank with fuel just a bit lower than the empty tank.

It would then not be too hard to visualize a situation where all of the remaining fuel may become unusable, below the level of the pickup tube, due to that gravity thingy a poster mentioned earlier.

This is an example of unporting, or filling the fuel system with air instead of 100LL.

This is also why it is so important to understand the mechanics of the systems in your plane, as well as not violating regs like minimum fuel!

Even a flashy piece of glass in the panel denoting the exact amount of fuel left in the tank would not have helped this pilot out here.

My guess is: You won't be getting a call to provide expert testimony for the plaintiff.

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

My guess is: You won't be getting a call to provide expert testimony for the plaintiff.

Oh, but wouldn't it be fun!

 

[Matthew]

My guess is: You won't be getting a call to provide expert testimony for the plaintiff.

I've lost track: isn't the plaintiff suing because there was no placard, or verbal instruction, warning him of the exact behavior that diagram explains?

 

[Henning]

I've lost track: isn't the plaintiff suing because there was no placard, or verbal instruction, warning him of the exact behavior that diagram explains?

Correct. He failed to do his due diligence into the plane and bought it direct on the salesman's representation.

 

[Matthew]

Correct. He failed to do his due diligence into the plane and bought it direct on the salesman's representation.

Did he get the undercoating and paint protection, too?


--

Edit: OK, shouldn't have gone that route. I do remember that you are expected to know the systems of your aircraft, though, but I'd have trouble drawing them out. But when it comes to fuel, simple common sense can go a long, long way.

 

[Yellowbird]

That resume does read like it is a product of the 'The Onion'.

Also, this:

Dan Bernath is a proud member of the Radio Shack Battery Club and after passing the entrance exam, of Costco.

Daniel Bernath rotates his tires and cleans the coils in the back of his refrigerator regularly.

Daniel Bernath always drives 3.5 miles per hour below the speed limit on United States interstate highways and is gratified by the emotional hand waving, gesturing and unique greetings he receives from fellow motorists on the expressways of America, as they pass him by on the left and the right.

At least he has a sense of humor.

 

[Henning]

Did he get the undercoating and paint protection, too?

Polyglycoat....

 

[Jim Logajan]

I've lost track: isn't the plaintiff suing because there was no placard, or verbal instruction, warning him of the exact behavior that diagram explains?

You didn't lose track - unless I also lost track - but other posters to this thread appear to believe otherwise.

It is interesting to compare the discussion on fuel systems and unusable furl in the POH of a Cessna 152 with that of the CTSW....

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Re: Hello from Daniel A. Bernath, lawyer

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

Welcome to POA.

From your complaint (and I quote):

To apply for a sport pilot certificate you must receive and log ground training from an authorized instructor or complete a home-study course on the following aeronautical knowledge areas: · (a) Applicable regulations of this chapter that relate to sport pilot privileges, limits, and flight operations.
· (i) Principles of aerodynamics, powerplants, and aircraft systems.

Apparently you failed to do that.

No straw man here.

 

[Gerhardt]

I think he's what we call "a colorful character" in these parts.

 

[MadseasoN]

Re: Hello from Daniel A. Bernath, lawyer

Flight Design says that with 3 gallons I should at least 20 minutes of flying.

9 gallons per hour is typical for the planes I fly (Warrior, Archer).

I wouldn't taxi across the airport with only 3 gallons of fuel in the tank(s) let alone take off and expect to fly "only 6 minutes away", especially in high headwinds. You don't deserve to be a pilot.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Re: Hello from Daniel A. Bernath, lawyer

9 gallons per hour is typical for the planes I fly (Warrior, Archer).

I wouldn't taxi across the airport with only 3 gallons of fuel in the tank(s) let alone take off and expect to fly "only 6 minutes away", especially in high headwinds. You don't deserve to be a pilot.

Why not just use the consumption of a Boeing 747 - about as relevant.

Or you could have used a C-152. Three gallons is just over 30 minutes of flying for a C-152 "assuming normal cruising speed" (as 91.151 states the requirements constraint.)

In an ultralight, 3 gallons is 60% full tank.

For a CTSW with a Rotax 912 UL2 the online POH says 4.3 GPH consumption rate at cruise; 4.9 GPH if it has a 912 ULS. That seems to suggest the pilot would not have been in violation of 91.151 even with only 3 gallons usable. If it was 3.5 gallons and the plane had a UL2, he'd have 48+ minutes of flying time per 91.151.

By the way, the C-152 POH states this about its 1.5 gallon (0.75 per tank) unusable: "The maximum unusable fuel quantity, as determined from the most critical flight condition, is about 1.5 gallons total. This quantity was not exceeded by any other reasonable flight condition, including prolonged 30 second full-rudder sideslips in the landing configuration. Takeoffs have not been demonstrated with less than 2 gallons total fuel (1 gallon per tank)."

The C-152 POH fuel diagram is the same as that posted by ElPaso Pilot. This seems to indicate that one should not attempt to assume that the limitations of one aircraft apply in any way to another. The CTSW POH is, sadly, like many LSA POHs something of a POS with respect to making limitations clear to pilots.

 

[Henning]

Re: Hello from Daniel A. Bernath, lawyer

Why not just use the consumption of a Boeing 747 - about as relevant.

Or you could have used a C-152. Three gallons is just over 30 minutes of flying for a C-152 "assuming normal cruising speed" (as 91.151 states the requirements constraint.)

In an ultralight, 3 gallons is 60% full tank.

For a CTSW with a Rotax 912 UL2 the online POH says 4.3 GPH consumption rate at cruise; 4.9 GPH if it has a 912 ULS. That seems to suggest the pilot would not have been in violation of 91.151 even with only 3 gallons usable. If it was 3.5 gallons and the plane had a UL2, he'd have 48+ minutes of flying time per 91.151.

By the way, the C-152 POH states this about its 1.5 gallon (0.75 per tank) unusable: "The maximum unusable fuel quantity, as determined from the most critical flight condition, is about 1.5 gallons total. This quantity was not exceeded by any other reasonable flight condition, including prolonged 30 second full-rudder sideslips in the landing configuration. Takeoffs have not been demonstrated with less than 2 gallons total fuel (1 gallon per tank)."

The C-152 POH fuel diagram is the same as that posted by ElPaso Pilot. This seems to indicate that one should not attempt to assume that the limitations of one aircraft apply in any way to another. The CTSW POH is, sadly, like many LSA POHs something of a POS with respect to making limitations clear to pilots.

That's at cruise, T/O power is listed as 7.3.

 

[Old Geek]

If he sticks around the aviation community, Zoom may have some serious competition.

 

[AcroGimp]

The ASTM standards for LSA are significantly less developed than Part 23, and that is by design since the intent was to significantly lower the cost to bring to market and, hopefully, lower the cost of the aircraft. In practice it has only lowered the NRE/development costs, LSA's still cost way too much (IMO).

However, the matter at hand is one that can and should be viewed as being effected by training of the subject pilot (systems knowledge, flight planning and ADM) - the design of the plane is not substandard and is in fact very similar to many other planes, inclluding certified ones.

The pilot landed at an airport not suited for his aircraft (flight planning and knowledge of all info for safe outcome of flight), then elected of his own free accord to depart with an unknown amount of fuel into the 2 maneuver heavy phases of flight, namely takeoff and landing (lots of banking and pitch changes).

As I said above, the ASTM Standards are different and less stringent than Part 23, but they are not dangerously so - they are a different and simpler set of rules that relies more on self-certification to the standard than on FAA or delegated inspection to the Part 23 standards. The entire collection of LSA ASTM documentation is actually smaller than almost any subsection of Part 23 - but the planes are smaller, lighter, slower and more limited.

With proper training the system works fine - but you can't fix stupid. The decision to take-off was a very poor one with unusually light ramifications all things considered - a better man would take it as a lesson learned and either get a new hobby or get serious about aviating in a safer manner.

'Gimp

 

[CT4ME]

Re: Hello from Daniel A. Bernath, lawyer

For a CTSW with a Rotax 912 UL2 the online POH says 4.3 GPH consumption rate at cruise; 4.9 GPH if it has a 912 ULS. That seems to suggest the pilot would not have been in violation of 91.151 even with only 3 gallons usable. If it was 3.5 gallons and the plane had a UL2, he'd have 48+ minutes of flying time per 91.151.

Most CT pilots plan using 5GPH, take-off and climb could be more like 5.5 (or more) ****EDIT===> POH states 6.3 for climb! <===EDIT****. And, don't forget, that alleged 3 gallons doesn't account for unusable fuel. Add to that slosh or banking, and you're asking for disaster. The CT fuel dip sticks are, like most, close at best. With the long, flat, tanks, angles are everything.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Re: Hello from Daniel A. Bernath, lawyer

That's at cruise, T/O power is listed as 7.3.

I know that, but the regulation uses the phrase "assuming normal cruising speed" not "assuming takeoff power." The question I'm addressing is whether the alleged facts support the repeated assertion that the flight violated regulations, not whether it was safe or wise.

That said, even at 7.3 GPH he'd need only 3.65 gallons to legally take off.

 

[MadseasoN]

Re: Hello from Daniel A. Bernath, lawyer

Why not just use the consumption of a Boeing 747 - about as relevant.

Or you could have used a C-152. Three gallons is just over 30 minutes of flying for a C-152 "assuming normal cruising speed" (as 91.151 states the requirements constraint.)

In an ultralight, 3 gallons is 60% full tank.

For a CTSW with a Rotax 912 UL2 the online POH says 4.3 GPH consumption rate at cruise; 4.9 GPH if it has a 912 ULS. That seems to suggest the pilot would not have been in violation of 91.151 even with only 3 gallons usable. If it was 3.5 gallons and the plane had a UL2, he'd have 48+ minutes of flying time per 91.151.

By the way, the C-152 POH states this about its 1.5 gallon (0.75 per tank) unusable: "The maximum unusable fuel quantity, as determined from the most critical flight condition, is about 1.5 gallons total. This quantity was not exceeded by any other reasonable flight condition, including prolonged 30 second full-rudder sideslips in the landing configuration. Takeoffs have not been demonstrated with less than 2 gallons total fuel (1 gallon per tank)."

The C-152 POH fuel diagram is the same as that posted by ElPaso Pilot. This seems to indicate that one should not attempt to assume that the limitations of one aircraft apply in any way to another. The CTSW POH is, sadly, like many LSA POHs something of a POS with respect to making limitations clear to pilots.

He was already on the ground due to HIS miscalculation of fuel burn yet he takes off again with less than 10% of his total fuel capacity? In addition, the "6 minutes" estimate was based on what some guy at the airport told him?

He stated that 3-4 gallons was good for 20 minutes of flying time which was optimistic. That is similar performance to what I fly that's why I'm telling you what I would/wouldn't do. I don't fly 747's or ultralights.

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

I know that, but the regulation uses the phrase "assuming normal cruising speed" not "assuming takeoff power." The question I'm addressing is whether the alleged facts support the repeated assertion that the flight violated regulations, not whether it was safe or wise.

That said, even at 7.3 GPH he'd need only 3.65 gallons to legally take off.

Takeoff power is also baked in to the reg.

(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...

One needs adequate fuel to start, taxi, take off, climb to altitude, fly to the intended destination, then fly after that for at least 30 minutes.

 

[airguy]

Re: Hello from Daniel A. Bernath, lawyer

That said, even at 7.3 GPH he'd need only 3.65 gallons to legally take off.

No, he needs 3.65 remaining at touchdown - and that doesn't count unusable fuel.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

- but you can't fix stupid.

Well, you can, but it involves eligibility for the Darwin Award.

 

[Aeric]

Re: Hello from Daniel A. Bernath, lawyer

No, he needs 3.65 remaining at touchdown - and that doesn't count unusable fuel.

That's right, some have been misinterpreting the reg. It's 30 minutes of fuel BEYOND the destination.
And I don't understand all the hand-wringing over such a small amount of fuel. This person was nuts to take off with so little gas in the tanks. 3 gallons, 4 gallons, sheesh, whatever. In my 150 I have never taken off with less than 1/2 full tanks, and I have never landed with less than 1/3.
This guy is a threat to us in the air, those on the ground, and the image of GA.

 

[dbflyer]

Re: Hello from Daniel A. Bernath, lawyer

I think some are still misinterpreting the regulation. It doesn't say that you have to land with a 30 minute reserve. It says you can't begin the flight with less than a 30 minute reserve. If something unexpected or unforecast happens along the way that causes you to burn more fuel than planned, and you land with 10 minutes of fuel remaining, you haven't committed a violation. An error in judgement for believing a 30 minute reserve is sufficient, but not a violation.

That's right, some have been misinterpreting the reg. It's 30 minutes of fuel BEYOND the destination.
And I don't understand all the hand-wringing over such a small amount of fuel. This person was nuts to take off with so little gas in the tanks. 3 gallons, 4 gallons, sheesh, whatever. In my 150 I have never taken off with less than 1/2 full tanks, and I have never landed with less than 1/3.
This guy is a threat to us in the air, those on the ground, and the image of GA.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Re: Hello from Daniel A. Bernath, lawyer

He was already on the ground due to HIS miscalculation of fuel burn yet he takes off again with less than 10% of his total fuel capacity? In addition, the "6 minutes" estimate was based on what some guy at the airport told him?

He stated that 3-4 gallons was good for 20 minutes of flying time which was optimistic. That is similar performance to what I fly that's why I'm telling you what I would/wouldn't do. I don't fly 747's or ultralights.

While percentage remaining appears small, it isn't always useful - some airplanes have very large tanks relative to their consumption rate.
Also, I think the 6 minute estimate was very reasonable flight time for the distance. It was not reasonable when also taking into account run up and taxi, but those are low power operations.

Takeoff power is also baked in to the reg.

One needs adequate fuel to start, taxi, take off, climb to altitude, fly to the intended destination, then fly after that for at least 30 minutes.

You are correct - I made a mistake in forgetting to include the estimated consumption for the flight itself.

Assuming 4.7 nm plus 3 nm of maneuvering in traffic patterns at an avg of 77 kts yields 6 minutes flying. At worst case 7.3 GPH that is 0.73 gallons. At 4.3 GPH cruise, 30 minutes reserve requires 2.15 gallons. So he needed at least 2.88 gallons usable to legally takeoff, not including taxi and runup. But I already had him flying the entire distance and then some at full throttle but only averaging 77 kts. (OK - I chose extra distance and set the speed to make it an even 6 minutes to make the division trivial.)

I do need to point out that I do not takeoff with anything less than 1 hour reserves, but I sometimes find it is a useful exercise to argue the contrary case, rather than posting a prudent and majority view.