Lawsuit Madness - OMG

[Matthew]

I was wondering the same thing. I just spent a few minutes trying to find anything about the mythical 8 gallons of fuel starvation accident but can't find anything.

That could mean there probably was no 'accident', it was probably an 'incident'. We've had several of each around here, and in all cases FAA/NTSB checks fuel quantity (f they get involved). They want to know - starvation or exhaustion? It's going to be hard to find a pattern if no one measures fuel remaining after one of these episodes. Was there fuel left? If yes, how much and why didn't it work? If not, where did it go?

In this case, the pilot says he had plenty of fuel for his flight (plus reserves), but the engine disagreed. Measuring the remaining fuel in the tank seems like a good way to start, if you really do want to figure out what happened. But the pilot says watever fuel was left splashed out through the vent so an empty tank won't mean anything.

 

[vintage cessna]

Wonder what his instructors told him about fuel management? Most instructors will say never trust a gauge or a stick. Probably none of them thought to say never take off with one tank empty and a few gallons sloshing around the other.

 

[murphey]

This guy deserves to be banned. He only answers the questions that can be answered by circular, pointless finger-pointing. Anything that gets down to specific facts is either ignored or deflected by off-topic demands for names and numbers.

Purely an attention-whore troll.

My suggestion is that all of us just ignore this thread. Reminds me of the person on the corner of two of the busiest streets in town. He has a large, hand-written religious sign. His constitutional right to stand there and voice his personal opinion. But I have no obligation to stop and discuss religion with him, nor agree nor disagree. I just ignore him and go on my way.

At least Pete Flemming was funny at times.

And yes, I have read the suit. It was painful to read with the spelling & grammar mistakes.

 

[Matthew]

Probably none of them thought to say never take off with one tank empty and a few gallons sloshing around the other.

I think that's why he's suing.

 

[danielabernath]

Re: Lawsuit Madness - OMG
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtheune View Post
I was wondering the same thing. I just spent a few minutes trying to find anything about the mythical 8 gallons of fuel starvation accident but can't find anything.
I couldn't find any reference to Dan's repeated assertion either. Certainly such an incident/accident would have an official report somewhere. He wouldn't make something like that up, would he? After all he is of such high moral character that they won't even let him play lawyer in Oregon

Why do you keep posting on a public forum when you've made such a monkey of yourself?

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 (mythical?) 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.
22. On 30 June 2009 and 28 May 2012 The British version of the FAA and/or the NTSB investigated a fuel starvation of CTSWs and ordered Flight Design to warn its British pilots (Flight Design did not warn Plaintiff or other United States pilots)

AAIB Bulletin: 6/2010 G-CERA EW/G2009/06/06
ACCIDENT
Aircraft Type and Registration: Flight Design CTSW, G-CERA
No & Type of Engines: 1 Rotax 912ULS piston engine
Year of Manufacture: 2007
Date & Time (UTC): 30 June 2009 at 1101 hrs
Previous power loss incidents on this aircraft type have been attributed by some to the fuel outlets in the tanks becoming uncovered due to fuel sloshing during uncoordinated turns with low fuel levels, resulting in fuel starvation.

(However) In this case the aircraft reportedly had significant fuel on board and was not manoeuvring.
23. Another British fuel starvation of which defendants were aware:


TITLE Fuel System, …. A CTSW ran out of fuel when apparently 5 litres remained in one tank and no fuel indicated in the other. The reported circumstances of the accident indicate that the engine became starved of fuel. The nature of the tank design is not conducive to accurate gauging, with any sustained sideslip or nose-down attitude effectively generating quantities of unusable fuel in excess of the 0.5 litres stated by the aircraft manufacturer. In fact the manufacturer’s own tests, conducted with the aircraft on the ground, indicated a significant increase in the unusable fuel quantity when the aircraft attitude changed from the straight and level. The manufacturer additionally noted that it was possible to restart the engine following temporary fuel starvation; however, this might not be a practical procedure for pilots in the course of a normal flight and, moreover, would not comply with BCARS959, which refers to the first 86 © Crown copyright 2010 AAIB Bulletin: 8/2010 G-VINH EW/C2009/08/02 evidence of malfunctioning.



Safety Recommendation 2010-045

It is recommended that Flight Design GmbH, together with P&M Aviation, revise their assessment of the unusable fuel in the CTSWaircraft.



Additional safety action

Following this accident, P&M Aviation declared their intention to publish a Service Letter which will explain the effects of aircraft attitude and turbulence on fuel feed at low fuel levels. In addition, it will point out that the minimum quantity that the fuel sight gauge will indicate is 3 litres. (appx. 8/10 gallon) Finally, a placard will be required to be fitted to the aircraft advising the pilot that he or she must ensure that at least 1 cm of fuel is visible on both fuel contents sight gauges at all times.



CLASSIFICATION The CAA have classified this bulletin as Mandatory

COMPLIANCE Read and amend operations as directed, append to manual.

APPLICABILITY All UK registered CT2K and CTSW aircraft.


7) A placard must be attached to the instrument panel as follows:


MONITOR FUEL SIGHT GAUGES REGULARLY.

BOTH GAUGES MUST SHOW SOME FUEL.

LAND IF NO FUEL IS SEEN IN EITHER SIGHT GAUGE.

 

[poadeleted21]

I was wondering the same thing. I just spent a few minutes trying to find anything about the mythical 8 gallons of fuel starvation accident but can't find anything.

If he's referring to the one in Utah, the NTSB determined "Engine stopped for undetermined reasons" There was some blurb about the choke being on, then the pilot turning it off. I'm not familiar with chokes in airplanes.

 

[poadeleted21]

Re: Lawsuit Madness - OMG
....
US Pilot’s CTSW engine suffers fuel starvation: NASA report Narrative: aircraft CTSW NASA ASRS Report 739488, May 2007 ...

It's a NASA report. In other word's it's only the pilots testimony (and nothing else) of what happened and most people use them because it has the potential to shield them from disciplinary action if they did something stupid.
You would have been wise to fill one out too.

In other words, it holds about as much weight as proof as random message board postings, maybe even less. At least claims on a message board are peer reviewed and open for criticism.

 

[vintage cessna]

It's a NASA report. In other word's it's only the pilots testimony (and nothing else) of what happened and most people use them because it has the potential to shield them from disciplinary action if they did something stupid.
You would have been wise to fill one out too.

In other words, it holds about as much weight as proof as random message board postings, maybe even less. At least claims on a message board are peer reviewed and open for criticism.

The second example is a good one also, a grand total of 5 liters of fuel remaining in one tank, the other tank dry. An instructor can only talk about judgement, can't really teach it.

 

[eetrojan]

I was wondering the same thing. I just spent a few minutes trying to find anything about the mythical 8 gallons of fuel starvation accident but can't find anything.

Here's a PDF of what appears to be his source, an anonymous report:

2007 NASA Aviation Safety Report

It appears that he quoted part of this unofficial, but more readable version in his complaint, under the self-serving heading "US Pilot's CTSW engine suffers fuel starvation":

More Readable Version from www.37000feet.com

 

[SCCutler]

...sorta like citing to Wikipedia...

 

[weilke]

The second example is a good one also, a grand total of 5 liters of fuel remaining in one tank, the other tank dry. An instructor can only talk about judgement, can't really teach it.

With 5 litres (1.3gal) I would expect the engine to quit in any condition except stationary on level ground.

 

[vintage cessna]

Here's a PDF of what appears to be his source, an anonymous report:

2007 ASRS Report

Here's another less official, but more readable version:

More Readable Version from www.37000feet.com

Could have been caused by a number of things, vapor lock being one. While carb ice is not common on a ROTAX it has been know to happen. Some LSA with a ROTAX are equipped with carb heat, some not.

 

[jtheune]

Re: Lawsuit Madness - OMG
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtheune View Post
I was wondering the same thing. I just spent a few minutes trying to find anything about the mythical 8 gallons of fuel starvation accident but can't find anything.
I couldn't find any reference to Dan's repeated assertion either. Certainly such an incident/accident would have an official report somewhere. He wouldn't make something like that up, would he? After all he is of such high moral character that they won't even let him play lawyer in Oregon

Why do you keep posting on a public forum when you've made such a monkey of yourself?

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 (mythical?) 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.
22. On 30 June 2009 and 28 May 2012 The British version of the FAA and/or the NTSB investigated a fuel starvation of CTSWs and ordered Flight Design to warn its British pilots (Flight Design did not warn Plaintiff or other United States pilots)

AAIB Bulletin: 6/2010 G-CERA EW/G2009/06/06
ACCIDENT
Aircraft Type and Registration: Flight Design CTSW, G-CERA
No & Type of Engines: 1 Rotax 912ULS piston engine
Year of Manufacture: 2007
Date & Time (UTC): 30 June 2009 at 1101 hrs
Previous power loss incidents on this aircraft type have been attributed by some to the fuel outlets in the tanks becoming uncovered due to fuel sloshing during uncoordinated turns with low fuel levels, resulting in fuel starvation.

(However) In this case the aircraft reportedly had significant fuel on board and was not manoeuvring.
23. Another British fuel starvation of which defendants were aware:


TITLE Fuel System, …. A CTSW ran out of fuel when apparently 5 litres remained in one tank and no fuel indicated in the other. The reported circumstances of the accident indicate that the engine became starved of fuel. The nature of the tank design is not conducive to accurate gauging, with any sustained sideslip or nose-down attitude effectively generating quantities of unusable fuel in excess of the 0.5 litres stated by the aircraft manufacturer. In fact the manufacturer’s own tests, conducted with the aircraft on the ground, indicated a significant increase in the unusable fuel quantity when the aircraft attitude changed from the straight and level. The manufacturer additionally noted that it was possible to restart the engine following temporary fuel starvation; however, this might not be a practical procedure for pilots in the course of a normal flight and, moreover, would not comply with BCARS959, which refers to the first 86 © Crown copyright 2010 AAIB Bulletin: 8/2010 G-VINH EW/C2009/08/02 evidence of malfunctioning.



Safety Recommendation 2010-045

It is recommended that Flight Design GmbH, together with P&M Aviation, revise their assessment of the unusable fuel in the CTSWaircraft.



Additional safety action

Following this accident, P&M Aviation declared their intention to publish a Service Letter which will explain the effects of aircraft attitude and turbulence on fuel feed at low fuel levels. In addition, it will point out that the minimum quantity that the fuel sight gauge will indicate is 3 litres. (appx. 8/10 gallon) Finally, a placard will be required to be fitted to the aircraft advising the pilot that he or she must ensure that at least 1 cm of fuel is visible on both fuel contents sight gauges at all times.



CLASSIFICATION The CAA have classified this bulletin as Mandatory

COMPLIANCE Read and amend operations as directed, append to manual.

APPLICABILITY All UK registered CT2K and CTSW aircraft.


7) A placard must be attached to the instrument panel as follows:


MONITOR FUEL SIGHT GAUGES REGULARLY.

BOTH GAUGES MUST SHOW SOME FUEL.

LAND IF NO FUEL IS SEEN IN EITHER SIGHT GAUGE.

So you quote a NASA form report that has no investigation, just someone narrative and even then not all of it. As for what you have copied, it says that he climbed until he was within gliding distance then he closed the throttle and the engine stopped. So it was running before he stopped it.. The for the CAA warning it talks about the issues of un porting for nose down attitudes and sloshing of fuel. So far nothing you have posted here bolsters your case

 

[Matthew]

Didn't the guy say he was coordinated and intentionally lowered the nose? According to the report just posted, lowering the nose made a "significant increase in the unusable fuel quantity".

 

[jtheune]

OK, so now I've seen the full NASA report and see that the pilots thinks the problem was fuel starvation but does not know for sure. DA keeps asking for fuel system experts but is willing to talk the word of a anonymous poster as the absolute truth. Ignores all other possible explanations such as carb icing.

I am somewhat curious as to where this took place. The writer indicates that the plane lost power at 9000 15 miles from airport. The CTLS is specified at 14:1 for a glide ratio so why did he not just glide to the airport?

 

[bullwinkle]

With 5 litres (1.3gal) I would expect the engine to quit in any condition except stationary on level ground.

Boy, no kidding. The unporting of fuel when the tanks are low due to pitch or yaw changes is *very* well known to CT pilots. I know of only one other pilot that thinks it's good to run the tanks below 5 gallons or so indicated per side in the sight tubes, and that guy in probably headed to another incident like this one.

 

[danielabernath]

So you die hard internet tough guys keep repeating yourselves.
3 Lawyers have looked at the complaint and have said the legal equivalent of "Flight Design has its nuts in the vice".
I'll check in to this in about 2 weeks as I have promised I won't respond to middle school insults, unsupported opinions and facts not in evidence.

I love all of you and some of you have helped me (1. to see the silly arguments that Flight Design will make and forearm me to shred their strategy to tissue, 2. some actual knowledge about the fuel system. Bye.

 

[nddons]

The second example is a good one also, a grand total of 5 liters of fuel remaining in one tank, the other tank dry. An instructor can only talk about judgement, can't really teach it.

Liters? Gallons? I've got it! He can blame it on the metric system! Cha Ching $$$$$$$$$

 

[denverpilot]

Bye.

See ya, dumb ass who ran his airplane out of gas!

 

[silver-eagle]

So you die hard internet tough guys keep repeating yourselves.
3 Lawyers have looked at the complaint and have said the legal equivalent of "Flight Design has its nuts in the vice".
I'll check in to this in about 2 weeks as I have promised I won't respond to middle school insults, unsupported opinions and facts not in evidence.

I love all of you and some of you have helped me (1. to see the silly arguments that Flight Design will make and forearm me to shred their strategy to tissue, 2. some actual knowledge about the fuel system. Bye.

I hope you lose and lose big. It is product liability lawsuits like this that have made the cost of a $20,000 vehicle $400,000 to buy. Instead of trying to suck money out of the system, how about working with the vendor to make the product better.
I see nothing wrong with the design. I see a flaw in the pilots operation INCLUDING the guy who cleary could see fuel being used from only one tank. You are the pilot in command, the guy in charge, the brain of this inanimate object. YOU FAILED! The guy with the disparate use FAILED. Even IF the design is wrong, the failure was the PIC!
almost 1,000 messages all have the same theme. PIC FAILED!

 

[poadeleted21]

Liters? Gallons? I've got it! He can blame it on the metric system! Cha Ching $$$$$$$$$

Gimili Glider

 

[flyingcheesehead]

McGee v. Cessna is another recent example. Cessna just made up numbers out of the blue for the POH. Caravan Passengers died. Lawsuits do good things.

Speaking of making things up out of the blue... I looked up McGee v. Cessna.

1) It's not a recent example. The crash happened before I was born (3/28/1971) and the court ruling happened on 1/18/1983.
2) It was a Cardinal, not a Caravan.
3) It had nothing to do with POH numbers.
4) Nobody died.
5) Cessna won the original lawsuit.
6) Cessna ALSO won the appeal!

http://www.leagle.com/decision/1983318139CalApp3d179_1307

 

[N801BH]

Speaking of making things up out of the blue... I looked up McGee v. Cessna.

1) It's not a recent example. The crash happened before I was born (3/28/1971) and the court ruling happened on 1/18/1983.
2) It was a Cardinal, not a Caravan.
3) It had nothing to do with POH numbers.
4) Nobody died.
5) Cessna won the original lawsuit.
6) Cessna ALSO won the appeal!

http://www.leagle.com/decision/1983318139CalApp3d179_1307

Looks like our resident attorney, Danial, is as full of siht as a Christmas Turkey...

 

[pilot_dude]

I've offered cash on the barrel head for each ounce more than unusable but he doesn't have the cojones to take me up on the offer.
OK, heres the offer. You drink Avgas in the amount that was usable, including what spilled out onto the wing and I'll pay you $10,000 for each gallon that you drink.

But as you are an internet hero, I don't even know your name, address, phone number. We'll have an expert witness estimate as to how much fuel spilled out plus what is in the tank after a 4 minute flight after having approximately 30 minutes of fuel left.
.

My wife would file a frivolous $10M lawsuit against you for not telling
me that practice is dangerous.

 

[pilot_dude]

So you die hard internet tough guys keep repeating yourselves.
3 Lawyers have looked at the complaint and have said the legal equivalent of "Flight Design has its nuts in the vice".

Earlier you said 2 lawyers. By the way, how many looked at your drivel to find a couple who have a favorable opinion?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

3. Don't type messages on your cell phone as you drive. You're going to cause a deadly collision and I might be hired by your victims. (and their families)

To argue their case in front of a Social Security judge?

My moral character is just fine, thank you, having been an officer of the Court for 30 years and passed the equivalent of a top secret clearance for Homeland Security after 9.11.

"Equivalent of a top secret clearance?" Yeah right. You either have it, or you don't. And considering that you can't keep ANYTHING a secret (a good lawyer could've told you it's a bad idea to discuss pending litigation), well, my BS meter is pegged.

 

[denverpilot]

"Equivalent of a top secret clearance?" Yeah right. You either have it, or you don't. And considering that you can't keep ANYTHING a secret (a good lawyer could've told you it's a bad idea to discuss pending litigation), well, my BS meter is pegged.

Heh. You noticed that BS too, eh? Man this twit makes me laugh.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

*For everyone who thinks that a sloppy line ape spilled fuel on the top of the wing and not usable fuel squirted out, raise your hand.

<raises hand> with the exception of the "sloppy line ape" insult - I thought it was OTHER people who were using middle-school name-calling?

*For everyone who thinks that the Light Sport curriculum includes this fuel starvation issue raise your hand.

<raises hand again> Oooooo, mememememe!!!!

14 CFR 61.309:

§61.309 What aeronautical knowledge must I have to apply for a sport pilot certificate?
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:

(i) Principles of aerodynamics, powerplants, and aircraft systems.

(l) Preflight actions that include—

(1) How to get information on runway lengths at airports of intended use, data on takeoff and landing distances, weather reports and forecasts, and fuel requirements; and

(2) How to plan for alternatives if the planned flight cannot be completed or if you encounter delays.

And, the Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge from the FAA - Y'know, that thing that tells us about those knowledge items that 61.309 is talking about. It's really simple, it has a chapter on aircraft systems (hmm, where have I heard of that before?) that says, in part (see page 6-26):

Regardless of the type of fuel selector in use, fuel consumption should be monitored closely to ensure that a tank does not run completely out of fuel. Running a fuel tank dry will not only cause the engine to stop, but running for prolonged periods on one tank causes an unbalanced fuel load between tanks. Running a tank completely dry may allow air to enter the fuel system and cause vapor lock, which makes it difficult to restart the engine.

 

[frfly172]

You can always find a lawyer to sue someone . I wonder did the lawyer take the case on spec or is the pilot paying him. I like the ct and most of their pilots ,they have a good web site that the pilot in question probably didn't access until the crash. Giving LS A pilots a bad name.

 

[Velocity173]

See ya, dumb ass who ran his airplane out of gas!

Lol! I think that's the shortest post I've ever seen of yours. I think you officially fall under the definition of "Internet tough guy" though.

 

[Old Geek]

You can always find a lawyer to sue someone . I wonder did the lawyer take the case on spec or is the pilot paying him. I like the ct and most of their pilots ,they have a good web site that the pilot in question probably didn't access until the crash. Giving LS A pilots a bad name.

He did hang out at ctflier.com for awhile. There was conflict and he left.

 

[denverpilot]

He did hang out at ctflier.com for awhile. There was conflict and he left.

Haha. You don't say.

 

[SoloEqs]

Oh, by the way, which CAA do you keep referring to?

It's the club he's in: "Can't Actually Aviate."

 

[SoloEqs]

If he's referring to the one in Utah, the NTSB determined "Engine stopped for undetermined reasons" There was some blurb about the choke being on, then the pilot turning it off. I'm not familiar with chokes in airplanes.

They're common in engines taken from ground use, such as snowmobile or motorcycle engines, when they use carbs without mixture control.

 

[poadeleted21]

Haha. You don't say.

I read his "I'm starting this thread so you'll ban me" thread at sportpilottalk.com too. The admins wouldn't ban him :rolf:

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

The Bing carburetors on the Rotax don't have an actual choke (as in a choke plate that closes off the venturi). It has a bypass circuit that will deliver a rich mixture when the "choke" knob is pulled and the throttle is closed. When the throttle is open, the enrichment circuit does very little.


Now, given that the subject of this discussion claims to have been inadequately trained and therefore is not qualified to act as PIC, is there a risk that his wife will be sued for letting him use her airplane?

 

[MooneyDude]

The Bing carburetors on the Rotax don't have an actual choke (as in a choke plate that closes off the venturi). It has a bypass circuit that will deliver a rich mixture when the "choke" knob is pulled and the throttle is closed. When the throttle is open, the enrichment circuit does very little.


Now, given that the subject of this discussion claims to have been inadequately trained and therefore is not qualified to act as PIC, is there a risk that his wife will be sued for letting him use her airplane?

The wife will probably end up suing because the mishap failed to kill him, and now she has to continue living with him!

 

[JeffDG]

The wife will probably end up suing because the mishap failed to kill him, and now she has to continue living with him!

Inflection of Extreme Emotional Anguish.

I liked in one of the news article about him assaulting the judge (for which he was convinced of disorderly conduct), one of the lawyers that works there referred to him as a "chronic whiner"

 

[FastEddieB]

I read his "I'm starting this thread so you'll ban me" thread at sportpilottalk.com too. The admins wouldn't ban him :rolf:

While you're there, check out the thread on using an iPad groundspeed readout as a landing aid:

http://sportpilottalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=2574

Again, the flow of that thread will give insight into what's going on here.

Some rather prescient warnings were given by myself and others regarding his mindset and where it might lead.

Oh, and ussyorktown was Mr. Bernath's screen name there.

 

[poadeleted21]

While you're there, check out the thread on using an iPad groundspeed readout as a landing aid:

http://sportpilottalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=2574

Again, the flow of that thread will give insight into what's going on here.

Some rather prescient warnings were given by myself and others regarding his mindset and where it might lead.

Oh, and ussyorktown was Mr. Bernath's screen name there.

That better than the "ill just kill the dog" thread. I'd like to meet the CFI who signed him off and the DPE who agreed. The airspeed portion of my oral exam were very in depth and would have sorted that nonsense out in the first 5 seconds.