Lawsuit Madness - OMG

Status
Not open for further replies.
danielabernath said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is my first response to your drivel. You keep changing your story from post to post and quite frankly, your a idiot.
 
FastEddieB said:
Can we assume both of those are flight times?
Click to expand...

Yep.

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!
Click to expand...

Yep! But I bet he didn't do a runup. ;)

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.
Click to expand...

Agh! This thread has gone on plenty long without needing to insert the myth that the FAA says you have to fly a traffic pattern! :mad2:

(Someday I'll be able to keep up with this thread... Looks like I'm only 4 or 5 pages behind today...)
 
Abby Normal keeps posting that photo of the fuel residue on the top of the wing.

If that's collected over time, why didn't he catch it during preflights?

If that's new, the only way it could be there would be if he hadn't put the cap back on properly after his visual determination that he only had enough fuel to get from takeoff to the crash site.

Either way, it only shows him to be even more of a fool that we had thought.
 
jtheune said:
This is my first response to your drivel. You keep changing your story from post to post and quite frankly, your a idiot.
Click to expand...

Sigh, writing "your a idiot" rather than "you're an idiot" kinda moots your statement regardless how true it may be.
 
Daniel,

If you need to know my real name, I'm the guy that loaned you a CTSW oil pressure gauge to troubleshoot a problem with your airplane. Back when I thought you were a pretty cool guy. Now, not so much. I understand that you have to do what you have to do. But you'll never, ever convince other pilots that it's the right thing to do. Or that you are doing CT drivers a favor by doing it.

IMHO, the best thing you can do is drop the lawsuit, settle up with the FAA with "an attitude of compliance", fix the airplane and enjoy flying again. Life is too short to **** everyone off.
 
danielabernath said:
*Flight Design CTSW have crashed in this common condition in coordinated flight (e.g. the nose of the aircraft is pointing down).
Click to expand...

What does the nose pointing down have to do with being in coordinated flight? :dunno:
 
Old Geek said:
Life is too short to **** everyone off.
Click to expand...

Without addressing anyone in particular, there exists a class of person who's sole "raison de être" is to **** everyone off.

It's what they live for.

As an aside, and again purely hypothetically, I wonder how either an FAA official or an NTSB investigator might respond to being "chest bumped"? I only ask because I think I read somewhere it's occasionally used as a tactic.
 
danielabernath said:
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."
Click to expand...

OMG, really?!? Some random guy on the ramp says you are good to go, so off you go? Have you ever heard the term "Pilot in Command"? It means you are solely responsible for all aspects of flight safety and decision-making. It's what you were when you took off, regardless of what any other person's opinion was on the prudence of making the flight.
 
danielabernath said:
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
Click to expand...

I relish that discovery. I have read your many posts over the years at sportpilottalk.com, there is PLENTY of material there to show you as an unsafe pilot with willful disregard of your own safety and that of others in many different situations.

BTW, how's the Oregon law license coming? Your denial of admission to the Bar there due to "not being a person of good moral character" will almost certainly be brought up as well.
 
Henning said:
Sigh, writing "your a idiot" rather than "you're an idiot" kinda moots your statement regardless how true it may be.
Click to expand...

So please explain to me how my using your instead of you're changed things. Did you not understand what I was saying? Or is it that you just want to play grammar god again?
 
jtheune said:
So please explain to me how my using your instead of you're changed things. Did you not understand what I was saying? Or is it that you just want to play grammar god again?
Click to expand...

I never play grammar god, just pointing out when you use words that are inapplicable to make a point about someone else being an idiot, you weaken your own position.
 
Henning said:
I never play grammar god, just pointing out when you use words that are inapplicable to make a point about someone else being an idiot, you weaken your own position.
Click to expand...
Only if you consider knowledge of English grammar to be equivalent to basic airmanship for a pilot.
 
Gary F said:
Only if you consider knowledge of English grammar to be equivalent to basic airmanship for a pilot.
Click to expand...

Yes they are quite equivalent, in fact, basic airmanship requires an even greater attention to detail as is exemplified in this thread. It's all about the mental discipline to get things correct, flying or writing.
 
bullwinkle said:
I relish that discovery. I have read your many posts over the years at sportpilottalk.com, there is PLENTY of material there to show you as an unsafe pilot with willful disregard of your own safety and that of others in many different situations.

BTW, how's the Oregon law license coming? Your denial of admission to the Bar there due to "not being a person of good moral character" will almost certainly be brought up as well.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but for a seemingly well-educated person, his spelling and grammar (both here, other websites and the lawsuit) leaves a great deal to be desired. :goofy:
 
Speaking of discipline, I find it most fascinating that the "attorney" can't keep himself from posting to this thread, long after he said he would stop.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
Speaking of discipline, I find it most fascinating that the "attorney" can't keep himself from posting to this thread, long after he said he would stop.
Click to expand...

I had the right to remain silent, but not the ability.

--
Ron White
 
bullwinkle said:
BTW, how's the Oregon law license coming? Your denial of admission to the Bar there due to "not being a person of good moral character" will almost certainly be brought up as well.
Click to expand...

Interesting:
http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S44863.htm
[Bernath] acknowledged that he signed Varner's name on the release agreement. [Bernath] also endorsed Varner's name on the settlement check. [Bernath] made no disclosure or indication, either on the release documents or orally, that he was signing the release on Varner's behalf. In addition, [Bernath] signed his own name on the release attesting that he witnessed Varner sign that document.(2)

By signing the release agreement and the settlement check, [Bernath] falsely represented to the defendant, the defendant's counsel, the defendant's insurance carrier, and the bank that negotiated the settlement check that Varner personally approved the settlement, endorsed the check, and released the defendant from all claims. [Bernath]'s willingness to make such false representations demonstrates a lack of good moral character.
Click to expand...

Seems he makes a habit of lying.
 
danielabernath said:
There is no evidence of uncooirdinated flight.
Click to expand...

Nor is there any evidence of coordinated flight. What's your point?

However, there IS evidence of uncoordinated flight - The fuel imbalance and the premature unporting of the tank with remaining fuel are both indicators of uncoordinated flight.

Other 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.
Click to expand...

Yeah - It does. Cessna's decision makes us all safer BY GROUNDING US. Cessna has decided that the LSA market doesn't make sense, that it's biz jets where they make their money. Is that what you want, no more small airplanes? Because if there's enough ****ing idiots like you in the world who sue the pants off all of the manufacturers, there will be no more airplanes.

You should stop trying to prove yourself to anyone here, because you'll get no agreement. You should stop flying and get the hell out of aviation instead of screwing it up for the rest of us who are responsible about our flying.

$10mil. Do you realize that's nearly $20 for every single pilot in the US to make up for your idiot mistake? Go pound ground. You're unfit to fly. Admit it and get out. I'm sick of you leeches.

:incazzato::mad2:
 
I wonder of he finished his anger management classes yet?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielabernath
As a student, I flew it coordinated and uncoordinated with 10 CFI's at different times with one tank empty and the other with 5 to 6 gallons or more. As the student I flew the aircraft 95% of the time. "Unsafe with any Fuel CTSW"

Need an "unsafe WITHOUT any fuel" placard.
 
Immelmann said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielabernath "Unsafe with any Fuel CTSW"[/I]

Need an "unsafe WITHOUT any fuel" placard.
Click to expand...

For those too young to have lived through it, I expect this is what is being channeled here:

Book_Front-cover_Nader.gif


Pretty much killed the Corvair, which was actually a pretty neat little car:

buickbombsiteorg2.jpg
 
No, this guy is well beyond Nader.

The Corvair could be driven stupidly, but it really did handle differently from other cars, due to its novel independent rear suspension geometry. No one got training on how to drive a Corvair.

If you drove it sanely, you were fine. If you tried to drive the first few model years like race cars, you could get into trouble on curves and corners, that you wouldn't for other cars. GM tried to correct the IRS after the first few model years, but the bad press was already done.
 
MAKG1 said:
The Corvair could be driven stupidly, but it really did handle differently from other cars, due to its novel independent rear suspension geometry. No one got training on how to drive a Corvair.

If you drove it sanely, you were fine...
Click to expand...

I actually drove one for quite some time, doing delivery for a drug store near Washington, D.C. in the late 60's.

I think it's handling quirks were typical for any rear-engined car with IRS. VW's and Porsches could similarly be forced into oversteer.

Anyway, I wasn't comparing Bernath and Nader, just pointing out the possible source of the "Unsafe at any..." preface.
 
MAKG1 said:
If you tried to drive the first few model years like race cars, you could get into trouble on curves and corners, that you wouldn't for other cars.
Click to expand...

My brother in law did that. Wrapped the car up in a chain link fence on someone's lawn.:lol:
 
The early Corvairs had a swing axle that tended to tuck up under the car during heavy cornering. In 1965 they changed to parallel links that gave it much better handling. I had the turbo model and it was a fun car to drive. You could hear the turbo spool up and give you an extra boost of horsepower.

Nadar actually helped sales for a little while. (If Ralph didn't like it, it must be good.) What eventually killed it was the fact that it shared practically zero parts with other GM models.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top