Lawsuit Madness - OMG

Status
Not open for further replies.
So how many people have died from this so called deadly design defect? Thought so. What I find funny is that he keeps trying to link a possible placarded warning with a defect. One has nothing to do with the other. My UH-60 flight manual has probably over 100 warnings in it and none point to a defect. Why? Because a warning warns of a practice; untie the rotor blades prior to starting the engines. Any defects are corrected through the life of an aircraft and aren't put as some advisory placard.

If it truly was a defect the FAA wouldn't have certified the aircraft in the first place. It's not like this is some flaw that's cropped up over time through testing, flight hours, fatigue etc. it's the way it was designed and certified. Apparently the FAA has no problems with it. Even the CAA doesn't consider it a defect. They simple feel it's noteworthy as a placard, while the FAA doesn't think so.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the warning.

mistakesdemotivator.jpg
 
danielabernath said:
. With this thread and with this lawsuit the news will go out and we will now have fewer CTSW crashing into terrain.
Click to expand...
Really?????? I do not think any placard or amount of training is going to stop pilots from doing stupid pilot tricks. You are living proof of that.

You are also the poster child of what is wrong with this country..."it has got to be someone else's fault."

Come on, own up to it. You made a mistake and crashed a perfectly good plane. It is no one's fault but yourself. You chose to fly the plane with minimal fuel and found out why that is not a real good idea. This has nothing to do with lack of training, or a faulty plane design, but has to do with your own faulty thinking. You want to help other pilots avoid this, take the time and money you are wasting on this and donate it to a worthy aviation cause, and ask AOPA to feature you in one of their pilot stories videos, or something similar.
 
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...

YOU ARE F*CKING IDIOT !
I wish I could sue you out of the human race. I am sad that you were allowed to recreate and further your sad stupid gene pool. I don't care what the fuel gauge says it's what your watch says that counts. I learned that when I was fourteen fricking years old. Why do you want to embarrass yourself like this ? How sad for your children to learn that you are this stupid.
 
Re: Hello from Daniel A. Bernath, lawyer

Art VanDelay said:
YOU ARE F*CKING IDIOT !
I wish I could sue you out of the human race. I am sad that you were allowed to recreate and further your sad stupid gene pool. I don't care what the fuel gauge says it's what your watch says that counts. I learned that when I was fourteen fricking years old. Why do you want to embarrass yourself like this ? How sad for your children to learn that you are this stupid.
Click to expand...
I think you hit the nail on the head:
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/10/portland_judge_orders_social_s.html
http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Daniel-Bernath/217647209
http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-5118-daniel_bernath.html
http://aspecialdayguide.com/bernathresume.htm (his own site)
http://badlawyernyc.blogspot.com/2010/10/remember-oregons-wrestling-social.html
http://theevilgovernment.com/bernath.html
 
bernath.jpg


I wonder, based on what I've read on the internet (much of it your words) if you're a worse attorney or pilot.

Either way I wouldn't trust you to represent a lemonade stand or pilot a golf cart. You wake up every morning knowing you're a drag on society, right?
 
Re: Hello from Daniel A. Bernath, lawyer

danielabernath said:
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.
Click to expand...

Didn't you ever see "The High and the Mighty," Dan?

You landed and determined that you were low on fuel. That was smart.

You took off again, KNOWING that you were low on fuel. That was STUPID.

Unless the CT has some instrument in the plane which promises that you can fly for a particular length of time or a particular distance, the pilot's judgment is the sole determining factor in whether there is sufficient fuel to make a flight. Your judgment was FAULTY.

If, at any time in your training, it was explained to you that you needed fuel to make the engine go, and that you need the engine going in order to fly, then nobody else bears any responsibility for your attempt to fly without sufficient fuel.

It's guys like you who gave the Beechcraft Bonanza such a bad reputation. The "Fork-tailed Doctor Killer" was sold to a bunch of professionals who were too busy to keep their proficiency levels up, then figured that they were such smart guys that they could just jump in and fly when they finally had time. They then discovered that low-time pilots with rusty skills weren't up to the job. It got so bad, the FAA imposed the Biennial Flight Review program on pilots.

And, just like those idiot doctors, lawyers and dentists who were so eager to kill themselves and their families, you didn't seek out the available information which would have POSSIBLY made you think a little.

I will agree with your statement that "the pilot was injured mentally." I just have seen nothing to suggest that this happened AFTER you took off.
 
It is frivolous lawsuits like this, perpetrated by sheister lawyers like this, following pilot-induced accidents like this, that mutated the rational and common sense CAR 3 into the amalgamation that is Part 23 (worse for Part 25).

As a Reliability, Maintainability and Safety engineer for almost 20 years I can say that while we routinely say, and mean, that every paragraph in the FAR's is written in blood, the prime contributor is stupid pilot tricks, actual design issues are extreme outliers from a statistical standpoint - but it is always more profitable for the ambulance chasers to go after the presumably deep pockets of OEM's, suppliers, brokers, etc., than for the estate of the pilot's widow.

Too many of these frivolous suits will drive the price of LSA's even higher, maybe (hopefully) beyond the reach of would-be pilots like this 'winner' who show an alarming lack of basic decision making, let alone ADM.

'Gimp
 
Being somewhat familiar with the area, the question that keeps going over in my mind is why you didn't stop at S39, Prineville, and get some gas?
 
Last edited:
Old Geek said:
Being somewhat familiar with the area, the question that keeps going over in my mind is why you didn't stop at S39, Prineville, and get some gas?
Click to expand...

Because the POH and placards don't mention "Prineville" . . ?

I've spent the last few minutes trying to remember who this guy reminded me of -- then I got it!

He's the German colonel in "Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines," who doesn't know how to fly and has to read the manual every step of the way -- starting with "Step One: Sit down!"
 
danielabernath said:
I have done what Flight Design-defect refused to do. I warned you. I informed you to put the same warning sign into your CTSW that the Skycatcher requires and the CTSW's in the UK require but the Yankee versions don't have. So, tell your CTSW buddies to put the warning into their cabins. With this thread and with this lawsuit the news will go out and we will now have fewer CTSW crashing into terrain.
Click to expand...

I think 10 million is a small price to pay for the service you've provided and the awareness you've raised within the pilot community. Thank you sir.
 
upstateny said:
EAGLES LYRICS


"Get Over It"


I turn on the tube and what do I see
A whole lotta people cryin' "Don't blame me"
They point their crooked little fingers ar everybody else
Spend all their time feelin' sorry for themselves
Victim of this, victim of that
Your momma's too thin; your daddy's too fat

Get over it
Get over it
All this whinin' and cryin' and pitchin' a fit
Get over it, get over it

You say you haven't been the same since you had your little crash
But you might feel better if I gave you some cash
The more I think about it, Old Billy was right
Let's kill all the lawyers, kill 'em tonight
You don't want to work, you want to live like a king
But the big, bad world doesn't owe you a thing

Get over it
Get over it
If you don't want to play, then you might as well split
Get over it, Get over it

It's like going to confession every time I hear you speak
You're makin' the most of your losin' streak
Some call it sick, but I call it weak

You drag it around like a ball and chain
You wallow in the guilt; you wallow in the pain
You wave it like a flag, you wear it like a crown
Got your mind in the gutter, bringin' everybody down
Complain about the present and blame it on the past
I'd like to find your inner child and kick its little ass

Get over it
Get over it
All this bitchin' and moanin' and pitchin' a fit
Get over it, get over it

Get over it
Get over it
It's gotta stop sometime, so why don't you quit
Get over it, get over it
Click to expand...

FTFY :D
 
And as if all of the above assertions regarding Dan's legal and piloting skills weren't bad enough, Dan's page has a JS that causes it to refresh itself while I'm in the middle of reading it!

I think I'm going to have to sue, now.

On a serious note, Dan, I think the CT's fuel issues are well-known and have been for years. As someone with no horse in the race either way, I do believe that the original fuel system could have been better-designed. I just thought it was... chintzy, for lack of a better word. I would at least have designed a header tank into the system.

That being said, your own contributory negligence in this case so far exceeds anyone else's that frankly, I think your case is going to be dismissed as frivolous. I also hope that your refusal to admit any wrong on this forum is for legal reasons, because otherwise it reflects a combination of poor ADM and even poorer willingness to learn from your mistakes.

That combination may well kill you eventually, which would be kind of a shame for a lot of reasons, not the two least being, firstly, that you did serve our country in battle (thank you for your service, by the way); and secondly, that whatever faults you may have, you do seem like a pretty colorful guy.

So I hope that privately, out of public view, and without legalities to worry about, you're not quite so arrogant and deluded as to really believe that it's anyone's fault other than your own that you made a decision to take off with inadequate fuel. There were scads of solutions available other than the one you chose, which was to begin a flight with, by my calculations, somewhere between 12 and 17 minutes of reserve fuel.

-Rich
 
Velocity173 said:
If it truly was a defect the FAA wouldn't have certified the aircraft in the first place.
Click to expand...

That claim unfortunately is too broad. Light Sport Aircraft manufacturers self-certify their aircraft; not the FAA. The FAA mostly just checks that the paperwork is complete and correct. The FAA would not have reviewed the design of the fuel system - they would have just checked that the manufacturer attested that it was found to conform to ASTM standards, some of which can be found here:
http://www.astm.org/Standards/F2245.htm

The Flight Design CTSW was designed in Germany anyway.

It's not like this is some flaw that's cropped up over time through testing, flight hours, fatigue etc. it's the way it was designed and certified. Apparently the FAA has no problems with it. Even the CAA doesn't consider it a defect. They simple feel it's noteworthy as a placard, while the FAA doesn't think so.
Click to expand...

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.
 
I'm thinking this guy is related to the "sump this" guy. :dunno:
 
Ahh, back from vacation and find a nice thread about the continuing dumbing down of America. What an idiot.
 
This should be a lesson for flight instructors. Some students you are better off staying away from.
 
danielabernath said:
img4.jpg
Click to expand...

Not for nuthin, but why do you keep posting here? 8 pages and no support for your cause. Do you think you're going to eventually convert someone? Maybe if you just show your idiot move in some new light?

So what if you do find a supporter here? What's that get you? Btw, I doubt you'll find a supporter here for your inept piloting skills. In fact, it's now bled over to highlight you inept lawyer skills too.

So I ask...what's the point?
 
Jim Logajan said:
That claim unfortunately is too broad. Light Sport Aircraft manufacturers self-certify their aircraft; not the FAA. The FAA mostly just checks that the paperwork is complete and correct. The FAA would not have reviewed the design of the fuel system - they would have just checked that the manufacturer attested that it was found to conform to ASTM standards, some of which can be found here:
http://www.astm.org/Standards/F2245.htm

The Flight Design CTSW was designed in Germany anyway.



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...

It's not just about paperwork and meeting ASTM standards, the original design must meet common FAA acceptable standards. Part of that is a thorough documentation of testing (ground & flight) and a QC program in place. After paperwork is approved a DAR is sent out to inspect the aircraft so that it complies with all the standards. I imagine that is going to be a bit more in depth then inspecting a hombuilt for airworthiness.

Flight Design isn't some fly by night company either. While its an EASA type certificate, they were still issued an FAA certificate for meeting ASTM standards.

I'm not saying that a flaw in a design or a manufacturer always meets the design standards but in this case it's a well known company with a good safety record. While their standards of testing may not be on a Part 23 level, I'm sure their fuel system testing was quite adequate. I don't see enough evidence here to support a trend or even anything close to a defect. It's quite clear pilot preflight planning error most likely contributed to lack of experience in model.
 
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. Here are a couple:

-- He uses an iPad with an app that displays speed and altitude information, mounted high on his glare shield in his field of view as, in his words, a "99 cent heads up display" to judge his speed on landing. Many of us have cautioned him about the difference between indicated airspeed and GPS ground speed, almost to the point of pleading. He just responds that we are being silly and this is a perfectly safe practice.

-- He sometimes flies rescue dogs to their new homes, which is great. But he puts them in the passenger seat without a crate, harness or any restraint whatsoever. These are dogs that he is not familiar with, and has no idea how they will react to flying. His first post about this was about a large dog moving around the cockpit and pushing on and interfering with various controls, laughing it off as a funny event. Many said he needed some way to restrain the dogs, he said no worries he knows exactly what he's doing.

Frankly, this fellow was an NTSB report just looking for the right time. He has anti-authority and invulnerable dangerous attitudes, and a general lackadaisical mindset about flying in general and safety practices in particular.

As for the CTSW fuel system, it was designed to be as simple as possible to help eliminate the fuel management mishaps that occur. It's just like a 172, except with a simple both/off valve instead of left/right/both. Any CT pilot who has done any reading on the airplane knows that there is a minimum of a half gallon per side unusable, and that the pickups are in the root of the tanks and susceptible to unporting in uncoordinated conditions, but ONLY if one tank is dry and the other is very low. Fuel can be transferred in flight as needed between tanks by flying one ball out on the slip/skid indicator, fuel will follow the ball.

Most CT pilots consider minimum fuel to be one quarter to one half (depending on terrain flying over) of the sight tubes being full on both sides. This equates to 5-10 gallons or 1-2 hours flight time. That is a lot, but the airplane has 34 gallon tanks and a generous useful load, there is simply no reason to run fuel lower than that, especially if solo as the flight in question was.

I have drained my tanks empty from the sump, and can say that when the sight tubes are empty, there is ZERO usable fuel. I also like many others, have calibrated and marked the sight tubes at 2.5, 5, and 10 gallons per side. That 2.5g mark is very low on the tube, and I don't see myself ever getting there without buying some gas.

Bernath keeps posting pictures of his fuel tank cap, claiming that he had plenty of fuel but that the stains on the wing show it all "sloshed out the vent" on impact. I find this claim ridiculous. That vent would take a long time to get even a gallon out of it, and with the vent location and tank shape, the airplane would have to be practically inverted for it to happen, yet his plane is resting upright. Also, as his plane came to rest it sits on one wing tip...the fuel stains would be running off to one side toward the downward wingtip, not in perfect circles around the fuel cap as shown in the picture.

I think Mr. Bernath is headed to a bad time with the FAA over this, and if he continues flying he will certainly meet with a predictably tragic end.
 
Last edited:
douglas393 said:
Uh...hate to add more wood to this conflaguration but he may not even be a member of the California Bar either:

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Me...TH&SoundsLike=true&SoundsLike=false&x=41&y=17

His name is not there in any form or classification.
Click to expand...

bullwinkle said:
Nobody will be shocked, but Barnath was denied admission to the Oregon Bar because of a lack of "good moral character and fitness to practice law":

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S44863.htm

Interesting reading...failure to pay child support, forgery, stealing clients' money, improperly destroying case files...
Click to expand...

Shocked! Shocked I tell ya! :rolleyes2:

:rofl:
 
Re: Hello from Daniel A. Bernath, lawyer

Jim Logajan said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're right, SOME airplanes. But not this one. Obviously.

Enough with the clowny excuses. This guy will tell you what the problem was here:
 

Attachments

  • slingblade.jpg
    slingblade.jpg
    25.2 KB · Views: 24
bullwinkle said:
According to the link I posted from Oregon, he was suspended in CA due to failure to pay child support, then lied to the Oregon bar about the suspension.
Click to expand...
Except the bar listing has categories for deceased, and ineligible so it would seem to me if he ever was a member, he should appear there.

In addition, if you check IMDB the only listing for someone with his name is a special thanks for something. The Portlandia listing has a listing for someone who looks like him, but different name, and is definitely not him but listed to be in the same episode he claims to be in.

I believe not only in addition to him being a poor pilot, a poor lawyer(if he even is one), he is suffering from delusions of grandeur...
 
douglas393 said:
Except the bar listing has categories for deceased, and ineligible so it would seem to me if he ever was a member, he should appear there.

In addition, if you check IMDB the only listing for someone with his name is a special thanks for something. The Portlandia listing has a listing for someone who looks like him, but different name, and is definitely not him but listed to be in the same episode he claims to be in.

I believe not only in addition to him being a poor pilot, a poor lawyer(if he even is one), he is suffering from delusions of grandeur...
Click to expand...

Zoom?
 
danielabernath said:
img4.jpg
Click to expand...

Dude, you forgot a to secure your fuel cap! If you don't tighten it all your way you cause a vacuum in your tank and the slip stream sucks the fuel out. You don't want to be showing that picture in court, it proves the failure is yours, not the system.
 
Captain said:
Not for nuthin, but why do you keep posting here? 8 pages and no support for your cause. Do you think you're going to eventually convert someone? Maybe if you just show your idiot move in some new light?

So what if you do find a supporter here? What's that get you? Btw, I doubt you'll find a supporter here for your inept piloting skills. In fact, it's now bled over to highlight you inept lawyer skills too.

So I ask...what's the point?
Click to expand...

Do we consider the possibility that some other person is just pretending to be the law suit doof for the sake of revenge or something?
 
In addition, if you check IMDB the only listing for someone with his name is a special thanks for something. The Portlandia listing has a listing for someone who looks like him, but different name, and is definitely not him but listed to be in the same episode he claims to be in.

I believe not only in addition to him being a poor pilot, a poor lawyer(if he even is one), he is suffering from delusions of grandeur...
Click to expand...
Stop it!

Next you'll be claiming he didn't score 100% on his driving test, either...
 
danielabernath said:
img4.jpg
Click to expand...
Daniel -haven't you caught on that
1. Everyone here is in complete agreement that you are solely at fault
2. Your grammar and spelling in your initial posting is apalling and insults all other moderately educated people, lawyers in particular
3. There is no one on your side in this discussion, including other CT owners
4. This is the internet, we can lookup and see your history in the legal system
5. Tort laws got passed because most legislators are lawyers and by passing these laws they know they can depend on a life-time revenue stream
6. You're not nearly as amusing or interest as Pete the Troll. In fact, you're an amateur at this.
7. You are attempting to use Proof by Repeated Assertion as defense and justification. Aint gonna work. Until you present engineering drawings and internal memos from the manufacturer proving it knew of dangerous design, you are SOL.
8. And to repeat what many have said, placards solve no problems. Placards are not a solution to any problem.

9. Thought you weren't going to respond anymore? Thought you were gonna go away?

10. Since you are so intent on the legal aspects, why do you not recognize and adress the fact that you VIOLATED multiple Federal regs in 14 CFR?
 
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. Here are a couple:

-- He sometimes flies rescue dogs to their new homes, which is great. But he puts them in the passenger seat without a crate, harness or any restraint whatsoever. These are dogs that he is not familiar with, and has no idea how they will react to flying. His first post about this was about a large dog moving around the cockpit and pushing on and interfering with various controls, laughing it off as a funny event. Many said he needed some way to restrain the dogs, he said no worries he knows exactly what he's doing.

[snip]

I think Mr. Bernath is headed to a bad time with the FAA over this, and if he continues flying he will certainly meet with a predictably tragic end.
Click to expand...

More important, and more horrible, so will the dogs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top