Lawsuit Madness - OMG

Status
Not open for further replies.
danielabernath said:
Views around the world of www.aspecialdayguide.com/bernathresume.htm
1. United States 10,656 88.50%
2. Nigeria 248 2.06%
3. United Kingdom 101 0.84%
4. Cote D'Ivoire 95 0.79%
5. Ghana 78 0.65%
6. Canada 77 0.64%
7. Germany 48 0.40%
8. Russian Federation 47 0.39%
9. Japan 45 0.37%
10. Australia 42 0.35%
11. Satellite Provider 41 0.34%
12. India 35 0.29%
13. Hungary 35 0.29%
14. France 30 0.25%
15. Senegal 29 0.24%
16. Italy 24 0.20%
17. South Africa 21 0.17%
18. China 19 0.16%
19. Netherlands 18 0.15%
20. Benin 18 0.15%
21. Hong Kong 16 0.13%
22. Spain 16 0.13%
23. Thailand 16 0.13%
24. Mexico 15 0.12%
25. Malaysia 14 0.12%
26. Poland 14 0.12%
27. Brazil 13 0.11%
28. United Arab Emirates 11 0.09%
29. Turkey 11 0.09%
30. Philippines 9 0.07%
31. Switzerland 9 0.07%
32. Korea, Republic of 9 0.07%
33. Indonesia 9 0.07%
34. Slovakia 8 0.07%
35. Belgium 8 0.07%
36. Greece 8 0.07%
37. Iran, Islamic Republic of 7 0.06%
38. Burkina Faso 7 0.06%
39. Romania 7 0.06%
40. Sweden 6 0.05%
41. Saudi Arabia 6 0.05%
42. Denmark 6 0.05%
43. Portugal 5 0.04%
44. Kenya 5 0.04%
45. Anonymous Proxy 5 0.04%
46. Bahrain 5 0.04%
47. Vietnam 5 0.04%
48. Colombia 4 0.03%
49. Israel 4 0.03%
50. Bangladesh 4 0.03%
51. Czech Republic 4 0.03%
52. Ireland 4 0.03%
53. Pakistan 4 0.03%
54. Croatia 4 0.03%
55. Finland 3 0.02%
56. Ukraine 3 0.02%
57. Puerto Rico 3 0.02%
58. Qatar 3 0.02%
59. Chile 3 0.02%
60. Egypt 2 0.02%
61. Togo 2 0.02%
62. Cambodia 2 0.02%
63. Iraq 2 0.02%
64. Peru 2 0.02%
65. Austria 2 0.02%
66. Singapore 2 0.02%
67. New Zealand 2 0.02%
68. Unknown 1 0.01%
69. Lebanon 1 0.01%
70. Uzbekistan 1 0.01%
71. Taiwan 1 0.01%
72. Bosnia and Herzegovina 1 0.01%
73. Argentina 1 0.01%
74. Palestinian Territory, Occupied 1 0.01%
75. Macedonia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of 1 0.01%
76. Fiji 1 0.01%
77. Luxembourg 1 0.01%
78. Paraguay 1 0.01%
79. Afghanistan 1 0.01%
80. Norway 1 0.01%
81. Europe 1 0.01%
82. Andorra 1 0.01%
83. Kuwait 1 0.01%
84. Gambia 1 0.01%
85. Bulgaria 1 0.01%
86. Jordan 1 0.01%
87. Dominica 1 0.01%
88. Bermuda 1 0.01%
89. Mozambique 1 0.01%
90. Bolivia 1 0.01%
91. Uruguay 1 0.01%
92. Slovenia 1 0.01%
Click to expand...

We don't care about your web stats. :no:
 
I am wondering if the event qualifies as an accident or incident under NTSB rules. In order to qualify there would need to have been a serious injury or substantial damage, per the regulation:

Substantial damage means damage or failure which adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and which would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component. Engine failure or damage limited to an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged, bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small punctured holes in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, and damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips are not considered “substantial damage” for the purpose of this part.

Serious injury means any injury which: (1) Requires hospitalization for more than 48 hours, commencing within 7 days from the date of the injury was received; (2) results in a fracture of any bone (except simple fractures of fingers, toes, or nose); (3) causes severe hemorrhages, nerve, muscle, or tendon damage; (4) involves any internal organ; or (5) involves second- or third-degree burns, or any burns affecting more than 5 percent of the body surface.

The way I read it, an aircraft could require repairs in excess of its market value less salvage value, meaning the aircraft is totaled as far as insurance in concerned, while still not having experienced substantial damage as defined by the regulation.

Our erstwhile barrister, suffering as he may be from cranial rectal inversion, may not have been required to report the event. OTOH maybe he did report the event, and is just shy when it comes to discussing his accomplishments.

Further, NTSB does not, in general, have authority to order anyone to do anything. NTSB makes safety recommendations. Congress can pass laws to implement those recommendations. Where a safety agency has authority under the law, the safety agency can adopt regulations to implement those safety regulations.
 
Frank said:
I am wondering if the event qualifies as an accident or incident under NTSB rules. In order to qualify there would need to have been a serious injury or substantial damage, per the regulation:
Click to expand...

A friend of mine belly-landed a Lockheed Lodestar in an oat field after he lost hydraulics and couldn't lower the gear. NTSB never showed up, FAA considered it an incident after explaining that an incident took one sheet of paper and an accident took a couple inches.
 
Old Geek said:
A friend of mine belly-landed a Lockheed Lodestar in an oat field after he lost hydraulics and couldn't lower the gear. NTSB never showed up, FAA considered it an incident after explaining that an incident took one sheet of paper and an accident took a couple inches.
Click to expand...
Incident means an occurrence other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft, which affects or could affect the safety of operations.

An idiot running out of fuel does not seem to trigger the serious incident criteria:
he operator of any civil aircraft, or any public aircraft not operated by the Armed Forces or an intelligence agency of the United States, or any foreign aircraft shall immediately, and by the most expeditious means available, notify the nearest National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) office1 when:

1NTSB regional offices are located in the following cities: Anchorage, Alaska; Atlanta, Georgia; West Chicago, Illinois; Denver, Colorado; Arlington, Texas; Gardena (Los Angeles), California; Miami, Florida; Seattle, Washington; and Ashburn, Virginia. In addition, NTSB headquarters is located at 490 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20594. Contact information for these offices is available at http://www.ntsb.gov.

(a) An aircraft accident or any of the following listed serious incidents occur:

(1) Flight control system malfunction or failure;

(2) Inability of any required flight crewmember to perform normal flight duties as a result of injury or illness;

(3) Failure of any internal turbine engine component that results in the escape of debris other than out the exhaust path;

(4) In-flight fire;

(5) Aircraft collision in flight;

(6) Damage to property, other than the aircraft, estimated to exceed $25,000 for repair (including materials and labor) or fair market value in the event of total loss, whichever is less.

(7) For large multiengine aircraft (more than 12,500 pounds maximum certificated takeoff weight):

(i) In-flight failure of electrical systems which requires the sustained use of an emergency bus powered by a back-up source such as a battery, auxiliary power unit, or air-driven generator to retain flight control or essential instruments;

(ii) In-flight failure of hydraulic systems that results in sustained reliance on the sole remaining hydraulic or mechanical system for movement of flight control surfaces;

(iii) Sustained loss of the power or thrust produced by two or more engines; and

(iv) An evacuation of an aircraft in which an emergency egress system is utilized.

(8) Release of all or a portion of a propeller blade from an aircraft, excluding release caused solely by ground contact;

(9) A complete loss of information, excluding flickering, from more than 50 percent of an aircraft's cockpit displays known as:

(i) Electronic Flight Instrument System (EFIS) displays;

(ii) Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System (EICAS) displays;

(iii) Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitor (ECAM) displays; or

(iv) Other displays of this type, which generally include a primary flight display (PFD), primary navigation display (PND), and other integrated displays;

(10) Airborne Collision and Avoidance System (ACAS) resolution advisories issued either:

(i) When an aircraft is being operated on an instrument flight rules flight plan and compliance with the advisory is necessary to avert a substantial risk of collision between two or more aircraft; or

(ii) To an aircraft operating in class A airspace.

(11) Damage to helicopter tail or main rotor blades, including ground damage, that requires major repair or replacement of the blade(s);

(12) Any event in which an operator, when operating an airplane as an air carrier at a public-use airport on land:

(i) Lands or departs on a taxiway, incorrect runway, or other area not designed as a runway; or

(ii) Experiences a runway incursion that requires the operator or the crew of another aircraft or vehicle to take immediate corrective action to avoid a collision.

(b) An aircraft is overdue and is believed to have been involved in an accident.

§830.15 Reports and statements to be filed.
(a) Reports. The operator of a civil, public (as specified in §830.5), or foreign aircraft shall file a report on Board Form 6120.1⁄2 (OMB No. 3147-0001)2 within 10 days after an accident, or after 7 days if an overdue aircraft is still missing. A report on an incident for which immediate notification is required by §830.5(a) shall be filed only as requested by an authorized representative of the Board.

So in the event of an incident for which no immediate notification is required, no followup statements are required either.
 
Old Geek said:
A friend of mine belly-landed a Lockheed Lodestar in an oat field after he lost hydraulics and couldn't lower the gear. NTSB never showed up, FAA considered it an incident after explaining that an incident took one sheet of paper and an accident took a couple inches.
Click to expand...

IF the damage is limited to undercarriage or propeller, it is an incident regardless of damage in dollars. Iirc, a hydraulic system failure in a large aircraft that results in damage would be reportable independently.

The prelim report on our intrepid LSA venturers accident states that the plane sustained substantial damage to the firewall and lower right fuselage during the accident sequence . As such, this will remain categorized as an accident rather than an incident and the fact that the NTSB report notes the absence of the operators statement further suggests that they consider it to fall under their jurisdiction.
 
Last edited:
2. Nigeria 248 2.06%
3. United Kingdom 101 0.84%
4. Cote D'Ivoire 95 0.79%
5. Ghana 78 0.65%
6. Canada 77 0.64%
7. Germany 48 0.40%
8. Russian Federation 47
Click to expand...

Interesting that far more people in Africa are interested in this website than in Germany. Maybe the Germans are not too worried about the lack of merit to the allegations?
 
Just got this...
-- FAASafety.gov --------------------------------------------------------How Much Fuel Do You Have?Notice Number: NOTC5020Fuel Starvation and Exhaustion are still causal factors in many General Aviation Accidents. Fortunately, a large selection of fuel totalizing and monitoring options are available to help you prevent these very preventable accidents. But, technology only helps when pilots apply it consistently and correctly. Follow these three simple steps to avoid becoming a fuel accident statistic: -Whether you’re “sticking the tanks” or relying on cutting edge fuel management software, know how much fuel you have on board before each takeoff. If you have a fuel management system on-board, make sure you program it with accurate information before Every Flight. -Know how much fuel you plan to burn and how much fuel you’re burning. If you don’t have on-board equipment to answer this question, calculate your fuel burn before each flight and confirm your calculations each time you refuel. Comparing your actual fuel burn to your calculated fuel burn will give you confidence in your fuel planning and you can often uncover fuel leaks or other small problems before they become big ones.-Finally, make a commitment to join the many pilots that have a personal minimum not to land with less than one hour’s fuel in the tanks. This will exceed any regulatory reserve fuel requirements and you’ll never be anxious about pushing your fuel.For more information contact Kevin Clover, FAA AFS-850. kevin.l.clover@faa.gov
Click to expand...
 
bartmc said:
My guess is you'd have better luck explaining string theory to a cockroach.
Click to expand...

Yep.

danielabernath said:
As over 1,000 people have read the complaint, every word of it and about 4 people are calling me poo poo head, that would make the lunitic frindge at less than one half of one per cent.
I really don't understand why grown men would take the time to call me poo poo head and ignore the substance of my warning of Flight Design's deadly defect plus intentional hiding of the deadly defect from American pilots. I did my duty. I'll continue to do my duty and silly little attacks that are based on personal statements and on fictions have no impact on the proceedings.
Click to expand...

Even those of us not "calling you a poo poo head" are unanimously in agreement that YOU are responsible for your accident, not Flight Design. I have seen NO support whatsoever for your position among people here, facetiousness on the part of some notwithstanding.

danielabernath said:
Two questions, can you answer them?

1. Either you lied to the LEO.
2. Or the LEO lied about you.
3. Or you were both truthful and you took off illegally.

Which is it 1,2 or 3?

Have you filed the 6120.1 with the NTSB?

Yes/No?

No. I lied to no body and I am in full compliance with all rules, laws and regulations.
Click to expand...

Can you explain how it is you were in compliance with 14 CFR 91.151 and 49 CFR 830.15? All evidence we've seen points to you being in violation of both. A denial is not evidence to the contrary.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
We don't care about your web stats. :no:
Click to expand...

Yet more proof that our "lawyer" is clueless. He thinks because people go to his site or view this thread, they agree with him. That's like saying if we click on the Costa Concordia news, we think the Captain is blameless. :no:
 
upstateny said:
Yet more proof that our "lawyer" is clueless. He thinks because people go to his site or view this thread, they agree with him. That's like saying if we click on the Costa Concordia news, we think the Captain is blameless. :no:
Click to expand...
Clearly the shipyard that built the Costa Concordia had a deadly design defect in that it lacked a placard WARNING DO NOT DRIVE BOAT WHILE TALKING TO GIRLFIRIEND ON PHONE IN SHALLOW WATER.

I smell an even bigger lawsuit payday, err, I mean alerting the travelling public to the callous indifference towards life.

Imagine if Capt Edward Smith had a placard that stated DANGER DO NOT DRIVE BOAT UP AGAINST SHARP ICEBERGS back in 1912.

I think we all know where the real deadly design defect and callous disregard for public safety reside, and it is not with FliteDesign, here is a hint, it rhymes with 'inside the sawyers bed'.

Even Sport Pilots are supposed to taught about the 5 Hazardous Attitudes, and so far this guy has demonstrated all of them with respect to his 'suit' and his rambling posts.

How many hours of instruction do we suppose it took for our intrepid mini-Zoom to get signed off? We have indications he may have had to shop CFI's (10 CFI's, really?), how long it did it take to get the certificate?

Unfortunately, I doubt we can get a manufacturer's recall on the real defective unit in this saga, heck the guy esentially tried to off himself with a stupid pilot trick and couldn't even get that right.

It is actions/decision-making like this, leading to incidents and accidents like this, by self-inflated 'high-profile' pilots like this (but who are in reality wholly non-representative of the general pilot population), and the resultant lawsuit lottery mentality that has nearly killed general aviation in the US, driven up products liability and aviation insurance costs, and puts us at odds with our neighbors and countrymen.

'Gimp
 
AcroGimp said:
How many hours of instruction do we suppose it took for our intrepid mini-Zoom to get signed off? We have indications he may have had to shop CFI's (10 CFI's, really?), how long it did it take to get the certificate?
Click to expand...

In the SP world, there is this combination of aircraft salesman and CFI. The sale being contingent on passing the checkride creates a strong motivation to sign off the cookiest candidates whose only medical qualification was that they could read row 3 and 5 on the DMV vision tester.
 
Henning said:
Maybe, but I guarantee that I would be slipping the whole way with wing that had fuel in it a bit high or transferred some fuel across. Actually, I would have landed at an airport that indicated services on the chart before I couldn't see fuel in the sight glasses.
Click to expand...

Especially if there was one that had services only another 4.7 miles away.
 
Re: Hello from Daniel A. Bernath, lawyer

Dan, your complaint says that the training elements for a Light Sport Pilot license include “Principles of aerodynamics, powerplants, and aircraft systems.”

That said, note that the FAA’s own “Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge (PHAK) has an entire chapter about “Aircraft Systems,” including a section on “Fuel Selectors” and the need to avoid empty tanks. Hmmm.

You departed with only 2-1/2 gallons of useable fuel even though that was on the wrong side of the hairy edge of making your destination and FAR 91.151 prohibits a pilot from starting a flight without at least 30 minutes of extra fuel. Many pilots voluntarily double this requirement to an extra hour of fuel for the sake of their own safety.

You also departed knowing that you had an empty tank. I repeat, knowing ...

Setting aside common sense, and the absence of a placard you seem to focus on, did you gloss over the part of the PHAK where you were instructed that you should make sure that no tank runs completely out of fuel, or that it’s a really bad idea to operate with a known empty tank:

PHAK_6-26_Fuel_Selectors.jpg


PHAK, page 6-26

Did you self study?

At any rate, airplanes are not appliances. There is inherent risk that you, as pilot in command, are supposed to mitigate. You simply didn’t do that.

Take a little break, think things over, and then voluntarily dismiss your suit. Take responsibility. It’s the right thing to do. People will respect you for it.

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...
 
Dan, your complaint says that the training elements for a Light Sport Pilot license include “Principles of aerodynamics, powerplants, and aircraft systems.”

That said, note that the FAA’s own “Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge (PHAK) has an entire chapter about “Aircraft Systems,” including a section on “Fuel Selectors” and the need to avoid empty tanks. Hmmm.

You departed with only 2-1/2 gallons of useable fuel even though that was on the wrong side of the hairy edge of making your destination and FAR 91.151 prohibits a pilot from starting a flight without at least 30 minutes of extra fuel. Many pilots voluntarily double this requirement to an extra hour of fuel for the sake of their own safety.

You also departed knowing that you had an empty tank. I repeat, knowing ...

Setting aside common sense, and the absence of a placard you seem to focus on, did you gloss over the part of the PHAK where you were instructed that you should make sure that no tank runs completely out of fuel, or that it’s a really bad idea to operate with a known empty tank:



PHAK, page 6-26

Did you self study?

At any rate, airplanes are not appliances. There is inherent risk that you, as pilot in command, are supposed to mitigate. You simply didn’t do that.

Take a little break, think things over, and then voluntarily dismiss your suit. Take responsibility. It’s the right thing to do. People will respect you for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by danielabernath View Post
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
register@teamandras.com is online now Report Post

Interesting but not relevant to the facts. 10 CFIs and all of them flew with one tank dry. Nothing about the dangers of one tank dry in the instructions for Light Sport Pilots, which Flight Design specifically marketed to.
I think you should get on the phone right now to the CAA and tell them to rip out those warning signs to not fly unless you can see a CM in each fuel site tube! It obviously is unnecessary to light sport pilots. (a sarcastic remark by me to make a point)
Your point while superficially interesting actually does not meet the facts of this design defect of the Flight Design CTSW www.aspecialdayguide.com/bernathresume.htm
 
Why don't you just spend $50 on placards and mail them to everybody that owns a CTSW in the US? Don't you have a moral obligation to save them?
Thank you. As an Officer of the Court, I'm going to do more than just report this design defect of Flight Design to the NTSB, I'm going to get all CTSW owners compensation.
I am actually going to make this lawsuit a class action lawsuit and invite all CTSW owners to join in the lawsuit for the loss of the value of their aircraft because of this design defect that will cause other people to not buy their used CTSW or demand a fire sale price. Thanks again pilots who are helping me out (without wanting to).
 
An idiot running out of fuel does not seem to trigger the serious incident criteria
1. Not an idiot (nor a poopy-head, etc.)
2. I didn't run out of fuel.
 
I'm still waiting for an answer about part 91.151 and not having 30 minutes of fuel on board. I like how that question has been dodged for at least half of this thread now.
 
You know, when you're deposed for this, you won't be able to just ignore questions about 91.151, right?

This isn't Social Security Disability Kangaroo court, you're going to a real court, and you're going to get your ass handed to you. One similarity worth noting: Real judges don't like being assaulted any more the SS ALJs.
 
Has anyone sent this thread to someone at Flight Design yet? I'm sure they'd find this interesting, though I guess there is no real way to prove that it's really him.
 
danielabernath said:
An idiot running out of fuel does not seem to trigger the serious incident criteria
1. Not an idiot (nor a poopy-head, etc.)
2. I didn't run out of fuel.
Click to expand...

How does anyone know you didn't run out of fuel? Your law suit doesn't state whether the fuel tanks were inspected after landing or not.
 
Your mistake will not have an influence on the value of the existing fleet.
 
register@teamandras.com said:
Your ground instruction didn't include reading the FAA's Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge?
Click to expand...

From Part 61:
14 CFR 61.309 said:
§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:

(a) Applicable regulations of this chapter that relate to sport pilot privileges, limits, and flight operations.
Click to expand...
Like 91.151 requirements for reserve fuel
14 CFR 61.309 said:
(b) Accident reporting requirements of the National Transportation Safety Board.
Click to expand...
Hmmm....
14 CFR 61.309 said:
(c) Use of the applicable portions of the aeronautical information manual and FAA advisory circulars.

(d) Use of aeronautical charts for VFR navigation using pilotage, dead reckoning, and navigation systems, as appropriate.

(e) Recognition of critical weather situations from the ground and in flight, windshear avoidance, and the procurement and use of aeronautical weather reports and forecasts.
Click to expand...
Like Winds Aloft forecasts and actual conditions
14 CFR 61.309 said:
(f) Safe and efficient operation of aircraft, including collision avoidance, and recognition and avoidance of wake turbulence.

(g) Effects of density altitude on takeoff and climb performance.

(h) Weight and balance computations.

(i) Principles of aerodynamics, powerplants, and aircraft systems.
Click to expand...
Engines need fuel
14 CFR 61.309 said:
(j) Stall awareness, spin entry, spins, and spin recovery techniques, as applicable.

(k) Aeronautical decision making and risk management.
Click to expand...
Seems this portion didn't stick
14 CFR 61.309 said:
(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
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine
14 CFR 61.309 said:
(2) How to plan for alternatives if the planned flight cannot be completed or if you encounter delays.
Click to expand...
:rofl::rofl:
 
He's not going to answer about 91.151, because it would sink his "case".

My prediction: summary judgement for defendant, "plaintiff" pays all defense fees to date.

I don't think Flight Design or any of the other defendants have much to worry about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
jjflys said:
He's not going to answer about 91.151, because it would sink his "case".

My prediction: summary judgement for defendant, "plaintiff" pays all defense fees to date.

I don't think Flight Design or any of the other defendants have much to worry about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Sadly crazier things have happened, like Lycoming losing a suit for $89m to the estate of a pilot that flew VFR in to IMC and proceeded to crash.
 
danielabernath said:
Why don't you just spend $50 on placards and mail them to everybody that owns a CTSW in the US? Don't you have a moral obligation to save them?
Thank you. As an Officer of the Court, I'm going to do more than just report this design defect of Flight Design to the NTSB, I'm going to get all CTSW owners compensation.
I am actually going to make this lawsuit a class action lawsuit and invite all CTSW owners to join in the lawsuit for the loss of the value of their aircraft because of this design defect that will cause other people to not buy their used CTSW or demand a fire sale price. Thanks again pilots who are helping me out (without wanting to).
Click to expand...

What loss are the other owners suffering? The cost of the placard? Why would all the other owners want to fire sale their planes? Because the motors stop turning when they run out of fuel? Don't look know, but that also happens to every other plane in the sky, and car on the road, and boat on the ocean.... The internal combustion engine, quite the engineering marvel.

If you care about people, spend the $50 and fix the problem that concerns you. I would respect somebody that could solve all these people's problems with $50. I am not sure you were even damaged as it looks like your insurance company made you whole.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top