FlyingMonkey Posted October 10, 2013 Report Share Posted October 10, 2013 "This will be bad news for my former flight instructors who signed me off." - ussyorktown Sheesh, the total lack of personal responsibility here is breathtaking. We should bundle up all these gems and e-mail them to every defendant named in the suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted October 10, 2013 Report Share Posted October 10, 2013 "This will be bad news for my former flight instructors who signed me off." - ussyorktown Who he is apparently now suing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted October 10, 2013 Report Share Posted October 10, 2013 The math doesn't work. Andy and I have already pointed out that 30 minutes of fuel gave him zero fuel to make Sisters, 30 minutes is needed just for VFR reserves. Next he argues that he crashed short of the runway with 3-4 gallons in one wing. Does his CTSW burn 10 gallons / hour or is he making numbers up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted October 10, 2013 Report Share Posted October 10, 2013 I posted this on the other site on an unrelated topic... premonition n. 1. A presentiment of the future; a foreboding. 2. A warning in advance; a forewarning. We have to look out for the fallacy of "Argument from Authority". Being an authority does not in and of itself make one right. But when a handful of authorities issue warnings, they should be taken seriously. Problem is, while its often not difficult to spot "Hazardous Attitudes" in others, it can be very, very difficult to recognize them in one's self. The linked thread about using an iPad as a landing aid could be a poster boy for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted October 10, 2013 Report Share Posted October 10, 2013 Assuming Bernath did crash with fuel on board it makes me wonder how many of us are flying around uncoordinated and don't know it? When fuel becomes critical how many of us know how to guarantee that the remaining fuel is available to the engine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted October 10, 2013 Report Share Posted October 10, 2013 The math doesn't work. Andy and I have already pointed out that 30 minutes of fuel gave him zero fuel to make Sisters, 30 minutes is needed just for VFR reserves. Next he argues that he crashed short of the runway with 3-4 gallons in one wing. Does his CTSW burn 10 gallons / hour or is he making numbers up? I'm sure nothing will be known for sure until the NTSB makes a determination. If they find no fuel at all in the wings, or an amount equal or less than the POH-specified unusable fuel quantity, his suit will be DOA. If they find some quantity above that, he'll get to make his argument that nobody ever told him that fuel can unport at low fuel levels, and that he was just too damn stupid to think of basic physics. I think just his participation in this forum and Sportpilottalk are going to weigh heavily against him in that argument, since those issues are absolutely hammered and beat to death in both of those websites. If he has just a single post in a thread on those topics his argument that he was unaware of the issue disintegrates. As far as the FAA goes, I don't see how he escapes the fuel inadequacy on takeoff issue, since it is explicit violation of the VFR minimum regs and implicit violation of the reg requiring familiarity with all pertinent information related to the flight (which FD could also argue requires him to fully understand the fuel system in his aircraft). They are going to hit him with careless and reckless operation as well. The huge and crazy numbers he's asking for in damages are an attempt to scare the defendants and their liability carriers into settling. I sincerely hope they recognize how weak his case is, and countersue him to recover court costs and for punitive damages for defamation. Nothing would make me happier than to see this bozo hoisted on his own petard and bankrupted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted October 10, 2013 Report Share Posted October 10, 2013 I'm sure nothing will be known for sure until the NTSB makes a determination. If they find no fuel at all in the wings, or an amount equal or less... The remaining fuel leaked out of the vent. 29. The aircraft had abundantly more than Defendants stated was required for successful power plant operation of the CTSW. 30. Photographs of the aircraft show that upon impact that this abundant level of fuel splashed out of the right wing tank vent and that the dust and dirt that was kicked up then recorded the fuel that splashed out over the right wing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob C Posted October 10, 2013 Report Share Posted October 10, 2013 That dirtbag is now randomly posting to other sites trying to rum up support for his little lawsuit... http://www.eaa.org/n...-in-germany.asp Update: Looks like he's also an "Angry": dirtbag... http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/10/portland_judge_orders_social_s.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted October 10, 2013 Report Share Posted October 10, 2013 The remaining fuel leaked out of the vent. 29. The aircraft had abundantly more than Defendants stated was required for successful power plant operation of the CTSW. 30. Photographs of the aircraft show that upon impact that this abundant level of fuel splashed out of the right wing tank vent and that the dust and dirt that was kicked up then recorded the fuel that splashed out over the right wing How? if the aircraft came to rest upright, how did fuel leak from a mostly empty fuel tank out the vent on the TOP of the wing? There is something fishy here with that claim. Unless the airplane was inverted for a significant period of time, there is no way 3+ gallons poured out of that little vent hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted October 10, 2013 Report Share Posted October 10, 2013 I would caution members to be very careful about how they describe Mr. Bernath or his abilities. His business appears to be suing people. He can do that a lot cheaper and easier than we can defend ourselves. At the very least, make it clear that you are giving an opinion of him rather than a statement of fact. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted October 10, 2013 Report Share Posted October 10, 2013 Aircraft came to rest with right wing low. after looking at it would this cause the last gallons to leak out of the vent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob C Posted October 10, 2013 Report Share Posted October 10, 2013 I love his response to that KGW article... He says.... "Oh for the love of Pete. I landed short of the runway, flying at 40 knots and about 20 feet above the dirt/sand and the plane lost all lift and dropped. Not a scratch on me." Was he using his IPad again to judge landing speed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted October 10, 2013 Report Share Posted October 10, 2013 Why was he flying below stall speed? I assume he was clean to stretch his glide. He was just short of the runway and not using best glide speed or anything close, at best glide he should have made it. In fact since he had fuel maybe he just stalled with fuel on board and impacted the ground short of the runway? Isn't that what happens whey you fly at 20' below stall speed? below stall speed the plane lost all lift and dropped? he is describing a wing stall not fuel starvation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted October 10, 2013 Report Share Posted October 10, 2013 Aircraft came to rest with right wing low. after looking at it would this cause the last gallons to leak out of the vent? I don't see how. Even if the alleged remaining fuel was in the right wing, There would still be fuel in the tank unless the airplane inverted. The most fuel would slosh out if the vent was at the outer edge of the tank, which it's not. You'd need a much more extreme angle of bank to get fuel out of the vent. After all, I have banked more than that in flight, for long periods, and not lost all or even some of my fuel out the vent... Also look at the picture of the fuel stains. If they where due to the wing angle, the stains would be running off to the side, not a nice round pattern around the vent with a small trickle off the wing chord as is shown in the photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted October 10, 2013 Report Share Posted October 10, 2013 I love his response to that KGW article... He says.... "Oh for the love of Pete. I landed short of the runway, flying at 40 knots and about 20 feet above the dirt/sand and the plane lost all lift and dropped. Not a scratch on me." Was he using his IPad again to judge landing speed? Is he really shocked that an airplane with a 39-44 knot stall speed might lose all lift and sink like a rock at 40 knots? LOL. EDIT: Seeing Ed's post, I have the exact same questions. Something is this whole story is not adding up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted October 10, 2013 Report Share Posted October 10, 2013 Your right about the stains but wrong about banking in flight. I can get inverted in flight and not spill fuel ( don't tell fastEddie ) When you bank and your calibrated ball is centered and you are at positive g's the fuel vector is the same as when you are on level ground. You have to get negative or uncoordinated for that to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted October 10, 2013 Report Share Posted October 10, 2013 Your right about the stains but wrong about banking in flight. I can get inverted in flight and not spill fuel ( don't tell fastEddie ) When you bank and your calibrated ball is centered and you are at positive g's the fuel vector is the same as when you are on level ground. You have to get negative or uncoordinated for that to change. True, but I don't end up with empty tanks in a slip, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted October 10, 2013 Report Share Posted October 10, 2013 http://www.ntsb.gov/...903X23635&key=1 As he approached the airport the engine "sputtered" and then stopped producing power, and he performed a forced landing into a field. or "Oh for the love of Pete. I landed short of the runway, flying at 40 knots and about 20 feet above the dirt/sand and the plane lost all lift and dropped. Not a scratch on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chanik Posted October 10, 2013 Report Share Posted October 10, 2013 He is colorful: www.oregonshyster.com His other $10M suit is against a judge he got into a fight with, because the judge caught him lying about being suspended from the CA bar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted October 10, 2013 Report Share Posted October 10, 2013 He's also a Social Security disability lawyer. Considering how rife that program is with fraud and corruption, I don't exactly consider it the pinnacle of legal service. It's about a half step above the guys that take plaintiffs in "Slip and fall in the Piggly-Wiggly" cases. These are the kind of people that like to use the law as a hammer to beat money out of people. The man definitely has some colorful background, as you say Kurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob C Posted October 10, 2013 Report Share Posted October 10, 2013 All I can say is: He gives lawyers a bad name. Now there's a sentence I never thought I'd use in my lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Meade Posted October 10, 2013 Report Share Posted October 10, 2013 49 USC 1441(e) is cited stating that NTSB Probable cause can not be introduced as evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted October 10, 2013 Report Share Posted October 10, 2013 I think I'm going to start using the word "yorktown" as a term describing a catastrophic but completely predictable event, brought about by total disregard of common sense and the good advice of others. "Bob really yorktowned by running with the bulls at Pamplona without wearing a cup. Oh well, at least he still has one testicle." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandpiper Posted October 10, 2013 Report Share Posted October 10, 2013 Will NTSB even look at this? No deaths, minor injury if any depending on the version cited. This will probably be handled only by the FAA. If they ever come back to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chanik Posted October 10, 2013 Report Share Posted October 10, 2013 He's a lawyer in the same vein as Garry Hoy who died through autodefenstration. On a more serious note, he will almost certainly fail, but not before forcing FD to incur substantial legal costs. This all bears striking similarity to the Great American $67M Pants Suit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_v._Chung Pearson also alleged widespread corruption that he revealed, was fond of threatening others with sanctions and disbarment and had himself been fined and reprimanded many times for misconduct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.