Jump to content
FlyingMonkey

FD Response Letter to Daniel Barnath Suit

Recommended Posts

You don't hear me talk like this very often, but this guy is an absolute sociopathic moron and he gives morons a bad name.

He has lied every where on the web. Falsely represented himself as a Vet,, been turned down as a lawyer for poor morals, has falsely represented himself as a TSA agent that has saved many lives from bombs, filed false claims against judges and police and the list goes on. They are debunking this idiot across the web. He is a sociopath, period.He has been ridiculed on every forum from everyone around the world. You can't even embarrass him because you can't embarrass a sociopath. I would line up and count myself lucky to show up in court and testify as an expert against him. 

 

p.s.

He claims to rep many people. He has no one on his side from what i have heard. If he truly does rep. some people i would like to see the list. He has to claim privacy because if he illegally names someone  he doesn't rep. they will go after him.

 

 

 

Daniel A. Bernath
Lawyer, California Bar #11636
10335 SW Hoodview Drive
Tigard OR 97224
503 367 4204

Saturday, February 22, 2014

Dear CTSW owners:

  I have received the many copies of the letters from CTSW president regarding my warning to you.  I have also received many signed contracts to represent you in US District Court in California to recover the money you have lost because of the Flight Design CTSW flight design flaw.

  The “President” of Flight Design has sent you a letter but he dare not send it to me. But I have a copy and will point out the several places where he has been economical with the Truth:

Asserts Mr. P: I’d like to start by categorically disagreeing with Mr. Bernath’s assertions that there is something wrong with the Flight Design CTSW, Flight Design’s testing of the design and some kind of "spooky cover-up". The Flight Design CTSW has been flying in the USA since late 2004 and has a much better than average safety record for a Special Light Sport Aircraft.

Attorney Bernath: I have never said there was a “Spooky cover up.”  I have never said you’re your testing of the design was at fault. Indeed, I state that you KNEW of the deadly design defect but did not warn CTSW drivers.  While Flight Design may have a safety record better than some, if you are flying a CTSW that goes down then only your crash is the one that counts.  As a light sport pilot you have been never informed us that flying with one tank empty, and the other one with even ten gallons in will likely cause the engine to stop operating.

Asserts Mr. P: Flight Design has a fuel system design philosophy that the simpler the system, the better the probability that a pilot operating it will not make a mistake. Fuel system mistakes (selecting the wrong tank, taking off with the fuel switched off and running the plane out of fuel) are the single largest factor after pilot error in aviation accidents.
Attorney Bernath: This is not relevant to the deadly design defect.  There was no fuel in one tank and my plane went down.  This is exactly the same thing that happened with Victor Hernandez’ airplane and with the pilot who reported this in his NASA report (attached).  You are intentionally trying to confuse the CTSW owners.

 
Asserts Mr. P: Mr. Bernath suggests that the engine will stop if one tank is allowed to run dry. This is not correct. The engine will continue to run as long as there is minimum fuel in one tank and that fuel is available for the fuel pick up. Flight Design tested each plane at the factory for the ability to run with minimum fuel and did significant inflight testing as well to document that. Those of you who have owned Flight Design planes for a while know that Flight Design does issue Safety of Flight notices and does follow up with changes to design or documentation if needed.
Attorney Bernath: This is a flat out falsehood by Mr. P.  We have at least 3 occasions where fuel was in one tank but not the other and the planes went down.  Rather than warn us, you gambled our lives and risked our wives becoming widows.  The jury will hear all the evidence and expert testimony.

Asserts Mr. P: Mr. Bernath alleges that the British CAA forced Flight Design to placard the CT2K and CTSW to not fly without fuel in both tanks. This was a recommendation from the local importer which was republished by the CAA to have service recommendations centrally available.
Mr. Bernath: Mr. P is once again being economical with the truth.  A reading of the CAA report clearly states that the warning is “Mandatory” and from the governmental body CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY.

Asserts Mr. P: Mr. Bernath suggests that Flight Design has somehow hidden this and then “corrected these fatal design flaws” on the CTLS by adding an anti-sloshing rib on the CTLS. 
Mr. Bernath says: Actually YOU said that in your CTLI POH where you said that you corrected the “Fuel Problem” with the design of the CTLI.  But again, you failed to warn we helpless CTSW drivers that there even was a “fuel problem”, therefore the impacts with the ground when the engine stopped turning even though there was 3.5 to ten gallons in the airplane CTSW.

Asserts Mr. P: (1). The day after his off field landing he was proclaiming on his Facebook page, “What’s the big deal folks? I landed short of the runway and not a scratch on me”.  (2). He denied injury to investigating law enforcement officials and further opined to them that he "misjudged" the winds and ran out of fuel.
Says Bernath: This is a typical trick by defendants attempting to deceive.  When the crash victim gets out of the vehicle he does not know how injured he is and the pain starts to occur at night or later in the day.  Furthermore, not until I disrobed did I see the cuts on arms, stomach, bent back wrists, smashed thumb with blood clot. VA has the medical records (Mr. P, I’ll send you the pictures if you’d like).

Asserts Mr. P: (4). To date, he has refused to cooperate with NTSB investigators as to the facts and circumstances of this accident and even prior to a preliminary report being drafted.
Says Bernath: I am in full compliance in my cooperation with the FAA and the NTSB by and through legal counsel.  This statement by Mr. P is simply false.

Asserts Mr. P: (5). His claims of negligence or improper design lack any empirical evidence or expert opinion to support his "theory" of fault as suggested in his letter to you.
Says Bernath: Mr. P., I have expert witnesses lined up and have many admissions from you and your company and employees which I shall present to the jury.  It has a design defect.  You knew of it. You refused to warn us and have put all our lives at risk to avoid spending a few dollars.

Asserts Mr. P: (6). Prior to the NTSB even issuing a preliminary report, he sent demand letters to our company requesting a quick "out of court" settlement under threat of being sued.
Says Bernath:  I “quick ‘out of court’”  and once again Mr. P is caught in another flat out lie in his letter.  I am always willing to settle with a defendant when all the evidence is against them and they are getting bad legal advice from an attorney who is a member of an organization that harbors child molesters  (OSB and Neil Goldschmidt)  If you would like a trial and then a judgment, then you can take that course.

(7). Bernath was previously suspended from the practice of law in California and denied admission to be a lawyer in Oregon by the Oregon Supreme Court because he was found to be of "unfit moral character".
Says Bernath: I was never suspended from the practice of law after 30 years of practice and I have been practicing law in Oregon since 1994.  The issue here is, can I represent clients to get a judgment against Flight Design for Failure to Warn of a deadly design defect. Be assured that judgment day is coming for you and your acts and omissions and CTSW pilots won’t be distracted by your transparent tactics to change the subject.

(8). He is currently under investigation by the Oregon State Bar for the unauthorized practice of law.  (9). He has been sued previously by persons he has targeted, resulting in a judgment against him for "malicious persecution"

Says Bernath: Mr. P is now making desperate statements to deflect his deadly design defect that he and Flight Design employees and agents hid from you.  I have been a lawyer for 30 years and have never had any discipline against me.  The person who sued me for malicious prosecution is a psychopath and his complaint will be dismissed shortly.  I’ve never been accused of knowing of a deadly design defect but refusing to warn helpless pilots.  Again, Mr. P and Flight Design want you to ignore The Truth of the CTSW design defect and their failure to warn you.

 

Asserts Mr. P: Our opinion is that the fault for this incident lies with pilot error as to insufficient fuel reserves pursuant to FAA regulations.
Says Bernath:  My fuel level was in complete compliance with your POH.  Please explain the exact same 3 crashes where the pilot had 3.5 to ten gallons of fuel onboard but crashed?  I attach those letters as you can’t make cheap personal attacks on those other victims of Flight Designs failure to warn of the known design defect.

 

Asserts Mr. P: We are also investigating the alternate possibility that Mr. Bernath may indeed have had sufficient fuel on board but stalled and crashed his airplane on short final due to his professed use of an iPad GPS "speedometer" app in place of the airspeed indicator.
Says Attorney Bernath: Mr. P saves his silliest statement for last.  Did the other victims of Flight Design’s failure to warn use an iPad and can you please explain how that would cause your CTSW to crash when 3.5 to ten gallons remained in the plane.

  Again, fellow CTSW pilots, I will gladly get the money from Flight Design for selling you a defective airplane and then risking your life by not warning you.

 

Respectfully,

 

Daniel A. Bernath, Lawyer

 

 

 

NASA report Narrative:  NASA ASRS Report 739488, May 2007

About 15 mi south of ZZZ I had experienced a loss of engine power. At the same time ZZZ approach asked if I had some local traffic in sight. I responded by saying that I didn't have traffic in sight and that I was experiencing a loss of engine power. They asked if I would like to declare an emergency and if there was anything they could do to help. I informed them that I would not like to declare an emergency. At this point the power was in and out. Going from what would seem like idle to about half throttle. As all of this was happening I double-check what fuel/air/spark variables inside the cockpit that may help aid this situation. Only things that were available were full shut off 'valve' which was on; throttle about half to full; choke which I left alone; and magnetos on both. At this point I had lost enough altitude and had picked numerous off airport landing spots. I was 50 ft from my off field landing (about 8-10 mi south now) and the throttle kicked from idle back up to about 80-90%. I proceeded to climb back up still keeping off field landing ahead in case it were to quit again. Approach picked me back up on radar. They said they thought they lost me and that they had declared an emergency for me. I was cleared to land any runway at ZZZ and was asked if I had the airport in sight. I informed them that I had the runway in sight. 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.) I proceeded to land; got off at the first taxiway where I was greeted by 4 fire trucks and 2 ambulances. I then tried to start the aircraft after I landed and got it started after about 2 or 3 cranks. I taxied up to the hangar.

We immediately checked the fuel tanks to begin our troubleshooting. Left tank of the flight design was empty. Right tank had 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.

 

Figure 1Tank with 3-4 gals slashed out on impact

The Fuel Tank differential is a problem with CT & CTSW types and I have  always thought that for such a fantastic aircraft the fuel system is a 'mish  mash'    I have delivered 2 CTSW to Northern Ireland and have 'suffered' the dry tank syndrome in both of them !!! now I really don't think the situation of  running a tank dry is caused by shoddy airmanship or any other factor than  the Design is a flawed design (yeah)

Flight Design took steps to correct the design flaw in the 2008 year model, which you renamed the CTLS.  In the POH for the CTLS you warn pilots of the danger. A review of the CTSW POH shows no such warning:

CTLS  Light Sport version, announced in 2008. It improves on the CTSW in several areas, including a revised fuel system (improved fuel venting and standard-type fuel caps), a revised tailplane and upgraded landing gear as well as aerodynamic improvements.

 (Says Flight Design about the 2008 (but not my 2007) Flight Design:

 Numerous improvements to the CTLS fuel system are incorporated to9

give proper fuel flow even in extreme conditions”  http://tinyurl.com/mg2h6dc

For the CTSW of 2007, Flight Design says merely, “Fuel is gravity fed to the engine from two integral wing tanks.  The total capacity is 103l /34 US Gallons.  The usable fuel quantity is 124l /33 gallons.”

 

On Sunday, February 9, 2014 3:17 PM, Daniel Bernath <ussyorktowncvs10@yahoo.com> wrote:

Daniel A. Bernath
Lawyer
10335 SW Hoodview Drive
Tigard OR 97224
503 367 4204

Sunday, February 09, 2014

To: Flight Design Dealer
Re: Your liability in tort and Products Liability
for being in the chain of liability in the sale of the defective Flight Design CTSW

Dear Flight Design CTSW dealer:

  I have been contacted by Flight Design retailers regarding the deadly defect of the now obsolete CTSW, admittedly replaced by the CTLS which Flight Design admits fixed the deadly fuel stoppage issue.  Official records show that the Flight Design CTSW is unsafe because of a deadly design defect.  Official records show that Flight Design marketed the aircraft to the lesser trained Light Sport pilots but provided no information of the deadly design defect that will cause the aircraft to stop providing fuel to the engine if one tank is empty, even if the other tank has ten gallons in it.  Flight Design has already been sued for breach of contract, warranty for a particular purpose, products liability, unfair business practices, etc.

 A dealer has already been sued in the chain of sale of the aircraft for breach of warranty, products liability and failure to warn of the deadly design defect.  I have received inquiries as to how a helpless dealer, who also was not informed by Flight Design that this deadly defect existed can avoid some liability.

 I urge you to contact a local products liability attorney today to protect your businesses and personal wealth as you may be sued if the Flight Design CTSW goes down, that that the defect has been publicized in the press and in court filings.  I have advised one dealer that he should mail a certified letter, return receipt requested, to each purchaser of the CTSW, no matter who owns the aircraft now and give the pilot a copy of the official CAA order of the deadly design defect and failure to warn.  Said another way, a lawyer will sue you even if the original purchaser sells the CTSW to some other person.  You may thus want to find who owns the aircraft now by checking with the FAA data base with the aircraft number and send him the warning.

 The NTSB has a few days ago concluded its investigation of my going down in CTSW N102HA with adequate fuel in one tank but empty in the other, and the failure of Flight Design defendants to warn of this deadly defect.   The British version of the NTSB has already ordered that British pilots of the CTSW place a warning on the dash board of each CTSW.  I’ve enclosed that CAA official order and official filings in US District Court so that you may give it to your CTSW purchasers no matter if they are original purchasers or are a purchaser from a third party of an unsafe aircraft that you put into the stream of commerce. You can warn NOW for any future fuel starvation crashes of the aircrafts you placed into the stream of commerce.  (Flight Design has refused)

  I have also been contacted by Dealers on my availability to sue Flight Design USA, Flight Design Americans and Flight Design Germany for selling you, the helpless dealers, unsafe aircraft, not warning you and placing you in financial jeopardy.  The dealers also have inquired as to how to recover breach of contract and fraud damages as Flight Design gave them airplanes in a crate instead of assembled aircraft in apparent breach of contract.  One dealer says that the fraud by Flight Design’s distributor cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars-which he requests I recover for him through a court action.

Daniel A. Bernath, Lawyer

20. This fuel starvation problem continued unabated with CTSW aircraft crashing on takeoff, while landing, after a so called “side slip” and even when a pilot pointed the nose down slightly.  And yet, well before the sale of the CTSW N102HA to Plaintiff failed to warn and failed to instruct Plaintiff as to the dangerous design defect.21.  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 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Bernath leaves out the fact that these engine failures could have been from something else.  Mr. Victor Hernandez states to a reporter right after his amazing safe landing, that he was having engine problems at the airport he had just left.  Also, he clearly states that he had very little fuel and was flying very uncoordinated.  

 

The Pilot's Handbook says it very clearly:

 

"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."

 

Sigh, I'm so tired of hearing this braggart run his mouth.  I can't imagine how the crew at FD can handle it.  But you have to fight someone like this.  He lives his life hoping he can get a payday from people who can't afford to fight him, or just grow weary of the fight.  Since we don't have a "FD Defense Fund" (yet), I'm going to donate some $$$ over at ThisAintHell.us  (edit... thanx).  They are doing a great job of unraveling Bernath's lies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LAND IF NO FUEL IS SEEN IN EITHER SIGHT GAUGE.

Yeah, we need a placard to tell us that.  

 

How did this guy even get a pilot's certificate?  I would have loved to have been along for that check ride.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got Bernath's second letter today.  Trying to decide if there's a way to file a complaint since he's not licensed to practice in California.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we can find another low-end lawyer who'll file a lawsuit for all of us - 'dang papercuts from opening all these letters....  :blink: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read this guys "CV" http://www.aspecialdayguide.com/bernathresume.htm and it is absolutely nauseating.

 

One particular item of note is his "volunteering for Paws-n-Pilots...flying dogs that need rescue from the dog pound death to a forever home hundreds of miles away."  It's about 2/3 the way down on the site (caution: have Tums or Rolaids handy if you dare to read it)

 

I tried to do this Paws-n-Pilots volunteer gig after I got my certificate...but was unsure of the rules, so I contacted my FSDO for clarification. Took a few days for them to get back to me, but their answer was "nope, not as a Sport Pilot."

 

So, he should be violated for at least that...not to mention him impersonating a Chief Petty Officer http://scotty-stolenvaloroffendersexposed.blogspot.com/2013/12/daniel-bernath-us-navy-honorary-chief.html and too many to name indulgences of his.

 

This whole thing ranks right up there with the Patent Trolls...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perfect case in point and example of "one bad apple"...

Only one thing here in america asking us to do is to be responsible for your own actions.

 

Then agian, people tend to take "previlage" to another place and thinking if everything and everyone is there to accomodate your needs.

I see this again and again and I have to humble my-self to understand what all means...

 

Life is too short to inconveninence others, I am owning up to my own fault and there is no stop on that.

If "I" is involved in some circumstance, then "I" could have made the difference and not to blame "others" for it.

 

That is the learning this person can learn from his experience.

 

Truthlfully speaking...I did want to blame others for my actions during last year fiasco in Chicago & Phoenix, AZ...

I crash course myself into aviation without a much of learning and experience by thinking things will settle down by it-self and it didnt go well...

 

But, my learning from what I did is that not knowing will hurt you and leaving your self out in open from the predetors.

That applys to everything we do and not only for aviation.

 

Then again, if I did not put my-self in that situation, I would have never meet Roger, Tom, Dawn, Bill, Eric, Cheryl...

So, at the end...we did great.  We did discover great individuals I would have never meet without what I did.

 

I guess life is a journey and we can never have negative attitude toward the present until we can look bak at the end.

Well...maybe I am just lucky...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sitting on top of another mountain out in the middle of no where. See my Spot link.

 

Bernath has dropped his lawsuit and lied about someone else carrying it forward. FD may not be letting him off the hook so easy. It's a wait and see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernath has dropped his lawsuit and lied about someone else carrying it forward. FD may not be letting him off the hook so easy. It's a wait and see.

Tom is very upset with him, and it has wasted a lot of FDUSA's time and money. You can bet it's not over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very happy to report that as of the 28th of May, 2014, the Bernath vs Flight Design Lawsuit has been dismissed by a U.S. Federal Judge With Prejudice. against all defendants.  Bernath is prohibited from refiling a case on his own or as a lead member in a class action. 

 

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many owners that contacted us to show support.

 

It meant a lot to know that our friends and customers were there for us when we needed it.

Sincerely,

 

Tom Peghiny        

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D. Bernath fits the famous idiom from Forrest Gump:  Stupid is as stupid does.

 

He has already gotten himself in trouble at a towered airport with his RV12.

Thankfully he's gone from here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Stupid is as stupid does.

 

It will probably be "Stupid is as stupid dies" at the rate he is going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

He has already gotten himself in trouble at a towered airport with his RV12.

 

Details or link?

 

Can't help but be curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tallahassee KTLH  May 5th.  LiveATC has archive.  Around 1400Z.  (N 262 Whisky Sierra).  Comes in unprofessional and confused.  Wants to land on closed (notam'd) runway.  Can't follow ATC directions, including simple requests to fly at a specific heading.  At one point, after being given clearance to land, he says "I can't, I'm way too high, I need to lose altitude".  ATC is frustrated and says "I can't fly it for you".  You can hear a few times after he lands, he's told to call a number.  I'm guessing he did not call, as the tower tells the FBO to not allow him back on the airport side until he talks with the tower.  Confrontation.  He slips out the locked door when someone comes in and takes off.  LiveATC conversation shows him as confused as ever, trying to taxi around.  If the FAA wasn't looking at him closely before this.... they sure are now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tallahassee KTLH  May 5th.  LiveATC has archive.  Around 1400Z.  (N 262 Whisky Sierra).  Comes in unprofessional and confused.  Wants to land on closed (notam'd) runway.  Can't follow ATC directions, including simple requests to fly at a specific heading.  At one point, after being given clearance to land, he says "I can't, I'm way too high, I need to lose altitude".  ATC is frustrated and says "I can't fly it for you".  You can hear a few times after he lands, he's told to call a number.  I'm guessing he did not call, as the tower tells the FBO to not allow him back on the airport side until he talks with the tower.  Confrontation.  He slips out the locked door when someone comes in and takes off.  LiveATC conversation shows him as confused as ever, trying to taxi around.  If the FAA wasn't looking at him closely before this.... they sure are now. 

 

Sad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another lawsuit, I'm guessing.  On Vans Air Force, he's claiming he was illegally arrested, or unlawfully detained or something.  He'll add to it emotional damage and some bogus medical harm, and will, once again, try for a pay day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have a specific link to the specific LiveATC recording? I just took a look at the site and its not that easy to navigate.

 

And does anyone know his "handle" on the RV forum? Maybe a link to that thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

his name, with middle initial.  All together, no spaces. you have to look for archives on liveatc.  then put in airport, then select time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, just...wow.  From the description, am I to understand that he took off out of a towered airport without a clearance?  That alone should earn him some demerits with the FAA.  He can't claim ignorance, since we was talking to the tower to land in the first place...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he got clearance to depart, but the tower wanted a little talk with him while he was at the FBO.  He played the "I don't have to talk to anyone" game, and resisted the FBO's attempt to keep him from the flightline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×