Jump to content

Dan Bernath letter


Roger Lee

Recommended Posts

Dan Bernath, the person suing FD because he ran out of gas is sending out letters to everyone looking for support. From all the emails I have been getting they are ignoring his idiotic lawsuit against FD. I would encourage others to follow suit and ignore or send him a return letter letting him know he should just go away and learn to fuel his plane.

He tried to garner support on the Pilot's of America and they berated him for 37 pages. It got so bad the admin actually stopped it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No letter.

 

I feel slighted.

 

Did it just go out to CT owners?

 

If so, you are a lucky bunch!

 

Yeah, he's trying to find additional plaintiffs for his suit against FD. Your Sky Arrow apparently doesn't have the "deadly design flaw" of having to have fuel in the tanks to run, so no letter for you! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole thread is making me depressed. It's none of you, it's just this whole event. I don't think much of his case, and I don't care to be involved, but I am conflicted about the fuel problem (disregarding if or if not there actually was fuel in the plane). Who's responsibility is it to teach someone about fuel sloshing problems? I want to say it should be common sense and you are accepting a higher risk of something going wrong when you run with low fuel, but why didn't FDUSA issue a bulletin or manual addendum to remind people about this potential issue? That's the one thing that sticks out to me in this whole mess, why isn't there more of a warning about the potential of unporting fuel due to the lack of a baffle design in the CTSW, of which said design is common in most integrated tank aircraft in the past few decades? It's not their responsibility, in my opinion, but it seems like something they would still be very concerned about after the first accident in Britain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baffles don't work at least not for long. In order to realize starvation you would have to fly with no fuel visible in either tube.

 

Given the CT in England ended up in a tree there might have been more at play than fuel management.

 

I don't recall training or placards or warnings on other high wings that I have flown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole thread is making me depressed. It's none of you, it's just this whole event. I don't think much of his case, and I don't care to be involved, but I am conflicted about the fuel problem (disregarding if or if not there actually was fuel in the plane). Who's responsibility is it to teach someone about fuel sloshing problems? I want to say it should be common sense and you are accepting a higher risk of something going wrong when you run with low fuel, but why didn't FDUSA issue a bulletin or manual addendum to remind people about this potential issue? That's the one thing that sticks out to me in this whole mess, why isn't there more of a warning about the potential of unporting fuel due to the lack of a baffle design in the CTSW, of which said design is common in most integrated tank aircraft in the past few decades? It's not their responsibility, in my opinion, but it seems like something they would still be very concerned about after the first accident in Britain.

 

Unfortunately in the legal climate on which we live, once a company documents a concern, it becomes tantamount to admitting liability for a "problem". It sucks, but there it is. It makes more sense legally to remain silent until circumstances make it plain to the legal team that liability would actually be reduced by issuing a statement, amendment to the POH, or service bulletin. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re the UK incident resulting in the CT being parked in a tree on a golf course it is a master class in poor planning.

 

The AAIB report makes a fascinating read (especially for anyone who perhaps has a propensity to cut it fine on fuel)

 

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/august_2010/p_m_aviation_ltd_flight_design_ctsw__g_vinh.cfm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re the UK incident resulting in the CT being parked in a tree on a golf course it is a master class in poor planning.The AAIB report makes a fascinating read (especially for anyone who perhaps has a propensity to cut it fine on fuel)http://www.aaib.gov....tsw__g_vinh.cfm
The British pprune forum discussion of this flight is nearly as interesting as our discussion of Mr. Bernath's.

 

http://www.pprune.or...own-dundee.html

 

A particularly relevant quote from the 30+ pages of comments:

 

"Mr Hagendorn’s woeful tale and his manner on TV remind me of two particular students that I have at one time tried to instruct. They shared distinct similarities; being ‘older’, ‘intelligent’, of a somewhat ‘bumptious’ manner, having a distinct preference for talking rather than listening, and being apparently incapable of accepting any responsibility for their mistakes. Indeed the two in question never, to my recollection, ever felt they had made a mistake. It was always “because of this, that or the other factor” beyond their control.The fact that they are intelligent sadly does nothing to help these people to learn, and thereby to become safer pilots. Quite the opposite. Their intelligence has allowed them to cruise through life being the ‘instructor’ not the ‘student’, and changing roles in later life is not something that comes easily to them. They will typically spend more time in pre-flight briefings talking rather than listening to the instructor. They will usually be trying to correct the instructor, based on their long-held and invariably erroneous ‘knowledge’ gained from dubious sources such as MS Flight Sim (or in Mr H’s case, Biggles books). Blind faith in these false props rather than the wise words from an expert instructor is a poor substitute for the day to day task of flying safely, and especially so in an emergency.Both of the students that Mr H reminds me of went on to have serious accidents. Thankfully, like Mr H, the one who did eventually manage to get a PPL survived to tell the tale. Not so the other one."

 

And this gem:

 

"One thing I am feeling from the report and VH's comments is that he has absolutely no grasp whatsoever of the concept of unusable fuel. His argument seems to be that because there was a small amount of fuel present in the wreckage and at the time of the engine failure, then he could not have run out of fuel. Studying the report might help him understand (wishful thinking I feel). I am not familiar with the aircraft type but I do also wonder if maybe he found a best endurance speed fuel flow value in the manual and then applied that to flying around at high power settings until he ran out of gas. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Daniel Bernath is nuts. He was disbarred in California for stealing money from a client and then disbarred in Oregon when he fled to that state and lied on his bar application about the California disbarment! The Oregon court found him to be of unworthy moral character to practice law (and that bar has to be pretty LOW)!and he also has failed to pay child support. Once disbarred he decided to represent people in front of the Social security administration (you don't have to be a lawyer to do that) and then "chest bumped" a Judge! Google this psychopath - I am not making any of this up! As stated, he is suing Yelp, and most recently sued his former law partner. His wife (who owned the CT he was Flying because he owes so much money in judgments against him) filed an affidavit in SUPPORT of his most recent lawsuit (where he claims he was taken advantage of by his former law partner) that he has to catheterize himself, takes pain medication four times a day, and "rocks back and forth uncontrollably". Go to the NTSB website and look up the preliminary report of the crash of N102HA where he admitted to sheriffs that he ran out of gas and "misjudged the winds" - then did NOT COOPERATE with NTSB or FAA investigators! He crashed in the fall and filed a lawsuit (without any experts involved and without a final report issuing from NTSB) less than a MONTH later! Google "Daniel Bernath plane crash" for news footage and his admissions of negligence. And to top it off (pardon the pun) he admitted to making a precautionary landing at an airport seven miles away from the crash site to check his fuel and estimate "four gallons" an amount that would have made him illegal to take off with sufficient 30 minute reserves. This man is a liar and a con artist. Stay as FAR away from him as possible. FlightDesign has excellent defense lawyers from Oregon working on the case. It, and Mr. (Former attorney) Bernath, are going back to the hole they came from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Daniel Bernath is nuts. He was disbarred in California for stealing money from a client and then disbarred in Oregon when he fled to that state and lied on his bar application about the California disbarment! The Oregon court found him to be of unworthy moral character to practice law (and that bar has to be pretty LOW)!and he also has failed to pay child support. Once disbarred he decided to represent people in front of the Social security administration (you don't have to be a lawyer to do that) and then "chest bumped" a Judge! Google this psychopath - I am not making any of this up! As stated, he is suing Yelp, and most recently sued his former law partner. His wife (who owned the CT he was Flying because he owes so much money in judgments against him) filed an affidavit in SUPPORT of his most recent lawsuit (where he claims he was taken advantage of by his former law partner) that he has to catheterize himself, takes pain medication four times a day, and "rocks back and forth uncontrollably". Go to the NTSB website and look up the preliminary report of the crash of N102HA where he admitted to sheriffs that he ran out of gas and "misjudged the winds" - then did NOT COOPERATE with NTSB or FAA investigators! He crashed in the fall and filed a lawsuit (without any experts involved and without a final report issuing from NTSB) less than a MONTH later! Google "Daniel Bernath plane crash" for news footage and his admissions of negligence. And to top it off (pardon the pun) he admitted to making a precautionary landing at an airport seven miles away from the crash site to check his fuel and estimate "four gallons" an amount that would have made him illegal to take off with sufficient 30 minute reserves. This man is a liar and a con artist. Stay as FAR away from him as possible. FlightDesign has excellent defense lawyers from Oregon working on the case. It, and Mr. (Former attorney) Bernath, are going back to the hole they came from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...