Lawsuit Madness - OMG

[CT4ME]

Or... why Aviation costs so much...
a recently-trained pilot (CTsw) was on a cross-country flight that encountered serious headwinds. Fearing that his flight fuel planning didn’t consider the winds, he stopped short of his destination, only to confirm he was very low on fuel. Figuring he had enough for, maybe, 30 more minutes of flying, he took off trying to make it home. Several minutes later, he crash-landed in a field, fuel starved. Luckily, there were no injuries reported.

Our pilot (lawyer) friend has filed a $10 Million lawsuit against Flight Design, the place he bought his aircraft from, his flight instructor, and several un-named John Doe’s…. for not specifically telling him he shouldn’t fly when you are very low on fuel! He also states the FAA curriculum for Light Sport Pilot doesn’t include that a “Light Sport Pilot know or be trained (on) fuel starvation to the pilot’s engine…”. So, I guess we can presume the FAA could be one of the John Doe’s. Some of the monetary damages are to cover “attorney fees to protect himself against governmental investigations regarding his piloting”. Any admission of guilt there?

You can read the rambling lawsuit yourself, or Google this guy to find out more about this person... he is colorful, to say the least.

Sad... unless this thing is thrown out quick, it's going to cost several people a bunch of money.

...break out the popcorn...

 

[Jim Logajan]

Is it true though that the SP curriculum doesn't cover fuel minimums?

Sport pilot PTS covers understanding of fuel minimums at several points during the exam:

http://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/test_standards/media/faa-s-8081-29.pdf

Insuring adequate fuel is tested for under cross country planning, navigation, and systems and equipment malfunctions.

The lawsuit is merely a consequence of the fact that anyone can sue for anything for any or no reason at all. It has nothing to do with the cost of GA per se.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Or... why Aviation costs so much...
a recently-trained pilot (CTsw) was on a cross-country flight that encountered serious headwinds. Fearing that his flight fuel planning didn’t consider the winds, he stopped short of his destination, only to confirm he was very low on fuel. Figuring he had enough for, maybe, 30 more minutes of flying, he took off trying to make it home. Several minutes later, he crash-landed in a field, fuel starved. Luckily, there were no injuries reported.

Here is a news article on what appears to be the crash:
http://www.nuggetnews.com/main.asp?SectionID=5&SubSectionID=5&ArticleID=21444

You can read the rambling lawsuit yourself, or Google this guy to find out more about this person... he is colorful, to say the least.

I could not get that link to work from my net location.

 

[Jim Logajan]

The C162 POH prohibits take off unless there is at least 1/4 tank (3 gals) in each tank, which equates to the min t/o mark on the site gauge.

Just curious, does the CT POH also specify a minimum amount of fuel for takeoff?

I do not know if this is the template for POH for the airplane he flew, but I can't find any mention of any minimum t/o amount - just unusable amount:

http://documents.flightdesignusa.com/SW-POH.pdf

The copy I have of the 1982 Cessna 152 Information Manual (template for their POH) does explicitly say in the fuel system section that the usable (24.5) is valid for all flight conditions. However it also says takeoffs had not been demonstrated with less than 1 gallon usable total. No equivalent discussion or qualifiers appear in the above linked POH.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Another weird thing. He mentioned it was a 6 minute flight. It takes 6 minutes just to enter a pattern and land. Is there such a thing as a 6 minute flight?

He said he was going from OR34 to 6K5, which are 4.7 nm apart.

I bet dollars to donuts (or is that another thread?) that a few of the critics would, on seeing 3 to 4 gallons usable in a Rotax driven LSA, have also attempted the flight.

With respect to a civil lawsuit, I can't see the FAA regs being terribly useful to the defendants. Suppose the engine had seized up instead - would a takeoff with less than regulation fuel really have made the manufacturer less culpable? Not that I can see. Same logic but with fuel starvation while still having allegedly usable fuel.

The issue would be proving that he had the fuel he claimed he had on takeoff. If NTSB finds usable fuel in one of the tanks, then I suspect the fellow has some wind in his legal sails, and not just his own hot air.

 

[Jim Logajan]

I've lost track: isn't the plaintiff suing because there was no placard, or verbal instruction, warning him of the exact behavior that diagram explains?

You didn't lose track - unless I also lost track - but other posters to this thread appear to believe otherwise.

It is interesting to compare the discussion on fuel systems and unusable furl in the POH of a Cessna 152 with that of the CTSW....

 

[Jim Logajan]

Re: Hello from Daniel A. Bernath, lawyer

9 gallons per hour is typical for the planes I fly (Warrior, Archer).

I wouldn't taxi across the airport with only 3 gallons of fuel in the tank(s) let alone take off and expect to fly "only 6 minutes away", especially in high headwinds. You don't deserve to be a pilot.

Why not just use the consumption of a Boeing 747 - about as relevant.

Or you could have used a C-152. Three gallons is just over 30 minutes of flying for a C-152 "assuming normal cruising speed" (as 91.151 states the requirements constraint.)

In an ultralight, 3 gallons is 60% full tank.

For a CTSW with a Rotax 912 UL2 the online POH says 4.3 GPH consumption rate at cruise; 4.9 GPH if it has a 912 ULS. That seems to suggest the pilot would not have been in violation of 91.151 even with only 3 gallons usable. If it was 3.5 gallons and the plane had a UL2, he'd have 48+ minutes of flying time per 91.151.

By the way, the C-152 POH states this about its 1.5 gallon (0.75 per tank) unusable: "The maximum unusable fuel quantity, as determined from the most critical flight condition, is about 1.5 gallons total. This quantity was not exceeded by any other reasonable flight condition, including prolonged 30 second full-rudder sideslips in the landing configuration. Takeoffs have not been demonstrated with less than 2 gallons total fuel (1 gallon per tank)."

The C-152 POH fuel diagram is the same as that posted by ElPaso Pilot. This seems to indicate that one should not attempt to assume that the limitations of one aircraft apply in any way to another. The CTSW POH is, sadly, like many LSA POHs something of a POS with respect to making limitations clear to pilots.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Re: Hello from Daniel A. Bernath, lawyer

That's at cruise, T/O power is listed as 7.3.

I know that, but the regulation uses the phrase "assuming normal cruising speed" not "assuming takeoff power." The question I'm addressing is whether the alleged facts support the repeated assertion that the flight violated regulations, not whether it was safe or wise.

That said, even at 7.3 GPH he'd need only 3.65 gallons to legally take off.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Re: Hello from Daniel A. Bernath, lawyer

He was already on the ground due to HIS miscalculation of fuel burn yet he takes off again with less than 10% of his total fuel capacity? In addition, the "6 minutes" estimate was based on what some guy at the airport told him?

He stated that 3-4 gallons was good for 20 minutes of flying time which was optimistic. That is similar performance to what I fly that's why I'm telling you what I would/wouldn't do. I don't fly 747's or ultralights.

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.

Takeoff power is also baked in to the reg.

One needs adequate fuel to start, taxi, take off, climb to altitude, fly to the intended destination, then fly after that for at least 30 minutes.

You are correct - I made a mistake in forgetting to include the estimated consumption for the flight itself.

Assuming 4.7 nm plus 3 nm of maneuvering in traffic patterns at an avg of 77 kts yields 6 minutes flying. At worst case 7.3 GPH that is 0.73 gallons. At 4.3 GPH cruise, 30 minutes reserve requires 2.15 gallons. So he needed at least 2.88 gallons usable to legally takeoff, not including taxi and runup. But I already had him flying the entire distance and then some at full throttle but only averaging 77 kts. (OK - I chose extra distance and set the speed to make it an even 6 minutes to make the division trivial.)

I do need to point out that I do not takeoff with anything less than 1 hour reserves, but I sometimes find it is a useful exercise to argue the contrary case, rather than posting a prudent and majority view.

 

[Jim Logajan]

If it truly was a defect the FAA wouldn't have certified the aircraft in the first place.

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.

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.