---------------------------------------------------------- Zenith-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 03/25/07: 61 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 12:26 AM - Instrument Panel Wanted (Joe) 2. 04:47 AM - Re: Flap motor (David Downey) 3. 05:42 AM - Re: Flap motor (David Downey) 4. 06:16 AM - DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! (Jeffrey J Paris) 5. 06:38 AM - Re: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! (ZodieRocket) 6. 06:43 AM - Re: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! (robert stone) 7. 07:48 AM - Re: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! (Tim Juhl) 8. 07:55 AM - Re: Re: Flap motor (Mark Sherman) 9. 08:28 AM - Fw: HD/HDS Arm rest sides (Bill Naumuk) 10. 08:50 AM - a picture for today (Carlos Sa) 11. 09:04 AM - Re: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! (C Smith) 12. 09:24 AM - Re: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! (Brandon Tucker) 13. 10:09 AM - Re:DID I SEE THIS ON you TUBE!601 Looping!!!! (MaxNr@aol.com) 14. 10:09 AM - Another mystery solved (Bill Naumuk) 15. 10:22 AM - Re: a picture for today (TxDave) 16. 10:39 AM - Nicked the bottom rear rib of the rudder while drilling horn (Tom Lutz) 17. 10:54 AM - re three months of wing work.... Congrats!!!!!! (Jim Norton) 18. 11:21 AM - Re: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! (Michael Valentine) 19. 11:30 AM - Apology (ZodieRocket) 20. 11:38 AM - Re: Re: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! (NYTerminat@aol.com) 21. 11:44 AM - Re: Re: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! (C Smith) 22. 11:53 AM - Re: Re: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! (Craig Payne) 23. 11:53 AM - Re: Re: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! (CH701) 24. 12:21 PM - Re: Apology (Paul Mulwitz) 25. 12:41 PM - Re: Another mystery solved (Bill Naumuk) 26. 12:45 PM - Re: Nicked the bottom rear rib of the rudder while drilling horn (Bill Naumuk) 27. 12:45 PM - Re: Re: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! (Bryan Martin) 28. 12:56 PM - Re: Apology (Bryan Martin) 29. 01:06 PM - Re: Re: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! (Juan Vega) 30. 01:06 PM - Re: Apology (Craig Payne) 31. 01:21 PM - Re: Apology (Juan Vega) 32. 01:34 PM - Re: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! (C Smith) 33. 01:40 PM - Re: Nicked the bottom rear rib of the rudder while drilling horn (David Downey) 34. 01:52 PM - Re: Apology (C Smith) 35. 01:59 PM - Lycoming engine available (Al Young) 36. 02:00 PM - Re: Apology (C Smith) 37. 02:49 PM - Re: Apology (Dan) 38. 02:50 PM - Re: Re: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! (Carlos Sa) 39. 02:52 PM - Problem latching canopy (robert stone) 40. 03:06 PM - Arm Rest, Final (Bill Naumuk) 41. 03:57 PM - Re: Apology (Juan Vega) 42. 04:08 PM - Re: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! (Juan Vega) 43. 04:21 PM - acrobatics on 601s (Jim Norton) 44. 04:40 PM - Re: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! (Michael Valentine) 45. 04:40 PM - Re: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! (Graeme) 46. 05:00 PM - Re: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! (Brandon Tucker) 47. 05:13 PM - 701 spars, nose ribs, main ribs, etc. (Monty Graves) 48. 05:32 PM - Re: Apology (C Smith) 49. 05:34 PM - Re: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! (C Smith) 50. 05:35 PM - Re: Nicked the bottom rear rib of the rudder while drilling horn (David Downey) 51. 05:36 PM - Re: Re: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! (Gary Boothe) 52. 05:40 PM - Re: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! (Gary Boothe) 53. 05:44 PM - Re: Re: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! (C Smith) 54. 05:56 PM - Re: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! (Juan Vega) 55. 06:06 PM - Re: Apology (Juan Vega) 56. 06:30 PM - Re: Apology (Bryan Martin) 57. 07:51 PM - Re: Apology (C Smith) 58. 07:59 PM - Re: Re: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! (R.P.) 59. 08:11 PM - Re: Apology (R.P.) 60. 08:17 PM - Re: Apology (Bryan Martin) 61. 09:57 PM - Re: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! (Steve Hulland) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 12:26:20 AM PST US From: "Joe" Subject: Zenith-List: Instrument Panel Wanted Does anyone have a blank instrument panel they would like to sell? 920-237-1450 or E-mail joe@kfiz.com. Thanks. Joe ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 04:47:21 AM PST US From: David Downey Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Flap motor Actually, That failure mode is why I like the Van's method of using a cable operated tab with a vernier knob. stiff, simple, reliable. James Sagerser wrote: Wow, that's interesting. Have to give that some thought. Jim On Mar 24, 2007, at 11:31 AM, David Downey wrote: I am not sure why nothing came through. Here is what I had sent before: please be very careful with this type of installation. Several corporate and airliner type aircraft have crashed as a result of a wiring flaw driving the tab to maximum deflection. If you can't overcontrol the tab manually on the stick it could be a problem. James Sagerser wrote: David, I don't see a message except: Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut. Am I missing something? Jim Dave Downey Harleysville (SE) PA Zodiac 601XL/Corvair? --------------------------------- Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. Dave Downey Harleysville (SE) PA Zodiac 601XL/Corvair? --------------------------------- It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar. ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 05:42:15 AM PST US From: David Downey Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Flap motor Another advantage of the vernier is that the mass of the actuator is not located aft of the hinge line so that it can be a player in exitation of the elevator. That is always a good thing. Someone wrote of having to change the hinge bolts on the rudder after some 400 hours of operation. Were the hinge elements worn as well? Would there be an advantage in using Torlon bearings in the hinge elements so that even if the bolt wears, the airframe details would not? James Sagerser wrote: Wow, that's interesting. Have to give that some thought. Jim On Mar 24, 2007, at 11:31 AM, David Downey wrote: I am not sure why nothing came through. Here is what I had sent before: please be very careful with this type of installation. Several corporate and airliner type aircraft have crashed as a result of a wiring flaw driving the tab to maximum deflection. If you can't overcontrol the tab manually on the stick it could be a problem. James Sagerser wrote: David, I don't see a message except: Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut. Am I missing something? Jim Dave Downey Harleysville (SE) PA Zodiac 601XL/Corvair? --------------------------------- Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. Dave Downey Harleysville (SE) PA Zodiac 601XL/Corvair? --------------------------------- Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut. ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 06:16:57 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! From: "Jeffrey J Paris" Dear Listers and Threadheads, I was looking on YouTube.com the other day and just for the hell of it I put in Zenith Zodiac and low and behold, believe it or not, there are quite a few home videos of flying 601's and 701's in action. All was good until, I watched one video that said Looping a 601 and low and behold, make my teeth grit, forehead furling, sick to my stomach is a video of a guy looping his 601. Although its a pretty amazing video, as a builder and I have flown my aircraft CH601XL N196ZP a 130+ hours of enjoyable fun, can this be done? Is this person nuts? I don't know about this guy, however, I don't really believe that the rear part of the Plane is really that robust in terms structure as compared to a Van's. Nor was it meant to be as intentioned by the designer, I may be wrong, but I built one and compared to some other airframes I have looked at it's just an "apples and oranges" proposition. Moreover, I'm sure you can loop anything, but will it stand the test of time? It just made me cringe! In my opinion, it just is irresponsible to go against what an aircraft is all about if you catch my drift. Also, a video like this could give those less prudent and safety minded and daring individuals some bad ideas. Has anybody else seen this video? Take a look if you can I really don't know how You Tube works in terms of archiving it's content, but HOLY SHIT! Sincerely, Jeff Paris N196ZP CH601XL Jabiru3300, Dynon EFIS, Xerion Avionix 130+ hours of memorable and safe fun! _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 06:38:30 AM PST US From: "ZodieRocket" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! Jeff, you think the 601 looping makes you cringe, look further and watch the 701 loop, that will really pucker the sphincter. Sorry guys, these planes are strong for their intended purpose but when people do extremely stupid things and crash who is the first one blamed ? The company of course. In the last 6 months I have seen the 601 and 701 looped and hammer headed, heard of people going 220mph in dives in a 601, plus a lot more then I can share. It is nice to know that most times people survive intentionally outrageous stupid acts, but my fear is that they figure if the plane can do it once it can do it forever. This in my opinion is just a large game of Russian Roulette. When I first decided on building the 601 it was with the intent that this is the plane my children are going to learn on. I realize that I may not always be with them and the vigor's of youth sometimes create less then intelligent thought. I know that the 601 is capable of a great many feats and stupid actions are survivable in the plane, but constant bad judgment unchecked only ever has one outcome. Now as for looping a 701, I'm sorry but that scares the hell out of me just thinking about it. Mark Townsend Alma, Ontario Zodiac 601XL C-GOXL, CH701 just started www.ch601.org / www.ch701.com / www.Osprey2.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeffrey J Paris Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 8:16 AM Subject: Zenith-List: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! Dear Listers and Threadheads, I was looking on YouTube.com the other day and just for the hell of it I put in Zenith Zodiac and low and behold, believe it or not, there are quite a few home videos of flying 601's and 701's in action. All was good until, I watched one video that said Looping a 601 and low and behold, make my teeth grit, forehead furling, sick to my stomach is a video of a guy looping his 601. Although its a pretty amazing video, as a builder and I have flown my aircraft CH601XL N196ZP a 130+ hours of enjoyable fun, can this be done? Is this person nuts? I don't know about this guy, however, I don't really believe that the rear part of the Plane is really that robust in terms structure as compared to a Van's. Nor was it meant to be as intentioned by the designer, I may be wrong, but I built one and compared to some other airframes I have looked at it's just an "apples and oranges" proposition. Moreover, I'm sure you can loop anything, but will it stand the test of time? It just made me cringe! In my opinion, it just is irresponsible to go against what an aircraft is all about if you catch my drift. Also, a video like this could give those less prudent and safety minded and daring individuals some bad ideas. Has anybody else seen this video? Take a look if you can I really don't know how You Tube works in terms of archiving it's content, but HOLY SHIT! Sincerely, Jeff Paris N196ZP CH601XL Jabiru3300, Dynon EFIS, Xerion Avionix 130+ hours of memorable and safe fun! _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! -- 3/23/2007 3:27 PM -- 3/23/2007 3:27 PM ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 06:43:07 AM PST US From: "robert stone" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! Jeff, I would like to see that video, although I have no intention of doing aerobatics in my ZodiacXL. You are right about some pilots being the ones who will try it. How about publishing the URL where you saw this. Tracy Stone ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeffrey J Paris" Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 8:16 AM Subject: Zenith-List: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! > > > > Dear Listers and Threadheads, > > I was looking on YouTube.com the other day and just for the hell of it I > put in Zenith Zodiac and low and behold, believe it or not, there are > quite a few home videos of flying 601's and 701's in action. > > All was good until, I watched one video that said Looping a 601 and low > and behold, make my teeth grit, forehead furling, sick to my stomach is a > video of a guy looping his 601. Although its a pretty amazing video, as a > builder and I have flown my aircraft CH601XL N196ZP a 130+ hours of > enjoyable fun, can this be done? Is this person nuts? > > I don't know about this guy, however, I don't really believe that the rear > part of the Plane is really that robust in terms structure as compared to > a Van's. Nor was it meant to be as intentioned by the designer, I may be > wrong, but I built one and compared to some other airframes I have looked > at it's just an "apples and oranges" proposition. Moreover, I'm sure you > can loop anything, but will it stand the test of time? It just made me > cringe! > > In my opinion, it just is irresponsible to go against what an aircraft is > all about if you catch my drift. Also, a video like this could give those > less prudent and safety minded and daring individuals some bad ideas. > > Has anybody else seen this video? Take a look if you can I really don't > know how You Tube works in terms of archiving it's content, but HOLY SHIT! > > Sincerely, > > Jeff Paris > N196ZP CH601XL Jabiru3300, Dynon EFIS, Xerion Avionix 130+ hours of > memorable and safe fun! > > > _______________________________________________ > Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com > The most personalized portal on the Web! > > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 07:48:33 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! From: "Tim Juhl" Actually, there is a link to this clip on the Zenith website - To see the 601 Looping go to http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/videos.html If you want to see the 701 Loop and roll visit http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=63333FD009D76FBB&page=2 What alarms me further is the fellow in the 701 says he is teaching himself aerobatics. As to my opinion..... it is possible for a trained aerobatic pilot to loop and roll an aircraft without pulling excessive G's. That said, I have no intention of doing so in my 601 because "such maneuvers are not recommended by the designer." I'm still working on becoming an old(er) pilot. Tim -------- DO NOT ARCHIVE ______________ CFII Champ L16A flying Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A Working on wings Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=102768#102768 ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 07:55:39 AM PST US From: Mark Sherman Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Flap motor David. I believe the post was that he replaced the bolts, but there was no signs of wear. On my 701 every hinge point has and oillite bushing installed. This is a oil impregnated bronze material. There is something about steel against aluminum that just rubs me the wrong way. No pun intended. Mark S. 701/912S ----- Original Message ---- From: David Downey Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 5:41:31 AM Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Flap motor Another advantage of the vernier is that the mass of the actuator is not located aft of the hinge line so that it can be a player in exitation of the elevator. That is always a good thing. Someone wrote of having to change the hinge bolts on the rudder after some 400 hours of operation. Were the hinge elements worn as well? Would there be an advantage in using Torlon bearings in the hinge elements so that even if the bolt wears, the airframe details would not? James Sagerser wrote: Wow, that's interesting. Have to give that some thought. Jim On Mar 24, 2007, at 11:31 AM, David Downey wrote: I am not sure why nothing came through. Here is what I had sent before: please be very careful with this type of installation. Several corporate and airliner type aircraft have crashed as a result of a wiring flaw driving the tab to maximum deflection. If you can't overcontrol the tab manually on the stick it could be a problem. James Sagerser wrote: David, I don't see a message except: Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut. Am I missing something? Jim Dave Downey Harleysville (SE) PA Zodiac 601XL/Corvair? Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. Dave Downey Harleysville (SE) PA Zodiac 601XL/Corvair? Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut. 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 08:28:12 AM PST US From: "Bill Naumuk" Subject: Zenith-List: Fw: HD/HDS Arm rest sides All- Seems the reference point is correct. The other obvious explanation is that the print layout for the arm rest sides is incorrect. No indications that there will be any trouble if the rear of the seat pan is 10mm aft, but everything's right on except for the geometry of the arm rest sides. I'm going to make a set of arm rest sides to fit the pan opening and get on with life. Bill Naumuk HDS Fuse/Corvair Townville, Pa ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Naumuk Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 2:25 PM Subject: HD/HDS Arm rest sides Guys- In a real pickle here. You'll have to follow closely. I'm trying to install the arm rest sides. They don't come close to fitting without forcing the rear of the seat pan and channel forward about 10mm. My plans clearly show, even emphasize the distance from the c-section spar web 535mm to the front of the rear pan. 1. I rechecked the distance and I'm within 1mm. 2. I checked the kit arm rest sides. Everything's dead on except the 138mm dimension which is 135mm. Shouldn't be a factor. 3. Like an absolute idiot, I removed the shims leveling the c-section thinking they might be distorting the pan. Nope. Now I have to re-level. 4. Checked the rear channel for bow. Nada. 5. Worked on the car for a while to clear my head and came up with another check. Put an angle gauge on the pan bottom to rear crossmember and came up with 60 deg. It's supposed to be 65. Reset the angle gauge and, guess what. Yep, the rear crossmember winds up 10mm forward. Here's the kicker. If you index from the front of the spar cap rather than the spar web, you wind up 10mm forward and everything's hunky dory. Everyone, please check you plans and see where your index point is indicated. If you ran into this while building and had to rebuild your way out, please let me know. For those of you who sleep next to your projects, another check would be the distance from the rear channel to the Z spar. (Please provide the numbers). I'm looking at 2 weekends work to correct this mess and want to make absolutely sure before refabricating a half dozen components. Thanks. Bill Naumuk HDS Fuse/Corvair Townville, Pa ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 08:50:24 AM PST US From: "Carlos Sa" Subject: Zenith-List: a picture for today Hello, all Consistent with my average building speed, attached is the result of ~3 months of work (late December to early March): right wing tip done - no fibreglass. Well, not actually done, it still needs to be primed and riveted. Carlos CH601-HD, plans Montreal, Canada I dare anybody to build slower than I do ! do not archive ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 09:04:33 AM PST US From: "C Smith" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! Not to sound like an arm chair attorney, but wouldn't it be prudent to determine who the owner/operators are (based on the registration of the aircraft) and send them each (via certified mail) a letter of caution. Restating the design limitations of the aircraft, and noting that they're videos display operation of the aircraft outside of the design limitations, that such operation is unsafe to the point of intentional disregard for the safety of themselves and others on the ground, that such operation is expressly unsanctioned by the designer and manufacturer of the kit, and that publicizing such careless behavior may encourage others to attempt similar acts of negligence, etc. Just a thought, in this day and age of "I'm not responsible, go after the deep pockets of big companies" litigation, I would be quick to distance myself form people who would flagrantly abuse my products in such a fashion. Lawyers could argue that the videos were public domain for XX amount of time, and that the manufacturer/designer "should have seen/known of the activity, and did nothing to inform the operators, and is therefore liable for the accident". I've seen far more extreme arguments won in tort cases. If you could simply produce the copies of the documents of warning, and certified receipts of their mailing, it would be case closed. I would even go so far as to send copies of that warning to the aviation administering agencies of the registered countries of ownership, informing them of the recorded acts of negligence. Just my 2 cents. Cheaper to nip it in the bud now, than to pay for it when the stupid people end up dead, with next of kin suing in court. Craig Smith -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ZodieRocket Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 9:38 AM Subject: RE: Zenith-List: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! Jeff, you think the 601 looping makes you cringe, look further and watch the 701 loop, that will really pucker the sphincter. Sorry guys, these planes are strong for their intended purpose but when people do extremely stupid things and crash who is the first one blamed ? The company of course. In the last 6 months I have seen the 601 and 701 looped and hammer headed, heard of people going 220mph in dives in a 601, plus a lot more then I can share. It is nice to know that most times people survive intentionally outrageous stupid acts, but my fear is that they figure if the plane can do it once it can do it forever. This in my opinion is just a large game of Russian Roulette. When I first decided on building the 601 it was with the intent that this is the plane my children are going to learn on. I realize that I may not always be with them and the vigor's of youth sometimes create less then intelligent thought. I know that the 601 is capable of a great many feats and stupid actions are survivable in the plane, but constant bad judgment unchecked only ever has one outcome. Now as for looping a 701, I'm sorry but that scares the hell out of me just thinking about it. Mark Townsend Alma, Ontario Zodiac 601XL C-GOXL, CH701 just started www.ch601.org / www.ch701.com / www.Osprey2.com -----Original Message----- ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 09:24:52 AM PST US From: Brandon Tucker Subject: Zenith-List: Re: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! Gents, Writing off the people looping 601's as stupid is insulting. You know nothing about these guys and their flight experience. I have looped my HDS, and plan to do it again. The 601 is stressed to 6 G's. I performed my loop at 2.5. I realize that private and commercial pilot training convince you that if you bank your aircraft more than 60 degrees the wings will rip off. Reality is much different. The wing knows no difference between performing a loop and a nose low 60 degree angle of bank turn. I dogfight aircraft stressed for 6 G's (Varga Kachina) every weekend, without exceeding 60 deg angle of bank or 30 deg of pitch. We pull 3 G's on every fight. This is recognized and approved by the FAA. Is this stupid? We have been doing it for over 10 years without incident. Over 100,000 satisfied customers... If you choose to disagree, that is expected and understandable. Calling them stupid is not what this forum is about. If Chris Heinz were sincerely afraid of the wings ripping off a 601 in a loop, I doubt he would link the video on his website... R/ Brandon 601 HDS / TD / Corvair 80 hours 4 loops, and 15 - 20 aileron rolls... Haven't ripped the wings off yet... http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091 ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 10:09:37 AM PST US From: MaxNr@aol.com Subject: Zenith-List: Re:DID I SEE THIS ON you TUBE!601 Looping!!!! Do not archive This is an interesting thread. I will now publicly confess. Back in 1960, there were NO sources of aerobatic instruction. But every body did some. Some more than others. Plenty of WW2 vets around to describe maneuvers to a young feller. My first loop in my Aeronca 7A was solo with no prior dual. Easy. No heavy G's. Less G force than the spin recovery taught pre-solo by my CFI. (Piper J3). He taught me to neutralize rudder, continue stick back pressure against the stop. Guess it was almost 4 G. back to Level flight at no more than 80mph. He was prev a Embry Riddle Stearman instructor. I did more gentle recoverys when solo. Saw 95MPH recoverys. My 1946 Luscombe 8A had a supplement to the "Flight Manual" (really a pamphlet) that gave details on the approved manuevers. Included snaps on top of a loop. BTW, Luscombe hor stab is installed on a tray like assembly attached by 4 #10 bolts. No known failures. Never did more than spins in her. These A/C were all cert in Utility cat(4.4 G's). 601XL is stressed for MORE G's at about the same GW as these 1946 trainers. I am not considered a reckless pilot by my peers. I just came from a different time. I am a retired ATP with over 50 years of personal, military and commercial flying. I have a spotless record. The 601XL is a"sport plane". Get some instruction and do what you enjoy. Bob from Pace,FL 601XL/Lyc do not archive ************************************** AOL now http://www.aol.com. ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 10:09:37 AM PST US From: "Bill Naumuk" Subject: Zenith-List: Another mystery solved All- It took me a day and a half to figure it out, and only 5 minutes to fix. Sometimes something's staring you right in the face and you miss it. 6-F-16-1 was a kit part. What didn't hit me for all this time was the pan opening didn't look like the print! Attached are the print inset, the real deal, and a picture of the part. Look at where the 535mm dimension is on the print and the real deal. I don't have to say any more for you CAD people, but for the others... If you don't use aligned dimensioning, your model gets skewed out of shape along with all the rest of your dimensions. All I had to do to fix the factory part was grind off the bottom, as shown by the line on my part picture. Fits like a glove. If you have a factory part and want to save a day and a half, measure from the top down the left side 385mm, the right side 320mm and draw a line connecting the two points. You should wind up with 140mm at the small end. Grind to the line, and you, too will have parts that fit like a glove. Good building! Bill Naumuk HDS Fuse/Corvair Townville, Pa ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 10:22:34 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: a picture for today From: "TxDave" That's a nice looking wingtip, Carlos. I'm really impressed with the nose part. I'm working on my right wingtip and am struggling a little with an ill fitting fiberglass piece. Talk about slow building...I've been working on LE skin related stuff since December. do not archive Dave Clay 601XL from plans http://www.daves601xl.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=102807#102807 ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 10:39:54 AM PST US From: "Tom Lutz" Subject: Zenith-List: Nicked the bottom rear rib of the rudder while drilling horn Hi all, I nicked the inside part of the flange on the bottom rear rib of the rudder while drilling the holes for the horn (the holes closest to the flange that mates with the spar). They aren't huge nicks, but I want to make sure the structural integrity of this thing is 100%. I suspect I need to contact ZAC to ask the engineers about this. Any thoughts? Thanks, Tom CH701 - 2.0hours ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 10:54:12 AM PST US From: Jim Norton Subject: Zenith-List: re three months of wing work.... Congrats!!!!!! Wow, it really shows you do excellent work, and that kind of a job can't be done quickly. (If you aren't doing anything you can drop by and help me build my wings....... I'll wait....) ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 11:21:19 AM PST US From: "Michael Valentine" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! I have to agree with Brandon on this one - you/we know nothing about these individuals and the reasons they make the choices they do. Nor do we know anything about their aerobatic proficiency. Also, can you direct me to any expressed design limitation that they have exceeded or provide support for any of your numerous other assertions (bolded below)? (I personally did not receive any structural analyses or design parameters from Chris Heintz when I got my kit. One would think that if your various statements are correct, we would each have received a nice thick booklet on what we can and cannot do with our planes.) Each of us who builds the plane is the manufacturer and ultimately responsible for our own actions. Quite honestly, the attitude evinced in your email below is of more concern to me than a thousand people looping 601s on YouTube. (Of course, I know nothing about you and you might be a great and guy and a great attorney with whom I would happily share a beer. I am merely making my statement based on how I perceive the tone of your post.) I say this because I think the attitude shown in your post will lead us to a "nanny-state" where one is not responsible for his own actions a fair bit faster than the frivolous lawsuits that will occur when someone loops their 601/701 into a bus full of disabled school children. Michael in NH On 3/25/07, C Smith wrote: > > > Not to sound like an arm chair attorney, but wouldn't it be prudent to > determine who the owner/operators are (based on the registration of the > aircraft) and send them each (via certified mail) a letter of caution. > Restating the design limitations of the aircraft, and noting that they're > videos display operation of the aircraft outside of the design limitations > , > that such operation is unsafe to the point of intentional disregard for > the > safety of themselves and others on the ground, that such operation is > expressly unsanctioned by the designer and manufacturer of the kit, and > that > publicizing such careless behavior may encourage others to attempt similar > acts of negligence, etc. > Just a thought, in this day and age of "I'm not responsible, go after the > deep pockets of big companies" litigation, I would be quick to distance > myself form people who would flagrantly abuse my products in such a > fashion. > Lawyers could argue that the videos were public domain for XX amount of > time, and that the manufacturer/designer "should have seen/known of the > activity, and did nothing to inform the operators, and is therefore liable > for the accident". I've seen far more extreme arguments won in tort cases. > If you could simply produce the copies of the documents of warning, and > certified receipts of their mailing, it would be case closed. I would even > go so far as to send copies of that warning to the aviation administering > agencies of the registered countries of ownership, informing them of the > recorded acts of negligence. > Just my 2 cents. Cheaper to nip it in the bud now, than to pay for it when > the stupid people end up dead, with next of kin suing in court. > > Craig Smith > > ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 11:30:43 AM PST US From: "ZodieRocket" Subject: Zenith-List: Apology Your right and I humbly retract any statement in which I may call your decisions and actions as Stupid, it is a very strong word to use. Please replace all references to STUPID in my previous letter with "Willfully disregarding Designers intentions, directions and warnings". Not legaleze, but it is the best I can do. If your trained and can accomplish a loop without exceeding 2g's then make your own decisions to disregard the designers statements, but what about the new pilot who see's others do it and fluffs his 701 into a 6 G invert from lack of experience. What should we call him? I have a thought, opp's I already expressed it and was chastised. Not to sound mean spirited but many new people to flying are on this list, don't give those fellows the thoughts that it is just fine to go out, and loop there plane. I am curious about U.S. Law though, in Canada we had a fellow brag about looping his plane and at a Fly-in with a Transport Canada Officer present he was telling a story and the officer ask if he was telling the truth. After the fellow admitted it was true the officer charged him. Brandon Admitted that he loops his HDS, OK he may be accomplished and knows what he is doing and may be able to loop his plane every day for the rest of his life and be just fine. But did he or did he not just in formal writing admit to breaking air regulations and committing an offense to the air regs? Just Curious, should I ask the FAA? Mark -----Original Message----- Gents, Writing off the people looping 601's as stupid is insulting. You know nothing about these guys and their flight experience. I have looped my HDS, and plan to do it again. -- 3/23/2007 3:27 PM ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 11:38:36 AM PST US From: NYTerminat@aol.com Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! Brandon, Well said!!!!!! Bob In a message dated 3/25/2007 12:25:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, btucke73@yahoo.com writes: Gents, Writing off the people looping 601's as stupid is insulting. You know nothing about these guys and their flight experience. I have looped my HDS, and plan to do it again. The 601 is stressed to 6 G's. I performed my loop at 2.5. I realize that private and commercial pilot training convince you that if you bank your aircraft more than 60 degrees the wings will rip off. Reality is much different. The wing knows no difference between performing a loop and a nose low 60 degree angle of bank turn. ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 11:44:00 AM PST US From: "C Smith" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! Mark T., this post illustrates my point exactly. I had no idea these were linked from the factory site. By doing so Zenith has given tacit approval of the activity, and more importantly are promoting the activity. If I were you, I would get on the phone to the webmaster and pull those links immediately. Any attorney worth his salt would have those videos and the web-page links from the factory site in front of the jury during opening arguments. "If Chris Heinz were sincerely afraid of the wings ripping off a 601 in a loop, I doubt he would link the video on his website..." Is exactly what the attorney would argue. Operating an aircraft outside of it's certification is a violation of the FARs as well as negligent behavior, doing it more than once is stupid. Regardless of the construction. "4 loops, and 15 - 20 aileron rolls... Haven't ripped the wings off yet..." These are famous last words, I haven't been hurt yet. Easy to say, hard for families to live with. I work in manufacturing, and the guys that are most likely to hurt or kill themselves are the guys with many years of experience. They have developed a sense of arrogant invulnerability. Try to point out when they are not following safety protocol, you get the "I'm insulted that you can question my experience" and "I've changed out these for years without shutting off the buss", I've even been threatened for mentioning safe practices. But listen to any survivor of an accident and you will hear "I was stupid to think it couldn't happen to me". Brandon, when your wing separates, or fuel supply fails, or some other unforeseen component stops doing what it was intended to, you won't be able to reach out and fix it. Maybe you have or haven't seen someone die from an accident first hand, but I have. It has left an indelible mark on my soul. Sometimes the smallest of mistakes will kill you in an instant. Of course nothing I have to say will change anyone's behavior, it never has. But I've watched as my leading petty officer dropped dead from electrocution, and watched another coworker get horribly burned, crippled and blinded by the arrogance of experience. I'm not going to apologize for insulting anyone on this matter, but I have to thank Brandon for making my point better than I could have myself. Craig Smith State licensed Journeyman electrician Certificated instrument rated pilot 422 hrs 0 loops, 0 aileron rolls Gents, Writing off the people looping 601's as stupid is insulting. You know nothing about these guys and their flight experience. I have looped my HDS, and plan to do it again. The 601 is stressed to 6 G's. I performed my loop at 2.5. I realize that private and commercial pilot training convince you that if you bank your aircraft more than 60 degrees the wings will rip off. Reality is much different. The wing knows no difference between performing a loop and a nose low 60 degree angle of bank turn. I dogfight aircraft stressed for 6 G's (Varga Kachina) every weekend, without exceeding 60 deg angle of bank or 30 deg of pitch. We pull 3 G's on every fight. This is recognized and approved by the FAA. Is this stupid? We have been doing it for over 10 years without incident. Over 100,000 satisfied customers... If you choose to disagree, that is expected and understandable. Calling them stupid is not what this forum is about. If Chris Heinz were sincerely afraid of the wings ripping off a 601 in a loop, I doubt he would link the video on his website... R/ Brandon 601 HDS / TD / Corvair 80 hours 4 loops, and 15 - 20 aileron rolls... Haven't ripped the wings off yet... ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 11:53:20 AM PST US From: "Craig Payne" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! Brandon, I'm too ignorant to express an opinion but I do have a question. Do you worry about loss of fuel feed from the tanks or lack of oil in your Corvair while inverted? Roughly how long are you inverted? From my casual knowledge on the subject I understand that aerobatic planes have engines with dry sumps and flop tubes in the tanks. -- Craig ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 11:53:22 AM PST US From: "CH701" <701stol@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! On a lighter note here's another flight maneuver safely performed by a qualified pilot but frowned upon by the designer... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vHiYA6Dmws _____ From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of NYTerminat@aol.com Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 1:38 PM Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! Brandon, Well said!!!!!! Bob In a message dated 3/25/2007 12:25:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, btucke73@yahoo.com writes: Gents, Writing off the people looping 601's as stupid is insulting. You know nothing about these guys and their flight experience. I have looped my HDS, and plan to do it again. The 601 is stressed to 6 G's. I performed my loop at 2.5. I realize that private and commercial pilot training convince you that if you bank your aircraft more than 60 degrees the wings will rip off. Reality is much different. The wing knows no difference between performing a loop and a nose low 60 degree angle of bank turn. _____ AOL now offersle="http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000339" href="http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000339" target="_blank">AOL.com. ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 12:21:01 PM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Apology Oddly, we still have some personal freedom left in the USA. Apparently more than Canada when it comes to aerobatic flight. Even with the Transportation Security Administration insisting we all take off our shoes to look for hideous bombs (explosive, not odorous) before boarding an airliner and we need passports to fly from Canada to the USA, I believe we can still fly our planes however we want. Indeed we even have an FAR that says the pilot in command can break any rule he wants if he feels it is necessary for safe completion of a flight. I doubt this could justify performing loops, but a wing-over in a box canyon is another story. I did hear of someone who had to face charges from the FAA for doing aerobatics in controlled airspace - a Victor airway - many years ago. However, it was the danger imposed on innocent travelers in the airspace that was in question rather than the aerobatics. I find myself agreeing with some of the arguments on both sides of this whole issue. It is dangerous for untrained pilots to perform high G maneuvers in any airplane, and mostly safe for any pilot to perform any flight maneuver that doesn't overstress the plane he is flying. I must fall back on a partial quote by one of the posters that in its entirety is: There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old bold pilots. For any Zenith builder who wants to risk structural failure and certain death by executing dangerous flight maneuvers I say: Have fun. For me, the gift of flight is enough excitement, and the challenge of safely conducting normal flights is quite sufficient. Paul XL fuselage do not archive At 10:28 AM 3/25/2007, you wrote: >I am curious about U.S. Law though, in Canada we had a fellow brag about >looping his plane and at a Fly-in with a Transport Canada Officer >present he was telling a story and the officer ask if he was telling the >truth. After the fellow admitted it was true the officer charged him. - ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 12:41:50 PM PST US From: "Bill Naumuk" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Another mystery solved All- Close, but no cigar. I made the same mistake in not rotating the 535mm dimension. The 535mm on the plane is measured from the spar web to the rear support. Where I have the 535mm called out on the second sketch is on the top edge. What I forgot was that the right corner of the top edge is about 100mm above the rear support, so the 535mm and 320mm will be longer. We're getting there- I'll post the final dimensions. You could make a factory arm rest side fit, but only at the outside boundaries of the +/- 2mm general tolerance. Bill Naumuk HDS Fuse/Corvair Townville, Pa ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Naumuk To: zenith-list@matronics.com Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 1:08 PM Subject: Zenith-List: Another mystery solved All- It took me a day and a half to figure it out, and only 5 minutes to fix. Sometimes something's staring you right in the face and you miss it. 6-F-16-1 was a kit part. What didn't hit me for all this time was the pan opening didn't look like the print! Attached are the print inset, the real deal, and a picture of the part. Look at where the 535mm dimension is on the print and the real deal. I don't have to say any more for you CAD people, but for the others... If you don't use aligned dimensioning, your model gets skewed out of shape along with all the rest of your dimensions. All I had to do to fix the factory part was grind off the bottom, as shown by the line on my part picture. Fits like a glove. If you have a factory part and want to save a day and a half, measure from the top down the left side 385mm, the right side 320mm and draw a line connecting the two points. You should wind up with 140mm at the small end. Grind to the line, and you, too will have parts that fit like a glove. Good building! Bill Naumuk HDS Fuse/Corvair Townville, Pa ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 12:45:17 PM PST US From: "Bill Naumuk" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Nicked the bottom rear rib of the rudder while drilling horn Tom- As I understand it, nicks on a rib flange are no problem. Where you have to be careful is around the spars. If you have nicks or scratches there, they have to be scrubbed out. Bill Naumuk HDS Fuse/Corvair Townville, Pa ----- Original Message ----- From: Tom Lutz To: zenith-list@matronics.com Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 1:39 PM Subject: Zenith-List: Nicked the bottom rear rib of the rudder while drilling horn Hi all, I nicked the inside part of the flange on the bottom rear rib of the rudder while drilling the holes for the horn (the holes closest to the flange that mates with the spar). They aren't huge nicks, but I want to make sure the structural integrity of this thing is 100%. I suspect I need to contact ZAC to ask the engineers about this. Any thoughts? Thanks, Tom CH701 - 2.0hours ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 12:45:37 PM PST US From: Bryan Martin Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! The 601 has a design load factor of 6 Gs. The flight load factor is 4 Gs. Exceeding the flight load factor on an airplane will most likely put a permanent bend in the wing spars. Exceeding the design load factor will most likely break the wing spars. That being said, if you have the training and skill to perform a flight maneuver without exceeding the flight load factor, there's nothing stupid about doing it. If you don't have the training and skill, performing a loop in a 601 would not be very smart. It's not designed for aerobatic training and not stressed for the loads you might encounter if you screw up the maneuver. > The 601 is stressed to 6 G's. .... -- Bryan Martin N61BM, CH 601 XL, RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive. ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 12:56:04 PM PST US From: Bryan Martin Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Apology As long as you are alone in the plane, outside of controlled airspace and not over a populated area, there isn't much the FAA can or will do about it. If you're carrying a passenger, you both have to be wearing parachutes. The FAA doesn't much care if you kill yourself in an airplane as long as you don't take out anybody else with you. > > > I am curious about U.S. Law though, in Canada we had a fellow brag > about > looping his plane and at a Fly-in with a Transport Canada Officer > present he was telling a story and the officer ask if he was > telling the > truth. After the fellow admitted it was true the officer charged him. > -- Bryan Martin N61BM, CH 601 XL, RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive. do not archive. ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 01:06:12 PM PST US From: Juan Vega Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! Too all freekin out about the loop on youtube, tell Bob Hoover that what he did was frivolous. Don't know Bob Hoover? type it into the youtube search. While you are on the ground busy judging someone elses behavior that has no bearing on what you are doing in your little part of the world, I'll be doing a loop and enjoying it. We built planes because we chose to build something and take the risks, same as jumping out of a plane with some silk stuffed in a back pack on your back. We assume responsiblity for our own actions. If If they die doing it, they chose to take the risk. C Smith has one point right, remember the old quote "there are no old, bold pilots". My favorite is "Life is a calculated risk" Juan -----Original Message----- >From: C Smith >Sent: Mar 25, 2007 2:43 PM >To: zenith-list@matronics.com >Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! > > > >Mark T., this post illustrates my point exactly. I had no idea these were >linked from the factory site. By doing so Zenith has given tacit approval of >the activity, and more importantly are promoting the activity. If I were >you, I would get on the phone to the webmaster and pull those links >immediately. >Any attorney worth his salt would have those videos and the web-page links >from the factory site in front of the jury during opening arguments. > > "If Chris Heinz were sincerely afraid of the wings ripping off a 601 in a >loop, I doubt he would link the video on his website..." >Is exactly what the attorney would argue. > >Operating an aircraft outside of it's certification is a violation of the >FARs as well as negligent behavior, doing it more than once is stupid. >Regardless of the construction. > > >"4 loops, and 15 - 20 aileron rolls... Haven't ripped the wings off yet..." > >These are famous last words, I haven't been hurt yet. Easy to say, hard for >families to live with. I work in manufacturing, and the guys that are most >likely to hurt or kill themselves are the guys with many years of >experience. They have developed a sense of arrogant invulnerability. Try to >point out when they are not following safety protocol, you get the "I'm >insulted that you can question my experience" and "I've changed out these >for years without shutting off the buss", I've even been threatened for >mentioning safe practices. But listen to any survivor of an accident and you >will hear "I was stupid to think it couldn't happen to me". >Brandon, when your wing separates, or fuel supply fails, or some other >unforeseen component stops doing what it was intended to, you won't be able >to reach out and fix it. >Maybe you have or haven't seen someone die from an accident first hand, but >I have. It has left an indelible mark on my soul. Sometimes the smallest of >mistakes will kill you in an instant. >Of course nothing I have to say will change anyone's behavior, it never has. >But I've watched as my leading petty officer dropped dead from >electrocution, and watched another coworker get horribly burned, crippled >and blinded by the arrogance of experience. >I'm not going to apologize for insulting anyone on this matter, but I have >to thank Brandon for making my point better than I could have myself. > >Craig Smith >State licensed Journeyman electrician >Certificated instrument rated pilot >422 hrs >0 loops, 0 aileron rolls > > > >Gents, > > Writing off the people looping 601's as stupid is insulting. You know >nothing about these guys and their flight experience. I have looped my HDS, >and plan to do it again. > > The 601 is stressed to 6 G's. I performed my loop at 2.5. I realize >that private and commercial pilot training convince you that if you bank >your aircraft more than 60 degrees the wings will rip off. >Reality is much different. The wing knows no difference between performing >a loop and a nose low 60 degree angle of bank turn. I dogfight aircraft >stressed for 6 G's (Varga Kachina) every weekend, without exceeding 60 deg >angle of bank or 30 deg of pitch. We pull 3 G's on every fight. This is >recognized and approved by the FAA. Is this stupid? >We have been doing it for over 10 years without incident. Over 100,000 >satisfied customers... If you choose to disagree, that is expected and >understandable. Calling them stupid is not what this forum is about. > > If Chris Heinz were sincerely afraid of the wings ripping off a 601 in >a loop, I doubt he would link the video on his website... > >R/ > >Brandon >601 HDS / TD / Corvair >80 hours >4 loops, and 15 - 20 aileron rolls... Haven't ripped the wings off yet... > > ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 01:06:12 PM PST US From: "Craig Payne" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Apology > The FAA doesn't much care if you kill yourself in an airplane as long as you don't take out anybody else with you. But your heirs might have a hard time collecting on your insurance: personal life, aircraft. -- Craig ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 01:21:08 PM PST US From: Juan Vega Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Apology i don't remember anywhere there being a sign posted that says designer has warned us against certain aeobatic activities, please share with us where is it posted that the designer says " please do not disregard my directions and warnings". It must be in just the Canadian 601 owners manual. IN the U.S. a statement of a willful act does not make one guilty. If it infringes on someone elses' safety and there is evidence of harm to others, then there may be a problem.. If I go to an FAA instructor and and say, "on the way here, it was so beautifull out and clear, I decided to pull a loop in my plane!" The U.S. FAA guy will say, "good for you". Its called free speech. Juan -----Original Message----- >From: ZodieRocket >Sent: Mar 25, 2007 2:28 PM >To: zenith-list@matronics.com >Subject: Zenith-List: Apology > > >Your right and I humbly retract any statement in which I may call your >decisions and actions as Stupid, it is a very strong word to use. Please >replace all references to STUPID in my previous letter with "Willfully >disregarding Designers intentions, directions and warnings". >Not legaleze, but it is the best I can do. >If your trained and can accomplish a loop without exceeding 2g's then >make your own decisions to disregard the designers statements, but what >about the new pilot who see's others do it and fluffs his 701 into a 6 G >invert from lack of experience. What should we call him? I have a >thought, opp's I already expressed it and was chastised. Not to sound >mean spirited but many new people to flying are on this list, don't give >those fellows the thoughts that it is just fine to go out, and loop >there plane. > >I am curious about U.S. Law though, in Canada we had a fellow brag about >looping his plane and at a Fly-in with a Transport Canada Officer >present he was telling a story and the officer ask if he was telling the >truth. After the fellow admitted it was true the officer charged him. > >Brandon Admitted that he loops his HDS, OK he may be accomplished and >knows what he is doing and may be able to loop his plane every day for >the rest of his life and be just fine. But did he or did he not just in >formal writing admit to breaking air regulations and committing an >offense to the air regs? > >Just Curious, should I ask the FAA? > > >Mark >-----Original Message----- >Gents, > > Writing off the people looping 601's as stupid is >insulting. You know nothing about these guys and >their flight experience. I have looped my HDS, and >plan to do it again. > > > >-- >3/23/2007 3:27 PM > > > ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 01:34:49 PM PST US From: "C Smith" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! _____ From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael Valentine I have to agree with Brandon on this one - you/we know nothing about these individuals and the reasons they make the choices they do. Nor do we know anything about their aerobatic proficiency. This is precisely why there are things like type certificates, building/electrical codes etc. No one knows much about the proficiency of those performing the work(driving the car, flying the plane, building the plane), hence governing bodies impose regulations and standards of construction/operation/conduct. They are called laws. The alternative is chaos. Also, can you direct me to any expressed design limitation that they have exceeded or provide support for any of your numerous other assertions (bolded below)? (I personally did not receive any structural analyses or design parameters from Chris Heintz when I got my kit. One would think that if your various statements are correct, we would each have received a nice thick booklet on what we can and cannot do with our planes.) It's called the airworthiness certificate, and if it doesn't say aerobatic, you are operating it outside the limitations. By the way, are you wearing parachutes while performing these maneuvers? Each of us who builds the plane is the manufacturer and ultimately responsible for our own actions. Quite honestly, the attitude evinced in your email below is of more concern to me than a thousand people looping 601s on YouTube. (Of course, I know nothing about you and you might be a great and guy and a great attorney with whom I would happily share a beer. I am merely making my statement based on how I perceive the tone of your post.) I say this because I think the attitude shown in your post will lead us to a "nanny-state" where one is not responsible for his own actions a fair bit faster than the frivolous lawsuits that will occur when someone loops their 601/701 into a bus full of disabled school children. I'm assuming that NH stands for New Hampshire, that means you live in the United States. If those involved in operating their aircraft outside the operating limitations were somehow immune to the law of the land, and operated in areas where their crashing airframe could pose zero risk to innocent citizens, then WHEEEEEeeeee, go for it. Unfortunately one reason for the high cost of flying is stupid people. One third of the cost of certificated aircraft is due to liability concerns. Stupid is also why hair dryers and toasters have short electrical cords, why every appliance you buy has xx pages of warnings listing behaviors that to many would be laughable, it's why Cessna had to pay a ton of money and cease production of it's piston singles (someone didn't bother to check if his seat was locked in place). It's why a power company can be sued for turning off electricity (due to nonpayment of bills) because the homeowner used flaming newspaper to thaw the pipes under his house. Need I go on? Or are these things completely foreign to you? These things are a reality of our country, to ignore the fact has led to the bankrupting of many businesses. Didn't we just see a major manufacturer of vacuum pumps, go out of the business because the pilot couldn't fly partial panel? Michael, I'm not the one who has made the court system what it is, but that doesn't mean that I won't take appropriate action to protect myself or my business from acts of stupidity, nor does it mean I will keep my head in the sand and pretend lawsuits don't happen. Craig Smith Michael in NH On 3/25/07, C Smith wrote: Not to sound like an arm chair attorney, but wouldn't it be prudent to determine who the owner/operators are (based on the registration of the aircraft) and send them each (via certified mail) a letter of caution. Restating the design limitations of the aircraft, and noting that they're videos display operation of the aircraft outside of the design limitations, that such operation is unsafe to the point of intentional disregard for the safety of themselves and others on the ground, that such operation is expressly unsanctioned by the designer and manufacturer of the kit , and that publicizing such careless behavior may encourage others to attempt similar acts of negligence , etc. Just a thought, in this day and age of "I'm not responsible, go after the deep pockets of big companies" litigation, I would be quick to distance myself form people who would flagrantly abuse my products in such a fashion. Lawyers could argue that the videos were public domain for XX amount of time, and that the manufacturer/designer "should have seen/known of the activity, and did nothing to inform the operators, and is therefore liable for the accident". I've seen far more extreme arguments won in tort cases. If you could simply produce the copies of the documents of warning, and certified receipts of their mailing, it would be case closed. I would even go so far as to send copies of that warning to the aviation administering agencies of the registered countries of ownership, informing them of the recorded acts of negligence. Just my 2 cents. Cheaper to nip it in the bud now, than to pay for it when the stupid people end up dead, with next of kin suing in court. Craig Smith ________________________________ Message 33 ____________________________________ Time: 01:40:34 PM PST US From: David Downey Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Nicked the bottom rear rib of the rudder while drilling horn Hey guys, most of these accidental nicks can be avoided by the use of sharp bits and drill stops used all the time. Tom Lutz wrote: Hi all, I nicked the inside part of the flange on the bottom rear rib of the rudder while drilling the holes for the horn (the holes closest to the flange that mates with the spar). They aren't huge nicks, but I want to make sure the structural integrity of this thing is 100%. I suspect I need to contact ZAC to ask the engineers about this. Any thoughts? Thanks, Tom CH701 - 2.0hours Dave Downey Harleysville (SE) PA Zodiac 601XL/Corvair? --------------------------------- No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. ________________________________ Message 34 ____________________________________ Time: 01:52:24 PM PST US From: "C Smith" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Apology -----Original Message----- --> >As long as you are alone in the plane, outside of controlled airspace and not over a populated area, there isn't much the FAA can or will do about it. If you're carrying a passenger, you both have to be wearing parachutes. The FAA doesn't much care if you kill yourself in an airplane as long as you don't take out anybody else with you.< Not completely correct, to date, I have not seen the FAA bring charges on a corpse, But I have read (in AOPA magazine) where a pilot who merely ran off a taxiway while moving his plane from one corner of the airport to the other was charged for operating an aircraft with a BAC of .06. he did not become airborne. If you walked up to an FAA inspector during a ramp check and bragged about your flying outside the operating limitations, you WILL be cited. So you crash in an isolated area, what about the ensuing forest fire?, the public cost of search and rescue, the grieving family and the INEVITABLE LAWSUIT, and impact on insurance. "But my husband was an excellent pilot, it must be the design of the airplane!(as the attorney gestures to the crying children of the deceased pilot)" In reality, while we would love to think that our actions have no impact on others, if you examine things beyond the surface. Indeed everything we do in our aircraft is subject to public perception, and every accident statistic is a black eye on our beloved pastime. I'm sure there are plenty of instances where pilots have been cited and no "real" harm has been done". Lets try to make supportable statements. Craig Smith > > > I am curious about U.S. Law though, in Canada we had a fellow brag > about looping his plane and at a Fly-in with a Transport Canada > Officer present he was telling a story and the officer ask if he was > telling the truth. After the fellow admitted it was true the officer > charged him. > -- Bryan Martin N61BM, CH 601 XL, RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive. do not archive. ________________________________ Message 35 ____________________________________ Time: 01:59:08 PM PST US From: "Al Young" Subject: Zenith-List: Lycoming engine available List- I have a friend that has a 0320 Lycoming (1970) E2D, with 1922 SMOH- plus or minus, recently removed from a C-172. Compression good all around. Oil consumption is low. No leaks. Logs included. Price $5500. Engine was removed from N7168G for upgrade. Propeller- $1000 Spinner- $100 Starter- included Alternator- $150 Oil cooler- $100 Carburetor- $ Included Airbox- $300 Baffles, STC- Included Engine will be treated with special preventative oil. Total package- $7150 If interested please contact owner off list at sdurbin@one-eleven.net. Do Not Archive Thanks- Al Young N601AY ________________________________ Message 36 ____________________________________ Time: 02:00:37 PM PST US From: "C Smith" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Apology Juan, this is just not true. The FAA will cite you if you say that, and they know your AC is not an aerobatic aircraft. Heck, they're even searching social security records to link disabilities to pilot medicals! If they will go to those lengths to write a violation and revoke a pilot certificate, don't you think operating an aircraft outside it's operating limitations would be similar? Free speech has nothing to do with it, apples and oranges! If any of the aircraft in the videos is US registered, lets see if someone wants to send it in to the local FSDO, just to see what happens? Craig Smith -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Juan Vega Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 4:21 PM Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Apology i don't remember anywhere there being a sign posted that says designer has warned us against certain aeobatic activities, please share with us where is it posted that the designer says " please do not disregard my directions and warnings". It must be in just the Canadian 601 owners manual. IN the U.S. a statement of a willful act does not make one guilty. If it infringes on someone elses' safety and there is evidence of harm to others, then there may be a problem.. If I go to an FAA instructor and and say, "on the way here, it was so beautifull out and clear, I decided to pull a loop in my plane!" The U.S. FAA guy will say, "good for you". Its called free speech. Juan ________________________________ Message 37 ____________________________________ Time: 02:49:04 PM PST US From: Dan Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Apology C Smith wrote: > > Juan, this is just not true. The FAA will cite you if you say that, and > they know your AC is not an aerobatic aircraft. Heck, they're even searching > social security records to link disabilities to pilot medicals! A social security number is no longer required for pilot identification. Dan Wilde FAA Form 8710-1, Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application Supplemental Information and Instructions Submission of your Social Security Number is voluntary. Disclosure of your SSN will facilitate maintenance of your records which are maintained in alphabetical order and cross-referenced with your SSN and airman certificate number to provide prompt access. In the event of nondisclosure, a unique number will be assigned to your file. ________________________________ Message 38 ____________________________________ Time: 02:50:29 PM PST US From: "Carlos Sa" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! "Life is terminal." do not archive On 25/03/07, Juan Vega wrote: > > ... Smith has one point right, remember the old quote "there are no old, > bold pilots". > My favorite is "Life is a calculated risk" > > > Juan ________________________________ Message 39 ____________________________________ Time: 02:52:15 PM PST US From: "robert stone" Subject: Zenith-List: Problem latching canopy Members, I took the advice of one of the members and installed shims under the striker plate for the canopy and both sides lock with ease now so this is the fix for anyone with the same problem. Tracy Stone ZodiacXL w/Jabiru 3300 Harker Heights, Tx ________________________________ Message 40 ____________________________________ Time: 03:06:48 PM PST US From: "Bill Naumuk" Subject: Zenith-List: Arm Rest, Final All- Workable sketch attached. You probably won't wind up with numbers rounded off to 5mm if you lay it out in CAD, but this is close enough to get a good fit with a little touch up with a sander. With 20/20 hindsight, I should have taken a "Before" picture of the fit. The difference is dramatic. I don't think moving the rear member forward 10mm would have helped. Bill Naumuk HDS Fuse/Corvair Townville, Pa ________________________________ Message 41 ____________________________________ Time: 03:57:45 PM PST US From: Juan Vega Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Apology I am not trying to be flippent, what you are saying is apples and oranges, there is no restrition for the 601 I know of for an operating limitations stating "no Loops". Apples and oranges, what does SS numbers have to do with performing a loop. If you are saying the FAA are strict enforcers, the FAA restricting pilots that lie on their medicals, does not relate to doing light aerobatics in a plane that can handle it if the pilot is capable. The 601 is 6+- g rated, utility, and a loop can be done, even an emilman, with 1 g. the guy on the video I have a hunch will never be bothered by the FAA. Juan -----Original Message----- >From: C Smith >Sent: Mar 25, 2007 5:00 PM >To: zenith-list@matronics.com >Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Apology > > > Juan, this is just not true. The FAA will cite you if you say that, and >they know your AC is not an aerobatic aircraft. Heck, they're even searching >social security records to link disabilities to pilot medicals! If they will >go to those lengths to write a violation and revoke a pilot certificate, >don't you think operating an aircraft outside it's operating limitations >would be similar? Free speech has nothing to do with it, apples and oranges! >If any of the aircraft in the videos is US registered, lets see if someone >wants to send it in to the local FSDO, just to see what happens? >Craig Smith > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com >[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Juan Vega >Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 4:21 PM >To: zenith-list@matronics.com >Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Apology > > >i don't remember anywhere there being a sign posted that says designer has >warned us against certain aeobatic activities, please share with us where >is it posted that the designer says " please do not disregard my directions >and warnings". >It must be in just the Canadian 601 owners manual. >IN the U.S. a statement of a willful act does not make one guilty. If it >infringes on someone elses' safety and there is evidence of harm to others, >then there may be a problem.. If I go to an FAA instructor and and say, "on >the way here, it was so beautifull out and clear, I decided to pull a loop >in my plane!" The U.S. FAA guy will say, "good for you". Its called free >speech. > >Juan > > ________________________________ Message 42 ____________________________________ Time: 04:08:26 PM PST US From: Juan Vega Subject: RE: Zenith-List: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! C Smith, this is a joke right? Dude, maybe when you see someone pass you faster than the speed limit, you should send them a note. your funny, your killin me, whuu! For a second there, I thought you were erious. Juan -----Original Message----- >From: C Smith >Sent: Mar 25, 2007 12:04 PM >To: zenith-list@matronics.com >Subject: RE: Zenith-List: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! > > > Not to sound like an arm chair attorney, but wouldn't it be prudent to >determine who the owner/operators are (based on the registration of the >aircraft) and send them each (via certified mail) a letter of caution. >Restating the design limitations of the aircraft, and noting that they're >videos display operation of the aircraft outside of the design limitations, >that such operation is unsafe to the point of intentional disregard for the >safety of themselves and others on the ground, that such operation is >expressly unsanctioned by the designer and manufacturer of the kit, and that >publicizing such careless behavior may encourage others to attempt similar >acts of negligence, etc. >Just a thought, in this day and age of "I'm not responsible, go after the >deep pockets of big companies" litigation, I would be quick to distance >myself form people who would flagrantly abuse my products in such a fashion. >Lawyers could argue that the videos were public domain for XX amount of >time, and that the manufacturer/designer "should have seen/known of the >activity, and did nothing to inform the operators, and is therefore liable >for the accident". I've seen far more extreme arguments won in tort cases. >If you could simply produce the copies of the documents of warning, and >certified receipts of their mailing, it would be case closed. I would even >go so far as to send copies of that warning to the aviation administering >agencies of the registered countries of ownership, informing them of the >recorded acts of negligence. >Just my 2 cents. Cheaper to nip it in the bud now, than to pay for it when >the stupid people end up dead, with next of kin suing in court. > >Craig Smith > > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com >[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ZodieRocket >Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 9:38 AM >To: zenith-list@matronics.com >Subject: RE: Zenith-List: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! > > >Jeff, you think the 601 looping makes you cringe, look further and watch the >701 loop, that will really pucker the sphincter. Sorry guys, these planes >are strong for their intended purpose but when people do extremely stupid >things and crash who is the first one blamed ? The company of course. In the >last 6 months I have seen the 601 and 701 looped and hammer headed, heard of >people going 220mph in dives in a 601, plus a lot more then I can share. It >is nice to know that most times people survive intentionally outrageous >stupid acts, but my fear is that they figure if the plane can do it once it >can do it forever. >This in my opinion is just a large game of Russian Roulette. > >When I first decided on building the 601 it was with the intent that this is >the plane my children are going to learn on. I realize that I may not always >be with them and the vigor's of youth sometimes create less then intelligent >thought. I know that the 601 is capable of a great many feats and stupid >actions are survivable in the plane, but constant bad judgment unchecked >only ever has one outcome. Now as for looping a 701, I'm sorry but that >scares the hell out of me just thinking about it. > >Mark Townsend Alma, Ontario >Zodiac 601XL C-GOXL, CH701 just started >www.ch601.org / www.ch701.com / www.Osprey2.com -----Original Message----- > > ________________________________ Message 43 ____________________________________ Time: 04:21:13 PM PST US From: Jim Norton Subject: Zenith-List: acrobatics on 601s It seems to me that people have two opposing views to personal safety vs. individual rights. The old school would say that an individual has the unalienable right to do stupid things as long as they don't do damage to other people's life or property. The new school would say that we must provide adequate protection for people who are too lazy, stupid, or too easily duped into doing unsafe acts which would hurt them or others.* Remember in the old days when we had swing sets on the school playground. Some of us would swing as high as we could, others just like a more casual motion. The tension between the two poles is illustrated in the idea that we need to have a license to fly a plane. A industrious person would do all he could do to learn about flying before s/he got behind the stick. Other idiots would get behind the stick and think "i can do this" and attempt to fly without any preparation. Who is right? The tension can be further illustrated by the designation of the 601 i.e. experimental/recreational. The old school says I have the right to experiment anyway I /deem fit/ with this aircraft. (note the emphasis on deem fit). The new school thinks a recreational plane should be /made and used/ in such that it would be as absolutely safe as possible. Unfortunately, most of us who are fliers are tend to be old school. Courts, government officials, laws etc. tend to be new school These are polar views, the way it all shakes out in time and society is somewhere in between. Not all pilots are Evil Kneivels, nor are all others walking around in pads, bubbles and bullet proof vests, it just seems that way. It's not all bad that the daredevils aren't allowed to do whatever they please - likewise its not all bad that some of us like to push the envelope. We probably will never resolve the tension/conflict between the two camps, but maybe we can exercise some tolerance... ________________________________ Message 44 ____________________________________ Time: 04:40:46 PM PST US From: "Michael Valentine" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! If you believe even half of the things you are saying, you (and perhaps the rest of us in this society) have lost already. You are already so affected by the possibility of lawsuits that you will cede the decisions about how to live your life to governing bodies. There is a difference between sticking your head in the sand and cowering in the corner. I think you are cowering, not being realistic. Michael in New Hampshire, USA do not archive On 3/25/07, C Smith wrote: > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto: > owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Michael Valentine > > I have to agree with Brandon on this one - you/we know nothing about > these individuals and the reasons they make the choices they do. Nor do we > know anything about their aerobatic proficiency. > > This is precisely why there are things like type certificates, > building/electrical codes etc. No one knows much about the proficiency of > those performing the work(driving the car, flying the plane, building the > plane), hence governing bodies impose regulations and standards of > construction/operation/conduct. They are called laws. The alternative is > chaos. > > Also, can you direct me to any expressed design limitation that they have > exceeded or provide support for any of your numerous other assertions > (bolded below)? (I personally did not receive any structural analyses or > design parameters from Chris Heintz when I got my kit. One would think that > if your various statements are correct, we would each have received a nice > thick booklet on what we can and cannot do with our planes.) > > > It's called the airworthiness certificate, and if it doesn't say > aerobatic, you are operating it outside the limitations. By the way, are > you wearing parachutes while performing these maneuvers? > > Each of us who builds the plane is the manufacturer and ultimately > responsible for our own actions. Quite honestly, the attitude evinced in > your email below is of more concern to me than a thousand people looping > 601s on YouTube. (Of course, I know nothing about you and you might be a > great and guy and a great attorney with whom I would happily share a beer. > I am merely making my statement based on how I perceive the tone of your > post.) I say this because I think the attitude shown in your post will lead > us to a "nanny-state" where one is not responsible for his own actions a > fair bit faster than the frivolous lawsuits that will occur when someone > loops their 601/701 into a bus full of disabled school children. > > > I'm assuming that NH stands for New Hampshire, that means you live in the > United States. If those involved in operating their aircraft outside the > operating limitations were somehow immune to the law of the land, and > operated in areas where their crashing airframe could pose zero risk to > innocent citizens, then WHEEEEEeeeee, go for it. Unfortunately one reason > for the high cost of flying is stupid people. One third of the cost of > certificated aircraft is due to liability concerns. Stupid is also why hair > dryers and toasters have short electrical cords, why every appliance you buy > has xx pages of warnings listing behaviors that to many would be laughable, > it's why Cessna had to pay a ton of money and cease production of it's > piston singles (someone didn't bother to check if his seat was locked in > place). It's why a power company can be sued for turning off electricity > (due to nonpayment of bills) because the homeowner used flaming newspaper to > thaw the pipes under his house. Need I go on? Or are these things completely > foreign to you? These things are a reality of our country, to ignore the > fact has led to the bankrupting of many businesses. Didn't we just see a > major manufacturer of vacuum pumps, go out of the business because the pilot > couldn't fly partial panel? Michael, I'm not the one who has made the > court system what it is, but that doesn't mean that I won't take appropriate > action to protect myself or my business from acts of stupidity, nor does it > mean I will keep my head in the sand and pretend lawsuits don't happen. > Craig Smith > > Michael in NH > > > On 3/25/07, C Smith wrote: > > > > > > > > > Not to sound like an arm chair attorney, but wouldn't it be prudent to > > determine who the owner/operators are (based on the registration of the > > aircraft) and send them each (via certified mail) a letter of caution. > > Restating the design limitations of the aircraft, and noting that > > they're > > videos display operation of the aircraft outside of the design > > limitations, > > that such operation is unsafe to the point of intentional disregard for > > the > > safety of themselves and others on the ground, that such operation is > > expressly unsanctioned by the designer and manufacturer of the kit , and > > that > > publicizing such careless behavior may encourage others to attempt > > similar > > acts of negligence , etc. > > Just a thought, in this day and age of "I'm not responsible, go after > > the > > deep pockets of big companies" litigation, I would be quick to distance > > myself form people who would flagrantly abuse my products in such a > > fashion. > > Lawyers could argue that the videos were public domain for XX amount of > > time, and that the manufacturer/designer "should have seen/known of the > > activity, and did nothing to inform the operators, and is therefore > > liable > > for the accident". I've seen far more extreme arguments won in tort > > cases. > > If you could simply produce the copies of the documents of warning, and > > certified receipts of their mailing, it would be case closed. I would > > even > > go so far as to send copies of that warning to the aviation > > administering > > agencies of the registered countries of ownership, informing them of the > > recorded acts of negligence. > > Just my 2 cents. Cheaper to nip it in the bud now, than to pay for it > > when > > the stupid people end up dead, with next of kin suing in court. > > > > Craig Smith > > > > > * > > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com > * > > * > > > * > > ________________________________ Message 45 ____________________________________ Time: 04:40:52 PM PST US From: "Graeme" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! The design limitations are there for a reason I some idiot is prepared to break the rules we should not condone it. If people die in an ultralight aircraft It reflects badly on all ultralight flyers especially If the rules are being broken. There have already been deaths in CH601 with wing failures (for what reason I am unsure) I hope all the people seeing this action in a CH601 would be happy to know it has been done. No need to put any more lifes on the line. Graeme do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Juan Vega" Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 9:08 AM Subject: RE: Zenith-List: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! > > C Smith, > this is a joke right? Dude, maybe when you see someone pass you faster > than the speed limit, you should send them a note. your funny, your killin > me, whuu! > For a second there, I thought you were erious. > Juan > > -----Original Message----- >>From: C Smith >>Sent: Mar 25, 2007 12:04 PM >>To: zenith-list@matronics.com >>Subject: RE: Zenith-List: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! >> >> >> Not to sound like an arm chair attorney, but wouldn't it be prudent to >>determine who the owner/operators are (based on the registration of the >>aircraft) and send them each (via certified mail) a letter of caution. >>Restating the design limitations of the aircraft, and noting that they're >>videos display operation of the aircraft outside of the design >>limitations, >>that such operation is unsafe to the point of intentional disregard for >>the >>safety of themselves and others on the ground, that such operation is >>expressly unsanctioned by the designer and manufacturer of the kit, and >>that >>publicizing such careless behavior may encourage others to attempt similar >>acts of negligence, etc. >>Just a thought, in this day and age of "I'm not responsible, go after the >>deep pockets of big companies" litigation, I would be quick to distance >>myself form people who would flagrantly abuse my products in such a >>fashion. >>Lawyers could argue that the videos were public domain for XX amount of >>time, and that the manufacturer/designer "should have seen/known of the >>activity, and did nothing to inform the operators, and is therefore liable >>for the accident". I've seen far more extreme arguments won in tort cases. >>If you could simply produce the copies of the documents of warning, and >>certified receipts of their mailing, it would be case closed. I would even >>go so far as to send copies of that warning to the aviation administering >>agencies of the registered countries of ownership, informing them of the >>recorded acts of negligence. >>Just my 2 cents. Cheaper to nip it in the bud now, than to pay for it when >>the stupid people end up dead, with next of kin suing in court. >> >>Craig Smith >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com >>[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ZodieRocket >>Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 9:38 AM >>To: zenith-list@matronics.com >>Subject: RE: Zenith-List: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! >> >> >>Jeff, you think the 601 looping makes you cringe, look further and watch >>the >>701 loop, that will really pucker the sphincter. Sorry guys, these planes >>are strong for their intended purpose but when people do extremely stupid >>things and crash who is the first one blamed ? The company of course. In >>the >>last 6 months I have seen the 601 and 701 looped and hammer headed, heard >>of >>people going 220mph in dives in a 601, plus a lot more then I can share. >>It >>is nice to know that most times people survive intentionally outrageous >>stupid acts, but my fear is that they figure if the plane can do it once >>it >>can do it forever. >>This in my opinion is just a large game of Russian Roulette. >> >>When I first decided on building the 601 it was with the intent that this >>is >>the plane my children are going to learn on. I realize that I may not >>always >>be with them and the vigor's of youth sometimes create less then >>intelligent >>thought. I know that the 601 is capable of a great many feats and stupid >>actions are survivable in the plane, but constant bad judgment unchecked >>only ever has one outcome. Now as for looping a 701, I'm sorry but that >>scares the hell out of me just thinking about it. >> >>Mark Townsend Alma, Ontario >>Zodiac 601XL C-GOXL, CH701 just started >>www.ch601.org / www.ch701.com / www.Osprey2.com -----Original Message----- >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > 25/03/2007 11:07 AM > > ________________________________ Message 46 ____________________________________ Time: 05:00:24 PM PST US From: Brandon Tucker Subject: Zenith-List: RE: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! Mark, As someone else stated, I am the manufacturer. I also wrote the operator's manual, which states that aileron rolls and loops are allowable maneuvers. If someone, as you described, went out and performed loops without proper training, in any aircraft, I would have little problem with using the word 'stupid' to describe them. However, someone with proper training should have no issues with looping an aircraft that is stressed to do so, and is allowed by the operator's manual. I have respect for you and your opinion, and simply respectfully disagree. Craig: Negative G's are never experienced in a loop. You maintain somewhere between 2 - 3 in the pull up, and 1 over the top. I would never intentionally pull negative G's, or even zero G in an aircraft not equipped with flop tubes, and inverted oil systems. Sea lawyer Chris: Put away the law books, and pick up some aviation books. Study up a little more on aerobatics, and aerodynamics. I am getting the impression that the people bitching about the loop, have never really done one, and don't understand what is happening aerodynamically when doing one. I did a loop in the Texan today, and never pulled more than 2 G's. If anyone on the list is afraid of pulling 2 G's in the Zodiac, maybe radio controlled aircraft are a better fit for you. When I said "-haven't ripped the wings off yet," it was obviously tongue in cheek, poked in your direction. Don't bring dead friends and arrogance into it either. You confuse arrogance with education and experience. BTW, what in the hell does this have to do shutting down a buss? While you were swapping fuses, I was landing on aircraft carriers. Go join a fuse replacement list and debate those proper procedures there. I have lost patience with this thread and this list. I'll take my experience, and my "arrogance" elsewhere. There is sufficient free advice here from people that have not finished their projects or even flown a 601 for me to waste the bandwidth on real word experience in a real 601 that actually flies. Brandon We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265 ________________________________ Message 47 ____________________________________ Time: 05:13:59 PM PST US From: Monty Graves Subject: Zenith-List: 701 spars, nose ribs, main ribs, etc. Due to health reasons, I will have to stop my Zenith CH 701 scratch building project. Therefore, there are a few items I would like to sell. Left spar complete zinc chromate along with nose, main ribs, flap-aleron brackets, and slat brackets. Right spar is also compete, And the ing is partially assembled and on my workbench table. Same excellent condition. Main Ribs and nose ribs are attached, as well as back spar pieces. This right wing is virtually ready to skin. However, no skins are for sale. These spars & wing pieces would make a great jump-start for a new scratch builder or someone wanting to experiment with flying without slats, which has been discussed here recently, for a very reasonable price. These are a nice quality set of ribs & spars. Spars alone take about 40 hours man-labor to assemble for each one. Wing pieces are built exactly as in the Zenith plans with no modifications other than the spar caps are .125 aluminum angle instead of the .093 that Zenith uses. This is an approved modification. Parts are located in central Missouri. $1000 takes both wing sets and parts. I have no way of shipping them. Buyer will have to come pick them up here in Missouri. Contact me off-list since I am seldom on the computer any longer. 573-369-2973 $1000 green cash, firm, for all theses piece. Payment due before pickup and upon your inspection. This is a fraction of what the wing kit costs from Zenith. Monty Graves ________________________________ Message 48 ____________________________________ Time: 05:32:49 PM PST US From: "C Smith" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Apology -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Juan Vega I am not trying to be flippent, Yes you are. what you are saying is apples and oranges, there is no restrition for the 601 I know of for an operating limitations stating "no Loops". Apples and oranges, what does SS numbers have to do with performing a loop. It has to do with the FAA's intolerance of any kind of violations, and operation outside of certificated operation limits is a far more serious matter than lying on your medical. What does your airworthiness certificate say? If you are saying the FAA are strict enforcers, the FAA restricting pilots that lie on their medicals, does not relate to doing light aerobatics in a plane that can handle it if the pilot is capable. It is clear you can't get the point. It relates to the great lengths that the FAA will go to stop violations of it's policies. It is an example in point, a point of relative importance. Specifically what does your airworthiness certificate say? It's called operating limitations. What does it say? Normal, utility, or aerobatic? THAT IS YOUR LIMITATION! IT'S YOUR AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE! What does free speech have to do with the FAA's charter to regulate all forms of aviation? NOTHING! Your pilots certificate is not subject to the protections of criminal law. It is an administrative hearing, not a trial. When you are cited, you can talk to an attorney all you want, but there is no jury, no trial, just an administrative board staffed by the FAA. The 601 is 6+- g rated, utility, and a loop can be done, even an emilman, with 1 g. the guy on the video I have a hunch will never be bothered by the FAA. No because he is registered in another country, the aircraft registration is unidentifiable. CS Juan -----Original Message----- >From: C Smith >Sent: Mar 25, 2007 5:00 PM >To: zenith-list@matronics.com >Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Apology > >--> > > Juan, this is just not true. The FAA will cite you if you say that, >and they know your AC is not an aerobatic aircraft. Heck, they're even >searching social security records to link disabilities to pilot >medicals! If they will go to those lengths to write a violation and >revoke a pilot certificate, don't you think operating an aircraft >outside it's operating limitations would be similar? Free speech has nothing to do with it, apples and oranges! >If any of the aircraft in the videos is US registered, lets see if >someone wants to send it in to the local FSDO, just to see what happens? >Craig Smith > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com >[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Juan Vega >Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 4:21 PM >To: zenith-list@matronics.com >Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Apology > >--> > >i don't remember anywhere there being a sign posted that says designer >has warned us against certain aeobatic activities, please share with >us where is it posted that the designer says " please do not disregard >my directions and warnings". >It must be in just the Canadian 601 owners manual. >IN the U.S. a statement of a willful act does not make one guilty. If >it infringes on someone elses' safety and there is evidence of harm to >others, then there may be a problem.. If I go to an FAA instructor and >and say, "on the way here, it was so beautifull out and clear, I >decided to pull a loop in my plane!" The U.S. FAA guy will say, "good >for you". Its called free speech. > >Juan > ________________________________ Message 49 ____________________________________ Time: 05:34:41 PM PST US From: "C Smith" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! I may be funny, but you are pitiful. CS -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Juan Vega Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 7:08 PM Subject: RE: Zenith-List: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! C Smith, this is a joke right? Dude, maybe when you see someone pass you faster than the speed limit, you should send them a note. your funny, your killin me, whuu! For a second there, I thought you were erious. Juan -----Original Message----- >From: C Smith >Sent: Mar 25, 2007 12:04 PM >To: zenith-list@matronics.com >Subject: RE: Zenith-List: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! > >--> > > Not to sound like an arm chair attorney, but wouldn't it be prudent to >determine who the owner/operators are (based on the registration of the >aircraft) and send them each (via certified mail) a letter of caution. >Restating the design limitations of the aircraft, and noting that >they're videos display operation of the aircraft outside of the design >limitations, that such operation is unsafe to the point of intentional >disregard for the safety of themselves and others on the ground, that >such operation is expressly unsanctioned by the designer and >manufacturer of the kit, and that publicizing such careless behavior >may encourage others to attempt similar acts of negligence, etc. >Just a thought, in this day and age of "I'm not responsible, go after >the deep pockets of big companies" litigation, I would be quick to >distance myself form people who would flagrantly abuse my products in such a fashion. >Lawyers could argue that the videos were public domain for XX amount of >time, and that the manufacturer/designer "should have seen/known of the >activity, and did nothing to inform the operators, and is therefore >liable for the accident". I've seen far more extreme arguments won in tort cases. >If you could simply produce the copies of the documents of warning, and >certified receipts of their mailing, it would be case closed. I would >even go so far as to send copies of that warning to the aviation >administering agencies of the registered countries of ownership, >informing them of the recorded acts of negligence. >Just my 2 cents. Cheaper to nip it in the bud now, than to pay for it >when the stupid people end up dead, with next of kin suing in court. > >Craig Smith > > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com >[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of >ZodieRocket >Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 9:38 AM >To: zenith-list@matronics.com >Subject: RE: Zenith-List: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! > > >Jeff, you think the 601 looping makes you cringe, look further and >watch the >701 loop, that will really pucker the sphincter. Sorry guys, these >planes are strong for their intended purpose but when people do >extremely stupid things and crash who is the first one blamed ? The >company of course. In the last 6 months I have seen the 601 and 701 >looped and hammer headed, heard of people going 220mph in dives in a >601, plus a lot more then I can share. It is nice to know that most >times people survive intentionally outrageous stupid acts, but my fear >is that they figure if the plane can do it once it can do it forever. >This in my opinion is just a large game of Russian Roulette. > >When I first decided on building the 601 it was with the intent that >this is the plane my children are going to learn on. I realize that I >may not always be with them and the vigor's of youth sometimes create >less then intelligent thought. I know that the 601 is capable of a >great many feats and stupid actions are survivable in the plane, but >constant bad judgment unchecked only ever has one outcome. Now as for >looping a 701, I'm sorry but that scares the hell out of me just thinking about it. > >Mark Townsend Alma, Ontario >Zodiac 601XL C-GOXL, CH701 just started www.ch601.org / www.ch701.com / >www.Osprey2.com -----Original Message----- > > ________________________________ Message 50 ____________________________________ Time: 05:35:50 PM PST US From: David Downey Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Nicked the bottom rear rib of the rudder while drilling horn Hey guys, most of these accidental nicks can be avoided by the use of sharp bits and drill stops used all the time. David Downey wrote: --------------------------------- No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. Dave Downey Harleysville (SE) PA Zodiac 601XL/Corvair? --------------------------------- Bored stiff? Loosen up... Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. ________________________________ Message 51 ____________________________________ Time: 05:36:32 PM PST US From: "Gary Boothe" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: RE: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! Brandon, I have the feeling that this is the part where you "give back" to the list. Your common sense and experience are exactly what needs to be heard, otherwise other less sensible individuals will be far too willing to sign away more of their rights to the Nanny State. I can understand why you would not want to bang your head against this particular wall, anymore, but that's today's challenge. Hang with us... Gary Boothe Cool, CA 601 HDSTD, WW Conversion 90% done, Tail done, wings done, working on c-section -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brandon Tucker Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 4:57 PM Subject: Zenith-List: RE: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! Mark, As someone else stated, I am the manufacturer. I also wrote the operator's manual, which states that aileron rolls and loops are allowable maneuvers. If someone, as you described, went out and performed loops without proper training, in any aircraft, I would have little problem with using the word 'stupid' to describe them. However, someone with proper training should have no issues with looping an aircraft that is stressed to do so, and is allowed by the operator's manual. I have respect for you and your opinion, and simply respectfully disagree. Craig: Negative G's are never experienced in a loop. You maintain somewhere between 2 - 3 in the pull up, and 1 over the top. I would never intentionally pull negative G's, or even zero G in an aircraft not equipped with flop tubes, and inverted oil systems. Sea lawyer Chris: Put away the law books, and pick up some aviation books. Study up a little more on aerobatics, and aerodynamics. I am getting the impression that the people bitching about the loop, have never really done one, and don't understand what is happening aerodynamically when doing one. I did a loop in the Texan today, and never pulled more than 2 G's. If anyone on the list is afraid of pulling 2 G's in the Zodiac, maybe radio controlled aircraft are a better fit for you. When I said "-haven't ripped the wings off yet," it was obviously tongue in cheek, poked in your direction. Don't bring dead friends and arrogance into it either. You confuse arrogance with education and experience. BTW, what in the hell does this have to do shutting down a buss? While you were swapping fuses, I was landing on aircraft carriers. Go join a fuse replacement list and debate those proper procedures there. I have lost patience with this thread and this list. I'll take my experience, and my "arrogance" elsewhere. There is sufficient free advice here from people that have not finished their projects or even flown a 601 for me to waste the bandwidth on real word experience in a real 601 that actually flies. Brandon We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265 ________________________________ Message 52 ____________________________________ Time: 05:40:54 PM PST US From: "Gary Boothe" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! Uh-oh...Big Brother is watching... Gary Boothe Cool, CA 601 HDSTD, WW Conversion 90% done, Tail done, wings done, working on c-section -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of C Smith Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 9:04 AM Subject: RE: Zenith-List: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! Not to sound like an arm chair attorney, but wouldn't it be prudent to determine who the owner/operators are (based on the registration of the aircraft) and send them each (via certified mail) a letter of caution. Restating the design limitations of the aircraft, and noting that they're videos display operation of the aircraft outside of the design limitations, that such operation is unsafe to the point of intentional disregard for the safety of themselves and others on the ground, that such operation is expressly unsanctioned by the designer and manufacturer of the kit, and that publicizing such careless behavior may encourage others to attempt similar acts of negligence, etc. Just a thought, in this day and age of "I'm not responsible, go after the deep pockets of big companies" litigation, I would be quick to distance myself form people who would flagrantly abuse my products in such a fashion. Lawyers could argue that the videos were public domain for XX amount of time, and that the manufacturer/designer "should have seen/known of the activity, and did nothing to inform the operators, and is therefore liable for the accident". I've seen far more extreme arguments won in tort cases. If you could simply produce the copies of the documents of warning, and certified receipts of their mailing, it would be case closed. I would even go so far as to send copies of that warning to the aviation administering agencies of the registered countries of ownership, informing them of the recorded acts of negligence. Just my 2 cents. Cheaper to nip it in the bud now, than to pay for it when the stupid people end up dead, with next of kin suing in court. Craig Smith -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ZodieRocket Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 9:38 AM Subject: RE: Zenith-List: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! Jeff, you think the 601 looping makes you cringe, look further and watch the 701 loop, that will really pucker the sphincter. Sorry guys, these planes are strong for their intended purpose but when people do extremely stupid things and crash who is the first one blamed ? The company of course. In the last 6 months I have seen the 601 and 701 looped and hammer headed, heard of people going 220mph in dives in a 601, plus a lot more then I can share. It is nice to know that most times people survive intentionally outrageous stupid acts, but my fear is that they figure if the plane can do it once it can do it forever. This in my opinion is just a large game of Russian Roulette. When I first decided on building the 601 it was with the intent that this is the plane my children are going to learn on. I realize that I may not always be with them and the vigor's of youth sometimes create less then intelligent thought. I know that the 601 is capable of a great many feats and stupid actions are survivable in the plane, but constant bad judgment unchecked only ever has one outcome. Now as for looping a 701, I'm sorry but that scares the hell out of me just thinking about it. Mark Townsend Alma, Ontario Zodiac 601XL C-GOXL, CH701 just started www.ch601.org / www.ch701.com / www.Osprey2.com -----Original Message----- ________________________________ Message 53 ____________________________________ Time: 05:44:16 PM PST US From: "C Smith" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: RE: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! If you have an airworthiness certificate that says aerobatic, loop yer heart out, if it doesn't , then gather the proper documentation submit it to get one that does. It's too bad that analogies are so difficult for such an experienced officer and airman to grasp. The analogy pertains to attitudes people have to laws and regulations. I've lost patience with ignorance and recklessness. CS -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brandon Tucker Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 7:57 PM Subject: Zenith-List: RE: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! Mark, As someone else stated, I am the manufacturer. I also wrote the operator's manual, which states that aileron rolls and loops are allowable maneuvers. If someone, as you described, went out and performed loops without proper training, in any aircraft, I would have little problem with using the word 'stupid' to describe them. However, someone with proper training should have no issues with looping an aircraft that is stressed to do so, and is allowed by the operator's manual. I have respect for you and your opinion, and simply respectfully disagree. Craig: Negative G's are never experienced in a loop. You maintain somewhere between 2 - 3 in the pull up, and 1 over the top. I would never intentionally pull negative G's, or even zero G in an aircraft not equipped with flop tubes, and inverted oil systems. Sea lawyer Chris: Put away the law books, and pick up some aviation books. Study up a little more on aerobatics, and aerodynamics. I am getting the impression that the people bitching about the loop, have never really done one, and don't understand what is happening aerodynamically when doing one. I did a loop in the Texan today, and never pulled more than 2 G's. If anyone on the list is afraid of pulling 2 G's in the Zodiac, maybe radio controlled aircraft are a better fit for you. When I said "-haven't ripped the wings off yet," it was obviously tongue in cheek, poked in your direction. Don't bring dead friends and arrogance into it either. You confuse arrogance with education and experience. BTW, what in the hell does this have to do shutting down a buss? While you were swapping fuses, I was landing on aircraft carriers. Go join a fuse replacement list and debate those proper procedures there. I have lost patience with this thread and this list. I'll take my experience, and my "arrogance" elsewhere. There is sufficient free advice here from people that have not finished their projects or even flown a 601 for me to waste the bandwidth on real word experience in a real 601 that actually flies. Brandon ________________________________ Message 54 ____________________________________ Time: 05:56:15 PM PST US From: Juan Vega Subject: RE: Zenith-List: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! It my pleasure, any time:) I am glad you feel it is your responsability to inform a perfect strainger, that you think they are doing something, you deem inapropriate. Let me know how it goes.:) By the way, where are those warnings by the designer about you are being a bad man for doing a loop? I can't find them in my POH. JUan -----Original Message----- >From: C Smith >Sent: Mar 25, 2007 8:34 PM >To: zenith-list@matronics.com >Subject: RE: Zenith-List: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! > > >I may be funny, but you are pitiful. >CS > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com >[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Juan Vega >Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 7:08 PM >To: zenith-list@matronics.com >Subject: RE: Zenith-List: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! > > >C Smith, >this is a joke right? Dude, maybe when you see someone pass you faster than >the speed limit, you should send them a note. your funny, your killin me, >whuu! >For a second there, I thought you were erious. >Juan > >-----Original Message----- >>From: C Smith >>Sent: Mar 25, 2007 12:04 PM >>To: zenith-list@matronics.com >>Subject: RE: Zenith-List: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! >> >>--> >> >> Not to sound like an arm chair attorney, but wouldn't it be prudent to >>determine who the owner/operators are (based on the registration of the >>aircraft) and send them each (via certified mail) a letter of caution. >>Restating the design limitations of the aircraft, and noting that >>they're videos display operation of the aircraft outside of the design >>limitations, that such operation is unsafe to the point of intentional >>disregard for the safety of themselves and others on the ground, that >>such operation is expressly unsanctioned by the designer and >>manufacturer of the kit, and that publicizing such careless behavior >>may encourage others to attempt similar acts of negligence, etc. >>Just a thought, in this day and age of "I'm not responsible, go after >>the deep pockets of big companies" litigation, I would be quick to >>distance myself form people who would flagrantly abuse my products in such >a fashion. >>Lawyers could argue that the videos were public domain for XX amount of >>time, and that the manufacturer/designer "should have seen/known of the >>activity, and did nothing to inform the operators, and is therefore >>liable for the accident". I've seen far more extreme arguments won in tort >cases. >>If you could simply produce the copies of the documents of warning, and >>certified receipts of their mailing, it would be case closed. I would >>even go so far as to send copies of that warning to the aviation >>administering agencies of the registered countries of ownership, >>informing them of the recorded acts of negligence. >>Just my 2 cents. Cheaper to nip it in the bud now, than to pay for it >>when the stupid people end up dead, with next of kin suing in court. >> >>Craig Smith >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com >>[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of >>ZodieRocket >>Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 9:38 AM >>To: zenith-list@matronics.com >>Subject: RE: Zenith-List: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! >> >> >>Jeff, you think the 601 looping makes you cringe, look further and >>watch the >>701 loop, that will really pucker the sphincter. Sorry guys, these >>planes are strong for their intended purpose but when people do >>extremely stupid things and crash who is the first one blamed ? The >>company of course. In the last 6 months I have seen the 601 and 701 >>looped and hammer headed, heard of people going 220mph in dives in a >>601, plus a lot more then I can share. It is nice to know that most >>times people survive intentionally outrageous stupid acts, but my fear >>is that they figure if the plane can do it once it can do it forever. >>This in my opinion is just a large game of Russian Roulette. >> >>When I first decided on building the 601 it was with the intent that >>this is the plane my children are going to learn on. I realize that I >>may not always be with them and the vigor's of youth sometimes create >>less then intelligent thought. I know that the 601 is capable of a >>great many feats and stupid actions are survivable in the plane, but >>constant bad judgment unchecked only ever has one outcome. Now as for >>looping a 701, I'm sorry but that scares the hell out of me just thinking >about it. >> >>Mark Townsend Alma, Ontario >>Zodiac 601XL C-GOXL, CH701 just started www.ch601.org / www.ch701.com / >>www.Osprey2.com -----Original Message----- >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________ Message 55 ____________________________________ Time: 06:06:53 PM PST US From: Juan Vega Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Apology My aircraft registration says" experimental" and if it said, utility, guess what, I can still do loops. Where does it say, operations outside of aircraft's limitations are illegal? Is a loop outside the 601's limitations?, I guess the loop I did in a few c-172 was...illegal? your right I don't get your point. Juan -----Original Message----- >From: C Smith >Sent: Mar 25, 2007 8:32 PM >To: zenith-list@matronics.com >Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Apology > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com >[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Juan Vega > >I am not trying to be flippent, > >Yes you are. > > what you are saying is apples and oranges, there is no restrition for the >601 I know of for an operating limitations stating "no Loops". Apples and >oranges, what does SS numbers have to do with performing a loop. > > > It has to do with the FAA's intolerance of any kind of violations, and >operation outside of certificated operation limits is a far more serious >matter than lying on your medical. > > >What does your airworthiness certificate say? > > > If you are saying the FAA are strict enforcers, the FAA restricting >pilots that lie on their medicals, does not relate to doing light aerobatics >in a plane that can handle it if the pilot is capable. > > >It is clear you can't get the point. >It relates to the great lengths that the FAA will go to stop violations of >it's policies. It is an example in point, a point of relative importance. >Specifically what does your airworthiness certificate say? It's called >operating limitations. What does it say? Normal, utility, or aerobatic? THAT >IS YOUR LIMITATION! IT'S YOUR AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE! >What does free speech have to do with the FAA's charter to regulate all >forms of aviation? NOTHING! Your pilots certificate is not subject to the >protections of criminal law. It is an administrative hearing, not a trial. >When you are cited, you can talk to an attorney all you want, but there is >no jury, no trial, just an administrative board staffed by the FAA. > > > The 601 is 6+- g rated, utility, and a loop can be done, even an emilman, >with 1 g. the guy on the video I have a hunch will never be bothered by >the FAA. > > >No because he is registered in another country, the aircraft registration is >unidentifiable. > >CS > > >Juan > >-----Original Message----- >>From: C Smith >>Sent: Mar 25, 2007 5:00 PM >>To: zenith-list@matronics.com >>Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Apology >> >>--> >> >> Juan, this is just not true. The FAA will cite you if you say that, >>and they know your AC is not an aerobatic aircraft. Heck, they're even >>searching social security records to link disabilities to pilot >>medicals! If they will go to those lengths to write a violation and >>revoke a pilot certificate, don't you think operating an aircraft >>outside it's operating limitations would be similar? Free speech has >nothing to do with it, apples and oranges! >>If any of the aircraft in the videos is US registered, lets see if >>someone wants to send it in to the local FSDO, just to see what happens? >>Craig Smith >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com >>[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Juan Vega >>Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 4:21 PM >>To: zenith-list@matronics.com >>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Apology >> >>--> >> >>i don't remember anywhere there being a sign posted that says designer >>has warned us against certain aeobatic activities, please share with >>us where is it posted that the designer says " please do not disregard >>my directions and warnings". >>It must be in just the Canadian 601 owners manual. >>IN the U.S. a statement of a willful act does not make one guilty. If >>it infringes on someone elses' safety and there is evidence of harm to >>others, then there may be a problem.. If I go to an FAA instructor and >>and say, "on the way here, it was so beautifull out and clear, I >>decided to pull a loop in my plane!" The U.S. FAA guy will say, "good >>for you". Its called free speech. >> >>Juan >> > > ________________________________ Message 56 ____________________________________ Time: 06:30:39 PM PST US From: Bryan Martin Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Apology The normal, utility and aerobatic categories do NOT apply to the Experimental - Amateur Built airworthiness certificate, they only apply to the standard airworthiness certificate. The builder of an E- AB aircraft is the manufacturer, he decides what the operating limitations are, not the kit manufacturer. The operating limitations are developed during the phase I testing owner / test pilot. The only limitation on an E-AB airworthiness certificate is the statement that the airplane is restricted to day VFR unless properly equipped according to the equipment required article of the FARs. There are NO RESTRICTIONS on what type of maneuvers may be performed in an E-AB. That is the point that you don't seem to be getting here. On Mar 25, 2007, at 8:32 PM, C Smith wrote: > > > What does your airworthiness certificate say? > > It is clear you can't get the point. > It relates to the great lengths that the FAA will go to stop > violations of > it's policies. It is an example in point, a point of relative > importance. > Specifically what does your airworthiness certificate say? It's called > operating limitations. What does it say? Normal, utility, or > aerobatic? THAT > IS YOUR LIMITATION! IT'S YOUR AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE! > What does free speech have to do with the FAA's charter to regulate > all > forms of aviation? NOTHING! Your pilots certificate is not subject > to the > protections of criminal law. It is an administrative hearing, not a > trial. > When you are cited, you can talk to an attorney all you want, but > there is > no jury, no trial, just an administrative board staffed by the FAA. -- Bryan Martin N61BM, CH 601 XL, RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive. do not archive. ________________________________ Message 57 ____________________________________ Time: 07:51:38 PM PST US From: "C Smith" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Apology Please see AC 20-27F certification and operation of amateur built aircraft: 11. FAA INSPECTION OF AN AMATEUR-BUILT AIRCRAFT. a. General Information About What We Do and Do Not Do For Inspections. (1) We inspect your aircraft for general airworthiness when you submit it for airworthiness certification. We will not inspect it before you register it or during construction. However, we must inspect it before we issue your airworthiness certificate. Standard FAA policy is to issue one airworthiness certificate for the aircraft. In some cases, we may issue a limited duration airworthiness certificate, which would be valid only for flight testing (Phase I) the aircraft. When we inspect it, it should be ready to fly, except for having the cowlings, fairings, and panels open for inspection. (2) The FAA inspector cannot be involved in the building process and will not perform any progressive or in-process inspections during the building process. You should ask a knowledgeable person (for example, an EAA Technical Counselor) to conduct in-process inspections. You should record any such inspections in the aircraft logbook. (3) We consider FAA designated airworthiness representatives (DARs) the primary resource for the certification of amateur-built aircraft. You may contact your local FAA office to locate an authorized DAR. DARs are authorized to charge a fee for their services, which they set. We do not govern this fee. b. Visual Inspection. The FAA inspector will conduct an onsite, visual, general airworthiness certification inspection of the aircraft, including reviewing the information discussed in paragraphs 11c(1) and (2), before issuing a special airworthiness certificate with the appropriate operating limitations. With your special airworthiness certificate and operating limitations, you will be able to show compliance with 14 CFR part 91, General Operating and Flight Rules, =A7 91.319(b). The FAA will perform the visual inspection as shown in figure 2, FAA Visual Inspection of an Amateur-Built Aircraft. And 12. ISSUING AN AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE FOR AN AMATEUR-BUILT AIRCRAFT. a. Issuance of a Special Airworthiness Certificate and Operating Limitations. (1) In addition to 14 CFR requirements, the guidelines you use to operate and maintain your aircraft are included in your operating limitations, which become part of the special airworthiness certificate. We may impose additional limitations to those listed in FAA Order 8130.2, Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft and Related Products, if necessary for safety. References in this AC to =93Phase I=94 refer to those operating limitations that apply to the aircraft while it=92s undergoing initial flight tests. =93Phase II=94 refers to those operating limitations that apply after you complete the initial flight tests. Phase I and Phase II operating limitations are provided in Order 8130.2. The FAA inspector will issue the special airworthiness certificate, but its validity will be subject to compliance with its operating limitations. Those limitations will provide for operation in an assigned flight test area for a certain number of hours (Phase I) before the second part (Phase II) of the limitations becomes effective, which releases the aircraft from the flight test area. (2) After we inspect your aircraft and determine it is in a condition for safe operation, we will issue FAA Form 8130-7, Special Airworthiness Certificate, with the appropriate operating limitations in accordance with Order 8130.2. Typically, we issue one airworthiness certificate per aircraft. (3) In accordance with =A7 91.203(b), you must display the airworthiness certificate and attached operating limitations at the cabin or cockpit entrance so that it is legible to passengers or crew while the aircraft is being operated. The pilot must conduct all flights under the operating limitations and part 91. Details concerning flight test areas are discussed in paragraph 13. And 13. PHASE I FLIGHT TESTING. a. Flight Tests. Section 91.319(b) requires you to show your aircraft is controllable at all its normal speeds during all the maneuvers you might expect to execute. That means that you must document and demonstrate in the testing phase the aircraft with all the maneuvers you intend to operate the aircraft. And it states further AC 20-27F 9/26/2003 14 (3) Operating Limitations. When we issue an unlimited duration special airworthiness certificate, the operating limitations may be prescribed under the guidelines in Order 8130.2. The purpose of the operating limitations is for you to show and maintain compliance with =A7 91.319. The operating limitations include a requirement for you to endorse the aircraft maintenance record (logbook) with a statement certifying the aircraft has been shown to comply with that section. The limitations may vary for some aircraft, and we may issue additional limitations in unusual conditions in the interest of safety. We will review the limitations with you to make sure you thoroughly understand each one. 14. CONTINUING TO OPERATE YOUR AMATEUR-BUILT AIRCRAFT. a. After you complete all required flight tests, hours, and maneuvers, the aircraft is considered safe for continued flight. To continue operating your aircraft, you must follow the operating limitations issued with the aircraft airworthiness certificate. b. You may not operate your aircraft without the airworthiness certificate and operating limitations aboard. If you lose the operating limitations or they are mutilated or no longer legible, contact your local FAA office for guidance or contact AFS-750 (see appendix 7 for the address) to obtain a copy of the operating limitations. If you cannot get a copy, ask your local FAA office to issue a replacement FAA Form 8130-7 and operating limitations. If you can document that the aircraft has completed the flight test requirements (through logbook entries), we may issue new operating limitations without initial flight test operating limitations. And again b. Operating Limitations. (1) The operating limitations require that you operate the aircraft under the applicable air traffic control and general operating rules of part 91. If you plan to operate under instrument flight rules (IFR), pay particular attention to the applicable requirements in part 91. (2) The operating limitations will authorize all operations to be conducted (visual flight rules, day/night, and IFR). These operating limitations may state that the instruments and equipment mandated by =A7 91.205(b), (c), and/or (d), Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness certificates: Instrument and equipment requirements, must be installed and operable. In addition, these operating limitations may state flight test areas as defined in =A7 91.305. Now I'm sure there will be some argument as to what these all mean, I think they mean what they say. Unless the maneuvers were demonstrated during testing and are specifically permitted by the operating limitations a standard category is assumed. What I will do is call my local FSDO, and get the word from the chief enforcement officer Gary Knaggs. I will report from the horses mouth. CS -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bryan Martin Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 9:30 PM Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Apology --> The normal, utility and aerobatic categories do NOT apply to the Experimental - Amateur Built airworthiness certificate, they only apply to the standard airworthiness certificate. The builder of an E- AB aircraft is the manufacturer, he decides what the operating limitations are, not the kit manufacturer. The operating limitations are developed during the phase I testing owner / test pilot. The only limitation on an E-AB airworthiness certificate is the statement that the airplane is restricted to day VFR unless properly equipped according to the equipment required article of the FARs. There are NO RESTRICTIONS on what type of maneuvers may be performed in an E-AB. That is the point that you don't seem to be getting here. On Mar 25, 2007, at 8:32 PM, C Smith wrote: > > > What does your airworthiness certificate say? > > It is clear you can't get the point. > It relates to the great lengths that the FAA will go to stop > violations of it's policies. It is an example in point, a point of > relative importance. > Specifically what does your airworthiness certificate say? It's called > operating limitations. What does it say? Normal, utility, or > aerobatic? THAT IS YOUR LIMITATION! IT'S YOUR AIRWORTHINESS > CERTIFICATE! > What does free speech have to do with the FAA's charter to regulate > all forms of aviation? NOTHING! Your pilots certificate is not subject > to the protections of criminal law. It is an administrative hearing, > not a trial. > When you are cited, you can talk to an attorney all you want, but > there is no jury, no trial, just an administrative board staffed by > the FAA. -- Bryan Martin N61BM, CH 601 XL, RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive. do not archive. ________________________________ Message 58 ____________________________________ Time: 07:59:22 PM PST US From: "R.P." Subject: Re: Zenith-List: RE: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! Hey Brandon, don't leave. You'll always find a few folks on these lists that get all defensive and accusatory when someone presents a different viewpoint than their own. I've gotta say: I've been upside down in my Zodiac a couple of times. I wasn't operating the controls, I haven't had the proper training. The guy that was with me was a very competent pilot with plenty of aerobatic experience or we wouldn't have done it. Chutes? Yeah... we were wearing chutes. Rick Pitcher 601HD/Jab3300 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brandon Tucker" Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 4:56 PM Subject: Zenith-List: RE: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! > > Mark, > > As someone else stated, I am the manufacturer. I > also wrote the operator's manual, which states that > aileron rolls and loops are allowable maneuvers. If > someone, as you described, went out and performed > loops without proper training, in any aircraft, I > would have little problem with using the word 'stupid' > to describe them. However, someone with proper > training should have no issues with looping an > aircraft that is stressed to do so, and is allowed by > the operator's manual. I have respect for you and > your opinion, and simply respectfully disagree. > > Craig: Negative G's are never experienced in a > loop. You maintain somewhere between 2 - 3 in the > pull up, and 1 over the top. I would never > intentionally pull negative G's, or even zero G in an > aircraft not equipped with flop tubes, and inverted > oil systems. > > Sea lawyer Chris: Put away the law books, and > pick up some aviation books. Study up a little more > on aerobatics, and aerodynamics. I am getting the > impression that the people bitching about the loop, > have never really done one, and don't understand what > is happening aerodynamically when doing one. I did a > loop in the Texan today, and never pulled more than 2 > G's. If anyone on the list is afraid of pulling 2 G's > in the Zodiac, maybe radio controlled aircraft are a > better fit for you. When I said "-haven't ripped the > wings off yet," it was obviously tongue in cheek, > poked in your direction. Don't bring dead friends and > arrogance into it either. You confuse arrogance with > education and experience. BTW, what in the hell does > this have to do shutting down a buss? While you were > swapping fuses, I was landing on aircraft carriers. > Go join a fuse replacement list and debate those > proper procedures there. > > I have lost patience with this thread and this > list. I'll take my experience, and my "arrogance" > elsewhere. There is sufficient free advice here from > people that have not finished their projects or even > flown a 601 for me to waste the bandwidth on real word > experience in a real 601 that actually flies. > > Brandon > > > We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love > (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. > http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265 > > > -- > 4:36 PM > > ________________________________ Message 59 ____________________________________ Time: 08:11:02 PM PST US From: "R.P." Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Apology Smitty, have you done the Phase One testing of your plane yet? If you're gonna do any areobatics you'll have to do them during Phase One and enter them in the aircraft logbook. BTW, you might have to change your email address when you get your plane finished, can't use experimentals 4profit ;) Rick Pitcher ----- Original Message ----- From: "C Smith" Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 7:50 PM Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Apology Please see AC 20-27F certification and operation of amateur built aircraft: 11. FAA INSPECTION OF AN AMATEUR-BUILT AIRCRAFT. a. General Information About What We Do and Do Not Do For Inspections. (1) We inspect your aircraft for general airworthiness when you submit it for airworthiness certification. We will not inspect it before you register it or during construction. However, we must inspect it before we issue your airworthiness certificate. Standard FAA policy is to issue one airworthiness certificate for the aircraft. In some cases, we may issue a limited duration airworthiness certificate, which would be valid only for flight testing (Phase I) the aircraft. When we inspect it, it should be ready to fly, except for having the cowlings, fairings, and panels open for inspection. (2) The FAA inspector cannot be involved in the building process and will not perform any progressive or in-process inspections during the building process. You should ask a knowledgeable person (for example, an EAA Technical Counselor) to conduct in-process inspections. You should record any such inspections in the aircraft logbook. (3) We consider FAA designated airworthiness representatives (DARs) the primary resource for the certification of amateur-built aircraft. You may contact your local FAA office to locate an authorized DAR. DARs are authorized to charge a fee for their services, which they set. We do not govern this fee. b. Visual Inspection. The FAA inspector will conduct an onsite, visual, general airworthiness certification inspection of the aircraft, including reviewing the information discussed in paragraphs 11c(1) and (2), before issuing a special airworthiness certificate with the appropriate operating limitations. With your special airworthiness certificate and operating limitations, you will be able to show compliance with 14 CFR part 91, General Operating and Flight Rules, 91.319(b). The FAA will perform the visual inspection as shown in figure 2, FAA Visual Inspection of an Amateur-Built Aircraft. And 12. ISSUING AN AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE FOR AN AMATEUR-BUILT AIRCRAFT. a. Issuance of a Special Airworthiness Certificate and Operating Limitations. (1) In addition to 14 CFR requirements, the guidelines you use to operate and maintain your aircraft are included in your operating limitations, which become part of the special airworthiness certificate. We may impose additional limitations to those listed in FAA Order 8130.2, Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft and Related Products, if necessary for safety. References in this AC to "Phase I" refer to those operating limitations that apply to the aircraft while it's undergoing initial flight tests. "Phase II" refers to those operating limitations that apply after you complete the initial flight tests. Phase I and Phase II operating limitations are provided in Order 8130.2. The FAA inspector will issue the special airworthiness certificate, but its validity will be subject to compliance with its operating limitations. Those limitations will provide for operation in an assigned flight test area for a certain number of hours (Phase I) before the second part (Phase II) of the limitations becomes effective, which releases the aircraft from the flight test area. (2) After we inspect your aircraft and determine it is in a condition for safe operation, we will issue FAA Form 8130-7, Special Airworthiness Certificate, with the appropriate operating limitations in accordance with Order 8130.2. Typically, we issue one airworthiness certificate per aircraft. (3) In accordance with 91.203(b), you must display the airworthiness certificate and attached operating limitations at the cabin or cockpit entrance so that it is legible to passengers or crew while the aircraft is being operated. The pilot must conduct all flights under the operating limitations and part 91. Details concerning flight test areas are discussed in paragraph 13. And 13. PHASE I FLIGHT TESTING. a. Flight Tests. Section 91.319(b) requires you to show your aircraft is controllable at all its normal speeds during all the maneuvers you might expect to execute. That means that you must document and demonstrate in the testing phase the aircraft with all the maneuvers you intend to operate the aircraft. And it states further AC 20-27F 9/26/2003 14 (3) Operating Limitations. When we issue an unlimited duration special airworthiness certificate, the operating limitations may be prescribed under the guidelines in Order 8130.2. The purpose of the operating limitations is for you to show and maintain compliance with 91.319. The operating limitations include a requirement for you to endorse the aircraft maintenance record (logbook) with a statement certifying the aircraft has been shown to comply with that section. The limitations may vary for some aircraft, and we may issue additional limitations in unusual conditions in the interest of safety. We will review the limitations with you to make sure you thoroughly understand each one. 14. CONTINUING TO OPERATE YOUR AMATEUR-BUILT AIRCRAFT. a. After you complete all required flight tests, hours, and maneuvers, the aircraft is considered safe for continued flight. To continue operating your aircraft, you must follow the operating limitations issued with the aircraft airworthiness certificate. b. You may not operate your aircraft without the airworthiness certificate and operating limitations aboard. If you lose the operating limitations or they are mutilated or no longer legible, contact your local FAA office for guidance or contact AFS-750 (see appendix 7 for the address) to obtain a copy of the operating limitations. If you cannot get a copy, ask your local FAA office to issue a replacement FAA Form 8130-7 and operating limitations. If you can document that the aircraft has completed the flight test requirements (through logbook entries), we may issue new operating limitations without initial flight test operating limitations. And again b. Operating Limitations. (1) The operating limitations require that you operate the aircraft under the applicable air traffic control and general operating rules of part 91. If you plan to operate under instrument flight rules (IFR), pay particular attention to the applicable requirements in part 91. (2) The operating limitations will authorize all operations to be conducted (visual flight rules, day/night, and IFR). These operating limitations may state that the instruments and equipment mandated by 91.205(b), (c), and/or (d), Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness certificates: Instrument and equipment requirements, must be installed and operable. In addition, these operating limitations may state flight test areas as defined in 91.305. Now I'm sure there will be some argument as to what these all mean, I think they mean what they say. Unless the maneuvers were demonstrated during testing and are specifically permitted by the operating limitations a standard category is assumed. What I will do is call my local FSDO, and get the word from the chief enforcement officer Gary Knaggs. I will report from the horses mouth. CS -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bryan Martin Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 9:30 PM Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Apology --> The normal, utility and aerobatic categories do NOT apply to the Experimental - Amateur Built airworthiness certificate, they only apply to the standard airworthiness certificate. The builder of an E- AB aircraft is the manufacturer, he decides what the operating limitations are, not the kit manufacturer. The operating limitations are developed during the phase I testing owner / test pilot. The only limitation on an E-AB airworthiness certificate is the statement that the airplane is restricted to day VFR unless properly equipped according to the equipment required article of the FARs. There are NO RESTRICTIONS on what type of maneuvers may be performed in an E-AB. That is the point that you don't seem to be getting here. On Mar 25, 2007, at 8:32 PM, C Smith wrote: > > > What does your airworthiness certificate say? > > It is clear you can't get the point. > It relates to the great lengths that the FAA will go to stop > violations of it's policies. It is an example in point, a point of > relative importance. > Specifically what does your airworthiness certificate say? It's called > operating limitations. What does it say? Normal, utility, or > aerobatic? THAT IS YOUR LIMITATION! IT'S YOUR AIRWORTHINESS > CERTIFICATE! > What does free speech have to do with the FAA's charter to regulate > all forms of aviation? NOTHING! Your pilots certificate is not subject > to the protections of criminal law. It is an administrative hearing, > not a trial. > When you are cited, you can talk to an attorney all you want, but > there is no jury, no trial, just an administrative board staffed by > the FAA. -- Bryan Martin N61BM, CH 601 XL, RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive. do not archive. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4:36 PM ________________________________ Message 60 ____________________________________ Time: 08:17:13 PM PST US From: Bryan Martin Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Apology Like I said, the owner / test pilot / manufacturer determines what the operating limitations are during phase I testing. The thing is, even after the airplane has been signed off for the phase II operation It can be put back into phase I flight testing by the owner at any time and the operating limitations can be revised based on that additional phase I flight testing. What you are allowed to do under an E-AB certificate is not anywhere near as rigidly defined as what you are allowed to do under a normal airworthiness certificate. On Mar 25, 2007, at 10:50 PM, C Smith wrote: > > That means that you must document and demonstrate in the testing > phase the aircraft with all the maneuvers you intend to operate the > aircraft. > > And it states further... > > Now I'm sure there will be some argument as to what these all mean, > I think they mean what they say. Unless the maneuvers were > demonstrated during testing and are specifically permitted by the > operating limitations a standard category is assumed. > > What I will do is call my local FSDO, and get the word from the > chief enforcement officer Gary Knaggs. I will report from the > horses mouth. > > CS -- Bryan Martin N61BM, CH 601 XL, RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive. do not archive. ________________________________ Message 61 ____________________________________ Time: 09:57:30 PM PST US From: "Steve Hulland" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!! Craig, An to think I and many others gave as much as our lives so that some like you can accept that the "governement" must take care of you from cradle to grave! Our legal system simply has to many lawyers who need to make money for any silly reason. If I wanna loop the plane I built I will. And, I will have fun. -- Semper Fi, Steven R. Hulland CH 600 Taildragger Amado, AZ This and all other incoming/outgoing email, attachments and replies scanned prior to opening/sending and uses an external firewall to help insure virus free email and attachments. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message zenith-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Zenith-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/zenith-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/zenith-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.