---------------------------------------------------------- Zenith-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 02/06/09: 29 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 06:26 AM - Re: a gentle suggestion (Gig Giacona) 2. 07:05 AM - Re: Re: a gentle suggestion (Afterfxllc@aol.com) 3. 07:21 AM - a gentle suggestion (roger lambert) 4. 07:26 AM - Re: a gentle suggestion (Afterfxllc@aol.com) 5. 07:28 AM - Re: a gentle suggestion (Sabrina) 6. 08:42 AM - Re: a gentle suggestion (Jay Maynard) 7. 09:07 AM - Re: Re: a gentle suggestion (Bryan Martin) 8. 09:47 AM - Re: a gentle suggestion (Rhino) 9. 10:05 AM - Re: a gentle suggestion (Terry Phillips) 10. 10:25 AM - Re: Re: a gentle suggestion (Bryan Martin) 11. 10:49 AM - redrive (Terry Turnquist) 12. 11:15 AM - Re: a gentle suggestion. comment (ZBAG) please delete. (Gary Gower) 13. 11:17 AM - Re: redrive (Keith Ashcraft) 14. 11:38 AM - Re: redrive (Herb Heaton) 15. 12:07 PM - Re: a gentle suggestion (Gig Giacona) 16. 12:37 PM - Re: redrive. (Gary Gower) 17. 12:41 PM - Re: a gentle suggestion (Rhino) 18. 12:44 PM - New Zenith Builders web site (Rhino) 19. 12:59 PM - Re: a gentle suggestion (Gig Giacona) 20. 01:12 PM - test (Terry Turnquist) 21. 01:30 PM - Re: New Zenith Builders web site (steve) 22. 01:40 PM - Re: Re: a gentle suggestion (Afterfxllc@aol.com) 23. 02:24 PM - Re: Re: a gentle suggestion (steve) 24. 03:01 PM - Re: Re: a gentle suggestion (Bryan Martin) 25. 03:56 PM - Re: Re: a gentle suggestion (Afterfxllc@aol.com) 26. 06:33 PM - Re: Fatige life of Aluminum (Herb Heaton) 27. 07:37 PM - Re: Re: a gentle suggestion (JAPhillipsGA@aol.com) 28. 08:25 PM - Re: a gentle suggestion (Gig Giacona) 29. 11:17 PM - Re: Re: a gentle suggestion (Roger & Lina Hill) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 06:26:10 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: a gentle suggestion From: "Gig Giacona" hills(at)sunflower.com wrote: > In the case I Mentioned before about the insurance company denying a claim > because of a "major" change being done after the DAR had oked the plane, I > must say that the unfortunate builder sunk his own boat. > > He made the mistake of actually entering the changes, that he made to the > fuel system, into his log book as he made them, thus giving the bean > counters at the insurance company something to use against him, his own > words. > > I say "mistake" because as he tried different changes to the fuel system, he > entered the changes into the log book, just as any good law abiding fellow > would do. But, as it turned out, he didn't like the changes, so he > reconfigured his fuels system into it's ORIGINAL configuration just before > his accident. Fine ok, well no. > > Even though he had gone back to the original fuel system configuration, as > ok'ed, by the DAR, the insurance company tried to deny his claim saying that > he had made major changes to the fuel system without notifying the FAA and > therefore nullifying this insurance. The fact that he reverses the changes > before the crash did not matter to the insurance company; they still wanted > to deny the claim. > > The moral of this story might be.... change many, enter once. > > Roger > > -- Or the moral of the story might be follow the law. He made his mistake in notifing the FSDO of the changes has he made them and following the rules. It amazes me how many folks here are suggesting pencil whipping the logs to get around what is a pretty clear order from the FAA. Somebody up thread gave as a reason for doing so that it would keep your plane in test period forever. My response to that is that if you keep making major changes it should remain in test phase because you are testing the fracking thing. It makes you wonder if the builders of some of the accident aircraft didn't do the same. And just for the record here is the text of the rule in questions. REF: FAA Order 8130.2E-- January 23,2003 (19) After incorporating a major change as described in 21.93, the aircraft owner is required to reestablish compliance with 91.319(b) and notify the geographically responsible FSDO of the location of the proposed test area. The aircraft owner must obtain concurrence from the FSDO as to the suitability of the proposed test area. If the major change includes installing a different make and model of engine or propeller, the aircraft owner must fill out a revised Form 8130-6 to update the aircraft's file in the FAA Aircraft Registry. All operations must be conducted under day VFR conditions in a sparsely populated area. The aircraft must remain in flight test for a minimum of 5 hours or for the time the FSDO assigns. Persons nonessential to the flight must not be carried. The aircraft owner must make a detailed logbook entry describing the change before the test flight. Following satisfactory completion of the required number of flight hours in the flight test area, the pilot must certify in the records that the aircraft has been shown to comply with 91.319(b). Compliance with 91.319(b) must be recorded in the aircraft records with the following, or a similarly worded, statement: "I certify that the prescribed flight test hours have been completed and the aircraft is controllable throughout its normal range of speeds and throughout all maneuvers to be executed, has no hazardous characteristics or design features, and is safe for operation. The following aircraft operating data has been demonstrated during the flight testing: speeds Vso ______, Vx ______, and Vy ______, and the weight ______, and CG location ______ at which they were obtained." -------- W.R. "Gig" Giacona 601XL Under Construction See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228843#228843 ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 07:05:17 AM PST US From: Afterfxllc@aol.com Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: a gentle suggestion You guys crack me up... You take things and blow them so out of proportion. If I take a 2700 cc corvair engine out of my plane and replace it with the exact same engine it isn't a major change it is a replacement not change. Now if I were to install a o 235 that would be a major change. You guys need to go flying more and stop flying in 5 hour circles. Using some of your logic I guess every prop pitch change is a Major change and should be written in the logs.... Geeezzz Jeff **************Great Deals on Dell Laptops. Starting at $499. net/clk;211531132;33070124;e) ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 07:21:10 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: a gentle suggestion From: roger lambert Since the ZBAG group has been brought up, we haven't heard their usual comments lately. Does that mean their independent study results have come through, as rumored, with no significant findings? Or perhaps are they in possession of the dreaded design defect and they're just waiting for accidents so they can rejoice in the inury to others? ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 07:26:30 AM PST US From: Afterfxllc@aol.com Subject: Re: Zenith-List: a gentle suggestion if you want to know pay your money and find out. Since the ZBAG group has been brought up, we haven't heard their usual comments lately. Does that mean their independent study results have come through, as rumored, with no significant findings? Or perhaps are they in possession of the dreaded design defect and they're just waiting for accidents so they can rejoice in the inury to others? **************Great Deals on Dell Laptops. Starting at $499. net/clk;211531132;33070124;e) ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 07:28:24 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: a gentle suggestion From: "Sabrina" Gig, you are correct, but so are the other posters. The insurance company may try to call your minor change a major change to avoid coverage. A minor change is one that has no appreciable effect on the weight, balance, structural strength, reliability, operational characteristics, or other characteristics affecting the airworthiness of the product. AMD does this to the Zenith all the time. Do they fly every mod for 5 hours? I don't know. Nothing stops the person seeking an airworthiness certificate on an experimental from defining or giving examples of minor/major changes within the airworthiness document itself. For example, indicate clearly, the pitch range of your propeller so changing the pitch is not misconstrued as a major change requiring an additional 5 hours. This would require testing across that range during phase 1 but that is what phase 1 is all about. And, Gig, I know immediately deleting this message after posting or editing prior posts does not stop it from reaching the people I want it to reach, I just don't need the casual seeker 10 years from now reading it. The longer a post stays on the net, the more likely it will show up on a Google search, not to say Google does not have it, it just can't be searched as easily by those outside the government. Certain log entries have to be kept forever, some only until the maintenance is repeated or a year has passed. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228857#228857 ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 08:42:21 AM PST US From: Jay Maynard Subject: Re: Zenith-List: a gentle suggestion On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 10:19:04AM -0500, roger lambert wrote: > Since the ZBAG group has been brought up, we haven't heard their usual > comments lately. Does that mean their independent study results have come > through, as rumored, with no significant findings? Or perhaps are they in > possession of the dreaded design defect and they're just waiting for > accidents so they can rejoice in the inury to others? I'm a member of ZBAG, and I did contribute to the analysis fund. I find the last comment well over the line. It's not my place to annoucne where things are currently, but I will note that there has never, ever been any suggestion of rejoicing in injury to others. I, and I'm pretty sure the other contributors, did so to put the incessant rumors and sniping to bed once and for all (I know, that's a faint hope...). If there is a problem, it won't be kept a secret, either from the community or Zenith. -- Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, AGI http://www.conmicro.com http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net Fairmont, MN (KFRM) (Yes, that's me!) AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 09:07:01 AM PST US From: Bryan Martin Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: a gentle suggestion 21.93 Classification of changes in type design. (a) In addition to changes in type design specified in paragraph (b) of this section, changes in type design are classified as minor and major. A minor change is one that has no appreciable effect on the weight, balance, structural strength, reliability, operational characteristics, or other characteristics affecting the airworthiness of the product. All other changes are major changes (except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section). Experimental amateur built aircraft are not issued a type certificate. Each one is a unique aircraft. There is no document that describes the details of every system on the airplane. It would be foolish to document any minor change to the airplane that can't be independently verified by the FAA or insurance company. That just gives some pompous bureaucrat or insurance adjuster an excuse to screw you over, just because they can. As I see it, I built my airplane, I know it better than any other person alive, if I determine that a change I make isn't going to cause a hazard to anyone else (by performing a proper test flight sequence in a safe manner, if necessary), it's nobody else's business. -- Bryan Martin N61BM, CH 601 XL, RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive. do not archive. ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 09:47:15 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: a gentle suggestion From: "Rhino" Gig Giacona wrote: > hills(at)sunflower.com wrote: > > > ....Even though he had gone back to the original fuel system configuration, as > > ok'ed, by the DAR, the insurance company tried to deny his claim saying that > > he had made major changes to the fuel system without notifying the FAA and > > therefore nullifying this insurance.... > > > Or the moral of the story might be follow the law. He made his mistake in notifing the FSDO of the changes has he made them and following the rules. The current rules don't require that the FSDO approve any major changes. They simply require a logbook entry and a flight test period, both of which are the responsibility of the builder/owner/pilot, not the FAA. The only place an FSDO is involved is in approving the location of the flight test area. The old rules used to require FSDO inspection and re-certification, from 1985 to 1993. From 1993 to 1999 the inspection and re-certification requirement was dropped, requiring only a written approval of the change from the FSDO. From 1999 to 2004 no FSDO involvement was required whatsoever, totally eliminating a approval requirement. From 2004 on, there is only the FSDO approval of the location of the test area required. The FSDO does not approve your major changes, and you are not required to discuss the change with them beyond what affect the change may require on the testing location. As such, your insurance company cannot deny a claim because there was no FAA notification of the specific major change itself. And this only applies to the five hour test period anyway, a period that is assigned by you, not by the FAA. As for what hills(at)sunflower.com wrote, the legality would not only depend on the details of the circumstances, but also as to when this actually happened. Does a change to your fuel system plumbing really qualify as a major change? Admittedly subjective since the FAA never specifies what major change actually means, but likely it is not. When did this happen, and what rules were in effect at the time? Was the test period actually adhered to? Did the incident occur during the test period? If yes, was the aircraft being operated within the specified test area? Without that information, none of us can adequately judge if the actions of either party were proper or improper. By the way, although the original date of Order 8130.2E is January 23, 2003, two changes have been made to it since then. The 2004 requirement I mention above was one of those changes. -------- Bob Simmons CH 750!!! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228896#228896 ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 10:05:53 AM PST US From: Terry Phillips Subject: Re: Zenith-List: a gentle suggestion At 10:19 AM 2/6/2009 -0500, roger lambert wrote: >Since the ZBAG group has been brought up, we haven't heard their usual >comments lately. Does that mean their independent study results have come >through, as rumored, with no significant findings? Or perhaps are they in >possession of the dreaded design defect and they're just waiting for >accidents so they can rejoice in the inury to others? I do not choose to post on the Matronics Lists about the 601XL's safety record, because it is just not worth the flames. However today's post from Mr. Lambert demands a response. I have never met Mr. Lambert. To my knowledge he has never met me. The builders and owners who have contributed to ZBAG are a small group who look at the safety record of the 601XL and draw the conclusion that, just maybe, the design of the 601XL is not perfect. And, realizing that, they have chosen to contribute to an independent analysis of the design so that they can feel more comfortable flying the airplanes in which they have invested thousands of dollars and hours. That Mr. Lambert can suggest that any ZBAGer is some sort of a ghoul who would get pleasure out of the death of fellow 601XL builder is beyond the pale. Unfortunately it is the sort of thing that can and does appear on the Matronics Forum. How very sad! I think that Mr. Lambert owes an apology to every single one of the ZBAGers whom he has slandered today. ZBAG shares all of our reports with both Zenith Aircraft Co., the NTSB, and the FAA. What they do with the information provided is up to them. Regarding access to that same information, Jeff said it very well: At 10:23 AM 2/6/2009 -0500, Afterfxllc@aol.com wrote: >if you want to know pay your money and find out. Terry Phillips, Proud to be a ZBAGer ttp44~at~rkymtn.net Corvallis MT 601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons are done; working on the wings http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/ ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 10:25:45 AM PST US From: Bryan Martin Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: a gentle suggestion The most recent document is ORDER 8130.2F CHG 3 Effective Date: April 18, 2007 http://tinyurl.com/cy4qav On Feb 6, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Rhino wrote: > > The current rules don't require that the FSDO approve any major > changes. They simply require a logbook entry and a flight test > period, both of which are the responsibility of the builder/owner/ > pilot, not the FAA. The only place an FSDO is involved is in > approving the location of the flight test area. > > ... > > By the way, although the original date of Order 8130.2E is January > 23, 2003, two changes have been made to it since then. The 2004 > requirement I mention above was one of those changes. > -- Bryan Martin N61BM, CH 601 XL, RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive. ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 10:49:15 AM PST US From: Terry Turnquist Subject: Zenith-List: redrive Does anyone on the list either have or know where I might get some plans fo r building a belted redrive? Offlist reply would be great. Thanks. Terry Turnquist----- ter_turn@yahoo.com 601XL-Plans St. Peters MO do not archive =0A=0A=0A ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 11:15:12 AM PST US From: Gary Gower Subject: Re: Zenith-List: a gentle suggestion. comment (ZBAG) please delete. Hello Roger, - I have a diferent opinion about it,- I am convinced that the ZBAG group w as originaly -made with-good ideas and intentions in mind:- To try to help find a solution and one more important: Get all the "Armchai r Expert Ideas and solutions" about the possible causes of the accidents, o ut of the Zenith list(s).- We all aprreeciate this, because there were ma ny- "expert evil comments" and e-mails most from guys sent by competitors ,- that only was giving bad reputation to our airplanes. - What I-hoped (my comment) -is what logic and serious investigations is showing to me.- That the chains of accidents were a very sad coincidence of timing,- because the prototype and lots of other XLs have been flying (and still are) for years and 1,000s of hrs,-with no problem.- Still to this moment Time will say.-One thing is important we will never know wha t this persons went though in that dificult moments,-so they deserve-al l our-Respect and Prayers.-- - Another thing we are learning is that, thanks to internet,- every lie or bad intentioned comment, falls by it own weight.- and that goverment agen cies world wide have to be professionaly prepared,-have caution with thei r actions and do not- prepay their vacations tickets, so they dont show t heir lack of capacity and knowledge to all the world...-- :-) - Also they (the ZBAG $ supporters)-and all of us learned that, even with a ll the good intentions-of the private investigators, -is not a piece of cake to come with some solution faster and more accurrate than the Designe r's team and the US Agency (they investigate far more accidents than any ot her in the world), thanks to great amount of airplanes in USA, and also giv en their goverment support to the general aviation people.-Compared to- most of our countries around the world. - Off the soap box - Saludos Gary Gower. Do not archive. --- On Fri, 2/6/09, roger lambert wrote: From: roger lambert Subject: Zenith-List: a gentle suggestion Since the ZBAG group has been brought up, we haven't heard their usual comm ents lately. Does that mean their independent study results have come throu gh, as rumored, with no significant findings? Or perhaps are they in posses sion of the dreaded design defect and they're just waiting for accidents so they can rejoice in the inury to others? =0A=0A=0A ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 11:17:10 AM PST US From: Keith Ashcraft Subject: Re: Zenith-List: redrive Actually, I would like a reply too the list. I would also be interested, and I am sure others would also!! Thanks, Keith CH701--scratch ________________________________ From: Terry Turnquist Sent: Friday, February 6, 2009 11:48:07 AM Subject: Zenith-List: redrive Does anyone on the list either have or know where I might get some plans for building a belted redrive? Offlist reply would be great. Thanks. Terry Turnquist ter_turn@yahoo.com 601XL-Plans St. Peters MO do not archive ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 11:38:37 AM PST US From: "Herb Heaton" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: redrive A few years ago I bought a set of plans for a belted redrive from Don Parham at RFI. Don't know if he's still selling them. Herb ----- Original Message ----- From: Keith Ashcraft To: zenith-list@matronics.com Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 12:16 PM Subject: Re: Zenith-List: redrive Actually, I would like a reply too the list. I would also be interested, and I am sure others would also!! Thanks, Keith CH701--scratch ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- From: Terry Turnquist > To: zenith-list@matronics.com Sent: Friday, February 6, 2009 11:48:07 AM Subject: Zenith-List: redrive Does anyone on the list either have or know where I might get some plans for building a belted redrive? Offlist reply would be great. Thanks. Terry Turnquist ter_turn@yahoo.com 601XL-Plans St. Peters MO do not archive http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 12:07:13 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: a gentle suggestion From: "Gig Giacona" [quote="bryanmmartin] As I see it, I built my airplane, I know it better than any other person alive, if I determine that a change I make isn't going to cause a hazard to anyone else (by performing a proper test flight sequence in a safe manner, if necessary), it's nobody else's business. [/quote] And I agree with you there. But that really isn't the point in question. The issue I'm arguing against and the one that sooner or later could bite us in our collective homebuilding butts is those that would do a major change (a real honest major change) and not follow the rules. And lets face it the rules give us a lot more freedoms in what we do to our planes than do some other country's rules. Those rules are that way because overall we have followed them or at least not hurt too many people when we didn't. Should the FAA and/or NTSB see that it isn't working they will right more rules. If you doubt that just look at what is happening with the 51% rule. -------- W.R. "Gig" Giacona 601XL Under Construction See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228936#228936 ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 12:37:17 PM PST US From: Gary Gower Subject: Re: Zenith-List: redrive. -I don't think there is a "easy recipe"-to come out with a self made re duction drive in the first try... - This is a great page, unfortunately Mr Alexandre does not sell plans or kit s,- this page is about his personal experience with his airplanes and his redrives,- all with Suzuki engines. - http://www.nessaaircraft.net/ - To personally build a good auto engine conversion for airplane, is a dream for lots of builders. Experimenting with this (and Aviation in general) is also a passion. With some looking around you can come out with your own good reduction driv e.- - Another place to look for info could be: - http://www.contactmagazine.com/ - http://www.contactmagazine.com/backissu.html - The Editor is Pat Panzera,- he is very helpful.- - I am not at present subscribed to this magazine,- too much-aviation magazines received each month, for a safe marriage :-)-- probably soon , once another subscription end... - Hope this helps, and keep us posted in this interesting subject., - Saludos Gary Gower Flying from Chapala, Mexico. 701 912S (Flying)- 601XL- Jabiru 3300- (Building) Working on a VW Jetta 2L. conversion,- just for the fun, for my next proj ect... - --- On Fri, 2/6/09, Herb Heaton wrote: From: Herb Heaton Subject: Re: Zenith-List: redrive #yiv1738617516 DIV { MARGIN:0px;} A few years ago I bought a set of plans for a belted redrive from Don Parha m at RFI.- Don't know if he's still selling them. - Herb ----- Original Message ----- From: Keith Ashcraft Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 12:16 PM Subject: Re: Zenith-List: redrive Actually, I would like a reply too the list. I would also be interested, an d I am sure others would also!! Thanks, Keith CH701--scratch From: Terry Turnquist Sent: Friday, February 6, 2009 11:48:07 AM Subject: Zenith-List: redrive Does anyone on the list either have or know where I might get some plans fo r building a belted redrive? Offlist reply would be great. Thanks. Terry Turnquist----- ter_turn@yahoo.com 601XL-Plans St. Peters MO do not archive href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matronhr ef="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c =0A=0A=0A ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 12:41:53 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: a gentle suggestion From: "Rhino" bryanmmartin wrote: > The most recent document is > > ORDER 8130.2F > CHG 3 > > Effective Date: > April 18, 2007 > > http://tinyurl.com/cy4qav > > -- > Bryan Martin > N61BM, CH 601 XL, > RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive. Thanks. That pretty much says what I posted, but even more detailed. -------- Bob Simmons CH 750!!! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228948#228948 ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 12:44:19 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: New Zenith Builders web site From: "Rhino" Has everybody seen the new Zenith Aircraft Builders and Flyers web site? http://www.zenith.aero/ -------- Bob Simmons CH 750!!! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228949#228949 ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 12:59:51 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: a gentle suggestion From: "Gig Giacona" OMG.... I some how missed this pearl of wisdom on my first pass through the messages. Of course changing the engine is a major change. And if you don't see the difference between an engine swap and a prop pitch change you are a danger to yourself, anyone that flies with you and anybody that is nearby when you are flying. Afterfxllc(at)aol.com wrote: > You guys crack me up... You take things and blow them so out of proportion. If I take a 2700 cc corvair engine out of my plane and replace it with the exact same engine it isn't a major change it is a replacement not change. Now if I were to install a o 235 that would be a major change. You guys need to go flying more and stop flying in 5 hour circles. > > Using some of your logic I guess every prop pitch change is a Major change and should be written in the logs.... Geeezzz > > Jeff > -------- W.R. "Gig" Giacona 601XL Under Construction See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228955#228955 ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 01:12:28 PM PST US From: Terry Turnquist Subject: Zenith-List: test test do not archive ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 01:30:52 PM PST US From: "steve" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: New Zenith Builders web site Yes, and most of the group is there. Its for builders and flyers, not wannabies... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rhino" Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 1:43 PM Subject: Zenith-List: New Zenith Builders web site > > Has everybody seen the new Zenith Aircraft Builders and Flyers web site? > > http://www.zenith.aero/ > > -------- > Bob Simmons > CH 750!!! > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228949#228949 > > > ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 01:40:47 PM PST US From: Afterfxllc@aol.com Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: a gentle suggestion IAogCk9rIEdpZwogCiAKSGVyZSBpcyB0aGUgcmVnLi4uIG5vdyBzaG93IG1lIHdoZXJlIHRo aXMgaXMgYSBtYWpvciBjaGFuZ2UKIArCpyAyMS45MyAgIENsYXNzaWZpY2F0aW9uIG9mIGNo YW5nZXMgaW4gdHlwZSBkZXNpZ24uCihhKSBJbiAgYWRkaXRpb24gdG8gY2hhbmdlcyBpbiB0 eXBlIGRlc2lnbiBzcGVjaWZpZWQgaW4gcGFyYWdyYXBoIChiKSAgCm9mIHRoaXMgIHNlY3Rp b24sIGNoYW5nZXMgaW4gdHlwZSBkZXNpZ24gYXJlIGNsYXNzaWZpZWQgYXMgbWlub3IgYW5k ICAKbWFqb3IuIEEgIOKAnG1pbm9yIGNoYW5nZeKAnSBpcyBvbmUgdGhhdCBoYXMgbm8gYXBw cmVjaWFibGUgZWZmZWN0IG9uIHRoZSAgCndlaWdodCwgIGJhbGFuY2UsIHN0cnVjdHVyYWwg c3RyZW5ndGgsIHJlbGlhYmlsaXR5LCBvcGVyYXRpb25hbCAgIApjaGFyYWN0ZXJpc3RpY3Ms IG9yIG90aGVyIGNoYXJhY3RlcmlzdGljcyBhZmZlY3RpbmcgdGhlIGFpcndvcnRoaW5lc3Mg ICAKb2YgdGhlIHByb2R1Y3QuIEFsbCBvdGhlciBjaGFuZ2VzIGFyZSDigJxtYWpvciBjaGFu Z2Vz4oCdIChleGNlcHQgYXMgICAKcHJvdmlkZWQgaW4gcGFyYWdyYXBoIChiKSBvZiB0aGlz IHNlY3Rpb24pLgoKCk5vdyBkb2VzIGl0IGVmZmVjdCB0aGUgd2VpZ2h0PyBOTwpEb2VzIGl0 IGVmZmVjdCB0aGUgQmFsYW5jZT8gTk8KRG9lcyBpdCBlZmZlY3QgdGhlIHN0cnVjdHVyYWwg c3RyZW5ndGg/IE5PCkRvZXMgaXQgZWZmZWN0IFJlbGlhYmlsaXR5PyBOTyBlbmdpbmUgZm9y IGVuZ2luZSBzaG91bGQgYmUganVzdCBhcyAgcmVsaWFibGUKRG9lcyBpdCBlZmZlY3Qgb3Bl cmF0aW9uYWwgY2hhcmFjdGVyaXN0aWNzPyBOTwpEb2VzIGl0IGVmZmVjdCBvdGhlciBjaGFy YWN0ZXJpc3RpY3MgYWZmZWN0aW5nIHRoZSBhaXJ3b3J0aGluZXNzIG9mICB0aGUgCnByb2R1 Y3Q/IE5PCiAKQWxsIHlvdSBoYXZlIHRvIGRvIGlzIG1ha2UgYSBsb2cgYm9vayBlbnRyeSBv ZiB0aGUgc2VyaWFsICMgY2hhbmdlIG9mIHRoZSAgCmVuZ2luZS4KIApBcyBJIHNhaWQgaWYg eW91IGNoYW5nZSBlbmdpbmVzIGllIGEgQ29ydmFpciB0byBhIE8gMjM1IHRoYXQgd291bGQg YmUgYSAgCm1ham9yIGNoYW5nZS4KIApCdXQgeW91IGRvIHdoYXQgeW91IGxpa2UgYW5kIHN0 YXkgaW4gZmxpZ2h0IHRlc3RpbmcgZm9yZXZlciBHaWcuIAogCkFuZCB5b3UgY2FuIGxlYXZl IHRoZSBwZXJzb25hbCBhdHRhY2tzIGZvciB0aGUgS1IgbGlzdC4gU29tZWhvdyBiZWNhdXNl IHlvdSAgCnRoaW5rIHlvdSBrbm93IGV2ZXJ5dGhpbmcgYW5kIEkgZGlzYWdyZWUgd2l0aCB5 b3UgSSBzb21laG93IHB1dCBwZW9wbGUgaW4gIApkYW5nZXIgaXMgYSBzdHVwaWQgc3RhdGVt ZW50IG9uIHlvdXIgcGFydC4KIApKZWZmCiAKIAogCiAKIAogCiAKLS0+IFplbml0aC1MaXN0 IG1lc3NhZ2UgcG9zdGVkIGJ5OiAiR2lnIEdpYWNvbmEiICA8d3JnaWFjb25hQGdtYWlsLmNv bT4KCk9NRy4uLi4gSSBzb21lIGhvdyBtaXNzZWQgdGhpcyBwZWFybCBvZiAgd2lzZG9tIG9u IG15IGZpcnN0IHBhc3MgdGhyb3VnaCB0aGUgCm1lc3NhZ2VzLiBPZiBjb3Vyc2UgY2hhbmdp bmcgdGhlIGVuZ2luZSBpcyBhICBtYWpvciBjaGFuZ2UuIEFuZCBpZiB5b3UgZG9uJ3QgCnNl ZSB0aGUgZGlmZmVyZW5jZSBiZXR3ZWVuIGFuIGVuZ2luZSBzd2FwIGFuZCBhICBwcm9wIHBp dGNoIGNoYW5nZSB5b3UgYXJlIGEgCmRhbmdlciB0byB5b3Vyc2VsZiwgYW55b25lIHRoYXQg ZmxpZXMgd2l0aCB5b3UgYW5kICBhbnlib2R5IHRoYXQgaXMgbmVhcmJ5IHdoZW4gCnlvdSBh cmUgZmx5aW5nLgoKCgpBZnRlcmZ4bGxjKGF0KWFvbC5jb20gIHdyb3RlOgo+IFlvdSBndXlz IGNyYWNrIG1lIHVwLi4uIFlvdSB0YWtlIHRoaW5ncyBhbmQgYmxvdyB0aGVtIHNvIG91dCBv ZiAgCnByb3BvcnRpb24uICBJZiBJIHRha2UgYSAyNzAwIGNjIGNvcnZhaXIgZW5naW5lIG91 dCBvZiBteSBwbGFuZSBhbmQgcmVwbGFjZSAgaXQgd2l0aCB0aGUgCmV4YWN0ICBzYW1lIGVu Z2luZSBpdCBpc24ndCBhIG1ham9yIGNoYW5nZSBpdCBpcyBhIHJlcGxhY2VtZW50ICBub3Qg Y2hhbmdlLiAKTm93IGlmIEkgIHdlcmUgdG8gaW5zdGFsbCBhIG8gMjM1IHRoYXQgd291bGQg YmUgYSBtYWpvciBjaGFuZ2UuICBZb3UgZ3V5cyBuZWVkIAp0byBnbyBmbHlpbmcgIG1vcmUg YW5kIHN0b3AgZmx5aW5nIGluIDUgaG91ciAgY2lyY2xlcy4KPiAgIAo+ICBVc2luZyBzb21l IG9mIHlvdXIgbG9naWMgSSBndWVzcyAgZXZlcnkgcHJvcCBwaXRjaCBjaGFuZ2UgaXMgYSAg TWFqb3IgCmNoYW5nZSBhbmQgc2hvdWxkIGJlIHdyaXR0ZW4gaW4gdGhlICBsb2dzLi4uLiBH ZWVlenp6Cj4gICAKPiAgSmVmZgoKCgotLT4gIFplbml0aC1MaXN0IG1lc3NhZ2UgcG9zdGVk IGJ5OiAiR2lnIEdpYWNvbmEiICA8d3JnaWFjb25hQGdtYWlsLmNvbT4KCk9NRy4uLi4gSSBz b21lIGhvdyBtaXNzZWQgdGhpcyBwZWFybCBvZiAgd2lzZG9tIG9uIG15IGZpcnN0IHBhc3Mg dGhyb3VnaCB0aGUgCm1lc3NhZ2VzLiBPZiBjb3Vyc2UgY2hhbmdpbmcgdGhlIGVuZ2luZSBp cyAgYSBtYWpvciBjaGFuZ2UuIEFuZCBpZiB5b3UgZG9uJ3QgCnNlZSB0aGUgZGlmZmVyZW5j ZSBiZXR3ZWVuIGFuIGVuZ2luZSBzd2FwIGFuZCAgYSBwcm9wIHBpdGNoIGNoYW5nZSB5b3Ug YXJlIGEgCmRhbmdlciB0byB5b3Vyc2VsZiwgYW55b25lIHRoYXQgZmxpZXMgd2l0aCB5b3Ug IGFuZCBhbnlib2R5IHRoYXQgaXMgbmVhcmJ5IHdoZW4gCnlvdSBhcmUgIGZseWluZy4KCgoK QWZ0ZXJmeGxsYyhhdClhb2wuY29tIHdyb3RlOgo+IFlvdSBndXlzIGNyYWNrIG1lICB1cC4u LiBZb3UgdGFrZSB0aGluZ3MgYW5kIGJsb3cgdGhlbSBzbyBvdXQgb2YgCnByb3BvcnRpb24u ICBJZiBJIHRha2UgYSAgMjcwMCBjYyBjb3J2YWlyIGVuZ2luZSBvdXQgb2YgbXkgcGxhbmUg YW5kIHJlcGxhY2UgaXQgd2l0aCB0aGUgCmV4YWN0ICAgc2FtZSBlbmdpbmUgaXQgaXNuJ3Qg YSBtYWpvciBjaGFuZ2UgaXQgaXMgYSByZXBsYWNlbWVudCBub3QgY2hhbmdlLiAKTm93IGlm ICBJICB3ZXJlIHRvIGluc3RhbGwgYSBvIDIzNSB0aGF0IHdvdWxkIGJlIGEgbWFqb3IgY2hh bmdlLiBZb3UgZ3V5cyBuZWVkIAp0byAgZ28gZmx5aW5nICBtb3JlIGFuZCBzdG9wIGZseWlu ZyBpbiA1IGhvdXIgY2lyY2xlcy4KPiAgICAKPiAgVXNpbmcgc29tZSBvZiB5b3VyIGxvZ2lj IEkgZ3Vlc3MgZXZlcnkgcHJvcCBwaXRjaCBjaGFuZ2UgaXMgIGEgIE1ham9yIApjaGFuZ2Ug YW5kIHNob3VsZCBiZSB3cml0dGVuIGluIHRoZSBsb2dzLi4uLiAgR2VlZXp6ego+ICAgCj4g IEplZmYKPiAgCgoKCgoqKioqKioqKioqKioqKkdyZWF0IERlYWxzIG9uIERlbGwgTGFwdG9w cy4gU3RhcnRpbmcgYXQgJDQ5OS4gCihodHRwOi8vcHIuYXR3b2xhLmNvbS9wcm9tb2Nsay8x MDAwMDAwNzV4MTIxNzg4MzI1OHgxMjAxMTkxODI3L2FvbD9yZWRpcj1odHRwOi8vYWQuZG91 YmxlY2xpY2suCm5ldC9jbGs7MjExNTMxMTMyOzMzMDcwMTI0O2UpCg= ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 02:24:58 PM PST US From: "steve" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: a gentle suggestion ----- Original Message ----- From: Afterfxllc@aol.com To: zenith-list@matronics.com Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 2:39 PM Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: a gentle suggestion Ok Gig Here is the reg... now show me where this is a major change =C2=A7 21.93 Classification of changes in type design. (a) In addition to changes in type design specified in paragraph (b) of this section, changes in type design are classified as minor and major. A =9Cminor change=9D is one that has no appreciable effect on the weight, balance, structural strength, reliability, operational characteristics, or other characteristics affecting the airworthiness of the product. All other changes are =9Cmajor changes=9D (except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section). Now does it effect the weight? NO Does it effect the Balance? NO Does it effect the structural strength? NO Does it effect Reliability? NO engine for engine should be just as reliable Does it effect operational characteristics? NO (YES!) Does it effect other characteristics affecting the airworthiness of the product? NO All you have to do is make a log book entry of the serial # change of the engine. As I said if you change engines ie a Corvair to a O 235 that would be a major change. But you do what you like and stay in flight testing forever Gig. And you can leave the personal attacks for the KR list. Somehow because you think you know everything and I disagree with you I somehow put people in danger is a stupid statement on your part. Jeff OMG.... I some how missed this pearl of wisdom on my first pass through the messages. Of course changing the engine is a major change. And if you don't see the difference between an engine swap and a prop pitch change you are a danger to yourself, anyone that flies with you and anybody that is nearby when you are flying. Afterfxllc(at)aol.com wrote: > You guys crack me up... You take things and blow them so out of proportion. If I take a 2700 cc corvair engine out of my plane and replace it with the exact same engine it isn't a major change it is a replacement not change. Now if I were to install a o 235 that would be a major change. You guys need to go flying more and stop flying in 5 hour circles. > > Using some of your logic I guess every prop pitch change is a Major change and should be written in the logs.... Geeezzz > > Jeff OMG.... I some how missed this pearl of wisdom on my first pass through the messages. Of course changing the engine is a major change. And if you don't see the difference between an engine swap and a prop pitch change you are a danger to yourself, anyone that flies with you and anybody that is nearby when you are flying. Afterfxllc(at)aol.com wrote: > You guys crack me up... You take things and blow them so out of proportion. If I take a 2700 cc corvair engine out of my plane and replace it with the exact same engine it isn't a major change it is a replacement not change. Now if I were to install a o 235 that would be a major change. You guys need to go flying more and stop flying in 5 hour circles. > > Using some of your logic I guess every prop pitch change is a Major change and should be written in the logs.... Geeezzz > > Jeff > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Great Deals on Dell Laptops. Starting at $499. =EF=BD~=EF=BD=03 ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 03:01:14 PM PST US From: Bryan Martin Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: a gentle suggestion Even on type certificated aircraft, I don't think replacing an old engine with a new one of the same make and model is considered a major change. On Feb 6, 2009, at 3:57 PM, Gig Giacona wrote: > > OMG.... I some how missed this pearl of wisdom on my first pass > through the messages. Of course changing the engine is a major > change. And if you don't see the difference between an engine swap > and a prop pitch change you are a danger to yourself, anyone that > flies with you and anybody that is nearby when you are flying. > -- Bryan Martin N61BM, CH 601 XL, RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive. do not archive. ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 03:56:44 PM PST US From: Afterfxllc@aol.com Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: a gentle suggestion You don't, all you do is write the new engine info in the logs and go fly. I will agree that if in our case you didn't fly a few hours around the patch whether required to or not would be foolish but we don't have to if we choose not to. Like most of the rules made by the FAA they are allowing for pilots to make the right decisions and most would but a few won't and some of the rules are left to interpretation. Some A&P's don't fly and they change out engines all the time and simply sign them off and the pilot goes flying... I was shocked by this and thought this is crazy but that's how it's been done for years and as long as we self police the system works well. Jeff Even on type certificated aircraft, I don't think replacing an old engine with a new one of the same make and model is considered a major change. On Feb 6, 2009, at 3:57 PM, Gig Giacona wrote: > > OMG.... I some how missed this pearl of wisdom on my first pass > through the messages. Of course changing the engine is a major > change. And if you don't see the difference between an engine swap > and a prop pitch change you are a danger to yourself, anyone that > flies with you and anybody that is nearby when you are flying. **************Great Deals on Dell Laptops. Starting at $499. net/clk;211531132;33070124;e) ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 06:33:02 PM PST US From: "Herb Heaton" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Fatige life of Aluminum Guys and Girls Not trying to stir the pot but there is a very interesting article in the February '09 issue of the EAA Sport Aviation magazine. Take a look at page 86, "Anodizing and Fatigue life". I was surprised at the effect of Anodizing on Aluminum. We always Anodized tooling where I worked as a designer but our tools were not subjected to constant vibration as is associated with aircraft. Anodizing a spar is probably out of the question unless you have a very large tank, but does raise a question as to whether this process could have contributed to any accidents in the past. I know a lot of guys Alodine their spars but this is an entirely different process and shouldn't have any effect on the base metal. Just another question to look at. Herb Plans building 601XL Almost done. Do Not Archive ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary Gower To: zenith-list@matronics.com Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 12:14 PM Subject: Re: Zenith-List: a gentle suggestion. comment (ZBAG) please delete. Hello Roger, I have a diferent opinion about it, I am convinced that the ZBAG group was originaly made with good ideas and intentions in mind: To try to help find a solution and one more important: Get all the "Armchair Expert Ideas and solutions" about the possible causes of the accidents, out of the Zenith list(s). We all aprreeciate this, because there were many "expert evil comments" and e-mails most from guys sent by competitors, that only was giving bad reputation to our airplanes. What I hoped (my comment) is what logic and serious investigations is showing to me. That the chains of accidents were a very sad coincidence of timing, because the prototype and lots of other XLs have been flying (and still are) for years and 1,000s of hrs, with no problem. Still to this moment Time will say. One thing is important we will never know what this persons went though in that dificult moments, so they deserve all our Respect and Prayers. Another thing we are learning is that, thanks to internet, every lie or bad intentioned comment, falls by it own weight. and that goverment agencies world wide have to be professionaly prepared, have caution with their actions and do not prepay their vacations tickets, so they dont show their lack of capacity and knowledge to all the world... :-) Also they (the ZBAG $ supporters) and all of us learned that, even with all the good intentions of the private investigators, is not a piece of cake to come with some solution faster and more accurrate than the Designer's team and the US Agency (they investigate far more accidents than any other in the world), thanks to great amount of airplanes in USA, and also given their goverment support to the general aviation people. Compared to most of our countries around the world. Off the soap box Saludos Gary Gower. Do not archive. --- On Fri, 2/6/09, roger lambert wrote: From: roger lambert Subject: Zenith-List: a gentle suggestion To: "zenith-list@matronics.com" Date: Friday, February 6, 2009, 10:19 AM Since the ZBAG group has been brought up, we haven't heard their usual comments lately. Does that mean their independent study results have come through, as rumored, with no significant findings? Or perhaps are they in possession of the dreaded design defect and they're just waiting for accidents so they can rejoice in the inury to others? 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D http://forums.matronics.com 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D http://www.matronics.com/contribution 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 07:37:30 PM PST US From: JAPhillipsGA@aol.com Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: a gentle suggestion maybe you guys ought to get married. **************Who's never won? Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?ncid=emlcntusmusi00000003) ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 08:25:27 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: a gentle suggestion From: "Gig Giacona" A type certified engine is assumed to be reliable. A auto conversion isn't or at least shouldn't be until tested. -------- W.R. "Gig" Giacona 601XL Under Construction See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=229022#229022 ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 11:17:48 PM PST US From: "Roger & Lina Hill" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: a gentle suggestion OK GUYS, HERE IS THE ORIGINAL COURT TEXT,,, READ AND LEARN FROM IT !!!!! Roger MAGILL, Senior Circuit Judge: Avemco Insurance Company (Avemco) issued an insurance policy covering William Davenport's home-built experimental aircraft. After Davenport's aircraft crashed on May 7, 1995, Avemco sought a declaration from the district court that, because Davenport had not complied with the terms of the policy, Avemco had no duty to defend or indemnify Davenport for any claims arising from the accident. The district court granted summary judgment in Avemco's favor, and Davenport now appeals. We affirm I. Davenport, an experienced pilot and builder of experimental aircraft, holds a private pilot certificate and a repairman's certificate issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Prior to the events giving rise to this case, Davenport built a "VariEze" aircraft from plans he purchased from Rutan Aircraft. Davenport eventually sold the VariEze and began building a second aircraft in 1992. The second plane was built largely from Rutan Aircraft's "Long EZ" plans. Because Davenport made several modifications to these plans, he refers to his hybrid design as the "Davenport Long EZ." In September 1994, Davenport purchased an amateur-built aircraft insurance policy from Avemco, which provided coverage from September 13, 1994, to September 13, 1995. The policy contained an exclusion from liability that stated: This Policy does not cover bodily injury, property damage or loss . . . [w]hen your insured aircraft is in flight unless it[ ] is certified for flight by the FAA, initially, and after a modification which requires recertification. Avemco Policy at 3 (emphasis omitted) (Policy Exclusion). The FAA initially certified Davenport's aircraft as airworthy in April 1993, but conditioned Davenport's airworthiness certificate on thirteen "Operating Limitations. " One limitation required that "[t]he cognizant FAA Flight Office must be notified and their response received in writing prior to flying this aircraft after incorporating a major change as defined by [14 C.F.R. S 21.93]." Special Airworthiness Certificate, Operating Limitation No. 10 (emphasis added). A major change is any change having any "appreciable effect on the weight, balance, structural strength, reliability, operational characteristics, or other characteristics affecting the airworthiness of the product." 14 C.F.R. S 21.93(a) (1993). According to Davenport, his aircraft was equipped with a gravity feed fuel system at the time of the FAA's initial certification. This design relies on gravity to transfer fuel from the fuel tanks through a fuel line and into the engine. After receiving his initial certification, Davenport made a series of changes to his fuel system without notifying the FAA. Davenport first converted the gravity feed system into a pressurized fuel system by installing a mechanical fuel pump and an electric boost pump. After flying the aircraft for fifteen hours, Davenport removed the fuel pumps and reconfigured the system to its original gravity feed design, again without notifying the FAA. Hoping to improve the performance of his aircraft, Davenport soon reinstalled the mechanized fuel pumps but again failed to inform the FAA of this change. Davenport eventually grew dissatisfied with the pressurized fuel system, and he removed the pumps--once again without notifying the FAA. In sum, following the FAA's initial certification, Davenport made four modifications to the design of his fuel system without notifying the FAA of these changes or seeking FAA recertification of his aircraft. On May 7, 1995, with the most recent version of the gravity feed fuel system in place, Davenport crashed his aircraft near an airport in Santa Monica, California. The accident caused property damage on the ground, which in turn spawned numerous claims against Davenport in California state courts. Avemco filed this suit in federal district court, asserting diversity jurisdiction and seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Davenport for claims arising from the accident. On October 30, 1996, the district court granted summary judgment in Avemco's favor. The district court held that the Policy Exclusion applied because Davenport had not recertified his aircraft after he modified its fuel system without notifying the FAA. Davenport now appeals. II. We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Wendt v. Host Int'l Inc., 125 F.3d 806, 809 (9th Cir. 1997). Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue of material fact and if the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).1 Under California law, the language of a contract governs its interpretation "if the language is clear and explicit, and does not involve an absurdity." Cal. Civ. Code S 1638. "[I]f the meaning a layperson would ascribe to contract language is not ambiguous, we apply that meaning." AIU Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (FMC Corp.), 799 P.2d 1253, 1264 (Cal. 1990). Exclusionary language that limits coverage under an insurance policy must be conspicuous and phrased in clear language. Hertz Corp. v. Home Ins. Co., 18 Cal. Rptr. 2d 267, 273 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993). [1] We hold that the language of the Avemco policy clearly excluded coverage in this case. The Policy Exclusion stated that Davenport's aircraft would be covered only if it was certified for flight "after a modification which requires recertification." Avemco Policy at 3. This language explicitly premised coverage on Davenport's compliance with FAA restrictions. These restrictions included an operating limitation that required Davenport to notify the FAA upon making a change that could affect the "reliability, operational characteristics, or other characteristics affecting the airworthiness of the [aircraft]." 14 C.F.R. S 21.93(a). Davenport's failure to notify the FAA prior to his initial modification of the fuel system violated the operating limitation on his airworthiness certificate and prohibited Davenport from operating the aircraft without recertification. See 14 C.F.R. S 91.9(a) (1993) ("[N]o person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operational limitations . . . prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry."). Davenport's failure to notify the FAA of his repeated modifications to his aircraft's fuel system clearly triggered the Policy Exclusion and released Avemco from any obligation to indemnify Davenport. [2] Davenport argues that the series of modifications he made to his aircraft's fuel system did not constitute a "major change" because the fuel system at the time of the crash was in the same configuration as at the time of the initial certification. We reject this argument. Common sense dictates that altering the method of delivering fuel to the engine of an aircraft has an obvious and substantial effect on the "reliability, operational characteristics, or other characteristics affecting the airworthiness of the [aircraft]." 14 C.F.R. S 21.93(a).2 The fact that Davenport made repeated changes to the fuel system did not remedy his failure to notify the FAA prior to making each change. Each change Davenport made to the fuel system was major, and each change therefore required FAA notification under the operating limitation. Davenport also argues that the Policy Exclusion was vague and ambiguous, and that it should therefore be construed to allow coverage. "[W]ords in an insurance policy must be read in their ordinary sense, and any ambiguity cannot be based on a strained interpretation of the policy language. " Producers Dairy Delivery Co. v. Sentry Ins. Co., 718 P.2d 920, 925 (Cal. 1986). Furthermore, the "language in a contract must be construed in the context of that instrument as a whole, and in the circumstances of that case, and cannot be found to be ambiguous in the abstract." Bank of the West v. Superior Court (Industrial Indem. Co.), 833 P.2d 545, 552 (Cal. 1992)(quotations and emphases omitted). [3] We find no ambiguity in Davenport's policy. The policy clearly linked Avemco's coverage to the continued validity of the FAA's certification of Davenport's aircraft. Because California courts do not find ambiguity in exclusions that similarly incorporate FAA requirements by reference, see, e.g., Threlkeld v. Ranger Ins. Co., 202 Cal. Rptr. 529, 532 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984), we will not do so here. [4] Davenport finally argues that, even if there is no duty to indemnify, Avemco owed Davenport a duty to defend against pending state suits. Although the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify, see Horace Mann Ins. Co. v. Barbara B., 846 P.2d 792, 795 (Cal. 1993), no duty to defend arises if the undisputed facts establish that the insured is not entitled to coverage. Montrose Chem. Corp. v. Superior Court (Canadian Universal Ins. Co.), 861 P.2d 1153, 1159 (Cal. 1993) (agreeing with lower court that, "where extrinsic evidence establishes that the ultimate question of coverage can be determined as a matter of law on undisputed facts, [there is] no reason to prevent an insurer from seeking summary adjudication that no potential for liability exists and thus that it has no duty to defend." (quotation omitted)). Because the facts viewed in the light most favorable to Davenport could not have established coverage under the policy, Avemco was entitled to summary judgment on Davenport's allegation of a duty to defend. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. AFFIRMED. ________________________________________ 1 Because diversity jurisdiction exists in this case, the district court could hear Avemco's declaratory judgment action in its discretion. See 28 U.S.C. S 2201(a). Because there was no objection to the district court's exercise of its discretion in hearing this case, and because we do not find extraordinary circumstances that warrant an independent inquiry by this Court, we will not review the district court's exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction. Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Dizol, 133 F.3d 1220, 1224 & n.4 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). 2 Indeed, in an analogous regulation applying to the maintenance and repair of non-experimental aircraft, the FAA has defined major alterations as including "[c]hanges to the basic design of the fuel . . . system[ ]." 14 C.F.R. S 43 app. A(a)(1)(xii). -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rhino Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 11:45 AM Subject: Zenith-List: Re: a gentle suggestion Gig Giacona wrote: > hills(at)sunflower.com wrote: > > > ....Even though he had gone back to the original fuel system configuration, as > > ok'ed, by the DAR, the insurance company tried to deny his claim saying that > > he had made major changes to the fuel system without notifying the FAA and > > therefore nullifying this insurance.... > > > Or the moral of the story might be follow the law. He made his mistake in notifing the FSDO of the changes has he made them and following the rules. The current rules don't require that the FSDO approve any major changes. They simply require a logbook entry and a flight test period, both of which are the responsibility of the builder/owner/pilot, not the FAA. The only place an FSDO is involved is in approving the location of the flight test area. The old rules used to require FSDO inspection and re-certification, from 1985 to 1993. From 1993 to 1999 the inspection and re-certification requirement was dropped, requiring only a written approval of the change from the FSDO. From 1999 to 2004 no FSDO involvement was required whatsoever, totally eliminating a approval requirement. From 2004 on, there is only the FSDO approval of the location of the test area required. The FSDO does not approve your major changes, and you are not required to discuss the change with them beyond what affect the change may require on the testing location. As such, your insurance company cannot deny a claim because there was no FAA notification of the specific major change itself. And this only applies to the five hour test period anyway, a period that is assigned by you, not by the FAA. As for what hills(at)sunflower.com wrote, the legality would not only depend on the details of the circumstances, but also as to when this actually happened. Does a change to your fuel system plumbing really qualify as a major change? Admittedly subjective since the FAA never specifies what major change actually means, but likely it is not. When did this happen, and what rules were in effect at the time? Was the test period actually adhered to? Did the incident occur during the test period? If yes, was the aircraft being operated within the specified test area? Without that information, none of us can adequately judge if the actions of either party were proper or improper. By the way, although the original date of Order 8130.2E is January 23, 2003, two changes have been made to it since then. The 2004 requirement I mention above was one of those changes. -------- Bob Simmons CH 750!!! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228896#228896 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.