Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 09:42 AM - Re: Re: crash B.S. (Juan Vega)
2. 10:22 AM - Re: Re: crash B.S. (Jay Maynard)
3. 10:45 AM - Re: Re: crash B.S. (Paul Mulwitz)
4. 10:51 AM - Re: Re: crash B.S. (Juan Vega)
5. 11:03 AM - Re: Re: crash B.S. (Jay Maynard)
6. 11:49 AM - Re: Re: crash B.S. (Juan Vega)
7. 12:50 PM - Re: Re: crash B.S. (William Dominguez)
8. 01:01 PM - Re: crash B.S. (pavel569)
9. 01:01 PM - Re: Formation Flying (Rhino)
10. 02:31 PM - Re: crash B.S. (rans6andrew)
11. 02:52 PM - Re: Re: crash B.S. (Paul Mulwitz)
12. 03:02 PM - Re: crash B.S. (Rhino)
13. 03:06 PM - Re: Re: crash B.S. (Juan Vega)
14. 03:06 PM - Re: Re: crash B.S. (Juan Vega)
15. 03:15 PM - Re: Re: crash B.S. (Phil Maxson)
16. 04:24 PM - Re: Re: crash B.S. (Bill Pagan)
17. 05:48 PM - Re: Re: crash B.S. (Flydog1966@aol.com)
18. 05:58 PM - Re: Re: crash B.S. (thesumak@aol.com)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: crash B.S. |
your right they are defending themselves on the design. The issue is that they
designed the plane not built it. And everyone that trashes the design becuase
of their grand theories on why the planes crashed are trashing a great design,
not the builders or flyers. Frankly I am over and done with it. Lets start
looking at the facts, that most to all the accidents are due to pilot or maintenance
issues. You guys that keep hunting for a problem after it is stated over
and over again there is no design problem, need to find something else to do
like go hunt for UFOs in the desert. My brand of BS smells more like perfume
when compare to the BS you guys are dishing out over the wrong thing.
The guy in Utah crashed and already you guys are theorizing about the airfame,
give it a brake.
Juan
Do not archive.
-----Original Message-----
>From: thesumak@aol.com
>Sent: Mar 5, 2009 8:57 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: RE: crash B.S.
>
>I agree with the notion of personal responsibility Juan.? I also understand that
pilot error is a common contributor to aircraft accidents.? However, your counsel
that we should assume pilot ineptitude before we get the facts is to my
mind speculative BS no better than the speculative BS about the aircraft that
you see fit to lecture us about over and over and over again.
>
>I may be alone in this, but I would suggest that your brand of BS is especially
inappropriate? At least the good folks at Zenith and the people on this list
that have an association with the company have the ability to defend themselves
against unfounded speculation about their products.
>
>Bill
>601xl
>
>do not archive
>
>
>Juan said:? I say you keep blaming the pilot until the facts are in.
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: crash B.S. |
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 12:38:38PM -0500, Juan Vega wrote:
> Lets start looking at the facts, that most to all the accidents are due to
> pilot or maintenance issues. You guys that keep hunting for a problem
> after it is stated over and over again there is no design problem, need to
> find something else to do like go hunt for UFOs in the desert. My brand
> of BS smells more like perfume when compare to the BS you guys are dishing
> out over the wrong thing.
Juan, you keep ignoring N158MD. How does that accident fit into your view?
I agree that it's far too soon to assign a cause to the Utah crash, but it's
not as black and white as you claim either.
Don't blind yourself to the facts. ALL of the facts. That goes for everyone.
--
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 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: crash B.S. |
Hi Juan,
I hate to get in the middle of this argument, but I had a strong
reaction to your comment that there is no design problem. I have the
greatest respect for your experience flying the XL, but unfortunately
that doesn't make you an expert on aircraft design issues. I am not
one either, but I am concerned that there really is some sort of
issue with the XL design that needs improvement.
Apparently, the LAA and the Dutch folks agree with me. They may be
going too far, but they really are experts in this sort of
stuff. Being bureaucrats, they are programmed to remove all risk
from anything they do. That means their conclusion alone is not to
be believed. Still, there have been just too many in flight wing
separations for me to believe there is no problem at all.
I believe the basic design of the XL is quite sound and the number
flying with no problem reinforces this belief. The testing of static
strength has been repeated and shown the structure to be
adequate. However, there has not been dynamic testing of the
design. This is probably impractical to do. The idea remains
unverified that the design holds up under all reasonable dynamic
situations. Said another way, there is still a possibility that a
design problem exists.
I do not favor all the amateur (fantasy?) engineer efforts to imagine
what the problem might be and how to fix it. I think we all need to
be reasonably patient and see what the real experts have to say after
their very slow consideration.
My only point here is that the possibility exists of a problem - not
that there actually is one.
Paul
XL getting close
do not archive
At 09:38 AM 3/6/2009, you wrote:
>your right they are defending themselves on the design. The issue
>is that they designed the plane not built it. And everyone that
>trashes the design becuase of their grand theories on why the planes
>crashed are trashing a great design, not the builders or flyers.
>Frankly I am over and done with it. Lets start looking at the
>facts, that most to all the accidents are due to pilot or
>maintenance issues. You guys that keep hunting for a problem after
>it is stated over and over again there is no design problem, need
>to find something else to do like go hunt for UFOs in the
>desert. My brand of BS smells more like perfume when compare to the
>BS you guys are dishing out over the wrong thing.
>
>The guy in Utah crashed and already you guys are theorizing about
>the airfame, give it a brake.
>
>Juan
>Do not archive.
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: crash B.S. |
one crash is not a finger pointing to what happened in the other crashes. each
one has its own set of issues. most point to the builder or pilot.
Do not archive
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard@conmicro.com>
>Sent: Mar 6, 2009 1:19 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: RE: crash B.S.
>
>
>On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 12:38:38PM -0500, Juan Vega wrote:
>> Lets start looking at the facts, that most to all the accidents are due to
>> pilot or maintenance issues. You guys that keep hunting for a problem
>> after it is stated over and over again there is no design problem, need to
>> find something else to do like go hunt for UFOs in the desert. My brand
>> of BS smells more like perfume when compare to the BS you guys are dishing
>> out over the wrong thing.
>
>Juan, you keep ignoring N158MD. How does that accident fit into your view?
>
>I agree that it's far too soon to assign a cause to the Utah crash, but it's
>not as black and white as you claim either.
>
>Don't blind yourself to the facts. ALL of the facts. That goes for everyone.
>--
>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 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: crash B.S. |
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 01:45:55PM -0500, Juan Vega wrote:
> one crash is not a finger pointing to what happened in the other crashes.
> each one has its own set of issues. most point to the builder or pilot.
That's my point. You keep saying that it's not a design issue, and that the
majority of crashes point to pilot or builder error. That the latter may
well be true does in no way rule out the former. To rule out a design issue,
you must show that in *no* crash was there a design issue that led to the
breakup. So far, you have not done so.
I fully agree that we should not be running around saying the sky is
falling. We shouldn't ignore the possibility, either. There's a middle road,
and that's where the prudent pilot, builder, and owner will be.
--
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 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: crash B.S. |
the problem is you are assuming there are in fact in flight wing separations,
no one has stated or proved that is the case. I hear where you are coming from
and I respect it. but your statement drives home my point, everyone has created
out of speculation a fact that was never there. SHow me where it says that
the wings fell off due to a defect, or that the crash was caused byt he wing
flying off out of thin air. Its not there. Gossip and speculation became,
fact?
Every government organization that has investigated the crashes in the U.S. took
the time to take a clean sheet of paper, and design the plane as if from scratch.
all the plans came out the same and the math all came out the same, that
it is a well designed plane with no hidden issues.
Yet people still say its the wing. SHow me the fact its the wing, it isn't there.
Yet they are trying to create and force the fact to reality.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net>
>Sent: Mar 6, 2009 1:41 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: RE: crash B.S.
>
>
>Hi Juan,
>
>I hate to get in the middle of this argument, but I had a strong
>reaction to your comment that there is no design problem. I have the
>greatest respect for your experience flying the XL, but unfortunately
>that doesn't make you an expert on aircraft design issues. I am not
>one either, but I am concerned that there really is some sort of
>issue with the XL design that needs improvement.
>
>Apparently, the LAA and the Dutch folks agree with me. They may be
>going too far, but they really are experts in this sort of
>stuff. Being bureaucrats, they are programmed to remove all risk
>from anything they do. That means their conclusion alone is not to
>be believed. Still, there have been just too many in flight wing
>separations for me to believe there is no problem at all.
>
>I believe the basic design of the XL is quite sound and the number
>flying with no problem reinforces this belief. The testing of static
>strength has been repeated and shown the structure to be
>adequate. However, there has not been dynamic testing of the
>design. This is probably impractical to do. The idea remains
>unverified that the design holds up under all reasonable dynamic
>situations. Said another way, there is still a possibility that a
>design problem exists.
>
>I do not favor all the amateur (fantasy?) engineer efforts to imagine
>what the problem might be and how to fix it. I think we all need to
>be reasonably patient and see what the real experts have to say after
>their very slow consideration.
>
>My only point here is that the possibility exists of a problem - not
>that there actually is one.
>
>Paul
>XL getting close
>do not archive
>
>
>At 09:38 AM 3/6/2009, you wrote:
>>your right they are defending themselves on the design. The issue
>>is that they designed the plane not built it. And everyone that
>>trashes the design becuase of their grand theories on why the planes
>>crashed are trashing a great design, not the builders or flyers.
>>Frankly I am over and done with it. Lets start looking at the
>>facts, that most to all the accidents are due to pilot or
>>maintenance issues. You guys that keep hunting for a problem after
>>it is stated over and over again there is no design problem, need
>>to find something else to do like go hunt for UFOs in the
>>desert. My brand of BS smells more like perfume when compare to the
>>BS you guys are dishing out over the wrong thing.
>>
>>The guy in Utah crashed and already you guys are theorizing about
>>the airfame, give it a brake.
>>
>>Juan
>>Do not archive.
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: crash B.S. |
Juan wrote:
"the problem is you are assuming there are in fact in flight wing separatio
ns,- no one has stated or proved that is the case."
No one have stated? what about the NTSB when they state "the structural fai
lure of the wings for undetermined reasons." as the probable cause for the
accident. I'm aware that this statement leave out any reason why the wings
failed, but it does state that the a wing failed and caused the accident.
So if the NTSB state that a wing failed and caused the accident, couldn't t
hat be considered a fact? specially since there are more cases with similar
notes.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Juan Vega Jr wrote:
> Frankly I am over and done with it.
Why don't you let it go, then? Try to ignore the posts related to the design issues.
If we all do this and wait for the real experts results, there will be no
more of pointless discussions. I know, you can say "how about if there is no
results from experts ?" - then fly as usually, its not a coffin. They would ground
the plane if there are a possible design issues.
-do not archive-
--------
Pavel
CA
Zodiac XL N581PM (Reserved)
Stratus Subaru EA-81
Tail, flaps, ailerons, wings done, fuselage is on the table ....
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=233508#233508
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Formation Flying |
a.s.elliott(at)cox.net wrote:
> FFI is the group that certifies non-warbird demo groups (including RV's) for
the FAA.
Really? There ain't zippity do da at their web site. As the official group, you
think they'd have at least some information, but there's basically nothing at
all.
http://www.formationfly.org/
--------
Bob Simmons
CH 750!!!
N750TN (reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=233509#233509
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Juan, have you read the following, which I posted in December? Nobody has criticised
it so I guess it is reasonable, level headed stuff.
I had been thinking along the same lines as Scotsman (who is from South Africa,
apparently) and then I came around to comparing accident types and rates with
other Zenair(ith) designs.
I don't know how many 601XLs there are out there or indeed how many 601HDs there
are or 601ULs there are. In the UK we currently have 20 XLs on the register,
28 ULs , 17 HD and 10 HDS models. So less than 30 % of the fleet is XL types.
Is this typical of the ratio in the world as a whole?
If it is, assuming that the same sort of people buy/build ULs, HDs, HDSs and XL
varients, assuming that the same spread of pilot abilities, the same ratio of
aerobatic wannabees buy each model and the same spread of builder competences
we should be hearing about 3 times as many in flight break ups of the non XL
types as XL types.
We don't.
In the UK we have had only one aircraft break up in flight, a UL, when it was observed
to be beating up an airstrip and pulling up to avoid overhead power lines,
with two people and significant fuel on board. The investigation suggested
that the pilot was in the habit of this type of flying and the airframe was
overstressed on this or on a previous occasion leading to the failure. This is
the only non XL 601 in flight break up I have heard about.
Where are the others?
This line of thinking tells me that either I have missed something significant
or that there is something peculiar to the XL.
Please correct me if there is a fatal flaw in my reasoning.
Oh, and feel free to flame me 'cos it seems to be par for the course if you post
from the UK!
Andrew - in the UK and building a 601UL.
I'm going to run the engine for the first time this weekend.
--------
A good way through building a 601UL with 912UL.
Still flying Rans S6 with 503.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=233513#233513
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: crash B.S. |
Hi Juan,
Indeed there have been well documented wing separations in flight. I
believe the two incidents in California included this feature. One
of them had a "Probable cause" determined by a complete NTSB
investigation that ruled the wings had separated in flight for
unknown reasons. I think the other one had a similar ruling.
That doesn't say there is anything wrong with the wing itself. It
just says it became separated in flight. We still don't know why
this happened.
Best regards,
Paul
XL getting close
do not archive
At 11:45 AM 3/6/2009, you wrote:
>the problem is you are assuming there are in fact in flight wing
>separations, no one has stated or proved that is the case. I hear
>where you are coming from and I respect it. but your statement
>drives home my point, everyone has created out of speculation a
>fact that was never there. SHow me where it says that the wings
>fell off due to a defect, or that the crash was caused byt he wing
>flying off out of thin air. Its not there. Gossip and speculation
>became, fact?
>Every government organization that has investigated the crashes in
>the U.S. took the time to take a clean sheet of paper, and design
>the plane as if from scratch. all the plans came out the same and
>the math all came out the same, that it is a well designed plane
>with no hidden issues.
>Yet people still say its the wing. SHow me the fact its the wing,
>it isn't there. Yet they are trying to create and force the fact to reality.
>
>Juan
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
jmaynard wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 12:38:38PM -0500, Juan Vega wrote:
>
> > Lets start looking at the facts, that most to all the accidents are due to
> > pilot or maintenance issues. You guys that keep hunting for a problem
> > after it is stated over and over again there is no design problem, need to
> > find something else to do like go hunt for UFOs in the desert. My brand
> > of BS smells more like perfume when compare to the BS you guys are dishing
> > out over the wrong thing.
>
> Juan, you keep ignoring N158MD. How does that accident fit into your view?
I can't speak for Juan, but N158MD seems to fit perfectly into what he said.
> While cruising toward Willows, about 10 minutes after takeoff and 16 miles west
of Lincoln, five ground-based witnesses heard the airplane. Two of the witnesses
also observed the airplane prior to the breakup.
>
> In summary, three of the auditory witnesses reported hearing a "bang" sound.
One of these witnesses reported that for about 10 seconds prior to hearing the
"bang," the engine was misfiring or sputtering. The sound increased in loudness
and ended with a loud "bang."
>
> The fourth witness reported to a Sutter County Sheriff's deputy that he had been
working in his field when he heard an airplane overhead. The witness opined
that the airplane's engine was missing really badly. A few seconds later, as
he was looking at it flying an estimated 800 to 1,200 feet above ground level,
the airplane "blew up." The wings flew off, parts went everywhere, and the cockpit
turned in circles as it descended.
>
> The fifth witness reported to the Safety Board investigator that he was a retired
United States Air Force mechanic and was familiar with light airplanes. The
witness was standing outside his residence, about 0.5-mile southeast of the
accident site. In summary, the witness reported that he heard the sound of the
airplane's engine, and it sounded fine. It was operating smoothly, its rpm sounded
steady in that it was producing a constant tone, and it was not backfiring
or sputtering. Then, the witness looked upward in the direction of the engine
sound and immediately observed the airplane. The airplane was northwest of
his location, and it was cruising in a northwesterly direction. Its wings were
level. The airplane was not turning, climbing, or descending. The witnesses
further stated that he could clearly see the airplane and saw no evidence of fire
or smoke trailing from it.
>
> The fifth witness additionally reported that, after a few seconds, he stopped
looking at the airplane and started talking on his cell phone. The witness estimated
that he looked away from the airplane for about 5 seconds. Then, he heard
the sound of the airplane's engine rapidly change rpm. Within about 0.5 seconds,
it decreased and then increased, as if the pilot had retarded the throttle
and then suddenly changed his mind and restored the power. When the rpm came
back up, it did not sound like the engine had over revved. The tone sounded
the same as before the power had decreased. The witness reported that immediately
after the engine power came back up, he heard the sound of an explosion,
which was followed by the sound of metal scraping.
>
> Thereafter, he saw what he believed were three distinctive large components falling.
The components were the wings and the fuselage. The witnesses stated that
it took perhaps 6 to 8 seconds for the airplane to fall, and it fell straight
down. As the components descended, the fuselage spiraled around. There was
no fire or smoke.
>
> The witness opined that, originally, he thought there had been a mid-air collision.
However, there was no other aircraft in the area.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX07FA026&rpt=fa
The aircraft actually took off 78 pounds over gross and was about 68 over when
it crashed, but I don't see that as a factor.
All witnesses reported the aircraft in level or near level flight when the accident
occurred. If the airframe failed due to some design deficiency, then why
did both the wings and stabilizer fail downward instead of upward? In level flight,
natural forces push those surfaces up, not down. Indeed, the left wing even
had a tire mark on it's underside from striking the landing gear.
Several of the witnesses strongly indicated engine trouble prior to the breakup.
This is a double edged sword though. While engine trouble may have been the
catalyst for this event, it is unlikely that an engine problem would create an
explosion of a magnitude that would cause the aircraft to break up. On the other
hand, some types of dramatic engine failures have resulted in major changes
to the flight characteristics of some aircraft. Such changes could conceivably
cause the aircraft to transition into an attitude that created forces beyond
it's design limits. It is also possible that a pilots reaction to a sudden problem
caused him to inadvertently do the same thing. Both of those types of scenarios
have happened before.
Teledyne Continental Motors (TCM) reported that AMD had made modifications to the
O-200 engine that were contrary to TCM's tested design and TCM had never tested
the engine with AMD's modifications. I tend to doubt that's very relevant.
The nature of those mods don't suggest a catastrophic failure.
The owners had replaced a magneto without documenting it. The new magneto timing
was found to be 32 degrees BTDC instead of the required 28.
The starter was an aftermarket accessory whose installation was also not documented.
The gasket for the starter was not properly. The drive coupling was noted
to be loose, and actually fell out when they removed the starter. This alone
does not look to have been a factor in the crash. TCM found that a required starter
adapter plug assembly had inadvertently not been installed when the engine
was manufactured. It is designed to keep oil out of an area of the engine
where it is not desired, essentially the area of the starter. TCM said that would
not have caused anything more than a leak around the starter, possibly made
worse by the improper starter installation mentioned above (the engine was not
oil starved at the time of the crash). TCM later admitted that they had detected
the oil leak during initial testing of the engine during manufacture, and
that they were responsible for the improper starter installation.
There was a gear tooth broken off in the crankshaft assembly, but it appeared to
have occurred on impact.
One of the aircraft owners reported that they sometimes noticed an unusual vibration
in the floor area of the cockpit. The report makes no significance of that,
but it does make me go hmmmm.
Now for the meat of the issue. The right and left wing rear spar attachment plates,
the rear spar root doublers, the wing rear channel (spar), the center spar
web, front and rear, the center spar cap (main wing spar), center section; and
the rear spar attachment for the stabilizer. were measured to determine conformity
with construction specifications. The thickness measurements of all examined
components were found consistent with the design specifications. No anomalies
were noted by the Safety Board investigator or the AMD participant. That
means that the previously tested, proven and approved design limits were present
in the construction of the crashed aircraft.
The aft 4 feet of the airplane's rear empennage, horizontal stabilizer with attached
elevator, vertical stabilizer, rudder, and the left aileron were examined
by a metallurgist from the Safety Board. The metallurgist did not report finding
any evidence of preimpact cracking or damage in any of the examined parts.
In other words, there was no evidence of an inflight breakup of the horizontal
stabilizer.
And finally, the airplane's entire structure was examined by an aerospace engineer
from the Safety Board. The engineer reported that all of the fracture surfaces
examined exhibited features consistent with static overload. In other words,
they happened as a result of stresses beyond the design limits of the aircraft,
which means there was no design deficiency that caused the breakup. All
breakups, fractures, etc were caused by the aircraft exceeding the design limits
after whatever unknown factor initially caused the accident scenario to unfold.
In the end the NTSB determined "In-flight structural failure of the horizontal
stabilizer and wings for undetermined reasons." It says undetermined for a good
reason, because they have no evidence to indicate a specific reason, to include
a design deficiency. On the contrary, their investigation very strongly indicates
that there was no design deficiency at all related to this crash.
With zero evidence to indicate a design deficiency in this crash, or in any other
601 crash for that matter, it really isn't necessary for Juan to explain how
N158MD fits into his view.
Is it possible that that particular aircraft crashed due to some construction deficiency?
Sure it is, but none of the evidence points to that, and a lot of the
evidence seems to preclude it. Notice that I said it was possible that it crashed
due to some construction deficiency, not a design deficiency. If there
was indeed such a design deficiency in the 601, the NTSB would certainly have
at least hinted at it. And such a deficiency would almost certainly have shown
up loooong ago when you consider how many of them are flying.
Anyone can opine that there is some very minute possibility of a heretofore unknown
design deficiency. But if we really want to venture into the realm of very
minute possibilities then we could also opine that the aircraft could have been
struck by a meteorite.
There's a big difference between making a wild guess and claiming something as
true or even probable. It's even a good idea to ask if you think something is
true or even probable. But to claim something as true or even probable without
some definitive or even remotely associated evidence is quite rightly going to
make you subject to disagreement. It is also difficult to raise an incident
as evidence of your cause, when the true facts of that incident seems to prove
the opposite of what you claim.
When it all boils down to it, anybody is free to believe whatever they want. It
just saves everyone grief and frustration if people don't claim something as
fact when they have no evidence of that. No, jmaynard, I'm not saying you are
specifically doing that. It just seems to be an underlying train of thought for
some people in discussions like this.
--------
Bob Simmons
CH 750!!!
N750TN (reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=233521#233521
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
burying your head in the sand and keeping quite is a sure bet on making falacies
become reality. if no one is saying anything to the contrary, it must be so.
Frankly I don't want to keep quiet. Becuase saying the plane has a problem,
a wing problem due to bad design, has been disproven , and is wrong.
Yes Zentih folks at the factory are big boys, but frankly if noone says anything
about the BS it tends to become fact.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: pavel569 <pm569@HOTMAIL.COM>
>Sent: Mar 6, 2009 3:57 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: crash B.S.
>
>
>
>Juan Vega Jr wrote:
>> Frankly I am over and done with it.
>
>Why don't you let it go, then? Try to ignore the posts related to the design issues.
If we all do this and wait for the real experts results, there will be
no more of pointless discussions. I know, you can say "how about if there is no
results from experts ?" - then fly as usually, its not a coffin. They would
ground the plane if there are a possible design issues.
>
>-do not archive-
>
>--------
>Pavel
>CA
>Zodiac XL N581PM (Reserved)
>Stratus Subaru EA-81
>Tail, flaps, ailerons, wings done, fuselage is on the table ....
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=233508#233508
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: crash B.S. |
if you read the full report, it says it was due to the fact the guy took the wing
off and was in storage, and put a defective bolt. Not a wing issue, a bad
bolt issue. again the wing desing is not the issue. ANy wing will separate from
a body if not proporely attached.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net>
>Sent: Mar 6, 2009 5:49 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: RE: crash B.S.
>
>
>Hi Juan,
>
>Indeed there have been well documented wing separations in flight. I
>believe the two incidents in California included this feature. One
>of them had a "Probable cause" determined by a complete NTSB
>investigation that ruled the wings had separated in flight for
>unknown reasons. I think the other one had a similar ruling.
>
>That doesn't say there is anything wrong with the wing itself. It
>just says it became separated in flight. We still don't know why
>this happened.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Paul
>XL getting close
>do not archive
>
>
>At 11:45 AM 3/6/2009, you wrote:
>>the problem is you are assuming there are in fact in flight wing
>>separations, no one has stated or proved that is the case. I hear
>>where you are coming from and I respect it. but your statement
>>drives home my point, everyone has created out of speculation a
>>fact that was never there. SHow me where it says that the wings
>>fell off due to a defect, or that the crash was caused byt he wing
>>flying off out of thin air. Its not there. Gossip and speculation
>>became, fact?
>>Every government organization that has investigated the crashes in
>>the U.S. took the time to take a clean sheet of paper, and design
>>the plane as if from scratch. all the plans came out the same and
>>the math all came out the same, that it is a well designed plane
>>with no hidden issues.
>>Yet people still say its the wing. SHow me the fact its the wing,
>>it isn't there. Yet they are trying to create and force the fact to reality.
>>
>>Juan
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Oh, boy. Here we go again. I'm going out flying to get away from all this.
Phil Maxson
601XL/Corvair
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: crash B.S. |
Sounds like you're looking for fight Bill.- Shouldn't be so willing to fi
ght without all the facts unless it's just the fight you're lookin for.
Bill Pagan
--- On Thu, 3/5/09, thesumak@aol.com <thesumak@aol.com> wrote:
From: thesumak@aol.com <thesumak@aol.com>
Subject: Zenith-List: RE: crash B.S.
I agree with the notion of personal responsibility Juan.- I also understa
nd that pilot error is a common contributor to aircraft accidents.- Howev
er, your counsel that we should assume pilot ineptitude before we get the f
acts is to my mind speculative BS no better than the speculative BS about t
he aircraft that you see fit to lecture us about over and over and over aga
in.
I may be alone in this, but I would suggest that your brand of BS is especi
ally inappropriate- At least the good folks at Zenith and the people on t
his list that have an association with the company have the ability to defe
nd themselves against unfounded speculation about their products.
Bill
601xl
do not archive
Juan said:- I say you keep blaming the pilot until the facts are in.
Access 350+ FREE radio stations anytime from anywhere on the web. Get the R
adio Toolbar!
=0A=0A=0A
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: crash B.S. |
In a message dated 3/6/2009 12:46:20 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
amyvega2005@earthlink.net writes:
need to find something else to do like go hunt for UFOs in the desert.
Why? What have you heard? Was there another crash?
**************Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a
recession.
(http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare00000002)
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: crash B.S. |
My point to Juan and now to you Bill Pagan is clear.? Before we know the facts
about any accident, speculation about pilot competence is as inappropriate as
speculation about aircraft integrity.? I assume that like Juan, you disagree
with this statement and that's fine.? Trust me, I'm not looking for a fight.?
I was really hoping that someone else would deal with Juan's comment: "keep blaming
the pilot until the facts are in".? No one did.? I could not leave such
a statement unchallenged.
Cheers,
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Pagan <pdn8r@yahoo.com>
Sent: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 7:22 pm
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: RE: crash B.S.
Sounds like you're looking for fight Bill.? Shouldn't be so willing to fight without
all the facts unless it's just the fight you're lookin for.
Bill Pagan
--- On Thu, 3/5/09, thesumak@aol.com <thesumak@aol.com> wrote:
From: thesumak@aol.com <thesumak@aol.com>
Subject: Zenith-List: RE: crash B.S.
I agree with the notion of personal responsibility Juan.? I also understand that
pilot error is a common contributor to aircraft accidents.? However, your counsel
that we should assume pilot ineptitude before we get the facts is to my
mind speculative BS no better than the speculative BS about the aircraft that
you see fit to lecture us about over and over and over again..
I may be alone in this, but I would suggest that your brand of BS is especially
inappropriate? At least the good folks at Zenith and the people on this list
that have an association with the company have the ability to defend themselves
against unfounded speculation about their products.
Bill
601xl
do not archive
Juan said:? I say you keep blaming the pilot until the facts are in.
Access 350+ FREE radio stations anytime from anywhere on the web. Get the Radio
Toolbar!
arget=_blank rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
=nofollow>http://forums.matronics.com
blank rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|