Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:05 AM - Re: Re: I need your help... (Afterfxllc@aol.com)
2. 03:19 AM - Re: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (Dave)
3. 03:23 AM - Re: Re: First real result of the NTSB report (Jay Maynard)
4. 03:34 AM - Re: Flight training in homebuilt. (kmccune)
5. 04:09 AM - Re: Re: First real result of the NTSB report (Jay Maynard)
6. 05:34 AM - Re: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (jaybannist@cs.com)
7. 05:54 AM - Re: Re: First real result of the NTSB report (Roger & Lina Hill)
8. 05:55 AM - Flight training in homebuilt -update (601corvair)
9. 06:22 AM - drill bit for A6 pop rivet? (Carlos Sa)
10. 06:43 AM - Re: First real result of the NTSB report (hansriet)
11. 06:44 AM - Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (Gig Giacona)
12. 06:48 AM - Re: First real result of the NTSB report (Gig Giacona)
13. 07:18 AM - Re: Initial Zenith Response (PatrickW)
14. 07:36 AM - Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (ashontz)
15. 07:57 AM - Re: First real result of the NTSB report (hansriet)
16. 08:16 AM - Re: Initial Zenith Response (Gig Giacona)
17. 08:16 AM - Re: Re: First real result of the NTSB report (Jay Maynard)
18. 08:21 AM - Re: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (Jay Maynard)
19. 08:34 AM - Re: Re: First real result of the NTSB report (steve)
20. 08:34 AM - Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (ashontz)
21. 08:39 AM - Re: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (Jay Maynard)
22. 08:47 AM - Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (ashontz)
23. 09:00 AM - Re: First real result of the NTSB report (Gig Giacona)
24. 09:12 AM - Re: Re: First real result of the NTSB report (Jay Maynard)
25. 09:13 AM - Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (Gig Giacona)
26. 09:18 AM - Re: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (Jay Maynard)
27. 09:19 AM - Re: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (Jay Maynard)
28. 09:22 AM - Re: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (Craig Payne)
29. 09:38 AM - Re: Flight training in homebuilt -update (Bob Collins)
30. 09:58 AM - Re: Flight training in homebuilt -update (David Brooks)
31. 10:10 AM - Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (Sabrina)
32. 10:32 AM - Re: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (Jay Maynard)
33. 10:33 AM - Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (ashontz)
34. 10:53 AM - Re: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (Jay Maynard)
35. 11:04 AM - Re: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (William Dominguez)
36. 11:08 AM - Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (Sabrina)
37. 11:18 AM - Re: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (Paul Mulwitz)
38. 11:20 AM - Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (Sabrina)
39. 11:20 AM - Re: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (William Dominguez)
40. 11:39 AM - Re: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (Paul Mulwitz)
41. 11:48 AM - Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (Gig Giacona)
42. 11:52 AM - Re: Re: First real result of the NTSB report (steve)
43. 11:53 AM - Re: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (Dave)
44. 12:03 PM - Re: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (Paul Mulwitz)
45. 12:13 PM - Re: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (steve)
46. 12:20 PM - Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (Gig Giacona)
47. 12:26 PM - Re: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (japhillipsga@aol.com)
48. 12:45 PM - Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (Gig Giacona)
49. 01:02 PM - Re: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (Dave)
50. 01:11 PM - Re: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (Rick Lindstrom)
51. 01:39 PM - Re: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (jaybannist@cs.com)
52. 01:45 PM - Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (Scotsman)
53. 01:58 PM - Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (Gig Giacona)
54. 02:05 PM - Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (Gig Giacona)
55. 02:36 PM - Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (Sabrina)
56. 02:41 PM - Re: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (Dave)
57. 02:43 PM - Re: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US. (Gary Gower)
58. 02:52 PM - Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (Gig Giacona)
59. 03:02 PM - Re: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (Iberplanes IGL)
60. 03:02 PM - Re: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (Juan Vega)
61. 03:02 PM - Re: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (Juan Vega)
62. 03:02 PM - Re: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (Paul Mulwitz)
63. 03:04 PM - Re: Re: Initial Zenith Response (Juan Vega)
64. 03:11 PM - Re: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (Juan Vega)
65. 03:26 PM - Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (hansriet)
66. 03:45 PM - Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (jetboy)
67. 03:55 PM - Re: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (Gary Gower)
68. 04:36 PM - Re: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (Jay Maynard)
69. 04:57 PM - Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (Sabrina)
70. 06:13 PM - Re: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (J.T. Machin)
71. 06:48 PM - Re: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (Dave Austin)
72. 07:20 PM - Re: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (William Dominguez)
73. 08:02 PM - Re: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (J.T. Machin)
74. 08:25 PM - Re: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US (Roger & Lina Hill)
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: I need your help... |
.70 LBS 69.5" cut to fit
Jeff
Can someone weigh an aileron piano hinge for me and give me the length if
it is not cut to length?
**************Access 350+ FREE radio stations anytime from anywhere on the
web. Get the Radio Toolbar!
(http://toolbar.aol.com/aolradio/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000003)
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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
I'm not at all sure that it is just Jay who needs to edit or tone down
comments. Hiding innappropriate language under a scramble of puncuation
doesn't change the language. Juan's Horse S#$!@T.is no better and his very
plain accusation that a federal agency is laying down and doing the bidding
of a single crazed engineer is a little far fetched. As the report points
out ten people are dead so far, and Juan's casual dismissal of the fact and
furthur characterization of it as "their own fault" is far more offensive in
every respect. Simply demanding that everyone who doubts the design should
shut up, or sell out and fly something else has done nothing to stop these
incidents. Perhaps this action will and Juan should be grateful that some
effort will now be expended to clear the issue up once and for all instead
of denying or ignoring it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris@msn.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 11:21 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US
>
> Jay, please edit your comments...
>
> Juan has more credibility here than you since he built rather than
> purchased his airplane. So too, he has given his time to help kids build
> an airplane.
>
> Juan is just pointing out that the NTSB report sounds like it was written
> by Terry.
>
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: First real result of the NTSB report |
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:41:32PM -0700, hansriet wrote:
> Guilty.
Wow...someone eve more famous, and deservedly so, than me...
do not archive
--
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 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: Flight training in homebuilt. |
Tim is correct. The trick is to find one who will do it.
Kevin
--------
Mark Twain: Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that
you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail
away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream.
Discover.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=239477#239477
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: First real result of the NTSB report |
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:00:47PM -0700, hansriet wrote:
> Can't you just use ANY plane to do the check ride? Doesn't need to be LSA.
I believe the CFI-SP checkride needs to be done in an LSA. Even if it
didn't, there's another problem for me: I'm operating without a medical
under the sport pilot rule, so I need to use an LSA (since the examiner
won't be pilot in command during the test, and someone has to).
--
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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
Jay,
I don't know where you get the idea that the NSB is not lobbied.? Of course they
are.? The airline pilots do it all the time.? And I don't know why you think
the NTSB doesn't "cry wolf".? Of course they do - all the time.? It is their
job.? But that doesn't mean that the FAA has believe everything they say or to
do what they recommend.? In fact, they "cry wolf" so often and so vociferously
that the FAA tends to minimize their bleatings.? What is NOT their job is to
make up stuff to support their position.? That is precisely what they have done
in that warning letter. In fact, they made up stuff in the report on my accident.?
I should know since I was very involved.
Just get real.? The HTSB is not above outside influence, not infallible nor indisputable.
Jay Bannister
-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard@conmicro.com>
Sent: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 8:55 pm
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 09:36:14PM -0400, Juan Vega wrote:
> it is so obvious i reading the report twice, and when you read the
> accident reports, someone has lobbied the ntsb HARD!. in the accident
> reports, there is no mention of flutter. Yet, the NTSB report says people
> were quoted in the report , when they were in fact not. This is Horse
> S#$!@T.
Juan, I'm furious right now about not being able to finish up my CFI-SP
because of the NTSB's recommendation.
Even so, I recognize that there may be some fire under all that smoke.
You've continually buried your head in the sand over this issue. You've
attributed every accident to pilot or builder error.
Not ONCE have you offered an explanation for the crash of N158MD, which was
built by AMD and flown conservatively. Never. NOT FUCKING ONCE.
I've had it with you. Put up or SHUT THE FUCK UP!
The NTSB doesn't get lobbied. It doesn't get bribed. It doesn't cry wolf.
If they say there's an issue, there's an issue.
Why do you insist on ignoring the problem?
--
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
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: First real result of the NTSB report |
Ya, I had to do my sport pilot check ride in an Ercoupe, as it was LSA legal
and the Cessna 152 was not.
Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay Maynard
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 6:06 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: First real result of the NTSB report
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:00:47PM -0700, hansriet wrote:
> Can't you just use ANY plane to do the check ride? Doesn't need to be LSA.
I believe the CFI-SP checkride needs to be done in an LSA. Even if it
didn't, there's another problem for me: I'm operating without a medical
under the sport pilot rule, so I need to use an LSA (since the examiner
won't be pilot in command during the test, and someone has to).
--
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 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 |
|
| Subject: | Flight training in homebuilt -update |
=C2-
Thanks for all the answers.=C2-
I think I have a good feel for the rules and how to comply.
We are
building the panel for nighttime VFR and have the minimum equipment list.
=C2- What I had not thought of was the instrument
requirements for flight training.
I
don=99t have the latest version of practical test standard for the US
A for PPSEL.
We currently have no vacuum instruments planned, but could easily modify th
is
at the current stage of building. We have an electric - dog house- turn and
bank and whiskey compass. One com and transponder (mod C), no nav.
We could acquire a venturi driven AI and DG
for about the cost of renting another plane for a few hours.=C2- If I rec
all the instrument requirements dealt
with unusual attitudes and getting in and out of Class C airspace. Keep in
mind
the goal is to get a PPSEL rating to be able to fly daytime VFR on cloudles
s
days. We know our personal limits and are trying to comply with the regs in
a
cost effective fashion.
The good news is
one of us has a PPSEL rating and we can always fly to the best instructor/e
xaminer
situation etc. Does anyone know what the current test standards are and wha
t experience
you need with regard to instruments?
=C2- Is
it up to the instructor's discretion that you prove something?
Like unusual
attitudes or does it require flight experience with specific instruments?
I
guess you can=99t get license with a J3 club like the old days. Ain
=99t technology
grand.
Phill Hartig
=0A=0A=0A
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: | drill bit for A6 pop rivet? |
Can someone confirm that the drill bit for A6 rivets is #10?
Thanks
Carlos
CH601-HD, plans
working on centre wing
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: First real result of the NTSB report |
So are you saying that the CFI-SP doesn't need to have a CPL (with a second class
medical)?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=239501#239501
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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
First, Jay M. I think you need to check the definition of Lobby.
>
> To try to influence (an official) to take a desired action.
There is nothing illegal about it and it doesn't indicate any wrong doing. What
concerns many of us is that when ZBAG was created their stated goal was to do
some third party testing and share this information with Zenith. They didn't
start out as a lobbying organization that's just where they ended up. From reading
ZBAG it seems that many of their members were upset with the slow pace that
Zenith seemed to be taking. Well, I think they are about to find out what slow
really means. The FAA is glacial on just about everything and that is not
necessarily a bad thing. Further, had ZBAG continued in their original mission
and they actually found something and passed this on to Zenith and allowed Zenith
time to study the issue I have little doubt that fix would have been forthcoming.
Let's look at what Zenith has already done. They found that many aircraft
had loose cables and the person with the most knowledge of the airplane believes
that is possibly an issue. They also addressed the issue of over controlling
the elevator with the down elevator stops.
Now that the NTSB is involved the FAA will have to rule one way or another. If
they go with grounding then there will be additional delay because even if a fix
for whatever problem might or might not exist is found then it will have to
be vetted by the FAA and as I mentioned they are known to be glacial.
Second, why can't you finish up your CFI-SP? Your aircraft has not been grounded
by the only government agency with the power to do so the FAA.
--------
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=239502#239502
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: First real result of the NTSB report |
hansriet wrote:
> So are you saying that the CFI-SP doesn't need to have a CPL (with a second class
medical)?
Of course they don't. For that matter a CFI doesn't have to have a medical to give
instruction.
--------
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=239504#239504
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Initial Zenith Response |
kmccune wrote:
> Double check you cable tension and go fly.
> Do this, and fly with in the design limits and you will be fine and happy.
It would appear that the NTSB has a different opinion...
Patrick
N63PZ
--------
Patrick
601XL/Corvair
N63PZ (reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=239509#239509
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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
Exactly.
Like in a good marriage, the word divorce is never utter, so to in aviation and
particularly homebuilding, the words lawyer, FAA and NTSB are never uttered.
Gig Giacona wrote:
> First, Jay M. I think you need to check the definition of Lobby.
>
>
> >
> > To try to influence (an official) to take a desired action.
>
>
> There is nothing illegal about it and it doesn't indicate any wrong doing. What
concerns many of us is that when ZBAG was created their stated goal was to
do some third party testing and share this information with Zenith. They didn't
start out as a lobbying organization that's just where they ended up. From reading
ZBAG it seems that many of their members were upset with the slow pace
that Zenith seemed to be taking. Well, I think they are about to find out what
slow really means. The FAA is glacial on just about everything and that is not
necessarily a bad thing. Further, had ZBAG continued in their original mission
and they actually found something and passed this on to Zenith and allowed
Zenith time to study the issue I have little doubt that fix would have been forthcoming.
Let's look at what Zenith has already done. They found that many aircraft
had loose cables and the person with the most knowledge of the airplane
believes that is possibly an issue. They also addressed the issue of over controlling
the elevator with the down elevator stops.
>
> Now that the NTSB is involved the FAA will have to rule one way or another. If
they go with grounding then there will be additional delay because even if a
fix for whatever problem might or might not exist is found then it will have
to be vetted by the FAA and as I mentioned they are known to be glacial.
>
>
> Second, why can't you finish up your CFI-SP? Your aircraft has not been grounded
by the only government agency with the power to do so the FAA.
--------
Andy Shontz
do not archive
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=239512#239512
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: First real result of the NTSB report |
[quote="jmaynard"]On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:41:32PM -0700, hansriet wrote:
[quote] Guilty.
[/quote]
Wow...someone eve more famous, and deservedly so, than me...
do not archive
--
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[/quote]
That's all relative Jay. I own a T-Shirt that reads, "I'm Big In Europe" and that
pretty much says it all. LOL
do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=239513#239513
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: Initial Zenith Response |
PatrickW wrote:
>
> kmccune wrote:
> > Double check you cable tension and go fly.
> > Do this, and fly with in the design limits and you will be fine and happy.
>
> It would appear that the NTSB has a different opinion...
>
> Patrick
> N63PZ
We all know what opinions are like.
--------
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=239520#239520
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: First real result of the NTSB report |
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 06:42:26AM -0700, hansriet wrote:
> So are you saying that the CFI-SP doesn't need to have a CPL (with a
> second class medical)?
That's correct. See 61.403: a CFI-SP only needs a sport pilot certificate,
and does not need to have a medical at all.
A regular CFI doesn't need a second class medical, either; he only needs a
third class medical to give instruction if he's acting as PIC, else he needs
no medical at all. You can take the commercial pilot test with a third class
medical, as well; you only need the second class medical to exercise
commercial pilot privileges - and instruction is not among them.
--
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 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 06:44:38AM -0700, Gig Giacona wrote:
> Now that the NTSB is involved the FAA will have to rule one way or
> another. If they go with grounding then there will be additional delay
> because even if a fix for whatever problem might or might not exist is
> found then it will have to be vetted by the FAA and as I mentioned they
> are known to be glacial.
The problem with this thinking is that the NTSB was already involved. ZBAG
could either help or stay out of the way and watch them make decisions based
on inadequate information.
> Second, why can't you finish up your CFI-SP? Your aircraft has not been
> grounded by the only government agency with the power to do so the FAA.
Because the only examiner in Minnesota who can give initial CFI-SP
checkrides refuses to fly in my airplane. That's her call, and I'm not going
to try to twist her arm over it. The rules say that the aircraft has to be
"acceptable to the examiner".
I talked to the Minneapolis FSDO earlier today. They're trying to drum up
someone from Wisconsin, or possibly elsewhere. If they succeed, it becomes a
matter of scheduling, and weather.
--
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 19
| 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: First real result of the NTSB report |
Absolutely correct on the CFI medical issue.
However, Are you sure you want to teach and sign off other people to fly.
Talk to insurance companies about your responsibilities and liability as a
CFI, CFI SP...
It aint worth the worry. Trust me.........
Steve.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Maynard" <jmaynard@conmicro.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 8:14 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: First real result of the NTSB report
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 06:42:26AM -0700, hansriet wrote:
>> So are you saying that the CFI-SP doesn't need to have a CPL (with a
>> second class medical)?
>
> That's correct. See 61.403: a CFI-SP only needs a sport pilot certificate,
> and does not need to have a medical at all.
>
> A regular CFI doesn't need a second class medical, either; he only needs a
> third class medical to give instruction if he's acting as PIC, else he
> needs
> no medical at all. You can take the commercial pilot test with a third
> class
> medical, as well; you only need the second class medical to exercise
> commercial pilot privileges - and instruction is not among them.
> --
> 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 20
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
Your argument would seem chicken and egg at first , problem is, in this case, the
egg came first. Some dumbass sending info to the NTSB and possibly getting
them all grounded is why coming up with a quick fix from the FAA may be needed.
Duhh.
Patient: "Doctor, my arm hurts when I move it like this."
Doctor: "Don't move it like that."
jmaynard wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 06:44:38AM -0700, Gig Giacona wrote:
>
> > Now that the NTSB is involved the FAA will have to rule one way or
> > another. If they go with grounding then there will be additional delay
> > because even if a fix for whatever problem might or might not exist is
> > found then it will have to be vetted by the FAA and as I mentioned they
> > are known to be glacial.
> >
> >
>
> The problem with this thinking is that the NTSB was already involved. ZBAG
> could either help or stay out of the way and watch them make decisions based
> on inadequate information.
>
>
> > Second, why can't you finish up your CFI-SP? Your aircraft has not been
> > grounded by the only government agency with the power to do so the FAA.
> >
> >
>
> Because the only examiner in Minnesota who can give initial CFI-SP
> checkrides refuses to fly in my airplane. That's her call, and I'm not going
> to try to twist her arm over it. The rules say that the aircraft has to be
> "acceptable to the examiner".
>
> I talked to the Minneapolis FSDO earlier today. They're trying to drum up
> someone from Wisconsin, or possibly elsewhere. If they succeed, it becomes a
> matter of scheduling, and weather.
> --
> 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
--------
Andy Shontz
do not archive
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=239524#239524
Message 21
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 08:33:29AM -0700, ashontz wrote:
> Your argument would seem chicken and egg at first , problem is, in this
> case, the egg came first. Some dumbass sending info to the NTSB and
> possibly getting them all grounded is why coming up with a quick fix from
> the FAA may be needed. Duhh.
Except that you have it backwards.
Then again, considering your demonstrated hostile intentions with regard to
ZBAG, I'm not in the slightest bit surprised that you continue to spread
disinformation and outright lies.
--
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 22
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
How can i possibly have it backwards? Two years ago I don't remember a single person
on this list from either the FAA or NTSB discussing this with us.
I also recall people at ZBAG feeling like they were pulling teeth trying to get
info from NTSB and Zenith about Yuba City etc...so apparently there was some
form of 'lobbying' going on.
Again, the point was to get an aeronautical engineer's opinion and then let builders
make an more informed decision. That was it. Now if you consider yourself
a builder, that's as far as you take it. Period. If you're instead an aviation
consumer, like I said on the ZBAG list before being banned for it, go order
a kit from Cessna.
jmaynard wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 08:33:29AM -0700, ashontz wrote:
>
> > Your argument would seem chicken and egg at first , problem is, in this
> > case, the egg came first. Some dumbass sending info to the NTSB and
> > possibly getting them all grounded is why coming up with a quick fix from
> > the FAA may be needed. Duhh.
> >
> >
>
> Except that you have it backwards.
>
> Then again, considering your demonstrated hostile intentions with regard to
> ZBAG, I'm not in the slightest bit surprised that you continue to spread
> disinformation and outright lies.
> --
> 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
--------
Andy Shontz
do not archive
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=239532#239532
Message 23
| 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: First real result of the NTSB report |
notsew_evets(at)frontiern wrote:
> Absolutely correct on the CFI medical issue.
>
> However, Are you sure you want to teach and sign off other people to fly.
> Talk to insurance companies about your responsibilities and liability as a
> CFI, CFI SP...
> It aint worth the worry. Trust me.........
> Steve.
>
> ---
Wow, I'll bet you are glad the guy that taught you to fly didn't feel that way.
--------
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=239535#239535
Message 24
| 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: First real result of the NTSB report |
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 08:29:08AM -0700, steve wrote:
> Absolutely correct on the CFI medical issue.
>
> However, Are you sure you want to teach and sign off other people to fly.
> Talk to insurance companies about your responsibilities and liability as a
> CFI, CFI SP...
> It aint worth the worry. Trust me.........
I'll cross that bridge when I get to it. At the moment, there's no demand
for a CFI-SP in Fairmont. I also have the minor matter of an aircraft to
instruct in, and that aircraft won't be my Zodiac unless I get more than a
few students to pay the $8000+ insurance bll for the airplane.
With that said, my goal in getting the rating is to share my love of flying
with others, and also, and not coincidentally, to improve my own abilities
as a pilot. My own flying has improved quite a bit just in the time I've
been working on the rating. Teaching also helps the teacher as well as the
student; just ask any CFI about that.
--
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 25
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
jmaynard wrote:
>
> The problem with this thinking is that the NTSB was already involved. ZBAG
> could either help or stay out of the way and watch them make decisions based
> on inadequate information.
>
>
Yes the NTSB was already involved and they made no mention of flutter other than
the lack of any evidence for it in the Yuba City report.
Look, I don't know what the all of the underlying motivations of all the ZBAG members
are and neither do you. I do remember when it was started because most
of it started right here in this forum and the original intent was not to become
a lobbying organization for the grounding of the aircraft fleet. It was to
have a third party look at some things that it was felt Zenith wasn't and then
to provide that information to it's members and Zenith. There was never mentioned
that the information would be shared with the NTSB. Hell, they aren't even
sharing it with none ZBAG participants. I watched as that changed in the ZBAG
forum and was made somewhat sick by it.
One nice thing about them giving their report to the NTSB is that it should now
be available through the Freedom of Information Act and I have already started
the process to file an FOI request. When received I will place the information
in a public forum where those who desire can examine it.
This will probably get me banned from reading the ZBAG forum as has already happened
with at least one other person that spoke up there but I can live with that.
--------
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=239538#239538
Message 26
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 08:47:15AM -0700, ashontz wrote:
> If you're instead an aviation consumer, like I said on the ZBAG list
> before being banned for it, go order a kit from Cessna.
As I said on the other list: bite my crank.
I have fully legitimate interests in seeing the issue resolved in whatever
way turns out to be technically and economically feasible. I don't have the
time invested that you do, but I suspect I've got somewhere around four times
the money invested - money I'll be paying off for years, even if my airplane
never flies again.
I don't give a fuzzy rat's ass if you or anyone else think I've got no
credibility because I haven't pulled rivets and turned wrenches. I don't
care if you hold those who aren't building from plans in utter, smoldering,
sneering contempt. That's your problem, not mine.
The Zodiac world encompasses more than just those folks building from plans.
We need to pull together for a solution that will work for all of us.
--
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 27
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 09:13:33AM -0700, Gig Giacona wrote:
> One nice thing about them giving their report to the NTSB is that it
> should now be available through the Freedom of Information Act and I have
> already started the process to file an FOI request. When received I will
> place the information in a public forum where those who desire can examine
> it.
FWIW, I believe the report should be made public, as well.
> This will probably get me banned from reading the ZBAG forum as has
> already happened with at least one other person that spoke up there but I
> can live with that.
That member was banned not for speaking up; he was banned for speaking up in
a way that showed that he is, and always has been, uninterested in working
to further the work of the group. His presence was always somewhat
disruptive, and became dramatically so this morning.
--
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 28
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
Re ZBAG: to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
-- Craig
Message 29
| 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: Flight training in homebuilt -update |
Phill,
I got my PPSEL in a Citabria 7ECA which only had an "dog house- turn and
bank and whiskey compass", and a radio with a nav (GPS). I am quite sure
you don't need more than this for the unusual attitudes part of the
test. I do believe that you will need some kind of nav though.
Bob Collins
Sunnyvale CA USA
601corvair wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Thanks for all the answers.
>
> I think I have a good feel for the rules and how to comply.
>
> We are building the panel for nighttime VFR and have the minimum
> equipment list.
>
> What I had not thought of was the instrument requirements for flight
> training.
>
> I dont have the latest version of practical test standard for the USA
> for PPSEL.
>
> We currently have no vacuum instruments planned, but could easily
> modify this at the current stage of building.
>
> We have an electric - dog house- turn and bank and whiskey compass.
> One com and transponder (mod C), no nav.
>
> We could acquire a venturi driven AI and DG for about the cost of
> renting another plane for a few hours.
>
> If I recall the instrument requirements dealt with unusual attitudes
> and getting in and out of Class C airspace.
>
> Keep in mind the goal is to get a PPSEL rating to be able to fly
> daytime VFR on cloudless days.
>
> We know our personal limits and are trying to comply with the regs in
> a cost effective fashion.
>
> The good news is one of us has a PPSEL rating and we can always fly to
> the best instructor/examiner situation etc.
>
> Does anyone know what the current test standards are and what
> experience you need with regard to instruments?
>
> Is it up to the instructor's discretion that you prove something?
>
> Like unusual attitudes or does it require flight experience with
> specific instruments?
>
> I guess you cant get license with a J3 club like the old days.
>
> Aint technology grand.
>
>
> Phill Hartig
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
Message 30
| 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: Flight training in homebuilt -update |
I know this isn't really a home-built answer, but I do know people who are
currently pursuing their private pilot license in a 1947 J3 cub that has no
electrical system, no radios, a cork-on-a-stick fuel gauge, not even an
electric starter (you do have to find an examiner that can hand-prop the
plane - not too hard around here). I believe the student ends up with a
PPSEL license with limitations, but it can be done.
I am currently after my Sport Pilot license in the same plane - I will "ste
p
up" to the 172 for the radio work, radio-nav, night flight, etc. for the PP
as soon as I am done the the SP license. Is this the long way around?
Sure, but the idea of taking the check ride and getting my first license in
the Cub is just too romantic and silly to pass up. How many people get to
take a check ride in a Cub these days? :)
Dave
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Bob Collins <bobcollins42@gmail.com>wrote
:
>
> Phill,
> I got my PPSEL in a Citabria 7ECA which only had an "dog house- turn and
> bank and whiskey compass", and a radio with a nav (GPS). I am quite sure
you
> don't need more than this for the unusual attitudes part of the test. I d
o
> believe that you will need some kind of nav though.
>
> Bob Collins
> Sunnyvale CA USA
>
>
> 601corvair wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for all the answers.
>> I think I have a good feel for the rules and how to comply.
>>
>> We are building the panel for nighttime VFR and have the minimum equipme
nt
>> list.
>>
>> What I had not thought of was the instrument requirements for flight
>> training.
>>
>> I don=92t have the latest version of practical test standard for the USA
for
>> PPSEL.
>>
>> We currently have no vacuum instruments planned, but could easily modify
>> this at the current stage of building.
>>
>> We have an electric - dog house- turn and bank and whiskey compass. One
>> com and transponder (mod C), no nav.
>>
>> We could acquire a venturi driven AI and DG for about the cost of rentin
g
>> another plane for a few hours.
>>
>> If I recall the instrument requirements dealt with unusual attitudes an
d
>> getting in and out of Class C airspace.
>>
>> Keep in mind the goal is to get a PPSEL rating to be able to fly daytime
>> VFR on cloudless days.
>>
>> We know our personal limits and are trying to comply with the regs in a
>> cost effective fashion.
>>
>> The good news is one of us has a PPSEL rating and we can always fly to t
he
>> best instructor/examiner situation etc.
>>
>> Does anyone know what the current test standards are and what experience
>> you need with regard to instruments?
>>
>> Is it up to the instructor's discretion that you prove something?
>>
>> Like unusual attitudes or does it require flight experience with specifi
c
>> instruments?
>>
>> I guess you can=92t get license with a J3 club like the old days.
>>
>> Ain=92t technology grand.
>>
>>
>> Phill Hartig
>>
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
Message 31
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
Jay,
I think you have a couple of things wrong as to the requirements of the regs.
Although a CFI-SP may not need a medical CERTIFICATE, the FAA/DPE examiner has
the absolute right to deny your CFI-SP if he determines you do not meet the
all the requirements in the FARs (physical/mental/skill.)
In otherwords, just as a private pilot who is very upset over being served with
divorce papers should ground himself for a short duration, a sport pilot has
the same duty. You seem too riled up over this NTSB letter to be flying much
less instructing.
As part of ZBAG you should have expected this result and planned accordingly.
Building an airplane would have taught you over and over again how to handle major
disappointments. You seem to have a bad case of "get there/get it itis."
You are very entertaining on TV and the Internet and I wish you nothing but the
best.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=239549#239549
Message 32
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:09:17AM -0700, Sabrina wrote:
> I think you have a couple of things wrong as to the requirements of the
> regs. Although a CFI-SP may not need a medical CERTIFICATE, the FAA/DPE
> examiner has the absolute right to deny your CFI-SP if he determines you
> do not meet the all the requirements in the FARs (physical/mental/skill.)
Indeed she does. Until this DPE decided she wasn't comfortable flying in a
Zodiac, I wasn't upset at all.
Her decision, even though I understand it and respect her right to make it,
left me in the lurch, and when Juan and Andrew dropped their separate bits
of drivel on this list, they added fuel tot he fire.
> In otherwords, just as a private pilot who is very upset over being served
> with divorce papers should ground himself for a short duration, a sport
> pilot has the same duty. You seem too riled up over this NTSB letter to
> be flying much less instructing.
I have no intention of doing either until I can give honest, safe answers to
all of the questions on the PAVE personal safety checklist:
Pilot: Am I up to the mission? Recency, experience, ratings, physical
condition all count here.
Aircraft: Is the aircraft safe and suitable? Do I have enough fuel and other
supplies on board?
enVironment: Is the weather suitable? Are the intended airports in usable
condition, and not hazardous due to things like snow on the runway?
External factors: Do I have alternate plans? Am I being pressured to make
the trip by factors that would override a decision based on safety?
In this case, I get mad every time Andrew lets loose with another blast at
those who he considers not good enough to be flying a Zodiac...but I also
calm down afterwards, too. As long a we don't have that discussion at the
airport, it's not an issue. :-)
I didn't fly yesterday after speaking to the DPE because I was too upset.
I'll probably be calmed down enough to fly in another day or so. Whether
that state will persist will depend on lots of things that I can only partly
control.
> As part of ZBAG you should have expected this result and planned
> accordingly.
Well, I expected that the NTSB would have had something to say...but, by
their own admission, recommending an immediate grounding of an entire fleet
of aircraft is quite unusual for them. What's even more unusual to me was
that the DPE, a lady who's respected around these parts as a calm,
level-headed aviator with lots of experience flying, teaching, and building
airplanes, would decide she wasn't interested in flying in my airplane any
longer, after being quite interested the other times I'd spoken to her.
> Building an airplane would have taught you over and over again how to
> handle major disappointments. You seem to have a bad case of "get
> there/get it itis."
I've been reevaluating my decision to fly my airplane ever since I became
aware of the controversy last year. So far, the evaluation has always come
out the same: keep it properly maintained, fly it conservatively and well
within the performance envelope, and don't do anything stupid, and it's a
safe aircraft to fly. I see no reason to change that evaluation. The
information the NTSB based its report on has been known for several months,
after all.
Am I an aeronautical engineer? No. I have, however, considered the opinions
of lots of folks who are, on both sides of the issue. That's all I can do.
> You are very entertaining on TV and the Internet and I wish you nothing
> but the best.
Thanks.
--
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 33
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
No, I got banned for speaking up and reminding them that the original purpose was
to have a third party check out the design, that's all. In fact, if i remember
correctly I'm the one that originally asked if anyone want to chip in to have
someone look at the plans. Remember Jay. I was THE ORIGINAL ZBAG member. And
my intention was never to have it go anywhere near where you guys took it,
it was simply so that several guys with $100 each could pool their money together
to hire an maybe a retired aeronautical engineer who wanted to packet $3,000
or $4,000 for 3 weeks worth of work farting around in his underwear weekday
morning drinking coffee, reviewing the plans, running some numbers and maybe
coming to some sort of decision or suggestion. It was not meant as a forum to
shoot yourselves and eveyone else in the foot. Someone mentioned lawyer for whatever
reason in like the first week of group online discussions and I emphatically
and publicly stated as well as encouraged others to drop the whole damn
thing if that's where a group of knuckheads wanted to take it. Even mentioning
such a thing is wrongheaded and the wrong mentality.
jmaynard wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 09:13:33AM -0700, Gig Giacona wrote:
>
> > One nice thing about them giving their report to the NTSB is that it
> > should now be available through the Freedom of Information Act and I have
> > already started the process to file an FOI request. When received I will
> > place the information in a public forum where those who desire can examine
> > it.
> >
> >
>
> FWIW, I believe the report should be made public, as well.
>
>
> > This will probably get me banned from reading the ZBAG forum as has
> > already happened with at least one other person that spoke up there but I
> > can live with that.
> >
> >
>
> That member was banned not for speaking up; he was banned for speaking up in
> a way that showed that he is, and always has been, uninterested in working
> to further the work of the group. His presence was always somewhat
> disruptive, and became dramatically so this morning.
> --
> 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
--------
Andy Shontz
do not archive
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=239551#239551
Message 34
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:33:21AM -0700, ashontz wrote:
> jmaynard wrote:
> > That member was banned not for speaking up; he was banned for speaking up in
> > a way that showed that he is, and always has been, uninterested in working
> > to further the work of the group. His presence was always somewhat
> > disruptive, and became dramatically so this morning.
> No, I got banned for speaking up and reminding them that the original
> purpose was to have a third party check out the design, that's all.
Not true, and your own words show it:
> Someone mentioned lawyer for whatever reason in like the first week of
> group online discussions and I emphatically and publicly stated as well as
> encouraged others to drop the whole damn thing if that's where a group of
> knuckheads wanted to take it. Even mentioning such a thing is wrongheaded
> and the wrong mentality.
Sorry, but lots of folks say lots of things; unless ZBAG itself hired a
lawyer, your words are just proof that you oppose the goals and work of ZBAG
- and, as such, do not belong on the ZBAG mailing list.
--
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 35
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
Gig,
You won't be banned from ZBAG for expressing your concerns, for posting dis
agreement with the way thinks turned out or for posting any relevant inform
ation you find thru the freedom of information act. You could get banned, i
f you engagage in descructive critizism of the group of any of its members.
This is why Andrew got banned, not because of his position in this matter,
but because of the way he chose to vent it.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
--- On Thu, 4/16/09, Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US
Yes the NTSB was already involved and they made no mention of flutter other
than the lack of any evidence for it in the Yuba City report.
Look, I don't know what the all of the underlying motivations of all the ZB
AG members are and neither do you. I do remember when it was started becaus
e most of it started right here in this forum and the original intent was n
ot to become a lobbying organization- for the grounding of the aircraft f
leet. It was to have a third party look at some things that it was felt Zen
ith wasn't and then to provide that information to it's members and Zenith.
There was never mentioned that the information would be shared with the NT
SB. Hell, they aren't even sharing it with none ZBAG participants. I watche
d as that changed in the ZBAG forum and was made somewhat sick by it.
One nice thing about them giving their report to the NTSB is that it should
now be available through the Freedom of Information Act and I have already
started the process to file an FOI request. When received I will place the
information in a public forum where those who desire can examine it.
This will probably get me banned from reading the ZBAG forum as has already
happened with at least one other person that spoke up there but I can live
with that.
--------
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=239538#239538
le, List Admin.
Message 36
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
Zenith just notified me that they have custom made and shipped my .032 aileron
ribs.
Please and Thank You go a long way in this world...
Come on guys, start some constructive criticism on my plans, will 3/16 4130 withstand
24Gs? Is 24Gs the correct number? Do you like the idea of two centered
one pound bobs with a cross brace better than the Brazilian 2 pounds at the
outboard end or the LAA 2 pounds on the inboard rib (if my info is correct)...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=239559#239559
Message 37
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
Hi Jay,
This is a great example of how an unbiased and reasonable person
would interpret the NTSB ruling. I understand I am a biased person,
but I also came to the conclusion that safety considerations dictate
grounding my plane after the NTSB decision. Up to this point I
didn't consider all the possible problems sufficient to cause
grounding of the fleet.
I know you feel injured, and I do too. However, I hope you will
eventually reach the conclusion that it is perfectly reasonable to
get this serious problem with the XL corrected before risking your
life by flying yours again.
Perhaps I am brainwashed by the FAA bureaucrats, but I still consider
safety as the top priority in flying.
Hang in there.
Paul
XL grounded
P.S. I learned a long time ago that Andy's comments consistently
brought me to a rage so I set my email program to send his messages
immediately to the trash. I suggest you consider doing the same
thing. Please remember that reading any messages on this forum is at
the reader's option.
At 10:29 AM 4/16/2009, you wrote:
>What's even more unusual to me was
>that the DPE, a lady who's respected around these parts as a calm,
>level-headed aviator with lots of experience flying, teaching, and building
>airplanes, would decide she wasn't interested in flying in my airplane any
>longer, after being quite interested the other times I'd spoken to her.
Message 38
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
I am told Grainger just delivered two VJ99 pipe stands to my 'shop' that I will
use for balancing...
Things are going well...
Hinged or flex?
Gig raises a good point, all that new weight (2 1/2 pounds) on an .016 flex hinge
scares me...
Do we ask Zenith to make an .025 skin? would that flex properly?
Comments?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=239564#239564
Message 39
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
You still don't get it. You got banned because of the way you expressed you
rself. It is clear in the list rules that you cannot be disrespectful to ot
hers or be hostile to the group. And that is exactly what you did, don't yo
u pretend now that you where just speaking up, please.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
--- On Thu, 4/16/09, ashontz <ashontz@nbme.org> wrote:
From: ashontz <ashontz@nbme.org>
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US
No, I got banned for speaking up and reminding them that the original purpo
se was to have a third party check out the design, that's all. In fact, if
i remember correctly I'm the one that originally asked if anyone want to ch
ip in to have someone look at the plans. Remember Jay. I was THE ORIGINAL Z
BAG member. And my intention was never to have it go anywhere near where yo
u guys took it, it was simply so that several guys with $100 each could poo
l their money together to hire an maybe a retired aeronautical engineer who
wanted to packet $3,000 or $4,000 for 3 weeks worth of work farting around
in his underwear weekday morning drinking coffee, reviewing the plans, run
ning some numbers and maybe coming to some sort of decision or suggestion.
It was not meant as a forum to shoot yourselves and eveyone else in the foo
t. Someone mentioned lawyer for whatever reason in like the first week of g
roup online discussions and I emphatically and publicly stated as
well as encouraged othe!
rs to drop the whole damn thing if that's where a group of knuckheads want
ed to take it. Even mentioning such a thing is wrongheaded and the wrong me
ntality.
jmaynard wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 09:13:33AM -0700, Gig Giacona wrote:
>
> >- One nice thing about them giving their report to the NTSB is that it
> >- should now be available through the Freedom of Information Act and I
have
> >- already started the process to file an FOI request. When received I
will
> >- place the information in a public forum where those who desire can e
xamine
> >- it.
> >
> >
>
> FWIW, I believe the report should be made public, as well.
>
>
> >- This will probably get me banned from reading the ZBAG forum as has
> >- already happened with at least one other person that spoke up there
but I
> >- can live with that.
> >
> >
>
> That member was banned not for speaking up; he was banned for speaking up
in
> a way that showed that he is, and always has been, uninterested in workin
g
> to further the work of the group. His presence was always somewhat
> disruptive, and became dramatically so this morning.
> --
> 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
--------
Andy Shontz
do not archive
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=239551#239551
le, List Admin.
Message 40
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
Hi Sabrina,
You have my greatest respect for trying to engineer a solution to the
mass balance problem. However, I would feel a lot better if the
design came from Chris.
Have you used your special relationship with ZAC to ask if we can
have a mass balance design released from them?
Paul
do not archive
At 11:19 AM 4/16/2009, you wrote:
>Comments?
Message 41
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
psm(at)att.net wrote:
> Hi Sabrina,
>
> You have my greatest respect for trying to engineer a solution to the
> mass balance problem. However, I would feel a lot better if the
> design came from Chris.
> Paul
>
Why, you have already stated here that Chris' solution to correcting the issue
of possible flutter isn't good enough for you?
--------
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=239573#239573
Message 42
| 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: First real result of the NTSB report |
Times have changed. Liability issues changed.
Actually I taught myself to fly. That was a few decades ago.
I even recommended myself for the CFI rating and the FAA issued it to me...
Go figure....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 8:59 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: First real result of the NTSB report
>
>
> notsew_evets(at)frontiern wrote:
>> Absolutely correct on the CFI medical issue.
>>
>> However, Are you sure you want to teach and sign off other people to
>> fly.
>> Talk to insurance companies about your responsibilities and liability as
>> a
>> CFI, CFI SP...
>> It aint worth the worry. Trust me.........
>> Steve.
>>
>> ---
>
>
> Wow, I'll bet you are glad the guy that taught you to fly didn't feel that
> way.
>
> --------
> 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=239535#239535
>
>
>
Message 43
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
If you are concerned about putting mass balances on the aileron itself, then
place them in the wing with a linkage to the aileron. As long as they
counteract and balance the control surface, location is of little
consequence. Piper uses this arrangement.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris@msn.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 3:19 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US
>
> I am told Grainger just delivered two VJ99 pipe stands to my 'shop' that I
> will use for balancing...
>
> Things are going well...
>
> Hinged or flex?
>
> Gig raises a good point, all that new weight (2 1/2 pounds) on an .016
> flex hinge scares me...
>
> Do we ask Zenith to make an .025 skin? would that flex properly?
>
> Comments?
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=239564#239564
>
>
>
Message 44
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
Hi Gig,
Perhaps you have misinterpreted my statements.
I do feel a need to respect the NTSB decision that mass balance is
needed on the ailerons. Yes, this is in conflict with Chris's
judgement that the mass balance is not needed.
Still, Chris is the principal designer for this airplane. He is the
one who is best qualified to design a mass balance solution. This is
a different issue from his judgement as to the need for such a
design. He is the only person in the world who can be sure any new
design change doesn't have an impact on other parts of the
design. There are other engineers, including Sabrina, who can do a
reasonable job of the mass balance design, but none of them really
knows all the considerations that went into the whole design. It may
be that the additional weight on the ailerons calls for bigger bolts
on the horizontal stabilizer.
I would be much happier with a mass balance design from Chris than
anybody else.
Paul
XL grounded
At 11:48 AM 4/16/2009, you wrote:
>Why, you have already stated here that Chris' solution to correcting
>the issue of possible flutter isn't good enough for you?
Message 45
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
Just think:
Someday we will all fly out together and meet for an overnight camping trip.
We will sit by the campfire with beers in our hands and sing Cum by yaaaa.
We will spread nothing but love. Together as one.....
I can wait, can yous ?
XOXO
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Mulwitz" <psm@att.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US
>
> Hi Gig,
>
> Perhaps you have misinterpreted my statements.
>
> I do feel a need to respect the NTSB decision that mass balance is needed
> on the ailerons. Yes, this is in conflict with Chris's judgement that the
> mass balance is not needed.
>
> Still, Chris is the principal designer for this airplane. He is the one
> who is best qualified to design a mass balance solution. This is a
> different issue from his judgement as to the need for such a design. He
> is the only person in the world who can be sure any new design change
> doesn't have an impact on other parts of the design. There are other
> engineers, including Sabrina, who can do a reasonable job of the mass
> balance design, but none of them really knows all the considerations that
> went into the whole design. It may be that the additional weight on the
> ailerons calls for bigger bolts on the horizontal stabilizer.
>
> I would be much happier with a mass balance design from Chris than anybody
> else.
>
> Paul
> XL grounded
>
> At 11:48 AM 4/16/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>>Why, you have already stated here that Chris' solution to correcting the
>>issue of possible flutter isn't good enough for you?
>
>
>
Message 46
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
psm(at)att.net wrote:
> Hi Gig,
>
> Perhaps you have misinterpreted my statements.
>
> I do feel a need to respect the NTSB decision that mass balance is
> needed on the ailerons. Yes, this is in conflict with Chris's
> judgement that the mass balance is not needed.
Nope, no misinterpretation here just a sort of sad irony. You don't trust the guy
enough to believe him over a bunch of NTSB bureaucrats yet you still want him
to design a modification.
You are showing a lot of faith in the NTSB. What happens if another government
agency and one that actually has the power to do something other than send a letter
and press release out decides that Chris is right and everybody just needs
to check the tension on their cables?
--------
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=239580#239580
Message 47
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
Folks, I'm a little behind in all this. Who or what is ZBAG and how do they have
a dog in this fight? Bill
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
Sent: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 12:13 pm
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US
jmaynard wrote:
>
> The problem with this thinking is that the NTSB was already involved. ZBAG
> could either help or stay out of the way and watch them make decisions based
> on inadequate information.
>
>
Yes the NTSB was already involved and they made no mention of flutter other than
the lack of any evidence for it in the Yuba City report.
Look, I don't know what the all of the underlying motivations of all the ZBAG
members are and neither do you. I do remember when it was started because most
of it started right here in this forum and the original intent was not to become
a lobbying organization for the grounding of the aircraft fleet. It was to have
a third party look at some things that it was felt Zenith wasn't and then to
provide that information to it's members and Zenith. There was never mentioned
that the information would be shared with the NTSB. Hell, they aren't even
sharing it with none ZBAG participants. I watched as that changed in the ZBAG
forum and was made somewhat sick by it.
One nice thing about them giving their report to the NTSB is that it should now
be available through the Freedom of Information Act and I have already started
the process to file an FOI request. When received I will place the information
in a public forum where those who desire can examine it.
This will probably get me banned from reading the ZBAG forum as has already
happened with at least one other person that spoke up there but I can live with
that.
--------
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=239538#239538
AQ,
Message 48
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
japhillipsga(at)aol.com wrote:
> Folks, I'm a little behind in all this. Who or what is ZBAG and how do they have
a dog in this fight? Bill
> do not archive
>
> --
ZBAG= Zenith Builders Analysis Group are a bunch of people that through some money
in a hat because they thought Zenith wasn't doing enough quick enough to find
out if there was a problem with the 601XL.
According to the NTSB notice the information they gathered and gave to the NTSB
had some bearing on the the creation of the notice.
--------
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=239588#239588
Message 49
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
Wouldn't that be a great solution! What if an investigation determines that
the aircraft "might" be safe that way, but would be much safer with mass
balanced ailerons. Would you simply ignore the modification because your
cables will always be exactly the right tension? Perhaps the designer will
look at a mass balance solution designed by someone else, maybe a bright
young kid, and say it looks ok for those owners who prefer a belt AND
suspenders solution. If I remember correctly NOTHING in my pilot training
advocated ignoring a possible safety issue because it was inconvenient or
expensive to acknowledge it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
> You are showing a lot of faith in the NTSB. What happens if another
> government agency and one that actually has the power to do something
> other than send a letter and press release out decides that Chris is right
> and everybody just needs to check the tension on their cables?
>
>
Message 50
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
Thank you, Steve, for reminding us that we're all in this together. I wonder if
any other builders group beats the crap out of each other like this. (sigh) I've
resisted the temptation to jump in here amidst all the sturm and drang, but
after talking to Zenith this morning, maybe I can share a bit.
I can certainly understand the frustration of everyone here, desparate for a "solution"
but not seeing one immediately forthcoming. No one wants to have second
doubts about the aircraft they're flying, while entrusting their lives (and
the lives of others) in. So, here's what I'm thinking, but it's ONLY my OPINION!
When the 601 XL airframe is overstressed, the failure mode usually reveals itself
by a failure of the wing at the spar and/or spar attach point(s). This has
happened six times. And it's really disconcerting to see crash photos showing
both wings on one side of the fuselage, and these images are haunting to say the
least.
WHY the airframe gets overstressed is still a matter of hot debate, some conjecture
and fact mixed together, with nothing conclusive from any official investigative
agency (yet) nor the manufacturer. Still no single smoking gun. Which
makes it a lot harder to ID a single main causal factor.
LSA aircraft are typically designed to ASTM standards, which do NOT require comprehensive
flutter analysis. However, Zenith has engaged two outside aeronautical
engineers who are currently in the process of evaluating the design to Part
23 standards, which do include flutter analysis.
The FAA concurs with Zenith that the design is safe to fly IF the aileron cable
tensions are within spec and IF it's flown within its normal flight envelope,
for both hinged and hingeless ailerons. The NTSB report raises some good points,
AND some curious ones, but is still woefully short of scientific analysis,
and seems to rely mostly on circumstantial and eye-witness evidence for its recommendations.
So before I change, modify, beef up, re-engineer, or "improve" anything, I'm going
to (a) wait for more info from those whom I trust, and (b) keep my aileron
cable tension within spec, and (c) fly as I normally do - with a light touch.
Call me Pollyanna, but I'm not losing any sleep over this.
Off the soapbox for now,
Rick Lindstrom
Zenvair N42KP
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
>From: steve <notsew_evets@frontiernet.net>
>Sent: Apr 16, 2009 3:12 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US
>
>
>Just think:
>Someday we will all fly out together and meet for an overnight camping trip.
>We will sit by the campfire with beers in our hands and sing Cum by yaaaa.
>We will spread nothing but love. Together as one.....
>I can wait, can yous ?
>
>XOXO
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Paul Mulwitz" <psm@att.net>
>To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 12:00 PM
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US
>
>
>>
>> Hi Gig,
>>
>> Perhaps you have misinterpreted my statements.
>>
>> I do feel a need to respect the NTSB decision that mass balance is needed
>> on the ailerons. Yes, this is in conflict with Chris's judgement that the
>> mass balance is not needed.
>>
>> Still, Chris is the principal designer for this airplane. He is the one
>> who is best qualified to design a mass balance solution. This is a
>> different issue from his judgement as to the need for such a design. He
>> is the only person in the world who can be sure any new design change
>> doesn't have an impact on other parts of the design. There are other
>> engineers, including Sabrina, who can do a reasonable job of the mass
>> balance design, but none of them really knows all the considerations that
>> went into the whole design. It may be that the additional weight on the
>> ailerons calls for bigger bolts on the horizontal stabilizer.
>>
>> I would be much happier with a mass balance design from Chris than anybody
>> else.
>>
>> Paul
>> XL grounded
>>
>> At 11:48 AM 4/16/2009, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Why, you have already stated here that Chris' solution to correcting the
>>>issue of possible flutter isn't good enough for you?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 51
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
Obviously off line and strictly between you and me:? It is my opinion that the
hard-core members of the ZBAG group feel that there is a fatal flaw in the design
of the 601XL , therefore feel cheated by Zenith and Chris Heintz and they
want revenge.? I believe it is their goal to put Zenith out of business and establish
grounds for suing Zenith.? They have contributed nothing positive. In
spite of the extensive testing that Zenith has done, they still persist in their
insistance that it is a flawed design. ? If they have discovered anything,
they have not shared it with Zenith nor Zodiac builders and flyers.? Instead
(in spite of a lack of any real evidence), they have speculated that there is
an aileron flutter problem and have shared that with the NTSB.? The NTSB is by
nature a "sky is falling" organization, so they published that represensible
letter that is full of inuendo, speculation, half-truths and outright lies. This
has made the ZBAG guys almost giddy; and they are
now saying "I told you so".? I seriously doubt that there is a flutter problem,
but Zenith will probably come up with a modification that will get this off
their backs, whether it is really necessary or not.? I'm also guessing that a
Zenith modification will not satisfy the ZBAG guys. I certainly could be wrong,
but we will see.
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: japhillipsga@aol.com
Sent: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 2:24 pm
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US
Folks, I'm a little behind in all this. Who or what is ZBAG and how do they have
a dog in this fight? Bill
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
Sent: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 12:13 pm
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US
jmaynard wrote:
>
> The problem with this thinking is that the NTSB was already involved. ZBAG
> could either help or stay out of the way and watch them make decisions based
> on inadequate information.
>
>
Yes the NTSB was already involved and they made no mention of flutter other than
the lack of any evidence for it in the Yuba City report.
Look, I don't know what the all of the underlying motivations of all the ZBAG
members are and neither do you. I do remember when it was started because most
of it started right here in this forum and the original intent was not to become
a lobbying organization for the grounding of the aircraft fleet. It was to have
a third party look at some things that it was felt Zenith wasn't and then to
provide that information to it's members and Zenith. There was never mentioned
that the information would be shared with the NTSB. Hell, they aren't even
sharing it with none ZBAG participants. I watched as that changed in the ZBAG
forum and was made somewhat sick by it.
One nice thing about them giving their report to the NTSB is that it should now
be available through the Freedom of Information Act and I have already started
the process to file an FOI request. When received I will place the information
in a public forum where those who desire can examine it.
This will probably get me banned from reading the ZBAG forum as has already
happened with at least one other person that spoke up there but I can live with
that.
--------
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=239538#239538
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
Message 52
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
Without trying to start a fight....
If aileron cable tensioning prevents flutter on the XL....and numerous other LSA
etc types also utilise control cables then why wouldn't we see a similar number/incidence
of "flutter induced wing failures" in a large selection of other
types globally?
Since I bought my kit I do not hear of the same type of accidents happening in
the various other types (certainly not in the same perceived frequency and small
interval). This would lead me to suggest that there is something different
about the tensioning that more readily becomes a problem on an XL than say another
kit aircraft.
On this basis it would be common sense, as opposed to complete stupidity, to invest
time and effort in introducing a belt and braces approach to the tensioning/flutter
issue.
Maybe the design of the control system is more prone than a similar type to control
cables slackening.
To ignore this would be to, as someone said earlier, "put your head in the sand".
What if it is you that forgot to check your tension regularly after berating
the posters looking for further safety margins and then experienced a flutter
incident. Have you ever flown an aircraft without being as thorough as you
usually are on your pre-flight?
James
--------
Cell +27 83 675 0815
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=239599#239599
Message 53
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
I'm not sure who your post is aimed at but if you want to play what if I'll be
more than happy to join you.
Do a Google search with the term words FAA Ignores NTSB happens all the time.
d.goddard(at)ns.sympatico wrote:
> Wouldn't that be a great solution! What if an investigation determines that
> the aircraft "might" be safe that way, but would be much safer with mass
> balanced ailerons. Would you simply ignore the modification because your
> cables will always be exactly the right tension? Perhaps the designer will
> look at a mass balance solution designed by someone else, maybe a bright
> young kid, and say it looks ok for those owners who prefer a belt AND
> suspenders solution. If I remember correctly NOTHING in my pilot training
> advocated ignoring a possible safety issue because it was inconvenient or
> expensive to acknowledge it.
>
>
>
>
> ---
--------
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=239605#239605
Message 54
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
At what point do you stop with your "belt and braces approach"? Aircraft can always
be safer if you add one more feature. Problem is pretty soon you go over
the MGW before you have added fuel or yourself to the airplane.
To answer your last question, I do the same preflight every time I go up. I do
have a somewhat shortened one that is used in a situation like a stop over to
get fuel for either the plane or myself. You can bet your first born that "Check
Cable Tension" will be on all of the check lists.
Scotsman wrote:
> Without trying to start a fight....
>
> If aileron cable tensioning prevents flutter on the XL....and numerous other
LSA etc types also utilise control cables then why wouldn't we see a similar number/incidence
of "flutter induced wing failures" in a large selection of other
types globally?
>
> Since I bought my kit I do not hear of the same type of accidents happening in
the various other types (certainly not in the same perceived frequency and small
interval). This would lead me to suggest that there is something different
about the tensioning that more readily becomes a problem on an XL than say
another kit aircraft.
>
> On this basis it would be common sense, as opposed to complete stupidity, to
invest time and effort in introducing a belt and braces approach to the tensioning/flutter
issue.
>
> Maybe the design of the control system is more prone than a similar type to control
cables slackening.
>
> To ignore this would be to, as someone said earlier, "put your head in the sand".
What if it is you that forgot to check your tension regularly after berating
the posters looking for further safety margins and then experienced a flutter
incident. Have you ever flown an aircraft without being as thorough as you
usually are on your pre-flight?
>
> James
--------
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=239608#239608
Message 55
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
If the FAA does anything soon, it will probably be the suspension of commerical
operations in XLs, and probably not before they have a chance to chat at Sun
n Fun to determine the impact of such a move.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=239616#239616
Message 56
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
I would actually be far more interested in seeing this aircrafts reputation
restored, by finding out if there is or is not a problem and if so having a
design change, than winning or losing an argument with you. If there is no
problem, the incidents will stop of their own accord. If there is some small
flaw, the price for ignoring it is too damn high.
>
> I'm not sure who your post is aimed at but if you want to play what if
> I'll be more than happy to join you.
Message 57
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US. |
--- On Thu, 4/16/09, Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com> wrote:
(snip)
At what point do you stop with your "belt and braces approach"?
Aircraft can always be safer if you add one more feature. Problem is pretty soon
you go over the MGW before you have added fuel or yourself to the airplane.
Hello Gig,Very good post, when someone starts adding weight to his homebuilt, because
he "wants to believe" that extra material with add safety, he will eventually
end up with a heavyer airplane, then the wings will not work as designed.This
happen more often with wooden airplanes (make each of the sticks a n/th
bigger, for example).If one person is fear about flying his (or any) airplane,
nothing will be added enough for his peace of mind. That is why "Chickens were
not ment to fly" :-) :-)SaludosGary Gower.Just needed a little smile.Do not
archive.
Message 58
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
That's the problem the reputation can never be restored. The flying community is
just too small. I too would like to find out if there is a problem and to get
it fixed if there is one. I just feel the NTSB isn't the way to do it.
d.goddard(at)ns.sympatico wrote:
> I would actually be far more interested in seeing this aircrafts reputation
> restored, by finding out if there is or is not a problem and if so having a
> design change, than winning or losing an argument with you. If there is no
> problem, the incidents will stop of their own accord. If there is some small
> flaw, the price for ignoring it is too damn high.
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure who your post is aimed at but if you want to play what if
> > I'll be more than happy to join you.
> >
> >
>
--------
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=239620#239620
Message 59
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
Jay,
How can you be so sure the ZBAG never sent or shared information with ZAC?
Please, let me know.
Alberto Martin
www.iberplanes.es
Igualada - Barcelona - Spain
----------------------------------------------
Zodiac 601 XL Builder
Serial: 6-7011
Tail Kit: Finished
Wings: Not Started
Fuselage: Ordered
Engine: Jabiru 3300
Message 60
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
as with other planes such as the tomohawk, the reputation will cause a drastic
drag to residual value in the event of the sale, and in the event of an insurance
renewal. this BS has cost us all in our pockets.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
>Sent: Apr 16, 2009 5:51 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US
>
>
>That's the problem the reputation can never be restored. The flying community
is just too small. I too would like to find out if there is a problem and to get
it fixed if there is one. I just feel the NTSB isn't the way to do it.
>
>
>d.goddard(at)ns.sympatico wrote:
>> I would actually be far more interested in seeing this aircrafts reputation
>> restored, by finding out if there is or is not a problem and if so having a
>> design change, than winning or losing an argument with you. If there is no
>> problem, the incidents will stop of their own accord. If there is some small
>> flaw, the price for ignoring it is too damn high.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm not sure who your post is aimed at but if you want to play what if
>> > I'll be more than happy to join you.
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>--------
>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=239620#239620
>
>
Message 61
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
sounds like a guy that voted for oBAMA. ouch!
jUAN
-----Original Message-----
>From: steve <notsew_evets@frontiernet.net>
>Sent: Apr 16, 2009 3:12 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US
>
>
>Just think:
>Someday we will all fly out together and meet for an overnight camping trip.
>We will sit by the campfire with beers in our hands and sing Cum by yaaaa.
>We will spread nothing but love. Together as one.....
>I can wait, can yous ?
>
>XOXO
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Paul Mulwitz" <psm@att.net>
>To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 12:00 PM
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US
>
>
>>
>> Hi Gig,
>>
>> Perhaps you have misinterpreted my statements.
>>
>> I do feel a need to respect the NTSB decision that mass balance is needed
>> on the ailerons. Yes, this is in conflict with Chris's judgement that the
>> mass balance is not needed.
>>
>> Still, Chris is the principal designer for this airplane. He is the one
>> who is best qualified to design a mass balance solution. This is a
>> different issue from his judgement as to the need for such a design. He
>> is the only person in the world who can be sure any new design change
>> doesn't have an impact on other parts of the design. There are other
>> engineers, including Sabrina, who can do a reasonable job of the mass
>> balance design, but none of them really knows all the considerations that
>> went into the whole design. It may be that the additional weight on the
>> ailerons calls for bigger bolts on the horizontal stabilizer.
>>
>> I would be much happier with a mass balance design from Chris than anybody
>> else.
>>
>> Paul
>> XL grounded
>>
>> At 11:48 AM 4/16/2009, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Why, you have already stated here that Chris' solution to correcting the
>>>issue of possible flutter isn't good enough for you?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 62
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
Hi Gig,
For some reason you seem to want to make this a personal issue. It
is not. This sort of thing happens all the time with real products
in a real world.
I don't have any negative feelings toward Chris regarding this
airplane. I believe he is the best designer in the world for this
class of plane. So, I believe he is the best designer to do the job
of designing the mass balance solution. I don't think his work will
be substandard because he doesn't believe this solution is
needed. Indeed, I don't think it is needed either. But, my
judgement and his must bow to the respect deserved by the NTSB.
It is painfully common for an engineer to need to do a design change
that he doesn't believe in. So long as he doesn't believe it will do
serious harm he has no reason to avoid this task.
I can't believe the FAA would disregard this decision by the
NTSB. Even if they did, my plane is still grounded until it gets the
mass balance improvement. It might help, or it might not, but that
is just the decision I have made.
Paul
do not archive
At 12:19 PM 4/16/2009, you wrote:
>You don't trust the guy enough to believe him over a bunch of NTSB
>bureaucrats yet you still want him to design a modification.
Message 63
| 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: Initial Zenith Response |
Patrick, any goverment group that gets lobbied enough will have an opinion based
on what they are pushed to have an opinion on.
As ZBAGs did in this instance.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
>Sent: Apr 16, 2009 11:16 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Initial Zenith Response
>
>
>
>PatrickW wrote:
>>
>> kmccune wrote:
>> > Double check you cable tension and go fly.
>> > Do this, and fly with in the design limits and you will be fine and happy.
>>
>> It would appear that the NTSB has a different opinion...
>>
>> Patrick
>> N63PZ
>
>
>We all know what opinions are like.
>
>--------
>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=239520#239520
>
>
Message 64
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
sounds like a guy that voted for oBAMA. ouch!
jUAN
-----Original Message-----
>From: steve <notsew_evets@frontiernet.net>
>Sent: Apr 16, 2009 3:12 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US
>
>
>Just think:
>Someday we will all fly out together and meet for an overnight camping trip.
>We will sit by the campfire with beers in our hands and sing Cum by yaaaa.
>We will spread nothing but love. Together as one.....
>I can wait, can yous ?
>
>XOXO
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Paul Mulwitz" <psm@att.net>
>To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 12:00 PM
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US
>
>
>>
>> Hi Gig,
>>
>> Perhaps you have misinterpreted my statements.
>>
>> I do feel a need to respect the NTSB decision that mass balance is needed
>> on the ailerons. Yes, this is in conflict with Chris's judgement that the
>> mass balance is not needed.
>>
>> Still, Chris is the principal designer for this airplane. He is the one
>> who is best qualified to design a mass balance solution. This is a
>> different issue from his judgement as to the need for such a design. He
>> is the only person in the world who can be sure any new design change
>> doesn't have an impact on other parts of the design. There are other
>> engineers, including Sabrina, who can do a reasonable job of the mass
>> balance design, but none of them really knows all the considerations that
>> went into the whole design. It may be that the additional weight on the
>> ailerons calls for bigger bolts on the horizontal stabilizer.
>>
>> I would be much happier with a mass balance design from Chris than anybody
>> else.
>>
>> Paul
>> XL grounded
>>
>> At 11:48 AM 4/16/2009, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Why, you have already stated here that Chris' solution to correcting the
>>>issue of possible flutter isn't good enough for you?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 65
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
Juan,
You stopped making sense a little while ago, but you're truly rambling now.
I would think that the value of a homebuilt would decrease most if the type keeps
falling out of the sky, no matter what the reason is. A thorough review and,
if necessary, modifications to the designcan only restore trust.
And please leave your political views off this list.
Hans van Riet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=239630#239630
Message 66
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
take care in choosing mass balance modifications. The design rules applying to
European 601XL is CAP482 British Civil Airworthiness Requirements section S -
small light airplanes, section D, design and construction, S 6569
"Mass balance
The supporting structure and the attachment of concentrated mass balance weights
used on control surfaces must be designed for:
a) 24 g normal to the plane of the control surface;
b) 12 g fore and aft; and
c) 12 g parallel to the hinge line"
I found this while reviewing the design rules documents that applied before the
ASTM became the rule for LSA. I have not been able to freely obtain the ASTM
spec anywhere but it may become more available now the NTSB have pointed to it.
Both BCAR-S and DS 10141E (formerly TP10141E from transport Canada) design rules
that applied to the 601XL in non LSA markets
require flight testing for flutter, and the pre- LSA 601XL design should therefore
have been tested in this manner, but I dont know the requirements under ASTM
certification for LSA.
Another point about the DS10141E spec is that max. G loading for these aircraft
is fixed, therefore it is not legal to modify or operate them at a higher than
gross weight than originally stated unless the limit airspeeds such as Vne,
Vfe are adjusted accordingly ensuring that the 4G will not be exceeded. I see
people flying around here in "FAT Ultralight" mode saying that its OK I got a
letter from CH (and they did, actually) and just dont fly in gusty conditions
when "heavy".
Ralph
psm(at)att.net wrote:
> Hi Sabrina,
>
> You have my greatest respect for trying to engineer a solution to the
> mass balance problem. However, I would feel a lot better if the
> design came from Chris.
>
> Have you used your special relationship with ZAC to ask if we can
> have a mass balance design released from them?
>
> Paul
> do not archive
>
> At 11:19 AM 4/16/2009, you wrote:
>
> > Comments?
> >
> >
>
--------
Ralph - CH701 / 2200a
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=239633#239633
Message 67
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
Hello Sabrina,
-
The flex hindge tested by ZAC worked perfectly in the test...- 0.016" has
necer failed, so I dont think we need a heavier alerion skin.-maybe only
use A5 ribbets, mainly in the ends.--
-
Saludos
Gary Gower.
--- On Thu, 4/16/09, Sabrina <chicago2paris@msn.com> wrote:
From: Sabrina <chicago2paris@msn.com>
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US
<chicago2paris@msn.com>
I am told Grainger just delivered two VJ99 pipe stands to my 'shop'
that I will use for balancing...
Things are going well...
Hinged or flex?
Gig raises a good point, all that new weight (2 1/2 pounds) on an .016 flex
hinge scares me...
Do we ask Zenith to make an .025 skin? would that flex properly?
Comments?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=239564#239564
=0A=0A=0A
Message 68
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 04:38:06PM -0400, jaybannist@cs.com wrote:
> Obviously off line and strictly between you and me:
Uhm, you sent this to the list..
> It is my opinion that the hard-core members of the ZBAG group feel that
> there is a fatal flaw in the design of the 601XL , therefore feel cheated
> by Zenith and Chris Heintz and they want revenge.? I believe it is their
> goal to put Zenith out of business and establish grounds for suing
> Zenith.?
I don't know if you consider me a hard-core memebr of ZBAG or not. However,
I can assure you that I don't feel cheated in the slightest. I have no
desire to put Zenith or AMD out of business, as that would leave my aircraft
in limbo in terms of approval for modifications and the like, not to mention
severely impacting the availability of spare parts.
> In spite of the extensive testing that Zenith has done,
..except that Zenith's testing was all static testing, with no dynamic tests
done at all. They may have done them for the European certification bodies,
but only on the European version of the aircraft, and no data has been
released.
> they still persist in their insistance that it is a flawed design.
Nope. I don't kow if it's flawed or not. I'd love nothing more than for the
design to be proven sound, but that hasn't been done yet, because the
necessary tests haven't been performed.
> The NTSB is by nature a "sky is falling" organization, so they published
> that represensible letter that is full of inuendo, speculation,
> half-truths and outright lies.
I'll ask you the same question Juan adamantly refuses to answer: How do you
explain the inflight breakups, especially that of N158MD?
> This has made the ZBAG guys almost giddy; and they are now saying "I told
> you so".
Whatever anyone else may or may not be saying, I can assure you that "I told
you so" is not what I want to say.
> I seriously doubt that there is a flutter problem, but Zenith will
> probably come up with a modification that will get this off their backs,
> whether it is really necessary or not.
Would taking positive action to eliminate flutter as a possibility really be
so bad?
> I'm also guessing that a Zenith modification will not satisfy the ZBAG
> guys.
I can't speak for any of the other ZBAG members, but a modification that was
shown through proper dynamic testing to eliminate any possibility of flutter
would satisfy me no matter who it came from.
My position n this hasn't changed one bit from the beginning. I don't know
for sure that there is or is not a problem. The entire Zodiac community
needs to know, once and for all. All we have right now are guesses. I'll
accept any answer that's backed up by testing in accordance with generally
accepted standards of aeronautical engineering. So far, I am not aware of
any such testing having been done. No, the static load testing is not
sufficient.
--
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 69
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
Jay,
Refresh my recollection, which crash was it where the main spar nuts had 5 or 6
threads showing? Did the NTSB mention that in their report? Did ZBAG ever
mention that to the NTSB? In my book, ZBAG is concentrating on aileron flutter
to the detriment of spar and stick issues. As I told you off line, a vast
majority of my modifications addressed spar and stick issues. Properly tensioned
unbalanced ailerons are safe up to a certain speed. ZBAG should release
their Vne before someone is killed. If they don't have a V speed, how are they
telling the NTSB that flutter is an issue without GVT data? They need either
GVT data or a computer predicted onset V speed before they can cry flutter.
>From what I am told, they only supplied 2D and not 3D data to the NTSB, is this
true?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=239637#239637
Message 70
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
Actually, to be reasonably accurate in a flutter speed prediction they need a fairly
complete FEA model that has been validated and tweaked by a GVT. That model
is then run thru flutter code usually in various configurations (fuel full,
fuel empty, flaps up and down). The output will then give you the flutter
and divergence speeds. Really, an FEA model that is unvalidated by a GVT is a
guess at best. Also, the GVT data alone tell you nothing, it is only used to
establish an accurate FEA model.
Jim Machin
601xl almost done
--- On Thu, 4/16/09, Sabrina <chicago2paris@msn.com> wrote:
> From: Sabrina <chicago2paris@msn.com>
> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US
> To: zenith-list@matronics..com
> Date: Thursday, April 16, 2009, 4:57 PM
> "Sabrina" <chicago2paris@msn.com>
>
> Jay,
>
> Refresh my recollection, which crash was it where the main
> spar nuts had 5 or 6 threads showing?Did
> the NTSB mention that in their report?Did
> ZBAG ever mention that to the NTSB? In my book,
> ZBAG is concentrating on aileron flutter to the detriment of
> spar and stick issues. As I told you off line,
> a vast majority of my modifications addressed spar and stick
> issues. Properly tensioned unbalanced ailerons are
> safe up to a certain speed. ZBAG should release their
> Vne before someone is killed. If they don't have a V speed,
> how are they telling the NTSB that flutter is an issue
> without GVT data? They need either GVT data or a
> computer predicted onset V speed before they can cry
> flutter.
>
> >From what I am told, they only supplied 2D and not 3D
> data to the NTSB, is this true?
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=239637#239637
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Email Forum -
> FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
Message 71
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
It seems to me that ZBAG did the unforgivable.. asked a question that they
did not wish to hear the answer..
Dave Austin 601HDS - 912
Message 72
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
The crash you are referring is the Yuba city crash.
=0A
What you are saying in relation to ZBAG concentrating on flutter to the det
riment of spar and stick issue is not entirely accurate. Our engineer have
been very thorough in addressing the other 2 issues.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
--- On Thu, 4/16/09, Sabrina <chicago2paris@msn.com> wrote:
From: Sabrina <chicago2paris@msn.com>
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US
Jay,
Refresh my recollection, which crash was it where the main spar nuts had 5
or 6 threads showing?---Did the NTSB mention that in their report?-
--Did ZBAG ever mention that to the NTSB?- - In my book, ZBAG is co
ncentrating on aileron flutter to the detriment of spar and stick issues.
- - As I told you off line, a vast majority of my modifications address
ed spar and stick issues.- Properly tensioned unbalanced ailerons are saf
e up to a certain speed.- ZBAG should release their Vne before someone is
killed. If they don't have a V speed, how are they telling the NTSB that f
lutter is an issue without GVT data?- They need either GVT data or a comp
uter predicted onset V speed before they can cry flutter.-
>From what I am told, they only supplied 2D and not 3D data to the NTSB, is
this true?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=239637#239637
le, List Admin.
Message 73
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
In my opinion, if the aircraft is built as designed and it has been show during
several tests that the spar is indeed strong enough. The question is how and
what lead up to the spar being overstressed. Flutter, an improper control input
or gust (if flown outside the prescribed flight envelope) are the only choices
assuming the structure has been adequately tested (which I think it has).
If what the NTSB says is true, that the stick forces reduce with g, well that
is a very bad thing and could easily lead to an unintentional overload. Flutter,
also is a bad thing within the prescribed flight envelope (due to whatever
reasons, ie. loose cables or whatever). The good news is that both of these
conditions are relatively easy to fix once identified. They will not take extensive
modifications to the airframe to rectify as opposed to if the wing spar
is too weak.
It will take a little time, but these issues can and will be resolved.
Jim Machin
601XL almost done
--- On Thu, 4/16/09, William Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: William Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Date: Thursday, April 16, 2009, 7:18 PM
> The
> crash you are referring is the Yuba city crash.
>
>
> What you are saying in relation to ZBAG concentrating on
> flutter to the detriment of spar and stick issue is not
> entirely accurate. Our engineer have been very thorough in
> addressing the other 2 issues.
>
>
> William Dominguez
> Zodiac 601XL Plans
> Miami Florida
> http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
>
> --- On Thu, 4/16/09, Sabrina
> <chicago2paris@msn..com> wrote:
>
> From: Sabrina <chicago2paris@msn.com>
> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of
> 601XLs in US
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Date: Thursday, April 16, 2009, 7:57 PM
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted
> by: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris@msn.com>
>
> Jay,
>
> Refresh my recollection, which crash was it where the
> main spar nuts had 5 or 6 threads
> showing?Did the NTSB mention that in their
> report?Did ZBAG ever mention that to the
> NTSB? In my book, ZBAG is concentrating on
> aileron flutter to the detriment of spar and stick
> issues. As I told you off line, a vast majority
> of my modifications addressed spar and stick issues.
> Properly tensioned unbalanced ailerons are safe up to a
> certain speed. ZBAG should release their Vne before
> someone is killed. If they don't have a V speed, how are
> they telling the NTSB that flutter is an issue without GVT
> data? They need either GVT data or a computer
> predicted onset V speed before they can cry flutter.
>
> >From what I am told, they only supplied 2D and not 3D
> data to the NTSB, is this true?
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=239637#239=======================
> http://www.matronics.com/Nav=
> - MATRONICS cs.com"
> bsp; -Matt
> Dralle, List Adontribution"
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 74
| 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: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US |
Ya Andy, but if the patient moved his arm to much, it didn't break off.
Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ashontz
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 10:33 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US
Your argument would seem chicken and egg at first , problem is, in this
case, the egg came first. Some dumbass sending info to the NTSB and possibly
getting them all grounded is why coming up with a quick fix from the FAA may
be needed. Duhh.
Patient: "Doctor, my arm hurts when I move it like this."
Doctor: "Don't move it like that."
jmaynard wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 06:44:38AM -0700, Gig Giacona wrote:
>
> > Now that the NTSB is involved the FAA will have to rule one way or
> > another. If they go with grounding then there will be additional delay
> > because even if a fix for whatever problem might or might not exist is
> > found then it will have to be vetted by the FAA and as I mentioned they
> > are known to be glacial.
> >
> >
>
> The problem with this thinking is that the NTSB was already involved. ZBAG
> could either help or stay out of the way and watch them make decisions
based
> on inadequate information.
>
>
> > Second, why can't you finish up your CFI-SP? Your aircraft has not been
> > grounded by the only government agency with the power to do so the FAA.
> >
> >
>
> Because the only examiner in Minnesota who can give initial CFI-SP
> checkrides refuses to fly in my airplane. That's her call, and I'm not
going
> to try to twist her arm over it. The rules say that the aircraft has to be
> "acceptable to the examiner".
>
> I talked to the Minneapolis FSDO earlier today. They're trying to drum up
> someone from Wisconsin, or possibly elsewhere. If they succeed, it becomes
a
> matter of scheduling, and weather.
> --
> 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
--------
Andy Shontz
do not archive
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=239524#239524
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! --
|