Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:18 AM - Re: FAA Inspection for New AW Certificates. (annken100)
2. 06:18 AM - CH750 Flutter Mitigation (Patrick Best)
3. 06:35 AM - Re: CH750 Flutter Mitigation (n801bh@netzero.com)
4. 07:55 AM - Re: FAA Inspection for New AW Certificates. (Gig Giacona)
5. 11:27 AM - Fw: Experimenter - EAA's Newsletter for Homebuilders (Gary Gower)
6. 11:27 AM - Lighten up (MaxNr@aol.com)
7. 12:36 PM - Re: Lighten up (Carlos Sa)
8. 12:48 PM - Re: Experimenter - EAA's Newsletter for Homebuilders (Gig Giacona)
9. 04:38 PM - Re: CH750 Flutter Mitigation (Flydog1966@aol.com)
10. 04:38 PM - Support ZAC! (Stefan)
11. 04:41 PM - Re: CH750 Flutter Mitigation (Stefan)
12. 06:09 PM - Report number 1 from Sun n Fun - FAA "Response" to NTSB (Paul Mulwitz)
13. 06:41 PM - Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to the NTSB. (Paul Mulwitz)
14. 07:00 PM - Re: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to the NTSB. (Roger & Lina Hill)
15. 07:03 PM - Re: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to the NTSB. (Art Gibeaut)
16. 07:09 PM - Re: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to the NTSB. (Randy)
17. 07:59 PM - Re: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to the NTSB. (Paul Mulwitz)
18. 08:03 PM - Re: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to the NTSB. (John Smith)
19. 08:03 PM - Re: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to the NTSB. (jaybannist@cs.com)
20. 08:08 PM - Re: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to the NTSB. (Craig Payne)
21. 08:25 PM - Lets all get a grip here........ (lwhitlow)
22. 08:27 PM - Re: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to the NTSB. (Paul Mulwitz)
23. 08:37 PM - Re: Lighten up (JohnDRead@aol.com)
24. 08:38 PM - Re: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to t... (JAPhillipsGA@aol.com)
25. 08:38 PM - Re: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to the NTSB. (Roger & Lina Hill)
26. 08:42 PM - Re: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to the NTSB. (Paul Mulwitz)
27. 09:02 PM - Re: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to the NTSB. (Craig Payne)
28. 09:02 PM - Re: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to t... (JohnDRead@aol.com)
29. 09:14 PM - Re: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to... (JohnDRead@aol.com)
30. 09:34 PM - Re: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to... (Craig Payne)
31. 09:35 PM - Re: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to the NTSB. (Randy L. Thwing)
32. 09:41 PM - On the Zenith.aero web site: "Zenith Forum @ Sun'n'Fun - the unofficial report" posted by Doug Norman (Craig Payne)
33. 09:47 PM - Re: Re: CH750 Flutter Mitigation (Patrick Best)
34. 09:56 PM - AVweb's FBO of the week: Mexico, MO! (Craig Payne)
35. 10:10 PM - Re: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to... (JohnDRead@aol.com)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FAA Inspection for New AW Certificates. |
Gig,
Thank you for taking the initiative to call the EAA. I was thinking of doing the
same thing. It seems to me that a fleet-wide ban on all 601 XL's including amateur
built planes would set a precedence that would affect all home builders
not just those building 601's.
On a positive note, Louis Kantor reported on zenith.aero that he just received
his airworthiness certificate. For those on this list that were denied inspections,
I would suggest finding another inspector or contacting the FAA to get
some clarification and guidance.
Ken Pavlou
--------
601 XL / Corvair
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=240435#240435
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: | CH750 Flutter Mitigation |
Hi Everyone;
I'm taking a long hard look at the CH750, but am wondering if the aileron flutter
mitigation is also performed using control line tension or uses mass-balancing
too.
Does anyone know if flutter analysis was performed on this design?
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: CH750 Flutter Mitigation |
I will chime in here.. First I have an 801 but I assume the whole 701-75
0-801 line has mechanical linkage between the stick and flaperons.. Also
the 801 has split flaps/ailerons, That in itself "preloads" the entire
flaperon and should stabilize it to prevent flutter. You 701-750 guys ca
n add to this if I am off base..
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Patrick Best <Patrick.Best@telus.com>
Subject: Zenith-List: CH750 Flutter Mitigation
Hi Everyone;
I'm taking a long hard look at the CH750, but am wondering if the ailero
n flutter mitigation is also performed using control line tension or use
s mass-balancing too.
Does anyone know if flutter analysis was performed on this design?
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
____________________________________________________________
Written a book? Don't wait, publish your book today! Click for more info
rmation.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYRQhafa8pWaPrGvLIcW
uQSThsxfKDJB38GM3ZFk1Yv3wEPfaFoiWU/
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: FAA Inspection for New AW Certificates. |
I spoke again this morning with my contact at the EAA. First I want to give the
EAA a big 'atta boy for jumping on the issue.
The EAA has confirmed what the DAR I spoke to yesterday said and this is not a
nation wide FAA move but is limited to one FSDO office. They are in contact with
that FSDO office and feel that it will be cleared up shortly.
If you are a builder in the US and not member of the EAA you need to be. They are
there to help us and they do respond when called.
--------
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=240464#240464
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: | Fw: Experimenter - EAA's Newsletter for Homebuilders |
To all Friends,
-
I think--- that all of you (builders in USA)-should be members of E
AA.-
Helps a lot, even to members from another country, is very usefull their he
lp in some problems.-
-
You are very fortunate to have an Assn. like this one, hope ours was as pow
erfull.
-
In this ussue they mention about the problem in Las Vegas with an airport
-
Saludos
Gary Gower
Flying from Chapala, Mexico.
EAA member since 1987.
--- On Tue, 4/21/09, EAA Experimenter <experimenter@eaa.org> wrote:
From: EAA Experimenter <experimenter@eaa.org>
Subject: Experimenter - EAA's Newsletter for Homebuilders
Can't view this email? Click here to read the online version.-- SUBSCRI
BE HERE.
---
-
-
:-
PC-60 Engine in a VP-2
:-
How to: Anti-Collision Lights
:-
Exhausting Stuff
:-
Building a Personal Cruiser
:-
Basic Aircraft Painting
-
-
WELCOME!
Homebuilding Headlines
Remember Ricky Nelson's song "Travelin' Man"? That's me this month! I start
ed out by visiting EAA chapters in the Las Vegas area and am now enjoying t
he sights and sounds of the Sun 'n Fun Fly-In at Lakeland, Florida. While I
don't typically plan to write about government issues, this is a challengi
ng time.- Read more
Paul's Pick
Let's Meet the Challenge
Maybe I am wrong, but let's try again. Aviation grade fuel is expensive in
comparison to autofuel. Most autofuel contains ethanol, frequently a corn b
yproduct that is not compatible with aircraft powerplants, its systems, or
parts of it. Your automobile and mine operate on this same fuel. The questi
on is why can't the gasoline and 10 percent ethanol that operate the powerp
lant in our automobile do the same for the powerplant in our airplane? What
needs to be changed? It's a simple question, but not easy to answer. It is
well-known that the market for aviation fuel is very small and the cost to
get it to the pumps drives the price per gallon up, thus making its future
questionable.- Read more
The PC-60 Military Surplus Engine in a Volksplane VP-2
A chance meeting with a friend of a friend in 1993 led Dirk Kretschman to a
Continental PC-60 engine, the perfect powerplant, he was told, for the two
-place Volksplane (VP-2) Dirk was building. Nine years and several generati
ons of modifications later, Dirk's VP-2 flew in 2002 and he's enjoying Cub-
like performance, with more than 300 hours flying hours logged.- Read mor
e
How To . . .
Anti-Collision Lights
Increasing safety
When flying his TEAM AirBike, Paul Fiebich likes to be seen as well as see
other aircraft in flight. A pair of emergency beacon lights and a little in
genuity resulted in some low-cost wingtip strobes.
Read more
Exhausting Stuff
Richard Mole built his two-seat Jodel D18 in England 14 years ago and logge
d 1,000 hours on the airframe by his 10th year. The first engine, a Limbach
2000, cracked the case at 600 hours, so he installed a JPX 4TX 75/A engine
JPX 4TX75/A producing about 85 hp. Here are his adventures in chasing EGT
temperature variations, static rpm, and other exhausting issues with that e
ngine.- Read more
What Our Members are Building
Building a Personal Cruiser
Being a beta builder for a new aircraft design can be a tricky proposition,
but Bruce Sturgill's experience thus far with the Personal Cruiser has bee
n positive ... but he's still building.- Read more
Meet EAA Staffer Dick Knapinski
Media and Public Relations Specialist
Dick is the guy who is often in the media's "firing line" when questions ab
out aviation and homebuilt aircraft arise. He's been with the EAA staff sin
ce May 1992, handling media inquiries, member contacts, and the occasional
misfit question that rolls into the office. Dick has a wide breadth of know
ledge on EAA programs, history, and activities - or at least knows where to
find it or who's responsible for it.- Read more
Forum Review
Basic Aircraft Painting
Ron Alexander, in a Forum presentation made in 2008, explains the in's and
outs of how to paint your aircraft. His presentation will help you understa
nd the process and make an informed decision on whether or not to do it you
rself. Ron recently authored the book "How To Paint Your Own Airplane" whic
h is published by EAA (#21-07052 $19.95) and is available at our online sto
re.- Read more
>From the Editor
Patrick Panzera, EAA 555743
ppanzera@eaa.org
It's Show Time!
By the time you read this, many of us at or en route to Sun 'n Fun. For man
y, it will be a week of leisure, excitement, and hopefully education; for o
thers it will be a grueling week of exhibiting wares, hosting forums, searc
hing out article ideas, and networking. For me personally, I find the latte
r to be as much fun as (if not more than) the former. Although I'll be mann
ing the CONTACT! Magazine booth all week, as well as hosting the Alternativ
e Engines forum (Tent #10) and scouting article ideas for Experimenter and
for CONTACT!, I find it all very exhilarating! I just love being around air
planes and airplane people, especially experimental aircraft people!
So with that, I invite you to stop in at the CONTACT! Magazine booth in Han
gar C, Space #63, right in the center of the center row. I'd certainly like
to meet with you and hear what you think of this e-newsletter. More import
antly, let me know what you've seen while at the show; be my eyes and ears
while you are out and about and help me search out those obscure, intriguin
g ideas, products, and projects you'd like to read about in EAA magazines.
If I'm out, my son, Antonio, will be there filling my shoes; this will be h
is second year of helping out dear ol' Dad.
I would also like to encourage you to take full advantage of the educationa
l resources available at the show. The forums are top-notch, as are the han
ds-on workshops, and they are not too far from one another. And if you've n
ever made it down to "Paradise City" where the ultralights, trikes (weight-
shift control), and some light-sport aircraft pilots just have a ball all d
ay long, and well into the evening, you don't know what you've been missing
. It's just a tram ride away and well worth the trip.
See ya there!
Cutting Instrument Holes with a Hole Saw
In this segment, Earl Luce demonstrates a great technique to make cutting a
ccurate and perfectly aligned instrument panels holes. Earl is an EAA Sport
Air Workshop instructor and offers plans for the Wittman Buttercup.
Watch the video
Sport Aviation, Feb 1996
Xpresso, Reg Clarke's Suburu Powered Dragonfly
by Jack Cox
Read the article or search the archives by subject for a multitude of techn
ical and how-to articles.
Q&A
Got a question? Send it to us at Experimenter@eaa.org.
Whether you're building, restoring, or just an enthusiast. we want to know
what has you stumped.
Q: I hold the repairman certificate for my RV8. I've been told that my logb
ook entries should include a phrase similar to, "I deem this aircraft safe
to return to service," for entries other than the annual condition inspecti
on entry. I was told that it was a legal matter to protect myself should a
mishap occur. Having it state that the aircraft "was safe" in the entry, is
the issue.
Please clarify. If this is true, what can be done about the earlier entries
that don't include this phrase?- Read the answer
Read more Q&A
The Pietenpol Air Camper has a long history of making dreams of flight come
true...like it is for the six Big Piet builders from Georgia who are build
ing six airplanes together. (Read their story in the May issue of EAA Sport
Aviation, page 65.) Here's more about B. H. Pietenpol and his Air Camper a
nd the Big Piet builders.-View the photo gallery.
Poll
What is your specific interest or level of involvement in the homebuilding
community?
Aviation Glossary
Confused by a strange aeronautical term? EAA's online Aviation Glossary can
help.
MAGNAFLUX - The Magnaflux process is a method of testing ferrous metals for
surface and subsurface flaws, most often used on industrial tools and engi
ne parts during maintenance inspections. It works by applying a magnetic fi
eld to the component causing a high concentration of magnetic flux at surfa
ce cracks, which can be made visible by dusting iron powder or a similar ma
gnetic material over the component, using either wet or dry methods. The we
t method consists of bathing the part(s) in a solution containing iron oxid
e particles while placed in the magnetic field and inspecting it with a bla
ck light (ultraviolet light). The particles flux around the imperfections,
and the patterns are visible under the black light. The dry method is based
on the same principle. Parts are dusted with iron oxide particles and char
ged using a yoke. The particles are attracted to the discontinuities and ar
e visible by black light.
More glossary terms
The members of EAA invite YOU to become part of the EAA community.
Join :: Renew :: Gift
Member Benefits :: About EAA
Around the Web
Check out these interesting and informative videos and websites. Have a fav
orite technical site? Share it with us at Experimenter@eaa.org.
Survey
Please review and rate this issue of Experimenter.
-
Trouble downloading the free e-book? Click here to download now.
We apologize for the technical difficulties.
Subscribe
We welcome your comments and suggestions to Experimenter@eaa.org.
All content, logos and pictures are the property of EAA
Copyright =A9 2009 - EAA, Inc.
3000 Poberezny Road, Oshkosh , WI 54902
800-236-4800 :: 920-426-4800
Disclaimer/Privacy policy
Click here to unsubscribe.
=0A=0A=0A
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 |
|
High Flight, with FAA Supplement
Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of earth(1),
=C2- And danced(2) the skies on laughter silvered wings;
Sunward I've climbed(3) and joined the tumbling mirth(4)
=C2- Of sun-split clouds(5) and done a hundred things(6)
You have not dreamed of =94 Wheeled and soared and swung(7)
=C2- High in the sunlit silence(8). Hov'ring there(9)
I've chased the shouting wind(10) along and flung(11)
=C2- My eager craft through footless halls of air.
Up, up the long delirious(12), burning blue
=C2- I've topped the wind-swept heights(13) with easy grace,
Where never lark, or even eagle(14) flew;
=C2- And, while with silent, lifting mind I've trod
The high untrespassed sanctity of space(15),
=C2- Put out my hand(16), and touched the face of God.
NOTE:
1. Pilots must insure that all surly bonds have been slipped entirely
before aircraft taxi or flight is attempted.
2. During periods of severe sky dancing, crew and passengers must keep
seatbelts fastened. Crew should wear shoulderbelts as provided.
3. Sunward climbs must not exceed the maximum permitted aircraft ceiling.
4. Passenger aircraft are prohibited from joining the tumbling mirth.
5. Pilots flying through sun-split clouds under VFR conditions must comply
with all applicable minimum clearances.
6. Do not perform these hundred things in front of Federal Aviation
Administration inspectors.
7. Wheeling, soaring, and swinging will not be attempted except in aircraf
t
rated for such activities and within utility class weight limits.
8. Be advised that sunlit silence will occur only when a major engine
malfunction has occurred.
9. "Hov'ring there" will constitute a highly reliable signal that a flight
emergency is imminent.
10. Forecasts of shouting winds are available from the local FSS.
Encounters with unexpected shouting winds should be reported by pilots.
11. Pilots flinging eager craft through footless halls of air are reminded
that they alone are responsible for maintaining separation from other eage
r
craft.
12. Should any crewmember or passenger experience delirium while in the
burning blue, submit an irregularity report upon flight termination.
13. Windswept heights will be topped by a minimum of 1,000 feet to maintai
n
VFR minimum separations.
14. Aircraft engine ingestion of, or impact with, larks or eagles should
be
reported to the FAA and the appropriate aircraft maintenance facility.
15. Aircraft operating in the high untresspassed sanctity of space must
remain in IFR flight regardless of meteorological conditions and visibilit
y.
16. Pilots and passengers are reminded that opening doors or windows in
order to touch the face of God may result in loss of cabin pressure.
This should get me kicked of the list.
Bob Dingley
XL/Lyc
(Pausing at the wings)
Do not archive
**************
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 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 |
|
I'd like to report some improper use of the DNA thingy.
This needs to be preserved for posterity.
Carlos
2009/4/21 <MaxNr@aol.com>
> *
> High Flight, with FAA Supplement*
>
> Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of earth(1),
> And danced(2) the skies on laughter silvered wings;
>
...
> This should get me kicked of the list.
>
> Bob Dingley
> XL/Lyc
> (Pausing at the wings)
> Do not archive
>
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: | Re: Experimenter - EAA's Newsletter for Homebuilders |
It's buried down in there but if you would like to subscribe follow this link.
http://www.eaaonline.org/ls.cfm?r=23783107&sid=6377702&m=714001&u=ExAA&s=http://www.eaa.org/subscribe/
EAA Membership is not required.
--------
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=240525#240525
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: CH750 Flutter Mitigation |
Oh-boy here we go. Now the 750 has flutter. Help the sky IS falling !
In a message dated 4/21/2009 9:18:47 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
Patrick.Best@telus.com writes:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Patrick Best <Patrick.Best@telus.com>
Hi Everyone;
I'm taking a long hard look at the CH750, but am wondering if the aileron
flutter mitigation is also performed using control line tension or uses
mass-balancing too.
Does anyone know if flutter analysis was performed on this design?
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
hmpgID%3D62%26bcd%3DAprilfooter421NO62)
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 |
|
Lot's of stuff is lately being posted. Folks have real concerns and their voices
need to be heard. At this point its a waiting game. Tests are being performed
and Zenithair is part of the story. Nobody wants this to cause more harm and
we as builders can also do our part and support ZAC. Don't abandoned your 601
project! Continue to build and let ZAC know that you appreciate their efforts.
Screaming for info and response doesn't help. Support them and let them know
that you trust them. They are folks like you and me and by the way pilots too!!!!!
Stefan (Manitoba)
PS. Just ordered more airplane stuff from ZAC
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=240560#240560
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: CH750 Flutter Mitigation |
Nope!
Just wrong subject line.
Stefan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=240562#240562
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: | Report number 1 from Sun n Fun - FAA "Response" to NTSB |
I talked to several FAA folks at Sun n Fun today about the situation
with the NTSB and Zodiac XL. Here are my reactions and impressions.
First, it doesn't sound like they are going to do anything soon such
as grounding the fleet as requested by the NTSB. They are taking the
NTSB report very seriously and starting a project to collect
information and make decisions about the situation. The first report
(not to be made public I presume) is due to be completed some time in
July. They are talking to the Heintz clan and might be able to have
some influence there (optimistic, but possible).
The FAA doesn't seem interested in doing anything about kit or
scratch built planes. They are much more concerned with factory S-LSA planes.
The general idea I got was that if they decide to force some sort of
action on the S-LSA owners it will start with an NPRM and the rule
process will likely take at least a year. After that they might
force XL owners to do something like the aileron balance change of
grounding the planes. My guess is this will not be the most
interesting process in this whole mess. I think other actions by
other people will be much more interesting - more critical time paths.
Please remember these are just comments from informal chats with
government employees. I am not, and cannot, commit anybody to
anything. I just wanted to pass around the latest gossip.
Paul
XL grounded
P.S. note for Sabrina - I suggested the guy in charge of this mess at
the FAA contact you to get your impressions and possibly get you
somehow involved in the process. I told him you were probably the
most well informed person in the builder community about engineering
issues on the XL. As you might expect, he knew exactly who you are
and commented you got your airworthiness certificate on the last day
for fat ultralights. So, if you are mad about being contacted, be
mad at me rather than the nice guy from the FAA.
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: | Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to |
the NTSB.
Warning. I was very emotional in my dealings with the Heintz
brothers, Sebastian and especially Matthew. That means this report
might be all a bunch of imagined issues and nonsense based on my
heated condition.
First let me report the good news. I didn't kill either one of the
boys - I didn't even hit either of them. (I apologize if those seem
like redundant statements, but if I did hit one of them the blow
would probably be fatal thanks to my years studying Hap Ki Do.)
Second let me report the background. At 12:00 Matthew started
talking in tent 11 about the situation with the Zodiac XL. Sebastian
was also there and had a few comments, but it was mostly
Matthew. After the meeting I walked back to the Zenith display
(which, oddly enough, didn't include an XL) with both boys and tried
to hammer my simple point home. In the end, I think it was all
wasted breath on my part, but I am not sure. Perhaps in time they
will come around and do the simple things I demanded.
Now for the good stuff. (Remember, this is my heated memory of an
even more heated discussion. So take it with a grain of salt.) It
seems like Matthew is the guy in charge of handling this
situation. He explained he is now running Zenair where all of the
development is done while Sebastian is handling ZAC which merely
produces kits. Matthew doesn't think the NTSB has any standing in
this mess. He said they didn't have any proof to convince him that
their decision was the right one at least 5 times in the tent
session. He has hired a couple of engineering firms to do some
studies of the design and he gives them complete credence while
considering the NTSB mostly worthless. The good news is he thinks
the highly paid engineers will be finished with their work and submit
their findings within 2 weeks. He said he will base his further
actions on those findings.
My position was that the NTSB ruling was authoritative and needed to
be respected. Since the NTSB screamed we need aileron mass balancing
we need aileron mass balancing. I feel even more strongly that we
need an engineering change for the stick sensitivity problem
identified in the NTSB report. It seems to me this problem makes it
more likely that a panicked pilot will pull the wings off since it
gets progressively easier to do as the load increases. I told him
and several of the FAA folks that I can't imagine any reason why this
problem should not be corrected.
My point about the changes is that only the Heintz clan and their
companies can issue an authoritative engineering change. Only their
companies (and their father) have the expertise and knowledge of the
design history to make a reasonable determination that the new
changes won't cause unexpected problems in the remainder of the
design. I also said he didn't need to keep covering his rear end
regarding the question of the real need for these changes. The NTSB
has already taken the heat for demanding these changes for the whole
fleet, while Matthew made it clear his whole effort will only
consider the current drawings and not all the changes and variations
the home builders have introduced. Matthew can release the changes
with a caveat that he doesn't think they will help but at least they
won't hurt anything. This is the normal way Zenith approves of
design changes submitted for review by builders.
My general impression is that it will take a long time for Matthew
the come around and issue the needed design changes. I expect my
plane to be grounded (by me) for a long time. The central issue is
Matthew's decision process, and he doesn't seem to see it my way. I
will continue to apply as much pressure on him as I can, even thought
I think it is wasted effort. I simply have no reasonable alternative.
Paul
XL grounded
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: | Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions |
to the NTSB.
Paul:
YOU can't imagine any reason why this problem should not be corrected?
Really?
How about the fact that any admission by Mathew Heintz that a design flaw
exist in the XL would open them up to a law suit (or law suits)
Sadly, reason enough, I think....
Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Mulwitz
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 8:41 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan
reactions to the NTSB.
Warning. I was very emotional in my dealings with the Heintz
brothers, Sebastian and especially Matthew. That means this report
might be all a bunch of imagined issues and nonsense based on my
heated condition.
First let me report the good news. I didn't kill either one of the
boys - I didn't even hit either of them. (I apologize if those seem
like redundant statements, but if I did hit one of them the blow
would probably be fatal thanks to my years studying Hap Ki Do.)
Second let me report the background. At 12:00 Matthew started
talking in tent 11 about the situation with the Zodiac XL. Sebastian
was also there and had a few comments, but it was mostly
Matthew. After the meeting I walked back to the Zenith display
(which, oddly enough, didn't include an XL) with both boys and tried
to hammer my simple point home. In the end, I think it was all
wasted breath on my part, but I am not sure. Perhaps in time they
will come around and do the simple things I demanded.
Now for the good stuff. (Remember, this is my heated memory of an
even more heated discussion. So take it with a grain of salt.) It
seems like Matthew is the guy in charge of handling this
situation. He explained he is now running Zenair where all of the
development is done while Sebastian is handling ZAC which merely
produces kits. Matthew doesn't think the NTSB has any standing in
this mess. He said they didn't have any proof to convince him that
their decision was the right one at least 5 times in the tent
session. He has hired a couple of engineering firms to do some
studies of the design and he gives them complete credence while
considering the NTSB mostly worthless. The good news is he thinks
the highly paid engineers will be finished with their work and submit
their findings within 2 weeks. He said he will base his further
actions on those findings.
My position was that the NTSB ruling was authoritative and needed to
be respected. Since the NTSB screamed we need aileron mass balancing
we need aileron mass balancing. I feel even more strongly that we
need an engineering change for the stick sensitivity problem
identified in the NTSB report. It seems to me this problem makes it
more likely that a panicked pilot will pull the wings off since it
gets progressively easier to do as the load increases. I told him
and several of the FAA folks that I can't imagine any reason why this
problem should not be corrected.
My point about the changes is that only the Heintz clan and their
companies can issue an authoritative engineering change. Only their
companies (and their father) have the expertise and knowledge of the
design history to make a reasonable determination that the new
changes won't cause unexpected problems in the remainder of the
design. I also said he didn't need to keep covering his rear end
regarding the question of the real need for these changes. The NTSB
has already taken the heat for demanding these changes for the whole
fleet, while Matthew made it clear his whole effort will only
consider the current drawings and not all the changes and variations
the home builders have introduced. Matthew can release the changes
with a caveat that he doesn't think they will help but at least they
won't hurt anything. This is the normal way Zenith approves of
design changes submitted for review by builders.
My general impression is that it will take a long time for Matthew
the come around and issue the needed design changes. I expect my
plane to be grounded (by me) for a long time. The central issue is
Matthew's decision process, and he doesn't seem to see it my way. I
will continue to apply as much pressure on him as I can, even thought
I think it is wasted effort. I simply have no reasonable alternative.
Paul
XL grounded
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: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions |
to the NTSB.
Paul, I say this with all the respect in the world, but, was there any right answer
to your questions that you would have accepted? You really need to calm down
and ask yourself--"am I making things better, or worse?
Please don't scorch me, I mean this only in the most positive terms.
Do not archive
--- On Tue, 4/21/09, Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net> wrote:
> From: Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net>
> Subject: Zenith-List: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions
to the NTSB.
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Date: Tuesday, April 21, 2009y, 8:40 PM
> Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net>
>
> Warning. I was very emotional in my dealings with the
> Heintz brothers, Sebastian and especially Matthew.
> That means this report might be all a bunch of imagined
> issues and nonsense based on my heated condition.
>
> First let me report the good news. I didn't kill
> either one of the boys - I didn't even hit either of
> them. (I apologize if those seem like redundant
> statements, but if I did hit one of them the blow would
> probably be fatal thanks to my years studying Hap Ki Do.)
>
> Second let me report the background. At 12:00 Matthew
> started talking in tent 11 about the situation with the
> Zodiac XL. Sebastian was also there and had a few
> comments, but it was mostly Matthew. After the meeting
> I walked back to the Zenith display (which, oddly enough,
> didn't include an XL) with both boys and tried to hammer my
> simple point home. In the end, I think it was all
> wasted breath on my part, but I am not sure. Perhaps
> in time they will come around and do the simple things I
> demanded.
>
> Now for the good stuff. (Remember, this is my heated
> memory of an even more heated discussion. So take it
> with a grain of salt.) It seems like Matthew is the
> guy in charge of handling this situation. He explained
> he is now running Zenair where all of the development is
> done while Sebastian is handling ZAC which merely produces
> kits. Matthew doesn't think the NTSB has any standing
> in this mess. He said they didn't have any proof to
> convince him that their decision was the right one at least
> 5 times in the tent session. He has hired a couple of
> engineering firms to do some studies of the design and he
> gives them complete credence while considering the NTSB
> mostly worthless. The good news is he thinks the
> highly paid engineers will be finished with their work and
> submit their findings within 2 weeks. He said he will
> base his further actions on those findings.
>
> My position was that the NTSB ruling was authoritative and
> needed to be respected. Since the NTSB screamed we
> need aileron mass balancing we need aileron mass
> balancing. I feel even more strongly that we need an
> engineering change for the stick sensitivity problem
> identified in the NTSB report. It seems to me this
> problem makes it more likely that a panicked pilot will pull
> the wings off since it gets progressively easier to do as
> the load increases. I told him and several of the FAA
> folks that I can't imagine any reason why this problem
> should not be corrected.
>
> My point about the changes is that only the Heintz clan and
> their companies can issue an authoritative engineering
> change. Only their companies (and their father) have
> the expertise and knowledge of the design history to make a
> reasonable determination that the new changes won't cause
> unexpected problems in the remainder of the design. I
> also said he didn't need to keep covering his rear end
> regarding the question of the real need for these
> changes. The NTSB has already taken the heat for
> demanding these changes for the whole fleet, while Matthew
> made it clear his whole effort will only consider the
> current drawings and not all the changes and variations the
> home builders have introduced. Matthew can release the
> changes with a caveat that he doesn't think they will help
> but at least they won't hurt anything. This is the
> normal way Zenith approves of design changes submitted for
> review by builders.
>
> My general impression is that it will take a long time for
> Matthew the come around and issue the needed design
> changes. I expect my plane to be grounded (by me) for
> a long time. The central issue is Matthew's decision
> process, and he doesn't seem to see it my way. I will
> continue to apply as much pressure on him as I can, even
> thought I think it is wasted effort. I simply have no
> reasonable alternative.
>
> Paul
> XL grounded
>
>
> Email Forum -
> FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
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: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions |
to the NTSB.
Paul, I couldn't disagree with you more. I happen to love the sensitive
control inputs and I hope the Heintz boys don't change it. Learn to fly the
plane properly and you will love it also.
Randy
601xl 280 hours and loving it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Mulwitz" <psm@att.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 8:40 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan
reactions to the NTSB.
>
> Warning. I was very emotional in my dealings with the Heintz brothers,
> Sebastian and especially Matthew. That means this report might be all a
> bunch of imagined issues and nonsense based on my heated condition.
>
> First let me report the good news. I didn't kill either one of the boys -
> I didn't even hit either of them. (I apologize if those seem like
> redundant statements, but if I did hit one of them the blow would probably
> be fatal thanks to my years studying Hap Ki Do.)
>
> Second let me report the background. At 12:00 Matthew started talking in
> tent 11 about the situation with the Zodiac XL. Sebastian was also there
> and had a few comments, but it was mostly Matthew. After the meeting I
> walked back to the Zenith display (which, oddly enough, didn't include an
> XL) with both boys and tried to hammer my simple point home. In the end,
> I think it was all wasted breath on my part, but I am not sure. Perhaps
> in time they will come around and do the simple things I demanded.
>
> Now for the good stuff. (Remember, this is my heated memory of an even
> more heated discussion. So take it with a grain of salt.) It seems like
> Matthew is the guy in charge of handling this situation. He explained he
> is now running Zenair where all of the development is done while Sebastian
> is handling ZAC which merely produces kits. Matthew doesn't think the
> NTSB has any standing in this mess. He said they didn't have any proof to
> convince him that their decision was the right one at least 5 times in the
> tent session. He has hired a couple of engineering firms to do some
> studies of the design and he gives them complete credence while
> considering the NTSB mostly worthless. The good news is he thinks the
> highly paid engineers will be finished with their work and submit their
> findings within 2 weeks. He said he will base his further actions on
> those findings.
>
> My position was that the NTSB ruling was authoritative and needed to be
> respected. Since the NTSB screamed we need aileron mass balancing we need
> aileron mass balancing. I feel even more strongly that we need an
> engineering change for the stick sensitivity problem identified in the
> NTSB report. It seems to me this problem makes it more likely that a
> panicked pilot will pull the wings off since it gets progressively easier
> to do as the load increases. I told him and several of the FAA folks that
> I can't imagine any reason why this problem should not be corrected.
>
> My point about the changes is that only the Heintz clan and their
> companies can issue an authoritative engineering change. Only their
> companies (and their father) have the expertise and knowledge of the
> design history to make a reasonable determination that the new changes
> won't cause unexpected problems in the remainder of the design. I also
> said he didn't need to keep covering his rear end regarding the question
> of the real need for these changes. The NTSB has already taken the heat
> for demanding these changes for the whole fleet, while Matthew made it
> clear his whole effort will only consider the current drawings and not all
> the changes and variations the home builders have introduced. Matthew can
> release the changes with a caveat that he doesn't think they will help but
> at least they won't hurt anything. This is the normal way Zenith approves
> of design changes submitted for review by builders.
>
> My general impression is that it will take a long time for Matthew the
> come around and issue the needed design changes. I expect my plane to be
> grounded (by me) for a long time. The central issue is Matthew's decision
> process, and he doesn't seem to see it my way. I will continue to apply
> as much pressure on him as I can, even thought I think it is wasted
> effort. I simply have no reasonable alternative.
>
> Paul
> XL grounded
>
>
>
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: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions |
to the NTSB.
Hi guys,
Please let me respond to several of your comments in one message:
Randy: I agree with you that the controls should be nice and
sensitive. The design flaw the NTSB identified is that as you pull
more Gs it gets easier to increase the load. I like the stick to be
sensitive in normal flight too, but it shouldn't get easier to load
the airframe more as the Gs increase. This is the kind of thing that
would never make it through a part 23 qualification.
Art: I am quite calm now, and I really do think I am making things
better rather than worse. I admit, though, that the only answer from
Matthew that I can find acceptable is that he will issue the design
changes. I don't see any other way my plane can be ungrounded. The
frustrating part for me (today) is that I have no clue how long it
will be before this takes place even though I am quite sure it will
eventually happen.
Roger, I agree with you completely. Matthew is worried about
admitting liability for the design flaw. He knows a law suit is a
waste of time because he is judgement proof. Still, I told him he
can issue the necessary changes without admitting anything except
that the changes were well analyzed for fitting in with the remaining
parts of the plane. He can blame the NTSB for deciding the changes
were needed.
I personally feel the NTSB demand must be met - simply because they
demanded it. I don't think they have proved anything, and I don't
think they have to prove anything. Matthew thinks his judgement
about the cause of the crashes is more important than the NTSB
ruling. From my point of view that is the real problem that keeps my
plane on the ground.
So far, I have no reason to be upset with any of the comments I have
received. The simple fact that I am unhappy about the Heintz
children's approach to this problem is my problem not any body
else's. If only Chris hadn't retired I believe we would have already
reached a reasonable solution to this mess.
Paul
XL grounded
do not archive
At 07:08 PM 4/21/2009, you wrote:
>Paul, I couldn't disagree with you more. I happen to love the
>sensitive control inputs and I hope the Heintz boys don't change
>it. Learn to fly the plane properly and you will love it also.
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: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions |
to the NTSB.
Paul,=0A=0AThanks for stepping up and putting up the heat with Zenith.- R
est assure that you are not the only one who is frustrated with this mess,
and it's good to have some information on where Zenith is standing at the m
oment.=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Paul Mulwitz
<psm@att.net>=0ATo: zenith-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Tuesday, April 21, 20
09 8:40:44 PM=0ASubject: Zenith-List: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Hei
l Mulwitz <psm@att.net>=0A=0AWarning.- I was very emotional in my dealing
s with the Heintz brothers, Sebastian and especially Matthew.- That means
this report might be all a bunch of imagined issues and nonsense based on
my heated condition.=0A=0AFirst let me report the good news.- I didn't ki
ll either one of the boys - I didn't even hit either of them.- (I apologi
ze if those seem like redundant statements, but if I did hit one of them th
e blow would probably be fatal thanks to my years studying Hap Ki Do.)=0A
=0ASecond let me report the background.- At 12:00 Matthew started talking
in tent 11 about the situation with the Zodiac XL.- Sebastian was also t
here and had a few comments, but it was mostly Matthew.- After the meetin
g I walked back to the Zenith display (which, oddly enough, didn't include
an XL) with both boys and tried to hammer my simple point home.- In the e
nd, I think it was all wasted breath on my part, but I am not sure.- Perh
aps in time they will come around and do the simple things I demanded.=0A
=0ANow for the good stuff.- (Remember, this is my heated memory of an eve
n more heated discussion.- So take it with a grain of salt.)- It seems
like Matthew is the guy in charge of handling this situation.- He explain
ed he is now running Zenair where all of the development is done while Seba
stian is handling ZAC which merely produces kits.- Matthew doesn't think
the NTSB has any standing in this mess.- He said they didn't have any pro
of to convince him that their decision was the right one at least 5 times i
n the tent session.- He has hired a couple of engineering firms to do som
e studies of the design and he gives them complete credence while consideri
ng the NTSB mostly worthless.- The good news is he thinks the highly paid
engineers will be finished with their work and submit their findings withi
n 2 weeks.- He said he will base his further actions on those findings.
=0A=0AMy position was that the NTSB ruling was authoritative and needed to
be respected.- Since the NTSB screamed we need aileron mass balancing we
need aileron mass balancing.- I feel even more strongly that we need an e
ngineering change for the stick sensitivity problem identified in the NTSB
report.- It seems to me this problem makes it more likely that a panicked
pilot will pull the wings off since it gets progressively easier to do as
the load increases.- I told him and several of the FAA folks that I can't
imagine any reason why this problem should not be corrected.=0A=0AMy point
about the changes is that only the Heintz clan and their companies can iss
ue an authoritative engineering change.- Only their companies (and their
father) have the expertise and knowledge of the design history to make a re
asonable determination that the new changes won't cause unexpected problems
in the remainder of the design.- I also said he didn't need to keep cove
ring his rear end regarding the question of the real need for these changes
..- The NTSB has already taken the heat for demanding these changes for th
e whole fleet, while Matthew made it clear his whole effort will only consi
der the current drawings and not all the changes and variations the home bu
ilders have introduced.- Matthew can release the changes with a caveat th
at he doesn't think they will help but at least they won't hurt anything.
- This is the normal way Zenith approves of design changes submitted for
review by builders.=0A=0AMy general impression is that it will take a long
time for Matthew the come around and issue the needed design changes.- I
expect my plane to be grounded (by me) for a long time.- The central issu
e is Matthew's decision process, and he doesn't seem to see it my way.- I
will continue to apply as much pressure on him as I can, even thought I th
ink it is wasted effort.- I simply have no reasonable alternative.=0A=0AP
=========================0A
======================0A=0A=0A
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: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions |
to the NTSB.
Paul,
If I may say, I think you are WAY off base.=C2- In the first place, your
airplane is not grounded by anyone but you.=C2- You can=99t shift
the blame to The Heintz=99. They didn=99t ground your airplan
e.=C2- That was your call and your call alone.=C2-
In the second place, the Heintz brothers are obviously more gentlemen than
you are or they probably would have punched YOU out.=C2-
Third, the NTSB is NOT infallible.=C2- They are free to say whatever the
y want, even make stuff up, without proof and without recourse.=C2- They
made stuff up in their warning letter; in which they even contradicted so
me of their own accident reports.=C2- If they were such hot-shot, not-to
-be-questioned engineers, they would have provided ABSOLUTE proof of ailer
on flutter; which they did not do. What they provided was simply off the
wall speculation, based on who knows what.=C2- They have a self-imposed
mandate to be alarmists, and they dutifully fulfill that mandate.=C2-
As opposed to that, the FAA can=99t act that way.=C2- They must
be responsible for their actions because their actions have real conseque
nces.
Both the Heintz brothers and the FAA have told us that they are doing ever
ything they can to resolve this issue. Unlike the NTSB, they must find out
if there really is a problem with the design in the first place. Apparent
ly you have decided that aileron flutter is the problem and that mass bala
nce is the solution.=C2- The problem is that you don=99t know what
=2
0you don=99t know (and you apparently don=99t even know that).
If they do discover a design problem they still have to design a real sol
ution; not just something to placate the NTSB, ZBAG and you.=C2- It is
totally unreasonable to expect that to happen instantly.=C2-
Stay angry with the Heintz brothers and make yourself miserable; or back
off, relax and get back to building and soothe your psyche. Just make up
your mind to wait for this to be resolved in a safe and reasonable fashio
n. It WILL be resolved.
Jay Bannister
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net>
Sent: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 8:40 pm
Subject: Zenith-List: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reacti
ons to the NTSB.
=C2-
Warning. I was very emotional in my dealings with the Heintz
brothers, Sebastian and especially Matthew. That means this report
might be all a bunch of imagined issues and nonsense based on my
heated condition.=C2-
=C2-
First let me report the good news. I didn't kill either one of the
boys - I didn't even hit either of them. (I apologize if those seem
like redundant statements, but if I did hit one of them the blow
would probably be fatal thanks to my years studying Hap Ki Do.)=C2-
=C2-
Second let me report the background. At 12:00 Matthew started
talking in tent 11 about the situation with the Zodiac X
L. Sebastian
was also there and had a few comments, but it was mostly
Matthew. After the meeting I walked back to the Zenith display
(which, oddly enough, didn't include an XL) with both boys and tried
to hammer my simple point home. In the end, I think it was all
wasted breath on my part, but I am not sure. Perhaps in time they
will come around and do the simple things I demanded.=C2-
=C2-
Now for the good stuff. (Remember, this is my heated memory of an
even more heated discussion. So take it with a grain of salt.) It
seems like Matthew is the guy in charge of handling this
situation. He explained he is now running Zenair where all of the
development is done while Sebastian is handling ZAC which merely
produces kits. Matthew doesn't think the NTSB has any standing in
this mess. He said they didn't have any proof to convince him that
their decision was the right one at least 5 times in the tent
session. He has hired a couple of engineering firms to do some
studies of the design and he gives them complete credence while
considering the NTSB mostly worthless. The good news is he thinks
the highly paid engineers will be finished with their work and submit
their findings within 2 weeks. He said he will base his further
actions on those findings.=C2-
=C2-
My position was that the NTSB ruling was authoritative and needed to
be respected. Since the NTSB screamed we need aileron mass balancing
we
need aileron mass balancing. I feel even more strongly that we
need an engineering change for the stick sensitivity problem
identified in the NTSB report. It seems to me this problem makes it
more likely that a panicked pilot will pull the wings off since it
gets progressively easier to do as the load increases. I told him
and several of the FAA folks that I can't imagine any reason why this
problem should not be corrected.=C2-
=C2-
My point about the changes is that only the Heintz clan and their
companies can issue an authoritative engineering change. Only their
companies (and their father) have the expertise and knowledge of the
design history to make a reasonable determination that the new
changes won't cause unexpected problems in the remainder of the
design. I also said he didn't need to keep covering his rear end
regarding the question of the real need for these changes. The NTSB
has already taken the heat for demanding these changes for the whole
fleet, while Matthew made it clear his whole effort will only
consider the current drawings and not all the changes and variations
the home builders have introduced. Matthew can release the changes
with a caveat that he doesn't think they will help but at least they
won't hurt anything. This is the normal way Zenith approves of
design changes submitted for review by builders.=C2-
=C2-
My general impression is that it will take a long time for Matthew
the come around and is
sue the needed design changes. I expect my
plane to be grounded (by me) for a long time. The central issue is
Matthew's decision process, and he doesn't seem to see it my way. I
will continue to apply as much pressure on him as I can, even thought
I think it is wasted effort. I simply have no reasonable alternative.=C2
-
=C2-
Paul=C2-
XL grounded=C2-
=C2-
========================
=============C2-
========================
=============C2-
========================
=============C2-
rous support!=C2-
========================
=============C2-
=C2-
=C2-
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
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: | Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions |
to the NTSB.
Zenith should be able to take the results from the outside engineering firms
(which probably includes the active vibration testing being done in Germany
and shown in the YouTube video) to the NTSB and the FAA. Then somebody (or
everybody) may shift their position. If the whole of the outside testing is
made public then it can be peer reviewed and/or enlightened amateurs (like
us) can make our own decisions (assuming the FAA doesn't preempt us). Based
on what I saw in the video there is going to be more vibration data
available on the XL than any other LSA.
The worrisome outcome is if the outside engineering investigations don't
offer any new recommendations. Then we are back to where we are now with a
high percentage of unexplained crashes and no way forward (unless you
believe flutter explains all).
-- Craig
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: | Lets all get a grip here........ |
I am astounded with all of the nonsense that has cropped up on this list over the
601XL issues.
I cannot believe that adults, when faced with a challenging issue, choose to resort
to the hysteria, name calling, snippy remarks and personal attacks, that
I have had to wade through here.
For someone to, in written form, attack a young girl is just so unspeakably wrong.
Please note that among all of the contributions she has made to this list
SHE ALSO SHARES THE JOY OF FLIGHT!
Whoever you are sir, you have earned a level of shame that I can only imagine.
The honorable man would never show his face here again.
This issue will not be solved by making the Zenith staff or the Heintz family the
target of anger. We need communication and discussion. The encounter that
someone had with the Heintz family at Sun and Fun just puts us further away from
a solution. Why would anyone at Zenith want to talk to anyone who has approached
them in that manner?
I have just as much at stake here as the next fellow. I've got more than $55,000
invested in my 601XL and am only a few months away from being ready for inspection.
All of this noise and hysteria is doing far more damage to the reputation
of the airplane than the NTSB letter.
I want to fly safe. If there is an issue with the 601XL then I want to fix it.
The Heintz family is the obvious choice to design and issue a remedy if a problem
is found, but they are not the only source. Grab a book on theory and find
the answer yourself. Discuss the problem with other aircraft builders and adapt
another aircraft's solution to your own.
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY Take some.
Remember this is an EXPERIMENTAL AMATEUR BUILT AIRCRAFT. A large number of them
have been designed and built by people with no formal aircraft design experience.
If you feel that the design is deficient then take the responsibility to
do something about it. If you don't feel comfortable about doing that, then
I respectfully submit that you should reconsider your decision to build an experimental
aircraft.
If it is your choice to wait until a fix is issued, what if the additional engineering
Zenith is undertaking shows none is necessary???
What will you do????
The NTSB has made errors in the past. They might just be erring on the side of
caution here. Quite simply if you don't trust the machine don't fly it. You the
builder / pilot bear the final responsibility.
For those of you who own a factory SLSA version, I do feel for you, as your options
are limited by the rules and regs. We the builders have more options and
we should use them more wisely so we can get this monkey off of the fleet's back
and move on.
I think that since a governmental agency has referenced results from an engineering
report produced by the ZBAG group, If the ZBAG group truly has the best interests
of the airplane at heart, they should release the results of the report
referenced by the NTSB. That way the data collected by Zenith in this round
of testing could be compared to the ZBAG results and we could get some closure
to this issue.
And by all means whoever filed the FOIA request with the NTSB, please keep us informed
as to its status.
Larry Whitlow
Zenith 601XL N69102 (Reserved)
Jabiru 3300
Flying later this summer COUNT ON IT!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=240621#240621
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: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions |
to the NTSB.
Hi Jay,
I'm not going to respond to most of your flaming because I believe
you indeed have no clue about what is actually happening in the real
world. The NTSB is not an engineering agency -- they are a higher
level government authority than the FAA. The FAA guys I spoke to
today all seemed to agreed with that notion. They also all seemed to
think the mass balancing on the ailerons was absolutely necessary
without any need to cite the NTSB ruling on the same point. It is
not me that thinks that is necessary, it is the government.
I only think the change is necessary because the NTSB says it is
necessary (as do the FAA folks). This is a political statement on my
part not an engineering one.
I only wish I could go back to building as you suggest. Perhaps you
missed the fact that my plane is already completed so I can't do that.
Best regards,
Paul
XL grounded
do not archive
At 07:59 PM 4/21/2009, you wrote:
>Stay angry with the Heintz brothers and make yourself miserable; or
>back off, relax and get back to building and soothe your psyche.
>Just make up your mind to wait for this to be resolved in a safe and
>reasonable fashion. It WILL be resolved.
>
>Jay Bannister
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 |
|
If you are kicked of the list for that interesting piece of prose then I
am
going too! Do not archive.
John Read
CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300
Phone: 303-648-3261
Fax: 303-648-3262
Cell: 719-494-4567
In a message dated 4/21/2009 12:32:42 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
MaxNr@aol.com writes:
High Flight, with FAA Supplement
Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of earth(1),
And danced(2) the skies on laughter silvered wings;
Sunward I've climbed(3) and joined the tumbling mirth(4)
Of sun-split clouds(5) and done a hundred things(6)
You have not dreamed of =94 Wheeled and soared and swung(7)
High in the sunlit silence(8). Hov'ring there(9)
I've chased the shouting wind(10) along and flung(11)
My eager craft through footless halls of air.
Up, up the long delirious(12), burning blue
I've topped the wind-swept heights(13) with easy grace,
Where never lark, or even eagle(14) flew;
And, while with silent, lifting mind I've trod
The high untrespassed sanctity of space(15),
Put out my hand(16), and touched the face of God.
NOTE:
1. Pilots must insure that all surly bonds have been slipped entirely
before aircraft taxi or flight is attempted.
2. During periods of severe sky dancing, crew and passengers must keep
seatbelts fastened. Crew should wear shoulderbelts as provided.
3. Sunward climbs must not exceed the maximum permitted aircraft ceiling.
4. Passenger aircraft are prohibited from joining the tumbling mirth.
5. Pilots flying through sun-split clouds under VFR conditions must compl
y
with all applicable minimum clearances.
6. Do not perform these hundred things in front of Federal Aviation
Administration inspectors.
7. Wheeling, soaring, and swinging will not be attempted except in
aircraft rated for such activities and within utility class weight limits
.
8. Be advised that sunlit silence will occur only when a major engine
malfunction has occurred.
9. "Hov'ring there" will constitute a highly reliable signal that a fligh
t
emergency is imminent.
10. Forecasts of shouting winds are available from the local FSS.
Encounters with unexpected shouting winds should be reported by pilots.
11. Pilots flinging eager craft through footless halls of air are reminde
d
that they alone are responsible for maintaining separation from other
eager craft.
12. Should any crewmember or passenger experience delirium while in the
burning blue, submit an irregularity report upon flight termination.
13. Windswept heights will be topped by a minimum of 1,000 feet to
maintain VFR minimum separations.
14. Aircraft engine ingestion of, or impact with, larks or eagles should
be reported to the FAA and the appropriate aircraft maintenance facility.
15. Aircraft operating in the high untresspassed sanctity of space must
remain in IFR flight regardless of meteorological conditions and visibili
ty.
16. Pilots and passengers are reminded that opening doors or windows in
order to touch the face of God may result in loss of cabin pressure.
This should get me kicked of the list.
Bob Dingley
XL/Lyc
(Pausing at the wings)
Do not archive
**************
Access 350+ FREE radio stations anytime from anywhere on the web. Get the
Radio Toolbar!
(http://toolbar.aol.com/aolradio/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000003
)
========================
============
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List)
========================
============
========================
============
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
========================
============
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 eas
y
steps!
=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%2
6
hmpgID%3D62%26bcd%3DAprilfooter421NO62)
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: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions |
to t...
Hey guys, does this mean we're not going to have a picnic Thursday night
at Sun n Fun ? You crazy fellows are just joking around, right? Best
regards, Bill of Georgia
601XL- 3300 Jab, 145 hours, Push Rod Aileron Controls and SMILING HAPPY
In a message dated 4/21/2009 11:09:14 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
craig@craigandjean.com writes:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
Zenith should be able to take the results from the outside engineering
firms
(which probably includes the active vibration testing being done in Germany
and shown in the YouTube video) to the NTSB and the FAA. Then somebody (or
everybody) may shift their position. If the whole of the outside testing is
made public then it can be peer reviewed and/or enlightened amateurs (like
us) can make our own decisions (assuming the FAA doesn't preempt us). Based
on what I saw in the video there is going to be more vibration data
available on the XL than any other LSA.
The worrisome outcome is if the outside engineering investigations don't
offer any new recommendations. Then we are back to where we are now with a
high percentage of unexplained crashes and no way forward (unless you
believe flutter explains all).
-- Craig
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
hmpgID%3D62%26bcd%3DAprilfooter421NO62)
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: | Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions |
to the NTSB.
Ya, I don't know much about flutter, but I do know your wings aren't suppose
to come off while just flying around in the pattern.
Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Mulwitz
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 9:59 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan
reactions to the NTSB.
Hi guys,
Please let me respond to several of your comments in one message:
Randy: I agree with you that the controls should be nice and
sensitive. The design flaw the NTSB identified is that as you pull
more Gs it gets easier to increase the load. I like the stick to be
sensitive in normal flight too, but it shouldn't get easier to load
the airframe more as the Gs increase. This is the kind of thing that
would never make it through a part 23 qualification.
Art: I am quite calm now, and I really do think I am making things
better rather than worse. I admit, though, that the only answer from
Matthew that I can find acceptable is that he will issue the design
changes. I don't see any other way my plane can be ungrounded. The
frustrating part for me (today) is that I have no clue how long it
will be before this takes place even though I am quite sure it will
eventually happen.
Roger, I agree with you completely. Matthew is worried about
admitting liability for the design flaw. He knows a law suit is a
waste of time because he is judgement proof. Still, I told him he
can issue the necessary changes without admitting anything except
that the changes were well analyzed for fitting in with the remaining
parts of the plane. He can blame the NTSB for deciding the changes
were needed.
I personally feel the NTSB demand must be met - simply because they
demanded it. I don't think they have proved anything, and I don't
think they have to prove anything. Matthew thinks his judgement
about the cause of the crashes is more important than the NTSB
ruling. From my point of view that is the real problem that keeps my
plane on the ground.
So far, I have no reason to be upset with any of the comments I have
received. The simple fact that I am unhappy about the Heintz
children's approach to this problem is my problem not any body
else's. If only Chris hadn't retired I believe we would have already
reached a reasonable solution to this mess.
Paul
XL grounded
do not archive
At 07:08 PM 4/21/2009, you wrote:
>Paul, I couldn't disagree with you more. I happen to love the
>sensitive control inputs and I hope the Heintz boys don't change
>it. Learn to fly the plane properly and you will love it also.
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: | Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions |
to the NTSB.
Hi Craig,
Your comment seems well reasoned, and I agree with it on the
surface. The problem is that the NTSB and the consulting engineers
are not looking at the same information at all -- nor should
they. The engineers are looking at the design of the XL by studying
the drawings and sample planes. Their purpose is to find design
flaws if there are some to be found. The NTSB looks at accident
investigation results and makes their decisions on that basis. While
these seem to be the same thing they are not. Perhaps they could be
described as opposite sides of the same coin.
Since these two groups are using different data and different
reasoning it seems quite likely they will reach different overall
conclusions. I feel we must respect the NTSB rulings even if the
engineering points we are aware of don't support those rulings.
The NTSB is the unquestioned authority on accident
investigation. While some people feel this is not the case, I do and
so do the folks at the FAA. While they may not have any good proof
to submit to us or the Heintzes, they simply don't have to do
that. Proof of engineering issues is not their domain, accident
investigation and the resulting determinations is their domain.
I am a little bothered by all the folks who point out that the NTSB
investigations have given different results than the actual NTSB
(which is a board of a few very experienced and powerful, very high
ranking people) rulings. The investigators do their part and provide
documentation for the actual board members to consider. The actual
board doesn't work that way. They don't have to convince anybody of
anything. Their role is to provide judgement and rule on the
issues. Perhaps this is like Supreme Court judgements. People can
whine about Supreme Court decisions all they want, but those
decisions are still the law of the land.
Best regards,
Paul
XL grounded
do not archive
At 08:04 PM 4/21/2009, you wrote:
>Zenith should be able to take the results from the outside engineering firms
>(which probably includes the active vibration testing being done in Germany
>and shown in the YouTube video) to the NTSB and the FAA. Then somebody (or
>everybody) may shift their position. If the whole of the outside testing is
>made public then it can be peer reviewed and/or enlightened amateurs (like
>us) can make our own decisions (assuming the FAA doesn't preempt us). Based
>on what I saw in the video there is going to be more vibration data
>available on the XL than any other LSA.
>
>The worrisome outcome is if the outside engineering investigations don't
>offer any new recommendations. Then we are back to where we are now with a
>high percentage of unexplained crashes and no way forward (unless you
>believe flutter explains all).
>
>-- Craig
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: | Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions |
to the NTSB.
Based on what I saw in the NTSB letter they considered more than just the
accident reports. They also considered reports from the Matronics lists and
ZBAG (including ZBAGs outside engineer). This would indicate they are open
to multiple sources of information including outside engineering studies.
>From what Doug Norman posted on the Zenith.aero web site reporting on
Zenith's SnF forum the Heintz brothers said this about one of their outside
engineers: "The California engineer was asserted to be held in high regard
by the FAA and the NTSB (who have apparently worked with this person on
other investigations - especially flutter-related)"
And of course the NTSB *may* be "authoritative" but they have no authority.
The FAA has the authority and has rejects NTSB recommendations many times.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Mulwitz
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 9:42 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan
reactions to the NTSB.
Hi Craig,
Your comment seems well reasoned, and I agree with it on the
surface. The problem is that the NTSB and the consulting engineers
are not looking at the same information at all -- nor should
they. The engineers are looking at the design of the XL by studying
the drawings and sample planes. Their purpose is to find design
flaws if there are some to be found. The NTSB looks at accident
investigation results and makes their decisions on that basis. While
these seem to be the same thing they are not. Perhaps they could be
described as opposite sides of the same coin.
Since these two groups are using different data and different
reasoning it seems quite likely they will reach different overall
conclusions. I feel we must respect the NTSB rulings even if the
engineering points we are aware of don't support those rulings.
The NTSB is the unquestioned authority on accident
investigation. While some people feel this is not the case, I do and
so do the folks at the FAA. While they may not have any good proof
to submit to us or the Heintzes, they simply don't have to do
that. Proof of engineering issues is not their domain, accident
investigation and the resulting determinations is their domain.
I am a little bothered by all the folks who point out that the NTSB
investigations have given different results than the actual NTSB
(which is a board of a few very experienced and powerful, very high
ranking people) rulings. The investigators do their part and provide
documentation for the actual board members to consider. The actual
board doesn't work that way. They don't have to convince anybody of
anything. Their role is to provide judgement and rule on the
issues. Perhaps this is like Supreme Court judgements. People can
whine about Supreme Court decisions all they want, but those
decisions are still the law of the land.
Best regards,
Paul
XL grounded
do not archive
At 08:04 PM 4/21/2009, you wrote:
>Zenith should be able to take the results from the outside engineering
firms
>(which probably includes the active vibration testing being done in Germany
>and shown in the YouTube video) to the NTSB and the FAA. Then somebody (or
>everybody) may shift their position. If the whole of the outside testing is
>made public then it can be peer reviewed and/or enlightened amateurs (like
>us) can make our own decisions (assuming the FAA doesn't preempt us). Based
>on what I saw in the video there is going to be more vibration data
>available on the XL than any other LSA.
>
>The worrisome outcome is if the outside engineering investigations don't
>offer any new recommendations. Then we are back to where we are now with a
>high percentage of unexplained crashes and no way forward (unless you
>believe flutter explains all).
>
>-- Craig
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: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions |
to t...
Mr. Mulwitz;
Maybe a few people will be impressed by your
vitupirative attack on the Heintz family. If you are so knowledgeable about aircraft
design why do you bother with such "poorly designed" airplanes as those
from Zenith. Start your own company design an aircraft the way you want it
and fly off into the sunset and oblivion. I doubt that you will do this as
you are just a complainer.
John Read
CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300
Phone: 303-648-3261
Fax: 303-648-3262
Cell: 719-494-4567
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
hmpgID%3D62%26bcd%3DAprilfooter421NO62)
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: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions |
to...
Can some body tell me what a ZBAG is? Is it some foreign group who do not
like Zenith aircraft or what?
John Read
CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300
Phone: 303-648-3261
Fax: 303-648-3262
Cell: 719-494-4567
In a message dated 4/21/2009 10:03:00 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
craig@craigandjean.com writes:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
Based on what I saw in the NTSB letter they considered more than just the
accident reports. They also considered reports from the Matronics lists and
ZBAG (including ZBAGs outside engineer). This would indicate they are open
to multiple sources of information including outside engineering studies.
>From what Doug Norman posted on the Zenith.aero web site reporting on
Zenith's SnF forum the Heintz brothers said this about one of their outside
engineers: "The California engineer was asserted to be held in high regard
by the FAA and the NTSB (who have apparently worked with this person on
other investigations - especially flutter-related)"
And of course the NTSB *may* be "authoritative" but they have no authority.
The FAA has the authority and has rejects NTSB recommendations many times.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Mulwitz
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 9:42 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan
reactions to the NTSB.
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net>
Hi Craig,
Your comment seems well reasoned, and I agree with it on the
surface. The problem is that the NTSB and the consulting engineers
are not looking at the same information at all -- nor should
they. The engineers are looking at the design of the XL by studying
the drawings and sample planes. Their purpose is to find design
flaws if there are some to be found. The NTSB looks at accident
investigation results and makes their decisions on that basis. While
these seem to be the same thing they are not. Perhaps they could be
described as opposite sides of the same coin.
Since these two groups are using different data and different
reasoning it seems quite likely they will reach different overall
conclusions. I feel we must respect the NTSB rulings even if the
engineering points we are aware of don't support those rulings.
The NTSB is the unquestioned authority on accident
investigation. While some people feel this is not the case, I do and
so do the folks at the FAA. While they may not have any good proof
to submit to us or the Heintzes, they simply don't have to do
that. Proof of engineering issues is not their domain, accident
investigation and the resulting determinations is their domain.
I am a little bothered by all the folks who point out that the NTSB
investigations have given different results than the actual NTSB
(which is a board of a few very experienced and powerful, very high
ranking people) rulings. The investigators do their part and provide
documentation for the actual board members to consider. The actual
board doesn't work that way. They don't have to convince anybody of
anything. Their role is to provide judgement and rule on the
issues. Perhaps this is like Supreme Court judgements. People can
whine about Supreme Court decisions all they want, but those
decisions are still the law of the land.
Best regards,
Paul
XL grounded
do not archive
At 08:04 PM 4/21/2009, you wrote:
>Zenith should be able to take the results from the outside engineering
firms
>(which probably includes the active vibration testing being done in
Germany
>and shown in the YouTube video) to the NTSB and the FAA. Then somebody (or
>everybody) may shift their position. If the whole of the outside testing
is
>made public then it can be peer reviewed and/or enlightened amateurs (like
>us) can make our own decisions (assuming the FAA doesn't preempt us).
Based
>on what I saw in the video there is going to be more vibration data
>available on the XL than any other LSA.
>
>The worrisome outcome is if the outside engineering investigations don't
>offer any new recommendations. Then we are back to where we are now with a
>high percentage of unexplained crashes and no way forward (unless you
>believe flutter explains all).
>
>-- Craig
**************Big savings on Dell XPS Laptops and Desktops!
eclick.net%2Fclk%3B214133109%3B36002181%3Bk)
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: | Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions |
to...
Zenith Builders Analysis Group. They spun off their own group a while ago to
do an independent engineering analysis of the XL and the crashes. They
agreed to keep their conclusions confidential within the group but also
(apparently) pass data on to government bodies. Membership is open to anyone
(I think) who (a) has an official set of XL plans from Zenith, (b) agrees
to follow the confidentiality rules and (c) contribute to pay for outside
consultants. They had an (unnamed) retired engineer do some analysis on the
XL. Some of their members has publicly stated that flutter was the cause of
all of the unexplained XL accidents. This is all from my memory. As there
are plenty of ZBAG members on this list (and one ex-member I believe) they
can correct anything I have remembered wrong.
-- Craig
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
JohnDRead@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan
reactions to...
Can some body tell me what a ZBAG is? Is it some foreign group who do not
like Zenith aircraft or what?
John Read
CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300
Phone: 303-648-3261
Fax: 303-648-3262
Cell: 719-494-4567
In a message dated 4/21/2009 10:03:00 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
craig@craigandjean.com writes:
Based on what I saw in the NTSB letter they considered more than just the
accident reports. They also considered reports from the Matronics lists and
ZBAG (including ZBAGs outside engineer). This would indicate they are open
to multiple sources of information including outside engineering studies.
>From what Doug Norman posted on the Zenith.aero web site reporting on
Zenith's SnF forum the Heintz brothers said this about one of their outside
engineers: "The California engineer was asserted to be held in high regard
by the FAA and the NTSB (who have apparently worked with this person on
other investigations - especially flutter-related)"
And of course the NTSB *may* be "authoritative" but they have no authority.
The FAA has the authority and has rejects NTSB recommendations many times.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Mulwitz
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 9:42 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan
reactions to the NTSB.
Hi Craig,
Your comment seems well reasoned, and I agree with it on the
surface. The problem is that the NTSB and the consulting engineers
are not looking at the same information at all -- nor should
they. The engineers are looking at the design of the XL by studying
the drawings and sample planes. Their purpose is to find design
flaws if there are some to be found. The NTSB looks at accident
investigation results and makes their decisions on that basis. While
these seem to be the same thing they are not. Perhaps they could be
described as opposite sides of the same coin.
Since these two groups are using different data and different
reasoning it seems quite likely they will reach different overall
conclusions. I feel we must respect the NTSB rulings even if the
engineering points we are aware of don't support those rulings.
The NTSB is the unquestioned authority on accident
investigation. While some people feel this is not the case, I do and
so do the folks at the FAA. While they may not have any good proof
to submit to us or the Heintzes, they simply don't have to do
that. Proof of engineering issues is not their domain, accident
investigation and the resulting determinations is their domain.
I am a little bothered by all the folks who point out that the NTSB
investigations have given different results than the actual NTSB
(which is a board of a few very experienced and powerful, very high
ranking people) rulings. The investigators do their part and provide
documentation for the actual board members to consider. The actual
board doesn't work that way. They don't have to convince anybody of
anything. Their role is to provide judgement and rule on the
issues. Perhaps this is like Supreme Court judgements. People can
whine about Supreme Court decisions all they want, but those
decisions are still the law of the land.
Best regards,
Paul
XL grounded
do not archive
At 08:04 PM 4/21/2009, you wrote:
>Zenith should be able to take the results from the outside engineering
firms
>(which probably includes the active vibration testing being done in Germany
>and shown in the YouTube video) to the NTSB and the FAA. Then somebody (or
>everybody) may shift their position. If the whole of the outside testing is
>made public then it can be peer reviewed and/or enlightened amateurs (like
>us) can make our own decisions (assuming the FAA doesn't preempt us). Based
>on what I saw in the video there is going to be more vibration data
>available on the XL than any other LSA.
>
>The worrisome outcome is if the outside engineering investigations don't
>offer any new recommendations. Then we are back to where we are now with a
>high percentage of unexplained crashes and no way forward (unless you
>believe flutter explains all).
>
>-- ===============================================
_____
Big savings on Dell XPS Laptops and Desktops!
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: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions |
to the NTSB.
Do Not Archive
"Since the NTSB screamed we need aileron mass balancing we need aileron mass
balancing."
The above statement has prompted me to leave the sidelines and comment. As
a 701 Builder, I have no personal stake in 601 issues other than how they
affect aviation generally.
Blindly following the NTSB or the FAA in all things is a fool's errand.
They are often wrong.
My experience is with "V" tailed Bonanzas, which are subject to endless ADs
regarding the tails, many of the issues dealing with "flutter".
I own a first model, second year production Bonzana. A 1948 model 35 Serial
No. D-1373.
Bonanzas have "ruddervators" that do the job of both rudders and elevators.
They are operated by pushrods which are hollow steel tubes.
An AD was issued to address the possiblility that the steel tube could
retain water and rust through from the inside. It required sealing the tube
so water couldn't penetrate and then protecting the tube from further
corrosion.
In this sequence, part of the AD had you:
1. Coat the outside of the tube with Corrosion resisting compound (say
grease).
2. After doing the above, paint the ends of the tube bright orange to
visually show the AD had been accomplished.
So you were supposed to paint over grease according to the FAA.
Everyone who read the AD in the field immediately saw how riduculous this
was.
But this process was originated and made it through FAA's engineering,
review, editing, proofreading, publishing and distribution levels and was
never detected.
No one in their entire system went through the AD step by step to picture
what they were asking for.
As screaming from the field poured in, the FAA immediately issued a
"revised" process for accomplishing the AD.
Guess what? They agreed one should paint the tubes BEFORE the grease was
applied to the outside.
This is a small example but if you want more horror stories, I can provide
them.
I believe they have good intentions, but don't tell me they are to be
blindly followed and Pilots and A/C owners are to check their common sense
at the door.
Best Regards,
Randy, Las Vegas
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: | On the Zenith.aero web site: "Zenith Forum @ Sun'n'Fun - |
the unofficial report" posted by Doug Norman
For another slant on the Heintz presentation at SnF on the XL problems and
ZAC's response, builders should read Doug's (long) post on the Zenith
Aircraft Builders and Flyers web site (a Zenith-run "online community")
under the section for the "Zodiac series"
You have to be a member of the site and the group to read and comment on
Doug's post. But anyone can join. Zenith runs the site but there is no sign
of censorship. I have noticed that you can't copy content into or out of the
site but lots of sites do that. Anyway, join if you are interested.
http://www.zenith.aero/
-- Craig
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: CH750 Flutter Mitigation |
Gents! Flutter prevention and mitigation is part of any designed aircraft. The
subject line is valid!
Given the recent hubbub (real word?) and my interest in the design of my candidate
aircraft list, I was curious as to how it is approached in the CH750.
For example, in my research, I've found that the Kitfox uses a mass-balance approach
for ailerons in combination with mechanical pushrods.
I suppose that given the limited activity of 801/701/750 owners on this list, it's
a question I will have to phrase delicately to Zenith and see with my own
eyes next chance I get.
I really wish I could get to Florida for some sun n' fun! I guess we'll have to
give it a look-see at Osh.
________________________________________
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com]
On Behalf Of Stefan [stefan_wagener@HOTMAIL.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 7:41 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: CH750 Flutter Mitigation
Nope!
Just wrong subject line.
Stefan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=240562#240562
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: | AVweb's FBO of the week: Mexico, MO! |
"AVweb's "FBO of the Week" ribbon goes to the FBO at Mexico Memorial Airport
in Mexico, Missouri (KMYJ).
AVweb reader Jim Smith told us how the staff at KMYJ don't take trouble
lying down:
I stopped at the Mexico Missouri FBO to visit Zenith aircraft next door. I
inadvertently left my master switch on during my stay and, of course, had a
dead battery when I returned. The FBO manager stopped what he was doing to
help me. He first brought out a battery on a two-wheel hand cart, but the
batteries wouldn't turn over my C182. He then attempted a hand prop, but the
compression was too much. A few calls, and he found a 24 charger. He brought
the charger and some tools. He took off the plate and literally climbed
inside to place the battery clips. After about 10 minutes, the airplane
started. He then re-installed the plate and sent me on my way. Jay (employed
by the city of Mexico) would not take any money and was genuinely glad to
help. Very rare service indeed in these modern times. KMYJ has become a
must-stop for me in the future, if only to support a real aviation server."
http://www.avweb.com/
-- Craig
Do not archive
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: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions |
to...
Sounds to me as if they are a bunch of interfering busybodies with an axe
to grind about Zenith airplanes. do not archive.
John Read
CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300
Phone: 303-648-3261
Fax: 303-648-3262
Cell: 719-494-4567
In a message dated 4/21/2009 10:35:17 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
craig@craigandjean.com writes:
Zenith Builders Analysis Group. They spun off their own group a while ago
to do an independent engineering analysis of the XL and the crashes. They
agreed to keep their conclusions confidential within the group but also
(apparently) pass data on to government bodies. Membership is open to anyone (I
think) who (a) has an official set of XL plans from Zenith, (b) agrees to
follow the confidentiality rules and (c) contribute to pay for outside
consultants. They had an (unnamed) retired engineer do some analysis on the
XL. Some of their members has publicly stated that flutter was the cause of
all of the unexplained XL accidents. This is all from my memory. As there
are plenty of ZBAG members on this list (and one ex-member I believe) they
can correct anything I have remembered wrong.
-- Craig
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JohnDRead@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan
reactions to...
Can some body tell me what a ZBAG is? Is it some foreign group who do not
like Zenith aircraft or what?
John Read
CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300
Phone: 303-648-3261
Fax: 303-648-3262
Cell: 719-494-4567
In a message dated 4/21/2009 10:03:00 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
craig@craigandjean.com writes:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
Based on what I saw in the NTSB letter they considered more than just the
accident reports. They also considered reports from the Matronics lists and
ZBAG (including ZBAGs outside engineer). This would indicate they are open
to multiple sources of information including outside engineering studies.
>From what Doug Norman posted on the Zenith.aero web site reporting on
Zenith's SnF forum the Heintz brothers said this about one of their outside
engineers: "The California engineer was asserted to be held in high regard
by the FAA and the NTSB (who have apparently worked with this person on
other investigations - especially flutter-related)"
And of course the NTSB *may* be "authoritative" but they have no authority.
The FAA has the authority and has rejects NTSB recommendations many times.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Mulwitz
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 9:42 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan
reactions to the NTSB.
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net>
Hi Craig,
Your comment seems well reasoned, and I agree with it on the
surface. The problem is that the NTSB and the consulting engineers
are not looking at the same information at all -- nor should
they. The engineers are looking at the design of the XL by studying
the drawings and sample planes. Their purpose is to find design
flaws if there are some to be found. The NTSB looks at accident
investigation results and makes their decisions on that basis. While
these seem to be the same thing they are not. Perhaps they could be
described as opposite sides of the same coin.
Since these two groups are using different data and different
reasoning it seems quite likely they will reach different overall
conclusions. I feel we must respect the NTSB rulings even if the
engineering points we are aware of don't support those rulings.
The NTSB is the unquestioned authority on accident
investigation. While some people feel this is not the case, I do and
so do the folks at the FAA. While they may not have any good proof
to submit to us or the Heintzes, they simply don't have to do
that. Proof of engineering issues is not their domain, accident
investigation and the resulting determinations is their domain.
I am a little bothered by all the folks who point out that the NTSB
investigations have given different results than the actual NTSB
(which is a board of a few very experienced and powerful, very high
ranking people) rulings. The investigators do their part and provide
documentation for the actual board members to consider. The actual
board doesn't work that way. They don't have to convince anybody of
anything. Their role is to provide judgement and rule on the
issues. Perhaps this is like Supreme Court judgements. People can
whine about Supreme Court decisions all they want, but those
decisions are still the law of the land.
Best regards,
Paul
XL grounded
do not archive
At 08:04 PM 4/21/2009, you wrote:
>Zenith should be able to take the results from the outside engineering
firms
>(which probably includes the active vibration testing being done in
Germany
>and shown in the YouTube video) to the NTSB and the FAA. Then somebody (or
>everybody) may shift their position. If the whole of the outside testing
is
>made public then it can be peer reviewed and/or enlightened amateurs (like
>us) can make our own decisions (assuming the FAA doesn't preempt us).
Based
>on what I saw in the video there is going to be more vibration data
>available on the XL than any other LSA.
>
>The worrisome outcome is if the outside engineering investigations don't
>offer any new recommendations. Then we are back to where we are now with a
>high percentage of unexplained crashes and no way forward (unless you
>believe flutter explains all).
>
>-- ======================
____________________________________
Big savings on Dell XPS Laptops and Desktops!
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
**************Big savings on Dell XPS Laptops and Desktops!
eclick.net%2Fclk%3B214133109%3B36002181%3Bk)
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! --
|