Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:22 AM - NTSB recommendations (Edgunter@aol.com)
2. 05:41 AM - Re: Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today (Jim Belcher)
3. 05:41 AM - HDS endurance (was: Re: Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today) (Jim Belcher)
4. 05:43 AM - Re: NTSB recommendations (Paul Mulwitz)
5. 05:48 AM - Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today (ernie)
6. 06:18 AM - Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today (Paul Mulwitz)
7. 06:18 AM - New Reduced Weight----My wife is delighted (Gig Giacona)
8. 07:26 AM - Re: HDS endurance (Carlos Sa)
9. 07:44 AM - Re: Re: HDS endurance (Jim Belcher)
10. 08:10 AM - Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today (wade jones)
11. 08:22 AM - Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today (Paul Mulwitz)
12. 08:31 AM - Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today (wade jones)
13. 09:39 AM - Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today (Juan Vega)
14. 09:42 AM - Re: NTSB recommendations (Juan Vega)
15. 09:47 AM - Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today (Juan Vega)
16. 09:58 AM - Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today (Gig Giacona)
17. 11:21 AM - Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today (Ken Arnold)
18. 11:33 AM - Re: NTSB recommendations ()
19. 11:34 AM - Re: Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today (Juan Vega)
20. 11:34 AM - Aircraft Insurance (Davcoberly@wmconnect.com)
21. 11:41 AM - Re: Aircraft Insurance (Craig Payne)
22. 11:41 AM - Re: Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today (Jay Maynard)
23. 11:47 AM - Re: NTSB recommendations (ihab.awad@gmail.com)
24. 12:04 PM - Re: Aircraft Insurance (Davcoberly@wmconnect.com)
25. 12:06 PM - Re: Aircraft Insurance (Jim Belcher)
26. 12:34 PM - Re: NTSB recommendations (Paul Mulwitz)
27. 12:34 PM - Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today (Dave)
28. 12:38 PM - Re: Aircraft Insurance (Juan Vega)
29. 12:45 PM - Re: NTSB recommendations (Rhino)
30. 12:50 PM - Re: Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today (Juan Vega)
31. 12:51 PM - Re: Aircraft Insurance (Davcoberly@wmconnect.com)
32. 01:09 PM - Re: Aircraft Insurance (Craig Payne)
33. 01:09 PM - Re: NTSB recommendations (Dave)
34. 01:24 PM - Re: Aircraft Insurance (Gig Giacona)
35. 01:37 PM - Re: Re: Aircraft Insurance (Jay Maynard)
36. 01:43 PM - Re: Aircraft Insurance (Davcoberly@wmconnect.com)
37. 01:45 PM - Re: Re: Aircraft Insurance (Cory Emberson)
38. 01:49 PM - Re: NTSB recommendations (Gig Giacona)
39. 01:50 PM - Re: Re: Aircraft Insurance (Davcoberly@wmconnect.com)
40. 02:36 PM - Re: Aircraft Insurance (Bill Steer)
41. 02:42 PM - What did you do today? (Bill Naumuk)
42. 02:58 PM - Re: Aircraft Insurance (Davcoberly@wmconnect.com)
43. 03:19 PM - Re: What did you do today? (LarryMcFarland)
44. 03:47 PM - Re: Aircraft Insurance (Ron Lendon)
45. 04:15 PM - Re: Re: Aircraft Insurance (Davcoberly@wmconnect.com)
46. 05:19 PM - Re: Re: NTSB recommendations (Dave)
47. 05:41 PM - Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today (Dave Austin)
48. 08:41 PM - Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today (J.T. Machin)
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: | NTSB recommendations |
In a message dated 7/9/2009 2:04:02 A.M. Central Daylight Time, Paul
writes:
Finally, when I was about to get my plane inspected and start flight
testing, the NTSB came out with their (nearly?) unprecedented ruling
- that all planes in this family should be immediately grounded.
Maybe the NTSB just doesn't get the big picture & should venture out of
their ivory tower now & then.
<<NTSB: More than 1,000 recommendations are being ignored>>
_http://www.smartbrief.com/news/aopa/storyDetails.jsp?issueid=9CA199B1-0B54-
4D47-8F1A-3B7150010479©id=C63BF415-D392-4E85-BC37-A93C7C6FF93A&brief=aop
a&sb_code=rss&&campaign=rss_
(http://www.smartbrief.com/news/aopa/storyDetails.jsp?issueid=9CA199B1-0B54-4D47-8F1A-3B7150010479©id=C63BF415-D392-4E8
5-BC37-A93C7C6FF93A&brief=aopa&sb_code=rss&&campaign=rss)
**************Summer concert season is here! Find your favorite artists on
tour at TourTracker.com.
(http://www.tourtracker.com/?ncid=emlcntusmusi00000006)
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today |
On Wednesday 08 July 2009 18:08, ALAN BEYER wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> How much fuel do you want to carry? I have an HDS and can carry 29 Gal. of
> usable fuel. I have flown from Oshkosh to SnF and have been out west a
> couple of times. I have also flown 4 1/2 Hour legs.On my normal cross
> country flights I will burn off the wing tanks (21 Gal.) and then land with
> 8 Gal. left in the header tank.
>
> Al From Oshkosh
With two people and baggage, at least 30 gallons. But it's kind of a moot
point, as I have a 601XL in the next room, with the wings, elevator, and
rudder done.
Perhaps with better information, I might have made a different choice. But
it's the old story of the road not taken.
--
============================================
Do not archive.
============================================
Jim B Belcher
BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Retired aerospace technical manager
============================================
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: New Chris Heinz Letter Today) |
On Wednesday 08 July 2009 20:08, Leo Gates wrote:
> My wing tanks hold 21 gal, 20 gal usable fuel (5 hours). I could have
> added two 7.5 gal wing locker tanks (3 hours and 45 min.) and an 8 gal
> (2 hour) fuselage tank for 10 hrs 45 min fuel. That is 44 gal of fuel
> or 264 lbs. 674 lbs empty airplane, plus 264 lbs fuel, plus 165 lbs
> (me), plus 99 lb baggage equals 1200 lbs GTW. 3 or 4 potty stops before
> I would have to add fuel. OR carry a portable human factors relief
> device and fly 10 hours and get darn hungry.
It's interesting to see how different pilots fly. I suspect we tailor our
usage to our physiology and wants.
I just don't need relief as often as many others, but conversely, I need fluid
and food much more often. As a result, I fly with water bottles and snacks. I
haven't done a poll, but I suspect many diabetic pilots need occasional
snacks to keep their blood sugar somewhere near normal.
I don't think a six hour flight would be out of the question for me. But a
601XL I decided upon, and a 601XL I'm building. When this airplane is flying,
I'll look again and see what I think my next project should be.
============================================
Do not archive.
============================================
Jim B Belcher
BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Retired aerospace technical manager
============================================
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: NTSB recommendations |
A good point.
Still, my understanding is that the notion of immediately grounding
an entire fleet of planes is a very unusual recommendation from the
NTSB. Many of their recommendations are more like the ones I chose
to ignore in the Zodiac XL letter including a small change in
airspeed calibration.
At 05:20 AM 7/9/2009, you wrote:
>In a message dated 7/9/2009 2:04:02 A.M. Central Daylight Time, Paul writes:
>Finally, when I was about to get my plane inspected and start flight
>testing, the NTSB came out with their (nearly?) unprecedented ruling
>- that all planes in this family should be immediately grounded.
>
>
>Maybe the NTSB just doesn't get the big picture & should venture out
>of their ivory tower now & then.
>
><<NTSB: More than 1,000 recommendations are being ignored>>
>
><http://www.smartbrief.com/news/aopa/storyDetails.jsp?issueid=9CA199B1-0B54-4D47-8F1A-3B7150010479©id=C63BF415-D392-4E85-BC37-A93C7C6FF93A&brief=aopa&sb_code=rss&&campaign=rss>http://www.smartbrief.com/news/aopa/storyDetails.jsp?issueid=9CA199B1-0B54-4D47-8F1A-3B7150010479©id=C63BF415-D392-4E85-BC37-A93C7C6FF93A&brief=aopa&sb_code=rss&&campaign=rss
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today |
You said
--->I don't believe they will determine that the
> XL has adequate protection from flutter no matter what any engineering
> reports say
If you mind can not be changed by any engineering data, why will the
balanced aileron engineering data change your mind?
Do not archive
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 2:31 AM, Paul Mulwitz<psm@att.net> wrote:
> Hi Tony,
>
> First let me say your qualifications to understand the technical details of
> this issue are a lot better than mine. I believe you are convinced that
> flutter is not an issue for the XL based on the German test report.
>
> However, you are not the FAA. I don't believe they will determine that the
> XL has adequate protection from flutter no matter what any engineering
> reports say. I learned when I discussed this issue with them at Sun n Fun
> that they already believe the XL needs balanced ailerons and that nothing
> will change their minds on that point. Indeed, I believe the NTSB has the
> same opinion (but I have no personal proof of that position).
>
> By talking to lots of FAA and industry folks who have been around for a long
> time I learned there is a belief that balanced ailerons are needed by all
> planes of this sort. History has shown that to be true in many different
> designs, and these guys are convinced that the XL is no exception to this
> rule.
>
> The other news from those discussions is that the FAA will not take any
> action to prevent E-AB owners from flying their planes. They just don't
> care about experimental planes in that sort of way. They do care about
> factory built planes, but even those are safe from FAA rule making for at
> least a year. It takes them that long (and longer) to issue an NPRM and get
> to the final rule. That is the process they will use to issue a mandatory
> AD if they choose to go in that direction.
>
> It is my hope that the whole problem will go away without actual rules from
> the FAA. All it takes is a group of design changes from Zenith/Zenair with
> some sort of mandatory implementation from AMD for S-LSA XLs. Then the FAA
> won't need to take any regulatory action.
>
> For E-AB it is all up to the owner to decide what to do with their plane.
>
> Paul
> XL grounded
>
>
> At 09:59 PM 7/8/2009, you wrote:
>
> "------ the National Transportation Safety Board recommends that the Federal
> Aviation Aviation Administration:
>
> Prohibit further flight on the Zodiac CH-601XL, both special
> light sport aircraft
> and experimental, until such time that the Federal Aviation
> Administration determines that the CH-601XL has
> adequate protection from flutter. (A-09-30" (underling and bold
> mine)
>
> The above in my opinion as a retired aerospace engineer, and my Phase I
> flight tests, and the Zenith Flight tests and the results of the Modal
> surveys (Ground Vibration Tests - GVT) is that the recommendation by the
> NTSB to determine that the XL has adequate protection from flutter has been,
> in my lowly opinion, satisfied. Of course this assumes that the aileron
> control cables are not slack, for the reported real flutter was a result of
> slack cables - the flutter stopped once the IAS was lowered and did not
> repeat with proper cable tension, which per the GVT tests should be at a
> minimum of 10 pounds - much less than the Zenith spec value.
>
> The XL does though, like most all light aircraft, have a wing removal device
> called a "stick". I personally like the light stick forces of the XL, but
> as Mr. Henitz in his letter stated "Remember that, as with any light
> aircraft, if you encounter unexpected turbulence while cruising, ride it out
> rather than fight it - and slow down!"
>
> Tony
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today |
It is not me we are talking about here, it is the older, more
experienced experts in aviation.
Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here. The point is not that all
engineering data is to be ignored. It is that engineering data is
not sufficient support for the decision to have unbalanced ailerons
in this type of airplane. This decision is based on real history of
many different airplane designs. Simply stated (the best I can do
from the information I received) when ailerons are balanced fatal
accident rates are reduced.
It might help to think about aviation as a mature technology. Many
of the hard lessons have been learned through experience rather than
through academic theory. For the most part, all of the basic
technology of flying machines was developed many decades ago. Today,
all we see are slight variations on long standing designs that have
huge amounts of history associated with them.
Paul
XL grounded
At 05:44 AM 7/9/2009, you wrote:
>If you mind can not be changed by any engineering data, why will the
>balanced aileron engineering data change your mind?
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | New Reduced Weight----My wife is delighted |
I was explaining the 65# weight reduction last night and she was delighted. The
10-11 gals less fuel will mean that she doesn't have to learn to use an "portable
human factors relief device" (as Leo so eloquently called it).
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=252266#252266
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: HDS endurance |
A good reason for having higher autonomy is fuel availability (or lack
thereof) at the destination.
Carlos
2009/7/9 Jim Belcher <z601@anemicaardvark.com>
>
> On Wednesday 08 July 2009 20:08, Leo Gates wrote:
>
> > My wing tanks hold 21 gal, 20 gal usable fuel (5 hours). I could have
> > added two 7.5 gal wing locker tanks (3 hours and 45 min.) and an 8 gal
> > (2 hour) fuselage tank for 10 hrs 45 min fuel. That is 44 gal of fuel
> > or 264 lbs. 674 lbs empty airplane, plus 264 lbs fuel, plus 165 lbs
> > (me), plus 99 lb baggage equals 1200 lbs GTW. 3 or 4 potty stops before
> > I would have to add fuel. OR carry a portable human factors relief
> > device and fly 10 hours and get darn hungry.
>
> It's interesting to see how different pilots fly. I suspect we tailor our
> usage to our physiology and wants.
>
> I just don't need relief as often as many others, but conversely, I need
> fluid
> and food much more often. As a result, I fly with water bottles and snacks.
> I
> haven't done a poll, but I suspect many diabetic pilots need occasional
> snacks to keep their blood sugar somewhere near normal.
>
> I don't think a six hour flight would be out of the question for me. But a
> 601XL I decided upon, and a 601XL I'm building. When this airplane is
> flying,
> I'll look again and see what I think my next project should be.
>
> ============================================
> Do not archive.
> ============================================
>
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: HDS endurance |
On Thursday 09 July 2009 09:25, Carlos Sa wrote:
> A good reason for having higher autonomy is fuel availability (or lack
> thereof) at the destination.
>
A very good point. I have landed, and found no fuel, or had to wait for
someone to come from town and unlock the pumps.
After being burned this way a number of times, I rarely try new airports, and
check AOPAs Airports USA before going to a new airport. I sometimes even call
ahead to make sure exactly what is available.
I consider it a part of flight planning. Some smaller airports have FBOs that
come and go - one week, there's someone to sell gas; one week, there isn't.
But since I like long flight legs, I want to be sure there's fuel where I
land.
--
============================================
Do not archive.
============================================
Jim B Belcher
BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Retired aerospace technical manager
============================================
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today |
Hi Paul ,I just weighed my ailerons and the best I can determine (using
bathroom scales) they weigh 3.5# .It would be very easy to add 3.5# in front
of the hinge line .I plan to use some type of a flat bar at the outer tip of
the ailerons ,of course the tip will be beefed up to allow for this extra
weight .I used .025 material through out the airframe with the exception of
the .016 on the ailerons .Can't say if the balancing is needed on the 601XL
for safety but for my safety I require it .
Wade Jones South East Texas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Mulwitz" <psm@att.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 8:14 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: New Chris Heinz Letter Today
>
> It is not me we are talking about here, it is the older, more experienced
> experts in aviation.
>
> Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here. The point is not that all
> engineering data is to be ignored. It is that engineering data is not
> sufficient support for the decision to have unbalanced ailerons in this
> type of airplane. This decision is based on real history of many
> different airplane designs. Simply stated (the best I can do from the
> information I received) when ailerons are balanced fatal accident rates
> are reduced.
>
> It might help to think about aviation as a mature technology. Many of the
> hard lessons have been learned through experience rather than through
> academic theory. For the most part, all of the basic technology of flying
> machines was developed many decades ago. Today, all we see are slight
> variations on long standing designs that have huge amounts of history
> associated with them.
>
>
> Paul
> XL grounded
>
>
> At 05:44 AM 7/9/2009, you wrote:
>
>>If you mind can not be changed by any engineering data, why will the
>>balanced aileron engineering data change your mind?
>
>
>
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: New Chris Heinz Letter Today |
Hi Wade,
The problem with your approach is you may not have the skills and
information needed to see if any other parts of the design need to be
beefed up. Adding several pounds at the wing tip can have a big
impact on the wing design.
I have heard comments about needing heavier ribs and also some kind
of beefing up of the rear channel.
It is just this sort of thing that makes me want a design validated
by the normally responsible engineers at Zenith.
Paul
XL grounded
At 08:06 AM 7/9/2009, you wrote:
>Hi Paul ,I just weighed my ailerons and the best I can determine
>(using bathroom scales) they weigh 3.5# .It would be very easy to
>add 3.5# in front of the hinge line .I plan to use some type of a
>flat bar at the outer tip of the ailerons ,of course the tip will be
>beefed up to allow for this extra weight .I used .025 material
>through out the airframe with the exception of the .016 on the
>ailerons .Can't say if the balancing is needed on the 601XL for
>safety but for my safety I require it .
>Wade Jones South East Texas
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today |
In all due respects ,I have the skills and information . Thanks for your
concern Paul .
Wade Jones South East Texas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Mulwitz" <psm@att.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: New Chris Heinz Letter Today
>
> Hi Wade,
>
> The problem with your approach is you may not have the skills and
> information needed to see if any other parts of the design need to be
> beefed up. Adding several pounds at the wing tip can have a big impact on
> the wing design.
>
> I have heard comments about needing heavier ribs and also some kind of
> beefing up of the rear channel.
>
> It is just this sort of thing that makes me want a design validated by the
> normally responsible engineers at Zenith.
>
> Paul
> XL grounded
>
>
> At 08:06 AM 7/9/2009, you wrote:
>>Hi Paul ,I just weighed my ailerons and the best I can determine (using
>>bathroom scales) they weigh 3.5# .It would be very easy to add 3.5# in
>>front of the hinge line .I plan to use some type of a flat bar at the
>>outer tip of the ailerons ,of course the tip will be beefed up to allow
>>for this extra weight .I used .025 material through out the airframe with
>>the exception of the .016 on the ailerons .Can't say if the balancing is
>>needed on the 601XL for safety but for my safety I require it .
>>Wade Jones South East Texas
>
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today |
Paul,
you said"
By talking to lots of FAA and industry folks who have been around for a long
> time I learned there is a belief that balanced ailerons are needed by all
> planes of this sort. History has shown that to be true in many different
> designs, and these guys are convinced that the XL is no exception to this
> rule."
No insult inteaded, but this is the biggest load of.... I have ever heard. some
employee " self described as an expert" at the FAA does not make for rules
written in stone and factual. Sorry to say but this is way off base, frankly
I gotta say it, I call Bullshit on this one.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: ernie <ernieth@gmail.com>
>Sent: Jul 9, 2009 8:44 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: New Chris Heinz Letter Today
>
>
>You said
>--->I don't believe they will determine that the
>> XL has adequate protection from flutter no matter what any engineering
>> reports say
>
>If you mind can not be changed by any engineering data, why will the
>balanced aileron engineering data change your mind?
>
>Do not archive
>
>On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 2:31 AM, Paul Mulwitz<psm@att.net> wrote:
>> Hi Tony,
>>
>> First let me say your qualifications to understand the technical details of
>> this issue are a lot better than mine. I believe you are convinced that
>> flutter is not an issue for the XL based on the German test report.
>>
>> However, you are not the FAA. I don't believe they will determine that the
>> XL has adequate protection from flutter no matter what any engineering
>> reports say. I learned when I discussed this issue with them at Sun n Fun
>> that they already believe the XL needs balanced ailerons and that nothing
>> will change their minds on that point. Indeed, I believe the NTSB has the
>> same opinion (but I have no personal proof of that position).
>>
>> By talking to lots of FAA and industry folks who have been around for a long
>> time I learned there is a belief that balanced ailerons are needed by all
>> planes of this sort. History has shown that to be true in many different
>> designs, and these guys are convinced that the XL is no exception to this
>> rule.
>>
>> The other news from those discussions is that the FAA will not take any
>> action to prevent E-AB owners from flying their planes. They just don't
>> care about experimental planes in that sort of way. They do care about
>> factory built planes, but even those are safe from FAA rule making for at
>> least a year. It takes them that long (and longer) to issue an NPRM and get
>> to the final rule. That is the process they will use to issue a mandatory
>> AD if they choose to go in that direction.
>>
>> It is my hope that the whole problem will go away without actual rules from
>> the FAA. All it takes is a group of design changes from Zenith/Zenair with
>> some sort of mandatory implementation from AMD for S-LSA XLs. Then the FAA
>> won't need to take any regulatory action.
>>
>> For E-AB it is all up to the owner to decide what to do with their plane.
>>
>> Paul
>> XL grounded
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> At 09:59 PM 7/8/2009, you wrote:
>>
>> "------ the National Transportation Safety Board recommends that the Federal
>> Aviation Aviation Administration:
>>
>> Prohibit further flight on the Zodiac CH-601XL, both special
>> light sport aircraft
>> and experimental, until such time that the Federal Aviation
>> Administration determines that the CH-601XL has
>> adequate protection from flutter. (A-09-30" (underling and bold
>> mine)
>>
>> The above in my opinion as a retired aerospace engineer, and my Phase I
>> flight tests, and the Zenith Flight tests and the results of the Modal
>> surveys (Ground Vibration Tests - GVT) is that the recommendation by the
>> NTSB to determine that the XL has adequate protection from flutter has been,
>> in my lowly opinion, satisfied. Of course this assumes that the aileron
>> control cables are not slack, for the reported real flutter was a result of
>> slack cables - the flutter stopped once the IAS was lowered and did not
>> repeat with proper cable tension, which per the GVT tests should be at a
>> minimum of 10 pounds - much less than the Zenith spec value.
>>
>> The XL does though, like most all light aircraft, have a wing removal device
>> called a "stick". I personally like the light stick forces of the XL, but
>> as Mr. Henitz in his letter stated "Remember that, as with any light
>> aircraft, if you encounter unexpected turbulence while cruising, ride it out
>> rather than fight it - and slow down!"
>>
>> Tony
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NTSB recommendations |
y'all put an interesting point. In my conversations with both entities on the
National level, they are Ying and Yang. The Mission of NTSB is safety, FAA's
is admin and compliance. NTSB historically Has looked at LSA with very skeptical
glasses, and is puting any issue regarding the LSA segment with suspicion.
After all the over all concept of LSA according to the NTSB is to allow, folks
that should not pilot, pilot. To them LSA goes against the rules of regular
Pilotage criteria. So the focus on LSA aircraft by NTSB is hence, prejudiced.
FAA is the regulator and equalizer.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net>
>Sent: Jul 9, 2009 8:43 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: NTSB recommendations
>
>A good point.
>
>Still, my understanding is that the notion of immediately grounding
>an entire fleet of planes is a very unusual recommendation from the
>NTSB. Many of their recommendations are more like the ones I chose
>to ignore in the Zodiac XL letter including a small change in
>airspeed calibration.
>
>
>At 05:20 AM 7/9/2009, you wrote:
>>In a message dated 7/9/2009 2:04:02 A.M. Central Daylight Time, Paul writes:
>>Finally, when I was about to get my plane inspected and start flight
>>testing, the NTSB came out with their (nearly?) unprecedented ruling
>>- that all planes in this family should be immediately grounded.
>>
>>
>>Maybe the NTSB just doesn't get the big picture & should venture out
>>of their ivory tower now & then.
>>
>><<NTSB: More than 1,000 recommendations are being ignored>>
>>
>><http://www.smartbrief.com/news/aopa/storyDetails.jsp?issueid=9CA199B1-0B54-4D47-8F1A-3B7150010479id=C63BF415-D392-4E85-BC37-A93C7C6FF93A&brief=aopa&sb_code=rss&&campaign=rss>http://www.smartbrief.com/news/aopa/storyDetails.jsp?issueid=9CA199B1-0B54-4D47-8F1A-3B7150010479id=C63BF415-D392-4E85-BC37-A93C7C6FF93A&brief=aopa&sb_code=rss&&campaign=rss
>
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: New Chris Heinz Letter Today |
well said Tony and I agree as much of us do.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: "T. Graziano" <tonyplane@bellsouth.net>
>Sent: Jul 9, 2009 12:59 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: New Chris Heinz Letter Today
>
>Paul,
>
>Ref page 11 of the NTSB report
>
>"------ the National Transportation Safety Board recommends that the Federal Aviation
Aviation Administration:
>
> Prohibit further flight on the Zodiac CH-601XL, both special light
sport aircraft
> and experimental, until such time that the Federal Aviation Administration
determines that the CH-601XL has
> adequate protection from flutter. (A-09-30" (underling and bold mine)
>
>The above in my opinion as a retired aerospace engineer, and my Phase I flight
tests, and the Zenith Flight tests and the results of the Modal surveys (Ground
Vibration Tests - GVT) is that the recommendation by the NTSB to determine
that the XL has adequate protection from flutter has been, in my lowly opinion,
satisfied. Of course this assumes that the aileron control cables are not slack,
for the reported real flutter was a result of slack cables - the flutter
stopped once the IAS was lowered and did not repeat with proper cable tension,
which per the GVT tests should be at a minimum of 10 pounds - much less than
the Zenith spec value.
>
>The XL does though, like most all light aircraft, have a wing removal device called
a "stick". I personally like the light stick forces of the XL, but as Mr.
Henitz in his letter stated "Remember that, as with any light aircraft, if
you encounter unexpected turbulence while cruising, ride it out rather than fight
it - and slow down!"
>
>Tony
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Mulwitz
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 12:22 PM
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: New Chris Heinz Letter Today
>
>
> Hi Tony,
>
> First, let me say I have no knowledge of ZBAG letters or any other activities
of that group. I am not a member and really don't care what they say or do.
>
> As to the language of the NTSB, I will yield to your interpretation of the exact
points. My take is that they DEMANDED that the entire fleet of XLs be grounded
until the safety issues are resolved. If I have overemphasized the aileron
mass balance or control gradient change, then I apologize.
>
> Still, the decision I made is to ground my plane until those specific changes
have been made and approved by appropriate engineers and organizations (e.g.
Zenith). You might think the German tests negate the need for aileron mass
balance, but I don't. That is because all the experts I have spoken to on this
subject say the balance is needed whether aileron flutter can be proved to be
a problem or not. This includes a number of high ranking FAA safety folks and
also a number of highly experienced kitplane folks. For me to drop the need
for aileron mass balance would take at least the NTSB saying it isn't needed
- something I doubt I will ever see.
>
> I realize I am being very conservative on my decision point and that other people
can and should make their own decisions. However, I wonder if all the people
who are continuing to fly their XLs had another airplane in their hangar
they would still choose to fly the XL. Besides being a safety decision it winds
up being a financial decision too.
>
> Paul
> XL Grounded
>
>
> At 08:56 AM 7/8/2009, you wrote:
>
> Page 11 of the NTSB report has the "Recommendations" not "Demands" that:
>
> a Ground Vibration Test be conducted and "consideration" of mass-balanced
ailerons,
> and an "evaluation" the stick force gradient at max aft CG and notification
to the pilots of the stick-force gradient that occurs at the aft cg, especially
at higher G forces.
>
> Since most of us, or possibly none of us, have ever had access to or have
read the forwarding letter of ZBAG to the NTSB, is it possible that ZBAG letter
had the "Demands"???
>
> Tony Graziano
> XL/Jab; N493TG; 509 hrs
>
>
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: New Chris Heinz Letter Today |
Juan Vega Jr wrote:
> No insult inteaded, but this is the biggest load of.... I have ever heard.
some employee " self described as an expert" at the FAA does not make for rules
written in stone and factual. Sorry to say but this is way off base, frankly
I gotta say it, I call Bullshit on this one.
>
> Juan
>
>
> --
A perfect example of this happened to our friend Dr. Ed. An FSDO tried to not inspect
his plane because of the NTSB letter. A couple of calls to the EAA and
from the EAA to the FAA and low and behold Dr. Ed has a plane with an AW certificate.
--------
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=252297#252297
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: New Chris Heinz Letter Today |
History would tell us that Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr settled their
differences in an open field. Suggest parties involved in this contest do
the same.
Will greatly reduce the consumption of our very scarce natural resources.
Ken
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Juan Vega" <amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: New Chris Heinz Letter Today
>
> Paul,
> you said"
> By talking to lots of FAA and industry folks who have been around for a
> long
>> time I learned there is a belief that balanced ailerons are needed by all
>> planes of this sort. History has shown that to be true in many different
>> designs, and these guys are convinced that the XL is no exception to this
>> rule."
>
> No insult inteaded, but this is the biggest load of.... I have ever
> heard. some employee " self described as an expert" at the FAA does not
> make for rules written in stone and factual. Sorry to say but this is way
> off base, frankly I gotta say it, I call Bullshit on this one.
>
> Juan
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: ernie <ernieth@gmail.com>
>>Sent: Jul 9, 2009 8:44 AM
>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: New Chris Heinz Letter Today
>>
>>
>>You said
>>--->I don't believe they will determine that the
>>> XL has adequate protection from flutter no matter what any engineering
>>> reports say
>>
>>If you mind can not be changed by any engineering data, why will the
>>balanced aileron engineering data change your mind?
>>
>>Do not archive
>>
>>On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 2:31 AM, Paul Mulwitz<psm@att.net> wrote:
>>> Hi Tony,
>>>
>>> First let me say your qualifications to understand the technical details
>>> of
>>> this issue are a lot better than mine. I believe you are convinced that
>>> flutter is not an issue for the XL based on the German test report.
>>>
>>> However, you are not the FAA. I don't believe they will determine that
>>> the
>>> XL has adequate protection from flutter no matter what any engineering
>>> reports say. I learned when I discussed this issue with them at Sun n
>>> Fun
>>> that they already believe the XL needs balanced ailerons and that
>>> nothing
>>> will change their minds on that point. Indeed, I believe the NTSB has
>>> the
>>> same opinion (but I have no personal proof of that position).
>>>
>>> By talking to lots of FAA and industry folks who have been around for a
>>> long
>>> time I learned there is a belief that balanced ailerons are needed by
>>> all
>>> planes of this sort. History has shown that to be true in many different
>>> designs, and these guys are convinced that the XL is no exception to
>>> this
>>> rule.
>>>
>>> The other news from those discussions is that the FAA will not take any
>>> action to prevent E-AB owners from flying their planes. They just don't
>>> care about experimental planes in that sort of way. They do care about
>>> factory built planes, but even those are safe from FAA rule making for
>>> at
>>> least a year. It takes them that long (and longer) to issue an NPRM and
>>> get
>>> to the final rule. That is the process they will use to issue a
>>> mandatory
>>> AD if they choose to go in that direction.
>>>
>>> It is my hope that the whole problem will go away without actual rules
>>> from
>>> the FAA. All it takes is a group of design changes from Zenith/Zenair
>>> with
>>> some sort of mandatory implementation from AMD for S-LSA XLs. Then the
>>> FAA
>>> won't need to take any regulatory action.
>>>
>>> For E-AB it is all up to the owner to decide what to do with their
>>> plane.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>> XL grounded
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At 09:59 PM 7/8/2009, you wrote:
>>>
>>> "------ the National Transportation Safety Board recommends that the
>>> Federal
>>> Aviation Aviation Administration:
>>>
>>> Prohibit further flight on the Zodiac CH-601XL, both special
>>> light sport aircraft
>>> and experimental, until such time that the Federal Aviation
>>> Administration determines that the CH-601XL has
>>> adequate protection from flutter. (A-09-30" (underling and bold
>>> mine)
>>>
>>> The above in my opinion as a retired aerospace engineer, and my Phase I
>>> flight tests, and the Zenith Flight tests and the results of the Modal
>>> surveys (Ground Vibration Tests - GVT) is that the recommendation by the
>>> NTSB to determine that the XL has adequate protection from flutter has
>>> been,
>>> in my lowly opinion, satisfied. Of course this assumes that the aileron
>>> control cables are not slack, for the reported real flutter was a result
>>> of
>>> slack cables - the flutter stopped once the IAS was lowered and did not
>>> repeat with proper cable tension, which per the GVT tests should be at a
>>> minimum of 10 pounds - much less than the Zenith spec value.
>>>
>>> The XL does though, like most all light aircraft, have a wing removal
>>> device
>>> called a "stick". I personally like the light stick forces of the XL,
>>> but
>>> as Mr. Henitz in his letter stated "Remember that, as with any light
>>> aircraft, if you encounter unexpected turbulence while cruising, ride it
>>> out
>>> rather than fight it - and slow down!"
>>>
>>> Tony
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NTSB recommendations |
You raise an interesting issue, Juan, that of the NTSB's viewpoint.
There was a time (don't ask me how I know) when a pilot's license was
denied anyone who needed glasses, or was missing too many teeth, or had
had any one of several childhood maladies. When I entered USAF pilot
school, we were allowed no corrective lenses, a max number of cavities,
and had to be missing no more than four teeth. (Bite the enemy to
death?) We also had to fit between max and minimum weights for our
heights. Same thinking now holds with people who (shouldn't?) fly. This
from a senior TWA pilot, who had tons of hours: "I'd rather fly with a
guy whose heart has been repaired, than one who has never had a problem.
At least one of them has a recent overhaul." NTSB is a bunch of
political appointees, who want no risks at all, in anything. Back
when I was working on my Master's in safety, the first thing we learned
was the philosophy of safety. It entailed the acceptance of reasonable
risks, not the elimination of all risks.
Paul R
DO NOT ARCHIVE
----- Original Message -----
From: Juan Vega<mailto:amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
To: zenith-list@matronics.com<mailto:zenith-list@matronics.com> ;
zenith-list@matronics.com<mailto:zenith-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: NTSB recommendations
<amyvega2005@earthlink.net<mailto:amyvega2005@earthlink.net>>
y'all put an interesting point. In my conversations with both
entities on the National level, they are Ying and Yang. The Mission of
NTSB is safety, FAA's is admin and compliance. NTSB historically Has
looked at LSA with very skeptical glasses, and is puting any issue
regarding the LSA segment with suspicion. After all the over all
concept of LSA according to the NTSB is to allow, folks that should not
pilot, pilot. To them LSA goes against the rules of regular Pilotage
criteria. So the focus on LSA aircraft by NTSB is hence, prejudiced.
FAA is the regulator and equalizer.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net<mailto:psm@att.net>>
>Sent: Jul 9, 2009 8:43 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com<mailto:zenith-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: NTSB recommendations
>
>A good point.
>
>Still, my understanding is that the notion of immediately grounding
>an entire fleet of planes is a very unusual recommendation from the
>NTSB. Many of their recommendations are more like the ones I chose
>to ignore in the Zodiac XL letter including a small change in
>airspeed calibration.
>
>
>
>At 05:20 AM 7/9/2009, you wrote:
>>In a message dated 7/9/2009 2:04:02 A.M. Central Daylight Time, Paul
writes:
>>Finally, when I was about to get my plane inspected and start flight
>>testing, the NTSB came out with their (nearly?) unprecedented ruling
>>- that all planes in this family should be immediately grounded.
>>
>>
>>Maybe the NTSB just doesn't get the big picture & should venture out
>>of their ivory tower now & then.
>>
>><<NTSB: More than 1,000 recommendations are being ignored>>
>>
>><http://www.smartbrief.com/news/aopa/storyDetails.jsp?issueid=9CA199B
1-0B54-4D47-8F1A-3B7150010479=C2=A9id=C63BF415-D392-4E85-BC37-A93C7C6FF
93A&brief=aopa&sb_code=rss&&campaign=rss>http://www.smartbrief.com/
news/aopa/storyDetails.jsp?issueid=9CA199B1-0B54-4D47-8F1A-3B7150010479
=C2=A9id=C63BF415-D392-4E85-BC37-A93C7C6FF93A&brief=aopa&sb_code=rs
s&&campaign=rss<http://www.smartbrief.com/news/aopa/storyDetails.jsp?is
sueid=9CA199B1-0B54-4D47-8F1A-3B7150010479=C2=A9id=C63BF415-D392-4E85
-BC37-A93C7C6FF93A&brief=aopa&sb_code=rss&&campaign=rss>http://www.
smartbrief.com/news/aopa/storyDetails.jsp?issueid=9CA199B1-0B54-4D47-8F
1A-3B7150010479=C2=A9id=C63BF415-D392-4E85-BC37-A93C7C6FF93A&brief=ao
pa&sb_code=rss&&campaign=rss>
>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List<http://www.matronics.com/N
avigator?Zenith-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution<http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on>
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: New Chris Heinz Letter Today |
Gig, my point exactly.
All,
i get some emails from some saying , just keep quite, and stick to building,
the problem as Mark Twain said
" Gossip and missinformation hsa travelled twice round the Globe by the time Truth
has stepped up to the starting gate"
Guys, If Gossip and False or misguided statements are not rebutted, then we deserve
what is coming to us, becuase frankly the Feds,(ntsb, FAA) will put the
gavel down in the end with info based on missinformation, given enough pressure
from those wanting to push an agenda for self serving reasons, hence the NTSB
letter. And we as owners of aircraft, will live with the repercussions, all
becuase we wanted to keep our head in the sand.
I will be quite when I hear those pushing BS agenda and gossip and false info are
quite. You dont like it, dont listen.
When the bullshitter stick to building , I will stick to buidling.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
>Sent: Jul 9, 2009 12:57 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today
>
>
>
>Juan Vega Jr wrote:
>> No insult inteaded, but this is the biggest load of.... I have ever heard.
some employee " self described as an expert" at the FAA does not make for rules
written in stone and factual. Sorry to say but this is way off base, frankly
I gotta say it, I call Bullshit on this one.
>>
>> Juan
>>
>>
>> --
>
>
>A perfect example of this happened to our friend Dr. Ed. An FSDO tried to not
inspect his plane because of the NTSB letter. A couple of calls to the EAA and
from the EAA to the FAA and low and behold Dr. Ed has a plane with an AW certificate.
>
>--------
>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=252297#252297
>
>
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: | Aircraft Insurance |
Well, Gang it just gets better and better. First the letter from Chris
Heintz and now with my 601XL ready for Phase I testing I can't seem to get any
insurance without at least 5 hrs in a 601XL 3 hrs Dual 2 solo. Then I found
out my builders insurance is no good the day it was ready to taxi. This is
through AVEMCO. Also have been talking with EAA and AOPA all the same. I guess
my only choices are sell it or have no insurance and fly it. What's the
rest of you doing? I don't have a clue where I could find a plane to get dual
time in. David Coberly /Uninsured 601XL
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: | Aircraft Insurance |
Where are you located? There are CFIs offering instruction in XLs in a
number of locations around the country.
-- Craig
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Davcoberly@wmconnect.com
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 12:33 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Aircraft Insurance
Well, Gang it just gets better and better. First the letter from Chris
Heintz and now with my 601XL ready for Phase I testing I can't seem to get
any insurance without at least 5 hrs in a 601XL 3 hrs Dual 2 solo. Then I
found out my builders insurance is no good the day it was ready to taxi.
This is through AVEMCO. Also have been talking with EAA and AOPA all the
same. I guess my only choices are sell it or have no insurance and fly it.
What's the rest of you doing? I don't have a clue where I could find a plane
to get dual time in. David Coberly /Uninsured 601XL
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: New Chris Heinz Letter Today |
On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 02:31:45PM -0400, Juan Vega wrote:
> I will be quite when I hear those pushing BS agenda and gossip and false
> info are quite.
Pot, kettle, black. You're pushing the BS agenda around here in your
never-ending quest to pin the entire blame on builder and pilot error. You
don't know, and neither does anyone else.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, CFI-SP http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (KFRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NTSB recommendations |
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 11:27 AM, <paulrod36@msn.com> wrote:
> You raise an interesting issue, Juan, that of the NTSB's viewpoint. There
> was a time (don't ask me how I know) when a pilot's license was denied
> anyone who needed glasses ... When I entered USAF pilot school, we were
> allowed no corrective lenses, a max number of cavities, ...
Interesting. I have always attributed these attitudes more to the
tradition of aviation as "risky"; the need for aviators to be
"special"; and the legacy of aviation in the military (where,
arguably, the demands do need to be stricter).
Similarly, I have attributed the loosening of these attitudes to a
general broadening of social thinking. For example, we now take the
trouble to build bathrooms big enough for wheelchairs because there is
no good reason to isolate wheelchair-bound people from society, and we
allow private pilots with corrective lenses because the risk (of, say,
losing one's glasses in flight and not having a backup pair) is low
enough that there's no good reason for the restriction.
According to Wikipedia, the NTSB was formed in 1967. As such, it seems
it's not old enough to have been responsible for the attitudes you
list; more likely, these attitudes were changing while the NTSB was in
its formative years.
Ihab
--
Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA
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: Aircraft Insurance |
Craig I'm in NW Arkansas know anyone close to here. Thanks David
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft Insurance |
On Thursday 09 July 2009 13:32, Davcoberly@wmconnect.com wrote:
> Well, Gang it just gets better and better. First the letter from Chris
> Heintz and now with my 601XL ready for Phase I testing I can't seem to get
> any insurance without at least 5 hrs in a 601XL 3 hrs Dual 2 solo. Then I
> found out my builders insurance is no good the day it was ready to taxi.
> This is through AVEMCO. Also have been talking with EAA and AOPA all the
> same. I guess my only choices are sell it or have no insurance and fly it.
> What's the rest of you doing? I don't have a clue where I could find a
> plane to get dual time in. David Coberly /Uninsured 601XL
I suppose it depends on your point of view, but all I've ever carried is
liability. I have no idea how easy that may be to get on the XL at this
point.
My reasoning has been that, if I damaged the airplane, I'd repair it. For
what the insurance company wanted in premiums, it wouldn't have taken many
years to buy another airplane.
I had AVEMCO at one time. After a year of letter after letter to them, they
never did get my name spelled right on the policy, and appeared to just
ignore me. I have no idea if I could have ever collected without an army of
lawyers. Help like that, I don't need.
--
============================================
Do not archive.
============================================
Jim B Belcher
BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Retired aerospace technical manager
============================================
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NTSB recommendations |
I think the whole subject of aviator medical qualification is
undergoing a very needed review.
We have had 2(?) airline pilots drop dead while flying in the last
year. We know they had a first class medical exam within 6 months.
Chuck Yeager pointed out in his book that the pilot who saw the other
guy first (the one with the best vision) was usually the winner in a
dog fight. That was appropriate to WW II military aviation
technology. Today, the highest paid and most depended upon pilots
(scheduled airline) are mostly computer operators. Indeed some of
the recent (last decade or two) airline incidents pointed out that
some left seaters can't even fly on instruments well enough to get
the plane straight and level.
I thought the whole LSA movement was designed to A) copy the European
Ultralight standards, and B) enable more new pilots and others to fly
new airplanes without paying the bloated prices for part 23
airplanes. The whole light plane industry nearly died in the '80s
due to product liability suits and awards, and the pricing of
Cessna's, Piper's, etc. has never recovered.
If it is really true that the NTSB is biased against LSA, then they
need to get their act together. I firmly believe the LSA movement is
the best thing to happen to GA in many years. If indeed the NTSB's
bias is responsible for their position on the Zodiac XL than perhaps
someone can tell me why they have singled this plane out and left the
hundred or so other LSA alone.
Paul
XL grounded
At 11:46 AM 7/9/2009, you wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 11:27 AM, <paulrod36@msn.com> wrote:
> > You raise an interesting issue, Juan, that of the NTSB's viewpoint. There
> > was a time (don't ask me how I know) when a pilot's license was denied
> > anyone who needed glasses ... When I entered USAF pilot school, we were
> > allowed no corrective lenses, a max number of cavities, ...
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today |
I'm not convinced that bandwidth on intermet chat groups is a scarce enough
commodity to ask people to start shooting each other.
It's a matter of (un)common sense vs extreme desire. There are people who
would deny it if the wings fell off in front of them in the hangar and there
are those who demand reasonable assurance that the design is sound in the
face of the in in-flight failures. (interpreted by the former group as
demanding proof of no possible flaw under any circumstances) I think that
there is reasonable assurance that flutter is not an issue under a certain
set of reasonable circumstances, I think the choice to apply a factory
authorized mod for balance ailerons would be better. But if flutter is not
and never was an issue, there remains the issue of the accidents. CH has
advised (but not demanded or decreed) actions to reduce the stress on the
airframe for the time being. Despite the claims from some that this is
merely a PR exercise I figure Zenith is actually as anxious for bad things
to stop happening in their designs as the NTSB is and I would certainly
follow their advice.
The anxiety and emotion around the issue is not surprising given that many
feel they cannot afford for anything to be wrong, too much time cash and/or
ego tied up to accept any hint of a problem. If at the end of this Zenith
comes up with a set of recommendations or options that any exp. builder can
choose to ignore, everyone should be satisfied.
In the meantime, hope for no more accidents, follow the new recomendations,
fly carefully or keep on building. It's a bunch of pieces of metal here
folks, not truly worth anyones life. No need for guns.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Arnold" <arno7452@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: New Chris Heinz Letter Today
>
> History would tell us that Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr settled their
> differences in an open field. Suggest parties involved in this contest do
> the same.
>
> Will greatly reduce the consumption of our very scarce natural resources.
>
> Ken
>
> do not archive
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: Aircraft Insurance |
Jim,
get some time in the aircraft with an instructor, and they will insure you. Read
this month's Sport Plane article on Insurance, It makes sense to get some
time in the aircraft prior to flying your own. Take a Saterday, and get the
5 hours of dual, and you are fine. This will apply with any LSA or EAB.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Jim Belcher <z601@anemicaardvark.com>
>Sent: Jul 9, 2009 3:10 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Aircraft Insurance
>
>
>On Thursday 09 July 2009 13:32, Davcoberly@wmconnect.com wrote:
>> Well, Gang it just gets better and better. First the letter from Chris
>> Heintz and now with my 601XL ready for Phase I testing I can't seem to get
>> any insurance without at least 5 hrs in a 601XL 3 hrs Dual 2 solo. Then I
>> found out my builders insurance is no good the day it was ready to taxi.
>> This is through AVEMCO. Also have been talking with EAA and AOPA all the
>> same. I guess my only choices are sell it or have no insurance and fly it.
>> What's the rest of you doing? I don't have a clue where I could find a
>> plane to get dual time in. David Coberly /Uninsured 601XL
>
>I suppose it depends on your point of view, but all I've ever carried is
>liability. I have no idea how easy that may be to get on the XL at this
>point.
>
>My reasoning has been that, if I damaged the airplane, I'd repair it. For
>what the insurance company wanted in premiums, it wouldn't have taken many
>years to buy another airplane.
>
>I had AVEMCO at one time. After a year of letter after letter to them, they
>never did get my name spelled right on the policy, and appeared to just
>ignore me. I have no idea if I could have ever collected without an army of
>lawyers. Help like that, I don't need.
>--
>============================================
> Do not archive.
>============================================
> Jim B Belcher
> BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science
> A&P/IA
> Retired aerospace technical manager
>============================================
>
>
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: NTSB recommendations |
Juan Vega Jr wrote:
> y'all put an interesting point. In my conversations with both entities on the
National level, they are Ying and Yang. The Mission of NTSB is safety, FAA's
is admin and compliance. NTSB historically Has looked at LSA with very skeptical
glasses, and is puting any issue regarding the LSA segment with suspicion.
After all the over all concept of LSA according to the NTSB is to allow,
folks that should not pilot, pilot. To them LSA goes against the rules of
regular Pilotage criteria. So the focus on LSA aircraft by NTSB is hence, prejudiced.
FAA is the regulator and equalizer.
True, but the Zodiac was around long before LSA.
--------
Bob Simmons
CH 750!!!
N750TN (reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=252340#252340
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today |
Jay,
your behind the eight ball yet again. If your read the letter from Chris, he
is Basically saying in a nice way, what I said, it looks more and more everyday,
that it is ultimatley an Owner Issue.
The guys that are scared to hear that it is not an engineering issue, need to
move on or create their own self prescribed fix, even though there is no possible
need for one.
Build it right, fly it right maintain it right, 601s are a great plane to own
and fly.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard@conmicro.com>
>Sent: Jul 9, 2009 2:41 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today
>
>
>On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 02:31:45PM -0400, Juan Vega wrote:
>> I will be quite when I hear those pushing BS agenda and gossip and false
>> info are quite.
>
>Pot, kettle, black. You're pushing the BS agenda around here in your
>never-ending quest to pin the entire blame on builder and pilot error. You
>don't know, and neither does anyone else.
>--
>Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, CFI-SP http://www.conmicro.com
>http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
>Fairmont, MN (KFRM) (Yes, that's me!)
>AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml
>
>
Message 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: Aircraft Insurance |
Jim all I wanted was liability and maybe not in motion coverage but either
of those still have the same requirements for same make and model time.
David Coberly
do not archive
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: | Aircraft Insurance |
Hmm, I can think of three possibilities but none are terribly close:
- Ed Moody got some time-in-type "near" New Orleans. Let's see if he picks
up on this thread.
- If you don't need formal instruction I believe some folks have gotten some
hours in the factory demo plane in Mexico, MO
- Likewise you might be able to get some hours in an AMD plane in Georgia
I'm in Utah. Let's see what others in your region have to say.
-- Craig
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Davcoberly@wmconnect.com
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 1:06 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Aircraft Insurance
Craig I'm in NW Arkansas know anyone close to here. Thanks David
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NTSB recommendations |
Hi Paul. Pretty sure the NTSB is actually only concerned with safety and has
no axe to grind against any group or company. When a single design pops out
of the mix as having an unsual set of statistics it calls attention to
itself. Should a certain class of pilots show up in statistics as having an
unusual trait of higher or lower safety standing than others it would either
enhance or diminish the standing of the LSA community. It is worth
everyone's while here to have safe designs, and operate them safely. Having
a person advocate that the designer's new recommendations regarding the
airframes operating parameters are simply PR and not required is hardly the
kind of stuff that will enhance safety.
Despite the changing regulatory base and requirements for pilots to fly, one
axiome remains-- Want to get yourself and all your buddies grounded? Have an
incident that was clearly preventable.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Mulwitz" <psm@att.net>
> If it is really true that the NTSB is biased against LSA, then they need
> to get their act together. I firmly believe the LSA movement is the best
> thing to happen to GA in many years. If indeed the NTSB's bias is
> responsible for their position on the Zodiac XL than perhaps someone can
> tell me why they have singled this plane out and left the hundred or so
> other LSA alone.
>
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft Insurance |
I have no idea what your flying experience is but even if you told me you had 10000
hours I would suggest at least 3 hours of dual before you flew the plane
unless you had experience as a test pilot in light aircraft.
Head down to Vicksburg MS. CFI with a 601XL is there. I'll get you his contact
info if you need it.
As a matter of fact if you want to split some of the cost and those cost aren't
outrageous if we could get the guy up here in Arkansas and I would fly with him
as well. Hell, I'll even buy you he dinner one night. He might eat the additional
cost if he knew he was going to get to give 6 hours dual and rent the plane
for 10 hours in one weekend.
Davcoberly(at)wmconnect.c wrote:
> Well, Gang it just gets better and better. First the letter from Chris Heintz
and now with my 601XL ready for Phase I testing I can't seem to get any insurance
without at least 5 hrs in a 601XL 3 hrs Dual 2 solo. Then I found out my
builders insurance is no good the day it was ready to taxi. This is through AVEMCO.
Also have been talking with EAA and AOPA all the same. I guess my only choices
are sell it or have no insurance and fly it. What's the rest of you doing?
I don't have a clue where I could find a plane to get dual time in. David
Coberly /Uninsured 601XL
--------
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=252355#252355
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: Aircraft Insurance |
On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 01:23:32PM -0700, Gig Giacona wrote:
> I have no idea what your flying experience is but even if you told me you
> had 10000 hours I would suggest at least 3 hours of dual before you flew
> the plane unless you had experience as a test pilot in light aircraft.
Actually, the data suggests those with lots and lots of experience have more
trouble transitioning to LSAs than those with less time.
> As a matter of fact if you want to split some of the cost and those cost
> aren't outrageous if we could get the guy up here in Arkansas and I would
> fly with him as well. Hell, I'll even buy you he dinner one night. He
> might eat the additional cost if he knew he was going to get to give 6
> hours dual and rent the plane for 10 hours in one weekend.
This might be the best way to go about it. I did think of Gig when I saw the
original message.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, CFI-SP http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (KFRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft Insurance |
Craig,
I do believe they said it had to be logged time with a CFI. Also being I
have a Corvair engine one place told me I had to have 100 incident free
hours on the plane before they could insure it. Thanks David
do not archive
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft Insurance |
Hi guys -
It may not answer all your questions, but there's an insurance update
(E/A-B and LSAs) in the current issue of Kitplanes. When I interviewed
Bob Mackey and Jim Lauerman, we didn't discuss the current Zenith
situation directly, but there's some reasonably current information there.
Hope that helps.
best,
Cory
Jay Maynard wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 01:23:32PM -0700, Gig Giacona wrote:
>
>> I have no idea what your flying experience is but even if you told me you
>> had 10000 hours I would suggest at least 3 hours of dual before you flew
>> the plane unless you had experience as a test pilot in light aircraft.
>>
>
> Actually, the data suggests those with lots and lots of experience have more
> trouble transitioning to LSAs than those with less time.
>
>
>> As a matter of fact if you want to split some of the cost and those cost
>> aren't outrageous if we could get the guy up here in Arkansas and I would
>> fly with him as well. Hell, I'll even buy you he dinner one night. He
>> might eat the additional cost if he knew he was going to get to give 6
>> hours dual and rent the plane for 10 hours in one weekend.
>>
>
> This might be the best way to go about it. I did think of Gig when I saw the
> original message.
>
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NTSB recommendations |
d.goddard(at)ns.sympatico wrote:
> Hi Paul. Pretty sure the NTSB is actually only concerned with safety and has
> no axe to grind against any group or company.
>
> ---
The NTSB has been worried about LSAs for a while. The following are from various
issues of last year's Daily AirVenture Newletter.
"Earl Lawrence, EAA vice president of industry and regulatory affairs, told the
group that the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has voiced some concerns
about LSA, but that NTSB officials are pleased with the progress being
made on ASTM standards and on an assessment of LSA production."
"EAA met with NTSB officials to answer NTSB concerns about LSA safety and standards.
NTSB still has some concerns, but FAA leadership is behind light-sport aircraft."
The NTSB is like every other government agency they aren't endowed with any special
love of humanity because they have "Safety" in their name. They have never
been a fan of the LSA class and the accidents just gave them a target.
--------
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=252363#252363
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft Insurance |
Gig,
See what you can find out. I was going to get some time in one from
someone local that has one it just wouldn't be from a CFI and logged as it has
to
be. Thanks, David
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft Insurance |
I just went through the insurance search. Falcon wants five hours
before issuing insurance. That applies to both liability and/or hull.
SkySmith wants something similar. Avemco issued me a liability-only
policy and didn't ask for any time in a similar plane, even though I
have a few hours flying with a friend. Avemco was also the cheapest
liability by several hundred dollars.
Bill
Davcoberly@wmconnect.com wrote:
> Jim all I wanted was liability and maybe not in motion coverage but
> either of those still have the same requirements for same make and
> model time. David Coberly
> do not archive
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | What did you do today? |
All-
I finished my cockpit plumbing. Other than running the throttle and
carb cables and a few electrical touch-ups, I'm finally ready to close
up the cockpit.
Take a close look, XL people. 50% of what you see doesn't exist on
any blueprints and didn't come out of a box. What you DO see is my
modification of one-offs from HD/HDS old timers. People who made their
aircraft their own and didn't bitch and moan to excess about what Zenith
did or didn't do. If I go down, I'll go down with a smile on my face
(That isn't to say I won't be screaming "Oh Shit" the whole way-
remember the scene in Butch Cassidy?)
Many thanks to Jeff Small for his plumbing, Larry Mac for his jigs
and continued support, and Jay Bannister for his wiring diagrams, along
with the help of the local 601 crew. I never thought the day would ever
come. Oh, yeah, those are my scratch canopy rails, too.
do not archive
Bill Naumuk
Townville, Pa.
HDS N601MG/Corvair 95%
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft Insurance |
I just talked to AVEMCO today and not only would they not issue ANY
insurance without time (5hrs) in make and model they canceled my builders insurance
I had with them when they found out it was able to taxi. David Coberly
do not archive
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: What did you do today? |
Bill,
Looking at these pictures brings back a lot of memories of the
informational overload that was present at the time. Really excellent
though! I kept saying "It will fly"
every day until the engine started and gages registered. Then I knew
everything would be all right. Yours will be the same and it'll be a
great piece of work at that.
Hang in there Bill,
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
Bill Naumuk wrote:
> All-
> I finished my cockpit plumbing. Other than running the throttle
> and carb cables and a few electrical touch-ups, I'm finally ready to
> close up the cockpit.
> Take a close look, XL people. 50% of what you see doesn't exist on
> any blueprints and didn't come out of a box. What you DO see is my
> modification of one-offs from HD/HDS old timers. People who made their
> aircraft their own and didn't bitch and moan to excess about what
> Zenith did or didn't do. If I go down, I'll go down with a smile on my
> face (That isn't to say I won't be screaming "Oh Shit" the whole way-
> remember the scene in Butch Cassidy?)
> Many thanks to Jeff Small for his plumbing, Larry Mac for his jigs
> and continued support, and Jay Bannister for his wiring diagrams,
> along with the help of the local 601 crew. I never thought the day
> would ever come. Oh, yeah, those are my scratch canopy rails, too.
>
> do not archive
>
> Bill Naumuk
> Townville, Pa.
> HDS N601MG/Corvair 95%
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft Insurance |
[quote="Davcoberly(at)wmconnect.c"]Craig,
I do believe they said it had to be logged time with a CFI. Also being I have
a Corvair engine one place told me I had to have 100 incident free hours on the
plane before they could insure it. Thanks David
do not archive
> [b]
If my memory serves me correctly FALCON is the insurance company that WW was working
with on the Corvair installation.
--------
Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing
Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Corvair Engine Prints:
http://home.comcast.net/~rlendon/site/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=252377#252377
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft Insurance |
Falcon thru EAA told me the same thing. Thanks David Coberly do not
archive
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NTSB recommendations |
I had read that before and it didn't seem to me that it represented a
particular greivance with LSA, it was "concern" about the broadening of
standards altogether. I have heard from some members of the commercial
aviation community (read carriers) that they were against it also. Fine with
me if they have their concerns, somebody has to keep an eye on things or
standards get lax.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 5:48 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: NTSB recommendations
>
>
> d.goddard(at)ns.sympatico wrote:
>> Hi Paul. Pretty sure the NTSB is actually only concerned with safety and
>> has
>> no axe to grind against any group or company.
>>
>> ---
>
>
> The NTSB has been worried about LSAs for a while. The following are from
> various issues of last year's Daily AirVenture Newletter.
>
> "Earl Lawrence, EAA vice president of industry and regulatory affairs,
> told the group that the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has
> voiced some concerns about LSA, but that NTSB officials are pleased with
> the progress being made on ASTM standards and on an assessment of LSA
> production."
>
> "EAA met with NTSB officials to answer NTSB concerns about LSA safety and
> standards. NTSB still has some concerns, but FAA leadership is behind
> light-sport aircraft."
>
>
> The NTSB is like every other government agency they aren't endowed with
> any special love of humanity because they have "Safety" in their name.
> They have never been a fan of the LSA class and the accidents just gave
> them a target.
>
Message 47
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today |
Woa, hold on a minute, Wade. You don't need to balance the whole weight of
the ailerons! Do the calcs, please.
Dave Austin 601HDS - 912
Message 48
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today |
Hi Paul,
In a previous post you indicated that without exception, it is the opinion of all
aerospace community that balanced ailerons are required without exception on
all aircraft of this type. I take a bit of an issue to this statement. I am
an aircraft designer and am responsible for the design of General Atomics series
of UAV's. These aircraft range in weight and performance from the Predator
aircraft (very LSA-like) with a dive speed of 150 KIAS to Reaper (10500 lb
gross weight) with a dive speed of 400 KIAS to our latest Avenger turbofan aircraft
(15500 lb gross weight) with a dive speed in excess of 500 KIAS. They are
operated by multiple customers throughout the world. Currently General Atomics
aircraft log more flight hours than the rest of the USAF fleet combined.
Of the 12 aircraft I have designed for General Atomics over the last 16 years not
a single model has had balanced ailerons. You really can't grab on to a specific
design issue and and determine it's impact without looking at the system
as a whole. Our aircraft are very carefully designed with very accurate finite
element models being built concurrently with the design process. Once a
prototype is built it then undergoes a very complete GVT which updates and validates
the FEA model. This model is then run through a complete flutter analysis
which identifies the different flutter modes and the speed at which they could
occur. Aileron flutter is always way outside the desired flight envelope
and therefore any weight dedicated to balance would be wasted. Of course you
have to take into account the stiffness of the system as designed as well as
maintained throughout the life of the aircraft. By the way, fleet hours have
just surpassed 700,000 flight
hours with no instances of flutter.
Am I convinced that the XL has not flutter problems? Not entirely but only because
of the few reported instances of cable tension dropping significantly over
a very short period of time. I am convinced that if the cable tension is within
the specified range, that flutter will not occur. My guess as to real culprit
is the stick force gradient. The wings are being unintentionally pulled
off which in my mind is a pilot induced occurrence and frankly should be easily
remedied with a trailing edge device on the elevator and also could be mitigated
by good training and piloting techniques.
While not under the auspices of the FAA (yet) none of our airworthiness representatives
from the USAF, US Army, US Navy, Customs and Border Patrol, RAF, Italian
Air Force or the Turkish Air Force have ever questioned our choice not to
balance the ailerons..
Just a lowly representative of the current aerospace community,
Jim Machin
601XL, 0-200 almost ready!
--- On Wed, 7/8/09, Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net> wrote:
> From: Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net>
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: New Chris Heinz Letter Today
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 11:31 PM
>
>
> Hi Tony,
>
>
> First let me say your qualifications to understand the
> technical details
> of this issue are a lot better than mine. I believe
> you are
> convinced that flutter is not an issue for the XL based on
> the German
> test report.
>
>
> However, you are not the FAA.. I don't believe
> they will determine
> that the XL has adequate protection from flutter no matter
> what any
> engineering reports say. I learned when I discussed
> this issue with
> them at Sun n Fun that they already believe the XL needs
> balanced
> ailerons and that nothing will change their minds on that
> point.
> Indeed, I believe the NTSB has the same opinion (but I have
> no personal
> proof of that position).
>
>
> By talking to lots of FAA and industry folks who have been
> around for a
> long time I learned there is a belief that balanced
> ailerons are needed
> by all planes of this sort. History has shown that to
> be true in
> many different designs, and these guys are convinced that
> the XL is no
> exception to this rule.
>
>
> The other news from those discussions is that the FAA will
> not take any
> action to prevent E-AB owners from flying their
> planes. They just
> don't care about experimental planes in that sort of
> way. They do
> care about factory built planes, but even those are safe
> from FAA rule
> making for at least a year. It takes them that long
> (and longer) to
> issue an NPRM and get to the final rule. That is the
> process they
> will use to issue a mandatory AD if they choose to go in
> that
> direction.
>
>
> It is my hope that the whole problem will go away without
> actual rules
> from the FAA. All it takes is a group of design
> changes from
> Zenith/Zenair with some sort of mandatory implementation
> from AMD for
> S-LSA XLs. Then the FAA won't need to take any
> regulatory
> action.
>
>
> For E-AB it is all up to the owner to decide what to do
> with their
> plane.
>
>
> Paul
>
> XL grounded
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 09:59 PM 7/8/2009, you wrote:
>
> "------ the
> National Transportation Safety Board recommends that
> the Federal
> Aviation Aviation Administration:
>
>
>
>
>
> Prohibit further flight on the Zodiac CH-601XL, both
> special light sport
> aircraft
>
>
> and
> experimental, until such time that the Federal
> Aviation
> Administration determines that the CH-601XL has
>
>
> adequate protection from flutter. (A-09-30"
> (underling and
> bold mine)
>
>
>
> The above in my opinion as a retired
> aerospace engineer, and
> my Phase I flight tests, and the Zenith Flight tests and
> the results of
> the Modal surveys (Ground Vibration Tests - GVT) is that
> the
> recommendation by the NTSB to determine that the XL has
> adequate
> protection from flutter has been, in my lowly opinion,
> satisfied.
> Of course this assumes that the aileron control cables are
> not slack, for
> the reported real flutter was a result of slack cables -
> the flutter
> stopped once the IAS was lowered and did not repeat with
> proper cable
> tension, which per the GVT tests should be at a minimum of
> 10 pounds -
> much less than the Zenith spec value.
>
>
>
> The XL does though, like most all light
> aircraft, have a
> wing removal device called a "stick". I
> personally like
> the light stick forces of the XL, but as Mr. Henitz in his
> letter stated
> "Remember that, as with any light aircraft, if
> you encounter
> unexpected turbulence while cruising, ride it out rather
> than fight it -
> and slow down!"
>
>
>
> Tony
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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! --
|