Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:54 AM - Re: Polishing a CH710 (Gary Ray)
2. 06:01 AM - Re: tooling holes (djluscher)
3. 06:30 AM - Re: vne (Gig Giacona)
4. 07:06 AM - Re: Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 (Jim Belcher)
5. 07:50 AM - Zenith liability (Jim Belcher)
6. 08:00 AM - Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 (Sabrina)
7. 08:10 AM - Re: Zenith liability (Sabrina)
8. 08:21 AM - Re: Polishing a CH710 (Stanley A Challgren)
9. 08:21 AM - Re: Re: Zenith liability (Jim Belcher)
10. 08:55 AM - Re: Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 (Jim Belcher)
11. 08:55 AM - Re: Zenith liability (jaybannist@cs.com)
12. 09:12 AM - Re: Zenith liability (Jim Belcher)
13. 09:49 AM - Re: Zenith liability (hansriet)
14. 10:05 AM - Re: Zenith liability (Paul Mulwitz)
15. 10:20 AM - Re: Zenith liability (jaybannist@cs.com)
16. 11:04 AM - Re: Zenith liability (annken100)
17. 11:22 AM - Re: Zenith liability (Doug - SportAviation)
18. 11:22 AM - Re: Re: Zenith liability (Bill Pagan)
19. 12:03 PM - Re: Zenith liability (Greg Cox)
20. 12:04 PM - Re: Re: Zenith liability (Jay Maynard)
21. 12:42 PM - Re: Zenith liability (Sabrina)
22. 01:01 PM - Re: Zenith liability (George Swinford)
23. 01:01 PM - Re: Zenith liability (Davcoberly@wmconnect.com)
24. 01:17 PM - Re: Re: Zenith liability. (Gary Gower)
25. 01:57 PM - Re: Re: Zenith liability (Paul Mulwitz)
26. 02:44 PM - Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 (GLJSOJ1)
27. 03:05 PM - Re: Zenith liability (Gary Ray)
28. 03:06 PM - Re: Re: Zenith liability (purplemoon99@bellsouth.net)
29. 04:02 PM - Re: vne (leinad)
30. 04:04 PM - Re: Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 (purplemoon99@bellsouth.net)
31. 04:04 PM - Re: wing mod (Martin Pohl)
32. 04:08 PM - Re: Re: Zenith liability (Lawrence Webber)
33. 04:16 PM - Re: weed eater (was: Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650) (Jim Belcher)
34. 04:28 PM - Re: Zenith liability (leinad)
35. 04:45 PM - Re: Re: Zenith liability (Paul Mulwitz)
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: Polishing a CH710 |
John
Another suggestion for the daily bug removal, Nuvite makes a quick wipe
that they sell by the gallon. It works very fast work of cleaning the
bugs off the leading edges, it is inexpensive and goes a long way.
Don't let it freeze or it drops out of suspension.
Gary Ray
----- Original Message -----
From: JohnDRead@aol.com
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 10:43 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Polishing a CH710
Hello List;
I am considering polishing my CH701. Does anyone have
a suggestion for materials and technique?
John Read
CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300
Phone: 303-648-3261
Fax: 303-648-3262
Cell: 719-494-4567
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: tooling holes |
Thanks, Larry and Kevin. It is appreciated. -D
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272070#272070
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 |
|
I think it was July. It was posted in one of the letters from CH.
--------
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=272073#272073
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 grounds 601 and 650 |
On Saturday 07 November 2009 19:14, Sabrina wrote:
>
> I am proud of the FAA to have the courage to issue the Bulletin. They
> visited me on the last Sunday in August and, although my airplane flew
> after that, I have not flown it out of respect for them as well as respect
> for Jay, whose signature was on the line. I dont expect my aircraft to
> fly again until it comes out of its Conditional Inspection in early April.
>
> I am currently working on a pulse jet powered flying motorcycle. :O)
Really? While I've been waiting for things to develop, I've been designing a
low wing helicopter. I'll be offering plans anydaynow, and hope to introduce
it at a seminar at Sun 'N Fun.
I haven't quite got it flying yet, but it does a heck of a job as a lawnmower!
============================================
Do not archive.
============================================
Jim B Belcher
BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Retired aerospace technical manager
Mathematics and alcohol do not mix.
Do not drink and derive.
============================================
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: | Zenith liability |
I've spent a couple of days thinking over the Zenith situation. It seems to me
the problem splits into multiple piles: the LSA, the plans builders, and
those building from kits.
One of the seemingly hidden facts about LSAs is that the manufacturer can
mandate a change to the aircraft at any time, and the owners are stuck. They
must made the changes the manufacturer requires, and cannot make any changes
without the manufacturer's concurrence. No field mods, no STCs.
That's not just for Zenith, but for any aircraft with an LSA airworthiness
certificate. I wondered how long it would be before some manufacturer
announced a change or changes that really got to the owners. Still, I feel
extremely sympathetic towards the owners of Zenith XL and 650 LSAs. Recourse
or no recourse, this is a bum deal.
I feel even more sympathetic towards the owners of the CZAW 601s, because I
have a hunch they are in even more of a no-man's land. Any grounding or
ungrounding must come from CZAW, or its successor, yet I suspect the FAA
considers their aircraft equally grounded. I doubt Zenith will sell them
anything, since they have made it plain they do not consider they have any
liability for the CZAW aircraft. I don't know that I blame them for this;
they didn't sell the aircraft of realize a profit.
Those who built from plans are also very likely to have little recourse. After
all, Zenith sold a set of plans which they are free to follow or not. It
appears Zenith has, in effect, also supplied them with a free set of
modification plans. Unfortunately, it adds to the cost and time, perhaps
requiring extensive rework.
Which brings me to the final category, those who bought a kit. Zenith
indicated that this kit contained everything necessary to build a flying
airplane, except the engine, paint, upholstery, and avionics. Whatever it may
be called by Zenith, the fix kit is not a voluntary upgrade. Zenith can't
claim this is some sort of design improvement; Chris Heintz has already said
he doesn't feel it is necessary.
The FAA, however, very likely will not let these aircraft be flown until these
modifications are made. That means Zenith has not delivered everything
necessary to build a flying airplane (with the exceptions previously noted).
This is a direct result of their design, not something the builders have
done. It is, in effect, a mandatory change at Zenith's instigation, even
though it is intended to make the FAA happy.
That leaves a lot of builders having invested a lot of time, and now they must
invest more. My feeling is that Zenith should take a hard look at this
situation, and do everything within their power to make these modifications
available either free, or at cost. They'll be lucky if they aren't sued for
time AND materials.
I do not buy the argument that Mooney, Cessna, et al do not pay for
Airworthiness Directives, service bulletins, and so on. While this is true
for products that have been delivered for years, it has not always been true
for products just delivered. Lycoming has paid for the replacement of engine
parts recently delivered that proved to defective. Cessna paid for
modifications to the early Cardinals, when they failed to fly correctly. One
could find many more cases without searching too hard. The payment, of
course, was to head off lawsuits, and (possibly) to preserve company image.
A real issue is that Zenith is a small company, and may not be able to afford
the same things as a Lycoming or a Cessna. I believe there needs to be a
negotiation between 650 and XL builders, with all of Zenith's cards on the
table. We need to see what they can afford. What level of insurance do they
have? They are at fault; they need to give until it hurts, and then
(possibly) give some more.
If this does not happen, there is a very real danger of individual or combined
lawsuits which do force Zenith from the aircraft business. I do not think
(and I'm not an attorney) that Zenith's contract is likely to hold up under
the circumstances which are present.
This is my 25 cents worth for this morning, with the reminder, as always, that
25 cents won't buy what it once would.
--
============================================
Do not archive.
============================================
Jim B Belcher
BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Retired aerospace technical manager
Mathematics and alcohol do not mix.
Do not drink and derive.
============================================
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: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
ouch...
:O)
Jim, do you have your wings sealed up like many of us on the list?
How are we going to inspect the torque on those AN3/AN4 spar cap bolts? With my
airplane sitting outside, it will have hundreds of hours of stress on those
connections each year just sitting in the wind...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272087#272087
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Zenith liability |
I don't think worries of contract/civil liability were driving Zenith on Saturday...
it may have been another kind
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272088#272088
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: Polishing a CH710 |
Gary:
I found bug removal on my 601HDS to be very easy. A towel soaked in
water easily removed the bugs after a flight. A dry towel to wipe off
the water after the bug removal finished the process. Never more than
5 minutes required. I don't think the nuvite bug removal fluid is
necessary.
Stan
601 HDS (Since sold)
On Nov 10, 2009, at 5:40 , Gary Ray wrote:
> John
>
> Another suggestion for the daily bug removal, Nuvite makes a quick
> wipe that they sell by the gallon. It works very fast work of
> cleaning the bugs off the leading edges, it is inexpensive and goes
> a long way. Don't let it freeze or it drops out of suspension.
>
> Gary Ray
>
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: Zenith liability |
On Tuesday 10 November 2009 10:09, Sabrina wrote:
>
> I don't think worries of contract/civil liability were driving Zenith on
> Saturday... it may have been another kind
Sabrina, I would agree with you. But I think Saturday forced them to announce
decisions already made much sooner than they'd planned.
============================================
Do not archive.
============================================
Jim B Belcher
BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Retired aerospace technical manager
Mathematics and alcohol do not mix.
Do not drink and derive.
============================================
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: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
On Tuesday 10 November 2009 10:00, Sabrina wrote:
>
> ouch...
>
> :O)
>
> Jim, do you have your wings sealed up like many of us on the list?
Yes. My preliminary examination of the draft modifications drawings makes me
believe that it will be necessary to remove the upper wing skins, and open
the ailerons.
> How are we going to inspect the torque on those AN3/AN4 spar cap bolts?
> With my airplane sitting outside, it will have hundreds of hours of stress
> on those connections each year just sitting in the wind...
I haven't gotten that far in my evaluation. I get the impression that some of
these solutions were put in rush mode, so they could be published. I note
that the drawings are marked "draft." (I used to mark mine "preliminary rough
draft," in the hopes people would get the message that they were for
discussion, not release.)
Probably as we evaluate some of these things, and find things that just don't
work, they need to be communicated back to Zenith, so the draft drawings get
corrected.
I suppose part of my annoyance is that I just riveted one of the rear seats in
place, and one of the front wing uprights. To that extent, I'm probably over
reacting. But I think some annoyance is justified.
--
============================================
Jim B Belcher
BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Retired aerospace technical manager
Mathematics and alcohol do not mix.
Do not drink and derive.
============================================
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: Zenith liability |
Jim Belcher wrote:
The FAA, however, very likely will not let these aircraft be flown until
these
modifications are made. That means Zenith has not delivered everything
necessary to build a flying airplane (with the exceptions previously noted
).
This is a direct result of their design, not something the builders have
done. It is, in effect, a mandatory change at Zenith's instigation, even
though it is intended to make the FAA happy.
Jim,
I concur with most of your post, with the exception of the above underline
d statement.
Zenith has indeed delivered everything necessary to build a flying airplan
e, as
evidenced by the many Zodiac XLs that are flying and have been for years.
How
could that be if they did not deliver everything necessary?
One could say that Zenith did not properly anticipate how their design wou
ld be
implemented and how it would be flown. One could also fault Zenith's origi
nal
claim that it would withstand plus or minus 6 Gs. But to say that Zenith
did not
deliver a kit that could be made into a flying airplane is simply not true
. It is
true that, under the current circumstances, they are not (officially) flya
ble, but
that doesn't change the fact that they were once indeed flyable and flying
..
Jay Bannister
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: Zenith liability |
On Tuesday 10 November 2009 10:31, jaybannist@cs.com wrote:
Jay, from my perspective, they have not delivered to me everything I need to
build a flyable airframe. It's very doubtful I could get a DAR or the FAA to
sign off on this. One could argue that this is because is hasn't been
inspected yet, and this would be true. But I still don't have everything I
need to make a flyable aircraft.
Once I make that argument, the door is open for people who have had flying
aircraft to make the same or similar points.
If someone asked me, as an A&P/IA, to sign off on one of these aircraft as
part of a condition inspection, I really would not want to do so. I'd
probably ask, pre-inspection, if the required modifications had been made,
and if not, refuse the inspection.
I understand your point, but I think from a legal point of view, this
perspective is very likely to be advanced, and not just by me.
> Jim,
>
> I concur with most of your post, with the exception of the above underlined
> statement. Zenith has indeed delivered everything necessary to build a
> flying airplane, as evidenced by the many Zodiac XLs that are flying and
> have been for years. How could that be if they did not deliver everything
> necessary?
>
> One could say that Zenith did not properly anticipate how their design
> would be implemented and how it would be flown. One could also fault
> Zenith's original claim that it would withstand plus or minus 6 Gs. But to
> say that Zenith did not deliver a kit that could be made into a flying
> airplane is simply not true. It is true that, under the current
> circumstances, they are not (officially) flyable, but that doesn't change
> the fact that they were once indeed flyable and flying..
>
> Jay Bannister
--
============================================
Do not archive.
============================================
Jim B Belcher
BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Retired aerospace technical manager
Mathematics and alcohol do not mix.
Do not drink and derive.
============================================
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: Zenith liability |
The price that you paid at the time was for the parts that were included in the
kit at that time. You might argue that you would have chosen another kit-airplane
if you knew that the price would be higher (the difference for the new parts
in the upgrade kit). But, considering the relative minor difference, that
probably would be a stretch.
This is an inconvenient situation for all builders and buyers of Zodiacs. I think
the most we can wish for is that ZAC provides the parts in the upgrade kit
for close to cost price.
I'm just happy that I didn't close my left wing yet, that will save a LOT of time.
Hans van Riet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272109#272109
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: Zenith liability |
Hi Jim,
I believe your thinking is sound, but I come to
several different conclusions from yours. Part
of the reason for this is my own "Campaign" to
get exactly what we got the other day. As I have
said many times in many different places, I
wanted a competently engineered set of changes
that satisfied the NTSB requests. I couldn't
have asked for more than to have Chris actually
sponsor the changes. He may not be convinced
they are necessary, but still he applied his
extensive skill and experience to bring us a well designed upgrade package.
My argument to the Heintz folks started out and
always continued that they did not need to admit
any fault. All I wanted from them was a well
engineered upgrade package. They had "Design
responsibility" so they were the best source for
properly engineered changes. My thinking, and I
think theirs, was based on the idea that to admit
a design flaw made them liable to the activities
of every greedy lawyer in the world. That would
help nobody but the lawyers. The notion that
they could design and release improvements to the
design without admitting fault would get the
owners the needed (desired?) improvements without
automatically bringing on all the lawsuits. Your
logic that they are liable anyway may have some
merit, but it really doesn't accomplish anything
useful to blame Zenith for the problems. I don't
think they have "Deep pockets" like the big
manufacturers, so the lawyers are likely to
ignore the whole thing at this point. Especially
with the lack of "Fault" any lawyer considering
attacking Zenith is faced with a difficult case
with unlikely victory and the real likelihood
that there is no money to win at the end of the path.
I don't share your conclusion about the "Losses"
of the S-LSA owners either. They made a choice
to try one of the new type aircraft instead of
buying a part 23 certified plane. They benefited
from a much lower price for the same level of
performance. Now they have to pay a bit more
than they thought the price was. It sounds like
a lot of money to a plans or kit builder, but
when you measure the cost of a factory built
plane against the upgrade cost you will see it is
only a small percentage. These buyers have
simply bought into a more expensive version of
airplane ownership than the plans and kit builders.
I don't see why Zenith, or Zenair, or the current
European version of Zenair would refuse to sell
upgrade kits to anyone who wants one. That is
their business - selling airplane parts. The
changes are supposed to be limited to American
planes, but the chatter I have heard from other
owners in other countries is they want to make the changes to their planes too.
I agree with you completely on the issue of CZAW
customers. They have a problem since I doubt AMD
will be able or willing to upgrade their
planes. They should be able to get upgrade
instructions and parts, but will need to pay a
local mechanic to make the changes. This must
include a certain premium for the mechanic to
become familiar with this particular style of
airplane building and obtain the specialized
tools such as the custom rivet
setters. Purchasers of experimental Zodiacs
built by others are in a similar fix. The rules
don't require a licensed mechanic to work on
their planes, but they probably don't have the
personal skills the builders had. I'm not sure
there is a really nice solution for them. They
may wind up paying the same price as the S-LSA
purchasers, but they didn't think they were
getting into that price range when they bought their used experimental plane.
I don't want to guess at the likely price for the
upgrade kits, but I feel the parts will be a
small amount of money. The more significant cost
is the labor to install the upgrade. I feel any
owner who was able to pay for his version of the
airplane will have no problem paying for the
additional parts. I just don't think it is
consistent with the agreements between plans and
kit builders and Zenith/Zenair for them to get
the parts for free. Perhaps AMD will have a
different situation since they sold airplanes
rather than parts in the first place.
I feel this is a big change in the "Landscape"
for all XL and 650 owners. I am hopeful the
beefed up design will prove to be a lot safer in
the future. If so, it will all be worth it.
Paul
XL ready to order upgrade kit.
At 07:47 AM 11/10/2009, you wrote:
>I've spent a couple of days thinking over the
>Zenith situation. It seems to me
>the problem splits into multiple piles: the LSA, the plans builders, and
>those building from kits.
>
>One of the seemingly hidden facts about LSAs is that the manufacturer can
>mandate a change to the aircraft at any time, and the owners are stuck. They
>must made the changes the manufacturer requires, and cannot make any changes
>without the manufacturer's concurrence. No field mods, no STCs.
>
>That's not just for Zenith, but for any aircraft with an LSA airworthiness
>certificate. I wondered how long it would be before some manufacturer
>announced a change or changes that really got to the owners. Still, I feel
>extremely sympathetic towards the owners of Zenith XL and 650 LSAs. Recourse
>or no recourse, this is a bum deal.
>
> I feel even more sympathetic towards the owners of the CZAW 601s, because I
>have a hunch they are in even more of a no-man's land. Any grounding or
>ungrounding must come from CZAW, or its successor, yet I suspect the FAA
>considers their aircraft equally grounded. I doubt Zenith will sell them
>anything, since they have made it plain they do not consider they have any
>liability for the CZAW aircraft. I don't know that I blame them for this;
>they didn't sell the aircraft of realize a profit.
>
>Those who built from plans are also very likely
>to have little recourse. After
>all, Zenith sold a set of plans which they are free to follow or not. It
>appears Zenith has, in effect, also supplied them with a free set of
>modification plans. Unfortunately, it adds to the cost and time, perhaps
>requiring extensive rework.
>
>Which brings me to the final category, those who bought a kit. Zenith
>indicated that this kit contained everything necessary to build a flying
>airplane, except the engine, paint, upholstery, and avionics. Whatever it may
>be called by Zenith, the fix kit is not a
>voluntary upgrade. Zenith can't
>claim this is some sort of design improvement; Chris Heintz has already said
>he doesn't feel it is necessary.
>
>The FAA, however, very likely will not let these
>aircraft be flown until these
>modifications are made. That means Zenith has not delivered everything
>necessary to build a flying airplane (with the exceptions previously noted).
>This is a direct result of their design, not something the builders have
>done. It is, in effect, a mandatory change at Zenith's instigation, even
>though it is intended to make the FAA happy.
>
>That leaves a lot of builders having invested a
>lot of time, and now they must
>invest more. My feeling is that Zenith should take a hard look at this
>situation, and do everything within their power to make these modifications
>available either free, or at cost. They'll be lucky if they aren't sued for
>time AND materials.
>
>I do not buy the argument that Mooney, Cessna, et al do not pay for
>Airworthiness Directives, service bulletins, and so on. While this is true
>for products that have been delivered for years, it has not always been true
>for products just delivered. Lycoming has paid for the replacement of engine
>parts recently delivered that proved to defective. Cessna paid for
>modifications to the early Cardinals, when they failed to fly correctly. One
>could find many more cases without searching too hard. The payment, of
>course, was to head off lawsuits, and (possibly) to preserve company image.
>
>A real issue is that Zenith is a small company, and may not be able to afford
>the same things as a Lycoming or a Cessna. I believe there needs to be a
>negotiation between 650 and XL builders, with all of Zenith's cards on the
>table. We need to see what they can afford. What level of insurance do they
>have? They are at fault; they need to give until it hurts, and then
>(possibly) give some more.
>
>If this does not happen, there is a very real
>danger of individual or combined
>lawsuits which do force Zenith from the aircraft business. I do not think
>(and I'm not an attorney) that Zenith's contract is likely to hold up under
>the circumstances which are present.
>
>This is my 25 cents worth for this morning, with
>the reminder, as always, that
>25 cents won't buy what it once would.
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: Zenith liability |
Jim,
I guess the whole other category is you builders that have not completed
your airplanes.
In that case, I agree that you do not have everything you need to create
a "legally" flying
airplane. I can't imagine that any FAA inspector or DAR would sign off a
newly completed
airplane without verifying that the mods had been done. The price you pai
d for your kit
included the parts you got, but not all the parts you need for the mods.
So I still don't
see where it is reasonable to expect Zenith to provide those parts for fre
e.
My airplane, like so many others, has flown legally; so we did get from Ze
nith
what we needed to create a flying airplane. Once again, we got what we pai
d for. We did
not pay for a package of parts to do modifications. Since we are the manu
facturers of our
airplanes, we have the option to continue flying without the mods - defini
tely not smart,
but still an option.
Some other questions come to my mind: (all pertaining to E-AB) Will making
the mods require
another inspection in order to fly legally? Or does the builder just fly
off a five hour test
period and so note it in the logbook? If the airplane is not owned by the
builder, can the
owner do the mods and fly off a five hour test period?
Jay Bannister
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Belcher <z601a@anemicaardvark.com>
Jay, from my perspective, they have not delivered to me everything I need
to
build a flyable airframe. It's very doubtful I could get a DAR or the FAA
to
sign off on this. One could argue that this is because is hasn't been
inspected yet, and this would be true. But I still don't have everything
I
need to make a flyable aircraft.
Once I make that argument, the door is open for people who have had flying
aircraft to make the same or similar points.
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: Zenith liability |
Jim's post made me think of a line that I read in the Zenith Condition of Sale
and Warning agreement that we all signed before we received our plans, kits, or
parts.
The line reads:
The Seller does not warrant that the aircraft as constructed by the buyer, or any
other person, will be airworthy, or will qualify for certification or
registration by aviation authorities, or will meet the requirement of the buyer.
Now, I'm no lawyer, but doesn't the above basically say that Zenith is not responsible
if the airplane doesn't fly, can't be registered, or doesn't meet your
needs?
If so the issues of the FAA not granting an airworthiness certificate, the plane
falling out of the sky, or having to pay for a mod kit all become unquestionably
the burden of the buyer.
I hope people don't jump on the litigation bandwagon too hastily because whether
or not the above statement protects Zenith or not in court, it will ultimately
lead to an end that doesn't bode well not only for the 601/650 folks but for
everyone involved with a Zenith or AMD product.
Ken Pavlou
--------
601 XL / Corvair
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272122#272122
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: | Zenith liability |
This is an interesting set of questions, and it goes to the heart of what it
means to build an E-AB airplane.
Isn't it the case that any person is free to design their own aircraft,
build it, and then fly it; regardless of their experience, education, or
talent? The inspection for an airworthiness cert is based not on an
assessment of the merits of the design, but on its execution using known
best-practices. The DAR's signature doesn't say that they have examined the
design and they concur with the expected performance profile. It says you
have used best practices, and that the assembly per se isn't likely to be
the reason for performance issues.
There's a reason why each builder is the manufacturer. It's your airplane!
It's your design. You may have taken advice from someone on what they might
do in similar circumstances; and those other 3rd parties might even offer to
help with certain manufacturing duties, but it is still your airplane.
I frankly can't see how a DAR could refuse given a workman-like execution.
They might initially (as we saw with Ed Moody's inspection); but they have
no real basis if E-AB means in what it is intended to mean. Not to get too
philosophical here, but in the US personal freedoms are what we're based on;
and this is an example of personal freedom.
Each of you ARE an airplane manufacturer; with all the rights, privileges,
and responsibilities that come with it. Zenith - your 3rd party advisor and
(possibly) your materiel supplier - has a recommendation for you having
spent their sweat and treasure to analyze and offer the suggestion. It's
yours to accept or reject - or something in between.
Demonstrably, CH has designed an airplane which is capable of flight.
Independent of what CH has done, each manufacturer has a duty to evaluate
the merits of the advise coming from CH through various channels, and then
act according to their own assessment. While designers would like builders
to follow their design, the most they can do is restrict the use of their
airplanes' names and nomenclature. John Monnet is known for that, and CH
doesn't want builders mucking with his designs. But each builder
(manufacturer) is free to do as they want. Don't the 601 builders using
Corvair engines call their airplanes something other than Zodiacs?
I don't think anyone is owed anything. Nor do I think they (Z/Z/A) are
liable for anything (lawyers will know whether there is any
fitness-for-purpose implied warranty - but if so, I would guess it goes to
whether the aluminum pieces can be assembled). However, the owners and
employees of Zenith, Zenair, and AMD are desirous of our business and want
to stay in business - they want to earn a living; thus they want to please
their customers. I would suspect that they will do what they must to
generate as much good will as they can while not driving themselves out of
business.
But I'm an AMD owner, not a manufacturer such as yourselves. I must turn to
AMD. They set my agenda just as each of you set your own - you just do it
for a smaller fleet. And, I'll be taking my Zodiac to AMD to have the
modifications - already have an appointment for the end of the month. And, I
will be paying for it. But, I can assure you, they won't be getting rich
doing the mods; even though is causes me some pain.
Now that I've gotten past the initial prick of the needle, I'm actually
looking forward to visiting with my friends up in Eastman, GA.
Best of luck to all,
Doug Norman
N601DN
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
jaybannist@cs.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Zenith liability
Jim,
I guess the whole other category is you builders that have not completed
your airplanes.
In that case, I agree that you do not have everything you need to create a
"legally" flying
airplane. I can't imagine that any FAA inspector or DAR would sign off a
newly completed
airplane without verifying that the mods had been done. The price you paid
for your kit
included the parts you got, but not all the parts you need for the mods. So
I still don't
see where it is reasonable to expect Zenith to provide those parts for free.
My airplane, like so many others, has flown legally; so we did get from
Zenith
what we needed to create a flying airplane. Once again, we got what we paid
for. We did
not pay for a package of parts to do modifications. Since we are the
manufacturers of our
airplanes, we have the option to continue flying without the mods -
definitely not smart,
but still an option.
Some other questions come to my mind: (all pertaining to E-AB) Will making
the mods require
another inspection in order to fly legally? Or does the builder just fly
off a five hour test
period and so note it in the logbook? If the airplane is not owned by the
builder, can the
owner do the mods and fly off a five hour test period?
Jay Bannister
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Belcher <z601a@anemicaardvark.com>
Jay, from my perspective, they have not delivered to me everything I need to
build a flyable airframe. It's very doubtful I could get a DAR or the FAA to
sign off on this. One could argue that this is because is hasn't been
inspected yet, and this would be true. But I still don't have everything I
need to make a flyable aircraft.
Once I make that argument, the door is open for people who have had flying
aircraft to make the same or similar points.
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: Zenith liability |
Been reading the posts and really probably don't have a problem paying for
the upgade parts.- That being said, I don't think Z should profit from th
e upgrade kits.- Covering their costs, including handling shipping etc. s
eems to be the more appropriate remedy.
Bill Pagan
EAA Tech Counselor #4395
601XL QBK/Corvair/N565BW (RES)
--- On Tue, 11/10/09, annken100 <annken100@aol.com> wrote:
From: annken100 <annken100@aol.com>
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Zenith liability
Jim's post made me think of a line that I read in the Zenith Condition of S
ale and Warning agreement that we all signed before we received our plans,
kits, or parts.
The line reads:
The Seller does not warrant that the aircraft as constructed by the buyer,
or any other person, will be airworthy, or will qualify for certification o
r
registration by aviation authorities, or will meet the requirement of the b
uyer.
Now, I'm no lawyer, but doesn't the above basically say that Zenith is not
responsible if the airplane doesn't fly, can't be registered, or doesn't me
et your needs?
If so the issues of the FAA not granting an airworthiness certificate, the
plane falling out of the sky, or having to pay for a mod kit all become unq
uestionably the burden of the buyer.
I hope people don't jump on the litigation bandwagon too hastily because wh
ether or not the above statement protects Zenith or not in court, it will u
ltimately lead to an end that doesn't bode well not only for the 601/650 fo
lks but for everyone involved with a Zenith or AMD product.
Ken Pavlou
--------
601 XL / Corvair
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272122#272122
le, List Admin.
=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: | Zenith liability |
I hope all you people that are considering litigation are also considering
the implications of not having the manufacturer around to support the
aircraft in the future, this would result in all of our aircraft being worth
nil and therefore much much more than the relatively small amount that we
will pay for the mod kits.
If you have ever had to have a defective component replaced by the factory
you would know they are excellent in this regard and will happily send out a
replacement free of charge. I for one am happy to pay for my mod kit as I
definitely want to have the manufacturer around in the future. To suggest
that ZAC would sell the kits at a profit is completely ridiculous, this will
not happen the kits will be sold at cost. If you think you need to sue
because you have to drill a few holes and pop a few rivets, get a grip, get
over it and get on with life. Make the plane safe, fly within the
limitations and leave the manufacturer alone so the rest of can do the same.
Regards,
Greg Cox
Zenith Zodiac CH650, VH-ZDC
Sydney, Australia (Cecil Hills)
Email - greg@gas-n-go.com.au
Mobile - +61 43 000 2 333
Fax - +61 2 9823 9977
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doug -
SportAviation
Sent: Wednesday, 11 November 2009 6:18 AM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Zenith liability
This is an interesting set of questions, and it goes to the heart of what it
means to build an E-AB airplane.
Isn't it the case that any person is free to design their own aircraft,
build it, and then fly it; regardless of their experience, education, or
talent? The inspection for an airworthiness cert is based not on an
assessment of the merits of the design, but on its execution using known
best-practices. The DAR's signature doesn't say that they have examined the
design and they concur with the expected performance profile. It says you
have used best practices, and that the assembly per se isn't likely to be
the reason for performance issues.
There's a reason why each builder is the manufacturer. It's your airplane!
It's your design. You may have taken advice from someone on what they might
do in similar circumstances; and those other 3rd parties might even offer to
help with certain manufacturing duties, but it is still your airplane.
I frankly can't see how a DAR could refuse given a workman-like execution.
They might initially (as we saw with Ed Moody's inspection); but they have
no real basis if E-AB means in what it is intended to mean. Not to get too
philosophical here, but in the US personal freedoms are what we're based on;
and this is an example of personal freedom.
Each of you ARE an airplane manufacturer; with all the rights, privileges,
and responsibilities that come with it. Zenith - your 3rd party advisor and
(possibly) your materiel supplier - has a recommendation for you having
spent their sweat and treasure to analyze and offer the suggestion. It's
yours to accept or reject - or something in between.
Demonstrably, CH has designed an airplane which is capable of flight.
Independent of what CH has done, each manufacturer has a duty to evaluate
the merits of the advise coming from CH through various channels, and then
act according to their own assessment. While designers would like builders
to follow their design, the most they can do is restrict the use of their
airplanes' names and nomenclature. John Monnet is known for that, and CH
doesn't want builders mucking with his designs. But each builder
(manufacturer) is free to do as they want. Don't the 601 builders using
Corvair engines call their airplanes something other than Zodiacs?
I don't think anyone is owed anything. Nor do I think they (Z/Z/A) are
liable for anything (lawyers will know whether there is any
fitness-for-purpose implied warranty - but if so, I would guess it goes to
whether the aluminum pieces can be assembled). However, the owners and
employees of Zenith, Zenair, and AMD are desirous of our business and want
to stay in business - they want to earn a living; thus they want to please
their customers. I would suspect that they will do what they must to
generate as much good will as they can while not driving themselves out of
business.
But I'm an AMD owner, not a manufacturer such as yourselves. I must turn to
AMD. They set my agenda just as each of you set your own - you just do it
for a smaller fleet. And, I'll be taking my Zodiac to AMD to have the
modifications - already have an appointment for the end of the month. And, I
will be paying for it. But, I can assure you, they won't be getting rich
doing the mods; even though is causes me some pain.
Now that I've gotten past the initial prick of the needle, I'm actually
looking forward to visiting with my friends up in Eastman, GA.
Best of luck to all,
Doug Norman
N601DN
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
jaybannist@cs.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Zenith liability
Jim,
I guess the whole other category is you builders that have not completed
your airplanes.
In that case, I agree that you do not have everything you need to create a
"legally" flying
airplane. I can't imagine that any FAA inspector or DAR would sign off a
newly completed
airplane without verifying that the mods had been done. The price you paid
for your kit
included the parts you got, but not all the parts you need for the mods. So
I still don't
see where it is reasonable to expect Zenith to provide those parts for free.
My airplane, like so many others, has flown legally; so we did get from
Zenith
what we needed to create a flying airplane. Once again, we got what we paid
for. We did
not pay for a package of parts to do modifications. Since we are the
manufacturers of our
airplanes, we have the option to continue flying without the mods -
definitely not smart,
but still an option.
Some other questions come to my mind: (all pertaining to E-AB) Will making
the mods require
another inspection in order to fly legally? Or does the builder just fly
off a five hour test
period and so note it in the logbook? If the airplane is not owned by the
builder, can the
owner do the mods and fly off a five hour test period?
Jay Bannister
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Belcher <z601a@anemicaardvark.com>
Jay, from my perspective, they have not delivered to me everything I need to
build a flyable airframe. It's very doubtful I could get a DAR or the FAA to
sign off on this. One could argue that this is because is hasn't been
inspected yet, and this would be true. But I still don't have everything I
need to make a flyable aircraft.
Once I make that argument, the door is open for people who have had flying
aircraft to make the same or similar points.
www.aeroelectric.com
www.buildersbooks.com
www.homebuilthelp.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
http://forums.matronics.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: | Re: Zenith liability |
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:04:17AM -0800, annken100 wrote:
> I hope people don't jump on the litigation bandwagon too hastily because
> whether or not the above statement protects Zenith or not in court, it
> will ultimately lead to an end that doesn't bode well not only for the
> 601/650 folks but for everyone involved with a Zenith or AMD product.
This is exactly why I'm not going to pursue legal action. It's possible to
win the battle and lose the war. Nobody at AMD is getting rich. If I were to
sue, only the lawyers would win. I'm satisfied with the proposals I've
heard; AMD's not going to be making any money off of the mods to my
airplane, or any other. OTOH, they're not going to be losing anything,
either.
--
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 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Zenith liability |
I guess I am lucky that I have a legal team... (don't worry--no legal action is
planned)
our biggest liability they see are CH's November 2009 statements:
"my own professional opinion (that the design is sound)"
Based upon this statement, someone is going to fly a non-upgraded airplane built
to the original design. If that airplane were to crash and kill someone on
the ground, the authorities may step in and say that this subsequent crash was
negligent homicide, no longer an accident. I would not want to be the owner,
designer or the pilot landing nearby via parachute.
Even when we comply with the mods, the liabilities WE face are much greater than
any of us bargained for when we signed that waiver. Much of our liablity is
due to the "180 degree shift."
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272139#272139
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: Zenith liability |
Well spoken, Greg!
George Swinford CH601HD, not finished, no dog in this fight.
----- Original Message -----
From: Greg Cox
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:55 AM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Zenith liability
I hope all you people that are considering litigation are also
considering the implications of not having the manufacturer around to
support the aircraft in the future, this would result in all of our
aircraft being worth nil and therefore much much more than the
relatively small amount that we will pay for the mod kits.
If you have ever had to have a defective component replaced by the
factory you would know they are excellent in this regard and will
happily send out a replacement free of charge. I for one am happy to pay
for my mod kit as I definitely want to have the manufacturer around in
the future. To suggest that ZAC would sell the kits at a profit is
completely ridiculous, this will not happen the kits will be sold at
cost. If you think you need to sue because you have to drill a few holes
and pop a few rivets, get a grip, get over it and get on with life. Make
the plane safe, fly within the limitations and leave the manufacturer
alone so the rest of can do the same.
Regards,
Greg Cox
Zenith Zodiac CH650, VH-ZDC
Sydney, Australia (Cecil Hills)
Email - greg@gas-n-go.com.au
Mobile - +61 43 000 2 333
Fax - +61 2 9823 9977
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doug -
SportAviation
Sent: Wednesday, 11 November 2009 6:18 AM
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Zenith liability
This is an interesting set of questions, and it goes to the heart of
what it means to build an E-AB airplane.
Isn't it the case that any person is free to design their own
aircraft, build it, and then fly it; regardless of their experience,
education, or talent? The inspection for an airworthiness cert is based
not on an assessment of the merits of the design, but on its execution
using known best-practices. The DAR's signature doesn't say that they
have examined the design and they concur with the expected performance
profile. It says you have used best practices, and that the assembly per
se isn't likely to be the reason for performance issues.
There's a reason why each builder is the manufacturer. It's your
airplane! It's your design. You may have taken advice from someone on
what they might do in similar circumstances; and those other 3rd parties
might even offer to help with certain manufacturing duties, but it is
still your airplane.
I frankly can't see how a DAR could refuse given a workman-like
execution. They might initially (as we saw with Ed Moody's inspection);
but they have no real basis if E-AB means in what it is intended to
mean. Not to get too philosophical here, but in the US personal freedoms
are what we're based on; and this is an example of personal freedom.
Each of you ARE an airplane manufacturer; with all the rights,
privileges, and responsibilities that come with it. Zenith - your 3rd
party advisor and (possibly) your materiel supplier - has a
recommendation for you having spent their sweat and treasure to analyze
and offer the suggestion. It's yours to accept or reject - or something
in between.
Demonstrably, CH has designed an airplane which is capable of flight.
Independent of what CH has done, each manufacturer has a duty to
evaluate the merits of the advise coming from CH through various
channels, and then act according to their own assessment. While
designers would like builders to follow their design, the most they can
do is restrict the use of their airplanes' names and nomenclature. John
Monnet is known for that, and CH doesn't want builders mucking with his
designs. But each builder (manufacturer) is free to do as they want.
Don't the 601 builders using Corvair engines call their airplanes
something other than Zodiacs?
I don't think anyone is owed anything. Nor do I think they (Z/Z/A) are
liable for anything (lawyers will know whether there is any
fitness-for-purpose implied warranty - but if so, I would guess it goes
to whether the aluminum pieces can be assembled). However, the owners
and employees of Zenith, Zenair, and AMD are desirous of our business
and want to stay in business - they want to earn a living; thus they
want to please their customers. I would suspect that they will do what
they must to generate as much good will as they can while not driving
themselves out of business.
But I'm an AMD owner, not a manufacturer such as yourselves. I must
turn to AMD. They set my agenda just as each of you set your own - you
just do it for a smaller fleet. And, I'll be taking my Zodiac to AMD to
have the modifications - already have an appointment for the end of the
month. And, I will be paying for it. But, I can assure you, they won't
be getting rich doing the mods; even though is causes me some pain.
Now that I've gotten past the initial prick of the needle, I'm
actually looking forward to visiting with my friends up in Eastman, GA.
Best of luck to all,
Doug Norman
N601DN
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
jaybannist@cs.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:16 PM
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Zenith liability
Jim,
I guess the whole other category is you builders that have not
completed your airplanes.
In that case, I agree that you do not have everything you need to
create a "legally" flying
airplane. I can't imagine that any FAA inspector or DAR would sign
off a newly completed
airplane without verifying that the mods had been done. The price you
paid for your kit
included the parts you got, but not all the parts you need for the
mods. So I still don't
see where it is reasonable to expect Zenith to provide those parts for
free.
My airplane, like so many others, has flown legally; so we did get
from Zenith
what we needed to create a flying airplane. Once again, we got what we
paid for. We did
not pay for a package of parts to do modifications. Since we are the
manufacturers of our
airplanes, we have the option to continue flying without the mods -
definitely not smart,
but still an option.
Some other questions come to my mind: (all pertaining to E-AB) Will
making the mods require
another inspection in order to fly legally? Or does the builder just
fly off a five hour test
period and so note it in the logbook? If the airplane is not owned by
the builder, can the
owner do the mods and fly off a five hour test period?
Jay Bannister
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Belcher <z601a@anemicaardvark.com>
Jay, from my perspective, they have not delivered to me everything I
need to
build a flyable airframe. It's very doubtful I could get a DAR or the
FAA to
sign off on this. One could argue that this is because is hasn't been
inspected yet, and this would be true. But I still don't have
everything I
need to make a flyable aircraft.
Once I make that argument, the door is open for people who have had
flying
aircraft to make the same or similar points.
www.aeroelectric.comwww.buildersbooks.comwww.homebuilthelp.comhttp://www.
matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
http://forums.matronics.com
www.aeroelectric.comwww.buildersbooks.comwww.homebuilthelp.comhttp://www.
matronics.com/contributionhttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-Listh
ttp://forums.matronics.com
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: Zenith liability |
I feel the accident rate will increase once these mods are installed
because pilots will think they have a much tougher plane now and will abuse it
to
the point of failure was as now we're all very cautious now on how we fly.
Time will tell.
David Coberly
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: Zenith liability. |
Confidence while flying our airplanes- will be the- winner...-
-
Saludos
Gary Gower.
--- On Tue, 11/10/09, Jay Maynard <jmaynard@conmicro.com> wrote:
From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard@conmicro.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Zenith liability
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:04:17AM -0800, annken100 wrote:
> I hope people don't jump on the litigation bandwagon too hastily because
> whether or not the above statement protects Zenith or not in court, it
> will ultimately lead to an end that doesn't bode well not only for the
> 601/650 folks but for everyone involved with a Zenith or AMD product.
This is exactly why I'm not going to pursue legal action. It's possible to
win the battle and lose the war. Nobody at AMD is getting rich. If I were t
o
sue, only the lawyers would win. I'm satisfied with the proposals I've
heard; AMD's not going to be making any money off of the mods to my
airplane, or any other. OTOH, they're not going to be losing anything,
either.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, CFI-SP---http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com- - ---http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (KFRM)- - - - - - - - - - - - (Yes, th
at's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml
le, List Admin.
=0A=0A=0A
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: Zenith liability |
Hi Sabrina,
Your really good fortune is you don't have to pay the normal fees for
your legal team.
I am not a lawyer, but I think you comments are a little bit
harsh. Just as Zenith and friends have no liability to speak of we
don't either. I suppose your point about people on the ground
getting hurt is a good one, but I doubt anything we do regarding
airplane design would lead to criminal prosecution. For one thing
there is no "Criminal intent".
Still, I agree with your general comments. I hope all owners upgrade
their planes to the safest possible level. There may be room for
choosing which mods to install, but my latest thoughts came out while
explaining all this to one of my friends at the airport a few minutes
ago. We really don't have any idea why the accidents happened or
what the initial problem was in the accident chain, but all the
planes broke in the same place - the attachment of the wings to the
fuselage. That gives me enough of a clue that it is wise to beef up
that particular area including all the mods recommended by Chris.
Paul
XL ready to order mod kit.
P.S. I got an email from Shirley at ZAC that it will be a few weeks
before they are ready to quote and/or ship kits. Their engineers are
busy trying to put it all together. What she didn't say but I
guessed is that this completely blind-sided them as far as the
release timing goes.
At 12:42 PM 11/10/2009, you wrote:
>I guess I am lucky that I have a legal team...
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: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
Just got off the phone with Zenith. They are doing the mods on their aircraft
now and hope to post more information next week. Sebastian stated that they would
have the modifications ready as well as drawing and instructions for them.
My one question is with the doubler on the wing root how will it fit into the
center spar box??? He assured me it will fit, but very tight!
With my plane flying I ask about how the parts would go out. He said they will
work with people to get them out to who has the greatest need first IE flying
first, and builders next as each is ready.
I looked over the modification at lunch today and it will be a lot of work, but
nothing impossible.
Guess I won't be starting my second plane for a while!
--------
601XL N676L FLYING PHASE I
CHESAPEAKE VA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272157#272157
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: Zenith liability |
This is the way I see it also.
It seems everybody is pretty much on the same page on this one. The
best solution is the one that produces the best outcome.
What is being offered by CH, will serve the Owners, the FAA, Zenith and
hopefully puts this issue to rest.
For those of you apprehensive about the rebuild:
During my original construction, I nicked the top main spar cap after
the wing was closed when I was installing a nutplate for the access
hole.
After I stopped throwing up, I decided I had to dissemble the wing to
replace it.
I was surprised. The job was not that difficult. I built each wing in
3 weeks and it took 2 weeks to dissemble, repair and reassemble the
wing. Just take your time with each rivet as you carefully drill it
out.
A Technique for removing the solid rivets:
The spar cap solid rivets can be drilled just far enough to almost
remove the shop head then a light tap from the side with a chisel
removes the rest of the shop head, the rivet body is then lightly
driven out of the hole with a smaller drift punch without any chance of
damaging the holes. It all went very well. I did find a mass against
the opposite side from the drift punch helped a lot just don't damage
your spar caps with this mass.
Gary Ray
----- Original Message -----
From: Greg Cox
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 2:55 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Zenith liability
I hope all you people that are considering litigation are also
considering the implications of not having the manufacturer around to
support the aircraft in the future, this would result in all of our
aircraft being worth nil and therefore much much more than the
relatively small amount that we will pay for the mod kits.
If you have ever had to have a defective component replaced by the
factory you would know they are excellent in this regard and will
happily send out a replacement free of charge. I for one am happy to pay
for my mod kit as I definitely want to have the manufacturer around in
the future. To suggest that ZAC would sell the kits at a profit is
completely ridiculous, this will not happen the kits will be sold at
cost. If you think you need to sue because you have to drill a few holes
and pop a few rivets, get a grip, get over it and get on with life. Make
the plane safe, fly within the limitations and leave the manufacturer
alone so the rest of can do the same.
Regards,
Greg Cox
Zenith Zodiac CH650, VH-ZDC
Sydney, Australia (Cecil Hills)
Email - greg@gas-n-go.com.au
Mobile - +61 43 000 2 333
Fax - +61 2 9823 9977
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doug -
SportAviation
Sent: Wednesday, 11 November 2009 6:18 AM
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Zenith liability
This is an interesting set of questions, and it goes to the heart of
what it means to build an E-AB airplane.
Isn't it the case that any person is free to design their own
aircraft, build it, and then fly it; regardless of their experience,
education, or talent? The inspection for an airworthiness cert is based
not on an assessment of the merits of the design, but on its execution
using known best-practices. The DAR's signature doesn't say that they
have examined the design and they concur with the expected performance
profile. It says you have used best practices, and that the assembly per
se isn't likely to be the reason for performance issues.
There's a reason why each builder is the manufacturer. It's your
airplane! It's your design. You may have taken advice from someone on
what they might do in similar circumstances; and those other 3rd parties
might even offer to help with certain manufacturing duties, but it is
still your airplane.
I frankly can't see how a DAR could refuse given a workman-like
execution. They might initially (as we saw with Ed Moody's inspection);
but they have no real basis if E-AB means in what it is intended to
mean. Not to get too philosophical here, but in the US personal freedoms
are what we're based on; and this is an example of personal freedom.
Each of you ARE an airplane manufacturer; with all the rights,
privileges, and responsibilities that come with it. Zenith - your 3rd
party advisor and (possibly) your materiel supplier - has a
recommendation for you having spent their sweat and treasure to analyze
and offer the suggestion. It's yours to accept or reject - or something
in between.
Demonstrably, CH has designed an airplane which is capable of flight.
Independent of what CH has done, each manufacturer has a duty to
evaluate the merits of the advise coming from CH through various
channels, and then act according to their own assessment. While
designers would like builders to follow their design, the most they can
do is restrict the use of their airplanes' names and nomenclature. John
Monnet is known for that, and CH doesn't want builders mucking with his
designs. But each builder (manufacturer) is free to do as they want.
Don't the 601 builders using Corvair engines call their airplanes
something other than Zodiacs?
I don't think anyone is owed anything. Nor do I think they (Z/Z/A) are
liable for anything (lawyers will know whether there is any
fitness-for-purpose implied warranty - but if so, I would guess it goes
to whether the aluminum pieces can be assembled). However, the owners
and employees of Zenith, Zenair, and AMD are desirous of our business
and want to stay in business - they want to earn a living; thus they
want to please their customers. I would suspect that they will do what
they must to generate as much good will as they can while not driving
themselves out of business.
But I'm an AMD owner, not a manufacturer such as yourselves. I must
turn to AMD. They set my agenda just as each of you set your own - you
just do it for a smaller fleet. And, I'll be taking my Zodiac to AMD to
have the modifications - already have an appointment for the end of the
month. And, I will be paying for it. But, I can assure you, they won't
be getting rich doing the mods; even though is causes me some pain.
Now that I've gotten past the initial prick of the needle, I'm
actually looking forward to visiting with my friends up in Eastman, GA.
Best of luck to all,
Doug Norman
N601DN
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
jaybannist@cs.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:16 PM
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Zenith liability
Jim,
I guess the whole other category is you builders that have not
completed your airplanes.
In that case, I agree that you do not have everything you need to
create a "legally" flying
airplane. I can't imagine that any FAA inspector or DAR would sign
off a newly completed
airplane without verifying that the mods had been done. The price you
paid for your kit
included the parts you got, but not all the parts you need for the
mods. So I still don't
see where it is reasonable to expect Zenith to provide those parts for
free.
My airplane, like so many others, has flown legally; so we did get
from Zenith
what we needed to create a flying airplane. Once again, we got what we
paid for. We did
not pay for a package of parts to do modifications. Since we are the
manufacturers of our
airplanes, we have the option to continue flying without the mods -
definitely not smart,
but still an option.
Some other questions come to my mind: (all pertaining to E-AB) Will
making the mods require
another inspection in order to fly legally? Or does the builder just
fly off a five hour test
period and so note it in the logbook? If the airplane is not owned by
the builder, can the
owner do the mods and fly off a five hour test period?
Jay Bannister
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Belcher <z601a@anemicaardvark.com>
Jay, from my perspective, they have not delivered to me everything I
need to
build a flyable airframe. It's very doubtful I could get a DAR or the
FAA to
sign off on this. One could argue that this is because is hasn't been
inspected yet, and this would be true. But I still don't have
everything I
need to make a flyable aircraft.
Once I make that argument, the door is open for people who have had
flying
aircraft to make the same or similar points.
www.aeroelectric.comwww.buildersbooks.comwww.homebuilthelp.comhttp://www.
matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
http://forums.matronics.com
www.aeroelectric.comwww.buildersbooks.comwww.homebuilthelp.comhttp://www.
matronics.com/contributionhttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-Listh
ttp://forums.matronics.com
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: Zenith liability |
Ken I aggre with you 100%,let's get the -fix, fly our planes ,let zenith
keep builbing planes ,live our lives the best we can..remember most of us a
re no 'Spring Chicken" and life is to short to moan -and groan about a li
ttle more work and a little money, we've already done alot of work and spen
t alot of money. No body is perfect ,and nothing is perfect, that includes
Zenith ,so take adeep breath ,live and let live." -It is what it is!- R
ight Ken?--- Joe 601XL(been working on mine 5 years and it's flying)
=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: annken100 <annken10
0@aol.com>=0ATo: zenith-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Tue, November 10, 2009 2
:04:17 PM=0ASubject: Zenith-List: Re: Zenith liability=0A=0A--> Zenith-List
message posted by: "annken100" <annken100@aol.com>=0A=0AJim's post made me
think of a line that I read in the Zenith Condition of Sale and Warning ag
reement that we all signed before we received our plans, kits, or parts.=0A
=0AThe line reads: =0A=0AThe Seller does not warrant that the aircraft as c
onstructed by the buyer, or any other person, will be airworthy, or will qu
alify for certification or=0Aregistration by aviation authorities, or will
meet the requirement of the buyer.=0A=0ANow, I'm no lawyer, but doesn't the
above basically say that Zenith is not responsible if the airplane doesn't
fly, can't be registered, or doesn't meet your needs?=0A=0AIf so the issue
s of the FAA not granting an airworthiness certificate, the plane falling o
ut of the sky, or having to pay for a mod kit all become unquestionably the
burden of the buyer.=0A=0AI hope people don't jump on the litigation bandw
agon too hastily because whether or not the above statement protects Zenith
or not in court, it will ultimately lead to an end that doesn't bode well
not only for the 601/650 folks but for everyone involved with a Zenith or A
MD product.=0A=0AKen Pavlou=0A=0A--------=0A601 XL / Corvair=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A
Read this topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php
=========================0A
===
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 |
|
Chris Heinz does say that the XL returns it's original flight values once the modifications
are installed.
Gig Giacona wrote:
> I think it was July. It was posted in one of the letters from CH.
--------
Scratch building XL with Corvair Engine
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272173#272173
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: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
Jim, have you done anything with a weed-eater ? Ican't find one that's wort
h adamm!=C2-=C2- Joe N101HD/601XL=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A_______________________
_________=0AFrom: Jim Belcher <z601a@anemicaardvark.com>=0ATo: zenith-list@
matronics.com=0ASent: Tue, November 10, 2009 9:36:56 AM=0ASubject: Re: Zeni
th-List: Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650=0A=0A--> Zenith-List message posted by
: Jim Belcher <z601a@anemicaardvark.com>=0A=0AOn Saturday 07 November 2009
cago2paris@msn.com>=0A>=0A> I am proud of the FAA to have the courage to is
sue the Bulletin.=C2- =C2- They=0A> visited me on the last Sunday in Au
gust and, although my airplane flew=0A> after that, I have not flown it out
of respect for them as well as respect=0A> for Jay, whose signature was on
the line.=C2- I don=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2t expect my aircraft to=0A> f
ly again until it comes out of its Conditional Inspection in early April.
=0A>=0A> I am currently working on a pulse jet powered flying motorcycle.
=C2- :O)=0A=0AReally? While I've been waiting for things to develop, I've
been designing a =0Alow wing helicopter. I'll be offering plans anydaynow,
and hope to introduce =0Ait at a seminar at Sun 'N Fun. =0A=0AI haven't qu
ite got it flying yet, but it does a heck of a job as a lawnmower!=0A==
===================0A=C2- =C2- =C2
- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- Do not archive.=0A======
===============0A=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2-
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- Jim B Belcher=0A=C2- =C2- BS, MS Physics, M
ath, Computer Science=0A=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2-
=C2- =C2- A&P/IA=0A=C2- =C2- Retired aerospace technical manager=0A
=0A=C2- =C2- Mathematics and alcohol do not mix.=0A=C2- =C2- =C2-
=C2- Do not drink and derive.=0A=============
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
==
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 |
|
Answer from Zenair:
Hi Martin,
You will also have to take the front and rear halves of the center spar
apart to install the doublers that go on top. When you do that, you will
reset the width of the center spar. All of this will be covered by the photo
guides. We are currently putting together all of the assembly information as
quickly as possible. All of this information will be posted on the website
as soon as its available.
Caleb Gebhardt
--------
Martin Pohl
Zodiac XL QBK
8645 Jona, Switzerland
http://www.pohltec.ch/ZodiacXL/Main.html
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272174#272174
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Zenith liability |
Hi guys my 2 cents worth! The reason i got a 601xl kit was=2C i liked its
looks=2C its something doable=2C it keeps me out of the grog shops=2C it ke
eps my mind active=2C it allows me to do something with my hands and mind
=2C i am a slow builder=2C ive had my kit for 8 years=2Cyes its finally sta
rting to like like an xl=2C i have met a mostly great group of builders=2C
i have been introduced to most of the good people at zenith=2C i have alway
s been treated with respect from zenith reps. its my intent to obtain the
upgrade kit/kits as soon as possible=2C incorporate them=3B and get on with
the building of a fun project. For you folks that have finished aircraft
i wish i could wave a magic wand and solve your problem The reason Genera
l Aviation has had problems is because of lawyers and litigators. I do know
that with the upgrades i will have a safer and better aircraft and i still
look forward to my project in the air.
Larry Webber rhode island 601xl /corvair chugger
From: purplemoon99@bellsouth.net
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Zenith liability
Ken I aggre with you 100%=2Clet's get the fix=2C fly our planes =2Clet zen
ith keep builbing planes =2Clive our lives the best we can..remember most o
f us are no 'Spring Chicken" and life is to short to moan and groan about
a little more work and a little money=2C we've already done alot of work an
d spent alot of money. No body is perfect =2Cand nothing is perfect=2C that
includes Zenith =2Cso take adeep breath =2Clive and let live." It is what
it is! Right Ken? Joe 601XL(been working on mine 5 years and it's flyi
ng)
From: annken100 <annken100@aol.com>
Sent: Tue=2C November 10=2C 2009 2:04:17 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Zenith liability
Jim's post made me think of a line that I read in the Zenith Condition of S
ale and Warning agreement that we all signed before we received our plans
=2C kits=2C or parts.
The line reads:
The Seller does not warrant that the aircraft as constructed by the buyer
=2C or any other person=2C will be airworthy=2C or will qualify for certifi
cation or
registration by aviation authorities=2C or will meet the requirement of the
buyer.
Now=2C I'm no lawyer=2C but doesn't the above basically say that Zenith is
not responsible if the airplane doesn't fly=2C can't be registered=2C or do
esn't meet your needs?
If so the issues of the FAA not granting an airworthiness certificate=2C th
e plane falling out of the sky=2C or having to pay for a mod kit all become
unquestionably the burden of the buyer.
I hope people don't jump on the litigation bandwagon too hastily because wh
ether or not the above statement protects Zenith or not in court=2C it will
ultimately lead to an end that doesn't bode well not only for the 601/650
folks but for everyone involved with a Zenith or AMD product.
Ken Pavlou
--------
601 XL / Corvair
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272122#272122
wwbsp=3B -Matt Dralle=2C =======
============
_________________________________________________________________
Bing brings you maps=2C menus=2C and reviews organized in one place.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MFESRP&publ=WLHMTAG&cre
a=TEXT_MFESRP_Local_MapsMenu_Resturants_1x1
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: FAA grounds 601 and 650) |
On Tuesday 10 November 2009 18:03, purplemoon99@bellsouth.net wrote:
> Jim, have you done anything with a weed-eater ? Ican't find one that's
> worth adamm! Joe N101HD/601XL
I'm not sure how seriously to take the question, as it's in response to a
joke. No, I haven't done much with a weed eater: they tear the foo out of my
back. Thirty minutes with a weed eater is good for about two days of not
being able to do much else.
I always wanted an excuse not to mow the lawn, and whack the weeds, and now I
have one. Of course, living in the desert where we don't have either that
much grass or weeds means the problem isn't as critical as it once was.
--
============================================
Do not archive.
============================================
Jim B Belcher
BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Retired aerospace technical manager
Mathematics and alcohol do not mix.
Do not drink and derive.
============================================
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: Zenith liability |
Hey Paul,
Just a few thoughts. First, It wouldn't surprise me to see Aircraft Spruce offer
the upgrade kits for sale soon. They did just announce they are now the official
parts and materials supplier for Zenith.
Second, I'm glad your self imposed grounding is coming to an end. Given some of
the flak you've received for your stand I wonder if anyone is reconsidering
their criticism.
Dan
psm(at)att.net wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> I believe your thinking is sound, but I come to
> several different conclusions from yours. Part
> of the reason for this is my own "Campaign" to
> get exactly what we got the other day. As I have
> said many times in many different places, I
> wanted a competently engineered set of changes
> that satisfied the NTSB requests. I couldn't
> have asked for more than to have Chris actually
> sponsor the changes. He may not be convinced
> they are necessary, but still he applied his
> extensive skill and experience to bring us a well designed upgrade package.
>
> My argument to the Heintz folks started out and
> always continued that they did not need to admit
> any fault. All I wanted from them was a well
> engineered upgrade package. They had "Design
> responsibility" so they were the best source for
> properly engineered changes. My thinking, and I
> think theirs, was based on the idea that to admit
> a design flaw made them liable to the activities
> of every greedy lawyer in the world. That would
> help nobody but the lawyers. The notion that
> they could design and release improvements to the
> design without admitting fault would get the
> owners the needed (desired?) improvements without
> automatically bringing on all the lawsuits. Your
> logic that they are liable anyway may have some
> merit, but it really doesn't accomplish anything
> useful to blame Zenith for the problems. I don't
> think they have "Deep pockets" like the big
> manufacturers, so the lawyers are likely to
> ignore the whole thing at this point. Especially
> with the lack of "Fault" any lawyer considering
> attacking Zenith is faced with a difficult case
> with unlikely victory and the real likelihood
> that there is no money to win at the end of the path.
>
> I don't share your conclusion about the "Losses"
> of the S-LSA owners either. They made a choice
> to try one of the new type aircraft instead of
> buying a part 23 certified plane. They benefited
> from a much lower price for the same level of
> performance. Now they have to pay a bit more
> than they thought the price was. It sounds like
> a lot of money to a plans or kit builder, but
> when you measure the cost of a factory built
> plane against the upgrade cost you will see it is
> only a small percentage. These buyers have
> simply bought into a more expensive version of
> airplane ownership than the plans and kit builders.
>
> I don't see why Zenith, or Zenair, or the current
> European version of Zenair would refuse to sell
> upgrade kits to anyone who wants one. That is
> their business - selling airplane parts. The
> changes are supposed to be limited to American
> planes, but the chatter I have heard from other
> owners in other countries is they want to make the changes to their planes too.
>
> I agree with you completely on the issue of CZAW
> customers. They have a problem since I doubt AMD
> will be able or willing to upgrade their
> planes. They should be able to get upgrade
> instructions and parts, but will need to pay a
> local mechanic to make the changes. This must
> include a certain premium for the mechanic to
> become familiar with this particular style of
> airplane building and obtain the specialized
> tools such as the custom rivet
> setters. Purchasers of experimental Zodiacs
> built by others are in a similar fix. The rules
> don't require a licensed mechanic to work on
> their planes, but they probably don't have the
> personal skills the builders had. I'm not sure
> there is a really nice solution for them. They
> may wind up paying the same price as the S-LSA
> purchasers, but they didn't think they were
> getting into that price range when they bought their used experimental plane.
>
> I don't want to guess at the likely price for the
> upgrade kits, but I feel the parts will be a
> small amount of money. The more significant cost
> is the labor to install the upgrade. I feel any
> owner who was able to pay for his version of the
> airplane will have no problem paying for the
> additional parts. I just don't think it is
> consistent with the agreements between plans and
> kit builders and Zenith/Zenair for them to get
> the parts for free. Perhaps AMD will have a
> different situation since they sold airplanes
> rather than parts in the first place.
>
> I feel this is a big change in the "Landscape"
> for all XL and 650 owners. I am hopeful the
> beefed up design will prove to be a lot safer in
> the future. If so, it will all be worth it.
>
> Paul
> XL ready to order upgrade kit.
>
>
>
>
> At 07:47 AM 11/10/2009, you wrote:
>
> > I've spent a couple of days thinking over the
> > Zenith situation. It seems to me
> > the problem splits into multiple piles: the LSA, the plans builders, and
> > those building from kits.
> >
> > One of the seemingly hidden facts about LSAs is that the manufacturer can
> > mandate a change to the aircraft at any time, and the owners are stuck. They
> > must made the changes the manufacturer requires, and cannot make any changes
> > without the manufacturer's concurrence. No field mods, no STCs.
> >
> > That's not just for Zenith, but for any aircraft with an LSA airworthiness
> > certificate. I wondered how long it would be before some manufacturer
> > announced a change or changes that really got to the owners. Still, I feel
> > extremely sympathetic towards the owners of Zenith XL and 650 LSAs. Recourse
> > or no recourse, this is a bum deal.
> >
> > I feel even more sympathetic towards the owners of the CZAW 601s, because
I
> > have a hunch they are in even more of a no-man's land. Any grounding or
> > ungrounding must come from CZAW, or its successor, yet I suspect the FAA
> > considers their aircraft equally grounded. I doubt Zenith will sell them
> > anything, since they have made it plain they do not consider they have any
> > liability for the CZAW aircraft. I don't know that I blame them for this;
> > they didn't sell the aircraft of realize a profit.
> >
> > Those who built from plans are also very likely
> > to have little recourse. After
> > all, Zenith sold a set of plans which they are free to follow or not. It
> > appears Zenith has, in effect, also supplied them with a free set of
> > modification plans. Unfortunately, it adds to the cost and time, perhaps
> > requiring extensive rework.
> >
> > Which brings me to the final category, those who bought a kit. Zenith
> > indicated that this kit contained everything necessary to build a flying
> > airplane, except the engine, paint, upholstery, and avionics. Whatever it may
> > be called by Zenith, the fix kit is not a
> > voluntary upgrade. Zenith can't
> > claim this is some sort of design improvement; Chris Heintz has already said
> > he doesn't feel it is necessary.
> >
> > The FAA, however, very likely will not let these
> > aircraft be flown until these
> > modifications are made. That means Zenith has not delivered everything
> > necessary to build a flying airplane (with the exceptions previously noted).
> > This is a direct result of their design, not something the builders have
> > done. It is, in effect, a mandatory change at Zenith's instigation, even
> > though it is intended to make the FAA happy.
> >
> > That leaves a lot of builders having invested a
> > lot of time, and now they must
> > invest more. My feeling is that Zenith should take a hard look at this
> > situation, and do everything within their power to make these modifications
> > available either free, or at cost. They'll be lucky if they aren't sued for
> > time AND materials.
> >
> > I do not buy the argument that Mooney, Cessna, et al do not pay for
> > Airworthiness Directives, service bulletins, and so on. While this is true
> > for products that have been delivered for years, it has not always been true
> > for products just delivered. Lycoming has paid for the replacement of engine
> > parts recently delivered that proved to defective. Cessna paid for
> > modifications to the early Cardinals, when they failed to fly correctly. One
> > could find many more cases without searching too hard. The payment, of
> > course, was to head off lawsuits, and (possibly) to preserve company image.
> >
> > A real issue is that Zenith is a small company, and may not be able to afford
> > the same things as a Lycoming or a Cessna. I believe there needs to be a
> > negotiation between 650 and XL builders, with all of Zenith's cards on the
> > table. We need to see what they can afford. What level of insurance do they
> > have? They are at fault; they need to give until it hurts, and then
> > (possibly) give some more.
> >
> > If this does not happen, there is a very real
> > danger of individual or combined
> > lawsuits which do force Zenith from the aircraft business. I do not think
> > (and I'm not an attorney) that Zenith's contract is likely to hold up under
> > the circumstances which are present.
> >
> > This is my 25 cents worth for this morning, with
> > the reminder, as always, that
> > 25 cents won't buy what it once would.
> >
> >
>
--------
Scratch building XL with Corvair Engine
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272183#272183
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: Zenith liability |
Hi Dan,
Thanks for the nice thoughts.
So far, nobody has said anything to me about the flak I got. Of
course, it was only a few people who gave me all the trouble. Most
of the people I know locally and most of the list members were very
supportive of me and my position. If I tried I could probably name
the 4 or 5 people who made all the personal attacks on me for my
position. And then there was one who was just angry with me and
complained about my choice of words . . .
I really do appreciate the sentiment.
Thanks again,
Paul
At 04:28 PM 11/10/2009, you wrote:
>Hey Paul,
>Just a few thoughts. First, It wouldn't surprise me to see Aircraft
>Spruce offer the upgrade kits for sale soon. They did just
>announce they are now the official parts and materials supplier for Zenith.
>Second, I'm glad your self imposed grounding is coming to an
>end. Given some of the flak you've received for your stand I wonder
>if anyone is reconsidering their criticism.
>Dan
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! --
|