---------------------------------------------------------- Zenith-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 11/10/09: 35 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:54:46 AM PST US From: "Gary Ray" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:01:56 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: tooling holes From: "djluscher" Thanks, Larry and Kevin. It is appreciated. -D Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272070#272070 ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 06:30:51 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: vne From: "Gig Giacona" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:06:49 AM PST US From: Jim Belcher Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:50:55 AM PST US From: Jim Belcher Subject: Zenith-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:00:59 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 From: "Sabrina" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:10:34 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Zenith liability From: "Sabrina" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:21:25 AM PST US From: Stanley A Challgren Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:21:39 AM PST US From: Jim Belcher Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:55:09 AM PST US From: Jim Belcher Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:55:09 AM PST US Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Zenith liability From: jaybannist@cs.com 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:12:46 AM PST US From: Jim Belcher Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:49:08 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Zenith liability From: "hansriet" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:05:12 AM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:20:40 AM PST US Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Zenith liability From: jaybannist@cs.com 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:04:56 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Zenith liability From: "annken100" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:22:28 AM PST US From: "Doug - SportAviation" 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:22:29 AM PST US From: Bill Pagan Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 wrote: From: annken100 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:03:35 PM PST US From: "Greg Cox" 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 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:04:15 PM PST US From: Jay Maynard 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:42:40 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Zenith liability From: "Sabrina" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:01:14 PM PST US From: "George Swinford" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:01:39 PM PST US From: Davcoberly@wmconnect.com Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:17:48 PM PST US From: Gary Gower Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Zenith liability. Confidence while flying our airplanes- will be the- winner...- - Saludos Gary Gower. --- On Tue, 11/10/09, Jay Maynard wrote: From: Jay Maynard 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:57:43 PM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:44:51 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 From: "GLJSOJ1" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:05:17 PM PST US From: "Gary Ray" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:06:10 PM PST US From: "purplemoon99@bellsouth.net" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 =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" =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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:02:46 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: vne From: "leinad" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:04:55 PM PST US From: "purplemoon99@bellsouth.net" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 =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 =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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:04:55 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: wing mod From: "Martin Pohl" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:08:40 PM PST US From: Lawrence Webber Subject: RE: Zenith-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:16:16 PM PST US From: Jim Belcher Subject: Re: weed eater (was: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:28:40 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Zenith liability From: "leinad" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:45:09 PM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message zenith-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Zenith-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/zenith-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/zenith-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.