Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:06 AM - Re: Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 (Paul Mulwitz)
2. 06:15 AM - Re: Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 (n801bh@netzero.com)
3. 06:35 AM - FAA SAIB CE-10-08 (Jake Reyna)
4. 07:01 AM - Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 (Sabrina)
5. 07:16 AM - Re: FAA SAIB CE-10-08 (David Mikesell)
6. 07:49 AM - Re: FAA SAIB CE-10-08 (Bryan Martin)
7. 08:00 AM - Re: FAA SAIB CE-10-08 (jaybannist@cs.com)
8. 08:00 AM - Re: FAA SAIB CE-10-08 (LINLARMAYES@aol.com)
9. 08:08 AM - Re: FAA SAIB CE-10-08 (Paul Mulwitz)
10. 08:19 AM - Re: FAA SAIB CE-10-08 (Jim Belcher)
11. 08:20 AM - Re: FAA SAIB CE-10-08 (John Davis)
12. 12:03 PM - Maintenance (Rich Simmons)
13. 12:03 PM - upgrade decisions (Jim Belcher)
14. 12:12 PM - Re: Maintenance (Craig Payne)
15. 12:21 PM - Re: upgrade decisions (Craig Payne)
16. 12:39 PM - Re: upgrade decisions (Jim Belcher)
17. 12:42 PM - Re: upgrade decisions (jaybannist@cs.com)
18. 12:59 PM - Re: upgrade decisions (Jim Belcher)
19. 02:27 PM - Re: Upgrade Decisions (Rick Lindstrom)
20. 03:04 PM - Re: Upgrade Decisions (Doug - SportAviation)
21. 03:28 PM - Re: Re: Zenith liability ()
22. 03:56 PM - Re: Upgrade Decisions (Lawrence Webber)
23. 04:07 PM - Re: Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 (JohnDRead@aol.com)
24. 04:12 PM - Re: Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 (JohnDRead@aol.com)
25. 05:10 PM - Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 (Sabrina)
26. 05:10 PM - XL/650 new airworthiness certificates suspended ()
27. 11:20 PM - Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 (Mack Kreizenbeck)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
Hi Ben,
I would ask you and the other critics to give Sabrina a little room
to work here.
Perhaps you are unaware of the simple truth that her reasons for
building a plane are quite different from the rest of us. She didn't
do it for recreation. It was vocational training. For her, this
fiasco with the accidents and all the people involved in dealing with
the fallout is part of that training.
Since she almost let the cat out of the bag with her last comment, I
will "Spill the beans" on a few pieces of her personal
situation. Perhaps then you folks will leave her alone and let her
work her way through this whole mess. I think we all will benefit
from the results.
Sabrina's comment about loving her legal team is literally
true. Both of her parents are lawyers. (Neither one is a tort lawyer.)
With all of her accomplishments it is easy for most of us to forget
that she couldn't fly her own plane until recently because she was
too young to solo in the USA. Even now after having her plane flying
for a year or two she is still only 16 years old.
I personally feel lucky to have run across Sabrina in this (sometimes
nasty) little world of Zodiac builders. I think she will be very
famous in a few years. Indeed, she already is. I expect her
universe will be a lot larger than the one the rest of us have lived
in. Her current plan is to be a space ship designer when she grows up.
Paul
XL ready for upgrades
Unrepentant Sabrina fan
At 11:12 PM 11/11/2009, you wrote:
>The numbers you are looking for that Zenith used when you bought
>your kit should still be right there in the builder manual you read
>while building your Sabrina 1. If they did not satisfy you then
>maybe you should not have attemped this avenue of recreation.....
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: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
Hi Paul. First, for the record I admire Sabrina alot for what she has bu
ilt and you for your stance in a rather difficult period for 601 builder
s and the guys and gals at Zenith.
1- Most of us know both her parents are lawyers. I believe that fact cam
e out years ago when she advised us of her Corvette gift from her attorn
ey parents when she was like 12. <G>
2- Her posts have always enlightened me with the degree of knowledge she
appears to have. In my mind if she is going to build a spaceship she wi
ll have absolutely no problem flipping her Sabrina 1 over, weighing it d
own with sandbags and load testing it to her satisfaction..She will have
to test her spacecraft to alot higher degree so this is a perfect "educ
ational" step for her in life. If it happens to fail and ruin her plane
mommy and daddy will buy her another one. If it holds up and quantifies
CH numbers as to being more then strong enough then her "friends" at th
e FAA should use that data to recind the current warning document and re
store the original specs Zenith used when selling the first several hund
red kits.
3- IF the 601, during her extensive testing shows signs of weakness she
can take her design and engineering skills and produce a fix that satisf
ies CH, the FAA and hopefully all the builders and owners of the 601 XL
series. That revenue stream could enable her to buy her own Harley, Corv
ette and fund her continuing education she will need to bring her spaces
hip to reality. After all, you, Jay Maynard and most other builder/owner
s of this series of planes have sunk ALOT of their hard earned money int
o their dream... She didn't.....
Rant off. Peace to all, and of course tailwinds on every flight.
do not archive.
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650
Hi Ben,
I would ask you and the other critics to give Sabrina a little room
to work here.
Perhaps you are unaware of the simple truth that her reasons for
building a plane are quite different from the rest of us. She didn't
do it for recreation. It was vocational training. For her, this
fiasco with the accidents and all the people involved in dealing with
the fallout is part of that training.
Since she almost let the cat out of the bag with her last comment, I
will "Spill the beans" on a few pieces of her personal
situation. Perhaps then you folks will leave her alone and let her
work her way through this whole mess. I think we all will benefit
from the results.
Sabrina's comment about loving her legal team is literally
true. Both of her parents are lawyers. (Neither one is a tort lawyer.)
With all of her accomplishments it is easy for most of us to forget
that she couldn't fly her own plane until recently because she was
too young to solo in the USA. Even now after having her plane flying
for a year or two she is still only 16 years old.
I personally feel lucky to have run across Sabrina in this (sometimes
nasty) little world of Zodiac builders. I think she will be very
famous in a few years. Indeed, she already is. I expect her
universe will be a lot larger than the one the rest of us have lived
in. Her current plan is to be a space ship designer when she grows up.
Paul
XL ready for upgrades
Unrepentant Sabrina fan
At 11:12 PM 11/11/2009, you wrote:
>The numbers you are looking for that Zenith used when you bought
>your kit should still be right there in the builder manual you read
>while building your Sabrina 1. If they did not satisfy you then
>maybe you should not have attemped this avenue of recreation.....
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
____________________________________________________________
Lights, Camera, Career?
Enter the fast-paced film industry with a degree from top film schools
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/c?cp=Bi9K_ya7MzIyi0I9Q4bak
gAAJ1HwQ8b1VOas4hI8eG3vvLZKAAQAAAAFAAAAAIXrUT4AAAMlAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYAG
AAAAAA
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | FAA SAIB CE-10-08 |
Having read SAIB CE-10-08 a number of times, I thought it would be
best to get legal advice from the many experts on the list.
The FAA states: "After the review we made a determination that these
accidents did not clearly indicate a single root cause. Instead, it
implicated the potential coupling of design and operational aspects of
the aircraft."
What exactly does "the potential coupling of design and operational
aspects of the aircraft" mean. Ignorant me seems to think it means
that the operational aspects are controlled by the pilot. So, how does
that indicate there is a design flaw? It does indicate a flaw in
intelligent design and there is more evidence of that on this list.
The report goes onto state that "Our detailed review of available
flutter analysis reports was inconclusive." Once again, no evidence of
a design flaw, dammit!!
So, the FAA decides that the lack of evidence is proof enough to
mandate significant modifications. Is there anyone on this list that
believes that the FAA would prevail in a court of law? We are a
country of laws and somewhere in there is a presumption of innocence.
The FAA in this case is the prosecutor and I find it inconceivable
that any jury after looking at the lack of evidence would do anything
other than dismiss the case.
If there is to be any legal action, it should be against the FAA and NTSB.
Jake
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 |
Ben,
The reason I had my attorney contact the NTSB was for the purpose of offering my
airplane for destructive testing. My upgrades use aluminum, two part foam,
aluminum to gain additional strength and dampen harmonics. I am curious how strong
it really is. I don't know if they will use it, but the government does
have a key.
Paul, No need to respond.
In three years in high school I have not spent a single dime on the candy machine
or soda machine. I can't remember the last time I went clothes shopping.
When my grandfather passed away, rather than spending my inheritance, I donated
the entire amount to my school. When I worked this summer--my first paying
job, I donated my entire paycheck to charity.
My bedroom at school is larger than my bedroom at home. I am so lucky to have
such loving parents, caring teachers and the most amazing group of mentors.
I have it good, but I don't take anyone or anything for granted. I would not be
where I am if it were not for the guys on this list and those I have met in
the aviation community. I love all of you--you are part of my life and are helping
to shape me into who I am and who I will become. Thank you.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272442#272442
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FAA SAIB CE-10-08 |
I get the impression Jake you do not deal with the FAA often. In my job I
see and deal with them all the time. The FAA is a government office that
makes the determination based on regulations, not laws. There is one little
paragraph in the FAR (Federal Aviation Regulations) that states " the pilot
in command may not operate a aircraft that is believed to be in a
unairworthy condition". The FAA and the NTSB "believe" the 601xl and the 650
to be in a unairworthy condition. The word "believe" give the FAA the right
to say you can not fly the 601xl and 650 under the guidance of the FAR's.
Now since this is a regulation and not a law you can go ahead and fly your
plane as much as you want. However be advised that the FAA can also suspend
your license at will for being "unsafe" and "endangering the public" because
that is also a judgement call given to the FAA under the FAR's.
You can fight both these in court and the only thing you will get is a very
very very high bill from your lawyer. Getting mad about what the FAA does
not work, sueing the FAA does not work either. The FAA has several offices
full of lawyers geared up for just these types of fights. While the FAA does
not always win, even if they loose and you win in court, think about all
the months or perhaps years you spend in court fighting the suspension of
your license or getting to fly your plane without mods...... or even the
amount of money you would spend to have 3 or 4 engineering firms back up
Chris's design in court (wont happen because they are afraid of liability
suits) or the money (we are talking more than $100,000.00) in attorney fees
to fight this case in open court.
We are all better off just making the upgrades and enjoying our planes.
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jake Reyna" <jakereyna@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 6:34 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: FAA SAIB CE-10-08
>
> Having read SAIB CE-10-08 a number of times, I thought it would be
> best to get legal advice from the many experts on the list.
>
> The FAA states: "After the review we made a determination that these
> accidents did not clearly indicate a single root cause. Instead, it
> implicated the potential coupling of design and operational aspects of
> the aircraft."
>
> What exactly does "the potential coupling of design and operational
> aspects of the aircraft" mean. Ignorant me seems to think it means
> that the operational aspects are controlled by the pilot. So, how does
> that indicate there is a design flaw? It does indicate a flaw in
> intelligent design and there is more evidence of that on this list.
>
> The report goes onto state that "Our detailed review of available
> flutter analysis reports was inconclusive." Once again, no evidence of
> a design flaw, dammit!!
>
> So, the FAA decides that the lack of evidence is proof enough to
> mandate significant modifications. Is there anyone on this list that
> believes that the FAA would prevail in a court of law? We are a
> country of laws and somewhere in there is a presumption of innocence.
> The FAA in this case is the prosecutor and I find it inconceivable
> that any jury after looking at the lack of evidence would do anything
> other than dismiss the case.
>
> If there is to be any legal action, it should be against the FAA and NTSB.
>
> Jake
>
>
>
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 SAIB CE-10-08 |
Unfortunately, The FAA falls within the area of Administrative Law, they are outside
the normal legal process. If the FAA takes action against you, for all practical
purposes, your only avenue of appeal is the NTSB and the. Taking either
agency to court is nearly out of the question. Apparently, the courts have
decided that the right to due process does not apply to FAA enforcement actions.
Congress has delegated the authority over aviation regulations to the FAA.
The FARs, for instance, are not enacted by Congress, they are written and enacted
by the FAA. The FAA can seemingly do anything it wants unless Congress wants
to step in and slap them down.
On Nov 12, 2009, at 9:34 AM, Jake Reyna wrote:
>
> So, the FAA decides that the lack of evidence is proof enough to
> mandate significant modifications. Is there anyone on this list that
> believes that the FAA would prevail in a court of law? We are a
> country of laws and somewhere in there is a presumption of innocence.
> The FAA in this case is the prosecutor and I find it inconceivable
> that any jury after looking at the lack of evidence would do anything
> other than dismiss the case.
>
> If there is to be any legal action, it should be against the FAA and NTSB.
>
> Jake
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
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: FAA SAIB CE-10-08 |
David,
You are so right. Remember Bob Hoover's nightmare episode with the FAA ?
Even though it was TOTALLY unfair and not within the law, the bureaucrat
s and their "judicial" system never gave in. The politically-appointed he
ad of the FAA had to override the bureaucracy and personally straighten it
out. It is a shame, but our government can coerce us, bully us and outrig
ht force us into doing what we otherwise might not do. "Better off"? Giv
en the state of our present government, probably so. This leaves a lot un
said, but I am going to leave it at that.
Jay Bannister
om>
I get the impression Jake you do not deal with the FAA often. In my job
I
see and deal with them all the time. The FAA is a government office that
makes the determination based on regulations, not laws. There is one littl
e
paragraph in the FAR (Federal Aviation Regulations) that states " the pilo
t
in command may not operate a aircraft that is believed to be in a
unairworthy condition". The FAA and the NTSB "believe" the 601xl and the
650
to be in a unairworthy condition. The word "believe" give the FAA the righ
t
to say you can not fly the 601xl and 650 under the guidance of the FAR's.
Now since this is a regulation and not a law you can go ahead and fly your
plane as much as you want. However be advised that the FAA can also suspen
d
your license at will for being "unsafe" and "endangering the public" becau
se
that is also a judgement call given to the FAA under the FAR's.
You can fight both these in court and the only thing you will get is a ver
y
very very high bill from your lawyer. Getting mad about what the FAA does
not work, sueing the FAA does not work either. The FAA has several offices
full of lawyers geared up for just these types of fights. While the FAA do
es
not always win, even if they loose and you win in court, think about all
the months or perhaps years you spend in court fighting the suspension of
your license or getting to fly your plane without mods...... or even the
amount of money you would spend to have 3 or 4 engineering firms back up
Chris's design in court (wont happen because they are afraid of liability
suits) or the money (we are talking more than $100,000.00) in attorney fee
s
to fight this case in open court.
We are all better off just making the upgrades and enjoying our planes.
David M
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: FAA SAIB CE-10-08 |
Looks like another one went down yesterday. see
_http://www.villageronline.com/story/1586318.html_
(http://www.villageronline.com/story/1586318.html)
In a message dated 11/12/2009 9:16:54 A.M. Central Standard Time,
skyguynca@skyguynca.com writes:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "David Mikesell"
<skyguynca@skyguynca.com>
I get the impression Jake you do not deal with the FAA often. In my job I
see and deal with them all the time. The FAA is a government office that
makes the determination based on regulations, not laws. There is one
little
paragraph in the FAR (Federal Aviation Regulations) that states " the
pilot
in command may not operate a aircraft that is believed to be in a
unairworthy condition". The FAA and the NTSB "believe" the 601xl and the
650
to be in a unairworthy condition. The word "believe" give the FAA the
right
to say you can not fly the 601xl and 650 under the guidance of the FAR's.
Now since this is a regulation and not a law you can go ahead and fly your
plane as much as you want. However be advised that the FAA can also
suspend
your license at will for being "unsafe" and "endangering the public"
because
that is also a judgement call given to the FAA under the FAR's.
You can fight both these in court and the only thing you will get is a
very
very very high bill from your lawyer. Getting mad about what the FAA does
not work, sueing the FAA does not work either. The FAA has several offices
full of lawyers geared up for just these types of fights. While the FAA
does
not always win, even if they loose and you win in court, think about all
the months or perhaps years you spend in court fighting the suspension of
your license or getting to fly your plane without mods...... or even the
amount of money you would spend to have 3 or 4 engineering firms back up
Chris's design in court (wont happen because they are afraid of liability
suits) or the money (we are talking more than $100,000.00) in attorney
fees
to fight this case in open court.
We are all better off just making the upgrades and enjoying our planes.
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jake Reyna" <jakereyna@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 6:34 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: FAA SAIB CE-10-08
>
> Having read SAIB CE-10-08 a number of times, I thought it would be
> best to get legal advice from the many experts on the list.
>
> The FAA states: "After the review we made a determination that these
> accidents did not clearly indicate a single root cause. Instead, it
> implicated the potential coupling of design and operational aspects of
> the aircraft."
>
> What exactly does "the potential coupling of design and operational
> aspects of the aircraft" mean. Ignorant me seems to think it means
> that the operational aspects are controlled by the pilot. So, how does
> that indicate there is a design flaw? It does indicate a flaw in
> intelligent design and there is more evidence of that on this list.
>
> The report goes onto state that "Our detailed review of available
> flutter analysis reports was inconclusive." Once again, no evidence of
> a design flaw, dammit!!
>
> So, the FAA decides that the lack of evidence is proof enough to
> mandate significant modifications. Is there anyone on this list that
> believes that the FAA would prevail in a court of law? We are a
> country of laws and somewhere in there is a presumption of innocence.
> The FAA in this case is the prosecutor and I find it inconceivable
> that any jury after looking at the lack of evidence would do anything
> other than dismiss the case.
>
> If there is to be any legal action, it should be against the FAA and
NTSB.
>
> Jake
>
>
>
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: FAA SAIB CE-10-08 |
Hi Jake,
Before I try to answer your questions about the FAA language I want
to make it perfectly clear that I am not agreeing with what they said
-- just interpreting the language. My years as an engineer qualify
me to do that but they don't qualify me to have a professional
opinion as to the design strength or flaws of the design.
The FAA in its language is saying they believe there is indeed a
design flaw. They also say there is not a single root cause of the
accidents. That can be interpreted to mean the design flaw is not so
big as to be fatal by itself but requires "Activation" by operational
events (e.g. pilot actions or loose cables, etc.) to produce an accident.
Your other statements suggest you suffer from the same kind of
thinking that got me so angry at Sun n Fun when M. Heintz made it
clear that it wasn't good enough that the NTSB felt there were
problems with the XL. They still needed to convince HIM there was a
problem. He said this after saying he is not an engineer and not
qualified to be sure of the design validity.
The whole point is that we each as owners have reasonable power to
control our own destiny with experimental airplanes. On the other
hand the government agencies (NTSB and FAA) don't have any
requirement to prove anything to us. They make their own decisions
based on their operating methods and principles and take action
accordingly. We are best advised to accept their decisions without
trying to assert we know better than they do and they can't rule over us.
Let us not forget they are the government. It is their job to make
decisions and to exercise power over activities in this country. As
such, they have very large sticks to enforce their decisions.
One last piece of wisdom from somewhere I can't exactly
remember: "You can't fight city hall".
Paul
XL ready for updates
At 06:34 AM 11/12/2009, you wrote:
>The FAA states: "After the review we made a determination that these
>accidents did not clearly indicate a single root cause. Instead, it
>implicated the potential coupling of design and operational aspects of
>the aircraft."
>
>What exactly does "the potential coupling of design and operational
>aspects of the aircraft" mean. Ignorant me seems to think it means
>that the operational aspects are controlled by the pilot. So, how does
>that indicate there is a design flaw?
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 SAIB CE-10-08 |
On Thursday 12 November 2009 09:33, LINLARMAYES@aol.com wrote:
> Looks like another one went down yesterday. see
> _http://www.villageronline.com/story/1586318.html_
> (http://www.villageronline.com/story/1586318.html)
Unless I'm missing something, this is the same crash reported in these spaces
a few days ago. However, this report has a lot more detail that the others
I've seen.
============================================
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 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: FAA SAIB CE-10-08 |
No, Thats the Nov 6th accident...
LINLARMAYES@aol.com wrote:
> Looks like another one went down yesterday. see
> http://www.villageronline.com/story/1586318.html
>
> In a message dated 11/12/2009 9:16:54 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> skyguynca@skyguynca.com writes:
>
> <skyguynca@skyguynca.com>
>
> I get the impression Jake you do not deal with the FAA often. In
> my job I
> see and deal with them all the time. The FAA is a government
> office that
> makes the determination based on regulations, not laws. There is
> one little
> paragraph in the FAR (Federal Aviation Regulations) that states "
> the pilot
> in command may not operate a aircraft that is believed to be in a
> unairworthy condition". The FAA and the NTSB "believe" the 601xl
> and the 650
> to be in a unairworthy condition. The word "believe" give the FAA
> the right
> to say you can not fly the 601xl and 650 under the guidance of the
> FAR's.
>
> Now since this is a regulation and not a law you can go ahead and
> fly your
> plane as much as you want. However be advised that the FAA can
> also suspend
> your license at will for being "unsafe" and "endangering the
> public" because
> that is also a judgement call given to the FAA under the FAR's.
>
> You can fight both these in court and the only thing you will get
> is a very
> very very high bill from your lawyer. Getting mad about what the
> FAA does
> not work, sueing the FAA does not work either. The FAA has several
> offices
> full of lawyers geared up for just these types of fights. While
> the FAA does
> not always win, even if they loose and you win in court, think
> about all
> the months or perhaps years you spend in court fighting the
> suspension of
> your license or getting to fly your plane without mods...... or
> even the
> amount of money you would spend to have 3 or 4 engineering firms
> back up
> Chris's design in court (wont happen because they are afraid of
> liability
> suits) or the money (we are talking more than $100,000.00) in
> attorney fees
> to fight this case in open court.
>
>
> We are all better off just making the upgrades and enjoying our
> planes.
>
> David M
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jake Reyna" <jakereyna@yahoo.com>
> To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 6:34 AM
> Subject: Zenith-List: FAA SAIB CE-10-08
>
>
> >
> > Having read SAIB CE-10-08 a number of times, I thought it would be
> > best to get legal advice from the many experts on the list.
> >
> > The FAA states: "After the review we made a determination that these
> > accidents did not clearly indicate a single root cause. Instead, it
> > implicated the potential coupling of design and operational
> aspects of
> > the aircraft."
> >
> > What exactly does "the potential coupling of design and operational
> > aspects of the aircraft" mean. Ignorant me seems to think it means
> > that the operational aspects are controlled by the pilot. So,
> how does
> > that indicate there is a design flaw? It does indicate a flaw in
> > intelligent design and there is more evidence of that on this list.
> >
> > The report goes onto state that "Our detailed review of available
> > flutter analysis reports was inconclusive." Once again, no
> evidence of
> > a design flaw, dammit!!
> >
> > So, the FAA decides that the lack of evidence is proof enough to
> > mandate significant modifications. Is there anyone on this list that
> > believes that the FAA would prevail in a court of law? We are a
> > country of laws and somewhere in there is a presumption of
> innocence.
> > The FAA in this case is the prosecutor and I find it inconceivable
> > that any jury after looking at the lack of evidence would do
> anything
> > other than dismiss the case.
> >
> > If there is to be any legal action, it should be against the FAA
> and NTSB.
> >
> > Jake
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ========================; nbsp; (And Get Some AWESOME
> FREE to find Gifts tric re b k you for p;
> -Matt Dralle, List ======================== the ties Day
> ================================================ -
> MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
> =================================================
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
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 |
|
I have read in several places of a 41 page inspection document for the 601.
Can anyone send me a link to this document?
I did find the 63 page POH of AMD but cant seem to stumble on the 41page inspection
document mentioned.
Thanks,
Rich
do not Archive
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: | upgrade decisions |
I haven't had a lot of free time the last few days, but what time I have had,
I've spent trying to decide which of these modifications are useful, and
which are not. Do I really want to do any of them, all of them, or some of
them? Somehow, I needed to get my ideas down, and think through my decisions.
To this end, I have created a decision tree in Open Office calc. I'm trying to
trade off possible risks against benefits. What is worth doing? Anything?
Everything? Nothing? My mind is by no means made up on things, but in the
interest of exchanging ideas, I have posted the tree here for downloading:
http://www.anemicaardvark.com/Z601XL/XLUpgrade.xls
(this site is case sensitive)
Please understand that the entries reflect my thoughts at the moment. I may
very well change some of them before I do anything.
I am not suggesting that you necessarily agree with my assessments, but
rather, that it may be useful to evaluate how you feel about things on your
own aircraft, using this as a starting point. By all means, if you wish to
use this as a starting point, adjust things to reflect what you think about
your aircraft.
--
============================================
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 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 |
|
It is in the builders section of the Zenith web site under Zodiac XL
updates:
http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/data/Zodiac%20checklist%20-%20Septembe
r%202009.pdf
-- Craig
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rich
Simmons
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 11:28 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Maintenance
I have read in several places of a 41 page inspection document for the
601.
Can anyone send me a link to this document?
I did find the 63 page POH of AMD but cant seem to stumble on the 41page
inspection document mentioned.
Thanks,
Rich
do not Archive
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: | upgrade decisions |
A list of reasonable assessments but we still have to deal with the big picture.
Our ability to pick and choose the various changes is compromised by some external
factors:
- the latest ZAC load test was against an aircraft with all the spar mods. We would
have to guess which mods made the plane stronger in those tests and which
didn't.
- insurance: I believe that when the dust settles the insurance companies will
have one question: have you done the mod *package* or not - the WHOLE package.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Belcher
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 10:27 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: upgrade decisions
I haven't had a lot of free time the last few days, but what time I have had,
I've spent trying to decide which of these modifications are useful, and
which are not. Do I really want to do any of them, all of them, or some of
them? Somehow, I needed to get my ideas down, and think through my decisions.
To this end, I have created a decision tree in Open Office calc. I'm trying to
trade off possible risks against benefits. What is worth doing? Anything?
Everything? Nothing? My mind is by no means made up on things, but in the
interest of exchanging ideas, I have posted the tree here for downloading:
http://www.anemicaardvark.com/Z601XL/XLUpgrade.xls
(this site is case sensitive)
Please understand that the entries reflect my thoughts at the moment. I may
very well change some of them before I do anything.
I am not suggesting that you necessarily agree with my assessments, but
rather, that it may be useful to evaluate how you feel about things on your
own aircraft, using this as a starting point. By all means, if you wish to
use this as a starting point, adjust things to reflect what you think about
your aircraft.
--
============================================
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 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: upgrade decisions |
It sounds like your defacto decision is to do all the mods. Obviously, what I
am suggesting is that some of us may not choose to do this.
Other reasons for doing everything would be in the hope it satisifies the FAA,
or that it makes the builder more comfortable. But to each his/her own:
that's the beauty of an experimental aircraft!
On Thursday 12 November 2009 14:20, Craig Payne wrote:
>
> A list of reasonable assessments but we still have to deal with the big
> picture. Our ability to pick and choose the various changes is compromised
> by some external factors:
>
> - the latest ZAC load test was against an aircraft with all the spar mods.
> We would have to guess which mods made the plane stronger in those tests
> and which didn't.
>
> - insurance: I believe that when the dust settles the insurance companies
> will have one question: have you done the mod *package* or not - the WHOLE
> package.
--
============================================
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 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: upgrade decisions |
Jim,
While I agree with Chris that these mods are not really necessary, we now
have them on the table. That makes them more or less mandatory, not nece
ssarily from an engineering standpoint, but certainly from a regulatory,
insurance and liability standpoint.
The original airframe was designed as a whole. You wouldn't have consider
ed leaving out some of the rivets, because they somehow looked redundant,
would you ? These mods have also been designed as a whole. I personally
would not try to second guess the designer nor the reason for each separa
te part of the mods. I would instead guess that they are all a part of a
structural system, not individual "area" upgrades, assignable to a partic
ular questionable area.
Just my quarters worth (formerly two cents).
Jay Bannister.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Belcher <z601a@anemicaardvark.com>
I haven't had a lot of free time the last few days, but what time I have
had,
I've spent trying to decide which of these modifications are useful, and
which are not. Do I really want to do any of them, all of them, or some of
them? Somehow, I needed to get my ideas down, and think through my decisio
ns.
To this end, I have created a decision tree in Open Office calc. I'm tryin
g to
trade off possible risks against benefits. What is worth doing? Anything?
Everything? Nothing? My mind is by no means made up on things, but in the
interest of exchanging ideas, I have posted the tree here for downloading:
http://www.anemicaardvark.com/Z601XL/XLUpgrade.xls
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: upgrade decisions |
On Thursday 12 November 2009 14:41, jaybannist@cs.com wrote:
> Jim,
>
> While I agree with Chris that these mods are not really necessary, we now
> have them on the table. That makes them more or less mandatory, not
> necessarily from an engineering standpoint, but certainly from a
> regulatory, insurance and liability standpoint.
>
> The original airframe was designed as a whole. You wouldn't have
> considered leaving out some of the rivets, because they somehow looked
> redundant, would you ? These mods have also been designed as a whole. I
> personally would not try to second guess the designer nor the reason for
> each separate part of the mods. I would instead guess that they are all a
> part of a structural system, not individual "area" upgrades, assignable to
> a particular questionable area.
I think some of them are, and some of them aren't. I doubt the mass balance in
the ailerons, for example, has anything to do with the stiffners under the
seat.
The beefed up rear spar attach has not much to do with anything, according to
Zenith. I communicated with them on this subject several weeks, and was
assured the forces on this are minimal. That matches what I know from the
design of the rear spar attach on other aircraft.
...and so on. Once again, this is an experimental aircraft. I'm not saying I
will leave any of these out, just that I consider the whole thing open for
individual decision. I'm still deciding.
--
============================================
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 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Upgrade Decisions |
I was thinking along the very same lines, Jim, until I had a long conversation
with Mathieu Heintz at Zenair this morning. Frankly, I didn't see the need to
add aileron counterweights either, as long as the rest of the mods were installed.
But Mathieu says he's really tired of visiting crash sites with the NTSB
(he's been to all in North America), and sees the whole package as just increasing
the 601 safety margins as much as possible. Who can argue with that?
He strongly feels that overloading the airframe is what has caused the majority
of these in-flight breakups, and it's not that hard to do with high airspeeds,
partial fuel, a single occupant, an aft CG, especially when compounded by neglected
maintenance or an inadequate preflight inspection. Once the wing has been
overstressed and possibly deformed, it's very likely that the aileron cables
could go slack, setting up an airframe harmonic vibration or flutter that quickly
destroys the wing.
We talked about what happens when some really big guy gets in, sharply moves the
stick to the side and accidently overstresses the aileron control system and
slackens the cables (it only takes 40 pounds of pressure). Or when the airplane
is tied down and encounters sharp gusts on its control surfaces, which can
also wreck the bellcrank system if left to flap around in the wind. (I recall
seeing some dramatic pictures of 601 gust damage online not too long ago.)
My 601XL has always lived in a hangar, I'm the only who flies it (in good weather
and gently), and I'm pretty anal when it comes to maintenance. So I could probably
fly the airplane without any modifications until the cows came home without
any problem. But you can't always forecast severe vertical gusts or just
plain passenger stupidity, so you have to design with these things in mind. Mathieu
also shared that Chris was aghast at how some of the 601s were being flown,
modified, or neglected, and we openly wondered if our society had been dumbed
down to the point of eliminating our ability to properly assess personal
risk.
But that's a whole different discussion, and the best solution set that Zenith
has developed over the last year addresses every possible way the airplane could
come apart in the air, and is included in the upgrade package. In the mean
time, they recommended flying slower and with less weight to be on the safe side.
Admittedly, beefing up the airframe AND installing aileron mass balance is
a real "belt and suspenders" approach to eliminating any possible flutter scenario,
but it could happen where a chain of events result in totally slack cables.
So they're including it. And I'll put it in my own airplane.
I can easily foresee insurance agencies and even the FAA making things sticky in
the future unless the whole package is used. I'm sure my favorite A&P/AI would
insist upon the whole enchilada during the next condition inspection. And even
if it's overkill for my particular flying, I'll still do it to avoid any future
degradation of aircraft value or insurance difficulties or just if I happen
to miss something during a preflight.
Hey, it couldn't hurt.
Rick Lindstrom
ZenVair 601XL N42KP
-----Original Message-----
>From: Jim Belcher <z601a@anemicaardvark.com>
>Sent: Nov 12, 2009 3:51 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: upgrade decisions
>
>
>On Thursday 12 November 2009 14:41, jaybannist@cs.com wrote:
>> Jim,
>>
>> While I agree with Chris that these mods are not really necessary, we now
>> have them on the table. That makes them more or less mandatory, not
>> necessarily from an engineering standpoint, but certainly from a
>> regulatory, insurance and liability standpoint.
>>
>> The original airframe was designed as a whole. You wouldn't have
>> considered leaving out some of the rivets, because they somehow looked
>> redundant, would you ? These mods have also been designed as a whole. I
>> personally would not try to second guess the designer nor the reason for
>> each separate part of the mods. I would instead guess that they are all a
>> part of a structural system, not individual "area" upgrades, assignable to
>> a particular questionable area.
>
>I think some of them are, and some of them aren't. I doubt the mass balance in
>the ailerons, for example, has anything to do with the stiffners under the
>seat.
>
>The beefed up rear spar attach has not much to do with anything, according to
>Zenith. I communicated with them on this subject several weeks, and was
>assured the forces on this are minimal. That matches what I know from the
>design of the rear spar attach on other aircraft.
>
>...and so on. Once again, this is an experimental aircraft. I'm not saying I
>will leave any of these out, just that I consider the whole thing open for
>individual decision. I'm still deciding.
>--
>============================================
> 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 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: | Upgrade Decisions |
Well stated. Thank you.
Doug Norman
N601DN
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Lindstrom
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Upgrade Decisions
I was thinking along the very same lines, Jim, until I had a long conversation
with Mathieu Heintz at Zenair this morning. Frankly, I didn't see the need to
add aileron counterweights either, as long as the rest of the mods were installed.
But Mathieu says he's really tired of visiting crash sites with the NTSB
(he's been to all in North America), and sees the whole package as just increasing
the 601 safety margins as much as possible. Who can argue with that?
He strongly feels that overloading the airframe is what has caused the majority
of these in-flight breakups, and it's not that hard to do with high airspeeds,
partial fuel, a single occupant, an aft CG, especially when compounded by neglected
maintenance or an inadequate preflight inspection. Once the wing has been
overstressed and possibly deformed, it's very likely that the aileron cables
could go slack, setting up an airframe harmonic vibration or flutter that quickly
destroys the wing.
We talked about what happens when some really big guy gets in, sharply moves the
stick to the side and accidently overstresses the aileron control system and
slackens the cables (it only takes 40 pounds of pressure). Or when the airplane
is tied down and encounters sharp gusts on its control surfaces, which can
also wreck the bellcrank system if left to flap around in the wind. (I recall
seeing some dramatic pictures of 601 gust damage online not too long ago.)
My 601XL has always lived in a hangar, I'm the only who flies it (in good weather
and gently), and I'm pretty anal when it comes to maintenance. So I could probably
fly the airplane without any modifications until the cows came home without
any problem. But you can't always forecast severe vertical gusts or just
plain passenger stupidity, so you have to design with these things in mind. Mathieu
also shared that Chris was aghast at how some of the 601s were being flown,
modified, or neglected, and we openly wondered if our society had been dumbed
down to the point of eliminating our ability to properly assess personal
risk.
But that's a whole different discussion, and the best solution set that Zenith
has developed over the last year addresses every possible way the airplane could
come apart in the air, and is included in the upgrade package. In the mean
time, they recommended flying slower and with less weight to be on the safe side.
Admittedly, beefing up the airframe AND installing aileron mass balance is
a real "belt and suspenders" approach to eliminating any possible flutter scenario,
but it could happen where a chain of events result in totally slack cables.
So they're including it. And I'll put it in my own airplane.
I can easily foresee insurance agencies and even the FAA making things sticky in
the future unless the whole package is used. I'm sure my favorite A&P/AI would
insist upon the whole enchilada during the next condition inspection. And even
if it's overkill for my particular flying, I'll still do it to avoid any future
degradation of aircraft value or insurance difficulties or just if I happen
to miss something during a preflight.
Hey, it couldn't hurt.
Rick Lindstrom
ZenVair 601XL N42KP
-----Original Message-----
>From: Jim Belcher <z601a@anemicaardvark.com>
>Sent: Nov 12, 2009 3:51 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: upgrade decisions
>
>
>On Thursday 12 November 2009 14:41, jaybannist@cs.com wrote:
>> Jim,
>>
>> While I agree with Chris that these mods are not really necessary, we now
>> have them on the table. That makes them more or less mandatory, not
>> necessarily from an engineering standpoint, but certainly from a
>> regulatory, insurance and liability standpoint.
>>
>> The original airframe was designed as a whole. You wouldn't have
>> considered leaving out some of the rivets, because they somehow looked
>> redundant, would you ? These mods have also been designed as a whole. I
>> personally would not try to second guess the designer nor the reason for
>> each separate part of the mods. I would instead guess that they are all a
>> part of a structural system, not individual "area" upgrades, assignable to
>> a particular questionable area.
>
>I think some of them are, and some of them aren't. I doubt the mass balance in
>the ailerons, for example, has anything to do with the stiffners under the
>seat.
>
>The beefed up rear spar attach has not much to do with anything, according to
>Zenith. I communicated with them on this subject several weeks, and was
>assured the forces on this are minimal. That matches what I know from the
>design of the rear spar attach on other aircraft.
>
>...and so on. Once again, this is an experimental aircraft. I'm not saying I
>will leave any of these out, just that I consider the whole thing open for
>individual decision. I'm still deciding.
>--
>============================================
> 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 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 |
C'mon, Bryan, we've never let that stop us before, why start now?
Paul R
Breathlessly awaiting the opportunity to gain more building and
re-building experience
----- Original Message -----
From: Bryan Martin<mailto:bryanmmartin@comcast.net>
To: zenith-list@matronics.com<mailto:zenith-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Zenith liability
<bryanmmartin@comcast.net<mailto:bryanmmartin@comcast.net>>
It will be months before we have any valid information about the
accident. There's no point in speculating about it now as that
speculation will be based on almost total ignorance.
On Nov 11, 2009, at 12:42 PM, Joe wrote:
<backstagelive@gmail.com<mailto:backstagelive@gmail.com>>
>
> I have been going over these posts and would like to know if anyone
> knows what the probable cause of the recent accident was. I'm sorry
> of I missed it. Could the pilot, who I think it was posted that he
> was in his 70's, have had a serious medical condition that could
> have overstressed the plane? If that were the case, maybe we are
> getting way ahead of ourselves. I agree the accident may have caused
> the Heinz family to announce the new changes way ahead of their
> schedule. You can pull the wings off of ANY plane if the pilot is
> incapacitated first.
>
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
www.aeroelectric.com<http://www.aeroelectric.com/>
www.buildersbooks.com<http://www.buildersbooks.com/>
www.homebuilthelp.com<http://www.homebuilthelp.com/>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution<http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List<http://www.matronics.com/N
avigator?Zenith-List>
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: | Upgrade Decisions |
Rick i also=2C will do the whole enchilada and your right ! like chicken
soup " it couldnt hurt"
Larry Webber601xl/rhode island/corvair chugger
> Date: Thu=2C 12 Nov 2009 17:26:26 -0500
> From: tigerrick@mindspring.com
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Upgrade Decisions
>
om>
>
> I was thinking along the very same lines=2C Jim=2C until I had a long con
versation with Mathieu Heintz at Zenair this morning. Frankly=2C I didn't s
ee the need to add aileron counterweights either=2C as long as the rest of
the mods were installed. But Mathieu says he's really tired of visiting cra
sh sites with the NTSB (he's been to all in North America)=2C and sees the
whole package as just increasing the 601 safety margins as much as possible
. Who can argue with that?
>
> He strongly feels that overloading the airframe is what has caused the ma
jority of these in-flight breakups=2C and it's not that hard to do with hig
h airspeeds=2C partial fuel=2C a single occupant=2C an aft CG=2C especially
when compounded by neglected maintenance or an inadequate preflight inspec
tion. Once the wing has been overstressed and possibly deformed=2C it's ver
y likely that the aileron cables could go slack=2C setting up an airframe h
armonic vibration or flutter that quickly destroys the wing.
>
> We talked about what happens when some really big guy gets in=2C sharply
moves the stick to the side and accidently overstresses the aileron control
system and slackens the cables (it only takes 40 pounds of pressure). Or w
hen the airplane is tied down and encounters sharp gusts on its control sur
faces=2C which can also wreck the bellcrank system if left to flap around i
n the wind. (I recall seeing some dramatic pictures of 601 gust damage onli
ne not too long ago.)
>
> My 601XL has always lived in a hangar=2C I'm the only who flies it (in go
od weather and gently)=2C and I'm pretty anal when it comes to maintenance.
So I could probably fly the airplane without any modifications until the c
ows came home without any problem. But you can't always forecast severe ver
tical gusts or just plain passenger stupidity=2C so you have to design with
these things in mind. Mathieu also shared that Chris was aghast at how som
e of the 601s were being flown=2C modified=2C or neglected=2C and we openly
wondered if our society had been dumbed down to the point of eliminating o
ur ability to properly assess personal risk.
>
> But that's a whole different discussion=2C and the best solution set that
Zenith has developed over the last year addresses every possible way the a
irplane could come apart in the air=2C and is included in the upgrade packa
ge. In the mean time=2C they recommended flying slower and with less weight
to be on the safe side. Admittedly=2C beefing up the airframe AND installi
ng aileron mass balance is a real "belt and suspenders" approach to elimina
ting any possible flutter scenario=2C but it could happen where a chain of
events result in totally slack cables. So they're including it. And I'll pu
t it in my own airplane.
>
> I can easily foresee insurance agencies and even the FAA making things st
icky in the future unless the whole package is used. I'm sure my favorite A
&P/AI would insist upon the whole enchilada during the next condition inspe
ction. And even if it's overkill for my particular flying=2C I'll still do
it to avoid any future degradation of aircraft value or insurance difficult
ies or just if I happen to miss something during a preflight.
>
> Hey=2C it couldn't hurt.
>
> Rick Lindstrom
> ZenVair 601XL N42KP
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Jim Belcher <z601a@anemicaardvark.com>
> >Sent: Nov 12=2C 2009 3:51 PM
> >To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: Re: Zenith-List: upgrade decisions
> >
>
> >
> >On Thursday 12 November 2009 14:41=2C jaybannist@cs.com wrote:
> >> Jim=2C
> >>
> >> While I agree with Chris that these mods are not really necessary=2C w
e now
> >> have them on the table. That makes them more or less mandatory=2C not
> >> necessarily from an engineering standpoint=2C but certainly from a
> >> regulatory=2C insurance and liability standpoint.
> >>
> >> The original airframe was designed as a whole. You wouldn't have
> >> considered leaving out some of the rivets=2C because they somehow look
ed
> >> redundant=2C would you ? These mods have also been designed as a whole
. I
> >> personally would not try to second guess the designer nor the reason f
or
> >> each separate part of the mods. I would instead guess that they are al
l a
> >> part of a structural system=2C not individual "area" upgrades=2C assig
nable to
> >> a particular questionable area.
> >
> >I think some of them are=2C and some of them aren't. I doubt the mass ba
lance in
> >the ailerons=2C for example=2C has anything to do with the stiffners und
er the
> >seat.
> >
> >The beefed up rear spar attach has not much to do with anything=2C accor
ding to
> >Zenith. I communicated with them on this subject several weeks=2C and wa
s
> >assured the forces on this are minimal. That matches what I know from th
e
> >design of the rear spar attach on other aircraft.
> >
> >...and so on. Once again=2C this is an experimental aircraft. I'm not sa
ying I
> >will leave any of these out=2C just that I consider the whole thing open
for
> >individual decision. I'm still deciding.
> >--
> >========================
====================
> > Do not archive.
> >========================
====================
> > Jim B Belcher
> > BS=2C MS Physics=2C Math=2C Computer Science
> > A&P/IA
> > Retired aerospace technical manager
> >
> > Mathematics and alcohol do not mix.
> > Do not drink and derive.
> >========================
====================
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
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: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
Just do it and live happily ever after! Lets not involve lawyers.
John Read
CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300
Phone: 303-648-3261
Fax: 303-648-3262
Cell: 719-494-4567
In a message dated 11/11/2009 10:43:03 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
chicago2paris@msn.com writes:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris@msn.com>
Craig,
If the upgrade is lawyer driven, then we deserve better.
I would still like to see the new "numbers" for the original design.
Once all the smoke clears, I am hoping for a "light" version of the
upgrade with a de-rated airframe. That is the maneuvering Paul speaks of.
I love my lawyers! :O)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272409#272409
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: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
The flames are getting higher!
John Read
CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300
Phone: 303-648-3261
Fax: 303-648-3262
Cell: 719-494-4567
In a message dated 11/12/2009 12:22:38 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
greg@gas-n-go.com.au writes:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Greg Cox" <greg@gas-n-go.com.au>
Sabrina,
If you don't agree with CH's upgrade, then design and carry out your own
upgrade then spend your money testing your design. If yours is an
improvement on CH's then you should be able to market it and sell it to
other builders without any problems.
Regards,
Greg Cox
Zenith Zodiac CH650
Sydney, Australia
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sabrina
Sent: Thursday, 12 November 2009 4:42 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650
Craig,
If the upgrade is lawyer driven, then we deserve better.
I would still like to see the new "numbers" for the original design.
Once all the smoke clears, I am hoping for a "light" version of the upgrade
with a de-rated airframe. That is the maneuvering Paul speaks of.
I love my lawyers! :O)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272409#272409
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: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
I must admit that the Zenith upgrade videos on their factory demo are good.
I can't wait to see the center spar ones.
I would really like to see the spar cap change out in person, esp. if anyone is
solid riveting the new spar cap.
I am driving from Chicago to Miami the weekend before Christmas and back the weekend
after Christmas. If anyone, by that time, has their upgrade kit in hand
and aircraft apart along the route, I would love to be a second pair of hands
for a few hours.
I don't have enough free time to do anything on my airplane until Spring Break.
By that time we should have a couple dozen flying and proving the new design.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272535#272535
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: | XL/650 new airworthiness certificates suspended |
>From the EAA News hot off the presses. Just in case you haven't seen it.
Unprecedented Action
FAA grounds Zodiac 601XL and 605 S-LSA until compliance with AMD Safety
Alert
For the first time in history, the FAA has suspended issuance of any new
airworthiness certificates for an entire fleet of special light-sport
aircraft (S-LSA) - the Zodiac CH601XL and CH650 - and the FAA will not issue
airworthiness certificates to experimental light-sport aircraft (E-LSA) and
amateur built versions of CH601XL and CH605 aircraft until modified in a
manner consistent with the manufacturer's safety alert is performed.
http://www.eaa.org/news/2009/2009-11-12_safety_alert.asp
Mitch Hodges
N601MH (HDS)
Wings under perpetual construction
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: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
Sabrina, Sabrina,
Chris's statement that he was bound to confidentiality, because the NTSB
requires it, can be substantiated by what happened to the controllers after
the Boston helicopter accident. Remember, they were excluded from the
hearings, because they went public -- stating that the controller was
wrongly accused for the accident.
Now, I'm sure that if your attorney discussed this point with NSTB's
attorneys instead of one of their investigators, this confidentiality clause
would have been confirmed.....
What is this world coming to? One cannot defend oneself!
You now say you will not modify your plane if the Heinz family base their
decisions on their lawyers advise.
Do you realize what you are asking for?
I've watched this trash talking for well over a year -- so much so that I,
as well as others, have grown very tired of it.
Many of you have been crying for a fix and now that you have it -- you don't
like it.
I suppose that you all want egg in your beer as well.
Mack Kreizenbeck
601XL/3300
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! --
|