Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:38 PM - Re: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been published (Lawrence Webber)
2. 06:21 PM - Re: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been published (Steve Freeman)
3. 06:45 PM - Re: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been published (Ron Lendon)
4. 07:45 PM - Re: Re: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been published (Paul Mulwitz)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been |
published
you
Larry
From: psm@ATT.NET
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been
published
Hi Larry=2C
If you have a problem with my post=2C perhaps you can find a more erudite w
ay to express it.
So=2C what exactly is your problem?
Paul
On 4/11/2011 5:37 PM=2C Lawrence Webber wrote:
HERE WE F%&%g GO AGAIN !!!!
Larry
From: psm@att.net
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been
published
Hi Bill=2C
I agree with everything you said - I think. I admit I didn't really unders
tand all the technical details of the Dutch report=2C but I think it points
to flutter and weak wings as the cause of their particular accident.
They also added a lot of details to the whole story that I hadn't heard bef
ore. One interesting point was the French in-flight failure that didn't re
sult in a fatality because of a ballistic 'chute. The pilot of that incide
nt reported flutter before the wing failed. Another interesting point (to
me) was the report that the solid rivets holding the wing spars together fa
iled in the shear direction. I can't imagine how this could happen in a pr
operly designed wing. That could be just my shortcoming.
I think they clearly said they "Think" flutter caused the start of the inci
dent in the Netherlands. The FAA managers I have spoken to told me they ha
d evidence of flutter in the accidents they investigated but they couldn't
determine if the flutter caused the structure failure or the structure fail
ure caused the flutter. They also told me in no uncertain terms that befor
e the upgrade the aircraft did not meet the appropriate design standards an
d after the upgrade it does.
For me the bottom line is we should all install the upgrade package in our
planes. This is what the FAA demands=2C the folks at ZAC tell us to do and
now the Dutch seem to agree with. The Dutch report singles out aileron ba
lance and reinforcing RR-7 as key elements=2C but I think they also said th
e spar structure needs help too.
Paul
Nearly finished installing upgrade.
On 4/11/2011 11:49 AM=2C japhillipsga@aol.com wrote:
I read the Dutch report and found it sufficiently informative. I may be the
only builder and flyer that sees that the report says the ZAC host modific
ations and upgrades though painful to perform are the solution. Maybe not
=2C maybe so??? Not knowing much about metallurgy=2C force torsion and comp
ression issues I have to rely on folks educated differently than I. I suppo
se those dull Dutch experts may have really screwed up by publishing this r
eport and failing to ask our expert=2C Mr. Paul R.=2C to approve their inve
stigation and findings. I know I'd feel more secure if they had got some mo
re opinions from such experts as I fly my XL-B around the sky's of Georgia.
Seems like about half of the 24 page report spoke to the issue of weak win
g strength=2C weak rear spar attachment material=2C unbalanced ailerons and
the propensity for loose control cables in flexible wings to get even more
slack and nurture flutter conditions. I think the Dutch folks make it fair
ly clear that flutter took the wing off or did I miss something? I made the
ZAC modifications and several others to my XL-B last year and fly her now.
She flys well and stronge=2C but she always did. I also have a RV-8a I bui
lt and I think the XL-B wing spar I assembled is about as strong=2C maybe s
tronger. Course=2C I don't suppose the value of my plane will ever rise muc
h above salvage value for possible sale and we all have our ZBAG Busy Body
folks to thank for the many thousands of dollars of cost to each of us. Won
der if this whole business could have been handled a different way? Lots o
f plane crash. Why was the XL and ZAC singled out for this treatment? This
is my last thought I'm going to waste on the subject=2C fly happy and often
=2C Bill Phillips
-----Original Message-----
From: paulrod36 <paulrod36@msn.com>
Sent: Mon=2C Apr 11=2C 2011 12:48 pm
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been
published
This is an investigation? I've seen better investigations into a purse-snat
ching ring. Where are the descriptions of the extent=2C type=2C and directi
on of damage? Any indications of sequential failure? Any torsional=2C comp
ressive=2C or tensional irregularities? Metallurgical analyses? Popped rive
ts? Sheared bolts? Torn bolt holes? Rear carry-through compression? It took
them three years to complete a report that could have been accurately summ
arized in one sentence----"It done broke." Disappointing at best.
Paul R
----- Original Message -----
From: Terry Phillips
Sent: Monday=2C April 11=2C 2011 10:59 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been publ
ished
The IVW have published their final report on the Markermeer accident=3B
follow the link on:
http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/index.php/onderzoeken/inflight-break-up-200
8107/#rapporten
In my opinion it is an excellent report.
I have also posted the IVW report=2C as well as=2C additional information t
o
the ZBAG Yahoo Group file section in the Markermeer Folder.
Terry
--
Terry Phillips
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
ZU-601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail& flaps are done
=3B
Upgrading wings& ailerons per AMD Safety Directive
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/http://www.matronnbsp=3B via the Web title
=http://forums.matronics.com/ href="http://forums.matronics.com"http://
forums.matronics.com
_p=3B generous bsp=3B title=http://www.matroni
cs.com/contribution href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution"http://ww
w.matronics.com/c================
t=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
forums.matronics.com
k>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
ttp://forums.matronics.com
=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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: | Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been |
published
Boys.take it off list!
Do not archive.
steve
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lawrence Webber
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 5:36 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been
published
you
Larry
_____
From: psm@ATT.NET
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been
published
Hi Larry,
If you have a problem with my post, perhaps you can find a more erudite way
to express it.
So, what exactly is your problem?
Paul
On 4/11/2011 5:37 PM, Lawrence Webber wrote:
HERE WE F%&%g GO AGAIN !!!!
Larry
_____
From: psm@att.net
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been
published
Hi Bill,
I agree with everything you said - I think. I admit I didn't really
understand all the technical details of the Dutch report, but I think it
points to flutter and weak wings as the cause of their particular accident.
They also added a lot of details to the whole story that I hadn't heard
before. One interesting point was the French in-flight failure that didn't
result in a fatality because of a ballistic 'chute. The pilot of that
incident reported flutter before the wing failed. Another interesting point
(to me) was the report that the solid rivets holding the wing spars together
failed in the shear direction. I can't imagine how this could happen in a
properly designed wing. That could be just my shortcoming.
I think they clearly said they "Think" flutter caused the start of the
incident in the Netherlands. The FAA managers I have spoken to told me they
had evidence of flutter in the accidents they investigated but they couldn't
determine if the flutter caused the structure failure or the structure
failure caused the flutter. They also told me in no uncertain terms that
before the upgrade the aircraft did not meet the appropriate design
standards and after the upgrade it does.
For me the bottom line is we should all install the upgrade package in our
planes. This is what the FAA demands, the folks at ZAC tell us to do and
now the Dutch seem to agree with. The Dutch report singles out aileron
balance and reinforcing RR-7 as key elements, but I think they also said the
spar structure needs help too.
Paul
Nearly finished installing upgrade.
On 4/11/2011 11:49 AM, japhillipsga@aol.com wrote:
I read the Dutch report and found it sufficiently informative. I may be the
only builder and flyer that sees that the report says the ZAC host
modifications and upgrades though painful to perform are the solution. Maybe
not, maybe so??? Not knowing much about metallurgy, force torsion and
compression issues I have to rely on folks educated differently than I. I
suppose those dull Dutch experts may have really screwed up by publishing
this report and failing to ask our expert, Mr. Paul R., to approve their
investigation and findings. I know I'd feel more secure if they had got some
more opinions from such experts as I fly my XL-B around the sky's of
Georgia. Seems like about half of the 24 page report spoke to the issue of
weak wing strength, weak rear spar attachment material, unbalanced ailerons
and the propensity for loose control cables in flexible wings to get even
more slack and nurture flutter conditions. I think the Dutch folks make it
fairly clear that flutter took the wing off or did I miss something? I made
the ZAC modifications and several others to my XL-B last year and fly her
now. She flys well and stronge, but she always did. I also have a RV-8a I
built and I think the XL-B wing spar I assembled is about as strong, maybe
stronger. Course, I don't suppose the value of my plane will ever rise much
above salvage value for possible sale and we all have our ZBAG Busy Body
folks to thank for the many thousands of dollars of cost to each of us.
Wonder if this whole business could have been handled a different way? Lots
of plane crash. Why was the XL and ZAC singled out for this treatment? This
is my last thought I'm going to waste on the subject, fly happy and often,
Bill Phillips
-----Original Message-----
From: paulrod36 <mailto:paulrod36@msn.com> <paulrod36@msn.com>
<zenith-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Mon, Apr 11, 2011 12:48 pm
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been
published
This is an investigation? I've seen better investigations into a
purse-snatching ring. Where are the descriptions of the extent, type, and
direction of damage? Any indications of sequential failure? Any torsional,
compressive, or tensional irregularities? Metallurgical analyses? Popped
rivets? Sheared bolts? Torn bolt holes? Rear carry-through compression? It
took them three years to complete a report that could have been accurately
summarized in one sentence----"It done broke." Disappointing at best.
Paul R
----- Original Message -----
From: Terry Phillips <mailto:ttp44@rkymtn.net>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 10:59 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been
published
The IVW have published their final report on the Markermeer accident;
follow the link on:
http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/index.php/onderzoeken/inflight-break-up-2008
107/#rapporten
In my opinion it is an excellent report.
I have also posted the IVW report, as well as, additional information to
the ZBAG Yahoo Group file section in the Markermeer Folder.
Terry
--
Terry Phillips
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
ZU-601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail& flaps are done;
Upgrading wings& ailerons per AMD Safety Directive
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/http://www.matronnbsp;
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List> via the Web
title=http://forums.matronics.com/
href="http://forums.matronics.com"http://forums.matronics.com
_p; generous bsp;
title=http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution"http://www.matronics.com/c=====
==========
t=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
forums.matronics.com
k>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
ttp://forums.matronics.com
=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
ttp://forums.matronics.com
=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been published |
Paul,
That's the good thing about our country you are free to make your own decisions.
With that freedom also comes risk.
I don't think we will see many more of these designs falling out of the sky. The
ones that are flying without the upgrade are most likely well within the flight
envelope now.
There has been enough talk about the short comings of the design and not enough
talk about the piloting skills. This design flies very docile but you have to
be very light on the controls. Even with the upgrade and control limit modifications,
you must be light on the controls.
Also it is a LSA, so bring your wind and gust factor minimums down to a lower value
for the go/no go decision. That's the type of conversations I think we should
be having. Flying safe is not a function of the equipment (although it is
a factor), thats the pilots responsibility.
--------
Ron Lendon, Detroit, MI
WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing
Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Corvair Engine Prints:
http://www.zenith.aero/profile/RonLendon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336774#336774
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: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been |
published
All good points, Ron.
I finally lost possession of a S-LSA I've had on a lease for nearly two
years. I used it to get my flying skills back up to speed after some 25
years on the ground. It took me something like 30 or 40 hours to get to
the point where I could make predictable good landings. I don't think
there was ever a safety risk, but to do a good job took skills I just
didn't develop flying heavier airplanes.
The new owner of the plane arrived here Friday night and on Saturday I
tried to get him up to speed flying this plane. It was his first time
in an LSA, but he had nearly 1000 hours and thought it would be a simple
transition. I did my best (I'm not an instructor) and he felt confident
enough to solo after about 3 hours observing me fly the plane and
practicing his own flying. I wasn't really comfortable with him flying
it all the way to Ohio from Washington state with a stop for family
visit in Utah, but it was his plane and he was completely legal as far
as I know. He emailed updates to me and a bunch of other people about
his trip. On the second day he blew a tire landing at Ogden Utah. This
all just is a long way of agreeing with you that enhanced flying skill -
especially the need to learn new tricks to fly very light planes - is
something that just doesn't come easy.
I think it is a sad truth that the fact a person can build a very nice
plane says nothing at all about his ability to fly it. We see lots of
accidents in the experimental community because of this simple truth. I
can't imagine there is much of any way to fix this. The FAA is starting
to concentrate on second owners of home built planes needing good
transition training, but for the original owner it is all a mater of
personal discipline.
I've never seen any numbers on demonstrated cross wind landings for the
Zodiac XL. Have you? The Tecnam Echo I was flying has a high wing and
demonstrated 15 knot crosswind, but I would certainly not want to try
that trick. The Zodiac might be a little better because of the low wing.
Paul.
On 4/12/2011 6:42 PM, Ron Lendon wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Ron Lendon"<ron.lendon@gmail.com>
>
> Paul,
>
> That's the good thing about our country you are free to make your own decisions.
With that freedom also comes risk.
>
> I don't think we will see many more of these designs falling out of the sky.
The ones that are flying without the upgrade are most likely well within the flight
envelope now.
>
> There has been enough talk about the short comings of the design and not enough
talk about the piloting skills. This design flies very docile but you have
to be very light on the controls. Even with the upgrade and control limit modifications,
you must be light on the controls.
>
> Also it is a LSA, so bring your wind and gust factor minimums down to a lower
value for the go/no go decision. That's the type of conversations I think we
should be having. Flying safe is not a function of the equipment (although it
is a factor), thats the pilots responsibility.
>
> --------
> Ron Lendon, Detroit, MI
> WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing
> Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
> http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
> Corvair Engine Prints:
> http://www.zenith.aero/profile/RonLendon
>
>
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! --
|