---------------------------------------------------------- Zenith-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 04/12/11: 4 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:38:56 PM PST US From: Lawrence Webber 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=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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:21:27 PM PST US From: "Steve Freeman" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: 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 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 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; 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:45:51 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been published From: "Ron Lendon" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:45:53 PM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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" > > 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.