Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:38 AM - Chat Room (George Race)
2. 06:45 AM - Re: Re: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been published (Juan Vega)
3. 06:48 AM - Re: Re: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been published (Juan Vega)
4. 08:25 AM - Re: Re: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been published (Paul Mulwitz)
5. 09:39 AM - Re: Re: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been published (Juan Vega)
6. 09:50 AM - Re: Re: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been published (Paul Mulwitz)
7. 10:34 AM - Re: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been published (Juan Vega)
8. 10:48 AM - Re: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been published (Paul Mulwitz)
9. 12:28 PM - Re: Re: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been published (wadejones)
10. 12:54 PM - Re: Re: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been published (purplemoon99@bellsouth.net)
11. 04:34 PM - Re: Re: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been published (Bryan Martin)
12. 07:17 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 |
|
Live Chat Room every Monday evening around 8:00 EDT
http://www.mykitairplane.com <blocked::http://www.mykitairplane.com/>
Click on the Chat Room link at the top of the page.
George
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: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been |
published
Paul;
Your quote "That, in my opinion, is why they used the "Nuclear Option"
of declaring the XL un-airworthy and threatening to ground any pilot
caught flying it" I have to call false and misleading. Thats a big
10 on the BS-ometer.
The facts are, if you have a Zodiac with NO mods done, you are perfectly Legal,
so long as it is E-AB. The FAA cannot do anything about it. If you need
it insured, thats another story. Paid cash and non insured? No problem you
can fly to your hearts content. And frasnkly probably with no issues for a loooooong
time.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net>
>Sent: Apr 11, 2011 11:16 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been
published
>
>
>Hi Ron,
>
>The other side of that argument - "does not meet the criteria for an
>Airworthiness Directive (AD)" would apply to all experimental and LSA
>aircraft. Only type certificated aircraft can be the object of an AD.
>
> From the bureaucratic point of view, the whole Zodiac XL issue falls
>into the cracks. If it were just a kit plane the FAA would have
>probably ignored the whole thing. The fact that people could buy
>factory built S-LSA versions led them to the point that they had to do
>something but the existing regulatory environment didn't really allow
>them to do much. You see, it is the manufacturer that controls LSAs not
>the FAA. When they issued the SAIB they said, in effect, that AMD and
>the FAA required people to install the change. Since the kit version of
>the Zodiac is exactly the same as the S-LSA (if you don't count the
>difference between a factory built plane and one built buy the person
>who intends to fly it) the decisions made for the AMD version had to
>also apply to the kit plane, E-AB, version. This just didn't work when
>you put all the rules and lack of rules together. It was the first big
>test of the new LSA rules and a very sticky one from the FAA's
>perspective. That, in my opinion, is why they used the "Nuclear Option"
>of declaring the XL un-airworthy and threatening to ground any pilot
>caught flying it.
>
>If only the documents released by the FAA were easier to interpret we
>would all have the same understanding of the actual facts in this whole
>mess. Alas, what we got was government speak and a need for advanced
>degrees in aeronautical engineering to get the actual message.
>
>I know some people are holding on to their faith in Chris Heintz when he
>said there is nothing wrong with the XL design and continuing to fly the
>plane that the FAA has found un-airworthy. I wish it were something
>that could be easily fixed (that is to get them to install the upgrade)
>but apparently it will take more deaths to get the real message across.
>
>Paul
>
>On 4/11/2011 7:40 PM, Ron Lendon wrote:
>> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Ron Lendon"<ron.lendon@gmail.com>
>>
>> Paul,
>>
>> This is right from the FAA site:
>>
>>
>>> Special Airworthiness Information Bulletins (SAIB)
>>>
>>> A Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) is an information tool
that alerts, educates, and makes recommendations to the aviation community. SAIBs
contain non-regulatory information and guidance that does not meet the criteria
for an Airworthiness Directive (AD).
>>
>> Key words here are non-regulatory.
>>
>> FYI
>>
>> --------
>> 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=336687#336687
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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;
yes you did.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net>
>Sent: Apr 11, 2011 9:21 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been
published
>
>
>Hi Ron,
>
>I don't understand your comment that installing the upgrade is your
>choice here.
>
>The way I read the SAIB published by the FAA in November 2009 was if any
>pilot is caught flying a Zodiac XL without the upgrade installed they
>will have their license revoked. The way they worded it was they have
>determined that the Zodiac XL without the upgrade installed is not
>airworthy and any pilot who flies a non-airworthy plane will lose their
>pilot's license. This is what I called the "Nuclear Option" at the time.
>
>Did I misunderstand something?
>
>Paul
>
>On 4/11/2011 6:10 PM, Ron Lendon wrote:
>> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Ron Lendon"<ron.lendon@gmail.com>
>>
>> That's all well and good but I must point out, the Airplane in question was
built to different standards (lighter material) than the LSA versions. Therefore
postulating on these results is only academic opinion.
>>
>> Installing the upgrade is your choice here in the USA if your airplane is already
flying. If you don't have the airworthiness certificate, you must, or you
probably won't get one.
>>
>> These discussions can be misleading when apples and oranges are being compared.
>>
>> On a brighter note, making progress toward having a flyable XLB.
>>
>> --------
>> 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=336677#336677
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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
Hi Juan,
I decided to look up the actual document in question to determine
whether I imagined the "Nuclear Option" or not. It appears I did use my
own brain a little bit interpreting the black and white facts. The
simple truth is the SAIB:
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/light_sport/media/Zodiac_Appendix.pdf
says they " . . . strongly recommend compliance with the drawings and
instructions contained in the AMD Safety Directive . . . ". It then
goes on immediately to quote FAR 91.7 which says "No person may operate
a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition". This is all
under the heading "For amateur built and E-LSA operators"
So the threat they would pull your license if you don't comply and go
ahead and fly the airplane in an un-airworthy condition (the implication
is that the XL without the AMD update is not airworthy) is a conclusion
on my part rather than a direct statement. If you want to test this
conclusion, I suggest you ask your local FAA FSDO how they feel about
you flying a Zodiac XL without the upgrade. I predict that will give
you an opportunity to save a lot of money you might otherwise have spent
on avgas.
I attached a photo copy of the applicable area in the SAIB. It is in
appendix I near the end of the document.
I am glad I went through this exercise. It turns out the guy whose name
appears at the bottom of this statement, Wes Ryan, is the same guy I had
a long chat with in November 2010 at an ASTM meeting. He told me in no
uncertain terms that the design was deficient before the upgrade and
meets the required ASTM specification after the upgrade.
Paul
nearing first flight after installing upgrade
On 4/18/2011 6:42 AM, Juan Vega wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Juan Vega<amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
>
> Paul;
> Your quote "That, in my opinion, is why they used the "Nuclear Option"
> of declaring the XL un-airworthy and threatening to ground any pilot
> caught flying it" I have to call false and misleading. Thats a
big 10 on the BS-ometer.
>
> The facts are, if you have a Zodiac with NO mods done, you are perfectly Legal,
so long as it is E-AB. The FAA cannot do anything about it. If you need
it insured, thats another story. Paid cash and non insured? No problem you
can fly to your hearts content. And frasnkly probably with no issues for a
loooooong time.
>
> Juan
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Paul Mulwitz<psm@att.net>
>> Sent: Apr 11, 2011 11:16 PM
>> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been
published
>>
>> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz<psm@att.net>
>>
>> Hi Ron,
>>
>> The other side of that argument - "does not meet the criteria for an
>> Airworthiness Directive (AD)" would apply to all experimental and LSA
>> aircraft. Only type certificated aircraft can be the object of an AD.
>>
>> From the bureaucratic point of view, the whole Zodiac XL issue falls
>> into the cracks. If it were just a kit plane the FAA would have
>> probably ignored the whole thing. The fact that people could buy
>> factory built S-LSA versions led them to the point that they had to do
>> something but the existing regulatory environment didn't really allow
>> them to do much. You see, it is the manufacturer that controls LSAs not
>> the FAA. When they issued the SAIB they said, in effect, that AMD and
>> the FAA required people to install the change. Since the kit version of
>> the Zodiac is exactly the same as the S-LSA (if you don't count the
>> difference between a factory built plane and one built buy the person
>> who intends to fly it) the decisions made for the AMD version had to
>> also apply to the kit plane, E-AB, version. This just didn't work when
>> you put all the rules and lack of rules together. It was the first big
>> test of the new LSA rules and a very sticky one from the FAA's
>> perspective. That, in my opinion, is why they used the "Nuclear Option"
>> of declaring the XL un-airworthy and threatening to ground any pilot
>> caught flying it.
>>
>> If only the documents released by the FAA were easier to interpret we
>> would all have the same understanding of the actual facts in this whole
>> mess. Alas, what we got was government speak and a need for advanced
>> degrees in aeronautical engineering to get the actual message.
>>
>> I know some people are holding on to their faith in Chris Heintz when he
>> said there is nothing wrong with the XL design and continuing to fly the
>> plane that the FAA has found un-airworthy. I wish it were something
>> that could be easily fixed (that is to get them to install the upgrade)
>> but apparently it will take more deaths to get the real message across.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> On 4/11/2011 7:40 PM, Ron Lendon wrote:
>>> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Ron Lendon"<ron.lendon@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Paul,
>>>
>>> This is right from the FAA site:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Special Airworthiness Information Bulletins (SAIB)
>>>>
>>>> A Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) is an information tool
that alerts, educates, and makes recommendations to the aviation community. SAIBs
contain non-regulatory information and guidance that does not meet the criteria
for an Airworthiness Directive (AD).
>>> Key words here are non-regulatory.
>>>
>>> FYI
>>>
>>> --------
>>> 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=336687#336687
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been |
published
Your FAA contact is missinformed and over stepping his boundarys as that is the
realm of the NTSB. The document clearly states, At pilots risk. As E-ab, if
you are the manufacturer, not Zenith. Thus if you think its airworthy, you
the manufacturer, can attach a rocket to the tail and fly it. if i PUT A V12
mERLIN ON IT AND SAY ITS AIRWORTH, i can fly it. Insurance coverage is another
panty wad mess.
Goes to my old saying and the SAIB this year sums it up; fly it within its envelope
and there should be no issues.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net>
>Sent: Apr 18, 2011 11:19 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been
published
>
>Hi Juan,
>
>I decided to look up the actual document in question to determine
>whether I imagined the "Nuclear Option" or not. It appears I did use my
>own brain a little bit interpreting the black and white facts. The
>simple truth is the SAIB:
>http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/light_sport/media/Zodiac_Appendix.pdf
>says they " . . . strongly recommend compliance with the drawings and
>instructions contained in the AMD Safety Directive . . . ". It then
>goes on immediately to quote FAR 91.7 which says "No person may operate
>a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition". This is all
>under the heading "For amateur built and E-LSA operators"
>
>So the threat they would pull your license if you don't comply and go
>ahead and fly the airplane in an un-airworthy condition (the implication
>is that the XL without the AMD update is not airworthy) is a conclusion
>on my part rather than a direct statement. If you want to test this
>conclusion, I suggest you ask your local FAA FSDO how they feel about
>you flying a Zodiac XL without the upgrade. I predict that will give
>you an opportunity to save a lot of money you might otherwise have spent
>on avgas.
>
>I attached a photo copy of the applicable area in the SAIB. It is in
>appendix I near the end of the document.
>
>I am glad I went through this exercise. It turns out the guy whose name
>appears at the bottom of this statement, Wes Ryan, is the same guy I had
>a long chat with in November 2010 at an ASTM meeting. He told me in no
>uncertain terms that the design was deficient before the upgrade and
>meets the required ASTM specification after the upgrade.
>
>Paul
>nearing first flight after installing upgrade
>
>
>On 4/18/2011 6:42 AM, Juan Vega wrote:
>> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Juan Vega<amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
>>
>> Paul;
>> Your quote "That, in my opinion, is why they used the "Nuclear Option"
>> of declaring the XL un-airworthy and threatening to ground any pilot
>> caught flying it" I have to call false and misleading. Thats a
big 10 on the BS-ometer.
>>
>> The facts are, if you have a Zodiac with NO mods done, you are perfectly
Legal, so long as it is E-AB. The FAA cannot do anything about it. If you need
it insured, thats another story. Paid cash and non insured? No problem you
can fly to your hearts content. And frasnkly probably with no issues for a
loooooong time.
>>
>> Juan
>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Paul Mulwitz<psm@att.net>
>>> Sent: Apr 11, 2011 11:16 PM
>>> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has
been published
>>>
>>> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz<psm@att.net>
>>>
>>> Hi Ron,
>>>
>>> The other side of that argument - "does not meet the criteria for an
>>> Airworthiness Directive (AD)" would apply to all experimental and LSA
>>> aircraft. Only type certificated aircraft can be the object of an AD.
>>>
>>> From the bureaucratic point of view, the whole Zodiac XL issue falls
>>> into the cracks. If it were just a kit plane the FAA would have
>>> probably ignored the whole thing. The fact that people could buy
>>> factory built S-LSA versions led them to the point that they had to do
>>> something but the existing regulatory environment didn't really allow
>>> them to do much. You see, it is the manufacturer that controls LSAs not
>>> the FAA. When they issued the SAIB they said, in effect, that AMD and
>>> the FAA required people to install the change. Since the kit version of
>>> the Zodiac is exactly the same as the S-LSA (if you don't count the
>>> difference between a factory built plane and one built buy the person
>>> who intends to fly it) the decisions made for the AMD version had to
>>> also apply to the kit plane, E-AB, version. This just didn't work when
>>> you put all the rules and lack of rules together. It was the first big
>>> test of the new LSA rules and a very sticky one from the FAA's
>>> perspective. That, in my opinion, is why they used the "Nuclear Option"
>>> of declaring the XL un-airworthy and threatening to ground any pilot
>>> caught flying it.
>>>
>>> If only the documents released by the FAA were easier to interpret we
>>> would all have the same understanding of the actual facts in this whole
>>> mess. Alas, what we got was government speak and a need for advanced
>>> degrees in aeronautical engineering to get the actual message.
>>>
>>> I know some people are holding on to their faith in Chris Heintz when he
>>> said there is nothing wrong with the XL design and continuing to fly the
>>> plane that the FAA has found un-airworthy. I wish it were something
>>> that could be easily fixed (that is to get them to install the upgrade)
>>> but apparently it will take more deaths to get the real message across.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> On 4/11/2011 7:40 PM, Ron Lendon wrote:
>>>> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Ron Lendon"<ron.lendon@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> Paul,
>>>>
>>>> This is right from the FAA site:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Special Airworthiness Information Bulletins (SAIB)
>>>>>
>>>>> A Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) is an information tool
that alerts, educates, and makes recommendations to the aviation community.
SAIBs contain non-regulatory information and guidance that does not meet the criteria
for an Airworthiness Directive (AD).
>>>> Key words here are non-regulatory.
>>>>
>>>> FYI
>>>>
>>>> --------
>>>> 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=336687#336687
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
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: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has |
been published
Hi Juan,
I think you are dead wrong. The NTSB doesn't regulate aviation, the FAA
does.
I suppose you are free to do whatever you want, but I hope you don't
really believe you are not putting yourself at risk of punishment for
violating FARs.
I hope we can drop this silly argument over the reality of government
agencies and their functions. If you want to discuss it further, please
do it directly to my email address instead of on the list.
Or even better, Wes Ryan's email address is at the bottom of appendex I
in that document. Perhaps you should write to him and tell him your
opinion of his position.
thanks,
Paul
On 4/18/2011 9:32 AM, Juan Vega wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Juan Vega<amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
>
> Your FAA contact is missinformed and over stepping his boundarys as that is the
realm of the NTSB. The document clearly states, At pilots risk. As E-ab,
if you are the manufacturer, not Zenith. Thus if you think its airworthy, you
the manufacturer, can attach a rocket to the tail and fly it. if i PUT A V12
mERLIN ON IT AND SAY ITS AIRWORTH, i can fly it. Insurance coverage is another
panty wad mess.
>
> Goes to my old saying and the SAIB this year sums it up; fly it within its envelope
and there should be no issues.
>
> Juan
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Paul Mulwitz<psm@att.net>
>> Sent: Apr 18, 2011 11:19 AM
>> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has
been published
>>
>> Hi Juan,
>>
>> I decided to look up the actual document in question to determine
>> whether I imagined the "Nuclear Option" or not. It appears I did use my
>> own brain a little bit interpreting the black and white facts. The
>> simple truth is the SAIB:
>> http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/light_sport/media/Zodiac_Appendix.pdf
>> says they " . . . strongly recommend compliance with the drawings and
>> instructions contained in the AMD Safety Directive . . . ". It then
>> goes on immediately to quote FAR 91.7 which says "No person may operate
>> a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition". This is all
>> under the heading "For amateur built and E-LSA operators"
>>
>> So the threat they would pull your license if you don't comply and go
>> ahead and fly the airplane in an un-airworthy condition (the implication
>> is that the XL without the AMD update is not airworthy) is a conclusion
>> on my part rather than a direct statement. If you want to test this
>> conclusion, I suggest you ask your local FAA FSDO how they feel about
>> you flying a Zodiac XL without the upgrade. I predict that will give
>> you an opportunity to save a lot of money you might otherwise have spent
>> on avgas.
>>
>> I attached a photo copy of the applicable area in the SAIB. It is in
>> appendix I near the end of the document.
>>
>> I am glad I went through this exercise. It turns out the guy whose name
>> appears at the bottom of this statement, Wes Ryan, is the same guy I had
>> a long chat with in November 2010 at an ASTM meeting. He told me in no
>> uncertain terms that the design was deficient before the upgrade and
>> meets the required ASTM specification after the upgrade.
>>
>> Paul
>> nearing first flight after installing upgrade
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/18/2011 6:42 AM, Juan Vega wrote:
>>> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Juan Vega<amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
>>>
>>> Paul;
>>> Your quote "That, in my opinion, is why they used the "Nuclear Option"
>>> of declaring the XL un-airworthy and threatening to ground any pilot
>>> caught flying it" I have to call false and misleading. Thats
a big 10 on the BS-ometer.
>>>
>>> The facts are, if you have a Zodiac with NO mods done, you are perfectly
Legal, so long as it is E-AB. The FAA cannot do anything about it. If you need
it insured, thats another story. Paid cash and non insured? No problem
you can fly to your hearts content. And frasnkly probably with no issues for
a loooooong time.
>>>
>>> Juan
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Paul Mulwitz<psm@att.net>
>>>> Sent: Apr 11, 2011 11:16 PM
>>>> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>>> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has
been published
>>>>
>>>> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz<psm@att.net>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Ron,
>>>>
>>>> The other side of that argument - "does not meet the criteria for an
>>>> Airworthiness Directive (AD)" would apply to all experimental and LSA
>>>> aircraft. Only type certificated aircraft can be the object of an AD.
>>>>
>>>> From the bureaucratic point of view, the whole Zodiac XL issue falls
>>>> into the cracks. If it were just a kit plane the FAA would have
>>>> probably ignored the whole thing. The fact that people could buy
>>>> factory built S-LSA versions led them to the point that they had to do
>>>> something but the existing regulatory environment didn't really allow
>>>> them to do much. You see, it is the manufacturer that controls LSAs not
>>>> the FAA. When they issued the SAIB they said, in effect, that AMD and
>>>> the FAA required people to install the change. Since the kit version of
>>>> the Zodiac is exactly the same as the S-LSA (if you don't count the
>>>> difference between a factory built plane and one built buy the person
>>>> who intends to fly it) the decisions made for the AMD version had to
>>>> also apply to the kit plane, E-AB, version. This just didn't work when
>>>> you put all the rules and lack of rules together. It was the first big
>>>> test of the new LSA rules and a very sticky one from the FAA's
>>>> perspective. That, in my opinion, is why they used the "Nuclear Option"
>>>> of declaring the XL un-airworthy and threatening to ground any pilot
>>>> caught flying it.
>>>>
>>>> If only the documents released by the FAA were easier to interpret we
>>>> would all have the same understanding of the actual facts in this whole
>>>> mess. Alas, what we got was government speak and a need for advanced
>>>> degrees in aeronautical engineering to get the actual message.
>>>>
>>>> I know some people are holding on to their faith in Chris Heintz when he
>>>> said there is nothing wrong with the XL design and continuing to fly the
>>>> plane that the FAA has found un-airworthy. I wish it were something
>>>> that could be easily fixed (that is to get them to install the upgrade)
>>>> but apparently it will take more deaths to get the real message across.
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> On 4/11/2011 7:40 PM, Ron Lendon wrote:
>>>>> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Ron Lendon"<ron.lendon@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul,
>>>>>
>>>>> This is right from the FAA site:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Special Airworthiness Information Bulletins (SAIB)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) is an information tool
that alerts, educates, and makes recommendations to the aviation community.
SAIBs contain non-regulatory information and guidance that does not meet the
criteria for an Airworthiness Directive (AD).
>>>>> Key words here are non-regulatory.
>>>>>
>>>>> FYI
>>>>>
>>>>> --------
>>>>> 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=336687#336687
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
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: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been |
published
Both our problems are that this whole thing is errelevent and that we both think
you need to put some time in the plane before you are deamed the expert. Talk
to me when you put in a couple of 100 hours in the plane.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Mulwitz <psm@ATT.NET>
>Sent: Apr 11, 2011 9:17 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:07:01 -0700
>> From: psm@att.net
>> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>> 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
>> <mailto: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 <paulrod36@msn.com> <mailto:paulrod36@msn.com>
>> To: zenith-list <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>> <mailto: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>
>> *To:* Zenith-List: Matronics <mailto:zenith-list@matronics.com>
>> *Sent:* Monday, April 11, 2011 10:59 AM
>> *Subject:* Zenith-List: Final Report on the Markermeer
>> accident has been published
>>
>> <ttp44@rkymtn.net <mailto:ttp44@rkymtn.net>>
>>
>> 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-2008107/#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
>> <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List>
>> _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
>>
>> *
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
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: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been |
published
I get it. According to you it is all my fault.
On 4/18/2011 10:29 AM, Juan Vega wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Juan Vega<amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
>
> Both our problems are that this whole thing is errelevent and that we both think
you need to put some time in the plane before you are deamed the expert.
Talk to me when you put in a couple of 100 hours in the plane.
>
> Juan
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Paul Mulwitz<psm@ATT.NET>
>> Sent: Apr 11, 2011 9:17 PM
>> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:07:01 -0700
>>> From: psm@att.net
>>> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>> 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
>>> <mailto: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<paulrod36@msn.com> <mailto:paulrod36@msn.com>
>>> To: zenith-list<zenith-list@matronics.com>
>>> <mailto: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>
>>> *To:* Zenith-List: Matronics<mailto:zenith-list@matronics.com>
>>> *Sent:* Monday, April 11, 2011 10:59 AM
>>> *Subject:* Zenith-List: Final Report on the Markermeer
>>> accident has been published
>>>
>>> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Terry Phillips
>>> <ttp44@rkymtn.net<mailto:ttp44@rkymtn.net>>
>>>
>>> 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-2008107/#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
>>> <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List>
>>> _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
>>>
>>> *
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>
>
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: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has |
been published
I will loan you two my boxing gloves ,don't use them anymore . Wade
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Mulwitz" <psm@att.net>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has
been published
>
> Hi Juan,
>
> I think you are dead wrong. The NTSB doesn't regulate aviation, the FAA
> does.
>
> I suppose you are free to do whatever you want, but I hope you don't
> really believe you are not putting yourself at risk of punishment for
> violating FARs.
>
> I hope we can drop this silly argument over the reality of government
> agencies and their functions. If you want to discuss it further, please
> do it directly to my email address instead of on the list.
>
> Or even better, Wes Ryan's email address is at the bottom of appendex I in
> that document. Perhaps you should write to him and tell him your opinion
> of his position.
>
> thanks,
>
> Paul
>
> On 4/18/2011 9:32 AM, Juan Vega wrote:
>> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Juan Vega<amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
>>
>> Your FAA contact is missinformed and over stepping his boundarys as that
>> is the realm of the NTSB. The document clearly states, At pilots risk.
>> As E-ab, if you are the manufacturer, not Zenith. Thus if you think its
>> airworthy, you the manufacturer, can attach a rocket to the tail and fly
>> it. if i PUT A V12 mERLIN ON IT AND SAY ITS AIRWORTH, i can fly it.
>> Insurance coverage is another panty wad mess.
>>
>> Goes to my old saying and the SAIB this year sums it up; fly it within
>> its envelope and there should be no issues.
>>
>> Juan
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Paul Mulwitz<psm@att.net>
>>> Sent: Apr 18, 2011 11:19 AM
>>> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Final Report on the Markermeer accident
>>> has been published
>>>
>>> Hi Juan,
>>>
>>> I decided to look up the actual document in question to determine
>>> whether I imagined the "Nuclear Option" or not. It appears I did use my
>>> own brain a little bit interpreting the black and white facts. The
>>> simple truth is the SAIB:
>>> http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/light_sport/media/Zodiac_Appendix.pdf
>>> says they " . . . strongly recommend compliance with the drawings and
>>> instructions contained in the AMD Safety Directive . . . ". It then
>>> goes on immediately to quote FAR 91.7 which says "No person may operate
>>> a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition". This is all
>>> under the heading "For amateur built and E-LSA operators"
>>>
>>> So the threat they would pull your license if you don't comply and go
>>> ahead and fly the airplane in an un-airworthy condition (the implication
>>> is that the XL without the AMD update is not airworthy) is a conclusion
>>> on my part rather than a direct statement. If you want to test this
>>> conclusion, I suggest you ask your local FAA FSDO how they feel about
>>> you flying a Zodiac XL without the upgrade. I predict that will give
>>> you an opportunity to save a lot of money you might otherwise have spent
>>> on avgas.
>>>
>>> I attached a photo copy of the applicable area in the SAIB. It is in
>>> appendix I near the end of the document.
>>>
>>> I am glad I went through this exercise. It turns out the guy whose name
>>> appears at the bottom of this statement, Wes Ryan, is the same guy I had
>>> a long chat with in November 2010 at an ASTM meeting. He told me in no
>>> uncertain terms that the design was deficient before the upgrade and
>>> meets the required ASTM specification after the upgrade.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>> nearing first flight after installing upgrade
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/18/2011 6:42 AM, Juan Vega wrote:
>>>> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Juan
>>>> Vega<amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
>>>>
>>>> Paul;
>>>> Your quote "That, in my opinion, is why they used the "Nuclear Option"
>>>> of declaring the XL un-airworthy and threatening to ground any pilot
>>>> caught flying it" I have to call false and misleading.
>>>> Thats a big 10 on the BS-ometer.
>>>>
>>>> The facts are, if you have a Zodiac with NO mods done, you are
>>>> perfectly Legal, so long as it is E-AB. The FAA cannot do anything
>>>> about it. If you need it insured, thats another story. Paid cash and
>>>> non insured? No problem you can fly to your hearts content. And
>>>> frasnkly probably with no issues for a loooooong time.
>>>>
>>>> Juan
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Paul Mulwitz<psm@att.net>
>>>>> Sent: Apr 11, 2011 11:16 PM
>>>>> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>>>> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Final Report on the Markermeer accident
>>>>> has been published
>>>>>
>>>>> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz<psm@att.net>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Ron,
>>>>>
>>>>> The other side of that argument - "does not meet the criteria for an
>>>>> Airworthiness Directive (AD)" would apply to all experimental and LSA
>>>>> aircraft. Only type certificated aircraft can be the object of an AD.
>>>>>
>>>>> From the bureaucratic point of view, the whole Zodiac XL issue falls
>>>>> into the cracks. If it were just a kit plane the FAA would have
>>>>> probably ignored the whole thing. The fact that people could buy
>>>>> factory built S-LSA versions led them to the point that they had to do
>>>>> something but the existing regulatory environment didn't really allow
>>>>> them to do much. You see, it is the manufacturer that controls LSAs
>>>>> not
>>>>> the FAA. When they issued the SAIB they said, in effect, that AMD and
>>>>> the FAA required people to install the change. Since the kit version
>>>>> of
>>>>> the Zodiac is exactly the same as the S-LSA (if you don't count the
>>>>> difference between a factory built plane and one built buy the person
>>>>> who intends to fly it) the decisions made for the AMD version had to
>>>>> also apply to the kit plane, E-AB, version. This just didn't work
>>>>> when
>>>>> you put all the rules and lack of rules together. It was the first
>>>>> big
>>>>> test of the new LSA rules and a very sticky one from the FAA's
>>>>> perspective. That, in my opinion, is why they used the "Nuclear
>>>>> Option"
>>>>> of declaring the XL un-airworthy and threatening to ground any pilot
>>>>> caught flying it.
>>>>>
>>>>> If only the documents released by the FAA were easier to interpret we
>>>>> would all have the same understanding of the actual facts in this
>>>>> whole
>>>>> mess. Alas, what we got was government speak and a need for advanced
>>>>> degrees in aeronautical engineering to get the actual message.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know some people are holding on to their faith in Chris Heintz when
>>>>> he
>>>>> said there is nothing wrong with the XL design and continuing to fly
>>>>> the
>>>>> plane that the FAA has found un-airworthy. I wish it were something
>>>>> that could be easily fixed (that is to get them to install the
>>>>> upgrade)
>>>>> but apparently it will take more deaths to get the real message
>>>>> across.
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/11/2011 7:40 PM, Ron Lendon wrote:
>>>>>> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Ron
>>>>>> Lendon"<ron.lendon@gmail.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is right from the FAA site:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Special Airworthiness Information Bulletins (SAIB)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) is an
>>>>>>> information tool that alerts, educates, and makes recommendations to
>>>>>>> the aviation community. SAIBs contain non-regulatory information and
>>>>>>> guidance that does not meet the criteria for an Airworthiness
>>>>>>> Directive (AD).
>>>>>> Key words here are non-regulatory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FYI
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --------
>>>>>> 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=336687#336687
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has |
been published
I think Juan is 100% correct,if yuu built it ,it is your bucket of bolts an
d, if =0Ayou deam it safe to fly "let her go"- we did ! What does a DAR o
r FAA know about =0Aa Harley-Davison eng? What was more dangerous the eng.
or the air frame ? It =0Acould have been built by a pigme from the Amazon..
I chose to get rid of the =0AHarley eng- and went a Sabaru and I chose to
go with the up grade I felt that =0Athat stronger is better. The plane was
flying great an was doing great and was =0Agetting ready to repaint when t
his up grade thing came up after 5 years of =0Abla-bla on this site,in away
I am glad it came up even though I now was going to =0Atear down all the w
ork that I had done,at least I had not -repainted it at that =0ApointSooo
o in the process I re skined the top of the wing and added alerion =0Atrim.
Now I feel that I have a over enginered plane a good thing..Joe =0AN101HD/S
ubaru 601XLB=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: wadejon
es <wjones@brazoriainet.com>=0ATo: zenith-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Mon, A
pril 18, 2011 3:16:36 PM=0ASubject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Final Report on th
e Markermeer accident has been =0Apublished=0A=0A--> Zenith-List message po
sted by: "wadejones" <wjones@brazoriainet.com>=0A=0AI will loan you two my
boxing gloves ,don't use them anymore . Wade=0A----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Mulwitz" <psm@att.net>=0ATo: <zenith-list@matronics.com>=0ASen
t: Monday, April 18, 2011 11:46 AM=0ASubject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Final Re
port on the Markermeer accident has been =0Apublished=0A=0A=0A> --> Zenith-
List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net>=0A> =0A> Hi Juan,=0A>
=0A> I think you are dead wrong.- The NTSB doesn't regulate aviation, the
FAA does.=0A> =0A> I suppose you are free to do whatever you want, but I h
ope you don't really =0A>believe you are not putting yourself at risk of pu
nishment for violating FARs.=0A> =0A> I hope we can drop this silly argumen
t over the reality of government agencies =0A>and their functions.- If yo
u want to discuss it further, please do it directly =0A>to my email address
instead of on the- list.=0A> =0A> Or even better, Wes Ryan's email addre
ss is at the bottom of appendex I in that =0A>document.- Perhaps you shou
ld write to him and tell him your opinion of his =0A>position.=0A> =0A> tha
nks,=0A> =0A> Paul=0A> =0A> On 4/18/2011 9:32 AM, Juan Vega wrote:=0A>> -->
- Zenith-List message posted by: Juan Vega<amyvega2005@earthlink.net>=0A>
> =0A>> Your FAA contact is missinformed and over stepping his boundarys as
that is the =0A>>realm of the NTSB.- The document clearly states,- At
pilots risk. As E-ab, if =0A>>you are the manufacturer,- not Zenith. Thus
if you think its airworthy, you the =0A>>manufacturer, can attach a rocket
to the tail and fly it.- if i PUT A V12 mERLIN =0A>>ON IT AND SAY ITS AI
RWORTH,- i can fly it. Insurance coverage is another panty =0A>>wad mess.
=0A>> =0A>> Goes to my old saying and the SAIB this year sums it up;- fly
it within its =0A>>envelope and there should be no issues.=0A>> =0A>> Juan
=0A>> =0A>> =0A>> -----Original Message-----=0A>>> From: Paul Mulwitz<psm@a
tt.net>=0A>>> Sent: Apr 18, 2011 11:19 AM=0A>>> To: zenith-list@matronics.c
om=0A>>> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Final Report on the Markermeer accid
ent has- - =0A>>>been published=0A>>> =0A>>> Hi Juan,=0A>>> =0A>>> I de
cided to look up the actual document in question to determine=0A>>> whether
I imagined the "Nuclear Option" or not.- It appears I did use my=0A>>> o
wn brain a little bit interpreting the black and white facts.- The=0A>>>
simple truth is the SAIB:=0A>>> http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/light_sp
ort/media/Zodiac_Appendix.pdf=0A>>> says they " . . . strongly recommend co
mpliance with the drawings and=0A>>> instructions contained in the AMD Safe
ty Directive . . . ".- It then=0A>>> goes on immediately to quote FAR 91.
7 which says "No person may operate=0A>>> a civil aircraft unless it is in
an airworthy condition".- This is all=0A>>> under the heading "For amateu
r built and E-LSA operators"=0A>>> =0A>>> So the threat they would pull you
r license if you don't comply and go=0A>>> ahead and fly the airplane in an
un-airworthy condition (the implication=0A>>> is that the XL without the A
MD update is not airworthy) is a conclusion=0A>>> on my part rather than a
direct statement.- If you want to test this=0A>>> conclusion, I suggest y
ou ask your local FAA FSDO how they feel about=0A>>> you flying a Zodiac XL
without the upgrade.- I predict that will give=0A>>> you an opportunity
to save a lot of money you might otherwise have spent=0A>>> on avgas.=0A>>>
=0A>>> I attached a photo copy of the applicable area in the SAIB.- It i
s in=0A>>> appendix I near the end of the document.=0A>>> =0A>>> I am glad
I went through this exercise.- It turns out the guy whose name=0A>>> appe
ars at the bottom of this statement, Wes Ryan, is the same guy I had=0A>>>
a long chat with in November 2010 at an ASTM meeting.- He told me in no
=0A>>> uncertain terms that the design was deficient before the upgrade and
=0A>>> meets the required ASTM specification after the upgrade.=0A>>> =0A>>
> Paul=0A>>> nearing first flight after installing upgrade=0A>>> =0A>>> =0A
>>> =0A>>> On 4/18/2011 6:42 AM, Juan Vega wrote:=0A>>>> -->- Zenith-List
message posted by: Juan Vega<amyvega2005@earthlink.net>=0A>>>> =0A>>>> Pau
l;=0A>>>> Your quote "That, in my opinion, is why they used the "Nuclear Op
tion"=0A>>>> of declaring the XL un-airworthy and threatening to ground any
pilot=0A>>>> caught flying it"- - - - - - - I have to call f
alse and misleading. Thats a big =0A>>>>10 on the BS-ometer.=0A>>>> =0A>>>>
The facts are,- if you have a Zodiac with NO mods done,- you are perfe
ctly =0A>>>>Legal, so long as it is E-AB.- The FAA cannot do anything abo
ut it.- If you need =0A>>>>it insured,- thats another story.- Paid ca
sh and non insured?- No problem you =0A>>>>can fly to your hearts content
.- And frasnkly probably with no issues for a =0A>>>>loooooong time.=0A>>
>> =0A>>>> Juan=0A>>>> -----Original Message-----=0A>>>>> From: Paul Mulwit
z<psm@att.net>=0A>>>>> Sent: Apr 11, 2011 11:16 PM=0A>>>>> To: zenith-list@
matronics.com=0A>>>>> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Final Report on the Mar
kermeer accident has- been =0A>>>>>published=0A>>>>> =0A>>>>> -->- Zeni
th-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz<psm@att.net>=0A>>>>> =0A>>>>> Hi Ro
n,=0A>>>>> =0A>>>>> The other side of that argument - "does not meet the cr
iteria for an=0A>>>>> Airworthiness Directive (AD)" would apply to all expe
rimental and LSA=0A>>>>> aircraft.- Only type certificated aircraft can b
e the object of an AD.=0A>>>>> =0A>>>>>- From the bureaucratic point of v
iew, the whole Zodiac XL issue falls=0A>>>>> into the cracks.- If it were
just a kit plane the FAA would have=0A>>>>> probably ignored the whole thi
ng.- The fact that people could buy=0A>>>>> factory built S-LSA versions
led them to the point that they had to do=0A>>>>> something but the existin
g regulatory environment didn't really allow=0A>>>>> them to do much.- Yo
u see, it is the manufacturer that controls LSAs not=0A>>>>> the FAA.- Wh
en they issued the SAIB they said, in effect, that AMD and=0A>>>>> the FAA
required people to install the change.- Since the kit version of=0A>>>>>
the Zodiac is exactly the same as the S-LSA (if you don't count the=0A>>>>>
difference between a factory built plane and one built buy the person=0A>>
>>> who intends to fly it) the decisions made for the AMD version had to=0A
>>>>> also apply to the kit plane, E-AB, version.- This just didn't work
when=0A>>>>> you put all the rules and lack of rules together.- It was th
e first big=0A>>>>> test of the new LSA rules and a very sticky one from th
e FAA's=0A>>>>> perspective.- That, in my opinion, is why they used the "
Nuclear Option"=0A>>>>> of declaring the XL un-airworthy and threatening to
ground any pilot=0A>>>>> caught flying it.=0A>>>>> =0A>>>>> If only the do
cuments released by the FAA were easier to interpret we=0A>>>>> would all h
ave the same understanding of the actual facts in this whole=0A>>>>> mess.
- Alas, what we got was government speak and a need for advanced=0A>>>>>
degrees in aeronautical engineering to get the actual message.=0A>>>>> =0A>
>>>> I know some people are holding on to their faith in Chris Heintz when
he=0A>>>>> said there is nothing wrong with the XL design and continuing to
fly the=0A>>>>> plane that the FAA has found un-airworthy.- I wish it we
re something=0A>>>>> that could be easily fixed (that is to get them to ins
tall the upgrade)=0A>>>>> but apparently it will take more deaths to get th
e real message across.=0A>>>>> =0A>>>>> Paul=0A>>>>> =0A>>>>> On 4/11/2011
7:40 PM, Ron Lendon wrote:=0A>>>>>> -->- - Zenith-List message posted b
y: "Ron Lendon"<ron.lendon@gmail.com>=0A>>>>>> =0A>>>>>> Paul,=0A>>>>>> =0A
>>>>>> This is right from the FAA site:=0A>>>>>> =0A>>>>>> =0A>>>>>>> Speci
al Airworthiness Information Bulletins (SAIB)=0A>>>>>>> =0A>>>>>>> A Specia
l Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) is an information tool that =0A
>>>>>>>alerts, educates, and makes recommendations to the aviation communit
y. SAIBs =0A>>>>>>>contain non-regulatory information and guidance that doe
s not meet the criteria =0A>>>>>>>for an Airworthiness Directive (AD).=0A>>
>>>> Key words here are non-regulatory.=0A>>>>>> =0A>>>>>> FYI=0A>>>>>> =0A
>>>>>> --------=0A>>>>>> Ron Lendon, Detroit, MI=0A>>>>>> WW Corvair with R
oy's Garage 5th bearing=0A>>>>>> Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)=0A>>>>>> http:
//www.mykitlog.com/rlendon=0A>>>>>> Corvair Engine Prints:=0A>>>>>> http://
www.zenith.aero/profile/RonLendon=0A>>>>>> =0A>>>>>> =0A>>>>>> =0A>>>>>>
=0A>>>>>> Read this topic online here:=0A>>>>>> =0A>>>>>> http://forums.mat
ronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336687#336687=0A>>>>>> =0A>>>>>> =0A>>>>>> =0A
>>>>>> =0A>>>>>> =0A>>>>>> =0A>>>>>> =0A>>>>>> =0A>>>>>> =0A>>>>>> =0A>>>>>
> =0A>>>>> =0A>>>>> =0A>>>> =0A>>>> =0A>>>> =0A>>>> =0A>> =0A>> =0A>> =0A>>
==
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: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been |
published
On Apr 18, 2011, at 11:19 AM, Paul Mulwitz wrote:
>
>
> I am glad I went through this exercise. It turns out the guy whose name appears
at the bottom of this statement, Wes Ryan, is the same guy I had a long chat
with in November 2010 at an ASTM meeting. He told me in no uncertain terms
that the design was deficient before the upgrade and meets the required ASTM
specification after the upgrade.
>
Wes Ryan may be correct in his statement to you, but that is irrelevent. An E-AB
aircraft is not required to comply with the ASTM specification for LSA. The
builder simply has to show, with a proper phase 1 test program, that the airplane
can safely be flown within its designated flight envelope.
There are E-AB aircraft out there that are far more dangerous to fly and are designed
to much lower safety margins than the 601-XL and are still perfiectly legal
to fly.
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus re-drive.
do not archive.
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been |
published
Hi Bryan,
Under any other circumstances I would agree with you. This is a funny
situation since the Zodiac XL exists both as an E-AB and "Store bought"
S-LSA. My guess is the FAA felt they couldn't say the S-LSA planes
should be grounded and ignore the identical E-AB owners' safety.
I don't know any other way to interpret the inclusion of the full text
of FAR 91.7 in the same paragraph with the strong suggestion that
everyone install the AMD upgrade and a heading saying it applied to E-AB
and E-LSA planes. I took it as a direct threat to anyone flying a plane
determined to be not airworthy.
I realize that Wes's position in the FAA is not in the enforcement area
(Standards/FSDO) but I am quite sure a phone call from him to the head
of the Standards division would get any pilot grounded in a heartbeat.
I understand Wes is responsible for all light plane (non-transport
plane) certifications. The FAA engineers who do part 23 certification
reviews all work for him along with a bunch of other people. It is
those same engineers who reviewed the XL design and pronounced it
lacking before the upgrade and meeting the required ASTM standard after
installation of the upgrade.
Paul
On 4/18/2011 4:31 PM, Bryan Martin wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Bryan Martin<bryanmmartin@comcast.net>
>
>
> On Apr 18, 2011, at 11:19 AM, Paul Mulwitz wrote:
>
>>
>> I am glad I went through this exercise. It turns out the guy whose name appears
at the bottom of this statement, Wes Ryan, is the same guy I had a long chat
with in November 2010 at an ASTM meeting. He told me in no uncertain terms
that the design was deficient before the upgrade and meets the required ASTM
specification after the upgrade.
>>
> Wes Ryan may be correct in his statement to you, but that is irrelevent. An E-AB
aircraft is not required to comply with the ASTM specification for LSA. The
builder simply has to show, with a proper phase 1 test program, that the airplane
can safely be flown within its designated flight envelope.
>
> There are E-AB aircraft out there that are far more dangerous to fly and are
designed to much lower safety margins than the 601-XL and are still perfiectly
legal to fly.
>
>
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! --
|