Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:28 AM - SAIB (roger lambert)
2. 06:53 AM - Rear Canopy 650 (Steve Freeman)
3. 06:55 AM - Re: SAIB (Paul Mulwitz)
4. 07:10 AM - Re: Rear Canopy 650 (Carlos Sa)
5. 07:20 AM - Re: SAIB (Steve Freeman)
6. 08:09 AM - Re: Rear Canopy 650 (Steve Freeman)
7. 09:03 AM - Re: Rear Canopy 650 (mtherr@yahoo.com)
8. 09:05 AM - Re: Rear Canopy 650 (Paul Mulwitz)
9. 09:46 AM - Re: Rear Canopy 650 (Steve Freeman)
10. 09:52 AM - Re: SAIB (Afterfxllc@aol.com)
11. 10:40 AM - Re: SAIB (Paul Mulwitz)
12. 11:01 AM - Re: SAIB (Steve Freeman)
13. 01:51 PM - SAIB (roger lambert)
14. 02:30 PM - Re: SAIB (Steve Freeman)
15. 03:11 PM - Re: SAIB (Paul Mulwitz)
16. 03:53 PM - Re: Rear Canopy 650 (dgardea(at)gmail.com)
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 |
|
Isn't it interesting how so many of the people who demanded the redesign of
so many components of the 601xl now feel free to disregard, delete or change
the same redesign they so stridently sought. One can only wonder how(if)
they have indicated compliance with the SAIB and understand the
consequences of making that entry into their logbooks.
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 |
|
Hi guys,
Does anyone have a good series of photos for how you did the 650 rear
canopy? I feel the plans are very unclear in this area and would appreciate
any tips any of you have been through.
Thanks,
Steve Freeman
650
N902AL
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 |
|
Roger,
I assume you are talking about me with your comment below.
Before the major structure redesign the FAA engineers determined the
design didn't meet the ASTM standard for LSA structure requirements and
after the redesign it does. This is exactly what I was looking for when
I "Demanded" a redesign of the whole aircraft -- not "the redesign of
so many components" as you said.
The one item I chose to not include in my plane is definitely not
related to the ASTM standard (F2245). It just doesn't address the issue
of ham fisted pilots or clumsy people kicking the control stick while
jumping into the cockpit.
Each of our planes is different. The upgrade design was an attempt by
junior engineers to cover all variations of the Zodiac XL and 650. I
think they did a wonderful job since the FAA experts came to the
conclusion they met the minimum standard requirements. I am quite
pleased with the way the whole process went and even more pleased with
the simple fact that there haven't been any more structure failures
since the upgrade was implemented.
If it bothers you so much that my plane only has one set of aileron
limit stops rather than the two called for in the upgrade I will
completely understand if you refuse to ride in my plane.
Paul
XL 20 hours into phase I testing.
On 10/27/2011 6:25 AM, roger lambert wrote:
> Isn't it interesting how so many of the people who demanded the
> redesign of so many components of the 601xl now feel free to
> disregard, delete or change the same redesign they so stridently
> sought. One can only wonder how(if) they have indicated compliance
> with the SAIB and understand the consequences of making that entry
> into their logbooks.
> *
>
> *
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: Rear Canopy 650 |
Hello, Steve
have the video from Jon Croke - link available in zenith.aero (
homebuilthelp.com, I think).
I haven't started on that yet, but I think you would find it helpful.
Regards
Carlos
On 27 October 2011 09:50, Steve Freeman <steve.freeman@syntaxds.com> wrote:
> Hi guys,****
>
> ** **
>
> Does anyone have a good series of photos for how you did the 650 rear
> canopy? I feel the plans are very unclear in this area and would appreciate
> any tips any of you have been through.****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,****
>
> ** **
>
> Steve Freeman****
>
> 650****
>
> N902AL
>
> ****
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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 |
|
isn't it interesting how some people will lob stink bombs without signing
their name or offering any real value to the conversation?
Steve Freeman
Isn't it interesting how so many of the people who demanded the redesign of
so many components of the 601xl now feel free to disregard, delete or change
the same redesign they so stridently sought. One can only wonder how(if)
they have indicated compliance with the SAIB and understand the consequences
of making that entry into their logbooks.
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 |
|
I Have the Homebuilt Help video and it is very helpful but if you watch it
they don't finish the job. They get about 80% of the way and they say words
to the effect of "We'll leave the rest up to you to figure out." The first
50 minutes of this video are great, the last 10 stink!. Additionally this
video is for a retrofit to a 601XL not a new install on a 650. When you
watch the video you will understand the shortcoming. I do not understand
why they did it this way. The plans are not very clear in exactly the area
they leave it up to you to figure out. For instance, I cannot find in the
plans how far back the canopy should go. Having built a 601 HDS the back of
the canopy rests on the turtle deck but on the 650 it would appear from the
videos (and plans) that the canopy does not even make it all the way to the
baggage bulk head. I cannot find a reference in the plans for where to
place the rear of the canopy. Also, I do not see how the canopy attaches
to the rear turtle deck. There is a part ON page 6-C-6 (65C3-5) which
would strongly indicate placement but everything would depend on how the
canopy is trimmed and placed up front.
In the plans there is an inset in the lower left corner that shows basic
placement. But what I do not understand is how to finish this area off?
The side flashings do not wrap to the fuselage center line and there is not
a fairing strip that goes over the back.
I understand I am probably missing something basic but the problem is you
cannot really test fit the canopy and all of the components until you trim
the front. I would just like a little better idea of what I am doing before
I start making those cuts to this expensive to replace part if I goof up!
Any help will be hugely appreciated!
Thanks,
Steve
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carlos Sa
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 7:06 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Rear Canopy 650
Hello, Steve
have the video from Jon Croke - link available in zenith.aero
(homebuilthelp.com, I think).
I haven't started on that yet, but I think you would find it helpful.
Regards
Carlos
On 27 October 2011 09:50, Steve Freeman <steve.freeman@syntaxds.com> wrote:
Hi guys,
Does anyone have a good series of photos for how you did the 650 rear
canopy? I feel the plans are very unclear in this area and would appreciate
any tips any of you have been through.
Thanks,
Steve Freeman
650
N902AL
arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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: Rear Canopy 650 |
Steve, I think no two canopies are exactly the same. See on my Other Projects
page what a friend, Gerald Kelly did on his HDS. I don't know if this would
apply to you. If needed/relevant, I could provide more details about this particular
HDS install.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Steve Freeman" <steve.freeman@syntaxds.com>
Sender: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Rear Canopy 650
This is a multipart message in MIME format.
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: Rear Canopy 650 |
Hi Steve,
I have an XL so I don't know about the drawings or details of the 650,
but I can offer a few comments.
The XL kit includes some rubber seal material intended for the rear of
the canopy. While it is not clear how to make this work with the
aluminum flashing on the side I did this by bending the flashing and
gluing the sealing materials together with Locktite cement from Wal*Mart.
For your particular situation I would recommend you call Zenith and get
some technical support. They should have answers to all of your questions.
Good luck,
Paul
On 10/27/2011 8:06 AM, Steve Freeman wrote:
>
> I Have the Homebuilt Help video and it is very helpful but if you
> watch it they don't finish the job. They get about 80% of the way and
> they say words to the effect of "We'll leave the rest up to you to
> figure out." The first 50 minutes of this video are great, the last
> 10 stink!. Additionally this video is for a retrofit to a 601XL not a
> new install on a 650. When you watch the video you will understand
> the shortcoming. I do not understand why they did it this way. The
> plans are not very clear in exactly the area they leave it up to you
> to figure out. For instance, I cannot find in the plans how far back
> the canopy should go. Having built a 601 HDS the back of the canopy
> rests on the turtle deck but on the 650 it would appear from the
> videos (and plans) that the canopy does not even make it all the way
> to the baggage bulk head. I cannot find a reference in the plans for
> where to place the rear of the canopy. Also, I do not see how the
> canopy attaches to the rear turtle deck. There is a part ON page
> 6-C-6 (65C3-5) which would strongly indicate placement but everything
> would depend on how the canopy is trimmed and placed up front.
>
> In the plans there is an inset in the lower left corner that shows
> basic placement. But what I do not understand is how to finish this
> area off? The side flashings do not wrap to the fuselage center line
> and there is not a fairing strip that goes over the back.
>
> I understand I am probably missing something basic but the problem is
> you cannot really test fit the canopy and all of the components until
> you trim the front. I would just like a little better idea of what I
> am doing before I start making those cuts to this expensive to replace
> part if I goof up!
>
> Any help will be hugely appreciated!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve
>
> *From:*owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Carlos Sa
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 27, 2011 7:06 AM
> *To:* zenith-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: Zenith-List: Rear Canopy 650
>
> Hello, Steve
>
> have the video from Jon Croke - link available in zenith.aero
> <http://zenith.aero> (homebuilthelp.com <http://homebuilthelp.com>, I
> think).
> I haven't started on that yet, but I think you would find it helpful.
>
>
> Regards
>
>
> Carlos
>
> On 27 October 2011 09:50, Steve Freeman <steve.freeman@syntaxds.com
> <mailto:steve.freeman@syntaxds.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> Does anyone have a good series of photos for how you did the 650 rear
> canopy? I feel the plans are very unclear in this area and would
> appreciate any tips any of you have been through.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve Freeman
>
> 650
>
> N902AL
>
> * *
> * *
> *arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List*
> *tp://forums.matronics.com*
> *_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
> * *
>
> * *
> * *
> **
> **
> **
> **
> **
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List*
> **
> **
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
> **
> **
> **
> **
> *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 |
|
I have been in contact with ZAC and they have not yet documented the process
for the rear canopy. IF this were not such an expensive part I would be
willing to experiment but in this case I really want to try and get it right
the first time. As many of you know, the smallest mistake on the canopy can
ruin the entire thing.
I love ZAC.this is my second plane - but sometimes their documentation
leaves a great deal to be desired.
Caleb is trying to get me some more information. What is always curious to
me is I cannot believe I am the only persona struggling with this part of
the build. It would be in their best interest to fully document the
assembly so they could reduce the number of calls and emails for support.
Steve
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Mulwitz
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Rear Canopy 650
Hi Steve,
I have an XL so I don't know about the drawings or details of the 650, but I
can offer a few comments.
The XL kit includes some rubber seal material intended for the rear of the
canopy. While it is not clear how to make this work with the aluminum
flashing on the side I did this by bending the flashing and gluing the
sealing materials together with Locktite cement from Wal*Mart.
For your particular situation I would recommend you call Zenith and get some
technical support. They should have answers to all of your questions.
Good luck,
Paul
On 10/27/2011 8:06 AM, Steve Freeman wrote:
I Have the Homebuilt Help video and it is very helpful but if you watch it
they don't finish the job. They get about 80% of the way and they say words
to the effect of "We'll leave the rest up to you to figure out." The first
50 minutes of this video are great, the last 10 stink!. Additionally this
video is for a retrofit to a 601XL not a new install on a 650. When you
watch the video you will understand the shortcoming. I do not understand
why they did it this way. The plans are not very clear in exactly the area
they leave it up to you to figure out. For instance, I cannot find in the
plans how far back the canopy should go. Having built a 601 HDS the back of
the canopy rests on the turtle deck but on the 650 it would appear from the
videos (and plans) that the canopy does not even make it all the way to the
baggage bulk head. I cannot find a reference in the plans for where to
place the rear of the canopy. Also, I do not see how the canopy attaches
to the rear turtle deck. There is a part ON page 6-C-6 (65C3-5) which
would strongly indicate placement but everything would depend on how the
canopy is trimmed and placed up front.
In the plans there is an inset in the lower left corner that shows basic
placement. But what I do not understand is how to finish this area off?
The side flashings do not wrap to the fuselage center line and there is not
a fairing strip that goes over the back.
I understand I am probably missing something basic but the problem is you
cannot really test fit the canopy and all of the components until you trim
the front. I would just like a little better idea of what I am doing before
I start making those cuts to this expensive to replace part if I goof up!
Any help will be hugely appreciated!
Thanks,
Steve
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carlos Sa
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 7:06 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Rear Canopy 650
Hello, Steve
have the video from Jon Croke - link available in zenith.aero
(homebuilthelp.com, I think).
I haven't started on that yet, but I think you would find it helpful.
Regards
Carlos
On 27 October 2011 09:50, Steve Freeman <steve.freeman@syntaxds.com> wrote:
Hi guys,
Does anyone have a good series of photos for how you did the 650 rear
canopy? I feel the plans are very unclear in this area and would appreciate
any tips any of you have been through.
Thanks,
Steve Freeman
650
N902AL
arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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 |
|
I have done 12 of these upgrades and I will tell you that the number one
useless part of it is the aileron stop that was added. First of all it is so
weak it wouldn't stop any damage from someone kicking the stick and IMHO
it shouldn't be part of the upgrade as it doesn't allow room to adjust the
turnbuckles or safety them so I think cables will become slack as a result.
If you match the stops to the aileron stops what's the point? Any damage is
going to occur with or without the second stop. I also think there is some
reg out there that states only one stop per control but I have never looked
it up.
Jeff
In a message dated 10/27/2011 9:56:51 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
psm@att.net writes:
Roger,
I assume you are talking about me with your comment below.
Before the major structure redesign the FAA engineers determined the
design didn't meet the ASTM standard for LSA structure requirements and after
the redesign it does. This is exactly what I was looking for when I
"Demanded" a redesign of the whole aircraft -- not "the redesign of so many
components" as you said.
The one item I chose to not include in my plane is definitely not related
to the ASTM standard (F2245). It just doesn't address the issue of ham
fisted pilots or clumsy people kicking the control stick while jumping into
the cockpit.
Each of our planes is different. The upgrade design was an attempt by
junior engineers to cover all variations of the Zodiac XL and 650. I think
they did a wonderful job since the FAA experts came to the conclusion they
met the minimum standard requirements. I am quite pleased with the way the
whole process went and even more pleased with the simple fact that there
haven't been any more structure failures since the upgrade was implemented.
If it bothers you so much that my plane only has one set of aileron limit
stops rather than the two called for in the upgrade I will completely
understand if you refuse to ride in my plane.
Paul
XL 20 hours into phase I testing.
On 10/27/2011 6:25 AM, roger lambert wrote:
Isn't it interesting how so many of the people who demanded the redesign
of so many components of the 601xl now feel free to disregard, delete or
change the same redesign they so stridently sought. One can only wonder
how(if) they have indicated compliance with the SAIB and understand the
consequences of making that entry into their logbooks.
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
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 |
|
Hi Jeff,
Thank you for your comments about the aileron crank stop. I agree with
you completely.
The requirements for installing the upgrade were a bit vague. It was
not required to religiously stick to the exact design in the upgrade
package. Rather, the idea was to follow the general ideas in the
upgrade design and conform to it as appropriate for each airplane.
We should all remember that we build experimental airplanes and each one
is a little bit different from each other one. The upgrade package was
created because there was a glaring problem with the original design
that got too much attention from the NTSB and FAA. From a political
perspective, we would not have received so much attention from the
government people if not for the fact that the same design was being
produced as a factory complete airplane. If only experimental - amateur
built versions of this design were in the field I doubt we would have
benefited from the reviews conducted by the FAA that led to creation of
the upgrade package and verification that it resolved the structural
problems.
Even after installing the upgrade we are still flying experimental -
amateur built airplanes. I think the upgrade did a great deal to
improve the strength of the airframe and will improve the results we all
experience in the future. In the long run, though, anyone who wants
"Guaranteed" design and construction in their plane should fly a type
certificated one.
Paul
Camas, WA
On 10/27/2011 9:49 AM, Afterfxllc@aol.com wrote:
> I have done 12 of these upgrades and I will tell you that the number
> one useless part of it is the aileron stop that was added. First of
> all it is so weak it wouldn't stop any damage from someone kicking the
> stick and IMHO it shouldn't be part of the upgrade as it doesn't allow
> room to adjust the turnbuckles or safety them so I think cables will
> become slack as a result. If you match the stops to the aileron stops
> what's the point? Any damage is going to occur with or without the
> second stop. I also think there is some reg out there that states only
> one stop per control but I have never looked it up.
> Jeff
> In a message dated 10/27/2011 9:56:51 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> psm@att.net writes:
>
> Roger,
>
> I assume you are talking about me with your comment below.
>
> Before the major structure redesign the FAA engineers determined
> the design didn't meet the ASTM standard for LSA structure
> requirements and after the redesign it does. This is exactly what
> I was looking for when I "Demanded" a redesign of the whole
> aircraft -- not "the redesign of so many components" as you said.
>
> The one item I chose to not include in my plane is definitely not
> related to the ASTM standard (F2245). It just doesn't address the
> issue of ham fisted pilots or clumsy people kicking the control
> stick while jumping into the cockpit.
>
> Each of our planes is different. The upgrade design was an
> attempt by junior engineers to cover all variations of the Zodiac
> XL and 650. I think they did a wonderful job since the FAA
> experts came to the conclusion they met the minimum standard
> requirements. I am quite pleased with the way the whole process
> went and even more pleased with the simple fact that there haven't
> been any more structure failures since the upgrade was implemented.
>
> If it bothers you so much that my plane only has one set of
> aileron limit stops rather than the two called for in the upgrade
> I will completely understand if you refuse to ride in my plane.
>
> Paul
> XL 20 hours into phase I testing.
>
> On 10/27/2011 6:25 AM, roger lambert wrote:
>> Isn't it interesting how so many of the people who demanded the
>> redesign of so many components of the 601xl now feel free to
>> disregard, delete or change the same redesign they so stridently
>> sought. One can only wonder how(if) they have indicated
>> compliance with the SAIB and understand the consequences of
>> making that entry into their logbooks.
>> *
>>
>> *
> *
>
> ef="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
> s.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
> p://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
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 |
|
<<. In the long run, though, anyone who wants "Guaranteed" design and
construction in their plane should fly a type certificated one.>>
And that is certainly no guarantee either! Don't get me started! LOL
Steve
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Mulwitz
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: SAIB
Hi Jeff,
Thank you for your comments about the aileron crank stop. I agree with you
completely.
The requirements for installing the upgrade were a bit vague. It was not
required to religiously stick to the exact design in the upgrade package.
Rather, the idea was to follow the general ideas in the upgrade design and
conform to it as appropriate for each airplane.
We should all remember that we build experimental airplanes and each one is
a little bit different from each other one. The upgrade package was created
because there was a glaring problem with the original design that got too
much attention from the NTSB and FAA. From a political perspective, we
would not have received so much attention from the government people if not
for the fact that the same design was being produced as a factory complete
airplane. If only experimental - amateur built versions of this design were
in the field I doubt we would have benefited from the reviews conducted by
the FAA that led to creation of the upgrade package and verification that it
resolved the structural problems.
Even after installing the upgrade we are still flying experimental - amateur
built airplanes. I think the upgrade did a great deal to improve the
strength of the airframe and will improve the results we all experience in
the future. In the long run, though, anyone who wants "Guaranteed" design
and construction in their plane should fly a type certificated one.
Paul
Camas, WA
On 10/27/2011 9:49 AM, Afterfxllc@aol.com wrote:
I have done 12 of these upgrades and I will tell you that the number one
useless part of it is the aileron stop that was added. First of all it is so
weak it wouldn't stop any damage from someone kicking the stick and IMHO it
shouldn't be part of the upgrade as it doesn't allow room to adjust the
turnbuckles or safety them so I think cables will become slack as a result.
If you match the stops to the aileron stops what's the point? Any damage is
going to occur with or without the second stop. I also think there is some
reg out there that states only one stop per control but I have never looked
it up.
Jeff
In a message dated 10/27/2011 9:56:51 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
psm@att.net writes:
Roger,
I assume you are talking about me with your comment below.
Before the major structure redesign the FAA engineers determined the design
didn't meet the ASTM standard for LSA structure requirements and after the
redesign it does. This is exactly what I was looking for when I "Demanded"
a redesign of the whole aircraft -- not "the redesign of so many
components" as you said.
The one item I chose to not include in my plane is definitely not related to
the ASTM standard (F2245). It just doesn't address the issue of ham fisted
pilots or clumsy people kicking the control stick while jumping into the
cockpit.
Each of our planes is different. The upgrade design was an attempt by
junior engineers to cover all variations of the Zodiac XL and 650. I think
they did a wonderful job since the FAA experts came to the conclusion they
met the minimum standard requirements. I am quite pleased with the way the
whole process went and even more pleased with the simple fact that there
haven't been any more structure failures since the upgrade was implemented.
If it bothers you so much that my plane only has one set of aileron limit
stops rather than the two called for in the upgrade I will completely
understand if you refuse to ride in my plane.
Paul
XL 20 hours into phase I testing.
On 10/27/2011 6:25 AM, roger lambert wrote:
Isn't it interesting how so many of the people who demanded the redesign of
so many components of the 601xl now feel free to disregard, delete or change
the same redesign they so stridently sought. One can only wonder how(if)
they have indicated compliance with the SAIB and understand the consequences
of making that entry into their logbooks.
ef= <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List>
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matronics.com/Na
vigator?Zenith-List
s.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
p://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
The Code of Federal Regulation rather explicitly states how maintenance
records are to be kept.
A review of the SAIB clearly states:
"For amateur-built and E-LSA owners and operators: Due to shared design
characteristics that
amateur-build and E-LSA aircraft have with S-LSA, we strongly recommend
compliance with the
drawings and instructions contained in the AMD Safety Directive/Safety
Alert and recommend
the following: -
*Obtain and install the kit manufacturer=92s
structural modification kit. The modification kit **addresses the structura
l
design changes and operating limitations required to meet a safe **conditio
n
for operation*. *Contact the kit manufacturer with any modifications alread
y
incorporated to correct the **identified unsafe condition to validate
safety-of-flight issues*
Therefore, if you have not obtained and installed the kit manufacturer's
structural modification kit or obtained some waiver from AMD or the kit
manufacturer or perhaps obtained an equivalency evaluation from some FAA
designated personnel and placed such documentation within your logbook, you
may have violated the FAR's maintenance records requirements and potentiall
y
subjected yourself to sanction by the FAA, which you have provided the
evidence for by identifyng noncompliance in the public record. For those of
you with faint hearing, those scratching sounds in the background are the
hands of people amending their logbooks to state they complied with the SAI
B
with now noted exceptions.
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
To me the operant words below are =93recommend compliance=93 and
=93recommend the
following.=93
The wording does not compel compliance with phrasing such as =93SHALL
COMPLY.=94
This is a subtle but very important distinction in legal documents.
I am not an attorney so do not rely on my interpretation but this is how
I
view it. Any attorneys want to chime in?
=93The Code of Federal Regulation rather explicitly states how
maintenance
records are to be kept. =94
Forgive me, but the paragraph you have highlighted for review does not
state
anything about documentation or log book entries. Please correct me if
I am
wrong.
"For amateur-built and E-LSA owners and operators: Due to shared design
characteristics that amateur-build and E-LSA aircraft have with S-LSA,
we
strongly recommend compliance with the drawings and instructions
contained
in the AMD Safety Directive/Safety Alert and recommend the following:
-
Obtain and install the kit manufacturer=92s structural modification
kit. The
modification kit addresses the structural design changes and operating
limitations required to meet a safe condition for operation. Contact the
kit
manufacturer with any modifications already incorporated to correct the
identified unsafe condition to validate safety-of-flight issues
For the record I think a person is a fool if they don=92t do the upgrade
but
there is nothing in Roger=92s post to indicate any builder is compelled
by
statute or regulation to do so.
Steve
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of roger
lambert
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 1:47 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: SAIB
The Code of Federal Regulation rather explicitly states how maintenance
records are to be kept.
A review of the SAIB clearly states:
"For amateur-built and E-LSA owners and operators: Due to shared design
characteristics that
amateur-build and E-LSA aircraft have with S-LSA, we strongly recommend
compliance with the
drawings and instructions contained in the AMD Safety Directive/Safety
Alert
and recommend
the following: -
Obtain and install the kit manufacturer=92s
structural modification kit. The modification kit addresses the
structural
design changes and operating limitations required to meet a safe
condition
for operation. Contact the kit manufacturer with any modifications
already
incorporated to correct the identified unsafe condition to validate
safety-of-flight issues
Therefore, if you have not obtained and installed the kit manufacturer's
structural modification kit or obtained some waiver from AMD or the kit
manufacturer or perhaps obtained an equivalency evaluation from some FAA
designated personnel and placed such documentation within your logbook,
you
may have violated the FAR's maintenance records requirements and
potentially
subjected yourself to sanction by the FAA, which you have provided the
evidence for by identifyng noncompliance in the public record. For those
of
you with faint hearing, those scratching sounds in the background are
the
hands of people amending their logbooks to state they complied with the
SAIB
with now noted exceptions.
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I agree with you on this one Steve.
In addition, there just isn't any way the FAA can compel experimental
aircraft owners to do anything to their airplanes. That is the nature
of experimental aircraft.
In my case, there is no entry of any sort in my log books regarding the
SAIB. My plane was not certified until after the upgrade was
installed. So, there is no maintenance or operating limitation impact
of the SAIB on my plane.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to get into silly arguments over the
paperwork involved in the upgrade issue. I agree completely that each
owner should "Essentially" install the upgrade in their plane. This
doesn't mean compliance of every rivet and bolt to the upgrade
drawings. It does mean balancing the ailerons, installing the
reinforcements for the spars and spar carry through, and other features
relating to the airframe strength. Just like everything else in this
endeavor, I would expect each plane to be a little bit different from
the rest of the fleet both before and after the upgrade is installed.
The only real mistake I think will be made by a significant number of
Zodiac owners is to decide not to install the upgrade at all. This is
not an option for planes not already certified when the SAIB was issued
since the FAA refused to inspect and certify any planes without the
upgrade after that point.
Paul
Camas, WA
On 10/27/2011 2:27 PM, Steve Freeman wrote:
>
> To me the operant words below are "recommend compliance" and
> "recommend the following."
>
> The wording does not compel compliance with phrasing such as "SHALL
> COMPLY." This is a subtle but very important distinction in legal
> documents.
>
> I am not an attorney so do not rely on my interpretation but this is
> how I view it. Any attorneys want to chime in?
>
> "The Code of Federal Regulation rather explicitly states how
> maintenance records are to be kept."
>
> Forgive me, but the paragraph you have highlighted for review does not
> state anything about documentation or log book entries. Please
> correct me if I am wrong.
>
> "For amateur-built and E-LSA owners and operators: Due to shared
> design characteristics that amateur-build and E-LSA aircraft have with
> S-LSA, we strongly recommend compliance with the drawings and
> instructions contained in the AMD Safety Directive/Safety Alert and
> recommend the following: .
>
> /Obtain and install the kit manufacturer's structural modification
> kit. The modification kit addresses the structural design changes and
> operating limitations required to meet a safe condition for operation.
> Contact the kit manufacturer with any modifications already
> incorporated to correct the identified unsafe condition to validate
> safety-of-flight issues /
>
> For the record I think a person is a fool if they don't do the upgrade
> but there is nothing in Roger's post to indicate any builder is
> compelled by statute or regulation to do so.
>
> Steve
>
> *From:*owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *roger
> lambert
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 27, 2011 1:47 PM
> *To:* zenith-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Zenith-List: SAIB
>
> The Code of Federal Regulation rather explicitly states how
> maintenance records are to be kept.
>
> A review of the SAIB clearly states:
>
> "For amateur-built and E-LSA owners and operators: Due to shared
> design characteristics that
>
>
> amateur-build and E-LSA aircraft have with S-LSA, we strongly
> recommend compliance with the
>
>
> drawings and instructions contained in the AMD Safety Directive/Safety
> Alert and recommend
>
>
> the following: .
>
> _Obtain and install the kit manufacturer's structural modification
> kit. The modification kit addresses the structural design changes and
> operating limitations required to meet a safe condition for
> operation_. _Contact the kit manufacturer with any modifications
> already incorporated to correct the identified unsafe condition to
> validate safety-of-flight issues_
>
> Therefore, if you have not obtained and installed the kit
> manufacturer's structural modification kit or obtained some waiver
> from AMD or the kit manufacturer or perhaps obtained an equivalency
> evaluation from some FAA designated personnel and placed such
> documentation within your logbook, you may have violated the FAR's
> maintenance records requirements and potentially subjected yourself to
> sanction by the FAA, which you have provided the evidence for by
> identifyng noncompliance in the public record. For those of you with
> faint hearing, those scratching sounds in the background are the
> hands of people amending their logbooks to state they complied with
> the SAIB with now noted exceptions.
>
> * *
> * *
> **
> **
> **
> **
> **
> **
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List*
> **
> **
> **
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
> **
> **
> **
> **
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
> **
> * *
> *
>
>
> *
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rear Canopy 650 |
Steve, if it's any help, I have some pictures of the 650 canopy I installed on my site at http://home.comcast.net/~davegardea/fuselage.html#25
Note that I was able to take it back to the baggage deck bulkhead. I also have
a couple pics on the rear canopy flashing I made for both sides. I used posterboard
to make some patterns .. I didn't use the small pieces provided by Zenith.
--------
Dave Gardea
CH650 - Corvair - flying!
http://home.comcast.net/~davegardea/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356132#356132
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! --
|