Hi, Jay.
The last time I talked to William D. (the founder of ZBAG), he admitted that there
was an faction of the group that wasn't as pure of heart as we would all have
liked. I too, originally signed on as a ZBAG participant, but it became very
clear that there were several different agendas at work, the worst being a
few impatient souls who were very unhappy and wanted to build gallows and tie
nooses as the solution.
I decided that the best course of action (for me) was to wait until the jury came
back in before passing sentence on Zenith generally and the 601 specifically.
In the mean time, I checked my 601 religiously, flew it conservatively, up
until the time I lost access to the hangar it was in and moved it to my shop.
And now I can finally get on with the mods, reassemble it, and fly it with renewed
confidence.
I still think the original intent of ZBAG, to independently research the cause
of the inflight break ups, was laudible. However, there was also a lot of inappropriate
anger directed at the Heintz family, and a lot of leaping to the conclusion
that the Heintz's just weren't doing enough fast enough. Lost in the ensuing
debate was the realization that we ALL had a vested interest in putting
this issue to rest, in a thorough and scientific manner.
With or without ZBAG, we'd ultimately end up where we are now. 7 inflight break
ups of a single design in a short time frame isn't acceptable in anyone's book,
and I'll bet even Roger will admit that. I also think Zenith deserves credit
for going the extra mile in coming up with an upgrade package that will result
in a stronger airframe, one that is more resistant to neglectful maintenance
or stupid pilot/passeger tricks or severe turbulence. We do fly in an imperfect
world with imperfect people. Zenith knows this, they've spent the last year
coming up with these mods, partially based on their crash research with the
NTSB.
In the old days, we'd most likely get a certified letter from Zenith or the FAA
detailing the information that's now instantly available online. As marvelous
a tool as the PC is in building airplanes, with discussion groups on every topic
imaginable, we should recognize that it's also a powerful tool for forming
and sharing opinions before thoroughly thinking things through. This is the downside.
My impression of Roger's parable was exactly that - a parable. I don't think he
intended it to be scientific treatise purely based on fact, there's a lot of
his opinion at work. We all view reality through our own set of filters, based
on individual perceptions. That's a long way from "incoherent ravings".
Right now, Monday Night Fooball and a cold beer seem like the perfect solution
to electronic dirt clod chucking!
Best,
Rick
-----Original Message-----
>From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard@conmicro.com>
>Sent: Nov 16, 2009 5:36 PM
>To: zenith601-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Re: In a galaxy far, far away
>
>
>On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 04:51:04PM -0500, Rick Lindstrom wrote:
>> So let's quit kicking Roger for his thoughts
>
>I'll quit kicking Roger just as soon as he quits bashing ZBAG, a group of
>owners and builders that only has everyone's safety at heart - despite his
>incoherent ravings.
>--
>Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, CFI-SP http://www.conmicro.com
>http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
>Fairmont, MN (KFRM) (Yes, that's me!)
>AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml
>
>
