Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 6:59 pm Post subject: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to

Hi guys,



Please let me respond to several of your comments in one message:



Randy:  I agree with you that the controls should be nice and 

sensitive.  The design flaw the NTSB identified is that as you pull 

more Gs it gets easier to increase the load.  I like the stick to be 

sensitive in normal flight too, but it shouldn't get easier to load 

the airframe more as the Gs increase.  This is the kind of thing that 

would never make it through a part 23 qualification.



Art:  I am quite calm now, and I really do think I am making things 

better rather than worse.  I admit, though, that the only answer from 

Matthew that I can find acceptable is that he will issue the design 

changes.  I don't see any other way my plane can be ungrounded.  The 

frustrating part for me (today) is that I have no clue how long it 

will be before this takes place even though I am quite sure it will 

eventually happen.



Roger,  I agree with you completely.  Matthew is worried about 

admitting liability for the design flaw.  He knows a law suit is a 

waste of time because he is judgement proof.  Still, I told him he 

can issue the necessary changes without admitting anything except 

that the changes were well analyzed for fitting in with the remaining 

parts of the plane.  He can blame the NTSB for deciding the changes 

were needed.



I personally feel the NTSB demand must be met - simply because they 

demanded it.  I don't think they have proved anything, and I don't 

think they have to prove anything.  Matthew thinks his judgement 

about the cause of the crashes is more important than the NTSB 

ruling.  From my point of view that is the real problem that keeps my 

plane on the ground.



So far, I have no reason to be upset with any of the comments I have 

received.  The simple fact that I am unhappy about the Heintz 

children's approach to this problem is my problem not any body 

else's.  If only Chris hadn't retired I believe we would have already 

reached a reasonable solution to this mess.



Paul

XL grounded

do not archive

At 07:08 PM 4/21/2009, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  Paul, I couldn't disagree with you more.  I happen to love the 

sensitive control inputs and I hope the Heintz boys don't change 

it.  Learn to fly the plane properly and you will love it also.

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:27 pm Post subject: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to

Hi Jay,



I'm not going to respond to most of your flaming because I believe 

you indeed have no clue about what is actually happening in the real 

world.  The NTSB is not an engineering agency -- they are a higher 

level government authority than the FAA.  The FAA guys I spoke to 

today all seemed to agreed with that notion.  They also all seemed to 

think the mass balancing on the ailerons was absolutely necessary 

without any need to cite the NTSB ruling on the same point.  It is 

not me that thinks that is necessary, it is the government.



I only think the change is necessary because the NTSB says it is 

necessary (as do the FAA folks).  This is a political statement on my 

part not an engineering one.



I only wish I could go back to building as you suggest.  Perhaps you 

missed the fact that my plane is already completed so I can't do that.



Best regards,



Paul

XL grounded

do not archive



At 07:59 PM 4/21/2009, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  Stay angry with the Heintz brothers and make yourself miserable; or 

back off, relax and get back to building and soothe your psyche. 

Just make up your mind to wait for this to be resolved in a safe and 

reasonable fashion. It WILL be resolved.



Jay Bannister

hills(at)sunflower.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:38 pm Post subject: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to

Ya, I don't know much about flutter, but I do know your wings aren't suppose

to come off while just flying around in the pattern.



Roger



--

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:42 pm Post subject: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to

Hi Craig,



Your comment seems well reasoned, and I agree with it on the 

surface.  The problem is that the NTSB and the consulting engineers 

are not looking at the same information at all -- nor should 

they.  The engineers are looking at the design of the XL by studying 

the drawings and sample planes.  Their purpose is to find design 

flaws if there are some to be found.  The NTSB looks at accident 

investigation results and makes their decisions on that basis.  While 

these seem to be the same thing they are not.  Perhaps they could be 

described as opposite sides of the same coin.



Since these two groups are using different data and different 

reasoning it seems quite likely they will reach different overall 

conclusions.  I feel we must respect the NTSB rulings even if the 

engineering points we are aware of don't support those rulings.



The NTSB is the unquestioned authority on accident 

investigation.  While some people feel this is not the case, I do and 

so do the folks at the FAA.  While they may not have any good proof 

to submit to us or the Heintzes, they simply don't have to do 

that.  Proof of engineering issues is not their domain, accident 

investigation and the resulting determinations is their domain.



I am a little bothered by all the folks who point out that the NTSB 

investigations have given different results than the actual NTSB 

(which is a board of a few very experienced and powerful, very high 

ranking people) rulings.  The investigators do their part and provide 

documentation for the actual board members to consider.  The actual 

board doesn't work that way.  They don't have to convince anybody of 

anything.  Their role is to provide judgement and rule on the 

issues.  Perhaps this is like Supreme Court judgements.  People can 

whine about Supreme Court decisions all they want, but those 

decisions are still the law of the land.



Best regards,



Paul

XL grounded

do not archive

At 08:04 PM 4/21/2009, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  Zenith should be able to take the results from the outside engineering firms

(which probably includes the active vibration testing being done in Germany

and shown in the YouTube video) to the NTSB and the FAA. Then somebody (or

everybody) may shift their position. If the whole of the outside testing is

made public then it can be peer reviewed and/or enlightened amateurs (like

us) can make our own decisions (assuming the FAA doesn't preempt us). Based

on what I saw in the video there is going to be more vibration data

available on the XL than any other LSA.



The worrisome outcome is if the outside engineering investigations don't

offer any new recommendations. Then we are back to where we are now with a

high percentage of unexplained crashes and no way forward (unless you

believe flutter explains all).



-- Craig

craig(at)craigandjean.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 8:02 pm Post subject: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to

Based on what I saw in the NTSB letter they considered more than just the

accident reports. They also considered reports from the Matronics lists and

ZBAG (including ZBAGs outside engineer). This would indicate they are open

to multiple sources of information including outside engineering studies.

 	  Quote: 	
		  From what Doug Norman posted on the Zenith.aero web site reporting on

Zenith's SnF forum the Heintz brothers said this about one of their outside
	


engineers: "The California engineer was asserted to be held in high regard

by the FAA and the NTSB (who have apparently worked with this person on

other investigations - especially flutter-related)"



And of course the NTSB *may* be "authoritative" but they have no authority.

The FAA has the authority and has rejects NTSB recommendations many times.



-- Craig



--

JohnDRead(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 8:14 pm Post subject: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to

Can some body tell me what a ZBAG is? Is it some foreign group who do not  like Zenith aircraft or what? 

  

 John  Read

CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300



Phone: 303-648-3261

Fax:  303-648-3262

Cell: 719-494-4567   

  In a message dated 4/21/2009 10:03:00 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,  craig(at)craigandjean.com writes:

 [quote]-->    Zenith-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"    <craig(at)craigandjean.com>



Based on what I saw in the NTSB letter    they considered more than just the

accident reports. They also considered    reports from the Matronics lists and

ZBAG (including ZBAGs outside    engineer). This would indicate they are open

to multiple sources of    information including outside engineering studies.

 	  Quote: 	
		  From what Doug    Norman posted on the Zenith.aero web site reporting on

Zenith's SnF forum    the Heintz brothers said this about one of their outside
	


engineers: "The    California engineer was asserted to be held in high regard

by the FAA and    the NTSB (who have apparently worked with this person on

other    investigations - especially flutter-related)"



And of course the NTSB    *may* be "authoritative" but they have no authority.

The FAA has the    authority and has rejects NTSB recommendations many times.



--    Craig



--

craig(at)craigandjean.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 8:34 pm Post subject: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to

Zenith Builders Analysis Group. They spun off their own group a while ago to do an independent engineering analysis of the XL and the crashes. They agreed to keep their conclusions confidential within the group but also (apparently) pass data on to government bodies. Membership is open to anyone (I think) who (a) has an official set of XL plans from Zenith,  (b) agrees to follow the confidentiality rules and (c) contribute to pay for outside consultants. They had an (unnamed) retired engineer do some analysis on the XL. Some of their members has publicly stated that flutter was the cause of all of the unexplained XL accidents. This is all from my memory. As there are plenty of ZBAG members on this list (and one ex-member I believe) they can correct anything I have remembered wrong.  

   

-- Craig  

       

From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of JohnDRead(at)aol.com

 Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:14 PM

 To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to...  

  

  

     

Can some body tell me what a ZBAG is? Is it some foreign group who do not like Zenith aircraft or what?   

    

   

    

John Read

 CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300

 

 Phone: 303-648-3261

 Fax: 303-648-3262

 Cell: 719-494-4567     

   

      

In a message dated 4/21/2009 10:03:00 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, craig(at)craigandjean.com writes:  

  [quote]  

--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com>

 

 Based on what I saw in the NTSB letter they considered more than just the

 accident reports. They also considered reports from the Matronics lists and

 ZBAG (including ZBAGs outside engineer). This would indicate they are open

 to multiple sources of information including outside engineering studies.

 >From what Doug Norman posted on the Zenith.aero web site reporting on

 Zenith's SnF forum the Heintz brothers said this about one of their outside

 engineers: "The California engineer was asserted to be held in high regard

 by the FAA and the NTSB (who have apparently worked with this person on

 other investigations - especially flutter-related)"

 

 And of course the NTSB *may* be "authoritative" but they have no authority.

 The FAA has the authority and has rejects NTSB recommendations many times.

 

 -- Craig

 

 --

n4546v(at)mindspring.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 8:35 pm Post subject: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to

Do Not Archive



"Since the NTSB screamed we need aileron mass balancing we need aileron mass 

balancing."



The above statement has prompted me to leave the sidelines and comment.  As 

a 701 Builder, I have no personal stake in 601 issues other than how they 

affect aviation generally.



Blindly following the NTSB or the FAA in all things is a fool's errand. 

They are often wrong.



My experience is with "V" tailed Bonanzas, which are subject to endless ADs 

regarding the tails, many of the issues dealing with "flutter".



I own a first model, second year production Bonzana.  A 1948 model 35 Serial 

No. D-1373.



Bonanzas have "ruddervators" that do the job of both rudders and elevators. 

They are operated by pushrods which are hollow steel tubes.



An AD was issued to address the possiblility that the steel tube could 

retain water and rust through from the inside.  It required sealing the tube 

so water couldn't penetrate and then protecting the tube from further 

corrosion.



In this sequence, part of the AD had you:



1.  Coat the outside of the tube with Corrosion resisting compound (say 

grease).



2.  After doing the above, paint the ends of the tube bright orange to 

visually show the AD had been accomplished.



So you were supposed to paint over grease according to the FAA.



Everyone who read the AD in the field immediately saw how riduculous this 

was.



But this process was originated and made it through FAA's engineering, 

review, editing, proofreading, publishing and distribution levels and was 

never detected.



No one in their entire system went through the AD step by step to picture 

what they were asking for.



As screaming from the field poured in, the FAA immediately issued a 

"revised" process for accomplishing the AD.



Guess what?  They agreed one should paint the tubes BEFORE the grease was 

applied to the outside.



This is a small example but if you want more horror stories, I can provide 

them.



I believe they have good intentions, but don't tell me they are to be 

blindly followed and Pilots and A/C owners are to check their common sense 

at the door.



Best Regards,



Randy, Las Vegas

JohnDRead(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:10 pm Post subject: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to

Sounds to me as if they are a bunch of interfering busybodies with an axe  to grind about Zenith airplanes. do not archive.

  

 John  Read

CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300



Phone: 303-648-3261

Fax:  303-648-3262

Cell: 719-494-4567   

  In a message dated 4/21/2009 10:35:17 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,  craig(at)craigandjean.com writes:

 [quote]      

Zenith    Builders Analysis Group. They spun off their own group a while ago to do an    independent engineering analysis of the XL and the crashes. They agreed to    keep their conclusions confidential within the group but also (apparently)    pass data on to government bodies. Membership is open to anyone (I think) who    (a) has an official set of XL plans from Zenith,  (b) agrees to follow    the confidentiality rules and (c) contribute to pay for outside consultants.    They had an (unnamed) retired engineer do some analysis on the XL. Some of    their members has publicly stated that flutter was the cause of all of the    unexplained XL accidents. This is all from my memory. As there are plenty of    ZBAG members on this list (and one ex-member I believe) they can correct    anything I have remembered wrong.   

    

--    Craig   

          

From:    owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com    [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of    JohnDRead(at)aol.com

Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:14    PM

To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: Zenith-List:    Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions    to...



   

       

Can    some body tell me what a ZBAG is? Is it some foreign group who do not like    Zenith aircraft or what? 

      

 

      

John    Read

CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300



Phone: 303-648-3261

Fax:    303-648-3262

Cell: 719-494-4567       

 

         

In a    message dated 4/21/2009 10:03:00 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,    craig(at)craigandjean.com writes:

   [quote]     

-->      Zenith-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"      <craig(at)craigandjean.com>



Based on what I saw in the NTSB letter      they considered more than just the

accident reports. They also considered      reports from the Matronics lists and

ZBAG (including ZBAGs outside      engineer). This would indicate they are open

to multiple sources of      information including outside engineering studies.

 	  Quote: 	
		  From what Doug      Norman posted on the Zenith.aero web site reporting on

Zenith's SnF forum      the Heintz brothers said this about one of their outside
	


engineers: "The      California engineer was asserted to be held in high regard

by the FAA and      the NTSB (who have apparently worked with this person on

other      investigations - especially flutter-related)"



And of course the NTSB      *may* be "authoritative" but they have no authority.

The FAA has the      authority and has rejects NTSB recommendations many times.



--      Craig



--

d.goddard(at)ns.sympatico
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:36 am Post subject: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to

I think they like Zenith aircraft well enough, they all  own one. They are simply trying to determine why incidents of in flight  structural failures appear occurring at an unusual rate on XL aircraft. So  far I don't think they have found anything. I applaud their efforts in general,  in looks like this airframe is getting a lot of attention over it, if it comes  back that nothing has been found and no changes are required it seems to me that  a person can have a fair amount of confidence about this aircraft. If it comes  out that a design change is required then it's good to know that also. In terms  of safety, interfering busybodies are a irritant and a nuisance no question. If  it keeps you or your family from injury, maybe being irritated and bothered is  not too high a price.

  

  

  

 [quote]   ---

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum