Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - New Chris Heinz Letter Today

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

New Chris Heinz Letter Today
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Larry Webber

Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 63
Location: West Kingston Rhode Island

Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 3:59 pm Post subject: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

Hey Paul Dullwits why dont you change your sign off to read SELF-IMPOSED grounding i think the list should take a poll to send you to the sidelines all your rhetoric boils down to the point that you feel screwed and dont have the manhood marbles to fly your finished AC im getting sick and tired of having to wade through your postings. like juan i would fly your aircraft for you once i deemed Your workmanship is of good quality

 LarryWebber 601xl/corvair chugger 



  



[quote] Subject: Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

 From: lsapilot(at)HOTMAIL.COM

 Date: Wed C 8 Jul 2009 16:35:34 -0700

 To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com

 

 --> Zenith-List message posted by: "jonaburns" <lsapilot(at)hotmail.com>

 

 Paul Said:

 

 ..Second C I find your suggestions offensive. You have offered to fly

 ..my plane for me - as if your manhood makes you a better pilot than me

 ..and that makes it OK to fly this death trap. What C exactly C makes

 ..you think my pilot skills are not up to flying the XL while yours are? 

 

 

 One answer may be WHY you don't have a Medical.

 

 Why didn't you put as much effort and research into picking the plane you were going build as you have in trying to convince as many people as possible that the 601XL is C in your mind C a "Death Trap?"

 

 When I hear comments by a couple of people all that I can think of is Chicken Little and the Boy that Cried Wolf. Your credibility is shot and the more you say C the farther you get from kosher. Even if Zenith does find an issue C you will find something else to complain about because it won't fall within your alternate reality. Most of us won't forget that this all started out because some said the issue HAS TO BE flutter. We know where that went.

 

 While I do sympathize with our European colleagues that are legally prohibited from flying C but I am so tired of hearing words like "DEMAND" and "GROUNDED" thrown around when all they really are is exaggerated cries for attention.

 

 

 Jon Burns

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=252196#252196

 

 

 > 

 

 

Lauren found her dream laptop.  Find the PC that’s right for you.   	  Quote: 	
		  [b]

_________________
how do you eat an elephant ? one bite at a time

Larry Webber

Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 63
Location: West Kingston Rhode Island

Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 4:09 pm Post subject: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

paul once again mass balance was not DEMANDED by ntsb but thats how your engineers brain read it once again RECOMMENDED is not the same as DEMANDED



 LarryWebber/601xl/corvair chugger



  



  Date: Tue C 7 Jul 2009 17:25:39 -0700

To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com

From: psm(at)att.net

Subject: Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today



First C here is a link to the new letter on Zenith's web site:

http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/data/c-heintz-letter-7-2009.pdf



Now for the requested comments . . .



I am glad to hear someone from the Zenith/Zenair community actually suggest there is a need to do something about all the accidents.  Reduction of gross weight and airspeed limits certainly should help with the future safety record of this design.



I am now more hopeful I will receive "Official" design changes for the XL that I decided to wait for before entering flight testing.  The ones I want are aileron mass balance and control system force changes as demanded by the NTSB.



Paul

XL grounded

At 04:50 PM 7/7/2009 C you wrote:



  	  Quote: 	
		  Let's hear some comments on the new Chris Heinz Letter on lowering our Vne and Gross Weight among others!  David Coberly 601XL Ready to Fly / Corvair 

 	  Quote: 	
		  

[/b] 	




 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List

ronics.com
	


ww.matronics.com/contribution



	
Windows Live™ SkyDrive™: Get 25 GB of free online storage.   Get it on your BlackBerry or iPhone.  [quote][b]

_________________
how do you eat an elephant ? one bite at a time

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 4:12 pm Post subject: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

Dear Jon,



Thank you for your sophomoric psychological analysis of my motives 

and goals.  Of course you are wrong on every point.



I am not trying to convince anyone of anything.  I am trying to get 

Zenith to design and release changes to the Zodiac XL to meet the 

statements made by the NTSB.  You can argue all you want over my 

choice of words, but that has always been my goal - at least since 

the NTSB letter was issued.



Now to correct some of your wrong guesses.



I did indeed research the safety of the XL before embarking on my 

project to build one.  I checked every source I could find including 

the experts at the EAA.  All the information available then (indeed 

all the information there was then) suggested this was a very safe 

and good design.



The in-flight failures started some 2 years later.  I didn't take any 

action or try to convince anyone of anything for a couple of years 

after the first breakup.  Indeed, I didn't know what to conclude 

since all the information that was available was inconsistent and 

generally worthless.  One of the worst days of my life was the day 

the NTSB report on the first crash was released.  After waiting about 

a year for the full investigation we all learned that the wings came 

off for unknown reasons.



Another year passed and a few more structural failures 

occurred.  Then the authorities in the Netherlands grounded the XLs 

in that country.  Instead of explaining themselves, the guy 

responsible for the decision immediately went on extended 

vacation.  Again I said nothing.



That was followed by the Germans and British grounding the XLs in 

their countries.  Again I said nothing.



By this time there had been something between 5 and 10 unexplained 

in-flight structure failures on XLs around the world.  Of course I 

was concerned about this rash of unexplained disasters.  Still, I had 

no facts to suggest any explanation for all these deaths.  So I still 

said nothing.



Finally, when I was about to get my plane inspected and start flight 

testing, the NTSB came out with their (nearly?) unprecedented ruling 

- that all planes in this family should be immediately grounded.  I 

believe this was an academic issue for most people.  They were either 

building along and not really too concerned about the NTSB ruling or 

they had been flying their planes for a while - many for years - and 

had plenty of personal confidence in their planes.  For me it was a 

really important event since I was facing my first flight at that 

time.  I had to consider what to do about the ruling with impact in 

my behavior within a few days.



I made my decision and did the best I could to get resolution to the 

problem.  I never suggested anyone else should make the same decision 

as mine and I never tried to convince anybody that there is a problem 

with the XL.  I merely kept the pressure up on the Heintz folks 

(particularly Mathieu) by staying active on this list and continuing 

to report the status of my plane - grounded.    If you think that 

amounts to alternate reality, then I suggest you quit making stupid 

amateur psychological pronouncements on strangers and seek some real 

medical advice on your own sense of reality.



Paul

XL grounded

do not archive



P.S. My medical status is none of your business.

At 04:35 PM 7/8/2009, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  Paul Said:



..Second, I find your suggestions offensive. You have offered to fly

..my plane for me - as if your manhood makes you a better pilot than me

..and that makes it OK to fly this death trap. What, exactly, makes

..you think my pilot skills are not up to flying the XL while yours are?

One answer may be WHY you don't have a Medical.



Why didn't you put as much effort and research into picking the 

plane you were going build as you have in trying to convince as many 

people as possible that the 601XL is, in your mind, a "Death Trap?"



When I hear comments by a couple of people all that I can think of 

is Chicken Little and the Boy that Cried Wolf.   Your credibility is 

shot and the more you say, the farther you get from kosher.  Even if 

Zenith does find an issue, you will find something else to complain 

about because it won't fall within your alternate reality.  Most of 

us won't forget that this all started out because some said the 

issue HAS TO BE flutter.  We know where that went.



While I do sympathize with our European colleagues that are legally 

prohibited from flying, but I am so tired of hearing words like 

"DEMAND" and "GROUNDED" thrown around when all they really are is 

exaggerated cries for attention.

Jon Burns

leo.gates

Joined: 29 Nov 2008
Posts: 35

Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:12 pm Post subject: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

Jim Belcher wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

   

 I looked hard at the HDS, but (in part) rejected it because of the limited 

 fuel. It's a personal choice: I tend to do a lot of cross countries. I climb 

 high, reduce the power, trim out, and stay there for 4 1/2 to 5 hours.

   

My wing tanks hold 21 gal, 20 gal usable fuel (5 hours). I could have 
	


added two 7.5 gal wing locker tanks (3 hours and 45 min.) and an 8 gal 

(2 hour) fuselage tank for 10 hrs 45 min fuel.  That is 44 gal of fuel 

or 264 lbs.  674 lbs empty airplane,  plus 264 lbs fuel,  plus 165 lbs 

(me), plus 99 lb baggage equals 1200 lbs GTW.  3 or 4 potty stops before 

I would have to add fuel. OR carry a portable human factors relief 

device and fly 10 hours and get darn hungry.



Leo Gates

N601Z

skyriderekm

Joined: 28 Feb 2009
Posts: 10

Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:29 pm Post subject: Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

I'm sure glad I haven't been reading all of this mess.  I got caught up in there for awhile, but I've since made the conscious decision to STOP reading as much on this website.  I'm now spending all my free time BUILDING in stead of worrying about something that might not ever happen.  I realized too I have NO CONTROL what the NTSB and FAA are up to.  If they put out a mandatory AD, I will adhere to it and do whatever it says I need to do.   If and when I get to the point of the starting the flying part in first stage, I will cross that bridge when I get there.  I'm contemplating installing a BRS, but nothing is cast in stone there yet either.  I'm takiing a "wait and see" attitude on this one.   Of course, all of this is MY CHOICE and no one has coerced me into anything.  Each and everyone one of you are making your choices.  Each of you are right in your own way and NEITHER should be trying to convince the other they are right.  There is no solid "right" OR "wrong" here.  It is was it is.  A choice.  Paul has made his choice.  Juan has made his.  Now if I may make a suggestion: put your testosterone back up on the shelf and DO SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE instead of picking, picking, and bickering!!

Enough said here.  Its time for me to step off my soapbox and let you "gentlemen" to ponder what I said.  As for me, my air compressor is ready and I am OUTTA HERE! 



Tailwinds,



Larry Hursh



PS - don't bother responding back to me - I'm too busy building.

tonyplane(at)bellsouth.ne
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:11 pm Post subject: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

Paul,

  

 Ref page 11 of the NTSB report

  

 "------ the National Transportation Safety Board  recommends that the Federal Aviation Aviation  Administration:

  

              Prohibit further flight on the Zodiac CH-601XL, both special light sport  aircraft

             and  experimental, until such time that the Federal Aviation  Administration determines that the CH-601XL  has 

              adequate protection from flutter. (A-09-30"  (underling and  bold mine)

  

 The above in my opinion as a retired aerospace  engineer, and my Phase I flight tests, and the Zenith Flight tests and the  results of the Modal surveys (Ground Vibration Tests - GVT) is that  the recommendation by the NTSB to determine that the XL has adequate protection  from flutter has been, in my lowly opinion, satisfied.  Of course this  assumes that the aileron control cables are not slack, for the reported real  flutter was a result of slack cables - the flutter stopped once the IAS was  lowered and did not repeat with proper cable tension, which per the GVT tests  should be at a minimum of 10 pounds - much less than the Zenith spec  value.

  

 The XL does though, like most all light aircraft,  have a wing removal device called a "stick".  I personally like the  light stick forces of the XL, but as Mr. Henitz in his letter stated  "Remember that, as with any light aircraft, if you encounter  unexpected turbulence while cruising, ride it out rather than fight it - and  slow down!"

  

 Tony

  

  ---

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 10:39 pm Post subject: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

Hi Tony,



 First let me say your qualifications to understand the technical details of this issue are a lot better than mine.  I believe you are convinced that flutter is not an issue for the XL based on the German test report.



 However, you are not the FAA.  I don't believe they will determine that the XL has adequate protection from flutter no matter what any engineering reports say.  I learned when I discussed this issue with them at Sun n Fun that they already believe the XL needs balanced ailerons and that nothing will change their minds on that point.  Indeed, I believe the NTSB has the same opinion (but I have no personal proof of that position).



 By talking to lots of FAA and industry folks who have been around for a long time I learned there is a belief that balanced ailerons are needed by all planes of this sort.  History has shown that to be true in many different designs, and these guys are convinced that the XL is no exception to this rule.



 The other news from those discussions is that the FAA will not take any action to prevent E-AB owners from flying their planes.  They just don't care about experimental planes in that sort of way.  They do care about factory built planes, but even those are safe from FAA rule making for at least a year.  It takes them that long (and longer) to issue an NPRM and get to the final rule.  That is the process they will use to issue a mandatory AD if they choose to go in that direction.



 It is my hope that the whole problem will go away without actual rules from the FAA.  All it takes is a group of design changes from Zenith/Zenair with some sort of mandatory implementation from AMD for S-LSA XLs.  Then the FAA won't need to take any regulatory action.



 For E-AB it is all up to the owner to decide what to do with their plane.



 Paul

 XL grounded



 



 

 At 09:59 PM 7/8/2009, you wrote:

 [quote]"------ the National Transportation Safety Board recommends that the Federal Aviation Aviation Administration:

  

              Prohibit further flight on the Zodiac CH-601XL, both special light sport aircraft

             and experimental, until such time that the Federal Aviation Administration determines that the CH-601XL has 

             adequate protection from flutter. (A-09-30"  (underling and bold mine)

  

 The above in my opinion as a retired aerospace engineer, and my Phase I flight tests, and the Zenith Flight tests and the results of the Modal surveys (Ground Vibration Tests - GVT) is that the recommendation by the NTSB to determine that the XL has adequate protection from flutter has been, in my lowly opinion, satisfied.  Of course this assumes that the aileron control cables are not slack, for the reported real flutter was a result of slack cables - the flutter stopped once the IAS was lowered and did not repeat with proper cable tension, which per the GVT tests should be at a minimum of 10 pounds - much less than the Zenith spec value.

  

 The XL does though, like most all light aircraft, have a wing removal device called a "stick".  I personally like the light stick forces of the XL, but as Mr. Henitz in his letter stated "Remember that, as with any light aircraft, if you encounter unexpected turbulence while cruising, ride it out rather than fight it - and slow down!"

  

 Tony

  [b]

z601(at)anemicaardvark.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:41 am Post subject: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

On Wednesday 08 July 2009 18:08, ALAN BEYER wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Hi Jim,



 How much fuel do you want to carry?Â  I have an HDS and can carry 29 Gal. of

 usable fuel.Â  I have flown from Oshkosh to SnF and have been out west a

 couple of times. I have also flown 4 1/2 Hour legs.Â On my normal cross

 country flights I will burn off the wing tanks (21 Gal.) and then land with

 8 Gal. left in the header tank.



 Al From OshkoshÂ 


	


With two people and baggage, at least 30 gallons. But it's kind of a moot 

point, as I have a 601XL in the next room, with the wings, elevator, and 

rudder done.



Perhaps with better information, I might have made a different choice. But 

it's the old story of the road not taken.



-- 



=============================================

                Do not archive.

=============================================

                Jim B Belcher

    BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science

                  A&P/IA

     Retired aerospace technical manager

=============================================

ernieth(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:48 am Post subject: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

You said

--->I don't believe they will determine that the

 	  Quote: 	
		   XL has adequate protection from flutter no matter what any engineering

 reports say


	


If you mind can not be changed by any engineering data, why will the

balanced aileron engineering data change your mind?



Do not archive



On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 2:31 AM, Paul Mulwitz<psm(at)att.net> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Hi Tony,



 First let me say your qualifications to understand the technical details of

 this issue are a lot better than mine.  I believe you are convinced that

 flutter is not an issue for the XL based on the German test report.



 However, you are not the FAA.  I don't believe they will determine that the

 XL has adequate protection from flutter no matter what any engineering

 reports say.  I learned when I discussed this issue with them at Sun n Fun

 that they already believe the XL needs balanced ailerons and that nothing

 will change their minds on that point.  Indeed, I believe the NTSB has the

 same opinion (but I have no personal proof of that position).



 By talking to lots of FAA and industry folks who have been around for a long

 time I learned there is a belief that balanced ailerons are needed by all

 planes of this sort.  History has shown that to be true in many different

 designs, and these guys are convinced that the XL is no exception to this

 rule.



 The other news from those discussions is that the FAA will not take any

 action to prevent E-AB owners from flying their planes.  They just don't

 care about experimental planes in that sort of way.  They do care about

 factory built planes, but even those are safe from FAA rule making for at

 least a year.  It takes them that long (and longer) to issue an NPRM and get

 to the final rule.  That is the process they will use to issue a mandatory

 AD if they choose to go in that direction.



 It is my hope that the whole problem will go away without actual rules from

 the FAA.  All it takes is a group of design changes from Zenith/Zenair with

 some sort of mandatory implementation from AMD for S-LSA XLs.  Then the FAA

 won't need to take any regulatory action.



 For E-AB it is all up to the owner to decide what to do with their plane.



 Paul

 XL grounded





 At 09:59 PM 7/8/2009, you wrote:



 "------ the National Transportation Safety Board recommends that the Federal

 Aviation Aviation Administration:



             Prohibit further flight on the Zodiac CH-601XL, both special

 light sport aircraft

             and experimental, until such time that the Federal Aviation

 Administration determines that the CH-601XL has

             adequate protection from flutter. (A-09-30"  (underling and bold

 mine)



 The above in my opinion as a retired aerospace engineer, and my Phase I

 flight tests, and the Zenith Flight tests and the results of the Modal

 surveys (Ground Vibration Tests - GVT) is that the recommendation by the

 NTSB to determine that the XL has adequate protection from flutter has been,

 in my lowly opinion, satisfied.  Of course this assumes that the aileron

 control cables are not slack, for the reported real flutter was a result of

 slack cables - the flutter stopped once the IAS was lowered and did not

 repeat with proper cable tension, which per the GVT tests should be at a

 minimum of 10 pounds - much less than the Zenith spec value.



 The XL does though, like most all light aircraft, have a wing removal device

 called a "stick".  I personally like the light stick forces of the XL, but

 as Mr. Henitz in his letter stated "Remember that, as with any light

 aircraft, if you encounter unexpected turbulence while cruising, ride it out

 rather than fight it - and slow down!"



 Tony

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 5:18 am Post subject: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

It is not me we are talking about here, it is the older, more 

experienced experts in aviation.



Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here.  The point is not that all 

engineering data is to be ignored.  It is that engineering data is 

not sufficient support for the decision to have unbalanced ailerons 

in this type of airplane.  This decision is based on real history of 

many different airplane designs.  Simply stated (the best I can do 

from the information I received) when ailerons are balanced fatal 

accident rates are reduced.



It might help to think about aviation as a mature technology.  Many 

of the hard lessons have been learned through experience rather than 

through academic theory.  For the most part, all of the basic 

technology of flying machines was developed many decades ago.  Today, 

all we see are slight variations on long standing designs that have 

huge amounts of history associated with them.

Paul

XL grounded



At 05:44 AM 7/9/2009, you wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  If you mind can not be changed by any engineering data, why will the

balanced aileron engineering data change your mind?

wjones(at)brazoriainet.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 7:10 am Post subject: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

Hi Paul ,I just weighed my ailerons and the best I can determine (using 

bathroom scales) they weigh 3.5# .It would be very easy to add 3.5# in front 

of the hinge line .I plan to use some type of a flat bar at the outer tip of 

the ailerons ,of course the tip will be beefed up to allow for this extra 

weight .I used .025 material through out the airframe with the exception of 

the .016 on the ailerons .Can't say if the balancing is needed on the 601XL 

for safety but for my safety I require it .

Wade  Jones  South East Texas



---

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 7:22 am Post subject: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

Hi Wade,



The problem with your approach is you may not have the skills and 

information needed to see if any other parts of the design need to be 

beefed up.  Adding several pounds at the wing tip can have a big 

impact on the wing design.



I have heard comments about needing heavier ribs and also some kind 

of beefing up of the rear channel.



It is just this sort of thing that makes me want a design validated 

by the normally responsible engineers at Zenith.



Paul

XL grounded

At 08:06 AM 7/9/2009, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  Hi Paul ,I just weighed my ailerons and the best I can determine 

(using bathroom scales) they weigh 3.5# .It would be very easy to 

add 3.5# in front of the hinge line .I plan to use some type of a 

flat bar at the outer tip of the ailerons ,of course the tip will be 

beefed up to allow for this extra weight .I used .025 material 

through out the airframe with the exception of the .016 on the 

ailerons .Can't say if the balancing is needed on the 601XL for 

safety but for my safety I require it .

Wade  Jones  South East Texas

wjones(at)brazoriainet.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 7:31 am Post subject: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

In all due respects ,I have the skills and information . Thanks for your 

concern Paul .

Wade  Jones  South East Texas



---

Juan Vega Jr

Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Posts: 157

Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:39 am Post subject: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

Paul,

you said"

By talking to lots of FAA and industry folks who have been around for a long

 	  Quote: 	
		   time I learned there is a belief that balanced ailerons are needed by all

 planes of this sort.  History has shown that to be true in many different

 designs, and these guys are convinced that the XL is no exception to this

 rule."


	


No insult inteaded,  but this is the biggest load of.... I have ever heard.  some employee " self described as an expert" at the FAA does not make for rules written in stone and factual.  Sorry to say but this is way off base, frankly I gotta say it,  I call Bullshit on this one.



Juan

--

Juan Vega Jr

Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Posts: 157

Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:47 am Post subject: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

well said Tony and I agree as much of us do.



Juan



--

Gig Giacona

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1416
Location: El Dorado Arkansas USA

Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:57 am Post subject: Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

 	  Juan Vega Jr wrote: 	
		  No insult inteaded,  but this is the biggest load of.... I have ever heard.  some employee " self described as an expert" at the FAA does not make for rules written in stone and factual.  Sorry to say but this is way off base, frankly I gotta say it,  I call Bullshit on this one.



Juan

-- 	




A perfect example of this happened to our friend Dr. Ed. An FSDO tried to not inspect his plane because of the NTSB letter. A couple of calls to the EAA and from the EAA to the FAA and low and behold Dr. Ed has a plane with an AW certificate.

_________________
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR

arno7452(at)bellsouth.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:21 am Post subject: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

History would tell us that Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr settled their 

differences in an open field.  Suggest parties involved in this contest do 

the same.



Will greatly reduce the consumption of our very scarce natural resources.



Ken



do not archive

---

Juan Vega Jr

Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Posts: 157

Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:34 am Post subject: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

Gig,  my point exactly.



All,

i get some emails from some saying ,  just keep quite, and stick to building,  the problem as Mark Twain said

" Gossip and missinformation hsa travelled twice round the Globe by the time Truth has stepped up to the starting gate"



Guys,  If Gossip and False or misguided statements are not rebutted,  then we deserve what is coming to us, becuase frankly the Feds,(ntsb, FAA) will put the gavel down in the end with info based on missinformation, given enough pressure from those wanting to push an agenda for self serving reasons, hence the NTSB letter. And we as owners of aircraft, will live with the repercussions, all becuase we wanted to keep our head in the sand.



I will be quite when I hear those pushing BS agenda and gossip and false info are quite.  You dont like it, dont listen.  

When the bullshitter stick to building , I will stick to buidling.



Juan



--

jmaynard

Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 394
Location: Fairmont, MN (FRM)

Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:41 am Post subject: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 02:31:45PM -0400, Juan Vega wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   I will be quite when I hear those pushing BS agenda and gossip and false

 info are quite.


	


Pot, kettle, black. You're pushing the BS agenda around here in your

never-ending quest to pin the entire blame on builder and pilot error. You

don't know, and neither does anyone else.

-- 

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

_________________
Jay Maynard, K5ZC
AMD Zodiac XLi N55ZC

d.goddard(at)ns.sympatico
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:34 am Post subject: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

I'm not convinced that bandwidth on intermet chat groups is a scarce enough 

commodity to ask people to start shooting each other.



It's a matter of (un)common sense vs extreme desire. There are people who 

would deny it if the wings fell off in front of them in the hangar and there 

are those who demand reasonable assurance that the design is sound in the 

face of the in in-flight failures. (interpreted by the former group as 

demanding proof of no possible flaw under any circumstances) I think that 

there is reasonable assurance that flutter is not an issue under a certain 

set of reasonable circumstances, I think the choice to apply a factory 

authorized mod for balance ailerons would be better. But if flutter is not 

and never was an issue, there remains the issue of the accidents. CH has 

advised (but not demanded or decreed) actions to reduce the stress on the 

airframe for the time being. Despite the claims from some that this is 

merely a PR exercise I figure Zenith is actually as anxious for bad things 

to stop happening in their designs as the NTSB is and I would certainly 

follow their advice.



The anxiety and emotion around the issue is not surprising given that many 

feel they cannot afford for anything to be wrong, too much time cash and/or 

ego tied up to accept any hint of a problem. If at the end of this Zenith 

comes up with a set of recommendations or options that any exp. builder can 

choose to ignore, everyone should be satisfied.



In the meantime, hope for no more accidents, follow the new recomendations, 

fly carefully or keep on building. It's a bunch of pieces of metal here 

folks, not truly worth anyones life. No need for guns.



---

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 3 of 4

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