Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

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

Zenith liability
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

z601a(at)anemicaardvark.c
Guest

Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 7:50 am Post subject: Zenith liability

I've spent a couple of days thinking over the Zenith situation. It seems to me 

the problem splits into multiple piles: the LSA, the plans builders, and 

those building from kits. 



One of the seemingly hidden facts about LSAs is that the manufacturer can 

mandate a change to the aircraft at any time, and the owners are stuck. They 

must made the changes the manufacturer requires, and cannot make any changes 

without the manufacturer's concurrence. No field mods, no STCs. 



That's not just for Zenith, but for any aircraft with an LSA airworthiness 

certificate. I wondered how long it would be before some manufacturer 

announced a change or changes that really got to the owners. Still, I feel 

extremely sympathetic towards the owners of Zenith XL and 650 LSAs. Recourse 

or no recourse, this is a bum deal.



 I feel even more sympathetic towards the owners of the CZAW 601s, because I 

have a hunch they are in even more of a no-man's land. Any grounding or 

ungrounding must come from CZAW, or its successor, yet I suspect the FAA 

considers their aircraft equally grounded. I doubt Zenith will sell them 

anything, since they have made it plain they do not consider they have any 

liability for the CZAW aircraft. I don't know that I blame them for this; 

they didn't sell the aircraft of realize a profit.



Those who built from plans are also very likely to have little recourse. After 

all, Zenith sold a set of plans which they are free to follow or not. It 

appears Zenith has, in effect, also supplied them with a free set of 

modification plans. Unfortunately, it adds to the cost and time, perhaps 

requiring extensive rework.



Which brings me to the final category, those who bought a kit. Zenith 

indicated that this kit contained everything necessary to build a flying 

airplane, except the engine, paint, upholstery, and avionics. Whatever it may 

be called by Zenith, the â€œfixâ€ kit is not a voluntary upgrade. Zenith can't 

claim this is some sort of design improvement; Chris Heintz has already said 

he doesn't feel it is necessary. 



The FAA, however, very likely will not let these aircraft be flown until these 

modifications are made. That means Zenith has not delivered everything 

necessary to build a flying airplane (with the exceptions previously noted). 

This is a direct result of their design, not something the builders have 

done. It is, in effect, a mandatory change at Zenith's instigation, even 

though it is intended to make the FAA happy.



That leaves a lot of builders having invested a lot of time, and now they must 

invest more. My feeling is that Zenith should take a hard look at this 

situation, and do everything within their power to make these modifications 

available either free, or at cost. They'll be lucky if they aren't sued for 

time AND materials.



I do not buy the argument that Mooney, Cessna, et al do not pay for 

Airworthiness Directives, service bulletins, and so on. While this is true 

for products that have been delivered for years, it has not always been true 

for products just delivered. Lycoming has paid for the replacement of engine 

parts recently delivered that proved to defective. Cessna paid for 

modifications to the early Cardinals, when they failed to fly correctly. One 

could find many more cases without searching too hard. The payment, of 

course, was to head off lawsuits, and (possibly) to preserve company image.



A real issue is that Zenith is a small company, and may not be able to afford 

the same things as a Lycoming or a Cessna. I believe there needs to be a 

negotiation between 650 and XL builders, with all of Zenith's cards on the 

table. We need to see what they can afford. What level of insurance do they 

have? They are at fault; they need to give until it hurts, and then 

(possibly) give some more.



If this does not happen, there is a very real danger of individual or combined 

lawsuits which do force Zenith from the aircraft business. I do not think 

(and I'm not an attorney) that Zenith's contract is likely to hold up under 

the circumstances which are present.



This is my 25 cents worth for this morning, with the reminder, as always, that 

25 cents won't buy what it once would.

-- 

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

                Do not archive.

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

                Jim B Belcher

    BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science

                  A&P/IA

     Retired aerospace technical manager



     Mathematics and alcohol do not mix.

         Do not drink and derive.

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

sabrina

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 170

Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 8:09 am Post subject: Re: Zenith liability

Do Not Archive

Last edited by sabrina on Tue Nov 10, 2009 1:46 pm; edited 1 time in total

z601a(at)anemicaardvark.c
Guest

Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 8:21 am Post subject: Zenith liability

On Tuesday 10 November 2009 10:09, Sabrina wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 I don't think worries of contract/civil liability were driving Zenith on

 Saturday... it may have been another kind


	


Sabrina, I would agree with you. But I think Saturday forced them to announce 

decisions already made much sooner than they'd planned.

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

                Do not archive.

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

                Jim B Belcher

    BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science

                  A&P/IA

     Retired aerospace technical manager



     Mathematics and alcohol do not mix.

         Do not drink and derive.

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

jaybannist(at)cs.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 8:55 am Post subject: Zenith liability

 	  Quote: 	
		  Jim Belcher wrote:



The FAA, however, very likely will not let these aircraft be flown until these 

modifications are made. That means Zenith has not delivered everything 

necessary to build a flying airplane (with the exceptions previously noted). 

This is a direct result of their design, not something the builders have 

done. It is, in effect, a mandatory change at Zenith's instigation, even 

though it is intended to make the FAA happy.

Jim,



I concur with most of your post, with the exception of the above underlined statement.  

Zenith has indeed delivered everything necessary to build a flying airplane, as 

evidenced by the many Zodiac XLs that are flying and have been for years.  How 

could that be if they did not deliver everything necessary?  



One could say that Zenith did not properly anticipate how their design would be 

implemented and how it would be flown. One could also fault Zenith's original

claim that it would withstand plus or minus 6 Gs.  But to say that Zenith did not

deliver a kit that could be made into a flying airplane is simply not true.  It is

true that, under the current circumstances, they are not (officially) flyable, but 

that doesn't change the fact that they were once indeed flyable and flying.



Jay Bannister

	


   

 

     [quote][b]

z601a(at)anemicaardvark.c
Guest

Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 9:12 am Post subject: Zenith liability

On Tuesday 10 November 2009 10:31, jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote:



Jay, from my perspective, they have not delivered to me everything I need to 

build a flyable airframe. It's very doubtful I could get a DAR or the FAA to 

sign off on this. One could argue that this is because is hasn't been 

inspected yet, and this would be true. But I still don't have everything I 

need to make a flyable aircraft.



Once I make that argument, the door is open for people who have had flying 

aircraft to make the same or similar points.



If someone asked me, as an A&P/IA, to sign off on one of these aircraft as 

part of a condition inspection, I really would not want to do so. I'd 

probably ask, pre-inspection, if the required modifications had been made, 

and if not, refuse the inspection.



I understand your point, but I think from a legal point of view, this 

perspective is very likely to be advanced, and not just by me.



 	  Quote: 	
		   Jim,



 I concur with most of your post, with the exception of the above underlined

 statement. Zenith has indeed delivered everything necessary to build a

 flying airplane, as evidenced by the many Zodiac XLs that are flying and

 have been for years.  How could that be if they did not deliver everything

 necessary?



 One could say that Zenith did not properly anticipate how their design

 would be implemented and how it would be flown. One could also fault

 Zenith's original claim that it would withstand plus or minus 6 Gs.  But to

 say that Zenith did not deliver a kit that could be made into a flying

 airplane is simply not true.  It is true that, under the current

 circumstances, they are not (officially) flyable, but that doesn't change

 the fact that they were once indeed flyable and flying..



 Jay Bannister


	


-- 

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

                Do not archive.

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

                Jim B Belcher

    BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science

                  A&P/IA

     Retired aerospace technical manager



     Mathematics and alcohol do not mix.

         Do not drink and derive.

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

hansriet

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 93

Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 9:47 am Post subject: Re: Zenith liability

The price that you paid at the time was for the parts that were included in the kit at that time. You might argue that you would have chosen another kit-airplane if you knew that the price would be higher (the difference for the new parts in the upgrade kit). But, considering the relative minor difference, that probably would be a stretch.



This is an inconvenient situation for all builders and buyers of Zodiacs. I think the most we can wish for is that ZAC provides the parts in the upgrade kit for close to cost price.



I'm just happy that I didn't close my left wing yet, that will save a LOT of time.



Hans van Riet

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 10:05 am Post subject: Zenith liability

Hi Jim,



I believe your thinking is sound, but I come to 

several different conclusions from yours.  Part 

of the reason for this is my own "Campaign" to 

get exactly what we got the other day.  As I have 

said many times in many different places, I 

wanted a competently engineered set of changes 

that satisfied the NTSB requests.  I couldn't 

have asked for more than to have Chris actually 

sponsor the changes.  He may not be convinced 

they are necessary, but still he applied his 

extensive skill and experience to bring us a well designed upgrade package.



My argument to the Heintz folks started out and 

always continued that they did not need to admit 

any fault.  All I wanted from them was a well 

engineered upgrade package.  They had "Design 

responsibility" so they were the best source for 

properly engineered changes.  My thinking, and I 

think theirs, was based on the idea that to admit 

a design flaw made them liable to the activities 

of every greedy lawyer in the world.  That would 

help nobody but the lawyers.  The notion that 

they could design and release improvements to the 

design without admitting fault would get the 

owners the needed (desired?) improvements without 

automatically bringing on all the lawsuits.  Your 

logic that they are liable anyway may have some 

merit, but it really doesn't accomplish anything 

useful to blame Zenith for the problems.  I don't 

think they have "Deep pockets" like the big 

manufacturers, so the lawyers are likely to 

ignore the whole thing at this point.  Especially 

with the lack of "Fault" any lawyer considering 

attacking Zenith is faced with a difficult case 

with unlikely victory and the real likelihood 

that there is no money to win at the end of the path.



I don't share your conclusion about the "Losses" 

of the S-LSA owners either.  They made a choice 

to try one of the new type aircraft instead of 

buying a part 23 certified plane.  They benefited 

from a much lower price for the same level of 

performance.  Now they have to pay a bit more 

than they thought the price was.  It sounds like 

a lot of money to a plans or kit builder, but 

when you measure the cost of a factory built 

plane against the upgrade cost you will see it is 

only a small percentage.  These buyers have 

simply bought into a more expensive version of 

airplane ownership than the plans and kit builders.



I don't see why Zenith, or Zenair, or the current 

European version of Zenair would refuse to sell 

upgrade kits to anyone who wants one.  That is 

their business - selling airplane parts.  The 

changes are supposed to be limited to American 

planes, but the chatter I have heard from other 

owners in other countries is they want to make the changes to their planes too.



I agree with you completely on the issue of CZAW 

customers.  They have a problem since I doubt AMD 

will be able or willing to upgrade their 

planes.  They should be able to get upgrade 

instructions and parts, but will need to pay a 

local mechanic to make the changes.  This must 

include a certain premium for the mechanic to 

become familiar with this particular style of 

airplane building and obtain the specialized 

tools such as the custom rivet 

setters.  Purchasers of experimental Zodiacs 

built by others are in a similar fix.  The rules 

don't require a licensed mechanic to work on 

their planes, but they probably don't have the 

personal skills the builders had.  I'm not sure 

there is a really nice solution for them.  They 

may wind up paying the same price as the S-LSA 

purchasers, but they didn't think they were 

getting into that price range when they bought their used experimental plane.



I don't want to guess at the likely price for the 

upgrade kits, but I feel the parts will be a 

small amount of money.  The more significant cost 

is the labor to install the upgrade.  I feel any 

owner who was able to pay for his version of the 

airplane will have no problem paying for the 

additional parts.  I just don't think it is 

consistent with the agreements between plans and 

kit builders and Zenith/Zenair for them to get 

the parts for free.  Perhaps AMD will have a 

different situation since they sold airplanes 

rather than parts in the first place.



I feel this is a big change in the "Landscape" 

for all XL and 650 owners.  I am hopeful the 

beefed up design will prove to be a lot safer in 

the future.  If so, it will all be worth it.



Paul

XL ready to order upgrade kit.





At 07:47 AM 11/10/2009, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  I've spent a couple of days thinking over the 

Zenith situation. It seems to me

the problem splits into multiple piles: the LSA, the plans builders, and

those building from kits.



One of the seemingly hidden facts about LSAs is that the manufacturer can

mandate a change to the aircraft at any time, and the owners are stuck. They

must made the changes the manufacturer requires, and cannot make any changes

without the manufacturer's concurrence. No field mods, no STCs.



That's not just for Zenith, but for any aircraft with an LSA airworthiness

certificate. I wondered how long it would be before some manufacturer

announced a change or changes that really got to the owners. Still, I feel

extremely sympathetic towards the owners of Zenith XL and 650 LSAs. Recourse

or no recourse, this is a bum deal.



  I feel even more sympathetic towards the owners of the CZAW 601s, because I

have a hunch they are in even more of a no-man's land. Any grounding or

ungrounding must come from CZAW, or its successor, yet I suspect the FAA

considers their aircraft equally grounded. I doubt Zenith will sell them

anything, since they have made it plain they do not consider they have any

liability for the CZAW aircraft. I don't know that I blame them for this;

they didn't sell the aircraft of realize a profit.



Those who built from plans are also very likely 

to have little recourse. After

all, Zenith sold a set of plans which they are free to follow or not. It

appears Zenith has, in effect, also supplied them with a free set of

modification plans. Unfortunately, it adds to the cost and time, perhaps

requiring extensive rework.



Which brings me to the final category, those who bought a kit. Zenith

indicated that this kit contained everything necessary to build a flying

airplane, except the engine, paint, upholstery, and avionics. Whatever it may

be called by Zenith, the â€œfixâ€ kit is not a 

voluntary upgrade. Zenith can't

claim this is some sort of design improvement; Chris Heintz has already said

he doesn't feel it is necessary.



The FAA, however, very likely will not let these 

aircraft be flown until these

modifications are made. That means Zenith has not delivered everything

necessary to build a flying airplane (with the exceptions previously noted).

This is a direct result of their design, not something the builders have

done. It is, in effect, a mandatory change at Zenith's instigation, even

though it is intended to make the FAA happy.



That leaves a lot of builders having invested a 

lot of time, and now they must

invest more. My feeling is that Zenith should take a hard look at this

situation, and do everything within their power to make these modifications

available either free, or at cost. They'll be lucky if they aren't sued for

time AND materials.



I do not buy the argument that Mooney, Cessna, et al do not pay for

Airworthiness Directives, service bulletins, and so on. While this is true

for products that have been delivered for years, it has not always been true

for products just delivered. Lycoming has paid for the replacement of engine

parts recently delivered that proved to defective. Cessna paid for

modifications to the early Cardinals, when they failed to fly correctly. One

could find many more cases without searching too hard. The payment, of

course, was to head off lawsuits, and (possibly) to preserve company image.



A real issue is that Zenith is a small company, and may not be able to afford

the same things as a Lycoming or a Cessna. I believe there needs to be a

negotiation between 650 and XL builders, with all of Zenith's cards on the

table. We need to see what they can afford. What level of insurance do they

have? They are at fault; they need to give until it hurts, and then

(possibly) give some more.



If this does not happen, there is a very real 

danger of individual or combined

lawsuits which do force Zenith from the aircraft business. I do not think

(and I'm not an attorney) that Zenith's contract is likely to hold up under

the circumstances which are present.



This is my 25 cents worth for this morning, with 

the reminder, as always, that

25 cents won't buy what it once would.

jaybannist(at)cs.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 10:20 am Post subject: Zenith liability

Jim,

 

 I guess the whole other category is you builders that have not completed your airplanes.

 In that case, I agree that you do not have everything you need to create a "legally" flying

 airplane.  I can't imagine that any FAA inspector or DAR would sign off a newly completed

 airplane without verifying that the mods had been done.  The price you paid for your kit 

 included the parts you got, but not all the parts you need for the mods. So I still don't 

 see where it is reasonable to expect Zenith to provide those parts for free.

 

 My airplane, like so many others, has flown legally; so we did get from Zenith

 what we needed to create a flying airplane. Once again, we got what we paid for. We did

 not pay for a package of parts to do modifications.  Since we are the manufacturers of our

 airplanes, we have the option to continue flying without the mods - definitely not smart,

 but still an option.

 

 Some other questions come to my mind: (all pertaining to E-AB) Will making the mods require 

 another inspection in order to fly legally?  Or does the builder just fly off a five hour test 

 period and so note it in the logbook? If the airplane is not owned by the builder, can the 

 owner do the mods and fly off a five hour test period? 

 

 Jay Bannister

 

   

 

   

 

 --

annken100

Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 62

Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 11:04 am Post subject: Re: Zenith liability

Jim's post made me think of a line that I read in the Zenith Condition of Sale and Warning agreement that we all signed before we received our plans, kits, or parts.



The line reads: 



The Seller does not warrant that the aircraft as constructed by the buyer, or any other person, will be airworthy, or will qualify for certification or

registration by aviation authorities, or will meet the requirement of the buyer.



Now, I'm no lawyer, but doesn't the above basically say that Zenith is not responsible if the airplane doesn't fly, can't be registered, or doesn't meet your needs?



If so the issues of the FAA not granting an airworthiness certificate, the plane falling out of the sky, or having to pay for a mod kit all become unquestionably the burden of the buyer.



I hope people don't jump on the litigation bandwagon too hastily because whether or not the above statement protects Zenith or not in court, it will ultimately lead to an end that doesn't bode well not only for the 601/650 folks but for everyone involved with a Zenith or AMD product.



Ken Pavlou

_________________
601 XL / Corvair

Doug.Norman(at)sportaviat
Guest

Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 11:22 am Post subject: Zenith liability

This is an interesting set of questions, and it goes to the heart of what it means to build an E-AB airplane.   

   

Isn’t it the case that any person is free to design their own aircraft, build it, and then fly it; regardless of their experience, education, or talent? The inspection for an airworthiness cert is based not on an assessment of the merits of the design, but on its execution using known best-practices. The DAR’s signature doesn’t say that they have examined the design and they concur with the expected performance profile. It says you have used best practices, and that the assembly per se isn’t likely to be the reason for performance issues.  

   

There’s a reason why each builder is the manufacturer. It’s your airplane! It’s your design. You may have taken advice from someone on what they might do in similar circumstances; and those other 3rd parties might even offer to help with certain manufacturing duties, but it is still your airplane.   

   

I frankly can’t see how a DAR could refuse given a workman-like execution. They might initially (as we saw with Ed Moody’s inspection); but they have no real basis if E-AB means in what it is intended to mean. Not to get too philosophical here, but in the US personal freedoms are what we’re based on; and this is an example of personal freedom.   

   

Each of you ARE an airplane manufacturer; with all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities that come with it. Zenith – your 3rd party advisor and (possibly) your materiel supplier – has a recommendation for you having spent their sweat and treasure to analyze and offer the suggestion. It’s yours to accept or reject – or something in between.   

   

Demonstrably, CH has designed an airplane which is capable of flight. Independent of what CH has done, each manufacturer has a duty to evaluate the merits of the advise coming from CH through various channels, and then act according to their own assessment. While designers would like builders to follow their design, the most they can do is restrict the use of their airplanes’ names and nomenclature. John Monnet is known for that, and CH doesn’t want builders mucking with his designs. But each builder (manufacturer) is free to do as they want. Don’t the 601 builders using Corvair engines call their airplanes something other than Zodiacs?  

   

I don’t think anyone is owed anything. Nor do I think they (Z/Z/A) are liable for anything (lawyers will know whether there is any fitness-for-purpose implied warranty – but if so, I would guess it goes to whether the aluminum pieces can be assembled). However, the owners and employees of Zenith, Zenair, and AMD are desirous of our business and want to stay in business – they want to earn a living; thus they want to please their customers. I would suspect that they will do what they must to generate as much good will as they can while not driving themselves out of business.  

   

But I’m an AMD owner, not a manufacturer such as yourselves. I must turn to AMD. They set my agenda just as each of you set your own – you just do it for a smaller fleet. And, I’ll be taking my Zodiac to AMD to have the modifications – already have an appointment for the end of the month. And, I will be paying for it. But, I can assure you, they won’t be getting rich doing the mods; even though is causes me some pain.  

   

Now that I’ve gotten past the initial prick of the needle, I’m actually looking forward to visiting with my friends up in Eastman, GA.  

   

Best of luck to all,  

Doug Norman  

N601DN  

     

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

 Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:16 PM

 To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Zenith liability  

  

     

Jim,

 

 I guess the whole other category is you builders that have not completed your airplanes.

 In that case, I agree that you do not have everything you need to create a "legally" flying

 airplane.  I can't imagine that any FAA inspector or DAR would sign off a newly completed

 airplane without verifying that the mods had been done.  The price you paid for your kit 

 included the parts you got, but not all the parts you need for the mods. So I still don't 

 see where it is reasonable to expect Zenith to provide those parts for free.

 

 My airplane, like so many others, has flown legally; so we did get from Zenith

 what we needed to create a flying airplane. Once again, we got what we paid for. We did

 not pay for a package of parts to do modifications.  Since we are the manufacturers of our

 airplanes, we have the option to continue flying without the mods - definitely not smart,

 but still an option.

 

 Some other questions come to my mind: (all pertaining to E-AB) Will making the mods require 

 another inspection in order to fly legally?  Or does the builder just fly off a five hour test 

 period and so note it in the logbook? If the airplane is not owned by the builder, can the 

 owner do the mods and fly off a five hour test period? 

 

 Jay Bannister  

    

   

    

   

  

--

pdn8r(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 11:22 am Post subject: Zenith liability

Been reading the posts and really probably don't have a problem paying for the upgade parts.  That being said, I don't think Z should profit from the upgrade kits.  Covering their costs, including handling shipping etc. seems to be the more appropriate remedy.



Bill Pagan EAA Tech Counselor #4395

601XL QBK/Corvair/N565BW (RES)

--- On Tue, 11/10/09, annken100 <annken100(at)aol.com> wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  

From: annken100 <annken100(at)aol.com>

Subject: Re: Zenith liability

To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com

Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 2:04 PM



 --> Zenith-List message posted by: "annken100" <annken100(at)aol.com (annken100(at)aol.com)>



Jim's post made me think of a line that I read in the Zenith Condition of Sale and Warning agreement that we all signed before we received our plans, kits, or parts.



The line reads: 



The Seller does not warrant that the aircraft as constructed by the buyer, or any other person, will be airworthy, or will qualify for certification or

registration by aviation authorities, or will meet the requirement of the buyer.



Now, I'm no lawyer, but doesn't the above basically say that Zenith is not responsible if the airplane doesn't fly, can't be registered, or doesn't meet your needs?



If so the issues of the FAA not granting an airworthiness certificate, the plane falling out of the sky, or having to pay for a mod kit all  become unquestionably the burden of the buyer.



I hope people don't jump on the litigation bandwagon too hastily because whether or not the above statement protects Zenith or not in court, it will ultimately lead to an end that doesn't bode well not only for the 601/650 folks but for everyone involved with a Zenith or AMD product.



Ken Pavlou



--------

601 XL / Corvair





Read this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272122#272122nnual List Fund Raiser.  Click http://www.matronics.com/contribution" target=_blank>http://www.matronicsp;                   -Matt Drae vigator?Zenith-List" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenbsp;            - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -=====





	


         [quote][b]

aussiech650

Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 25
Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 12:03 pm Post subject: Zenith liability

I hope all you people that are considering litigation are also considering the implications of not having the manufacturer around to support the aircraft in the future, this would result in all of our aircraft being worth nil and therefore much much more than the relatively small amount that we will pay for the mod kits.  

If you have ever had to have a defective component replaced by the factory you would know they are excellent in this regard and will happily send out a replacement free of charge. I for one am happy to pay for my mod kit as I definitely want to have the manufacturer around in the future. To suggest that ZAC would sell the kits at a profit is completely ridiculous, this will not happen the kits will be sold at cost. If you think you need to sue because you have to drill a few holes and pop a few rivets, get a grip, get over it and get on with life. Make the plane safe, fly within the limitations and leave the manufacturer alone so the rest of can do the same.  

     

Regards,  

   

   

Greg Cox  

Zenith Zodiac CH650, VH-ZDC  

Sydney, Australia (Cecil Hills)  

Email - greg(at)gas-n-go.com.au  

Mobile - +61 43 000 2 333  

Fax - +61 2 9823 9977  

  

       

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

 Sent: Wednesday, 11 November 2009 6:18 AM

 To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: Zenith liability  

  

  

   

This is an interesting set of questions, and it goes to the heart of what it means to build an E-AB airplane.   

   

Isn’t it the case that any person is free to design their own aircraft, build it, and then fly it; regardless of their experience, education, or talent? The inspection for an airworthiness cert is based not on an assessment of the merits of the design, but on its execution using known best-practices. The DAR’s signature doesn’t say that they have examined the design and they concur with the expected performance profile. It says you have used best practices, and that the assembly per se isn’t likely to be the reason for performance issues.  

   

There’s a reason why each builder is the manufacturer. It’s your airplane! It’s your design. You may have taken advice from someone on what they might do in similar circumstances; and those other 3rd parties might even offer to help with certain manufacturing duties, but it is still your airplane.   

   

I frankly can’t see how a DAR could refuse given a workman-like execution. They might initially (as we saw with Ed Moody’s inspection); but they have no real basis if E-AB means in what it is intended to mean. Not to get too philosophical here, but in the US personal freedoms are what we’re based on; and this is an example of personal freedom.   

   

Each of you ARE an airplane manufacturer; with all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities that come with it. Zenith – your 3rd party advisor and (possibly) your materiel supplier – has a recommendation for you having spent their sweat and treasure to analyze and offer the suggestion. It’s yours to accept or reject – or something in between.   

   

Demonstrably, CH has designed an airplane which is capable of flight. Independent of what CH has done, each manufacturer has a duty to evaluate the merits of the advise coming from CH through various channels, and then act according to their own assessment. While designers would like builders to follow their design, the most they can do is restrict the use of their airplanes’ names and nomenclature. John Monnet is known for that, and CH doesn’t want builders mucking with his designs. But each builder (manufacturer) is free to do as they want. Don’t the 601 builders using Corvair engines call their airplanes something other than Zodiacs?  

   

I don’t think anyone is owed anything. Nor do I think they (Z/Z/A) are liable for anything (lawyers will know whether there is any fitness-for-purpose implied warranty – but if so, I would guess it goes to whether the aluminum pieces can be assembled). However, the owners and employees of Zenith, Zenair, and AMD are desirous of our business and want to stay in business – they want to earn a living; thus they want to please their customers. I would suspect that they will do what they must to generate as much good will as they can while not driving themselves out of business.  

   

But I’m an AMD owner, not a manufacturer such as yourselves. I must turn to AMD. They set my agenda just as each of you set your own – you just do it for a smaller fleet. And, I’ll be taking my Zodiac to AMD to have the modifications – already have an appointment for the end of the month. And, I will be paying for it. But, I can assure you, they won’t be getting rich doing the mods; even though is causes me some pain.  

   

Now that I’ve gotten past the initial prick of the needle, I’m actually looking forward to visiting with my friends up in Eastman, GA.  

   

Best of luck to all,  

Doug Norman  

N601DN  

     

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

 Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:16 PM

 To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Zenith liability  

  

     

Jim,

 

 I guess the whole other category is you builders that have not completed your airplanes.

 In that case, I agree that you do not have everything you need to create a "legally" flying

 airplane.  I can't imagine that any FAA inspector or DAR would sign off a newly completed

 airplane without verifying that the mods had been done.  The price you paid for your kit 

 included the parts you got, but not all the parts you need for the mods. So I still don't 

 see where it is reasonable to expect Zenith to provide those parts for free.

 

 My airplane, like so many others, has flown legally; so we did get from Zenith

 what we needed to create a flying airplane. Once again, we got what we paid for. We did

 not pay for a package of parts to do modifications.  Since we are the manufacturers of our

 airplanes, we have the option to continue flying without the mods - definitely not smart,

 but still an option.

 

 Some other questions come to my mind: (all pertaining to E-AB) Will making the mods require 

 another inspection in order to fly legally?  Or does the builder just fly off a five hour test 

 period and so note it in the logbook? If the airplane is not owned by the builder, can the 

 owner do the mods and fly off a five hour test period? 

 

 Jay Bannister  

    

   

    

   

  

--

jmaynard

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

Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 12:04 pm Post subject: Zenith liability

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:04:17AM -0800, annken100 wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   I hope people don't jump on the litigation bandwagon too hastily because

 whether or not the above statement protects Zenith or not in court, it

 will ultimately lead to an end that doesn't bode well not only for the

 601/650 folks but for everyone involved with a Zenith or AMD product.


	


This is exactly why I'm not going to pursue legal action. It's possible to

win the battle and lose the war. Nobody at AMD is getting rich. If I were to

sue, only the lawyers would win. I'm satisfied with the proposals I've

heard; AMD's not going to be making any money off of the mods to my

airplane, or any other. OTOH, they're not going to be losing anything,

either.

-- 

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

sabrina

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 170

Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 12:42 pm Post subject: Re: Zenith liability

Do Not Archive

Last edited by sabrina on Tue Nov 10, 2009 1:47 pm; edited 1 time in total

grs-pms(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 1:01 pm Post subject: Zenith liability

Well spoken, Greg!

  

 George Swinford  CH601HD, not finished, no dog in  this fight.

 [quote]   ---

Davcoberly(at)wmconnect.c
Guest

Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 1:01 pm Post subject: Zenith liability

I feel the accident rate will increase once these mods are installed because pilots will think they have a much tougher plane now and will abuse it to the point of failure was as now we're all very cautious now on how we fly. Time will tell. 

David Coberly  [quote][b]

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 1:57 pm Post subject: Zenith liability

Hi Sabrina,



Your really good fortune is you don't have to pay the normal fees for 

your legal team.



I am not a lawyer, but I think you comments are a little bit 

harsh.   Just as Zenith and friends have no liability to speak of we 

don't either.  I suppose your point about people on the ground 

getting hurt is a good one, but I doubt anything we do regarding 

airplane design would lead to criminal prosecution.  For one thing 

there is no "Criminal intent".



Still, I agree with your general comments.  I hope all owners upgrade 

their planes to the safest possible level.  There may be room for 

choosing which mods to install, but my latest thoughts came out while 

explaining all this to one of my friends at the airport a few minutes 

ago.  We really don't have any idea why the accidents happened or 

what the initial problem was in the accident chain, but all the 

planes broke in the same place - the attachment of the wings to the 

fuselage.  That gives me enough of a clue that it is wise to beef up 

that particular area including all the mods recommended by Chris.



Paul

XL ready to order mod kit.



P.S.  I got an email from Shirley at ZAC that it will be a few weeks 

before they are ready to quote and/or ship kits.  Their engineers are 

busy trying to put it all together.  What she didn't say but I 

guessed is that this completely blind-sided them as far as the 

release timing goes.

At 12:42 PM 11/10/2009, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  I guess I am lucky that I have a legal team...

davgray(at)sbcglobal.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:05 pm Post subject: Zenith liability

This is the way I see it also.

 It seems everybody is pretty much on the same page on  this one.  The best solution is the one that produces the best  outcome.

 What is being offered by CH, will serve the Owners,  the FAA,  Zenith and hopefully puts this issue to rest.

  

 For those of you apprehensive about the  rebuild:

 During my original construction, I nicked the top main  spar cap after the wing was closed when I was installing a nutplate for the  access hole.

 After I stopped throwing up, I decided I had to dissemble  the wing to replace it.

 I was surprised.  The job was not that  difficult.  I built each wing in 3 weeks and it took 2 weeks to dissemble,  repair and reassemble the

 wing.  Just take your time with each rivet as you  carefully drill it out.  

 A Technique for removing the solid rivets:

 The spar cap solid rivets can be drilled just far enough  to almost remove the shop head then a light tap from the side with a  chisel removes the rest of the shop head,  the rivet body is then  lightly driven out of the hole with a smaller drift punch without any  chance of damaging the holes.  It all went very  well.  I did find a mass against the opposite side from the drift  punch helped a lot just don't damage your spar caps with this  mass.

  

 Gary Ray

  

 [quote]   ---

purplemoon99(at)bellsouth
Guest

Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:06 pm Post subject: Zenith liability

Ken I aggre with you 100%,let's get the  fix, fly our planes ,let zenith keep builbing planes ,live our lives the best we can..remember most of us are no 'Spring Chicken" and life is to short to moan  and groan about a little more work and a little money, we've already done alot of work and spent alot of money. No body is perfect ,and nothing is perfect, that includes Zenith ,so take adeep breath ,live and let live."  It is what it is!  Right Ken?    Joe 601XL(been working on mine 5 years and it's flying)

   From: annken100 <annken100(at)aol.com>

To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com

Sent: Tue, November 10, 2009 2:04:17 PM

Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Zenith liability

--> Zenith-List message posted by: "annken100" <annken100(at)aol.com (annken100(at)aol.com)>

Jim's post made me think of a line that I read in the Zenith Condition of Sale and Warning agreement that we all signed before we received our plans, kits, or parts.

The line reads: 

The Seller does not warrant that the aircraft as constructed by the buyer, or any other person, will be airworthy, or will qualify for certification or

registration by aviation authorities, or will meet the requirement of the buyer.

Now, I'm  no lawyer, but doesn't the above basically say that Zenith is not responsible if the airplane doesn't fly, can't be registered, or doesn't meet your needs?

If so the issues of the FAA not granting an airworthiness certificate, the plane falling out of the sky, or having to pay for a mod kit all become unquestionably the burden of the buyer.

I hope people don't jump on the litigation bandwagon too hastily because whether or not the above statement protects Zenith or not in court, it will ultimately lead to an end that doesn't bode well not only for the 601/650 folks but for everyone involved with a Zenith or AMD product.

Ken Pavlou

--------

601 XL / Corvair

Read this topic online here:

http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272122#272122

[b]wwbsp;                             -Matt Dralle, ====================

  [quote][b]

Larry Webber

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

Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:08 pm Post subject: Zenith liability

Hi guys my 2 cents worth!  The reason i got a 601xl kit was C i liked its looks C its something doable C it keeps me out of the grog shops C it keeps my mind active C it allows me to do something with my hands and mind C i am a slow builder C ive had my kit for 8 years Cyes its finally starting to like like an xl C i have met a mostly great group of builders C i have been introduced to most of the good people at zenith C i have always been treated with respect from zenith reps.  its my intent to obtain the upgrade kit/kits as soon as possible C incorporate them; and get on with the building of a fun project. For you  folks that have finished aircraft i wish i could wave a magic wand and solve your problem   The reason General Aviation has had problems is because of lawyers and litigators. I do know that with the upgrades i will have a safer and better aircraft and i still look forward to my project in the air.

 Larry Webber rhode island 601xl /corvair chugger



  



  Date: Tue C 10 Nov 2009 15:05:17 -0800

From: purplemoon99(at)bellsouth.net

Subject: Re: Re: Zenith liability

To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com



  .ExternalClass DIV {;}    Ken I aggre with you 100% Clet's get the  fix C fly our planes  Clet zenith keep builbing planes  Clive our lives the best we can..remember most of us are no 'Spring Chicken" and life is to short to moan  and groan about a little more work and a little money C we've already done alot of work and spent alot of money. No body is perfect  Cand nothing is perfect C that includes Zenith  Cso take adeep breath  Clive and let live."  It is what it is!  Right Ken?    Joe 601XL(been working on mine 5 years and it's flying)



 

   From: annken100 <annken100(at)aol.com>

To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com

Sent: Tue C November 10 C 2009 2:04:17 PM

Subject: Re: Zenith liability



--> Zenith-List message posted by: "annken100" <annken100(at)aol.com (annken100(at)aol.com)>



Jim's post made me think of a line that I read in the Zenith Condition of Sale and Warning agreement that we all signed before we received our plans C kits C or parts.



The line reads: 



The Seller does not warrant that the aircraft as constructed by the buyer C or any other person C will be airworthy C or will qualify for certification or

registration by aviation authorities C or will meet the requirement of the buyer.



Now C I'm no lawyer C but doesn't the above basically say that Zenith is not responsible if the airplane doesn't fly C can't be registered C or doesn't meet your needs?



If so the issues of the FAA not granting an airworthiness certificate C the plane falling out of the sky C or having to pay for a mod kit all become unquestionably the burden of the buyer.



I hope people don't jump on the litigation bandwagon too hastily because whether or not the above statement protects Zenith or not in court C it will ultimately lead to an end that doesn't bode well not only for the 601/650 folks but for everyone involved with a Zenith or AMD product.



Ken Pavlou



--------

601 XL / Corvair





Read this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272122#272122

wwbsp;                             -Matt Dralle C ====================

 	  Quote: 	
		  [b]



lectric.com

/">www.buildersbooks.com

ebuilthelp.com

ww.matronics.com/contribution

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

ronics.com
	




	
[/b] 		 	   		  Bing brings you maps C menus C and reviews organized in one place. Try it now.  [quote][b]

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

Display posts from previous:

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

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