 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jakereyna(at)yahoo.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:35 am Post subject: FAA SAIB CE-10-08 |
 |
|
Having read SAIB CE-10-08 a number of times, I thought it would be
best to get legal advice from the many experts on the list.
The FAA states: "After the review we made a determination that these
accidents did not clearly indicate a single root cause. Instead, it
implicated the potential coupling of design and operational aspects of
the aircraft."
What exactly does "the potential coupling of design and operational
aspects of the aircraft" mean. Ignorant me seems to think it means
that the operational aspects are controlled by the pilot. So, how does
that indicate there is a design flaw? It does indicate a flaw in
intelligent design and there is more evidence of that on this list.
The report goes onto state that "Our detailed review of available
flutter analysis reports was inconclusive." Once again, no evidence of
a design flaw, dammit!!
So, the FAA decides that the lack of evidence is proof enough to
mandate significant modifications. Is there anyone on this list that
believes that the FAA would prevail in a court of law? We are a
country of laws and somewhere in there is a presumption of innocence.
The FAA in this case is the prosecutor and I find it inconceivable
that any jury after looking at the lack of evidence would do anything
other than dismiss the case.
If there is to be any legal action, it should be against the FAA and NTSB.
Jake
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
skyguynca
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 7:16 am Post subject: FAA SAIB CE-10-08 |
|
|
I get the impression Jake you do not deal with the FAA often. In my job I
see and deal with them all the time. The FAA is a government office that
makes the determination based on regulations, not laws. There is one little
paragraph in the FAR (Federal Aviation Regulations) that states " the pilot
in command may not operate a aircraft that is believed to be in a
unairworthy condition". The FAA and the NTSB "believe" the 601xl and the 650
to be in a unairworthy condition. The word "believe" give the FAA the right
to say you can not fly the 601xl and 650 under the guidance of the FAR's.
Now since this is a regulation and not a law you can go ahead and fly your
plane as much as you want. However be advised that the FAA can also suspend
your license at will for being "unsafe" and "endangering the public" because
that is also a judgement call given to the FAA under the FAR's.
You can fight both these in court and the only thing you will get is a very
very very high bill from your lawyer. Getting mad about what the FAA does
not work, sueing the FAA does not work either. The FAA has several offices
full of lawyers geared up for just these types of fights. While the FAA does
not always win, even if they loose and you win in court, think about all
the months or perhaps years you spend in court fighting the suspension of
your license or getting to fly your plane without mods...... or even the
amount of money you would spend to have 3 or 4 engineering firms back up
Chris's design in court (wont happen because they are afraid of liability
suits) or the money (we are talking more than $100,000.00) in attorney fees
to fight this case in open court.
We are all better off just making the upgrades and enjoying our planes.
David M
---
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bryanmmartin
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1018
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 7:49 am Post subject: FAA SAIB CE-10-08 |
|
|
Unfortunately, The FAA falls within the area of Administrative Law, they are outside the normal legal process. If the FAA takes action against you, for all practical purposes, your only avenue of appeal is the NTSB and the. Taking either agency to court is nearly out of the question. Apparently, the courts have decided that the right to due process does not apply to FAA enforcement actions. Congress has delegated the authority over aviation regulations to the FAA. The FARs, for instance, are not enacted by Congress, they are written and enacted by the FAA. The FAA can seemingly do anything it wants unless Congress wants to step in and slap them down.
On Nov 12, 2009, at 9:34 AM, Jake Reyna wrote:
| Quote: |
So, the FAA decides that the lack of evidence is proof enough to
mandate significant modifications. Is there anyone on this list that
believes that the FAA would prevail in a court of law? We are a
country of laws and somewhere in there is a presumption of innocence.
The FAA in this case is the prosecutor and I find it inconceivable
that any jury after looking at the lack of evidence would do anything
other than dismiss the case.
If there is to be any legal action, it should be against the FAA and NTSB.
Jake
|
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
_________________
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL, Stratus Subaru.
do not archive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaybannist(at)cs.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 8:00 am Post subject: FAA SAIB CE-10-08 |
|
|
David,
You are so right. Remember Bob Hoover's nightmare episode with the FAA ? Even though it was TOTALLY unfair and not within the law, the bureaucrats and their "judicial" system never gave in. The politically-appointed head of the FAA had to override the bureaucracy and personally straighten it out. It is a shame, but our government can coerce us, bully us and outright force us into doing what we otherwise might not do. "Better off"? Given the state of our present government, probably so. This leaves a lot unsaid, but I am going to leave it at that.
Jay Bannister
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "David Mikesell" <skyguynca(at)skyguynca.com (skyguynca(at)skyguynca.com)>
I get the impression Jake you do not deal with the FAA often. In my job I see and deal with them all the time. The FAA is a government office that makes the determination based on regulations, not laws. There is one little paragraph in the FAR (Federal Aviation Regulations) that states " the pilot in command may not operate a aircraft that is believed to be in a unairworthy condition". The FAA and the NTSB "believe" the 601xl and the 650 to be in a unairworthy condition. The word "believe" give the FAA the right to say you can not fly the 601xl and 650 under the guidance of the FAR's.
Now since this is a regulation and not a law you can go ahead and fly your plane as much as you want. However be advised that the FAA can also suspend your license at will for being "unsafe" and "endangering the public" because that is also a judgement call given to the FAA under the FAR's.
You can fight both these in court and the only thing you will get is a very very very high bill from your lawyer. Getting mad about what the FAA does not work, sueing the FAA does not work either. The FAA has several offices full of lawyers geared up for just these types of fights. While the FAA does not always win, even if they loose and you win in court, think about all the months or perhaps years you spend in court fighting the suspension of your license or getting to fly your plane without mods...... or even the amount of money you would spend to have 3 or 4 engineering firms back up Chris's design in court (wont happen because they are afraid of liability suits) or the money (we are talking more than $100,000.00) in attorney fees to fight this case in open court.
We are all better off just making the upgrades and enjoying our planes.
David M
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LINLARMAYES(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 8:00 am Post subject: FAA SAIB CE-10-08 |
|
|
Looks like another one went down yesterday. see
http://www.villageronline.com/story/1586318.html
In a message dated 11/12/2009 9:16:54 A.M. Central Standard Time, skyguynca(at)skyguynca.com writes:
| Quote: | --> Zenith-List message posted by: "David Mikesell" <skyguynca(at)skyguynca.com>
I get the impression Jake you do not deal with the FAA often. In my job I
see and deal with them all the time. The FAA is a government office that
makes the determination based on regulations, not laws. There is one little
paragraph in the FAR (Federal Aviation Regulations) that states " the pilot
in command may not operate a aircraft that is believed to be in a
unairworthy condition". The FAA and the NTSB "believe" the 601xl and the 650
to be in a unairworthy condition. The word "believe" give the FAA the right
to say you can not fly the 601xl and 650 under the guidance of the FAR's.
Now since this is a regulation and not a law you can go ahead and fly your
plane as much as you want. However be advised that the FAA can also suspend
your license at will for being "unsafe" and "endangering the public" because
that is also a judgement call given to the FAA under the FAR's.
You can fight both these in court and the only thing you will get is a very
very very high bill from your lawyer. Getting mad about what the FAA does
not work, sueing the FAA does not work either. The FAA has several offices
full of lawyers geared up for just these types of fights. While the FAA does
not always win, even if they loose and you win in court, think about all
the months or perhaps years you spend in court fighting the suspension of
your license or getting to fly your plane without mods...... or even the
amount of money you would spend to have 3 or 4 engineering firms back up
Chris's design in court (wont happen because they are afraid of liability
suits) or the money (we are talking more than $100,000.00) in attorney fees
to fight this case in open court.
We are all better off just making the upgrades and enjoying our planes.
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jake Reyna" <jakereyna(at)yahoo.com>
To: <zenith-list(at)matronics.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 6:34 AM
Subject: FAA SAIB CE-10-08
| Quote: | --> Zenith-List message posted by: Jake Reyna <jakereyna(at)yahoo.com>
Having read SAIB CE-10-08 a number of times, I thought it would be
best to get legal advice from the many experts on the list.
The FAA states: "After the review we made a determination that these
accidents did not clearly indicate a single root cause. Instead, it
implicated the potential coupling of design and operational aspects of
the aircraft."
What exactly does "the potential coupling of design and operational
aspects of the aircraft" mean. Ignorant me seems to think it means
that the operational aspects are controlled by the pilot. So, how does
that indicate there is a design flaw? It does indicate a flaw in
intelligent design and there is more evidence of that on this list.
The report goes onto state that "Our detailed review of available
flutter analysis reports was inconclusive." Once again, no evidence of
a design flaw, dammit!!
So, the FAA decides that the lack of evidence is proof enough to
mandate significant modifications. Is there anyone on this list that
believes that the FAA would prevail in a court of law? We are a
country of laws and somewhere in there is a presumption of innocence.
The FAA in this case is the prosecutor and I find it inconceivable
that any jury after looking at the lack of evidence would do anything
other than dismiss the case.
If there is to be any legal action, it should be against the FAA and NTSB.
Jake
========================; nbsp; (And Get Some AWESOME FREE to find Gifts tric re b k you for p; -Matt Dralle, List ======================== the ties Day ================================================ - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ==================================================
|
|
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
psm(at)att.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 8:08 am Post subject: FAA SAIB CE-10-08 |
|
|
Hi Jake,
Before I try to answer your questions about the FAA language I want
to make it perfectly clear that I am not agreeing with what they said
-- just interpreting the language. My years as an engineer qualify
me to do that but they don't qualify me to have a professional
opinion as to the design strength or flaws of the design.
The FAA in its language is saying they believe there is indeed a
design flaw. They also say there is not a single root cause of the
accidents. That can be interpreted to mean the design flaw is not so
big as to be fatal by itself but requires "Activation" by operational
events (e.g. pilot actions or loose cables, etc.) to produce an accident.
Your other statements suggest you suffer from the same kind of
thinking that got me so angry at Sun n Fun when M. Heintz made it
clear that it wasn't good enough that the NTSB felt there were
problems with the XL. They still needed to convince HIM there was a
problem. He said this after saying he is not an engineer and not
qualified to be sure of the design validity.
The whole point is that we each as owners have reasonable power to
control our own destiny with experimental airplanes. On the other
hand the government agencies (NTSB and FAA) don't have any
requirement to prove anything to us. They make their own decisions
based on their operating methods and principles and take action
accordingly. We are best advised to accept their decisions without
trying to assert we know better than they do and they can't rule over us.
Let us not forget they are the government. It is their job to make
decisions and to exercise power over activities in this country. As
such, they have very large sticks to enforce their decisions.
One last piece of wisdom from somewhere I can't exactly
remember: "You can't fight city hall".
Paul
XL ready for updates
At 06:34 AM 11/12/2009, you wrote:
| Quote: | The FAA states: "After the review we made a determination that these
accidents did not clearly indicate a single root cause. Instead, it
implicated the potential coupling of design and operational aspects of
the aircraft."
What exactly does "the potential coupling of design and operational
aspects of the aircraft" mean. Ignorant me seems to think it means
that the operational aspects are controlled by the pilot. So, how does
that indicate there is a design flaw?
|
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
z601a(at)anemicaardvark.c
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 8:19 am Post subject: FAA SAIB CE-10-08 |
|
|
On Thursday 12 November 2009 09:33, LINLARMAYES(at)aol.com wrote:
Unless I'm missing something, this is the same crash reported in these spaces
a few days ago. However, this report has a lot more detail that the others
I've seen.
=============================================
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.
=============================================
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnd
Joined: 09 Jun 2009
Posts: 27
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 8:20 am Post subject: FAA SAIB CE-10-08 |
|
|
No, Thats the Nov 6th accident...
LINLARMAYES(at)aol.com (LINLARMAYES(at)aol.com) wrote: [quote] Looks like another one went down yesterday. see
http://www.villageronline.com/story/1586318.html
In a message dated 11/12/2009 9:16:54 A.M. Central Standard Time, skyguynca(at)skyguynca.com (skyguynca(at)skyguynca.com) writes:
[quote]--> Zenith-List message posted by: "David Mikesell" <skyguynca(at)skyguynca.com> (skyguynca(at)skyguynca.com)
I get the impression Jake you do not deal with the FAA often. In my job I
see and deal with them all the time. The FAA is a government office that
makes the determination based on regulations, not laws. There is one little
paragraph in the FAR (Federal Aviation Regulations) that states " the pilot
in command may not operate a aircraft that is believed to be in a
unairworthy condition". The FAA and the NTSB "believe" the 601xl and the 650
to be in a unairworthy condition. The word "believe" give the FAA the right
to say you can not fly the 601xl and 650 under the guidance of the FAR's.
Now since this is a regulation and not a law you can go ahead and fly your
plane as much as you want. However be advised that the FAA can also suspend
your license at will for being "unsafe" and "endangering the public" because
that is also a judgement call given to the FAA under the FAR's.
You can fight both these in court and the only thing you will get is a very
very very high bill from your lawyer. Getting mad about what the FAA does
not work, sueing the FAA does not work either. The FAA has several offices
full of lawyers geared up for just these types of fights. While the FAA does
not always win, even if they loose and you win in court, think about all
the months or perhaps years you spend in court fighting the suspension of
your license or getting to fly your plane without mods...... or even the
amount of money you would spend to have 3 or 4 engineering firms back up
Chris's design in court (wont happen because they are afraid of liability
suits) or the money (we are talking more than $100,000.00) in attorney fees
to fight this case in open court.
We are all better off just making the upgrades and enjoying our planes.
David M
---
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
