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

SAIB

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

yak52

Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Posts: 50

Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:28 am Post subject: SAIB

Isn't it interesting how so many of the people who demanded the redesign of so many components of the 601xl now feel free to disregard, delete or change the same redesign they so stridently sought. One can only  wonder how(if)  they have indicated compliance with the SAIB and understand the consequences of making that entry into their logbooks.   [quote][b]

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:55 am Post subject: SAIB

Roger,

     

     I assume you are talking about me with your comment below.

     

     Before the major structure redesign the FAA engineers determined the     design didn't meet the ASTM standard for LSA structure requirements     and after the redesign it does.  This is exactly what I was looking     for when I "Demanded" a redesign of the whole aircraft  -- not "the     redesign of so many components" as you said.  

     

     The one item I chose to not include in my plane is definitely not     related to the ASTM standard (F2245).  It just doesn't address the     issue of ham fisted pilots or clumsy people kicking the control     stick while jumping into the cockpit.

     

     Each of our planes is different.  The upgrade design was an attempt     by junior engineers to cover all variations of the Zodiac XL and     650.  I think they did a wonderful job since the FAA experts came to     the conclusion they met the minimum standard requirements.  I am     quite pleased with the way the whole process went and even more     pleased with the simple fact that there haven't been any more     structure failures since the upgrade was implemented.

     

     If it bothers you so much that my plane only has one set of aileron     limit stops rather than the two called for in the upgrade I will     completely understand if you refuse to ride in my plane.

     

     Paul

     XL 20 hours into phase I testing.

     

     On 10/27/2011 6:25 AM, roger lambert wrote:     [quote]Isn't it interesting how so many of the people who       demanded the redesign of so many components of the 601xl now feel       free to disregard, delete or change the same redesign they so       stridently sought. One can only  wonder how(if)  they have       indicated compliance with the SAIB and understand the consequences       of making that entry into their logbooks.        	  Quote: 	
		  



	
     [b]

steve.freeman(at)syntaxds
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 6:20 am Post subject: SAIB

isn’t it interesting how some people will lob stink bombs without signing their name or offering any real value to the conversation?

 

Steve Freeman

 

 

 

Isn't it interesting how so many of the people who demanded the redesign of so many components of the 601xl now feel free to disregard, delete or change the same redesign they so stridently sought. One can only  wonder how(if)  they have indicated compliance with the SAIB and understand the consequences of making that entry into their logbooks.  	  Quote: 	
		    http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7

  [quote][b]

Afterfxllc(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:52 am Post subject: SAIB

I have done 12 of these upgrades and I will tell you that the number  one useless part of it is the aileron stop that was added. First of all it  is so weak it wouldn't stop any damage from someone kicking the stick and IMHO  it shouldn't be part of the upgrade as it doesn't allow room to adjust the  turnbuckles or safety them so I think cables will become slack as a result. If  you match the stops to the aileron stops what's the point? Any damage is going  to occur with or without the second stop. I also think there is some reg out  there that states only one stop per control but I have never looked it up.

  

 Jeff

  

  In a message dated 10/27/2011 9:56:51 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  psm(at)att.net writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Roger,



I assume you are talking about me with your comment    below.



Before the major structure redesign the FAA engineers determined    the design didn't meet the ASTM standard for LSA structure requirements and    after the redesign it does.  This is exactly what I was looking for when    I "Demanded" a redesign of the whole aircraft  -- not "the redesign of so    many components" as you said.  



The one item I chose to not    include in my plane is definitely not related to the ASTM standard    (F2245).  It just doesn't address the issue of ham fisted pilots or    clumsy people kicking the control stick while jumping into the    cockpit.



Each of our planes is different.  The upgrade design was    an attempt by junior engineers to cover all variations of the Zodiac XL and    650.  I think they did a wonderful job since the FAA experts came to the    conclusion they met the minimum standard requirements.  I am quite    pleased with the way the whole process went and even more pleased with the    simple fact that there haven't been any more structure failures since the    upgrade was implemented.



If it bothers you so much that my plane only    has one set of aileron limit stops rather than the two called for in the    upgrade I will completely understand if you refuse to ride in my    plane.



Paul

XL 20 hours into phase I testing.



On 10/27/2011    6:25 AM, roger lambert wrote:     	  Quote: 	
		  Isn't it interesting how so many of the people who demanded the      redesign of so many components of the 601xl now feel free to disregard,      delete or change the same redesign they so stridently sought. One      can only  wonder how(if)  they have indicated compliance with      the SAIB and understand the consequences of making that entry into their      logbooks.  	  Quote: 	
		  



	




ef="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List

s.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com

p://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	
	


 [quote][b]

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 9:40 am Post subject: SAIB

Hi Jeff,

     

     Thank you for your comments about the aileron crank stop.  I agree     with you completely.

     

     The requirements for installing the upgrade were a bit vague.  It     was not required to religiously stick to the exact design in the     upgrade package.  Rather, the idea was to follow the general ideas     in the upgrade design and conform to it as appropriate for each     airplane.  

     

     We should all remember that we build experimental airplanes and each     one is a little bit different from each other one.  The upgrade     package was created because there was a glaring problem with the     original design that got too much attention from the NTSB and FAA.      From a political perspective, we would not have received so much     attention from the government people if not for the fact that the     same design was being produced as a factory complete airplane.  If     only experimental - amateur built versions of this design were in     the field I doubt we would have benefited from the reviews conducted     by the FAA that led to creation of the upgrade package and     verification that it resolved the structural problems.

     

     Even after installing the upgrade we are still flying experimental -     amateur built airplanes.  I think the upgrade did a great deal to     improve the strength of the airframe and will improve the results we     all experience in the future.  In the long run, though, anyone who     wants "Guaranteed" design and construction in their plane should fly     a type certificated one.

     

     Paul

     Camas, WA

     

     On 10/27/2011 9:49 AM, Afterfxllc(at)aol.com (Afterfxllc(at)aol.com) wrote:     [quote]                              I have done 12 of these upgrades and I will tell you that           the number one useless part of it is the aileron stop that was           added. First of all it is so weak it wouldn't stop any damage           from someone kicking the stick and IMHO it shouldn't be part           of the upgrade as it doesn't allow room to adjust the           turnbuckles or safety them so I think cables will become slack           as a result. If you match the stops to the aileron stops           what's the point? Any damage is going to occur with or without           the second stop. I also think there is some reg out there that           states only one stop per control but I have never looked it           up.

          

         Jeff

          

                    In a message dated 10/27/2011 9:56:51 A.M. Eastern             Daylight Time, psm(at)att.net (psm(at)att.net) writes:

            	  Quote: 	
		  Roger,

               

               I assume you are talking about me with your comment below.

               

               Before the major structure redesign the FAA engineers               determined the design didn't meet the ASTM standard for               LSA structure requirements and after the redesign it               does.  This is exactly what I was looking for when I               "Demanded" a redesign of the whole aircraft  -- not "the               redesign of so many components" as you said.  

               

               The one item I chose to not include in my plane is               definitely not related to the ASTM standard (F2245).  It               just doesn't address the issue of ham fisted pilots or               clumsy people kicking the control stick while jumping into               the cockpit.

               

               Each of our planes is different.  The upgrade design was               an attempt by junior engineers to cover all variations of               the Zodiac XL and 650.  I think they did a wonderful job               since the FAA experts came to the conclusion they met the               minimum standard requirements.  I am quite pleased with               the way the whole process went and even more pleased with               the simple fact that there haven't been any more structure               failures since the upgrade was implemented.

               

               If it bothers you so much that my plane only has one set               of aileron limit stops rather than the two called for in               the upgrade I will completely understand if you refuse to               ride in my plane.

               

               Paul

               XL 20 hours into phase I testing.

               

               On 10/27/2011 6:25 AM, roger lambert wrote:                	  Quote: 	
		  Isn't it interesting how so many of the                 people who demanded the redesign of so many components                 of the 601xl now feel free to disregard, delete or                 change the same redesign they so stridently sought. One                 can only  wonder how(if)  they have indicated compliance                 with the SAIB and understand the consequences of making                 that entry into their logbooks.                  	  Quote: 	
		  



	
               



ef="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List

s.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com

p://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	
             	
         

               	  Quote: 	
		  

	
     [b]

steve.freeman(at)syntaxds
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:01 am Post subject: SAIB

<<.  In the long run, though, anyone who wants "Guaranteed" design and construction in their plane should fly a type certificated one.>>

 

And that is certainly no guarantee either!  Don’t get me started!  LOL

 

Steve

 

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

Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:38 AM

To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: SAIB

 

Hi Jeff,



Thank you for your comments about the aileron crank stop.  I agree with you completely.



The requirements for installing the upgrade were a bit vague.  It was not required to religiously stick to the exact design in the upgrade package.  Rather, the idea was to follow the general ideas in the upgrade design and conform to it as appropriate for each airplane.  



We should all remember that we build experimental airplanes and each one is a little bit different from each other one.  The upgrade package was created because there was a glaring problem with the original design that got too much attention from the NTSB and FAA.  From a political perspective, we would not have received so much attention from the government people if not for the fact that the same design was being produced as a factory complete airplane.  If only experimental - amateur built versions of this design were in the field I doubt we would have benefited from the reviews conducted by the FAA that led to creation of the upgrade package and verification that it resolved the structural problems.



Even after installing the upgrade we are still flying experimental - amateur built airplanes.  I think the upgrade did a great deal to improve the strength of the airframe and will improve the results we all experience in the future.  In the long run, though, anyone who wants "Guaranteed" design and construction in their plane should fly a type certificated one.



Paul

Camas, WA



On 10/27/2011 9:49 AM, Afterfxllc(at)aol.com (Afterfxllc(at)aol.com) wrote: 

I have done 12 of these upgrades and I will tell you that the number one useless part of it is the aileron stop that was added. First of all it is so weak it wouldn't stop any damage from someone kicking the stick and IMHO it shouldn't be part of the upgrade as it doesn't allow room to adjust the turnbuckles or safety them so I think cables will become slack as a result. If you match the stops to the aileron stops what's the point? Any damage is going to occur with or without the second stop. I also think there is some reg out there that states only one stop per control but I have never looked it up.



 



Jeff



 



In a message dated 10/27/2011 9:56:51 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, psm(at)att.net (psm(at)att.net) writes:

 	  Quote: 	
		  

Roger,



I assume you are talking about me with your comment below.



Before the major structure redesign the FAA engineers determined the design didn't meet the ASTM standard for LSA structure requirements and after the redesign it does.  This is exactly what I was looking for when I "Demanded" a redesign of the whole aircraft  -- not "the redesign of so many components" as you said.  



The one item I chose to not include in my plane is definitely not related to the ASTM standard (F2245).  It just doesn't address the issue of ham fisted pilots or clumsy people kicking the control stick while jumping into the cockpit.



Each of our planes is different.  The upgrade design was an attempt by junior engineers to cover all variations of the Zodiac XL and 650.  I think they did a wonderful job since the FAA experts came to the conclusion they met the minimum standard requirements.  I am quite pleased with the way the whole process went and even more pleased with the simple fact that there haven't been any more structure failures since the upgrade was implemented.



If it bothers you so much that my plane only has one set of aileron limit stops rather than the two called for in the upgrade I will completely understand if you refuse to ride in my plane.



Paul

XL 20 hours into phase I testing.



On 10/27/2011 6:25 AM, roger lambert wrote: 

Isn't it interesting how so many of the people who demanded the redesign of so many components of the 601xl now feel free to disregard, delete or change the same redesign they so stridently sought. One can only  wonder how(if)  they have indicated compliance with the SAIB and understand the consequences of making that entry into their logbooks.  	  Quote: 	
		      ef="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-Lists.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.comp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution 	
    	
0 	  Quote: 	
		    	
1 	  Quote: 	
		    	
2

  [quote][b]

yak52

Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Posts: 50

Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:51 pm Post subject: SAIB

The Code of Federal Regulation rather explicitly states how maintenance records are to be kept.  

  

  

A review of the SAIB clearly states:  

  

  

"For amateur-built and E-LSA owners and operators: Due to shared design characteristics that  

  

amateur-build and E-LSA aircraft have with S-LSA, we strongly recommend compliance with the  

  

drawings and instructions contained in the AMD Safety Directive/Safety Alert and recommend  

  

the following: •                        

 

  

 

                         Obtain and install the kit manufacturer’s structural modification kit. The modification kit addresses the structural design changes and operating limitations required to meet a safe condition for operation. Contact the kit manufacturer with any modifications already incorporated to correct the identified unsafe condition to validate safety-of-flight issues   

  

Therefore, if you have not obtained and installed the kit manufacturer's structural modification kit or obtained some waiver from AMD or the kit manufacturer or perhaps obtained an equivalency evaluation from some FAA designated personnel and placed such documentation within your logbook, you may have violated the FAR's maintenance records requirements and potentially subjected yourself to sanction by the FAA, which you have provided the evidence for by identifyng noncompliance in the public record. For those of you with faint hearing, those scratching sounds  in the background are the hands of people amending their logbooks to state they complied with the SAIB with  now noted exceptions.   

  [quote][b]

steve.freeman(at)syntaxds
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:30 pm Post subject: SAIB

To me the operant words below are “recommend compliance“  and “recommend the following.“ 

 

The wording does not compel compliance with phrasing such as “SHALL COMPLY.”  This is a subtle but very important distinction in legal documents.

 

I am not an attorney so do not rely on my interpretation but this is how I view it.  Any attorneys want to chime in?

 

“The Code of Federal Regulation rather explicitly states how maintenance records are to be kept. ”

 

Forgive me, but the paragraph you have highlighted for review does not state anything about documentation or log book entries.  Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

"For amateur-built and E-LSA owners and operators: Due to shared design characteristics that amateur-build and E-LSA aircraft have with S-LSA, we strongly recommend compliance with the drawings and instructions contained in the AMD Safety Directive/Safety Alert and recommend the following: •                      

 Obtain and install the kit manufacturer’s structural modification kit. The modification kit addresses the structural design changes and operating limitations required to meet a safe condition for operation. Contact the kit manufacturer with any modifications already incorporated to correct the identified unsafe condition to validate safety-of-flight issues 

 

For the record I think a person is a fool if they don’t do the upgrade but there is nothing in Roger’s post to indicate any builder is compelled by statute or regulation to do so.

Steve

 

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

Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 1:47 PM

To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: SAIB

 

The Code of Federal Regulation rather explicitly states how maintenance records are to be kept.

 

 

A review of the SAIB clearly states:

 

 

"For amateur-built and E-LSA owners and operators: Due to shared design characteristics that 

amateur-build and E-LSA aircraft have with S-LSA, we strongly recommend compliance with the 

drawings and instructions contained in the AMD Safety Directive/Safety Alert and recommend 

the following: •                      

 



                         Obtain and install the kit manufacturer’s structural modification kit. The modification kit addresses the structural design changes and operating limitations required to meet a safe condition for operation. Contact the kit manufacturer with any modifications already incorporated to correct the identified unsafe condition to validate safety-of-flight issues 

 

Therefore, if you have not obtained and installed the kit manufacturer's structural modification kit or obtained some waiver from AMD or the kit manufacturer or perhaps obtained an equivalency evaluation from some FAA designated personnel and placed such documentation within your logbook, you may have violated the FAR's maintenance records requirements and potentially subjected yourself to sanction by the FAA, which you have provided the evidence for by identifyng noncompliance in the public record. For those of you with faint hearing, those scratching sounds  in the background are the hands of people amending their logbooks to state they complied with the SAIB with  now noted exceptions.  

 	  Quote: 	
		    http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9

  [quote][b]

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:10 pm Post subject: SAIB

I agree with you on this one Steve.

     

     In addition, there just isn't any way the FAA can compel     experimental aircraft owners to do anything to their airplanes.      That is the nature of experimental aircraft.

     

     In my case, there is no entry of any sort in my log books regarding     the SAIB.  My plane was not certified until after the upgrade was     installed.  So, there is no maintenance or operating limitation     impact of the SAIB on my plane.

     

     It doesn't make a lot of sense to get into silly arguments over the     paperwork involved in the upgrade issue.  I agree completely that     each owner should "Essentially" install the upgrade in their plane.      This doesn't mean compliance of every rivet and bolt to the upgrade     drawings.  It does mean balancing the ailerons, installing the     reinforcements for the spars and spar carry through, and other     features relating to the airframe strength.  Just like everything     else in this endeavor, I would expect each plane to be a little bit     different from the rest of the fleet both before and after the     upgrade is installed.

     

     The only real mistake I think will be made by a significant number     of Zodiac owners is to decide not to install the upgrade at all.      This is not an option for planes not already certified when the SAIB     was issued since the FAA refused to inspect and certify any planes     without the upgrade after that point.

     

     Paul

     Camas, WA

     

     On 10/27/2011 2:27 PM, Steve Freeman wrote:     [quote]                       <![endif]-->   <![endif]-->                

To             me the operant words below are “recommend compliance“              and “recommend the following.“                      

          

The             wording does not compel compliance with phrasing such as             “SHALL COMPLY.”  This is a subtle but very important             distinction in legal documents.         

          

I             am not an attorney so do not rely on my interpretation but             this is how I view it.  Any attorneys want to chime in?         

          

“The           Code of Federal Regulation rather explicitly states how           maintenance records are to be kept.             ”         

          

Forgive             me, but the paragraph you have highlighted for review does             not state anything about documentation or log book entries.              Please correct me if I am wrong.         

          

"For           amateur-built and E-LSA owners and operators: Due to shared           design characteristics that amateur-build and E-LSA aircraft           have with S-LSA, we strongly recommend compliance with the           drawings and instructions contained in the AMD Safety           Directive/Safety Alert and recommend the following: •                                          

 Obtain and install the             kit manufacturer’s structural modification kit. The             modification kit addresses the structural design changes and             operating limitations required to meet a safe condition for             operation. Contact the kit manufacturer with any             modifications already incorporated to correct the identified             unsafe condition to validate safety-of-flight issues          

          

For             the record I think a person is a fool if they don’t do the             upgrade but there is nothing in Roger’s post to indicate any             builder is compelled by statute or regulation to do so.

             

                      

Steve         

          

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

             Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 1:47 PM

             To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com (zenith-list(at)matronics.com)

             Subject: SAIB         

                     

The             Code of Federal Regulation rather explicitly states how             maintenance records are to be kept.           

            

            

A             review of the SAIB clearly states:           

            

            

"For             amateur-built and E-LSA owners and operators: Due to shared             design characteristics that          

         

                               

amateur-build             and E-LSA aircraft have with S-LSA, we strongly recommend             compliance with the          

         

                               

drawings and             instructions contained in the AMD Safety Directive/Safety             Alert and recommend          

         

                               

the following:             •                                              

          

                    

                                     Obtain and install the kit manufacturer’s structural               modification kit. The modification kit addresses the               structural design changes and operating limitations               required to meet a safe condition for operation. Contact               the kit manufacturer with any modifications already               incorporated to correct the identified unsafe condition to               validate safety-of-flight issues            

            

Therefore, if             you have not obtained and installed the kit manufacturer's             structural modification kit or obtained some waiver from AMD             or the kit manufacturer or perhaps obtained an equivalency             evaluation from some FAA designated personnel and placed             such documentation within your logbook, you may have             violated the FAR's maintenance records requirements and             potentially subjected yourself to sanction by the FAA, which             you have provided the evidence for by identifyng             noncompliance in the public record. For those of you with             faint hearing, those scratching sounds  in the background             are the hands of people amending their logbooks to state             they complied with the SAIB with  now noted exceptions.           

          	  Quote: 	
		    http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List 	
0          	  Quote: 	
		   	
1          	  Quote: 	
		   	
2          	  Quote: 	
		   	
3          	  Quote: 	
		   	
4          	  Quote: 	
		   	
5          	  Quote: 	
		   	
6          	  Quote: 	
		   	
7          	  Quote: 	
		   	
8          	  Quote: 	
		   	
9       

        	  Quote: 	
		  	
0     [b]

passpat(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 6:33 am Post subject: SAIB

Just think you have installed the upgrade and flown the airplane for a few years you are the org builder and always did the conditional inspection.

    

    Now you have decided to sell due to health or whatever. The new owner takes it and has a pre buy inspection. He or She uses a A&P for this and the guy is pretty knowledgable

    he discovers that some little part has been omitted. Next thing he might do is deem the aircraft un-airworthy due this omission

    

    P

 

 

 

   --

paulrod36(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:30 am Post subject: SAIB

<?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace prefix="o" /><![endif]-->  Roger, as long as it's registered as an A-AB, builders are free to make any  alterations they want.  I'd agree with them as long as the changes they  made weren't too radical, and frankly, the addition of the stick stop really  only helps the two-stick, cabled aileron system, and then only for pilots who  like to imitate King Kong with the stick.

  

 Paul R

 [quote]   ---

Display posts from previous:

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

Jump to:

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