Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by James Roberts on February 26, 2010 at 12:14pm

Agree with you Steve. Mat I am quite pleased with your response and the positive nature thereof.

I am also willing to contribute to Zenith's further analysis costs on the basis that it is both mutually beneficial for Zenith to remain in business, to protect our collective investment and to ratify the efficacy of the modifications which, I personnally believe, are a broad and yet focused enough response to the likely cause(s). Unfortunately being paid in South African Rand means that my contribution will be somewhat less that Steve's but it is a contribution nonetheless.

Mat - pm me when/if you require said funds.

James

Permalink Reply by Matt Heintz on February 26, 2010 at 5:29pm

Steve,
What you are saying is reasonable. Our position has never been to go against the FAA. We are proud of our open relation ship with the FAA and have accomplished a lot with them including the certification of the CH2000 aircraft. We have worked with many CAA's around the world very successfully. Talking about that, we just (this week) approved the 650 in France under their experimental category.

I think that the main issue we have here is that I think that the FAA stating something different than what most of you are thinking. I have a good idea what the FAA wants as I have been in constant contact with them for the last few year.

So it is good that the FAA will send us a letter clarifying their position.

In the meantime, I completely agree with doing more on flutter testing and or analysis. I am certain that the FAA will be pushing us in that direction as the NTSB position has not changed.

Permalink Reply by Matt Heintz on February 26, 2010 at 6:06pm

Doug,
Excellent comments. What I have typically done in the past is to try and be one step ahead of others. This is why we did the SLSA load test even though the FAA did not ask it from us. Same for the flutter testing.

The FAA will be issuing an official letter to us so lets start getting ready now.

I believe that with the flutter issue, the FAA will strongly suggest that we do additional testing. They will probably not say that we must do testing but with the NTSB's continued belief that flutter is the cause of all the breakups, it is in out best interest that we are proactive.

So the question is, what type of flutter testing will satisfy the FAA, NTSB and most important, the owners and builders. Once this is decided, we can start looking at costs.

Permalink Reply by Stephen R. Smith on February 26, 2010 at 9:40pm

Doug,

Thanks for digging up the relevant details from the regs and the FAA report on flutter. From a legalistic point of view your argument seems sound - just a flight test should get us "done". I wonder though if the FAA can require something more on an aircraft that they feel has "design issues" - I am not agreeing with them here - just wondering.

In any case it seems the regs could be used in FAA negotiation on what test are reasonable to conduct should that be required. However we would not want to hide behind what seem to be lax regs when it comes to flutter and safety so the question remains, what does the FAA want and what should we want. Apparently we will learn what the FAA wants soon. I am willing to hold off on further discussion until we learn that.

Again, thanks Doug for the information.

Steve

Permalink Reply by Jerold Ebke on February 26, 2010 at 11:34pm

Mathieu. Doug and Steve,
I am very encouraged by the more positive tone of the latest discussions. Your obvious experience and knowlege can continue to move us forward. Thanks especially to you Mathieu for being a sounding board for all of us and your continued efforts to work within the system to get a final resolution with the FAA. The information you are all sharing helps a novice like me to receive some aeronautical education. Keep up the good work. Jerry

Permalink Reply by Matt Heintz on February 27, 2010 at 9:53am

Roger,
You are 100% correct.

The first Summary of Recommendations in the report basically states the same. I am actually quite surprised that the FAA did go as far as this statement "...owners and operators of S-LSA CH 601 XL and CH 650 must adhere to the requirements of the AMD safety directive, dated November 7, 2009 to address the potential safety issues listed in this report..."

Permalink Reply by Stephen R. Smith on February 27, 2010 at 10:04am

Sure but then you have this lovely statement at the end of the report which curdled my blood, having just spent many hours and dollars installing something they seem to not quite endorse yet.

“Once the manufacturer has verified the new design through further testing and analysis in support of the statement of compliance to the ASTM standards, owner/operators can make the suggested modifications, and the CH 601 XL and CH 650 should be able to return to safe flight following applicable FAA policy and practice.”

Heck, I am already flying again. Why can’t these guys present a coherent message? Whatever...

Steve

Permalink Reply by Matt Heintz on February 27, 2010 at 10:17am

Steve,
Its because of statements like this that we will be getting a letter from the FAA retailing what they expect from us.
As a general rule, it is the Summary of Recommendations in a report that is important.
So let wait for the letter and go from there. At least that is my recommendation.

Permalink Reply by David Coberly on February 27, 2010 at 12:41pm

Mathieu,
I think the T-shirt in my new Sporty's I'm going to order say's it all. "FAA MISSION STATEMENT" We're not happy Until you're NOT happy.
David Coberly

Permalink Reply by Phillip Stacy on February 27, 2010 at 3:28pm

Mat, does this mean that we are or are not blessed to fly. I 've just completed the upgrade and will weigh the A/C on Monday with a ground and flight test to follow.

Permalink Reply by Paul Mulwitz on February 27, 2010 at 6:13pm

Hi Phillip,

Since nobody else answered your question, I will try to do that.

I have no idea what you mean by blessed, but if you mean is it legal to fly your plane the answer is yes. Indeed, if your plane has an E-AB airworthiness certificate it was never formally grounded unless you did that. The FAA just threatened all Zodiac XL owners that if they flew their planes before installing the upgrade they would be in violation of FARs for flying an un-airworthy plane.

All the conversations taking place now are about how to close off this whole chapter in the Zodiac saga, not about the legality of flying them or not. It is different for S-LSA Zodiacs, but by installing the upgrade you make them legal to fly too.

Paul
XL- just received upgrade kit and starting installation.

Permalink Reply by Phillip Stacy on February 27, 2010 at 6:34pm

Sorry it's an S-LSA

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next ›
• Page