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

crash B.S.
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Juan Vega Jr

Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Posts: 157

Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:07 am Post subject: crash B.S.

I say you keep blaming the pilot until the facts are in. The problem in this society is everyone wants to blame someone else.  The guy crashed on the side of a ravene, and noone knows the facts.   Speculation is a fancy word for Bulls^%$t.  So lets keep the B$#(at)#(at)!t to a minimum. and wait until the facts come out.



Juan

thesumak(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:59 pm Post subject: crash B.S.

I agree with the notion of personal responsibility Juan.  I also understand that pilot error is a common contributor to aircraft accidents.  However, your counsel that we should assume pilot ineptitude before we get the facts is to my mind speculative BS no better than the speculative BS about the aircraft that you see fit to lecture us about over and over and over again.

 

 I may be alone in this, but I would suggest that your brand of BS is especially inappropriate  At least the good folks at Zenith and the people on this list that have an association with the company have the ability to defend themselves against unfounded speculation about their products.

 

 Bill

 601xl

 

 do not archive

 

 

 Juan said:  I say you keep blaming the pilot until the facts are in.

  Access 350+ FREE radio stations anytime from anywhere on the web. Get the Radio Toolbar! 

  [quote][b]

purplemoon99(at)bellsouth
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 7:28 pm Post subject: crash B.S.

Juan Vega Jr

Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Posts: 157

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:42 am Post subject: crash B.S.

your right they are defending themselves on the design.  The issue is that they designed the plane not built it. And everyone that trashes the design becuase of their grand theories on why the planes crashed are trashing a great design, not the builders or flyers. Frankly I am over and done with it.  Lets start looking at the facts, that most to all the accidents are due to pilot or maintenance issues. You guys that keep hunting for a problem after it is stated over and over again there is no design problem,  need to find something else to do like go hunt for UFOs in the desert.  My brand of BS smells more like perfume when compare to the BS you guys are dishing out over the wrong thing.  



The guy in Utah crashed and already you guys are theorizing about the airfame,  give it a brake.



Juan

Do not archive.



--

jmaynard

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

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 10:22 am Post subject: crash B.S.

On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 12:38:38PM -0500, Juan Vega wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Lets start looking at the facts, that most to all the accidents are due to

 pilot or maintenance issues. You guys that keep hunting for a problem

 after it is stated over and over again there is no design problem, need to

 find something else to do like go hunt for UFOs in the desert.  My brand

 of BS smells more like perfume when compare to the BS you guys are dishing

 out over the wrong thing.


	


Juan, you keep ignoring N158MD. How does that accident fit into your view?



I agree that it's far too soon to assign a cause to the Utah crash, but it's

not as black and white as you claim either.



Don't blind yourself to the facts. ALL of the facts. That goes for everyone.

-- 

Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, AGI      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

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 10:45 am Post subject: crash B.S.

Hi Juan,



I hate to get in the middle of this argument, but I had a strong 

reaction to your comment that there is no design problem.  I have the 

greatest respect for your experience flying the XL, but unfortunately 

that doesn't make you an expert on aircraft design issues.  I am not 

one either, but I am concerned that there really is some sort of 

issue with the XL design that needs improvement.



Apparently, the LAA and the Dutch folks agree with me.  They may be 

going too far, but they really are experts in this sort of 

stuff.  Being bureaucrats, they are programmed to remove all risk 

from anything they do.  That means their conclusion alone is not to 

be believed.  Still, there have been just too many in flight wing 

separations for me to believe there is no problem at all.



I believe the basic design of the XL is quite sound and the number 

flying with no problem reinforces this belief.  The testing of static 

strength has been repeated and shown the structure to be 

adequate.  However, there has not been dynamic testing of the 

design.  This is probably impractical to do.  The idea remains 

unverified that the design holds up under all reasonable dynamic 

situations.  Said another way, there is still a possibility that a 

design problem exists.



I do not favor all the amateur (fantasy?) engineer efforts to imagine 

what the problem might be and how to fix it.  I think we all need to 

be reasonably patient and see what the real experts have to say after 

their very slow consideration.



My only point here is that the possibility exists of a problem - not 

that there actually is one.



Paul

XL getting close

do not archive

At 09:38 AM 3/6/2009, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  your right they are defending themselves on the design.  The issue 

is that they designed the plane not built it. And everyone that 

trashes the design becuase of their grand theories on why the planes 

crashed are trashing a great design, not the builders or flyers. 

Frankly I am over and done with it.  Lets start looking at the 

facts, that most to all the accidents are due to pilot or 

maintenance issues. You guys that keep hunting for a problem after 

it is stated over and over again there is no design problem,  need 

to find something else to do like go hunt for UFOs in the 

desert.  My brand of BS smells more like perfume when compare to the 

BS you guys are dishing out over the wrong thing.



The guy in Utah crashed and already you guys are theorizing about 

the airfame,  give it a brake.



Juan

Do not archive.

Juan Vega Jr

Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Posts: 157

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 10:51 am Post subject: crash B.S.

one crash is not a finger pointing to what happened in the other crashes.  each one has its own set of issues. most point to the builder or pilot.

Do not archive

Juan



--

jmaynard

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

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 11:03 am Post subject: crash B.S.

On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 01:45:55PM -0500, Juan Vega wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   one crash is not a finger pointing to what happened in the other crashes. 

 each one has its own set of issues. most point to the builder or pilot.


	


That's my point. You keep saying that it's not a design issue, and that the

majority of crashes point to pilot or builder error. That the latter may

well be true does in no way rule out the former. To rule out a design issue,

you must show that in *no* crash was there a design issue that led to the

breakup. So far, you have not done so.



I fully agree that we should not be running around saying the sky is

falling. We shouldn't ignore the possibility, either. There's a middle road,

and that's where the prudent pilot, builder, and owner will be.

-- 

Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, AGI      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

Juan Vega Jr

Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Posts: 157

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 11:49 am Post subject: crash B.S.

the problem is you are assuming there are in fact in flight wing separations,  no one has stated or proved that is the case. I hear where you are coming from and I respect it.  but your statement drives home my point,  everyone has created out of speculation a fact that was never there.  SHow me where it says that the wings fell off due to a defect, or that the crash was caused byt he wing flying off out of thin air.   Its not there.  Gossip and speculation became, fact?

Every government organization that has investigated the crashes in the U.S. took the time to take a clean sheet of paper,  and design the plane as if from scratch.  all the plans came out the same and the math all came out the same, that it is a well designed plane with no hidden issues. 

Yet people still say its the wing.  SHow me the fact its the wing, it isn't there. Yet they are trying to create and force the fact to reality.



Juan



--

William Dominguez

Joined: 09 Apr 2008
Posts: 118

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:50 pm Post subject: crash B.S.

Juan wrote:

"the problem is you are assuming there are in fact in flight wing separations,  no one has stated or proved that is the case."



No one have stated? what about the NTSB when they state "the structural failure of the wings for undetermined reasons." as the probable cause for the accident. I'm aware that this statement leave out any reason why the wings failed, but it does state that the a wing failed and caused the accident.



So if the NTSB state that a wing failed and caused the accident, couldn't that be considered a fact? specially since there are more cases with similar notes.



William Dominguez

Zodiac 601XL Plans

Miami Florida

http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom

  [quote][b]

_________________
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom

pavel569

Joined: 21 Dec 2007
Posts: 77

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:57 pm Post subject: Re: crash B.S.

 	  Juan Vega Jr wrote: 	
		  Frankly I am over and done with it. 	


Why don't you let it go, then? Try to ignore the posts related to the design issues. If we all do this and wait for the real experts results, there will be no more of pointless discussions. I know, you can say "how about if there is no results from experts ?" - then fly as usually, its not a coffin. They would ground the plane if there are a possible design issues.



-do not archive-

_________________
Pavel
CA
Zodiac 601XL
Stratus Subaru EA-81
Tail, flaps, ailerons, wings, fuselage, canopy done ...
"do not archive"

rans6andrew

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Posts: 16
Location: Berks, UK

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:28 pm Post subject: Re: crash B.S.

Juan, have you read the following, which I posted in December?  Nobody has criticised it so I guess it is reasonable, level headed stuff.



I had been thinking along the same lines as Scotsman (who is from South Africa, apparently) and then I came around to comparing accident types and rates with other Zenair(ith) designs.



I don't know how many 601XLs there are out there or indeed how many 601HDs there are or 601ULs there are. In the UK we currently have 20 XLs on the register, 28 ULs , 17 HD and 10 HDS models. So less than 30 % of the fleet is XL types.



Is this typical of the ratio in the world as a whole?



If it is, assuming that the same sort of people buy/build ULs, HDs, HDSs and XL varients, assuming that the same spread of pilot abilities, the same ratio of aerobatic wannabees buy each model and the same spread of builder competences we should be hearing about 3 times as many in flight break ups of the non XL types as XL types.



We don't.



In the UK we have had only one aircraft break up in flight, a UL, when it was observed to be beating up an airstrip and pulling up to avoid overhead power lines, with two people and significant fuel on board. The investigation suggested that the pilot was in the habit of this type of flying and the airframe was overstressed on this or on a previous occasion leading to the failure. This is the only non XL 601 in flight break up I have heard about.



Where are the others?



This line of thinking tells me that either I have missed something significant or that there is something peculiar to the XL.

Please correct me if there is a fatal flaw in my reasoning.



Oh, and feel free to flame me 'cos it seems to be par for the course if you post from the UK!

Andrew - in the UK and building a 601UL.

I'm going to run the engine for the first time this weekend.

_________________
A good way through building a 601UL with 912UL.
Still flying Rans S6 with 503.

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:52 pm Post subject: crash B.S.

Hi Juan,



Indeed there have been well documented wing separations in flight.  I 

believe the two incidents in California included this feature.  One 

of them had a "Probable cause" determined by a complete NTSB 

investigation that ruled the wings had separated in flight for 

unknown reasons.  I think the other one had a similar ruling.



That doesn't say there is anything wrong with the wing itself.  It 

just says it became separated in flight.  We still don't know why 

this happened.



Best regards,



Paul

XL getting close

do not archive

At 11:45 AM 3/6/2009, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  the problem is you are assuming there are in fact in flight wing 

separations,  no one has stated or proved that is the case. I hear 

where you are coming from and I respect it.  but your statement 

drives home my point,  everyone has created out of speculation a 

fact that was never there.  SHow me where it says that the wings 

fell off due to a defect, or that the crash was caused byt he wing 

flying off out of thin air.   Its not there.  Gossip and speculation 

became, fact?

Every government organization that has investigated the crashes in 

the U.S. took the time to take a clean sheet of paper,  and design 

the plane as if from scratch.  all the plans came out the same and 

the math all came out the same, that it is a well designed plane 

with no hidden issues.

Yet people still say its the wing.  SHow me the fact its the wing, 

it isn't there. Yet they are trying to create and force the fact to reality.



Juan

Rhino

Joined: 01 Aug 2007
Posts: 56
Location: Xenia, Ohio

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:59 pm Post subject: Re: crash B.S.

 	  jmaynard wrote: 	
		  On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 12:38:38PM -0500, Juan Vega wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Lets start looking at the facts, that most to all the accidents are due to

 pilot or maintenance issues. You guys that keep hunting for a problem

 after it is stated over and over again there is no design problem, need to

 find something else to do like go hunt for UFOs in the desert.  My brand

 of BS smells more like perfume when compare to the BS you guys are dishing

 out over the wrong thing. 	


Juan, you keep ignoring N158MD. How does that accident fit into your view? 	


I can't speak for Juan, but N158MD seems to fit perfectly into what he said.



 	  Quote: 	
		  While cruising toward Willows, about 10 minutes after takeoff and 16 miles west of Lincoln, five ground-based witnesses heard the airplane. Two of the witnesses also observed the airplane prior to the breakup.



In summary, three of the auditory witnesses reported hearing a "bang" sound. One of these witnesses reported that for about 10 seconds prior to hearing the "bang," the engine was misfiring or sputtering. The sound increased in loudness and ended with a loud "bang."



The fourth witness reported to a Sutter County Sheriff's deputy that he had been working in his field when he heard an airplane overhead. The witness opined that the airplane's engine was missing really badly. A few seconds later, as he was looking at it flying an estimated 800 to 1,200 feet above ground level, the airplane "blew up." The wings flew off, parts went everywhere, and the cockpit turned in circles as it descended.



The fifth witness reported to the Safety Board investigator that he was a retired United States Air Force mechanic and was familiar with light airplanes. The witness was standing outside his residence, about 0.5-mile southeast of the accident site. In summary, the witness reported that he heard the sound of the airplane's engine, and it sounded fine. It was operating smoothly, its rpm sounded steady in that it was producing a constant tone, and it was not backfiring or sputtering. Then, the witness looked upward in the direction of the engine sound and immediately observed the airplane. The airplane was northwest of his location, and it was cruising in a northwesterly direction. Its wings were level. The airplane was not turning, climbing, or descending. The witnesses further stated that he could clearly see the airplane and saw no evidence of fire or smoke trailing from it.



The fifth witness additionally reported that, after a few seconds, he stopped looking at the airplane and started talking on his cell phone. The witness estimated that he looked away from the airplane for about 5 seconds. Then, he heard the sound of the airplane's engine rapidly change rpm. Within about 0.5 seconds, it decreased and then increased, as if the pilot had retarded the throttle and then suddenly changed his mind and restored the power. When the rpm came back up, it did not sound like the engine had over revved. The tone sounded the same as before the power had decreased. The witness reported that immediately after the engine power came back up, he heard the sound of an explosion, which was followed by the sound of metal scraping.



Thereafter, he saw what he believed were three distinctive large components falling. The components were the wings and the fuselage. The witnesses stated that it took perhaps 6 to 8 seconds for the airplane to fall, and it fell straight down. As the components descended, the fuselage spiraled around. There was no fire or smoke.



The witness opined that, originally, he thought there had been a mid-air collision. However, there was no other aircraft in the area. 	


http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX07FA026&rpt=fa



The aircraft actually took off 78 pounds over gross and was about 68 over when it crashed, but I don't see that as a factor.



All witnesses reported the aircraft in level or near level flight when the accident occurred. If the airframe failed due to some design deficiency, then why did both the wings and stabilizer fail downward instead of upward? In level flight, natural forces push those surfaces up, not down. Indeed, the left wing even had a tire mark on it's underside from striking the landing gear.



Several of the witnesses strongly indicated engine trouble prior to the breakup. This is a double edged sword though. While engine trouble may have been the catalyst for this event, it is unlikely that an engine problem would create an explosion of a magnitude that would cause the aircraft to break up. On the other hand, some types of dramatic engine failures have resulted in major changes to the flight characteristics of some aircraft. Such changes could conceivably cause the aircraft to transition into an attitude that created forces beyond it's design limits. It is also possible that a pilots reaction to a sudden problem caused him to inadvertently do the same thing. Both of those types of scenarios have happened before.



Teledyne Continental Motors (TCM) reported that AMD had made modifications to the O-200 engine that were contrary to TCM's tested design and TCM had never tested the engine with AMD's modifications. I tend to doubt that's very relevant. The nature of those mods don't suggest a catastrophic failure.



The owners had replaced a magneto without documenting it. The new magneto timing was found to be 32 degrees BTDC instead of the required 28.



The starter was an aftermarket accessory whose installation was also not documented. The gasket for the starter was not properly. The drive coupling was noted to be loose, and actually fell out when they removed the starter. This alone does not look to have been a factor in the crash. TCM found that a required starter adapter plug assembly had inadvertently not been installed when the engine was manufactured. It is designed to keep oil out of an area of the engine where it is not desired, essentially the area of the starter. TCM said that would not have caused anything more than a leak around the starter, possibly made worse by the improper starter installation mentioned above (the engine was not oil starved at the time of the crash). TCM later admitted that they had detected the oil leak during initial testing of the engine during manufacture, and that they were responsible for the improper starter installation.



There was a gear tooth broken off in the crankshaft assembly, but it appeared to have occurred on impact.



One of the aircraft owners reported that they sometimes noticed an unusual vibration in the floor area of the cockpit. The report makes no significance of that, but it does make me go hmmmm.



Now for the meat of the issue. The right and left wing rear spar attachment plates, the rear spar root doublers, the wing rear channel (spar), the center spar web, front and rear, the center spar cap (main wing spar), center section; and the rear spar attachment for the stabilizer. were measured to determine conformity with construction specifications. The thickness measurements of all examined components were found consistent with the design specifications. No anomalies were noted by the Safety Board investigator or the AMD participant. That means that the previously tested, proven and approved design limits were present in the construction of the crashed aircraft.



The aft 4 feet of the airplane's rear empennage, horizontal stabilizer with attached elevator, vertical stabilizer, rudder, and the left aileron were examined by a metallurgist from the Safety Board. The metallurgist did not report finding any evidence of preimpact cracking or damage in any of the examined parts. In other words, there was no evidence of an inflight breakup of the horizontal stabilizer.



And finally, the airplane's entire structure was examined by an aerospace engineer from the Safety Board. The engineer reported that all of the fracture surfaces examined exhibited features consistent with static overload. In other words, they happened as a result of stresses beyond the design limits of the aircraft, which means there was no design deficiency that caused the breakup. All breakups, fractures, etc were caused by the aircraft exceeding the design limits after whatever unknown factor initially caused the accident scenario to unfold.



In the end the NTSB determined "In-flight structural failure of the horizontal stabilizer and wings for undetermined reasons." It says undetermined for a good reason, because they have no evidence to indicate a specific reason, to include a design deficiency. On the contrary, their investigation very strongly indicates that there was no design deficiency at all related to this crash.



With zero evidence to indicate a design deficiency in this crash, or in any other 601 crash for that matter, it really isn't necessary for Juan to explain how N158MD fits into his view.



Is it possible that that particular aircraft crashed due to some construction deficiency? Sure it is, but none of the evidence points to that, and a lot of the evidence seems to preclude it. Notice that I said it was possible that it crashed due to some construction deficiency, not a design deficiency. If there was indeed such a design deficiency in the 601, the NTSB would certainly have at least hinted at it. And such a deficiency  would almost certainly have shown up loooong ago when you consider how many of them are flying.



Anyone can opine that there is some very minute possibility of a heretofore unknown design deficiency. But if we really want to venture into the realm of very minute possibilities then we could also opine that the aircraft could have been struck by a meteorite.



There's a big difference between making a wild guess and claiming something as true or even probable. It's even a good idea to ask if you think something is true or even probable. But to claim something as true or even probable without some definitive or even remotely associated evidence is quite rightly going to make you subject to disagreement. It is also difficult to raise an incident as evidence of your cause, when the true facts of that incident seems to prove the opposite of what you claim.



When it all boils down to it, anybody is free to believe whatever they want. It just saves everyone grief and frustration if people don't claim something as fact when they have no evidence of that. No, jmaynard, I'm not saying you are specifically doing that. It just seems to be an underlying train of thought for some people in discussions like this.

_________________
Bob Simmons
CH 750
N750TN (reserved)

Juan Vega Jr

Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Posts: 157

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 3:06 pm Post subject: crash B.S.

burying your head in the sand and keeping quite is a sure bet on making falacies become reality.  if no one is saying anything to the contrary, it must be so.  Frankly I don't want to keep quiet. Becuase saying the plane has a problem, a wing problem due to bad design, has been disproven , and is wrong.  

Yes Zentih folks at the factory are big boys, but frankly if noone says anything about the BS it tends to become fact.



Juan



--

Juan Vega Jr

Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Posts: 157

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 3:06 pm Post subject: crash B.S.

if you read the full report, it says it was due to the fact the guy took the wing off and was in storage, and put a defective bolt.  Not a wing issue, a bad bolt issue.  again the wing desing is not the issue. ANy wing will separate from a body if not proporely attached.



Juan



--

pmaxpmax(at)HOTMAIL.COM
Guest

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 3:15 pm Post subject: crash B.S.

Oh, boy. Here we go again. I'm going out flying to get away from all this. 



Phil Maxson

601XL/Corvair

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

pdn8r(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:24 pm Post subject: crash B.S.

Sounds like you're looking for fight Bill.  Shouldn't be so willing to fight without all the facts unless it's just the fight you're lookin for.



Bill Pagan 



--- On Thu, 3/5/09, thesumak(at)aol.com <thesumak(at)aol.com> wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  

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

Subject: RE: crash B.S.

To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com

Date: Thursday, March 5, 2009, 8:57 PM



 I agree with the notion of personal responsibility Juan.  I also understand that pilot error is a common contributor to aircraft accidents.  However, your counsel that we should assume pilot ineptitude before we get the facts is to my mind speculative BS no better than the speculative BS about the aircraft that you see fit to lecture us about over and over and over again.



I may be alone in this, but I would suggest that your brand of BS is especially inappropriate  At least the good folks at Zenith and the people on this list that have an association with the company have the ability to defend themselves against unfounded speculation about their products.



Bill

601xl



do not archive

Juan said:  I say you keep blaming the pilot until the facts are in.

 

  Access 350+ FREE radio stations anytime from anywhere on the web. Get the Radio Toolbar! 

 	  Quote: 	
		  



arget=_blank rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List

=nofollow>http://forums.matronics.com

blank rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	


	


           [quote][b]

Flydog1966(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 5:48 pm Post subject: crash B.S.

In a message dated 3/6/2009 12:46:20 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  amyvega2005(at)earthlink.net writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  need to    find something else to do like go hunt for UFOs in the  desert. 	
       Why? What have you heard? Was there another  crash?

 Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a recession.

  [quote][b]

thesumak(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 5:58 pm Post subject: crash B.S.

My point to Juan and now to you Bill Pagan is clear.  Before we know the facts about any accident, speculation about pilot competence is as inappropriate as speculation about aircraft integrity.  I assume that like Juan, you disagree with this statement and that's fine.  Trust me, I'm not looking for a fight.  I was really hoping that someone else would deal with Juan's comment: "keep blaming the pilot until the facts are in".  No one did.  I could not leave such a statement unchallenged.

 

 Cheers,

 Bill

 

   

 

   

 

 --

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