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

NTSB report

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith601-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

careywf(at)sbcglobal.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 6:31 pm Post subject: NTSB report

Hi Everyone,

  

   Walt Carey here. Currently building a 601XL w/Jabiru 3300A in Beavercreek, Ohio, on the outskirts of Dayton. Wings, control surfaces and vertical/horizontal stabilizer complete. Fuselage 25%complete. And I'm going to finish it and fly it God willing.

  

   I've been following the discussions regarding the "suspect" wing failures on the 601XL, and possible causes. And I'm also am aware of the advisory that was published regarding improper control cable tension being the possible culprit. I personally think that's a good possibility and recommend that all Zennith builders get the word out to their fellow builders ASAP. No harm whatsoever in having the correct control cable tensions. Someone recently mentioned that the "suspect" wing failures are pecular to the 601XL and 601 variants. Take a look at the following "preliminary" NTSB accident report on an Ercoupe:

   NTSB Identification: ERA09FA087

14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation

Accident occurred Saturday, December 13, 2008 in Sebring, FL

Aircraft: ERCOUPE 415-D, registration: N99154

Injuries: 2 Fatal.  This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. 

On December 13, 2008 at 1206 eastern standard time, an Ercoupe 415-D, N99154, was destroyed during an in-flight breakup near Sebring, Florida. The certificated commercial pilot and the passenger were fatally injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed for the local flight, which departed Avon Park Executive Airport (AVO), Avon Park, Florida about 1115. The personal flight was conducted under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91.



According to a friend of the accident pilot, who was also a certificated aircraft mechanic, he and the pilot flew together in the accident airplane immediately prior to the accident flight. The friend did not note any abnormalities with the performance of either the airplane or the pilot during their flight, and upon returning to AVO, the friend disembarked the airplane and the accident passenger boarded.



Numerous witnesses observed the airplane  flying in the local area around the time of the accident. One witness was outside talking with a neighbor when he observed the airplane flying overhead. The airplane was initially flying southwest, and made a "very slight dip and turned to the right. Then the airplane pulled up severely and started turning to the left." As the airplane continued upward and banked to the left, something "shiny" exited from the tail area of the airplane. The witness remarked to his neighbor, "What the heck is he dumping," and the airplane then began to break apart. The witness added that he did not hear any type of explosion and did not observe any smoke or fire. 



Another witness, who was also a certificated airline transport pilot, stated that while outside working on his house he observed the accident airplane flying overhead. He estimated that the airplane was flying at an altitude about 1,200 feet above ground level, and did not note anything abnormal about its  flight path. About 45 minutes after first seeing the airplane, he heard an abnormal engine sound that diverted his attention again back to it.



The witness stated that the engine sound was smooth, continuous, and sounded as if the engine was being "over-sped," as if the engine were at full power and the airplane was in a high speed dive. When he looked up, he saw the airplane pitching up and rolling into a steep left bank, and initially thought that the pilot was attempting to perform a "barrel-roll or a slow roll." From his position, he could see the bottom of the airplane, as well as both wings, as the airplane traveled north. He additionally noted that while the airplane was banking, both ailerons were "fluttering" at a high frequency. The bank angle increased to almost 90 degrees, when the left wing of the airplane "folded back" and separated from the fuselage. The airplane then pivoted about the lateral axis 90 degrees, and the right wing  then separated from the fuselage along with a portion of the cabin. The wings "fluttered” or "twirled" to the ground, while the portion of the cabin continued forward and down to the ground. He recalled hearing three distinct "thuds" as the pieces of the airplane impacted the ground.



The witness also reported that during the breakup, the airplane released what initially looked like "confetti," which he later determined to be painted chips of dope from the airplane’s fabric covered wings.



The weather conditions reported at Bartow Municipal Airport (BOW), Bartow, Florida, located about 24 nautical miles west of the accident site, at 1152, included winds from 020 degrees at 9 knots, gusting to 15 knots, 20 statute miles visibility, clear skies, a temperature of 16 degrees Celsius (C), a dewpoint of 6 degrees C, and an altimeter setting of 30.21 inches of mercury.



The pilot held a commercial pilot certificate with ratings for  airplane single engine land and sea, airplane multiengine land, and instrument airplane. He also held a flight instructor certificate with ratings for airplane single engine, airplane multiengine, and instrument airplane. His most recent FAA second class medical certificate was issued on June 2, 2008. 



Examination of the pilot’s most recent logbook, which began on May 3, 2001, revealed that he had logged 7,126 total hours of flight experience, 12 hours of which were in the accident airplane make and model.



According to records provided by the FAA, the accident airplane was manufactured in 1946. According to maintenance records, the airplane’s most recent annual inspection was completed on May 9, 2008. At the time of the inspection, the airplane had accumulated 2,588 total hours of operation.



The in-flight breakup occurred over a residential community built around a golf course. Portions of wreckage were found along a wreckage  path that was 3,100 feet long, and oriented on a magnetic heading about 020 degrees. The first pieces of wreckage, found at the most southern end of the wreckage path, included both aft cabin windows. Paint chips, inspection panels, and various personal effects from inside the airplane were located further along the wreckage path, with the right wing being the next most substantial component located.



The right wing was located about 2,000 feet from the aft cabin windows, along the wreckage path. The wing was lodged in the ground, oriented perpendicular to the terrain. The wing remained largely intact, and was separated from the fuselage at the wing root, just inboard of the leading edge fuel tank. The wing spar remained intact to a point about 1-foot inboard of the wing root, where it separated from the remainder of the airplane's structure. Ten of the right wing's 17 inspection port covers were dislodged, and located at various points along the  wreckage path in an inverted or "popped" position. All of the displaced covers had, with one exception, come from the wing root, leading edge, and outboard edge, while the inspection covers from the center and trailing edge portions remained in place.



The left wing was located about 900 feet beyond the left wing, along the wreckage path. The left wing spar was fractured at a similar location as the right wing spar. Several of the inspection port covers were dislodged, but did not display any discernable pattern as was observed on the right wing. The inboard portions of both wing spars were forwarded to the National Transportation Safety Board Materials Laboratory for further examination.



The main portion of wreckage came to rest about 200 feet beyond the left wing, along the wreckage path. The nose, cabin, and aft portion of fuselage exhibited extensive crush damage, and its entirety was contained with an area about 10 by 10 feet. The  cabin was severely compromised, and the seat pan, where both occupants were located, was found about 125 feet north of the main wreckage. The empennage, horizontal and vertical stabilizers remained largely intact, but separated from the remainder of the fuselage, and was co-located with the main wreckage. The propeller was lodged in a shallow impact crater, and remained attached to the engine at the propeller flange. Chordwise scratching and burnishing was present on both blades. 



Aileron and rudder control continuity was traced from the flight control surfaces to the control "mixing" bellcrank, normally located just aft of the main spar carrythrough. Separations of the aileron control push-pull tubes were noted at both wing roots, and the elevator push-pull tube was separated about 1-foot forward its bellcrank. 

 Index for Dec2008 | Index of months   

        

  Thoughts?    

 [quote][b]

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 7:01 pm Post subject: NTSB report

At 06:29 PM 12/28/2008, you wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		        

  Thoughts?    



  	  Quote: 	
		  

[/b] 	
	
I have one thought about the Ercoupe and Zodiac in-flight failures.  It stems from the comments by observers that the engine changed pitch just before the breakup.



 I remember a report about a Zodiac that made vibration sounds (over a power plant?) and the pilot managed to get it to stop with radical roll maneuvering.  I wonder if other pilots experiencing unusual vibration sounds might first suspect something wrong with the engine.  If so, they might try changing throttle or other engine settings to make the noise go away.



 I have absolutely no confidence that my notion is correct.  All I hope to accomplish with writing this comment is to alert Zodiac XL drivers to the possibility of airframe vibrations and to consider something like the deep roll rather than changing engine settings to deal with such noise.  It may help, or it may not.



 Paul

 XL getting close

  

    [quote][b]

Tim Juhl

Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 488
Location: "Thumb" of Michigan

Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2008 9:14 am Post subject: Re: NTSB report

Walt,

That was quite a graphic and informative report.  I, too have wondered if some of the unusual aircraft movements observed prior to the loss of the XL's in question might have been actions taken by the pilot to dampen  flutter.



Interestingly enough, most Ercoupes originally had balanced ailerons - from what I read the balance weighed almost 4 pounds and hung off the bottom of the aileron.  They have been removed from most ercoupes as a alternate means of compliance with a 1947 AD that required reinforcement of the lower ailerons skins because of the weight of the device.



I suspect if one were to run around with a cable tensionometer and check the aircraft sitting on the ramp at the local airport they would find most did not have the cable tension set correctly.  I have participated in over 50 annuals over the years and never seen a mechanic check the cable tension with such a device.  Unless they are really loose they get only a cursory inspection.



We had a case a number of years ago where an ercoupe on the field was damaged after it got away from the owner who was trying to hand prop it because of a dead battery.  They had to pull the wings and when they went to disconnect the control cables they found that  the cable turnbuckles were secured with brass safety wire (not in use for many years) one of which had broken and allowed the turnbuckle to back off to where it was held on by only a couple of threads.  If not for the damage on the ground that required disassembly it would have let go in the air.



Tim

_________________
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Almost done! It'll fly in spring!

careywf(at)sbcglobal.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:01 pm Post subject: NTSB report

Tim,

  

    I agree with what you said about A&P's and experimental aircraft owners failing to check control cable tension during annual or 100 hour inspections. 

  

    I have an idea that I would like to put forth for all 601XL & HD owners on the list who have completed and are flying their airplane in the United States (overseas owners could do the same thing in their area if interested). I will buy a cable tension gauge that can be used on the 601XL & HD, and mail it out to anyone who wants to check their control cables to see if they meet the specifications called for by Zenith. When the person who has the gauge through testing and adjusting their cables (please do the testing/adjusting ASAP), that person mails the tensionometer off to the next person on the list (at their expense). I'll maintain the list of who would like to check their cables and inform whomever has the gauge where to send it next. I only ask that whenever the gauge is mailed to the next person, I be informed so we don't loose track of there the gauge is. I'll also make a lightweight  padded shipping box inwhich the meter can be shipped.

  

      If I get at least 10 interested individuals, I order the gauge and get things moving. The kit could also include the cable tensions recommeded by Zenith for the XL & HD, plus instruction on how to properly safety wire the turnbuckles. And the checking of cable tension might also be added to everyones annual inspection checklist.

  

     Is anyone interested? 

  

 Walt in Ohio

 601XL/w/Jabiru 3300A

 working on fuselage      



--- On Mon, 12/29/08, Tim Juhl <juhl(at)avci.net> wrote:



  	  Quote: 	
		  From: Tim Juhl <juhl(at)avci.net>

Subject: Re: NTSB report

To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com

Date: Monday, December 29, 2008, 12:14 PM



 	  Quote: 	
		  --> Zenith601-List message posted by: "Tim Juhl"

<juhl(at)avci.net>



Walt,

That was quite a graphic and informative report.  I, too have wondered if some

of the unusual aircraft movements observed prior to the loss of the XL's in

question might have been actions taken by the pilot to dampen  flutter.



Interestingly enough, most Ercoupes originally had balanced ailerons - from

what I read the balance weighed almost 4 pounds and hung off the bottom of the

aileron.  They have been removed from most ercoupes as a alternate means of

compliance with a 1947 AD that required reinforcement of the lower ailerons

skins because of the weight of the device.



I suspect if one were to run around with a cable tensionometer and check the

aircraft sitting on the ramp at the local airport they would find most did not

have the cable tension set correctly.  I have participated in over 50 annuals

over the years and never seen a mechanic check the cable tension with such a

device.  Unless they are really loose they get only a cursory inspection.



We had a case a number of years ago where an ercoupe on the field was damaged

after it got away from the owner who was trying to hand prop it because of a

dead battery.  They had to pull the wings and when they went to disconnect the

control cables they found that  the cable turnbuckles were secured with brass

safety wire (not in use for many years) one of which had broken and allowed the

turnbuckle to back off to where it was held on by only a couple of threads.  If

not for the damage on the ground that required disassembly it would have let go

in the air.



Tim



--------

______________

CFII

Champ L16A flying

Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A

Working on fuselage





Read this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 21644#221644





	
	
 [quote][b]

larry(at)macsmachine.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:25 pm Post subject: NTSB report

Walt,

I'd certainly consider tensioning cables to a reasonable amount, the HD 

series hasn't a need for more than 25 lbs but does need guides along the 

length at mid point

to keep the cable length from becoming a harmonic of its own weight 

playing against the flying weight of the control surfaces.  Don't think 

tightening to extremes will do

more than damage parts and pivoting surfaces. This cable to flutter 

seems to be a placebo that puts the onus on the builder because after an 

accident, no one will know

what your tension was.



Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com

do not archive



Walter Carey wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Tim,

  

    I agree with what you said about A&P's and experimental aircraft 

 owners failing to check control cable tension during annual or 100 

 hour inspections.

  

    I have an idea that I would like to put forth for all 601XL & HD 

 owners on the list who have completed and are flying their airplane in 

 the United States (overseas owners could do the same thing in their 

 area if interested). I will buy a cable tension gauge that can be used 

 on the 601XL & HD, and mail it out to anyone who wants to check their 

 control cables to see if they meet the specifications called for by 

 Zenith. When the person who has the gauge through testing and 

 adjusting their cables (please do the testing/adjusting ASAP), that 

 person mails the tensionometer off to the next person on the list (at 

 their expense). I'll maintain the list of who would like to check 

 their cables and inform whomever has the gauge where to send it next. 

 I only ask that whenever the gauge is mailed to the next person, I be 

 informed so we don't loose track of there the gauge is. I'll also make 

 a lightweight padded shipping box inwhich the meter can be shipped.

  

      If I get at least 10 interested individuals, I order the gauge 

 and get things moving. The kit could also include the cable tensions 

 recommeded by Zenith for the XL & HD, plus instruction on how to 

 properly safety wire the turnbuckles. And the checking of cable 

 tension might also be added to everyones annual inspection checklist.

  

     Is anyone interested? 

  

 Walt in Ohio

 601XL/w/Jabiru 3300A

 working on fuselage      



     ______________

     CFII

     Champ L16A flying

     Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A

     Working on fuselage





     Read this topic online here:



     http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 21644#221644

zenithlist(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2008 9:52 pm Post subject: NTSB report

Walter,

  

 I think your idea of share cable tension gauge is great.  It allows the gauge to be more accessible, and, hopefully, more planes to be correctly tensioned.  Put me in your list.



 

   From: Walter Carey <careywf(at)sbcglobal.net>

To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com

Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 4:58:23 PM

Subject: Re: Re: NTSB report



     Tim,

  

    I agree with what you said about A&P's and experimental aircraft owners failing to check control cable tension during annual or 100 hour inspections. 

  

    I have an idea that I would like to put forth for all 601XL & HD owners on the list who have completed and are flying their airplane in the United States (overseas owners could do the same thing in their area if interested). I will buy a cable tension gauge that can be used on the 601XL & HD, and mail it out to anyone who wants to check their control cables to see if they meet the specifications called for by Zenith. When the person who has the gauge through testing and adjusting their cables (please do the testing/adjusting ASAP), that person mails the tensionometer off to the next person on the list (at their expense). I'll maintain the list of who would like to check their cables and inform whomever has the gauge where to send it next. I only ask that whenever the gauge is mailed to the next person, I be informed so we don't loose track of there the gauge is. I'll also make a lightweight  padded shipping box inwhich the meter can be shipped.

  

      If I get at least 10 interested individuals, I order the gauge and get things moving. The kit could also include the cable tensions recommeded by Zenith for the XL & HD, plus instruction on how to properly safety wire the turnbuckles. And the checking of cable tension might also be added to everyones annual inspection checklist.

  

     Is anyone interested? 

  

 Walt in Ohio

 601XL/w/Jabiru 3300A

 working on fuselage      



--- On Mon, 12/29/08, Tim Juhl <juhl(at)avci.net> wrote:



  	  Quote: 	
		  From: Tim Juhl <juhl(at)avci.net>

Subject: Re: NTSB report

To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com

Date: Monday, December 29, 2008, 12:14 PM



 	  Quote: 	
		  --> Zenith601-List message posted by: "Tim Juhl"

<juhl(at)avci.net>



Walt,

That was quite a graphic and informative report.  I, too have wondered if some

of the unusual aircraft movements observed prior to the loss of the XL's in

question might have been actions taken by the pilot to dampen  flutter.



Interestingly enough, most Ercoupes originally had balanced ailerons - from

what I read the balance weighed almost 4 pounds and hung off the bottom of the

aileron.  They have been removed from most ercoupes as a alternate means of

compliance with a 1947 AD that required reinforcement of the lower ailerons

skins because of the weight of the device.



I suspect if one were to run around with a cable tensionometer and check the

aircraft sitting on the ramp at the local airport they would find most did not

have the cable tension set correctly.  I have participated in over 50 annuals

over the years and never seen a mechanic check the cable tension with such a

device.  Unless they are really loose they get only a cursory inspection.



We had a case a number of years ago where an ercoupe on the field was damaged

after it got away from the owner who was trying to hand prop it because of a

dead battery.  They had to pull the wings and when they went to disconnect the

control cables they found that  the cable turnbuckles were secured with brass

safety wire (not in use for many years) one of which had broken and allowed the

turnbuckle to back off to where it was held on by only a couple of threads.  If

not for the damage on the ground that required disassembly it would have let go

in the air.



Tim



--------

______________

CFII

Champ L16A flying

Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A

Working on fuselage





Read this topic online here:



[url=http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 21644#221644]http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 21644#221644[/url]





	
	
[quote]



[b]

careywf(at)sbcglobal.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2008 6:19 am Post subject: NTSB report

John,

  

   You're the first on the list. Hope to get at least 9 more interested builders. Send me you e-mail address for the list, and when I get enough interested builders (10), I ask you for your mailing address.  Walt.



--- On Tue, 12/30/08, John Smith <zenithlist(at)yahoo.com> wrote:



  	  Quote: 	
		  From: John Smith <zenithlist(at)yahoo.com>

Subject: Re: Re: NTSB report

To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com

Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2008, 12:51 AM



     Walter,

  

 I think your idea of share cable tension gauge is great.  It allows the gauge to be more accessible, and, hopefully, more planes to be correctly tensioned.  Put me in your list.



 

   From: Walter Carey <careywf(at)sbcglobal.net>

To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com

Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 4:58:23 PM

Subject: Re: Re: NTSB report



     Tim,

  

    I agree with what you said about A&P's and experimental aircraft owners failing to check control cable tension during annual or 100 hour inspections. 

  

    I have an idea that I would like to put forth for all 601XL & HD owners on the list who have completed and are flying their airplane in the United States (overseas owners could do the same thing in their area if interested). I will buy a cable tension gauge that can be used on the 601XL & HD, and mail it out to anyone who wants to check their control cables to see if they meet the specifications called for by Zenith. When the person who has the gauge through testing and adjusting their cables (please do the testing/adjusting ASAP), that person mails the tensionometer off to the next person on the list (at their expense). I'll maintain the list of who would like to check their cables and inform whomever has the gauge where to send it next. I only ask that whenever the gauge is mailed to the next person, I be informed so we don't loose track of there the gauge is. I'll also make a lightweight  padded shipping box inwhich the meter can be shipped.

  

      If I get at least 10 interested individuals, I order the gauge and get things moving. The kit could also include the cable tensions recommeded by Zenith for the XL & HD, plus instruction on how to properly safety wire the turnbuckles. And the checking of cable tension might also be added to everyones annual inspection checklist.

  

     Is anyone interested? 

  

 Walt in Ohio

 601XL/w/Jabiru 3300A

 working on fuselage      



--- On Mon, 12/29/08, Tim Juhl <juhl(at)avci.net> wrote:



  	  Quote: 	
		  From: Tim Juhl <juhl(at)avci.net>

Subject: Re: NTSB report

To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com

Date: Monday, December 29, 2008, 12:14 PM



 	  Quote: 	
		  --> Zenith601-List message posted by: "Tim Juhl"

<juhl(at)avci.net>



Walt,

That was quite a graphic and informative report.  I, too have wondered if some

of the unusual aircraft movements observed prior to the loss of the XL's in

question might have been actions taken by the pilot to dampen  flutter.



Interestingly enough, most Ercoupes originally had balanced ailerons - from

what I read the balance weighed almost 4 pounds and hung off the bottom of the

aileron.  They have been removed from most ercoupes as a alternate means of

compliance with a 1947 AD that required reinforcement of the lower ailerons

skins because of the weight of the device.



I suspect if one were to run around with a cable tensionometer and check the

aircraft sitting on the ramp at the local airport they would find most did not

have the cable tension set correctly.  I have participated in over 50 annuals

over the years and never seen a mechanic check the cable tension with such a

device.  Unless they are really loose they get only a cursory inspection.



We had a case a number of years ago where an ercoupe on the field was damaged

after it got away from the owner who was trying to hand prop it because of a

dead battery.  They had to pull the wings and when they went to disconnect the

control cables they found that  the cable turnbuckles were secured with brass

safety wire (not in use for many years) one of which had broken and allowed the

turnbuckle to back off to where it was held on by only a couple of threads.  If

not for the damage on the ground that required disassembly it would have let go

in the air.



Tim



--------

______________

CFII

Champ L16A flying

Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A

Working on fuselage





Read this topic online here:



[url=http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 21644#221644]http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 21644#221644[/url]





	
	
 	  Quote: 	
		  







	


	
 [quote][b]

David X

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 154
Location: Princeton, NJ, USA

Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2009 11:22 am Post subject: Re: NTSB report

I can't imagine why someone would spend so much money and time on such a thing as aircraft, yet not invest a few hundred in a cable tension meter (or pay an AP to check the tensions). There's cheap, and then there's foolish.



 	  zenithlist(at)yahoo.com wrote: 	
		  Walter,

  

 I think your idea of share cable tension gauge is great.  It allows the gauge to be more accessible, and, hopefully, more planes to be correctly tensioned.  Put me in your list.

_________________
Zodiac 601 XL - CZAW Built - Rotax 912S
DO NOT ARCHIVE

careywf(at)sbcglobal.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:50 pm Post subject: NTSB report

You're on the list Dave. Walt.



--- On Thu, 1/1/09, David X <dxj(at)comcast.net> wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  From: David X <dxj(at)comcast.net>

Subject: Re: NTSB report

To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com

Date: Thursday, January 1, 2009, 2:22 PM



 	  Quote: 	
		  --> Zenith601-List message posted by: "David X"

<dxj(at)comcast.net>



I can't imagine why someone would spend so much money and time on such a

thing as aircraft, yet not invest a few hundred in a cable tension meter (or pay

an AP to check the tensions). There's cheap, and then there's foolish.

zenithlist(at)yahoo.com wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Walter,

   

  I think your idea of share cable tension gauge is great.  It allows the

gauge to be more accessible, and, hopefully, more planes to be correctly
	


tensioned.  Put me in your list.

--------

Zodiac 601 XL - CZAW Built - Rotax 912S

DO NOT ARCHIVE





Read this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 22214#222214





	
	
 [quote][b]

David X

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 154
Location: Princeton, NJ, USA

Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:35 pm Post subject: Re: NTSB report

Take me off the list ... I already have a cable tension meter and a gaggle of other tools needed to properly maintain an aircraft. Their costs were minimal compared to the cost of the aircraft.



Perhaps you have an altimeter, airspeed indicator, compass and set of engine gauges too. Those cost more than a cable tension meter. You should start a list to share those.



 	  careywf(at)sbcglobal.net wrote: 	
		  You're on the list Dave. Walt.

_________________
Zodiac 601 XL - CZAW Built - Rotax 912S
DO NOT ARCHIVE

zenithlist(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2009 6:53 pm Post subject: NTSB report

Being cheap or foolish is irrelevant.  The important thing is the have the cables tensioned correctly anyway possible, and Walter is offering one method to do just that.

   From: David X <dxj(at)comcast.net>

To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com

Sent: Thursday, January 1, 2009 1:22:40 PM

Subject: Re: NTSB report

--> Zenith601-List message posted by: "David X" <dxj(at)comcast.net (dxj(at)comcast.net)>

I can't imagine why someone would spend so much money and time on such a thing as aircraft, yet not invest a few hundred in a cable tension meter (or pay an AP to check the tensions). There's cheap, and then there's foolish.

zenithlist(at)yahoo.com wrote:

[quote] Walter,

  I think your idea of share cable tension gauge is great.  It allows the gauge to be more            [quote][b]

bryanmmartin

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1018

Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:38 pm Post subject: NTSB report

Some CZAW built 601s were registered in the US as ELSAs under the "fat  

Ultralight" clause. They couldn't be registered as E-AB because of the  

51% rule or the SLSA rule because they weren't built to the consensus  

standards (or it was built before the LSA rule was approved). The "fat  

ultralight" clause expired this past February. ELSAs can be used for  

flight training until 2010 under the LSA rules. An ELSA can be  

maintained by anyone, the annual must be signed off by someone with an  

R-LSA-I (inspection) or better certificate. If the ELSA is actually  

used for hire for flight training, the maintenance rules get stricter,  

an R-LSA-M (Maintenance) or better is required.



On Jan 1, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Sabrina wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>



 Dear David Johnson,



 N601NJ was at Air Venture 2005.  Jim Pellien put it up for sale  

 later that year as an “ELSA that is authorized for commercial flight  

 training.”  I remember finding it strange that a factory built  

 aircraft was not certified as an S-LSA but rather as an E-LSA.



 Is this because it was not built to the same standards as the other  

 CZAW S-LSA aircraft imported into the US?   Could this be a 4th  

 version of CZAW that I missed?



 I could not find your IA, AP, “Repairman Light Sport Aircraft” or  

 “Repairman Experimental Aircraft Builder” certificate.



 Is this because E-LSA owners can get the RLSA certificate after  

 attending the repairman course--but not corporations, or is it  

 because you did not build it, CZAW did, so the REAR certificate was  

 not available either?



 This is a strange situation.  It is not an S-LSA so you don’t have  

 to follow CZAW standards for repair.  It is an E-LSA, but since it  

 is owned by a corporation, and the airworthiness certificate allows  

 for commercial operations, it must be maintained by an IA/AP.   

 Correct?



 When you “took the top skin off” making “it obvious that the skins  

 are part of the support structure”, was that owner preventative  

 maintenance or can just anyone 18 or over repair an E-LSA that is  

 authorized for commercial flight training?




	


-- 

Bryan Martin

N61BM, CH 601 XL,

RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.

do not archive.

_________________
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL, Stratus Subaru.
do not archive.

bryanmmartin

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1018

Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 10:02 am Post subject: NTSB report

Some CZAW built aircraft were shipped to this country and assembled  

here by the distributer. They never had an AW certificate issued to  

them in any country. They were registered here as ELSA under the "fat  

ultralight" exemption. They were not converted from SLSA. Part 43  

doesn't apply to these aircraft. Anyone can perform the maintenance on  

them, an RLSA-I or higher is required to sign off the annual  

inspection. These aircraft can be used for hire for the purpose of  

flight instruction until January 31, 2010. If they are actually used  

for hire for flight instruction they must also receive 100 hour  

inspections conducted by the holder of an RLSA-M or higher certificate.



As for an SLSA converted to ELSA, it appears that you are correct in  

that Part 43 does apply and an RLSA-M or higher is required for most  

types of maintenance. According to the EAA, the FAA may propose new  

rules to change this requirement for converted ELSAs.



 	  Quote: 	
		  

 

 <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>



 Bryan,



 Where an S-LSA is converted into an E-LSA, I was told that it could  

 not be repaired by just anyone.



 The basis is 14 CFR 43.1.



 First, there is a prior EU Airworthiness Certificate which is  

 equivalent to a “previously issued FAA certificate” so there is no  

 “experimental exemption” for an E-LSA previously certified as  

 airworthy by an S-LSA mfg. 14 CFR 43.1(b)



 Second, Part 43 applies to “any aircraft issued a special  

 airworthiness certificate in the light sport category” EXCEPT where  

 the products are not produced under an FAA approval... without the  

 double negative: Part 43 applies to all LSAs where the part being  

 installed or repaired was produced under an FAA approval.



 Parts provided by Zenith or Can Zac would be exempt and could be  

 installed or repaired on an E-LSA by anyone over 18 assuming no  

 commercial use.



 Parts provided by CZAW or AMD would not be exempt.



 Since the parts on the converted E-LSA were produced by CZAW, Part  

 43 applies and an RLSA or higher is required to repair them.    

 Correct?


	


-- 

Bryan Martin

N61BM, CH 601 XL,

RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.

_________________
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL, Stratus Subaru.
do not archive.

careywf(at)sbcglobal.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 12:38 pm Post subject: NTSB report

Thank you John. Walt.

--- On Thu, 1/1/09, John Smith <zenithlist(at)yahoo.com> wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  From: John Smith <zenithlist(at)yahoo.com>

Subject: Re: Re: NTSB report

To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com

Date: Thursday, January 1, 2009, 9:52 PM

     Being cheap or foolish is irrelevant.  The important thing is the have the cables tensioned correctly anyway possible, and Walter is offering one method to do just that.

   From: David X <dxj(at)comcast.net>

To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com

Sent: Thursday, January 1, 2009 1:22:40 PM

Subject: Re: NTSB report

--> Zenith601-List message posted by: "David X" <dxj(at)comcast.net (dxj(at)comcast.net)>

I can't imagine why someone would spend so much money and time on such a thing as aircraft, yet not invest a few hundred in a cable tension meter (or pay an AP to check the tensions). There's cheap, and then there's foolish.

zenithlist(at)yahoo.com wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Walter,

  I think your idea of share cable tension gauge is great.  It allows the gauge to be  more  	  Quote: 	

 [quote][b]

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith601-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