The other shoe drops...Grounded.

gismo said:
What Bruce said. Jay, I understand your feelings regarding what you (and I) consider a very erroneous/misleading post about the Zodiac but there's just nothing to be gained by protesting so adamantly. Geico is entitled to his opinion even if it's wrong. Just let it go.
Click to expand...
Sorry, Lance, but I can't let deliberate offensiveness and willful ignorance of the truth of that degree go unchallenged. He slandered basically everyone who didn't agree with him, including an experienced aircraft designer and the FAA, for letting science get in the way of emotions. That is to be applauded, especially when a governmental body does it these days.
 
jmaynard said:
Sorry, Lance, but I can't let deliberate offensiveness and willful ignorance of the truth of that degree go unchallenged. He slandered basically everyone who didn't agree with him, including an experienced aircraft designer and the FAA, for letting science get in the way of emotions. That is to be applauded, especially when a governmental body does it these days.
Click to expand...
Oh for heaven's sake, Jay. Righteous indignation on a webboard......just put him on ignore. There are lots of offensive people.....

On the red boad I have FIVE on permanent ignore. I just haven't got the energy to give them the time of day.

We're adults.
 
jmaynard said:
The FAA does not issue airworthiness directives against SLSAs. Instead, the manufacturer's Safety Alerts and Safety Bulletins take their place. A manufacturer's Safety Alert carries the same legal weight as an AD.

The safety alert includes aileron balance weights that were developed for the UK version.

I've got no problem with the mods, or their being required. As has been noted, I believe that they'll resolve the lingering questions, once and for all. If I wasn't so thoroughly broke, I'd get them on without a quibble. I do think that AMD should be required to pay for the fix, but if I were to sue them over it, only the lawyers would win - and AMD would probably be forced out of business.

The most recent accident was in Arkansas, and not much is known about it at this point. Representatives from Zenair are involved in the investigation.
Click to expand...

You can look on the bright side, the bank won't want it either so the chances on a repo are about 0%....:mad2::mad2:
 
jmaynard said:
It's not me that I'm offended on behalf of. It's that the post that he "stands by" includes such howlers as "the FAA knew about it for three years" and the totally unsubstantiated rumor that the problem was caused when flaps were added to the wings by popular demand and his statement that the ribs failed (when, in fact, the ribs did not fail; the spars did) and "the FAA and the factory knew there was a serious design flaw". Further, he seems not to understand that his friend in Australia did not die due to an inflight breakup, but rather a bird strike that destroyed the canopy.

Then there's the repetition of claims from an aviation trial lawyer - about as biased a source as can be found! - that the Zodiac is "the Corvair of the air". I'm sure he even stands by his statement that "any pilot who flew a Zodiac after the NTSB's report is stupid", a statement squarely aimed at me. (Edit: I'd thought that was in one of the articles the MC deleted, but it's not; it's in what is now post #68.)

Of course, he's already on record as taking unwarranted potshots at me over my costume, so I expected nothing better.

What I'm furious about -to the point of leaving this system entirely over it - is the obvious favoritism the MC showed in deleting my responses to his flamebait but not the flamebait itself.

And if the MC feels it necessary to delete this post without giving me a chance to make it acceptable to them, they might as well delete this user account, as well. I'm that furious (edited to avoid accusations of dodging the filter).
Click to expand...
Cutting back to the more important issues, let me ask you a few questions.

1) Was it a smart or dumb decision to buy your Zodiac given what you should have known at the time? I am not considering your present financial duress just the structural issues of the aircraft.

If there is any doubt at this time that a Zodiac is a poor choice considering all the issues (including saleability), I wish someone would point out to me why purchasing a Zodiac like Jay's would be considered wise.
 
Henning said:
You can look on the bright side, the bank won't want it either so the chances on a repo are about 0%....:mad2::mad2:
Click to expand...
My bet is they will repo it since the banking protocols and regulations require the possession of this asset in a non-performing loan.
 
wabower said:
If you are thinking the FAA automatically rubber-stamps any safety-related or potentially life-saving recommendations by the NTSB, you are doomed to a life of disappointment. More people were killed in one accident with a fatigued crew (Rochester) than in all the Zenith accidents combined. [
Click to expand...

I, for one, am tankful that they do NOT "rubber stamp" the NTSB. If they did so I am afraid of what flying would look like today....if we could fly since it is "safer" to not even get in a plane!
 
thepetrostate said:
My bet is they will repo it since the banking protocols and regulations require the possession of this asset in a non-performing loan.
Click to expand...

Yep, and if it's not flyable, they'll have it taken apart and trucked off. They'll add that cost to the amount owed, then auction it off. The lender won't have the upgrades done to make it airworthy because they don't want to have any liability. Then the borrower gets a judgement against them for the difference between the loan balance plus legal and other fees, less auction proceeds. Not pretty.


Trapper John
 
thepetrostate said:
Cutting back to the more important issues, let me ask you a few questions.

1) Was it a smart or dumb decision to buy your Zodiac given what you should have known at the time? I am not considering your present financial duress just the structural issues of the aircraft.

If there is any doubt at this time that a Zodiac is a poor choice considering all the issues (including saleability), I wish someone would point out to me why purchasing a Zodiac like Jay's would be considered wise.
Click to expand...

It would not. I like Jay...think he is a pretty good guy and has a thick skin (well unless he is in the unitard, that think is pretty thin! :eek::D). However in this case....anyone that does not have some information they are not sharing with the rest of the Zodiac community and continues to fly is making a very dumb decision, period.

Does that make the person dumb? Nope...but it makes that particular decision dumb. Sorry but if I knew of that many car crashes caused by some unknown mechanical issue I would stop driving the car immediately. Why would one do not so with a plane?
 
thepetrostate said:
If there is any doubt at this time that a Zodiac is a poor choice...
Click to expand...
One should keep in mind that only the "thin wing" design 601XL and (I believe) 601HD are affected by this. The Z-planes with the original wing design are not, so let's not make any too-sweeping statements.
 
Ron Levy said:
One should keep in mind that only the "thin wing" design 601XL and (I believe) 601HD are affected by this. The Z-planes with the original wing design are not, so let's not make any too-sweeping statements.
Click to expand...
Ron, it is just the XL version. The HD version (the original) and the HDS version are not affected by this because they have not suffered in flight breakups.
 
Ron Levy said:
One should keep in mind that only the "thin wing" design 601XL and (I believe) 601HD are affected by this. The Z-planes with the original wing design are not, so let's not make any too-sweeping statements.
Click to expand...
Cap'n, why did you leave out in your quote "I wish someone would point out to me why purchasing a Zodiac like Jay's would be considered wise." ?
 
Personally, I prefer the version where Jay goes broke because he bought a dangerous airplane to the version where he dies because the wings fell off his dangerous airplane. Broke beats dead in my book.
 
Originally Posted by thepetrostate
Cutting back to the more important issues, let me ask you a few questions.

1) Was it a smart or dumb decision to buy your Zodiac given what you should have known at the time? I am not considering your present financial duress just the structural issues of the aircraft.

If there is any doubt at this time that a Zodiac is a poor choice considering all the issues (including saleability), I wish someone would point out to me why purchasing a Zodiac like Jay's would be considered wise.

tdager said:
It would not. I like Jay...think he is a pretty good guy and has a thick skin (well unless he is in the unitard, that think is pretty thin! :eek::D). However in this case....anyone that does not have some information they are not sharing with the rest of the Zodiac community and continues to fly is making a very dumb decision, period.

Does that make the person dumb? Nope...but it makes that particular decision dumb. Sorry but if I knew of that many car crashes caused by some unknown mechanical issue I would stop driving the car immediately. Why would one do not so with a plane?
Click to expand...

Jay's getting the brunt of this discussion and kudos to him for starting this much needed thread in the first place.

:thumbsup:

I'm not aiming at his decision per se unless he had allowed the emotion of ownership to cloud his knowledge base. I'm no Zodiac 610 expert but many posts here allude to a history of inflight structural issues prior to his purchase, what consideration to those reports did he or the myriad of other Zodiac purchasers make? How substantial were those reports, how believable IOW what was the actual knowledge base available for any reasonably interersted purchaser?

I think this is an important point, this entire due diligence process that should be undertaken by any plane purchaser and perhaps more so with home builts, kits and similarly constructed aircraft.
 
As a disclaimer I have chatted with Jay on the internet and this year met him at Osh.. He seems like a reasonable ,smart guy and if my memory is correct his purchase preceeded the "issues". There might have been one before he bought his though. I hope this whole episode passes and Zenith continues. Of course I am biased as I built and fly a Zenith 801,,, Not in the same family of the XL but since I have exceeded the HP requirements I am living proof of a very strong design,. YMMV..:)
 
N801BH said:
As a disclaimer I have chatted with Jay on the internet and this year met him at Osh.. He seems like a reasonable ,smart guy and if my memory is correct his purchase preceeded the "issues". There might have been one before he bought his though. I hope this whole episode passes and Zenith continues. Of course I am biased as I built and fly a Zenith 801,,, Not in the same family of the XL but since I have exceeded the HP requirements I am living proof of a very strong design,. YMMV..:)
Click to expand...

Well, so far anyway.
 
N801BH said:
As a disclaimer I have chatted with Jay on the internet and this year met him at Osh.. He seems like a reasonable ,smart guy and if my memory is correct his purchase preceeded the "issues". There might have been one before he bought his though. I hope this whole episode passes and Zenith continues. Of course I am biased as I built and fly a Zenith 801,,, Not in the same family of the XL but since I have exceeded the HP requirements I am living proof of a very strong design,. YMMV..:)
Click to expand...
I don't know him, his posts are lucid, literate and well written so I'll take your assessment.

If he made his purchase without knowing, what an unearthly screw job he's getting. Talking about life not being fair, he's a poster boy.

If he knew, then it would be of benefit IMO to understand how he got so unhooked from reality.
 
thepetrostate said:
Cutting back to the more important issues, let me ask you a few questions.

1) Was it a smart or dumb decision to buy your Zodiac given what you should have known at the time? I am not considering your present financial duress just the structural issues of the aircraft.

If there is any doubt at this time that a Zodiac is a poor choice considering all the issues (including saleability), I wish someone would point out to me why purchasing a Zodiac like Jay's would be considered wise.
Click to expand...

Good question.

I bolded the part about "given what you should have known at the time", because to me that is the most important question. What should Jay, or anyone else, have known?



IIRC, Jay bought his Zodiac in early March of 2008 and joined the Zenith mailing list in late Febuary 2008. The NTSB cited the following 6 accidents as partial justification for their April 2009 recomendation to ground the Zodiac XL:
  1. On February 8, 2006, a plane crashed near Oakdale, California, after its wings collapsed. Two people died.
  2. On November 4, 2006, a plane broke up in flight while cruising near Yuba City, California. Two people died.
  3. On February 5, 2008, a plane crashed near Barcelona in Spain, after its wings folded up during a descent shortly before landing. Two people died.
  4. On April 7, 2008, a plane broke up in flight near Polk City, Florida. One died.
  5. On September 14, 2008, a plane crashed in the Netherlands. Two people died.
  6. On March 3, 2009, the plane broke apart while it was cruising near Antelope Island, Utah, the United States. The plane’s pilot died.
Now here is where it gets interesting. Of those, half occured AFTER Jay purchased his plane. Of the ones that occured before his purchase, the NTSB had only released a probable cause for the first accident. This topic wasn't even on the FAA's radar, yet.

So lets look at sources outside of the NTSB. The only real source you have is the Zenith mailing list. At the time Jay joined the Zenith mailing list there were over 5,000 seperate threads covering every possible issue. Keep in mind that this is a homebuilders list for ALL of the zenith models. The topics ranged from engine selection, to rivet spacing, to bending sheetmetal, to which color scotchbrite pad was the best. Buried in all of that, there were threads that popped up citing concern for wing structure. However, unless you a) had been on the list since the begining, b) read all 5,000 threads, or c) knew you were searching for wing failure, it would be a challenge to find anything.

Even if you did find one of the threads, for the most part it was a few people expressing some concern, with the majority giving fairly good arguments as to why their concern was an over reaction. I found this qoute in a thread on the zenith list that was posted about 2 months before Jay joined. It is from someone who is arguably the most respected person on that mailing list, perhaps the most respected person in the Zenith community after the Heintz family. It was posted in December of 2007:
If the wings were in any type of danger then the FAA would have put a
halt on the AMD Certified version of the LSA 601XL. They have not and
have not even made suggestions to the manufacturing. Your 601XL kit is
built from the same jigs as the SLSA certified version.
Click to expand...

Do you see the problem? Zenith wasn't random company in the Slovak republic cranking out SLSAs designed by who knows who. This was an American company with better credentials than almost anyone else in the LSA business.

1) The designer, Chris Heintz, was an Aeronautical Engineer who had worked on the design for the Concorde while in Europe, and later worked for Embraer and Dehaviland.
2) He had been designing and selling homebuilt aircraft with a solid safety record for 30 years, and had been inducted in the EAA hall of fame.
3) He had already designed, and his company was selling, an FAA certified aircraft, The CH2000/Alarus.
4) The original version of the Zodiac, the CH 600, had been on the homebuilt market, with hundreds flying, for 24 years with a respectable safety record.
5) It was an American company, so parts would be easier to get.
6) Detailed plans for the entire aircraft were available, so if the company went bankrupt someone could still make parts for his plane.

Lastly, IIRC, Jay was looking for an SLSA that could also be flown IFR. At the time, the Zodiac was the only one with that option. So, while it is easy to see all of the problems NOW, a year an a half to two years ago it may have been a bit more of a challenge to recognize the issue.
 
Last edited:
Responding to mcjon77 aka Jon McDonald above

Excellent post, thanks so much. I believe your synopsis is, correct me if I am wrong, that Jay made a solid decision based on any reasonable due diligence. That although there were some foreboding signs it would have been crystal ball gazing to have seen the issues which affect the Zenith 601XL today.

If that is the case, then I would suggest that there is inherent risk in the purchase of home builts and in this specific case, Jay got bit on his a$$.

Before anyone jumps on the "home built" portion of my post, I am not conferring that home builts have a higher potential for extreme plane design or build failures, I have no statistics as such.

I am inclined to believe that is the case anecdotally evidenced only.
 
thepetrostate said:
...If that is the case, then I would suggest that there is inherent risk in the purchase of home builts and in this specific case, Jay got bit on his a$$...
Click to expand...

That's just it. Jay's plane is NOT a homebuilt. It is a factory made SLSA, just like the new Cessna Skycatcher.

Homebuilders (should) know the risk when the start a project. Even folks who buy existing homebuilts (should) know the risk. We understand that this plane's design was not required to be certified to FAR 23 standards. There is no government entity insuring that this is a safe design, as there is with something like a C172 or a Cirrus. Those planes MUST show proof that they underwent rigorous testing, and MUST provide the results of that testing to the FAA. Homebuilt's have none of those requirements. Thus a builder or prospective homebuilt buyer has to do a lot more due dilligance before making his decision.

As the quote in my previous post illustrated, many see SLSAs like FAR 23 aircraft, in that they have some belief that the government would not certify them if they were unsafe. What they don't realize is that the FAA really is not involved. It is basically an honor system. As long as you say that your plane meets ASTM standards, fill out the forms, and pay the money, you are good to go. The FAA only gets involved if there is evidence to show that you are in violation of the standards or that the plane is unsafe. This only happens after folks have been flying for a bit.

It is not that I think the government should necessarily be more involved, but rather prospective buyers and pilots should understand the risks. As an example, remember the jokes made about the Skycatcher (aka groundcatcher) after it crashed twice during spin testing? Well other than the RV-12 and perhaps the piper clones, I don't know of a single one of the other 98 SLSA models that has EVER been spin tested.
 
mcjon77 said:
As the quote in my previous post illustrated, many see SLSAs like FAR 23 aircraft, in that they have some belief that the government would not certify them if they were unsafe. What they don't realize is that the FAA really is not involved. It is basically an honor system. As long as you say that your plane meets ASTM standards, fill out the forms, and pay the money, you are good to go. The FAA only gets involved if there is evidence to show that you are in violation of the standards or that the plane is unsafe. This only happens after folks have been flying for a bit.

It is not that I think the government should necessarily be more involved, but rather prospective buyers and pilots should understand the risks. As an example, remember the jokes made about the Skycatcher (aka groundcatcher) after it crashed twice during spin testing? Well other than the RV-12 and perhaps the piper clones, I don't know of a single one of the other 98 SLSA models that has EVER been spin tested.
Click to expand...
I thought this was particularly bold of Cessna and considering their exposure to liability, particularly required. Nonetheless, they took the time, effort, expense and test pilot danger and found they had more work to do.
 
mcjon77 said:
It is not that I think the government should necessarily be more involved, but rather prospective buyers and pilots should understand the risks. As an example, remember the jokes made about the Skycatcher (aka groundcatcher) after it crashed twice during spin testing? Well other than the RV-12 and perhaps the piper clones, I don't know of a single one of the other 98 SLSA models that has EVER been spin tested.
Click to expand...

Every single one of them has been spin tested, as required by the ASTM standards. ASTM standards for an aircraft placarded spin's prohibited is IDENTICAL to the Part 23 standards for an aircraft placarded spin's prohibited.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Every single one of them has been spin tested, as required by the ASTM standards. ASTM standards for an aircraft placarded spin's prohibited is IDENTICAL to the Part 23 standards for an aircraft placarded spin's prohibited.
Click to expand...

Really? Thanks for correcting the misinformation.:smile:. Part of my challenge in getting good info on ASTM standards is that you have to pay for it. I would have thought that such standards would be public knowledge and on the net somewhere, but as far as I have seen, that is not the case.
 
mcjon77 said:
Really? Thanks for correcting the misinformation.:smile:. Part of my challenge in getting good info on ASTM standards is that you have to pay for it. I would have thought that such standards would be public knowledge and on the net somewhere, but as far as I have seen, that is not the case.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the college library here has them (the standards), so I spent some time, and found it. Straight from the source.

4.5.9 Spinning:

4.5.9.1 For airplanes placarded "no intentional spins," the airplane must be able to recover from a one-turn spin or 3 second spin, whichever takes longer, in not more than one additional turn, with controls used in the manner normally used for recovery.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Yeah, the college library here has them (the standards), so I spent some time, and found it. Straight from the source.

4.5.9 Spinning:

4.5.9.1 For airplanes placarded "no intentional spins," the airplane must be able to recover from a one-turn spin or 3 second spin, whichever takes longer, in not more than one additional turn, with controls used in the manner normally used for recovery.
Click to expand...

CubCrafters has video of their spin tests on a Sport Cub on their website. IIRC they did it at all extremes of the weight & balance envelope.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Yeah, the college library here has them (the standards), so I spent some time, and found it. Straight from the source.

4.5.9 Spinning:

4.5.9.1 For airplanes placarded "no intentional spins," the airplane must be able to recover from a one-turn spin or 3 second spin, whichever takes longer, in not more than one additional turn, with controls used in the manner normally used for recovery.
Click to expand...
At what balances? Any you choose?
 
The one and only negative thing I would say about Jay's decision to purchase the Zodiac was that he went in early to what I myself thought was a very immature industry. I can see why he did and why he bought the plane he did, but when he did there were many LSAs with a predicted shake out of some companies. While the purchase did meet his goals, it came with significant risk from which he is now suffering. I myself would not have entered the LSA market so early unless I was purchasing a certificated aircraft that could straddle the private pilot market, or if I really had the money to burn.

However, there is no way anyone would have predicted the current situation from the data Jay had when he bought the aircraft. To say he should have known better is blatantly unfair.
 
steingar said:
The one and only negative thing I would say about Jay's decision to purchase the Zodiac was that he went in early to what I myself thought was a very immature industry. I can see why he did and why he bought the plane he did, but when he did there were many LSAs with a predicted shake out of some companies. While the purchase did meet his goals, it came with significant risk from which he is now suffering. I myself would not have entered the LSA market so early unless I was purchasing a certificated aircraft that could straddle the private pilot market, or if I really had the money to burn.

However, there is no way anyone would have predicted the current situation from the data Jay had when he bought the aircraft. To say he should have known better is blatantly unfair.
Click to expand...

My take is... Jay entered into the deal with the idea that Chris Heintz, A designer with 30 + years of excellence in designing safe and affordable aircraft. It appears this one has some "issues". That should not reflect on Jay's initial assumptions.

Ben.
 
steingar said:
The one and only negative thing I would say about Jay's decision to purchase the Zodiac was that he went in early to what I myself thought was a very immature industry. I can see why he did and why he bought the plane he did, but when he did there were many LSAs with a predicted shake out of some companies. While the purchase did meet his goals, it came with significant risk from which he is now suffering. I myself would not have entered the LSA market so early unless I was purchasing a certificated aircraft that could straddle the private pilot market, or if I really had the money to burn.

However, there is no way anyone would have predicted the current situation from the data Jay had when he bought the aircraft. To say he should have known better is blatantly unfair.
Click to expand...
I wonder what the LSA shakeout is, or ultimately will be. I ask only about planes that have severe design defects that will kill the marque (as I believe will be the case of the Zodiac XL).

We had a Remos crash (pilot error?), the Cessna Sky entry with troubles...what is the longevity of composite designed fuselages?
 
Composite longevity is quite good. Just look at the sailplane end of the spectrum. The very first GRP sailplane the FS.24 Phoenix first flew in 1957. IIRC there are still a few flying to this day. Plastic sailplanes have been relatively common starting in the mid 60's giving us airplanes that have 40+ years of use. Granted Sailplanes don't have vibration issues, and most don't see the flight time that power planes have, but I would say that "plastic" planes are a relatively proven 50+ year old technology.
 
The shakeout to which I was referring was that there are numerous LSA companies with numerous aircraft. It has been said that there are too many for the perceived market. There has been talk about this from the emergence of the LSA movement. Unfortunately, whether the predicted shake-out occurs or not, I strongly doubt Zenith will be a player in it. Plenty of other LSAs free to death-inducing design defects.
 
vontresc said:
Composite longevity is quite good. Just look at the sailplane end of the spectrum. The very first GRP sailplane the FS.24 Phoenix first flew in 1957. IIRC there are still a few flying to this day. Plastic sailplanes have been relatively common starting in the mid 60's giving us airplanes that have 40+ years of use. Granted Sailplanes don't have vibration issues, and most don't see the flight time that power planes have, but I would say that "plastic" planes are a relatively proven 50+ year old technology.
Click to expand...

But I would think that not many composite sailplanes/gliders spend much time sitting out in the sun, either...


Trapper John
 
thepetrostate said:
..the Cessna Sky entry with troubles...
Click to expand...

IIRC, Cessna ran a very comprehensive stall and spin series that went significantly beyond what was required, and as a result, they found a few things to tweak. Personally, I think it speaks well for Cessna, and I wouldn't worry about having to play test pilot in a 162.


Trapper John
 
steingar said:
The shakeout to which I was referring was that there are numerous LSA companies with numerous aircraft. It has been said that there are too many for the perceived market. There has been talk about this from the emergence of the LSA movement. Unfortunately, whether the predicted shake-out occurs or not, I strongly doubt Zenith will be a player in it. Plenty of other LSAs free to death-inducing design defects.
Click to expand...
Agree; way too many planes either potentially in production or in production, there will be losers and those who have exposed design flaws will be gone quickly. MOF even the slightest design issues will put you at a great disadvantage since those costs and repairs are born by the plane owners.

On top of that, who really knows what the size of the LSA market is, when it will stop expanding, how much of the new LSA market will penetrate the used non-LSA market? How many dealers will survive to support sales and service?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top