The other shoe drops...Grounded.

jmaynard

jmaynard

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
1,487
Location
Fairmont, Minnesota
Display Name
Jay Maynard
Home Airfield
FRM
After another apparent in-flight breakup Friday, the FAA issued a Safety Awareness Information Bulletin "strongly recommending" that all Zodiac 601XL and 650 aircraft be grounded until changes to be described in a forthcoming AMD safety alert are applied.

AMD issued the alert yesterday.

I've been told the cost will be several thousand dollars to install the necessary modifications for my airplane. I don't have the exact details, but the center spar sections will need modification and strengthening, and that's going to be a lot of work. Guess what I can't afford?
 
Sorry to hear that, Jay. Was this most recent accident in the US?

AMD needs to correct their bulletin; some could argue it's not valid, with this date at the top:

Release Date:
Monday, November 07, 2009
Click to expand...
 
I am sorry to hear that Jay.

I also wonder why the heck the owners should have to pay for this. It seems that this is a design defect and should be covered by the manufacturer.
 
Geez Jay nothing like getting hit while your down. Sorry to hear that.:frown3: I tell ya I just can't figure how the AC mfgs get away with forcing the customer to pay for a fix due to their design defect. I know there is some debate that there is one but if your gonna require it then the mfg should pay for it or at the least do it at cost.

Any word on what happened in the Accident Friday?

Also the AMD statement says the following: it was demonstrated to the
NTSB that the cause of the accident was an overloading of the airframe with negative “g" loads.

I always thought that positive Gs were what stressed the plane's wings like pulling out of a dive?
 
Negative Gs stress the wing spar in the opposite direction, and most airplanes handle far less negative Gs than positive. Think of a hard push-over after a climb, or an aggressive recovery from an impending stall.
 
TMetzinger said:
Negative Gs stress the wing spar in the opposite direction, and most airplanes handle far less negative Gs than positive. Think of a hard push-over after a climb, or an aggressive recovery from an impending stall.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explaination Tim. Thats good info. I wonder though why AMD would be so concerned about negative Gs if they are concerned that the flutter ( if any ) or wing problems are caused essentially by over speed and exceeding VA in turbulent air. I supposed for every +G bump in turbulent air there is a -G "hole" the plane falls back into.
 
Hopefully the longer term effect of this will be an increase in value of the Zodiacs with questions over the structure resolved.


Trapper John
 
Sorry to hear about it Jay. In the grand scheme it is more important that you be safe.

Are they going to require rejigging the ailerons? I thought the issue was that cable tension was used for damping which led to the flutter events. Perhaps moving the hinge point back and adding some weight.

Todd
 
Wait, so because it is an S-LSA "Strongly Recommend" becomces "Shall perform?"

WTG, FAA!

We're here to help you said:
For SLSA owners and operators: We remind all owners and operators of their regulatory obligation to comply with Safety Directive / Safety Alert issued by AMD in accordance with the ASTM International consensus standards safety directive process and recommend the following:.
Click to expand...

Edit: Also - it looks like they're going to hang E-LSA builders of the CH601/650 if they fail to comply as well. Very snot nosed comment by the FAA:

We swear said:
For amateur-built and E-LSA owners and operators:Due to shared design characteristics that amateur-build and E-LSA aircraft have with S-LSA, we strongly recommend compliance with the drawings and instructions contained in the AMD Safety Directive/Safety Alert and recommend the following: · Reference 14 CFR §91.7: “(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition. (b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when un-airworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur.”
Click to expand...

I feel like vomiting.
 
Last edited:
Ouch! I feel your pain buddy. That is awful.
 
Wait, so because it is an S-LSA "Strongly Recommend" becomces "Shall perform?"

If I'm not mistaken that is a fact. While I don't have any first hand experience with LSA annuals or maintenance, the subject was covered at an IA renewal seminar I attended.

As I understood it, the manufacturer of an LSA not the FAA determines airworthiness. If the manufacturer specifies a certain bolt be obtained from Shucks Auto supply then you are required to use that bolt. Likewise if they say a bulletin is mandatory then it is.

I'm retired and don't work on any airplanes newer than 50 years.:smile: I think I'll keep it that way.

Cheers:

Paul
N1431A
N93439
2AZ1
 
SkyHog said:
Wait, so because it is an S-LSA "Strongly Recommend" becomces "Shall perform?"

WTG, FAA!



Edit: Also - it looks like they're going to hang E-LSA builders of the CH601/650 if they fail to comply as well. Very snot nosed comment by the FAA:



I feel like vomiting.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately there are a dozen or more human beings that would love to vomit right now but they were killed in a 601..:nonod:.
 
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.
 
jmaynard said:
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.
Click to expand...
If it's a design problem you would think AMD would pay for the fix in the name of good customer relations whether or not it's required by warranty or regulation. If you are saying "several thousand dollars", even if it was $5,000 that's only 5% of a $100,000 airplane. How many more of these airplanes are going to sell if they stonewall on the repairs?
 
jmaynard said:
After another apparent in-flight breakup Friday, the FAA issued a Safety Awareness Information Bulletin "strongly recommending" that all Zodiac 601XL and 650 aircraft be grounded until changes to be described in a forthcoming AMD safety alert are applied.

AMD issued the alert yesterday.

I've been told the cost will be several thousand dollars to install the necessary modifications for my airplane. I don't have the exact details, but the center spar sections will need modification and strengthening, and that's going to be a lot of work. Guess what I can't afford?
Click to expand...


Who is required to do the work on an SLSA? Can you not convert
the SLSA to an ELSA by getting a new airworthiness inspection from
a DAR and doing the modifications yourself?

RT
 
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...
So sorry this is happening to you. Glad the defect has not taken you from us.
 
Everskyward said:
If it's a design problem you would think AMD would pay for the fix in the name of good customer relations whether or not it's required by warranty or regulation. If you are saying "several thousand dollars", even if it was $5,000 that's only 5% of a $100,000 airplane. How many more of these airplanes are going to sell if they stonewall on the repairs?
Click to expand...

The problem is that there are 71 601XL/650 SLSAs in the USA that were manufactured by AMD. at $5,000 a pop, you are looking at $350,000. Keep in mind that this is not Cessna or Piper. These guys are running a pretty small operation, and I question whether they could afford to take that kind of hit.

I found my self wondering if AMD (not Zenith) is selling ANY planes now. They only have 3 different models:
Alarus: This plane hasn't been in production for well over a year or two. It is strictly special order.
STOL 750: They just came out with this SLSA, and according to the FAA registration database, the only two examples built are still owned by AMD.
Zodiac 650: an updated version of the 601XL. The last airworthiness cert issued for one of these was one month before the NTSB report came out in April. That report got A LOT of press (it was even on CNN). Can you imagine anyone buying a factory new one from AMD after that much bad press?

So, other than spare parts, have they made ANY sales in the past 6 months? I have no idea, but it doesn't look good. I am really concerned about whether AMD can survive this. :(
 
Am I reading this correctly that even after the fix, the previously altered limits (1255lb gross) will still be in place? So all Zodiacs are now permanently 1255lb MGW? If so, that sucks beyond measure and makes them about unusable as trainers.
 
mcjon77 said:
The problem is that there are 71 601XL/650 SLSAs in the USA that were manufactured by AMD. at $5,000 a pop, you are looking at $350,000. Keep in mind that this is not Cessna or Piper. These guys are running a pretty small operation, and I question whether they could afford to take that kind of hit.

I found my self wondering if AMD (not Zenith) is selling ANY planes now.
Click to expand...
They probably won't be selling any more planes, ever, if they don't attempt to make things right for their current customers, if it was indeed a design defect. As I recall, Jay's airplane is not much more than a couple years old if that. Even a car would still be covered by warranty.
 
Everskyward said:
They probably won't be selling any more planes, ever, if they don't attempt to make things right for their current customers, if it was indeed a design defect. As I recall, Jay's airplane is not much more than a couple years old if that. Even a car would still be covered by warranty.
Click to expand...

And on the homebuilt side of things, who would build a Zodiac when they could build an RV-12?


Trapper John
 
Trapper John said:
And on the homebuilt side of things, who would build a Zodiac when they could build an RV-12?
Trapper John
Click to expand...

You can scratch build a Zodiac. I do not think there are any scratch build options for Vans aircraft. That is why I bought a set of plans for a Zodiac. Just glad I have not started building since the drawings are getting updated.
 
bullwinkle said:
Am I reading this correctly that even after the fix, the previously altered limits (1255lb gross) will still be in place? So all Zodiacs are now permanently 1255lb MGW? If so, that sucks beyond measure and makes them about unusable as trainers.
Click to expand...
No. According to the letter Chris Heintz posted, after you make the mods the gross and V speeds go back to their original numbers (e,g, gross of 1320lbs).
 
mcjon77 said:
No. According to the letter Chris Heintz posted, after you make the mods the gross and V speeds go back to their original numbers (e,g, gross of 1320lbs).
Click to expand...

That's good...any idea how much weight the fix adds?
 
RogerT said:
Who is required to do the work on an SLSA?
Click to expand...
Whoever the manufacturer says can do the work. In this case, the manufacturer says the work must be done by an A&P.

Can you not convert the SLSA to an ELSA by getting a new airworthiness inspection from a DAR and doing the modifications yourself?
Click to expand...
You can, but in doing so you destroy one of the main reasons for having an SLSA: you could no longer use it for instruction.

mcjon77 said:
No. According to the letter Chris Heintz posted, after you make the mods the gross and V speeds go back to their original numbers (e,g, gross of 1320lbs).
Click to expand...
This is my understanding as well.

bullwinkle said:
That's good...any idea how much weight the fix adds?
Click to expand...
When I spoke to the factory this morning, they said they expected it to be from 12 to 18 pounds.

They tell me that the parts will be made available at minimum cost, and that they strongly recommended the modification be done at the AMD factory. They estimated 80 hours labor for the mod, and said they're trying to hold the cost down to the $5000 range.

This may all be moot for me, if I can't get a job and afford to keep the airplane in the first place...
 
Jay two questions:

1) What is is that you do or are looking to do?

2) Are you adverse to relocating?
 
jmaynard said:
When I spoke to the factory this morning, they said they expected it to be from 12 to 18 pounds.

They tell me that the parts will be made available at minimum cost, and that they strongly recommended the modification be done at the AMD factory. They estimated 80 hours labor for the mod, and said they're trying to hold the cost down to the $5000 range.

This may all be moot for me, if I can't get a job and afford to keep the airplane in the first place...
Click to expand...

Well, the weight's not too bad then. But the "we'll charge you $5K to fix our engineering blunder" is pretty sucky. I feel for you and other Zodiac owners Jay, and I think you're getting a raw deal. AMD should charge for parts only and fix any Zodiac than comes to their shop; that would show their commitment to the customer and make others want to join their ranks.
 
customer pays for AD's is pretty much standard in aviation. Especially for major repairs.
 
AdamZ said:
Yup but doesen't make it right.
Click to expand...
I remember when this AD came out. We did some flights for the people who owned an airplane affected by it and I remember them saying that the manufacturer was picking up the whole tab. The airplane was only a couple years old at the time. I know we are not talking about an LSA here but this manufacturer made good on a repair due to a design flaw.
 
The law of unintended consequences rears its ugly head. It was for cases like this that class action lawsuits were invented. A design defect and the owners have to fix their own aircraft? This would never happen with any other sort of product. It is because of negligent corporate behavior like this that we have the monstrosities that are class action lawsuits.

Actually, a lawsuit isn't a bad idea. I doubt the company will survive this, they aren't going to sell anything ever again, the words design defect have a pretty powerful ring. There have been a bunch of deaths, and I have no doubt the survivors will sue them for millions. The owners who actually financed the company by purchasing their products might think to get some back while there is something to get. Better act quickly though, there may not be something for long.
 
AdamZ said:
1) What is is that you do or are looking to do?
Click to expand...
I'm a senior computer consultant, specializing in Unix/Linux system management, installation, and enhancement.

2) Are you adverse to relocating?
Click to expand...
It would be a problem without assistance with relocation expenses. Ideally, I'd either telecommute or, as with my last couple of jobs, travel most or all of the time.
 
That depends on whether the company thinks they have any chance to:

a. continue in business and
b. sell more of that particular airplane if they don't fix them, as with the early Malibu air-conditioner problems

If both tests cannot be met, the owners get to foot the bill.

tonycondon said:
customer pays for AD's is pretty much standard in aviation. Especially for major repairs.
Click to expand...
 
I think in the case of the Lear 45 HSAA, it was a case of "it would cost less to get the fleet redone, than pay for the deaths of the high value passengers carried".
 
bbchien said:
I think in the case of the Lear 45 HSAA, it was a case of "it would cost less to get the fleet redone, than pay for the deaths of the high value passengers carried".
Click to expand...
But in proportion, wouldn't providing a $5,000 fix be more economical than paying for the deaths of passengers and a pilot who can afford a $100,000 LSA? The tail fix on the Lear had to be very expensive. $5,000 is small change when you are talking about these kinds of airplanes.
 
Everskyward said:
But in proportion, wouldn't providing a $5,000 fix be more economical than paying for the deaths of passengers and a pilot who can afford a $100,000 LSA? The tail fix on the Lear had to be very expensive. $5,000 is small change when you are talking about these kinds of airplanes.
Click to expand...

I think that their legal liability ends when they announce the need to make the fix. If a pilot decides to ignore that advice/requirement any liability for damages would shift to the pilot IMO (although you can't dismiss the potential stupidity of a jury). The owner's true damages are the cost of the repair, not the effects of not making the repair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top