The other shoe drops...Grounded.

[DawnW]

Might be a bit off-topic, but I worked on the Learjet matter. It became litigation. It wasn't a design defect, it was a rogue supplier, and the supplier didn't want to pay. Learjet did the right thing by its customers, and dealt with the supplier separately. And that's all I can say about it.

 

[Everskyward]

Might be a bit off-topic, but I worked on the Learjet matter. It became litigation. It wasn't a design defect, it was a rogue supplier, and the supplier didn't want to pay. Learjet did the right thing by its customers, and dealt with the supplier separately. And that's all I can say about it.

Thanks for the insight!

In another excursion way off topic, I have a Sony laptop which started to make a loud buzzing noise. It was the fan. I ignored it for a while then I got on line to investigate. I found out that even though the laptop was out of its one-year warranty that they would extend it for the fan in the name of customer satisfaction. They even sent a repair guy out to my house to fix it. He said that he thought a whole batch of fans had been defective since he had done many of these warranty repairs.

 

[tdager]

Yup but doesen't make it right.

No it does not and it shows that despite our systems being designed to minimize the "tyranny of the majority" aviation is once again screwed while auto buyers are taken care of.

I have NEVER seen a recall on any car where some, if not all, of all repairs are paid for by the manufacturer.

 

[RogerT]

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


Trapper John

After seeing and flying in Larry's (Geico) RV-12 I'd wonder the
same thing. It's a very nice plane.

RT

 

[steingar]

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.

The grief-stricken widow suing because her husband bought and flew an aircraft with a design defect. Why did the company sell such a dangerous product? They'll get sued all right.

 

[jmaynard]

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

Someone who wants to be more involved in the building process than the RV-12 kit allows. As I understand it, it's only available in E-LSA, very quick build form. It'll get you in the air in a relative hurry, but you're not doing 51% of the work (and you're not required to for an E-LSA).

 

[Keith Lane]

The grief-stricken widow suing because her husband bought and flew an aircraft with a design defect. Why did the company sell such a dangerous product? They'll get sued all right.

In another lifetime, when I worked on Porsches, a widow sued Porsche because they produces a car so powerful (the Turbo) that her husband went out and got himself killed in it when it, being a rear engined car, oversteered when he tromped down on the loud pedal in a curve, swapped ends and hit a large immovable object. Shame on those greedy sons-without-legimitate-fathers!!!

 

[steingar]

In another lifetime, when I worked on Porsches, a widow sued Porsche because they produces a car so powerful (the Turbo) that her husband went out and got himself killed in it when it, being a rear engined car, oversteered when he tromped down on the loud pedal in a curve, swapped ends and hit a large immovable object. Shame on those greedy sons-without-legimitate-fathers!!!

I was told of a set of suits a grief-stricken widow filed because her husband ran his Cessna out of gas, and on attempting to land on a road was struck by a truck and killed. She sued the FBO for renting an airplane that didn't have enough gas, Cessna for building an airplane that could run out of gas, and the trucking company for striking and killing her husband.

With all the nonsensical suits out there I would be worried as heck about his if I were the manufacturer. The repairs on all the airplanes are nothing compared to one successful suit.

 

[Geico266]

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.

You can build the RV-12 as E-AB (Experimental- Amateur Built) or E-LSA. Either way the wings stay on.

I lost a good friend in Australia due to this Zodiac POS, and the person in AK died needlessly. What bothers me about this is the FAA has know about this problem for years. They should have been grounded 3-4 years ago.

Rumor has it the original wing had no flaps. Customers wanted flaps. The factory added flaps without any structural changed to the rear spar to support the added stress caused by the flaps. The old wing had only 6 ribs, now they have 9, the RV-12 has 15. Over time the flaps stressed the ribs and they fail in neg G's.

People have died needlessly while the factory and the FAA sat round with their thumbs you know where. Good people died! The FAA and the factory knew these planes had a serious structural design flaw yet they continued to sell them, and let people fly them, and they killed good pilots and unsuspecting passengers.

Sorry for the rant, but this is personal for me.

 

[Trapper John]

Totally uncalled for, inaccurate, and disrespectful to the entire aviation community. You, as a pilot, should know more than anyone else that aircraft service bulletins don't pop up overnight, and moreover, that your RV12 could just as easily be the next "killer" because a bunch of lazy pilots improperly maintain them.

The Zodiac is a nice design, and its unfortunate that there have been some dumb pilots killing themselves.

How can you call something a "nice design" when the stick forces decrease with increasing g-force? That is definitely not part of good design practice.


Trapper John

 

[EppyGA]

Rumor has it the original wing had no flaps. Customers wanted flaps.

Why would you post anything that is rumor. Either substantiate it and post or don't post it at all.

 

[jmaynard]

How can you call something a "nice design" when the stick forces decrease with increasing g-force? That is definitely not part of good design practice.

This is only true in the Zodiac above about 3.2G, and then only to a minor extent. Personally, I've never had mine above 1.7G, a 45-degree banked turn. Even getting to 2G requires aerobatic flight, something strictly prohibited in the Zodiac.

 

[jmaynard]

That said, I do think that the manufacturer should be footing the repair bill

In a perfect world, they would, and would survive and continue to support owners afterward. This ain't a perfect world. I'd much rather pay the bill myself and continue to have AMD around to support my airplane in the future.

 

[steingar]

In a perfect world, they would, and would survive and continue to support owners afterward. This ain't a perfect world. I'd much rather pay the bill myself and continue to have AMD around to support my airplane in the future.

I doubt you will have either once the relatives of the deceased line up at the financial feeding frenzy.

 

[Trapper John]

This is only true in the Zodiac above about 3.2G, and then only to a minor extent. Personally, I've never had mine above 1.7G, a 45-degree banked turn. Even getting to 2G requires aerobatic flight, something strictly prohibited in the Zodiac.

But an aircraft certified in the Normal category can experience +3.8 G. And designing something where stick forces decrease in the normal operating envelope is bad design, plain and simple. It's not rocket surgery, it's how you design the gears, bellcranks and so forth.


Trapper John

 

[dmccormack]

I doubt you will have either once the relatives of the deceased line up at the financial feeding frenzy.

A suit is not always mere graft.

 

[TMetzinger]

But an aircraft certified in the Normal category can experience +3.8 G. And designing something where stick forces decrease in the normal operating envelope is bad design, plain and simple. It's not rocket surgery, it's how you design the gears, bellcranks and so forth.


Trapper John

But it's NOT a normal category aircraft... it's an LSA.

 

[steingar]

A suit is not always mere graft.

Didn't say it was. The company should be liable, they sold a dangerous aircraft with a design flaw that killed a bunch of people. If I killed as many people as that airplane I'd be a mass murderer. I'll be surprised if they survive all the lawsuits.

 

[TMetzinger]

Didn't say it was. The company should be liable, they sold a dangerous aircraft with a design flaw that killed a bunch of people. If I killed as many people as that airplane I'd be a mass murderer. I'll be surprised if they survive all the lawsuits.

By being a citizen of the US, some wackos would argue that you HAVE killed that many people via your carbon footprint, or your passive participation in US policy.

If the airplane doesn't measure up to the test standards it was certified against, or the manufacturer "fudged" the test results, that's on the manufacturer.

If the airplane was operated outside the manufacturer specified envelope (for LSA), that's on the pilot. If the airplane was an experimental, that's ALL on the pilot and builder.

If the test standards were inadequate, that's on the regulatory authorities.

Given what I've read, it's premature to be assigning ultimate responsibility.

 

[Trapper John]

But it's NOT a normal category aircraft... it's an LSA.

Still a poor design practice.

What G-limits are LSAs "certified" to?


Trapper John

 

[Dean]

Just got this email concerning this.
AAST Blast
Notice Number: NOTC2014

FAAST Blast — November 12, 2009
Biweekly FAA Aviation News update ​

SAIB Issued for Zodiac CH601XL and CH650 Light Sport Aircraft
FAA issued a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) on November 7, 2009, to address an airworthiness concern on all variants of Zodiac CH601XL and CH650 airplanes. FAA conducted a special review to evaluate possible in-flight structural failures believed to be the cause of five accidents since 2005. The review determined that rather than a single root cause, the accidents implicate a potential coupling of design and operational aspects of the aircraft.
Among the areas of concern: wing structure, structural stability, flutter, airspeed calibration, and stick force characteristics. FAA recommends all owners and operators of Zodiac CH601XL/CH650 airplanes comply with actions outlined in an Aircraft Manufacturing & Design, LLC (AMD) Safety Alert /Safety Directive before further flight. To view the AMD Safety Alert, go to http://www.newplane.com/amd_downloads/SAFETY ALERT November 7 2009.pdf.
Here is the Zenith aircraft Web site, addressing kit built versions of the 601XL and 650.
http://www.zenithair.com/news/ntsb-astm-4-09a.html.
To view the SAIB, go to http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/safety/alerts/SAIB/ and reference SAIB CE-10-08.
Proposed Piper AD Would Affect Nearly 42,000 Airplanes
On October 30, 2009, FAA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to propose adopting an Airworthiness Directive (AD) to detect and correct an issue with control wheel shafts on certain Piper airplanes (PA-28, PA-32, PA-34, and PA-44 series). The AD stems from two field reports of control wheel shafts that were assembled incorrectly at Piper— one of which led to a separation of the control wheel from the shaft. Piper issued Service Bulletin 1197A on September 1, 2009, which provides instructions on the inspection and replacement procedure.

If implemented, the AD would require an inspection of the control wheel shaft on both the pilot and co-pilot side, and replacement of the shaft if necessary. FAA estimates 41,928 airplanes in the U.S. registry would be affected and that an estimated repair/replacement cost would be $1,430 per airplane. FAA is seeking comment on this NPRM through December 29.
New FAA Aviation News Focuses on Winter Flying Safety
Have you seen the latest issue of FAA Aviation News? The November/December 2009 issue covers important winter flying tips. Among them is Aerospace Engineer Paul Pellicano’s article “On Thin Ice,” which discusses ice contamination, the differing vulnerability of different airplanes, and the havoc ice can play with lift, weight, and drag. The bottom line: Make sure your airplane is free of any and all ice contamination prior to takeoff in ground-icing conditions.
To read the entire article, see page 6 of the November/December issue of FAA Aviation News.
Produced by the editors, FAA Aviation News, http://www.faa.gov/news/aviation_news/
Address questions or comments to: AviationNews@faa.gov
You have received this notice from FAASafety.gov because you have selected "General Information" in your preferences on your FAASafety.gov account. Click here to log in and edit your preferences on FAASafety.gov.
Start FAASTeam CFI Workshops any time! Find Workshop #5 in SPANS.

 

[mcjon77]

....The Zodiac is a nice design, and its unfortunate that there have been some dumb pilots killing themselves....

The "dumb pilots killing themselves" argument doesn't hold water, unless you believe that Zodiac pilots are, on average, dumber or more reckless then pilots flying similar aircraft.

The fact remains that Zodiacs are experiencing a higher rate of fatal accidents when compared to similar aircraft. Let me illustrate:
I ran some quick numbers regarding fleet size, accidents, and fatal accidents for the 601XL and two planes with similar performance, the evektor sportser and the Remos. These accidents are SOLELY for Factory built aircraft, not ExAB.

The Remos has a fleet size of 118 aircraft, have had 7 accidents, with 1 being fatal (remember the crash at sebring when the demo pilot didn't secure the folding wing?).

The Evektor sportster has a fleet size of 95 aircraft, with 14 accidents, but only one being fatal.

The 601XL has a fleet size of 71 with 5 accidents, of which 3 were fatal. One was for fuel exhaustion. The other two were in flight wing failures "for undetermined reasons". Why are we not hearing about such in flight wing failures "for undetermined reasons" with other SLSAs?

If you compare the Zodiac 601XL to other homebuilts, the results are even more dramatic. One method I like to use is to take the total number of fatal accidents an aircraft has and divide that by the total number of accidents. The result is the percentage of fatal accidents. As a general rule, the fatal accident rate is directly correlated to the stall and cruise speed, hence the adage "speed kills". Thus, a super fast Lancair should have a higher fatality to accident rate than a Pietenpol. As a baseline, a Cessna 172 has a fatality rate of about 14%. The Cirrus line has a fatality rate of about 42%.

Here are the results of some popular homebuilts.


All homebuilts for the past 20 years: 28%
All RVs: 31%
RV 6 (most popular kit ever): 27%
RV 4: 36%
RV 9: 0% (yep, 482 flying and they haven't had a single fatality)
All Lancair homebuilts: 46%
Lancair Legacy 54%
Pietenpol: 16%
kitfox 13%
Sonex 12%
Zenith STOL 701 6%
Velocity: 26%
Glasair: 36%
Zenith 601XL 47% (it goes up to 50% if you include the crash from Thursday)

Why is a non-aerbatic LSA, with a full flaps stall speed listed at 38kts, and a cruise speed reported between 105-115kts (depending on engine) have a higher fatality to accident ratio than every plane or group of planes that I have listed, except the 240kt cruise, 60kt stall Lancair Legacy? It does not make any sense.

 

[SkyHog]

The 601XL has a fleet size of 71 with 5 accidents, of which 3 were fatal. One was for fuel exhaustion. The other two were in flight wing failures "for undetermined reasons". Why are we not hearing about such in flight wing failures "for undetermined reasons" with other SLSAs?

This is the most important paragraph in the rest of the IMHO, useless stats. There have been 5 accidents. 3 fatals....in how many years?

The reason the rest are useless is because fatality is not the key, the key is whether or not the accidents are caused by structural damage.

The wing failing on the Zodiac, as far as I know, happens when the plane undergoes a large G force. So, that means that both accidents were because the pilot was doing something stupid.

You can actually take your entire statistics compilation and be more accurate by saying:

Zodiac: Fleet size 71 aircraft. 2 Structural Failures. Structural failure percentage: 2.8%

I bet Cessna, Piper, and Mooney are pretty close to that.

edit: In fact, because you have the numbers, can you give me Total Fleet size and number of structural failures for Cessna, Piper, and Mooney. Maybe Beechcraft just for funsies?

 

[tonycondon]

nick i bet you'd lose that bet.

 

[SkyHog]

nick i bet you'd lose that bet.

Even if I did, and you take percentage out, I'll bet they've all had more than 2 structural failures total.

 

[mcjon77]

...The wing failing on the Zodiac, as far as I know, happens when the plane undergoes a large G force. So, that means that both accidents were because the pilot was doing something stupid....

And how do you know that? What evidence do you have that the pilots were doing anything but normal flight. Infact, eye witness reports to at least one (I believe more than one) of the accidents were that the pilots were in normal flight.

You keep ASSUMING that some "large G force" is needed to cause the wings to seperate. That is the whole point of why they were grounded. There is NO EVIDENCE that these pilots were doing anything "stupid" to result in "large G force". In effect you are assuming that the plane is structurally stable as proof that the pilots "did something stupid". And you are using this conclusion that the pilots did something stupid as proof that the aircraft is tructurally stable.

As my high school Geometry teacher, Mr Luzzi, used to say "You can't use what you are trying to prove, to prove what your are trying to prove."

The stupid pilot line keeps getting pushed around, yet WHERE are the structural failures "for unknown reasons" with other LSAs? Why is this model's fatality rate 50% higher than and RV?

 

[mcjon77]

Even if I did, and you take percentage out, I'll bet they've all had more than 2 structural failures total.

I am also pretty sure that Cessna and Piper have more than 71 planes total.

How long do you think the C150 or C172 would have lasted on the market if 1 out of every 35 broke up in mid-air for no apparent reason? I can imagine the conversation between the Dealer and a buyer

Dealer:"I've got this great little two place plane for you., nice 110kt cruise, low stall speed, great visability."
Buyer: "That sounds great, are there any problems?"
Dealer: "No, Its perfect, except.... Well, except for the fact that 1 out of 35 break up mid-ar"
Buyer: "What do you mean 'break up'? "
Dealer: "I just mean that 1 out of 35 of the planes have their wings fall off during flight. Now If you'll just sign here..."
Buyer: "Wait, were the pilots trying to do aerobatics or crazy flying?"
Dealer: "Not that we know of. The only reports we have heard said it was during normal flight. Now let me tell you about some of our financing options..."
Buyer: "Why is this happening?"
Dealer: "We have no idea. Are you interested in cloth or leather upolstery? I prefer cloth during the summer, personally."
Buyer: "Hold On! Are any other LSAs experiencing unexplained structural failures like this?"
Dealer: "No, just us. By the way, I think I can get you a good deal on a nice avionics package, how does that sound?"

 

[Geico266]

Totally uncalled for, inaccurate, and disrespectful to the entire aviation community. You, as a pilot, should know more than anyone else that aircraft service bulletins don't pop up overnight, and moreover, that your RV12 could just as easily be the next "killer" because a bunch of lazy pilots improperly maintain them.

The Zodiac is a nice design, and its unfortunate that there have been some dumb pilots killing themselves.

The Zodiac has been killing people for years. My friend died 3 years ago in AU and he WAS the Zodiac dealer. He died giving a demonstration flight! Do you really think a factory dealer is going to "do something stupid" while flying a potential customer?

Categorizing my dead friend as a "dumb pilot" is totally uncalled for, inaccurate, inappropriate, and disrespectful to his widow and children.

I stand by my first post. The NTSB recommended grounding the Zodiac in April 09, but the FAA just grounded it 3 days ago. The FAA had their thumbs you know where while another person died needlessly flying a Zodiac in AR.

"April 17th, 2009. The Zodiac is the Corvair of the air," said Sanger, a licensed commercial
pilot and managing partner of the Slack & Davis law firm's Dallas office.
"This is a poorly designed and tested aircraft that poses a danger to anyone
who flies in it. The NTSB's recommendation to ground the fleet is nothing
short of heroic. I am not aware of the NTSB ever taking such an extraordinary
step as asking the FAA to 'prohibit further flight' of a fleet of aircraft.
Unfortunately, I am concerned whether the FAA will follow the NTSB's wise
guidance."

The Zodiac is a nice design, and its unfortunate that there have been some dumb pilots killing themselves.

A nice design? After reading the info on the "Zodiac being the Corvair of the Air" you still stand by your statement? Or were the people who drove Corvairs just dumb drivers too? Seems to me the only dumb pilots were the ones to keep flying them after the NTSB recommended grounding them.

 

[flyersfan31]

Jay, first of all, I'm sorry, buddy. That really bites. I hope you are able to somehow get out of the hole and get back in the air. Good luck, my friend.

I will say this - nothing will come from litigation. That is a pretty small operation down there in Zenairland. Sue 'em and they go TU without tossing out more than a few pennies. I can't believe there is much $$$ in the corporation. They wouldn't be able to continue production while sending 88cents of every $$ to a winning plaintiff. I'm sure Chris Heinz' assets are shielded ( and if they aren't he's a fool!!!). Can't get blood from a stone. Fix it or forget it.

 

[poadeleted20]

Thread closed pending MC review for excessively heated rhetoric. Please remain calm while we decide what to do and when to re-open.

 

[Pilots Of America Management]

Thread re-opened, with some posts deleted, on the following understanding:

Here, we do not incite, or react to, provocation. We keep our discussion civil, and address ourselves to facts and issues, not personalities. We do not use trickery to avoid having insulting language or suggestions deleted by the obscenity filter. If someone provokes us, we do not respond in kind, but rather let it go (or take it private, in civil tones) if we can, or refer the matter to to the MC if we can't.

If everyone stays within these bounds, the thread remains open. If not, it's closed, and the offenders who cause that may be be subject to further action.

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[Geico266]

And how do you know that? What evidence do you have that the pilots were doing anything but normal flight. Infact, eye witness reports to at least one (I believe more than one) of the accidents were that the pilots were in normal flight.

You keep ASSUMING that some "large G force" is needed to cause the wings to separate. That is the whole point of why they were grounded. There is NO EVIDENCE that these pilots were doing anything "stupid" to result in "large G force". In effect you are assuming that the plane is structurally stable as proof that the pilots "did something stupid". And you are using this conclusion that the pilots did something stupid as proof that the aircraft is structurally stable.

As my high school Geometry teacher, Mr Luzzi, used to say "You can't use what you are trying to prove, to prove what your are trying to prove."

The stupid pilot line keeps getting pushed around, yet WHERE are the structural failures "for unknown reasons" with other LSAs? Why is this model's fatality rate 50% higher than and RV?

*********************************


First, a thank you to POA Management so we can contiue to discuss the demise of the Zodiac. I apologize for letting my temper get the best of me, and I apologize if I offended anyone.


*********************************


Jon has it right, there is absolutely NO evidence that the 12+ pilots and passengers killed in Zodiac "in flight break ups" were due to anything the pilots had done.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/14/ntsb.small.plane/index.html

The same CNN article dated 4/9/2009 states the FAA is now looking into what action would be needed. The FAA failed to act in time to prevent the death of the people in AR.

I'm not sure how you anyone can justify the FAA not grounding these planes 10 mins after the NTSB said they should be grounded. For the FAA to wait until someone else was killed is simply irresponsible, and now it is actionable due to gross negligence.

 

[wabower]

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. [

*********************************


First, a thank you to POA Management so we can contiue to discuss the demise of the Zodiac. I appoloigize for letting my temper get the best of me, and I appoligize if I offended anyone.


*********************************


Jon has it right, there is absolutely NO evidence that the 12+ pilots and passengers killed in Zodiac "in flight break ups" were due to anything the pilots had done.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/14/ntsb.small.plane/index.html

The same CNN article dated 4/9/2009 states the FAA is now looking into what action would be needed. The FAA failed to act in time to prevent the death of the people in AR.

I'm not sure how you anyone can justify the FAA not grounding these planes 10 mins after the NTSB said they should be grounded. For the FAA to wait until someone else was killed is simply irresponsible, and now it is actionable.

 

[Keith Lane]

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. [

And amen to that. The NTSB many many times makes recommendations to the FRA (Federal Railway Administration) that are very good, only to have them ignored completely. Most of the FRA field personnel I've met are ex (as in fired) railroad workers, who are now in a position to make life difficult for the industry with whom they have an axe to grind.

 

[Everskyward]

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.

Now a little more is known.

On November 6, 2009, a Zodiac CH-601XL, an experimental amateur-built airplane, was destroyed as a result of an in-flight breakup near Agnos, Arkansas, killing the pilot -- who was the sole occupant. The debris field was scattered over an area more than 600 feet long. Both wings had separated from the fuselage in-flight.

http://aviationservicesdirectory.com/permalink.php?id=413

 

[jmaynard]

*********************************


First, a thank you to POA Management so we can contiue to discuss the demise of the Zodiac. I apologize for letting my temper get the best of me, and I apologize if I offended anyone.


*********************************

I'm still offended, and even more so that your message that started the flamefest is still present unaltered. I regret letting it get to me, but I do not regret being offended by it, for I believe it was clearly meant to be offensive. If you were truly sorry, you'd remove it; if you do, then I'll remove this one.

 

[dmccormack]

I'm still offended, and even more so that your message that started the flamefest is still present unaltered. I regret letting it get to me, but I do not regret being offended by it, for I believe it was clearly meant to be offensive. If you were truly sorry, you'd remove it; if you do, then I'll remove this one.

Good grief, Jay.

You own the affected airplane and have the most to lose either way, and for that every one of us certainly is empathetic.

Of all people to let stuff roll off like water off a duck's back, it should be you, my man.

 

[jmaynard]

Good grief, Jay.

You own the affected airplane and have the most to lose either way, and for that every one of us certainly is empathetic.

Of all people to let stuff roll off like water off a duck's back, it should be you, my man.

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).

 

[bbchien]

Good grief. Just close this thread again and be done with it.

Jay, chill. Methinks even with your current predicament, that the amount of protestation is unbecoming. Moderators or not.

....and Geico, you too.

 

[gismo]

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.