The other shoe drops...Grounded.

Henning said:
I have a hard time arguing with that. I haven't seen an LSA yet that I'd value higher than $60K and most of them I'd value closer to $30K.
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to watch how depreciation applies to used LSAs. Something that sells for $100k new now will be worth how much in 5 years?


Trapper John
 
jmaynard said:
Weighed it lately? We weighed an Aeronca Defender a couple of weeks ago. It was supposedly about 740 pounds. We found its actual empty weight to be 922.
Click to expand...

It had a W&B done a few years ago -- there's nothing additional on this Chief other than a handheld radio, 6' of coax, and whip antenna.
 
steingar said:
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...
The flip side of this is that the Zodiac is now, without a doubt, the best-understood, most-tested, most-analyzed aircraft in the LSA market, bar none. The modifications strengthen the airframe significantly beyond the ASTm requirements, at a minimal cost in weight. They also remove even the slightest trace of any tendency for aileron flutter. I was not uncomfortable flying my Zodiac before the grounding; I'll be completely comfortable doing so afterward.

mcjon77 said:
IIRC, Jay bought his Zodiac in early March of 2008 and joined the Zenith mailing list in late Febuary 2008.
Click to expand...
I placed the firm order, with nonrefundable deposit, on March 10, 2008.

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.
Click to expand...
There was one other consideration: The Zodiac uses an O-200, instead of the Rotax 912 on essentially every other LSA. I was (and am) concerned about the availability of Rotax mechanics in my vicinity.

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.
Click to expand...
Not quite. The Tecnam Bravo/Sierra were, as well. I evaluated them, and got a quote on a comparable configuration. It was $25K more, uses a Rotax, and the custom paint scheme was not available. Given those factors, the choice seemed like a no-brainer.

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.
Click to expand...
Indeed. The decision I made was the best I could, at the time. The factors have obviously changed...but even so, if my situation becomes such that I can keep the airplane, I'll happily pay the $5K and fly it for years.
 
RJM62 said:
Most new LSA airplanes sre designed to look and feel as much like conventional, Normal category airplanes as possible, however, which I think is both good and bad.

<snipped>

On the down side, it's simply more difficult to build a structurally safe aircraft that looks and feels like a Normal-category airplane while staying within the LSA standards. Surely designers don't intentionally cut corners on safety. Nonetheless, it's difficult for me to imagine that engineers designing LSA don't, from time to time, wish they could incorporate a beefier spar or more ribs into a wing without increasing weight and thus sacrificing useful load. And although some of the weight-saving innovations they've come up with are novel and even admirable, the LSA fleet is still put into the position of being a test bed, and those who fly these aircraft into being test pilots.

That many of these test pilots may have had streamlined training and may not be the picture of perfect health (the SP rule being designed, in my opinion, with flying something really simple, like the GT-500, in mind) further complicates the question of how safe LSA are....But is it possible that a general lack of skill and experience on the part of low-time, minimally trained pilots causes these LSA (especially those used for flight instruction or rental) to suffer the cumulative effects of frequent maneuvers outside the limits of their design envelopes?

-Rich
Click to expand...
"According to FAA records in the four-year period from August of 2005 to June of 2009, Special Light-Sport Aircraft experienced 12 fatal accidents resulting in the loss of 18 lives. In 10 of the 12 accidents a licensed pilot was in control (that is, not a Sport Pilot)."

http://www.bydanjohnson.com/

Heavy Topic for Light Aviation... LSA Safety; November 4, 2009

The speculation is that the transitioning to LSA, that is not being specifically trained on/in LSA, is the issue. Something about having been ingrained into the normal use of a Normal GA plane or some such.

If this is the case, then do you proceed to get your Sport Pilot trained on an LSA then proceed to licensed pilot certification (on a Cessna 1xx) to have the necessary overlapping qualifications for each?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by steingar
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.


jmaynard said:
The flip side of this is that the Zodiac is now, without a doubt, the best-understood, most-tested, most-analyzed aircraft in the LSA market, bar none. The modifications strengthen the airframe significantly beyond the ASTm requirements, at a minimal cost in weight. They also remove even the slightest trace of any tendency for aileron flutter.
Click to expand...

I can't argue that your statement (which I believe infers that the Zodiac XL is now safe) is true or wishful but the market is full of LSA planes and perception often overcomes reality. This does not bode well for Zodiac, certainly not in the near future.

My bet is that Cessna is taking a image hit on the 162 regardless of their marketing hype:

"Cessna prefers to go beyond industry consensus standards so they also plan ground vibration tests (which can check for flutter) and airframe fatigue testing. Both employ elaborate test equipment to evaluate an airframe's integrity and response to repeated in-flight loads. Both are complex studies that Cessna's large organization can accomplish."

It doesn't help that the sucker is being assembled in China either. :nonod:
 
thepetrostate said:
The speculation is that the transitioning to LSA, that is not being specifically trained on/in LSA, is the issue. Something about having been ingrained into the normal use of a Normal GA plane or some such.
Click to expand...
The thinking is that pilots used to faster, higher-performance aircraft think they can just jump into an LSA and fly it with little or no transition training. This has been found manifestly not to be the case; LSAs are more lightly wing loaded, and require a different mindset, especially in the pattern and on landing. A Cirrus or Bonanza pilot should have a thorough checkout before flying an LSA solo, just as he would transitioning to any other aircraft.

If this is the case, then do you proceed to get your Sport Pilot trained on an LSA then proceed to licensed pilot certification (on a Cessna 1xx) to have the necessary overlapping qualifications for each?
Click to expand...
It is a misnomer to say that sport pilots are not licensed; a sport pilot certificate is as much a pilot certificate as a private certificate, just with different privileges. The standards for performance for those elements that are common are identical.

In any event, I would expect that a pilot who got a private ticket in an LSA would have no more trouble transitioning to, say, a 172 or Warrior than a pilot who got a private ticket in a 152. Maybe even easier; a Zodiac or a Tecnam or a SportCruiser performs at speeds similiar to a 172, more so than a 152.
 
thepetrostate said:
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).
Click to expand...

How did things turn out for the Thorp T-18?

I'm sure you recall the issues with tail flutter, right?
 
Cessna's position in the industry will overcome the run-of-the-mill objections and problems (and there will be some) and they can point to extensive flight testing and design changes that were made prior to manufacturing airplanes for sale. Their order book and backlog are probably down by a significant amount since the market crashed, but they most likely have at least a year's production on the books.

But if they start coming apart in flight, all bets are off.
thepetrostate said:
Originally Posted by steingar
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.




I can't argue that your statement (which I believe infers that the Zodiac XL is now safe) is true or wishful but the market is full of LSA planes and perception often overcomes reality. This does not bode well for Zodiac, certainly not in the near future.

My bet is that Cessna is taking a image hit on the 162 regardless of their marketing hype:

"Cessna prefers to go beyond industry consensus standards so they also plan ground vibration tests (which can check for flutter) and airframe fatigue testing. Both employ elaborate test equipment to evaluate an airframe's integrity and response to repeated in-flight loads. Both are complex studies that Cessna's large organization can accomplish."

It doesn't help that the sucker is being assembled in China either. :nonod:
Click to expand...
 
I know for a fact that when I jumped into an LSA (Tecnam) I was surprised by "little" differences. Stall behavior was docile, but there's no stall warning horn, so we were descending in a stall while I was still "waiting" for it. They have to be flown from start to stop, much like a tailwheel airplane, though for different reasons.

The insurance industry recommends a minimum (5 or 10) hours of dual for a pilot other than a sport pilot to get checked out in a new LSA. That's reasonable to me, as I don't think it's safe to jump into any new type of airplane, regardless of your ratings.
 
TMetzinger said:
The insurance industry recommends a minimum (5 or 10) hours of dual for a pilot other than a sport pilot to get checked out in a new LSA. That's reasonable to me, as I don't think it's safe to jump into any new type of airplane, regardless of your ratings.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Every airplane is different, and no matter how experienced or talented the pilot, a thorough checkout in a new type is always a good idea.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Cheaper is great, but not at the cost of safety, nor at the cost of the good reputation LSA's should get.

Here's some of my major issues with the Allegro:

1) The fuel tank is... The pilot's seat. Hello?!?!? What were the designers smoking when they thought that one up?

2) Abundance of Shimano bicycle shifters in the cockpit. IIRC, one was for pitch trim, one was for mixture, and there was a third one. While I appreciate the sentiment (the Wright Brothers went from bikes to planes, ya know), I think we left behind the bike-plane thing 100 years ago. I'm sure Shimano makes good stuff, but they make it for bikes, not airplanes.

3) Exposed and poorly routed control rods. The control rods are exposed and visible from the sticks, back between the seats, up to the top of the cabin behind the seats in the baggage area, then into the wings. They're painted bright red, with signs posted saying "DO NOT TOUCH THE RED RODS." Unfortunately, my bags can't read. Again... You have GOT to be friggin' kidding me.

4) General flimsiness. In particular, the wingtips can be easily bent significantly inwards with thumb and a single finger, and the prop is plastic. Not composite, just plastic. Again, a thumb and a finger and you can bend the tips 3-4 inches fore and aft. Other parts were similarly flimsy, enough so that I seriously questioned their ability to stay attached to the aircraft in normal flight.

If the plane scares me, as a pilot, what is it going to do to potential passengers except scare them away? That is BAD for aviation. I'm sorry to say it, but I hope Fantasy Air bites the dust.

OBTW - I was originally one of the established-aviation LSA naysayers, mainly due to the Allegro. When I finally got the opportunity to fly some better-designed LSA's, I was very impressed.
Click to expand...

1) Ever flown a Remos G3/GX, or even a Dimaond DA-20. They've got the fuel tank under the seat deal, just like the Allegro does.

2) So, because YOU personally don't like it, it isn't safe?

3) I've flown a few planes with control rods/cable's that are visible. Perhaps not the the extent that you describe, but I don't really see anything wrong with it.

4) Again, since you don't personally like it, it isn't safe?

Are you an aeronautical engineer who has looked at the numbers on the plane, or did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
3) I've flown a few planes with control rods/cable's that are visible. Perhaps not the the extent that you describe, but I don't really see anything wrong with it.
Click to expand...

I like being able to look up and see that the aileron cables and turnbuckles are there and the safety wire is still solid. I also like being able to pull up the seat and watch the rudder and elevator cables run all the way back.

The more I read and see about LSAs, the more I wonder why there aren't more resurrected old designs such as the Cub and American Champions...
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
1) Ever flown a Remos G3/GX, or even a Dimaond DA-20. They've got the fuel tank under the seat deal, just like the Allegro does
Click to expand...
Have you ever flown a Diamond DA-20? I have, and the fuel tank was not under the seat. Perhaps you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night?
 
jesse said:
Have you ever flown a Diamond DA-20? I have, and the fuel tank was not under the seat. Perhaps you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night?
Click to expand...

In fact I have, but that wouldn't be indicated by my signature, would it. And, it is basically under the seat. Just behind you, is close enough to under the seat. Sorry that you don't think that it is basically under the seat.
 
thepetrostate said:
"According to FAA records in the four-year period from August of 2005 to June of 2009, Special Light-Sport Aircraft experienced 12 fatal accidents resulting in the loss of 18 lives. In 10 of the 12 accidents a licensed pilot was in control (that is, not a Sport Pilot)."

http://www.bydanjohnson.com/

Heavy Topic for Light Aviation... LSA Safety; November 4, 2009

The speculation is that the transitioning to LSA, that is not being specifically trained on/in LSA, is the issue. Something about having been ingrained into the normal use of a Normal GA plane or some such.

If this is the case, then do you proceed to get your Sport Pilot trained on an LSA then proceed to licensed pilot certification (on a Cessna 1xx) to have the necessary overlapping qualifications for each?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why "licensed pilot," if such a thing existed, wouldn't include Sport Pilots. I wouldn't be surprised if by "licensed" pilots they meant certificated pilots other than students.

But it's really neither here nor there, when you get right down to it. My point was that these airplanes are flown largely by inexperienced pilots (whether students, SPs, or PP and higher pilots who are inexperienced in LSA); and I wonder if the cumulative effects of less-than-wonderful piloting may stress the airframes in airplanes designed with a hard-and-fast weight limit always in view more so than in airplanes where the engineers don't face such strict limits.

I'm just speculating, incidentally. I'm not trying to defend my position. I'm just wondering if it may be a factor when prospective purchasers demand LSA that I believe are vastly different from and much more fully-equipped than what I believe was envisioned when the LSA standards were drafted.

-Rich
 
RJM62 said:
I'm not sure why "licensed pilot," if such a thing existed, wouldn't include Sport Pilots. I wouldn't be surprised if by "licensed" pilots they meant certificated pilots other than students.
Click to expand...

I took the meaning to be PPL (certificated) and to exclude Sport Pilot (certificated).

But it's really neither here nor there, when you get right down to it. My point was that these airplanes are flown largely by inexperienced pilots (whether students, SPs, or PP and higher pilots who are inexperienced in LSA); and I wonder if the cumulative effects of less-than-wonderful piloting may stress the airframes in airplanes designed with a hard-and-fast weight limit always in view more so than in airplanes where the engineers don't face such strict limits.

-Rich
Click to expand...
With only 12 fatalities, the control number is so low that even if 11 were PPL, one could argue that there isn't enough of a sampling to be an effective measure of whether fatalities are somehow more common among PPLs than SP.

:dunno:
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
In fact I have, but that wouldn't be indicated by my signature, would it. And, it is basically under the seat. Just behind you, is close enough to under the seat. Sorry that you don't think that it is basically under the seat.
Click to expand...
Behind you does not equal under the seat. The tail is behind me too -- but I don't generally tell people that the tail is under the seat.
 
jesse said:
Behind you does not equal under the seat. The tail is behind me too -- but I don't generally tell people that the tail is under the seat.
Click to expand...

Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, your sitting on gas in the DA-20. When the thing comes to a quick stop, some things like to keep moving. When the tank ruptures in a crash, and the momentum is forward, your going to get wet, and it isn't going to be water.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, your sitting on gas in the DA-20. When the thing comes to a quick stop, some things like to keep moving. When the tank ruptures in a crash, and the momentum is forward, your going to get wet, and it isn't going to be water.
Click to expand...
You're not sitting on it. It is behind you. It might rupture and cover you in gas -- but you aren't SITTING on it.

I'm not saying it's much safer than sitting on it, I'm just saying, technically you aren't sitting on it.
 
what are the ASTM standards for flammable fluid containment and fuel tank strength?
 
jesse said:
You're not sitting on it. It is behind you. It might rupture and cover you in gas -- but you aren't SITTING on it.

I'm not saying it's much safer than sitting on it, I'm just saying, technically you aren't sitting on it.
Click to expand...

If you want to get technical, I'm not sitting on this chair either. I'm floating just above it. Not that it matters.

I'd take flying the LSA's over the DA-20 any day. As much as I love flying the DA-20, I can't sit comfortably for more than about an hour, maybe a little more. The LSA's are big enough to stretch out some, even with a passenger
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
If you want to get technical, I'm not sitting on this chair either. I'm floating just above it. Not that it matters.

I'd take flying the LSA's over the DA-20 any day. As much as I love flying the DA-20, I can't sit comfortably for more than about an hour, maybe a little more. The LSA's are big enough to stretch out some, even with a passenger
Click to expand...
My problem with the DA-20 isn't the leg room as much as the seats are just *DAMN* hard. When I flew it on a 7-8 hour cross country into a 60-65 knot head-wind on a turbulent ass day, it was less than enjoyable.

Otherwise -- I like the DA-20 and feel it is structurally superior to the majority of the LSA fleet.
 
the DA-20 would be a lot more fun with Vne limiting divebrakes...but its still plenty fun in my book.
 
tonycondon said:
what are the ASTM standards for flammable fluid containment and fuel tank strength?
Click to expand...

F2245 is the LSA design and performance standard.

It's only a 445k PDF, so I'd doubt the standard even addresses it...unless 2245 references some other standard...


Trapper John
 
tonycondon said:
the DA-20 would be a lot more fun with Vne limiting divebrakes...but its still plenty fun in my book.
Click to expand...
The ability to create some more drag would be nice -- as even with full flaps -- it's fairly clean..and slipping helps but not a whole lot since the fuselage is so low-profile.

It was stable at very slow speeds. Landing without float required full flaps with the stall warning blaring during short final. The problem with that was that when the wings were willing to let it sit down you didn't have crap for elevator authority left which left you with a rather flat attitude. You could come in with a little more energy so that you could get the nose up but then the slightest bump would put you back into the air again.

I still miss the thing though -- it was a LOT of fun.
 
Last edited:
I kinda was wondering along those lines John, while the DA-20 was certified under part 23 which has a whole boatload of regs and testing requirements related to the fuel system, particularly in tank strength and fluid containment. Of course all bets are off in a catastrophic accident.

I think that Joel has access to the ASTM standard, maybe he could take a look at it for us. Its really too bad that the ASTM standard has to be purchased.
 
jesse said:
The ability to create some more drag would be nice -- as even with full flaps -- it's fairly clean..and slipping helps but not a whole lot since the fuselage is so low-profile.

I can't say I ever felt I didn't have enough drag to put it into a spot though.
Click to expand...

true, the glidepath control is completely adequate. but it would be a lot more FUN with Vne limiting dive brakes.
 
tonycondon said:
I kinda was wondering along those lines John, while the DA-20 was certified under part 23 which has a whole boatload of regs and testing requirements related to the fuel system, particularly in tank strength and fluid containment. Of course all bets are off in a catastrophic accident.

I think that Joel has access to the ASTM standard, maybe he could take a look at it for us. Its really too bad that the ASTM standard has to be purchased.
Click to expand...

Yep, ASTM stands for American Society for Taking Money. Sometimes they make old versions available on their site for free, but not 2245...


Trapper John
 
tonycondon said:
true, the glidepath control is completely adequate. but it would be a lot more FUN with Vne limiting dive brakes.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking the HK-36 has those. Besides that model flies better with the engine off than the DA-20.
 
vontresc said:
I'm thinking the HK-36 has those. Besides that model flies better with the engine off than the DA-20.
Click to expand...

its got a rotax right? in that case the engine out flight characteristics better be good! :D:D

where is that pot stirring smilie...

:duck:
 
vontresc said:
I'm thinking the HK-36 has those. Besides that model flies better with the engine off than the DA-20.
Click to expand...

Its got way bigger wings than the DA-20 does, too. I looked at them side by side a few weeks ago at the AOPA expo, and was amazed at how much more fun the HK36 looks.


In regards to the ASTM stuff. I'm planning a library run tonight. Anyone have something in particular you'd like me to look up?
 
Cirrusly now, boys, how about all's us whut learnt in them-um's that would be LSA's today, but back then they hadn't thought up the words (or the need to use them)? Are we dangerouser now?



Average depth of Lake Texoma?

KSCessnaDriver said:
Its got way bigger wings than the DA-20 does, too. I looked at them side by side a few weeks ago at the AOPA expo, and was amazed at how much more fun the HK36 looks.


In regards to the ASTM stuff. I'm planning a library run tonight. Anyone have something in particular you'd like me to look up?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
KSCessnaDriver said:
In regards to the ASTM stuff. I'm planning a library run tonight. Anyone have something in particular you'd like me to look up?
Click to expand...

A side by side subject comparison with Part 23? :rofl:

I am interested, as I posted above, in anything regarding fuel tank design, testing, and safety, thanks to the discussion comparing the Allegro and DA-20 designs.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
I'd take flying the LSA's over the DA-20 any day. As much as I love flying the DA-20, I can't sit comfortably for more than about an hour, maybe a little more. The LSA's are big enough to stretch out some, even with a passenger
Click to expand...

But, but they have lamb's wool! :rofl:
 

Attachments

  • da-20_5c.jpg
    da-20_5c.jpg
    60.6 KB · Views: 19
thepetrostate said:
But, but they have lamb's wool! :rofl:
Click to expand...

Those are better than the "premium" leather, which is harder than a freaking rock. Its almost like someone looked at the leather and said, "that looks good, put it in." They never ever, ever sat on it, because it sucks badly.
 
Alright, here's what I've got from the fact finding trip to the library.

I know the first question pertaining to the standards was about spinning, so I'll give you the whole spin section, as well as the preface to Chapter 4.

4.1 Proof of Compliance
4.1.1 Each of the following requirements shall be met at the most critical weight and CG configuration. Unless otherwise specified, the speed range from stall to Vdf or the maximum allowable speed for the configuration being investigated shall be considered.
4.1.1.1 Vdf may be less than or equal to Vd
4.1.1.2 If Vdf chosen is less than Vd, Vne must be less than or equal to 0.9Vdf and greater than or equal to 1.1Vc.
4.1.2 The following tolerances are acceptable during flight testing:
Weight +5%, -10%
Weight, when critical +5%, -1%
CG +/- 7% of total travel
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.
4.5.9.2 For airplanes in which intentional spinning is allowed, the airplane must be able to recover from a three-turn spin in not more than one and one-half additional turn.
4.5.9.3 In addition, for either 4.5.9.1 or 4.5.9.2:
(1) For both the flaps-retracted and flaps-extended conditions, the applicable airpseed limit and limit maneuvering load factor may not be exceeded.
(2) There may be no excessive control forces during the spin or recovery.
(3) It must be impossible to obtain uncontrollable spins with any use of the controls.
(4) For the flaps-extended condition, the flaps may be retracted during recovery.
4.5.9.4 For those airplanes of which the design is inherently spin resistant, such resistance must be proven by test and documented. If proven spin resistant, the airplane must be placarded "no intentional spins" but need not comply with 4.5.9.1-4.5.9.3

In regards to fuel systems, all I could find was the following:

7.3 Fuel System:
7.3.1 The unusable fuel quantity for each tank must be established by test and shall not be less than the quantity at which the first evidence of engine fuel starvation occurs under each intended flight operation and maneuver.
7.3.2 Thanks must be protected against wear from vibrations and their installation shall be able to withstand the applicable inertia loads.
7.3.3 Fuel tanks shall be designed, to withstand a positive pressure of 3.5 psi.
7.3.4 The filler must be located outside the passenger compartment and spilled fuel must be prevented from entering or accumulating in any enclosed part of the airplane.
7.3.5 Each tank must be vented. The vent must discharge clear of the airplane.
7.3.6 There must be at least one drain to allow safe drainage. A drainable sediment bowl located at the lowest point in the fuel system may be used instead of the drainable sump in the fuel tank.
7.3.7 A fuel strainer or filter accessible for cleaning and replacement must be included in the system.
7.3.8 The fuel lines must be properly supported and protected from vibrations and wear.
7.3.9 Fuel lines located in an area subject to hihg heat (engine compartment) must be fire resistant or protected with a fire-resistant covering.
7.3.10 There must be a fuel shutoff valve accessible to the pilot while wearing a seat belt or harness.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top