revised factual statistics for the CTSW

[thorp]

Below are both the Accident and Incident statistics for the CTSW since 2005, current as of July 2009.

Note that the difficult handling characteristics of this plane have continued to bite pilots who were trained to fly a standard catagory aircraft.

The CTSW is somewhere in between an Ultralight and a real plane, and its looks and behavior are quite deceiving. Just because it looks like a GA plane, and sometimes flies like one, doesnt mean it is one.

There are a lot of plusses about the CTSW, but to deny the obvious problems with it is a huge disservice to the LSA industry and pilots in general.

We have had enough bad press over the years, we sure dont need any more help from idiots like CharleT.

Here are the stats:

Accident # phase pilot hours make hours pilot rating cause date
CEN09CA435 landing 636 17 SPL stall 13 JUL 2009
WPR09CA346 landing 500 365 SPL loss of control 10 JUL 2009
ERA09CA260 landing 32 32 student loss of control 21 APR 2009
ERA09LA079 takeoff 146 103 SPL loss of control 05 DEC 2008
CHI08LA286 landing 42 10 student loss of control 24 SEP 2008
DEN008LA109 landing 5957 185 CFI, IFR, MEL fuel exhaustion 21 JUN 2008
DEN08LA0008 landing 8166 77 CFI, CFII bounced 10 OCT 2007
SEA07FA240 approach 732 11 PPL, IFR engine failure 25 AUG 2007
CHI07CA228 landing 5620 210 PPL, IFR, MEL stall 24 JUL 2007
DEN07CA120 landing 4500 80 PPL, IFR, MEL improper flare 04 JUL 2007
ATL07CA082 landing 8 8 student improper flare 29 APR 2007
DEN07FA068 landing 8327 8 CFI, CFII, CFMEI nose landing 10 MAR 2007
DFW07CA074 landing 1380 7 PPL, IFR short of runway 21 FEB 2007
LAX07CA089 landing 45 45 student improper flare 17 FEB 2007
NYC06CA135 takeoff 2235 63 CFI, IFR, MEL loss of control 10 SEP 2006
CHI06CA226 landing 114 5 PPL improper flare 10 AUG 2006
ATL06CA066 landing 500 250 SPL fuel exhaustion 07 APR 2006
ATL05CA136 landing 196 65 PPL loss of control 26 JUL 2005

Incident # phase pilot hours make hours pilot rating cause N #
20090213003499G landing 76 56 SPL loss of control 381CT
20081123854679G approach 440 85 PPL loss of control 462CT
20080827848689G landing 52 52 student bounced 156CT
20080704846999G landing 120 7 PPL improper flare 383CT
20070908021109G landing 5850 33 CPL, MEL bounce 535CT
20070820021159G landing 398 26 PPL porpoise 5875
20070528009749G landing 2000 45 PPL gear failure 542LL
20070411006049G landing 10500 270 ATP, CFI loss of control 755CT
20070217002069G landing 25 25 student hard landing 7722D
20060209001779G landing 1065 15 student porpoise 6543
20051218029919G landing 60 60 student loss of control 106CT

[rfane]

Thorp,

As you have made it a practice to publish another members data on this forum, I didn't think you'd mind having your own shared as well. Especially since your aircraft is on the above list, and we might learn something about the CTSW.

Pilot Cert info:

KENNITH THORP BURRELL
10 CORNICHE DR APT C
MONARCH BEACH, CA 92629-4063

Medical Class: Third Medical Date: 10/2006

MUST WEAR LENSES FOR DISTANT - POSSESS GLASSES FOR NEAR VISION.

DOI: 4/27/2007
Certificate: PRIVATE PILOT

Rating(s):
PRIVATE PILOT
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND

DOI: 2/25/2009
Certificate: GROUND INSTRUCTOR

Rating(s):
GROUND INSTRUCTOR
ADVANCED


N755CT is Assigned

Aircraft Data

Serial Number 06-11-18 Type Registration Individual
Manufacturer Name FLIGHT DESIGN GMBH Certificate Issue Date 02/26/2007
Model CTSW Status Valid
Type Aircraft Fixed Wing Single-Engine Type Engine 4 Cycle
Pending Number Change None Dealer No
Date Change Authorized None Mode S Code 52426340
MFR Year 2006 Fractional Owner NO

Registered Owner

Name BURRELL KENNITH THORP
Street 10 C CORNICHE DR
City MONARCH BEACH State CALIFORNIA Zip Code 92629
County ORANGE
Country UNITED STATES

Airworthiness

Engine Manufacturer ROTAX Classification Light Sport
Engine Model 912ULS Category Airplane

A/W Date 02/27/2007


Incident Data

GENERAL INFORMATION

Data Source: ACCIDENT AND INCIDENT DATABASE
Report Number: 20070411006049G
Local Date: 11-APR-07
Local Time:
City: CARSON CITY
State: NV
Airport Name: CARSON
Event Type: INCIDENT - GENERAL AVIATION
Mid Air Collision: NOT A MIDAIR


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIRCRAFT INFORMATION

Aircraft Damage: MINOR
Aircraft Make:
Aircraft Model:
Aircraft Series:
Airframe Hrs: 10
Operator:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NARRATIVE

(-23) THE PILOT ^PRIVACY DATA OMIT^, PILOT-IN-COMMAND, WAS GIVING ^PRIVACY DAT^ A CHECK OUT IN THIS AIRCRAFT. THIS WAS THE LAST APPROACH TO LANDING DUE TO INCREASED WINDS. WHILE ON FINAL APPROACH, THE PIC INDIATED THAT THEY SHOULD CONSIDER A GO-AROUND AT APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET. HOWEVER, THEY CONTINUED ON THE APPROACH. AT APPROXIMATELY 100 FEET THE PIC PLACED HIS HANDS ON THE CONTROLS, BUT FAILED TO INSURE A POSITIVE EXCHANGE OF CONTROLS WITH THE SECOND PILOT. AS A RESULT, BOTH PILOTS WERE ATTEMPTING TO MAKE CONTROL INPUT DURING THE TOUCH DOWN AND ROLL OUT. THE AIRCRAFT HIT HARD AND BOUNCED, THEN HIT AGAIN AND STRUCK THE PROPELLER. DURING THIS TIME BOTH PILOTS WERE IN CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER AND THE RESULT WAS THE LEFT MAIN GEAR BROKE OFF, THE NOSE GEAR COLLAPSED, AND THE PROPELLER STRUCK THE GROUND. IN ADDITION, THE LEFT WING TIP STRUCK THE GROUND AND RESULTED IN DAMAGE. THE PIC WAS COUNSELED THAT HIS ROLE BE VERY CLEAR PRIOR TO INITIATING ANY INSTRUCTION; AND WHO WOULD TAKE CONTROL OF THE AIRCRAFT; AND HOW THE EXCHANGE WOULD BE MADE.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detail

Primary Flight Type: INSTRUCTION
Secondary Flight Type: TRAINING
Type of Operation: GENERAL OPERATING RULES
Registration Nbr: 755CT
Total Aboard: 2
Fatalities: 0
Injuries: 0
Landing Gear: NONRETRACT TRICYCLE
Aircraft Weight Class: UNDER 12501 LBS
Engine Make:
Engine Model:
Engine Group:
Number of Engines: 1
Engine Type:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental/Operations Info

Primary Flight Conditions: VISUAL FLIGHT RULES
Secondary Flight Conditions: WIND
Wind Direction(deg):
Wind Speed(mph):
Visibility(mi.):
Visibility Restrictions:
Light Condition: DAY
Flight Plan Filed: UNKNOWN
Approach Type:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pilot In Command

Pilot Certificates: AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR
Pilot Rating: GLIDER/AIRPLANE SINGLE, MULTI-ENGINE LAND
Pilot Qualification: QUALIFIED
Flight Time Total Hours: 10500
Total in Make/Model: 270
Total in Last 90 days: 45
Total in last 90 days Make/Model:

Were you the one getting the checkout? If so, you would have still been a student pilot at the time, right? Please, provide us the full story, as you haven't mentioned anything about this.

By the way, all aircraft usually handle better when two pilots aren't fighting over the controls.

[Daidalos]

Note that the difficult handling characteristics of this plane have continued to bite pilots who were trained to fly a standard catagory aircraft.

The CTSW is somewhere in between an Ultralight and a real plane, and its looks and behavior are quite deceiving. Just because it looks like a GA plane, and sometimes flies like one, doesnt mean it is one.

That statement is true for all LSA's. Private Pilots transitioning to an LSA usually have more to get accustomed to than zero time Sport Pilots. Don’t try to give LSAs a bad rap for piloting issues.

BTW an LSA is a real plane, just light.

[CharlieTango]

KENNITH THORP,

The stats you posted have very little meaining without being put in context. Before they can be put in context there needs to be enough total hours for the data to represent real trends and issues and lsa isn't there yet. As Roger Fane explained your stats don't support your conclusions (as usual) but you just continue to post as though they do (as usual.)

You posted these stats to "prove" a problem with ctsw handling yet your own airplane is included and the narrative shows that the problem was the pilots fighting for controll during a landing that should have been a go around. Isn't this a lie of ommision?

Speaking of lies lets look at a quote from your want ad that you posted to sell your ctsw.

From your want ad post: "No accident history. There was some minor damage at the time of delivery that was repaired by the factory two years ago"

From the NTSB report that you didn't post: "THE LEFT MAIN GEAR BROKE OFF, THE NOSE GEAR COLLAPSED, AND THE PROPELLER STRUCK THE GROUND. IN ADDITION, THE LEFT WING TIP STRUCK THE GROUND AND RESULTED IN DAMAGE."

Wow, you're really clever, no accident history? You are right it was an incident not an accident! Minor damage? You do have a way with words. It is a good thing you started this thread to protect unwary pilots from my lies.

By the way, now that I know your address I would like to stop by for a chat. You calling me names and challenging my integrity with your bs postings has stuck with at least some other pilots. I'm don't take kindly to you damaging my reputation based on bs and lies.

See you soon.

[rfane]

Ed,

In fairness, that wasn't an NTSB report, but an FAA Incident report, which stated Minor damage. Seems a bit more severe too me as well, but Thorp has always been clear that he is a "by the letter of the FAA guy". In this case, that just doesn't do justice to the extent of the damage. If you have a problem with the FAA's clarification of Minor damage, you need to take it up with the FAA.

The logs hopefully are completely documented to show the full extent of the repaired damage, so potential buyers who got as far as reviewing the logs would know.

[flyboy2007]

This should hopefully be a word for the wise to soon to be buyers. Please for your sake check out an aircraft very thorough. do not let yourselves be swindled from the likes of people like this. I am very glad you did this check roger and hopefully it has or will help a lot of trusting people. You and charlie are good people and hope to hear(and some day see) a lot more from both of you. happy flying, John

[CharlieTango]

From your want ad post: "No accident history. There was some minor damage at the time of delivery that was repaired by the factory two years ago"

from this ad i would expect some hangar rash type of damage, since the ad said "minor damage at the time of delivery" i would also expect it to be delivery related not a pilot checkout crash.

From the FAA report that you didn't post: "THE LEFT MAIN GEAR BROKE OFF, THE NOSE GEAR COLLAPSED, AND THE PROPELLER STRUCK THE GROUND. IN ADDITION, THE LEFT WING TIP STRUCK THE GROUND AND RESULTED IN DAMAGE."

obviously this brings into question the health of the engine and gearbox. even the statement that damage happened 2 years ago is misleading because the plane only had 50 hours on it. The 2 years therefore isn't proof of repairs being proven over time.

[Super Cub]

RFane,
Where do you find Incident Reports?

[rfane]

RFane,
Where do you find Incident Reports?

It's linked off the NTSB site here : http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp Sixth item down is the FAA incident database.

Here's a link to the database query tool: http://www.asias.faa.gov/pls/portal/POR ... nid=156323

The easiest way to find a report, is to know the Report #, or to know the Tail #.

[rfane]

I am very glad you did this check roger and hopefully it has or will help a lot of trusting people. You and charlie are good people and hope to hear(and some day see) a lot more from both of you. happy flying, John

John,

Thanks for the kind words, but truthfully I don't like having posted what I have. I would prefer that the forum administrator would stop the personal attacks against Ed, the posting of his personal information, and the unjustified rants. All from a person who has done his best to stay anonymous, and to ignore information that shows his information to be false.

For example, take a look at the Serial # of Thorp's aircraft from the above records : 06-11-18. Thorp has accused Ed of lying, and stated you can't believe anything he has said, because Thorp believes Ed's aircraft was made earlier than Ed has said. I provided Thorp with the method that Flight Design uses to give an aircraft a serial #, but Thorp hasn't even responded to it in any way. The only way I can think he came up with that flawed opinion, is that he takes the serial # as the date of manufacture. So using his own flawed opinion, his own aircraft was built on June 11, of either 1918, or 2018. Since either of those is out of the question, don't you think he would rethink his arguement? Flight Design gave his aircraft the serial # 06-11-18, because it was built in the year 2006, in the month of November, and was the 18th CT to begin production that month.

Thorp, ignored any comment on my posts, and then went on to post this rant against Ed and the CTSW. I considered just letting this blow over, but what would that really solve? Ed is a good person. I've met Ed a few times now, we've shared quite a bit of info on our aircraft, have had a couple of meals and beers together, and have flown along side of each other. I've also seen up close the area that he flies out of, and am quite aware of the conditions where he flys out of. He isn't BSing in his posts, and doesn't deserve for anybody to think he is. The CTSW also doesn't deserve the negative spin this guy gives it. I think his own data shows that the landing incidents have decreased in the last couple of years, as additional transition training has been more of a priority. Ed and Roger Heller have argued that, but the guy ignores it, and continues his rants. The CTSW isn't difficult to land, it's just different, which needs to respected and is being taught more thoroughly.

Thus I felt compelled to reply to this load of crap, and provide Thorp with a reality check. I wish Thorp would have shown some common sense himself, or the administrator would have just killed his worthless post. Maybe it's best this way, but I'm not pleased with doing it.

[thorp]

John,

Thanks for the kind words, but truthfully I don't like having posted what I have. I would prefer that the forum administrator would stop the personal attacks against Ed, the posting of his personal information, and the unjustified rants. All from a person who has done his best to stay anonymous, and to ignore information that shows his information to be false.

For example, take a look at the Serial # of Thorp's aircraft from the above records : 06-11-18. Thorp has accused Ed of lying, and stated you can't believe anything he has said, because Thorp believes Ed's aircraft was made earlier than Ed has said. I provided Thorp with the method that Flight Design uses to give an aircraft a serial #, but Thorp hasn't even responded to it in any way. The only way I can think he came up with that flawed opinion, is that he takes the serial # as the date of manufacture. So using his own flawed opinion, his own aircraft was built on June 11, of either 1918, or 2018. Since either of those is out of the question, don't you think he would rethink his arguement? Flight Design gave his aircraft the serial # 06-11-18, because it was built in the year 2006, in the month of November, and was the 18th CT to begin production that month.

Thorp, ignored any comment on my posts, and then went on to post this rant against Ed and the CTSW. I considered just letting this blow over, but what would that really solve? Ed is a good person. I've met Ed a few times now, we've shared quite a bit of info on our aircraft, have had a couple of meals and beers together, and have flown along side of each other. I've also seen up close the area that he flies out of, and am quite aware of the conditions where he flys out of. He isn't BSing in his posts, and doesn't deserve for anybody to think he is. The CTSW also doesn't deserve the negative spin this guy gives it. I think his own data shows that the landing incidents have decreased in the last couple of years, as additional transition training has been more of a priority. Ed and Roger Heller have argued that, but the guy ignores it, and continues his rants. The CTSW isn't difficult to land, it's just different, which needs to respected and is being taught more thoroughly.

Thus I felt compelled to reply to this load of crap, and provide Thorp with a reality check. I wish Thorp would have shown some common sense himself, or the administrator would have just killed his worthless post. Maybe it's best this way, but I'm not pleased with doing it.

Roger,

You are completely wrong. According to FAA records, Ed Cesnalis (aka CharlieTango) owns a 2005 Ct.

Read that again: 2005.

The serial numbers are Year-Month-Day, in European fashion.

Here is the link to the FAA records:

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry ... rtxt=102CT

Hopefully, this will put to rest any of the BS you and Ed have been posting here and other places in an attempt to make yourselves and your planes look better than they are.

Just look at how you tried to make the "minor damage" to the plane into "major damage". That should be proof enough for anyone of your actual intentions.

As far as the accident, I was the one who suggested the go-around, and the check-out pilot (on the day the plane was being delivered to me) decided we could handle it, and gave instructions on what to do with the very strong cross-wind on landing. Unfortunately, there was a total loss of audio just prior to the incident, and all efforts by the check-out pilot to rescue the plane failed and resulted in the incident. For the record, the check-out pilot reached over and took my hand off the throttle prior to the incident, and at that point I relinquished control to him, before we touched down. The FAA surmised that the root cause was the lack of the positive exchange of controls, but my opinion, as one who was there, was that the cause was over confidence on the part of the check-out pilot. It was not so easy to land in the high-winds as he had claimed just prior to landing.

As far as the damage, I had an independent expert check out the airframe completely, before I accpeted delivery of the plane, as I had not as yet accepted delivery when the incident occured.

The engine was also fully examined at Lockwood, including magna-flux.

There was no way I would have accpeted a plane that had not been in "good as new" condition, and I was still eager to take my bird home.

There were no lies spoken by me at any time, however Ed Cesnalis and you are now on record as having lied about his plane, N102CT.

If you cant tell the truth about your own plane, then what can you tell truthfully?

In my opinion, both of you are untrustworth indviduals who have gone out of your way to trash anyone who disagrees with you.

By the way, FAA records are public infomation. The only person on this forum who has tried to conceal this fact is Ed.

[CharlieTango]

Roger,

You are completely wrong. According to FAA records, Ed Cesnalis (aka CharlieTango) owns a 2005 Ct.

Read that again: 2005.

The serial numbers are Year-Month-Day, in European fashion.

Here is the link to the FAA records:

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry ... rtxt=102CT

Hopefully, this will put to rest any of the BS you and Ed have been posting here and other places in an attempt to make yourselves and your planes look better than they are.

Just look at how you tried to make the "minor damage" to the plane into "major damage". That should be proof enough for anyone of your actual intentions.

Kennith,

You bother to quote Roger but you don't read it? Your ex CTSW serial number is 06-11-18. Explain to us if your CT was built in 1918 or 2018.

You are wrong, serial numbers are not dates. My serial number indicates that it was the 5th build start in December of 2005. Your serial number indicates that yours was the 18th to begin building in November of 2006. Dates cannot make serial numbers for a couple of reasons.

You have again found my registration which shows the serial number it is silent on the model year, your have only demonstrated your ignorance and stuberness here.

As far as the accident,

So there was an accident?

As far as the accident,
I was the one who suggested the go-around, and the check-out pilot (on the day the plane was being delivered to me) decided we could handle it, and gave instructions on what to do with the very strong cross-wind on landing. Unfortunately, there was a total loss of audio just prior to the incident, and all efforts by the check-out pilot to rescue the plane failed and resulted in the incident. For the record, the check-out pilot reached over and took my hand off the throttle prior to the incident, and at that point I relinquished control to him, before we touched down. The FAA surmised that the root cause was the lack of the positive exchange of controls, but my opinion, as one who was there, was that the cause was over confidence on the part of the check-out pilot. It was not so easy to land in the high-winds as he had claimed just prior to landing.

>>For the record, the check-out pilot reached over and took my hand off the throttle prior to the incident, and at that point I relinquished control to him, before we touched down.<<Good>>but my opinion, as one who was there, was that the cause was over confidence on the part of the check-out pilot. It was not so easy to land in the high-winds as he had claimed just prior to landing<<

Lets see, you were there and you blame John for beign over confident? John is a 11,000 hour pilot, CFI, instructs in 747's. Carson City where you crashed is his home field where he hangars his Yak and his AirCam. He used to fly a CTSW out of Carson City as well. He flies accross the Pacific ocean twice a week. On the other hand you never even learned to fly your own CTSW, manged to fly it 35 hours in 2 years, your knees get sore from all the rudder input when you fly the pattern twice.

I know John and he is a good stick. I know Carson City airport and John's habbits. I don't beleive your account. It was not so easy to land becuase you were fighting for control and you were giving incorrect input.

As far as the damage, I had an independent expert check out the airframe completely, before I accpeted delivery of the plane, as I had not as yet accepted delivery when the incident occured.

The engine was also fully examined at Lockwood, including magna-flux.

There was no way I would have accpeted a plane that had not been in "good as new" condition, and I was still eager to take my bird home.

There were no lies spoken by me at any time, however Ed Cesnalis and you are now on record as having lied about his plane, N102CT.

You lied in your want ad to sell your plane. You just defended it by saying that the damage repair and potential damage was signed off by Flight Design and Lockwood. The fact that the extensive damage was well repaird doesn't mean you didn't lie.

In my opinion, both of you are untrustworth indviduals who have gone out of your way to trash anyone who disagrees with you.

By the way, FAA records are public infomation. The only person on this forum who has tried to conceal this fact is Ed.

You have called me a lot of names, you do it in every post you make. Now you are trashing Roger Fane, not a good idea Kennith. Roger is the kind of guy you could trust with your life. Your attacks are backed up with lies and bs, you have a lot of nerve.

Learn to admit you are wrong when proven wrong, learn to appologize, stop calling people names, stop making accusations that are untrue and grow up.

[zdc]

Hey guys, don't you think this has gotten a little out of hand. One guy bought a CT, had a bad experience and doesn't like it. Other people love their CT's. No one should ever make a decision about whether to buy an aircraft or form an opinion about an aircraft just on what some people have to say about it. There is only one way to know, and that is to fly it and fly it a lot. Even then people will disagree. If I was looking to purchase an aircraft I wouldn't let someones bad experience with a dealer stop me. If that was the acft I wanted, then thats what I want and I go into the deal with eyes wide open.

I'm new to sport and would like to hear about other acft, the good and the bad opinions.

[thorp]

Hey guys, don't you think this has gotten a little out of hand. One guy bought a CT, had a bad experience and doesn't like it. Other people love their CT's. No one should ever make a decision about whether to buy an aircraft or form an opinion about an aircraft just on what some people have to say about it. There is only one way to know, and that is to fly it and fly it a lot. Even then people will disagree. If I was looking to purchase an aircraft I wouldn't let someones bad experience with a dealer stop me. If that was the acft I wanted, then thats what I want and I go into the deal with eyes wide open.

I'm new to sport and would like to hear about other acft, the good and the bad opinions.

Right on. The reason that others try to silence those who report their experiences is that they want to influence your decision to be the same as theirs. Those of us who have negative things to report do so because we would not like to see you suffer the same.

The sole reason that I have challenged CT's assertions is because he makes it sound like its a fact that you will have a positive experience, and if you dont then it is only your fault.

That is just plane rubbish on his part, and a good way to show that he is dishing out disinformation is to point out how he adroitly avoids giving out factual details even about his own plane.

First, he posts that he has a 2006. Then, I post from FAA records that he does not have a 2006, but a 2005 (says so in the FAA records, regardless how you want to play games with the serial number).

He replies by saying he doesnt know what I am talking about, and says he has a 2006.

From the enormous amount of smoke blowing from CT its quite clear he does not want to tell the truth, and that should give you a leg up on the predictions he makes about what you would experience if you bought a CT.

I happen to like the CT, but I would be a liar if I told you it was a perfect plane.

[CharlieTango]

The sole reason that I have challenged CT's assertions is because he makes it sound like its a fact that you will have a positive experience, and if you dont then it is only your fault.

I have never taken this position, please don't put words in my mouth. The CTSW is at the high performance end of the SLSA category, it is very short coupled, short winged, responsive, slippery with a big speed range and big flap range. This is not the design for everyone.

I have challenged your statements that a CTSW requires so much rudder work that your knees get sore in a short time and that even a light crosswind puts you in danger of crashing. I'm not saying the CTSW is right for you or everyone I'm saying your wrong, that it is a capable design even in high gusty crosswinds.

That is just plane rubbish on his part, and a good way to show that he is dishing out disinformation is to point out how he adroitly avoids giving out factual details even about his own plane.

First, he posts that he has a 2006. Then, I post from FAA records that he does not have a 2006, but a 2005 (says so in the FAA records, regardless how you want to play games with the serial number).

He replies by saying he doesnt know what I am talking about, and says he has a 2006.

Your putting words in my mouth again, I said you don't know what your are talking about. You stated that my CT was built in early 2005 you are wrong it is the 5 build start in December of 2005. You stated that it is a 2005 model and that is on the regestrtaion, you are wrong it is a 2006 model, which is quite different from a 2005 model. The regeistration is silent on model year and does use 2005 as Mfgr Year. You are the one playing games with the serial number.