SSA response to Blanik L-13 grounding

[Phil Umphres]

Volunteers with the Soaring Society of America have been closely
following the recent action by the FAA in ordering inspections of
Blanik L-13 sailplanes. The nature of the inspections required has
resulted in what amounts to a virtual grounding of the L-13 fleet in
the United States.

The good news is that the FAA has been very willing to talk to our SSA
representatives (JIm Short, in particular, has taken the lead on this
one) and has been willing to discuss options. The bad news is that to
some extent the FAA's hands are tied because the problem originated in
Europe and the initial airworthiness directives came out of Europe.

This is a very complex and serious problem for many soaring clubs and
commercial operators in the United States and we want everyone to know
that SSA was on top of the situation from the beginning.
Unfortunately, we were not able to achieve a "quick fix" through
diplomacy. Rather, the problems with the Blanik are apprently quite
real and they require an engineering solution. We hope that there are
technologically-savvy Blanik owners in the US soaring community can
find such a solution quickly and that when they do it can be shared
with the rest of us.

What SSA can do at this point is help facilitate the discussion and
spread of useful information. To that end, we are putting regular
postings of Blanik information on the homepage of the SSA website. I
encourage those of you interested in this problem to check out the
postings there regularly -- as well as the postings on this RAS
discussion site.

Phil Umphres, Chairman,
The Soaring Society of America, Inc.

[mike malis]

I don't agree with this.

I was told by Jim that he was "too busy", and it was "up to the
members, you are the SSA"

I was the one who called Gregg this Monday, and turned him around with
the info in the L-13 overhaul manual which has a complete fatigue
analysis.

Another member created this website, on his own out of frustration.
Perhaps the SSA could at least link to it?

https://sites.google.com/site/blanikspar/

Mike Malis
SSA Life Member
Aerospace Engineer

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Sep 1, 9:59*pm, mike malis > wrote:
> I don't agree with this...

I'm of two minds on this.

On the one hand, I think I perfectly understand Mike's frustration.
This looks like a situation where the SSA is stepping afresh into a
situation where others had been doing the groundwork for months and
years, and then saying (direct quote) "...SSA was on top of the
situation from the beginning...."

Note that I'm not saying it _is_ such a situation, just that it looks
like such. It brings to mind the cartoon of the politician asking a
bystander "Which way did they go? I am their leader, and I must get in
front of them!" But, again, the map is not the territory.

On the other hand, this might be a good time for interested parties to
swallow some pride and rally behind the national organization. The FAA
and the manufacturer need to see a unified front; they won't want to
do a bunch of redundant work with a bunch of small overlapping
factions.

Thanks, Bob K.

[Pat Russell[_2_]]

The voice of reason. What are you doing hanging around in this crowd?

[Tony[_5_]]

On Sep 2, 2:00*pm, Pat Russell > wrote:
> The voice of reason. *What are you doing hanging around in this crowd?

Usually the Bob's (K and W) are good for that. Sort of refreshing, eh?

[mike malis]

Touche'...

FWIW, my comment was meant to be reply to sender.

Let's add Voices of Reason to the FAA AD comment page.

186 aircraft, I'll bet at least 5 times that many regular Blanik
pilots, and ONLY 20 Comments?!

BTW, the SSA says "They can't engineer a solution" on their own, and
will need help from the members. I have joined thier message list,
have you?

[Frank Whiteley]

On Sep 3, 12:42*am, mike malis > wrote:
> Touche'...
>
> FWIW, my comment was meant to be reply to sender.
>
> Let's add Voices of Reason to the FAA AD comment page.
>
> 186 aircraft, I'll bet at least 5 times that many regular Blanik
> pilots, and ONLY 20 Comments?!
>
> BTW, the SSA says "They can't engineer a solution" on their own, and
> will need help from the members. *I have joined thier message list,
> have you?

Yesterday I received a call from an AI that runs a soaring operation
using an L-13. He said his AD subscription service did not deliver
these AD's to him, so I e-mailed him copies and the MB plus some
additional information. Fortunately, they hadn't operated his L-13
since the before the 30th, but he missed the original AD also. He's
now on the FAA e-mail notification. I've asked the SSA state governors
to contact soaring operations in their states with this information.
Some number of L-13's are privately owned and operated including one
operation in my state that isn't SSA affiliated. I'm still not
confident that all L-13 owner/operators are aware of the latest AD.
Especially since pros and club volunteers have been found unaware as
late as yesterday.

Indeed, if you are not logged into the SSA web site, the link does not
work, nor do the news items appear on the home page because they are
on the member side of the server.

The SSA is a voluntary non-profit organization. We do not have a
'technical committee' as the BGA once did/does. The BGA technical
committee could authorize modifications to a point and worked with
manufacturers directly. The FAA controls that aspect here and plays
by a different set of rules.

If someone is putting together a list of owners and airframes, I'll
help. If not, I'll get started. Based on the aircraft codes, there
are 211 on the US registry. I suspect a fair number are hulks, but
even if 80-90 are still flying, that's significant, and I know of at
least one that was just about to return to service after a wing
splice.

Frank Whiteley

[Morgan[_2_]]

Clearly we need to band together in the US and abroad on this issue
since we are likely all to be held to some sort of manufacturer
approved inspection process. In the US, it would be nice to have an
SSA representative on top of this, working with the FAA, working with
LET, coordinating the development of an inspection. I know that our
club maintenance officer has been on the phone regularly with the
FAA. I'm sure that this is happening time and again from other
operators.

I've requested to be added to the SSA list and made the suggestion
that in addition to coordinating the test development effort, the SSA
could act as an escrow holder for funds to pay for the test
development. $100 or $200 per owner would raise $10,000 or more
without causing any of us individually too much wallet pain. That
should be a large enough sum of money to cover the development of a
test that we all could benefit from and enough money to make it
attractive to an engineer/testing firm.

It won't resolve getting approval from LET or the fact that the
approved test may be expensive or possibly requiring equipment that is
not readily available to many AI's or operators. We've got to start
somewhere.

On Sep 3, 11:14*am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> On Sep 3, 12:42*am, mike malis > wrote:
>
> > Touche'...
>
> > FWIW, my comment was meant to be reply to sender.
>
> > Let's add Voices of Reason to the FAA AD comment page.
>
> > 186 aircraft, I'll bet at least 5 times that many regular Blanik
> > pilots, and ONLY 20 Comments?!
>
> > BTW, the SSA says "They can't engineer a solution" on their own, and
> > will need help from the members. *I have joined thier message list,
> > have you?
>
> Yesterday I received a call from an AI that runs a soaring operation
> using an L-13. *He said his AD subscription service did not deliver
> these AD's to him, so I e-mailed him copies and the MB plus some
> additional information. *Fortunately, they hadn't operated his L-13
> since the before the 30th, but he missed the original AD also. *He's
> now on the FAA e-mail notification. I've asked the SSA state governors
> to contact soaring operations in their states with this information.
> Some number of L-13's are privately owned and operated including one
> operation in my state that isn't SSA affiliated. *I'm still not
> confident that all L-13 owner/operators are aware of the latest AD.
> Especially since pros and club volunteers have been found unaware as
> late as yesterday.
>
> Indeed, if you are not logged into the SSA web site, the link does not
> work, nor do the news items appear on the home page because they are
> on the member side of the server.
>
> The SSA is a voluntary non-profit organization. *We do not have a
> 'technical committee' as the BGA once did/does. *The BGA *technical
> committee could authorize modifications to a point and worked with
> manufacturers directly. *The FAA controls that aspect here and plays
> by a different set of rules.
>
> If someone is putting together a list of owners and airframes, I'll
> help. *If not, I'll get started. *Based on the aircraft codes, there
> are 211 on the US registry. *I suspect a fair number are hulks, but
> even if 80-90 are still flying, that's significant, and I know of at
> least one that was just about to return to service after a wing
> splice.
>
> Frank Whiteley

[Frank Whiteley]

On Sep 3, 1:22*pm, Morgan > wrote:
> Clearly we need to band together in the US and abroad on this issue
> since we are likely all to be held to some sort of manufacturer
> approved inspection process. *In the US, it would be nice to have an
> SSA representative on top of this, working with the FAA, working with
> LET, coordinating the development of an inspection. *I know that our
> club maintenance officer has been on the phone regularly with the
> FAA. *I'm sure that this is happening time and again from other
> operators.
>
> I've requested to be added to the SSA list and made the suggestion
> that in addition to coordinating the test development effort, the SSA
> could act as an escrow holder for funds to pay for the test
> development. *$100 or $200 per owner would raise $10,000 or more
> without causing any of us individually too much wallet pain. *That
> should be a large enough sum of money to cover the development of a
> test that we all could benefit from and enough money to make it
> attractive to an engineer/testing firm.
>
> It won't resolve getting approval from LET or the fact that the
> approved test may be expensive or possibly requiring equipment that is
> not readily available to many AI's or operators. *We've got to start
> somewhere.
>
> On Sep 3, 11:14*am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
>
> > On Sep 3, 12:42*am, mike malis > wrote:
>
> > > Touche'...
>
> > > FWIW, my comment was meant to be reply to sender.
>
> > > Let's add Voices of Reason to the FAA AD comment page.
>
> > > 186 aircraft, I'll bet at least 5 times that many regular Blanik
> > > pilots, and ONLY 20 Comments?!
>
> > > BTW, the SSA says "They can't engineer a solution" on their own, and
> > > will need help from the members. *I have joined thier message list,
> > > have you?
>
> > Yesterday I received a call from an AI that runs a soaring operation
> > using an L-13. *He said his AD subscription service did not deliver
> > these AD's to him, so I e-mailed him copies and the MB plus some
> > additional information. *Fortunately, they hadn't operated his L-13
> > since the before the 30th, but he missed the original AD also. *He's
> > now on the FAA e-mail notification. I've asked the SSA state governors
> > to contact soaring operations in their states with this information.
> > Some number of L-13's are privately owned and operated including one
> > operation in my state that isn't SSA affiliated. *I'm still not
> > confident that all L-13 owner/operators are aware of the latest AD.
> > Especially since pros and club volunteers have been found unaware as
> > late as yesterday.
>
> > Indeed, if you are not logged into the SSA web site, the link does not
> > work, nor do the news items appear on the home page because they are
> > on the member side of the server.
>
> > The SSA is a voluntary non-profit organization. *We do not have a
> > 'technical committee' as the BGA once did/does. *The BGA *technical
> > committee could authorize modifications to a point and worked with
> > manufacturers directly. *The FAA controls that aspect here and plays
> > by a different set of rules.
>
> > If someone is putting together a list of owners and airframes, I'll
> > help. *If not, I'll get started. *Based on the aircraft codes, there
> > are 211 on the US registry. *I suspect a fair number are hulks, but
> > even if 80-90 are still flying, that's significant, and I know of at
> > least one that was just about to return to service after a wing
> > splice.
>
> > Frank Whiteley

Yes.

I searching the aircraft codes for the L-13 I get

05614SN 7
1360305 5
1360306 183
1360312 15 L13 AC
1360315 1

That's a total of 211 on the US registry of all marks. A few are
experimental, some are USAFA, a couple may be coded incorrectly,
listed as L13 AC but manufactured over 20 years before the L-13 AC was
an option.

Even if only 80-90 are actually flying, it's still quite significant.

The grunt work is putting the N-numbers/serial numbers including
splices together with current contacts and those contacts maybe
providing their AI and DER contacts, as applicable. That will take a
week or two, but may reduce the number of folks working at cross
purposes.

Frank Whiteley

[Burt Compton - Marfa]

EASA has just issued the 4th AD for Blanik L-13's, issued 3 SEP,
effective 5 SEP 2010:
http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2010-0185-E
This supercedes the previous 3 AD's on the L-13 spar inspection.
Expect FAA will issue yet another AD soon.
Burt
(currently near Munich)

[Frank Whiteley]

On Sep 3, 1:36*pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> On Sep 3, 1:22*pm, Morgan > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Clearly we need to band together in the US and abroad on this issue
> > since we are likely all to be held to some sort of manufacturer
> > approved inspection process. *In the US, it would be nice to have an
> > SSA representative on top of this, working with the FAA, working with
> > LET, coordinating the development of an inspection. *I know that our
> > club maintenance officer has been on the phone regularly with the
> > FAA. *I'm sure that this is happening time and again from other
> > operators.
>
> > I've requested to be added to the SSA list and made the suggestion
> > that in addition to coordinating the test development effort, the SSA
> > could act as an escrow holder for funds to pay for the test
> > development. *$100 or $200 per owner would raise $10,000 or more
> > without causing any of us individually too much wallet pain. *That
> > should be a large enough sum of money to cover the development of a
> > test that we all could benefit from and enough money to make it
> > attractive to an engineer/testing firm.
>
> > It won't resolve getting approval from LET or the fact that the
> > approved test may be expensive or possibly requiring equipment that is
> > not readily available to many AI's or operators. *We've got to start
> > somewhere.
>
> > On Sep 3, 11:14*am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 3, 12:42*am, mike malis > wrote:
>
> > > > Touche'...
>
> > > > FWIW, my comment was meant to be reply to sender.
>
> > > > Let's add Voices of Reason to the FAA AD comment page.
>
> > > > 186 aircraft, I'll bet at least 5 times that many regular Blanik
> > > > pilots, and ONLY 20 Comments?!
>
> > > > BTW, the SSA says "They can't engineer a solution" on their own, and
> > > > will need help from the members. *I have joined thier message list,
> > > > have you?
>
> > > Yesterday I received a call from an AI that runs a soaring operation
> > > using an L-13. *He said his AD subscription service did not deliver
> > > these AD's to him, so I e-mailed him copies and the MB plus some
> > > additional information. *Fortunately, they hadn't operated his L-13
> > > since the before the 30th, but he missed the original AD also. *He's
> > > now on the FAA e-mail notification. I've asked the SSA state governors
> > > to contact soaring operations in their states with this information.
> > > Some number of L-13's are privately owned and operated including one
> > > operation in my state that isn't SSA affiliated. *I'm still not
> > > confident that all L-13 owner/operators are aware of the latest AD.
> > > Especially since pros and club volunteers have been found unaware as
> > > late as yesterday.
>
> > > Indeed, if you are not logged into the SSA web site, the link does not
> > > work, nor do the news items appear on the home page because they are
> > > on the member side of the server.
>
> > > The SSA is a voluntary non-profit organization. *We do not have a
> > > 'technical committee' as the BGA once did/does. *The BGA *technical
> > > committee could authorize modifications to a point and worked with
> > > manufacturers directly. *The FAA controls that aspect here and plays
> > > by a different set of rules.
>
> > > If someone is putting together a list of owners and airframes, I'll
> > > help. *If not, I'll get started. *Based on the aircraft codes, there
> > > are 211 on the US registry. *I suspect a fair number are hulks, but
> > > even if 80-90 are still flying, that's significant, and I know of at
> > > least one that was just about to return to service after a wing
> > > splice.
>
> > > Frank Whiteley
>
> Yes.
>
> I searching the aircraft codes for the L-13 *I get
>
> 05614SN 7
> 1360305 5
> 1360306 183
> 1360312 15 L13 AC
> 1360315 *1
>
> That's a total of 211 on the US registry of all marks. *A few are
> experimental, some are USAFA, a couple may be coded incorrectly,
> listed as L13 AC but manufactured over 20 years before the L-13 AC was
> an option.
>
> Even if only 80-90 are actually flying, it's still quite significant.
>
> The grunt work is putting the N-numbers/serial numbers including
> splices together with current contacts and those contacts maybe
> providing their AI and DER contacts, as applicable. *That will take a
> week or two, but may reduce the number of folks working at cross
> purposes.
>
> Frank Whiteley

I'm about 1/3 of the way with reconciling L-13 registrations with
contact information then the NTSB database. Not surprisingly a few
are indeterminate, so will turn to the wider soaring community with
those in a couple of days. Results will go to the google site and
will be updated as information is received.

Frank