Yikes, glad I don't have a Pegasus!

[Greg Arnold]

Do I correctly understand the AD below to mean that any Pegasus in the
US with 3000 hours cannot be flown after January 6, 2006? Certainly
would have an effect of the market value of this glider, even one with
significantly less than 3000 hours. I notice that someone put one on
the market today on the SSA site at $15,000 (it has 3300 hours), which
seems somewhat high for glider that can only be flown for the next month.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/29A8C5DEB81B323F862570BD005416CE?OpenDocument

[Shawn]

Greg Arnold wrote:
> Do I correctly understand the AD below to mean that any Pegasus in the
> US with 3000 hours cannot be flown after January 6, 2006? Certainly
> would have an effect of the market value of this glider, even one with
> significantly less than 3000 hours. I notice that someone put one on
> the market today on the SSA site at $15,000 (it has 3300 hours), which
> seems somewhat high for glider that can only be flown for the next month.
>
> http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/29A8C5DEB81B323F862570BD005416CE?OpenDocument


Wow! A million dollars or so worth of gliders (51 ships times $20K
each) rendered (pun intended) nearly worthless at 3000 hours. FAA
estimates the cost per ship at $65. Instruments and various bits and
pieces will have some "scrap" value, but as ships are retired there will
be a glut of parts decreasing their value. :-(
Also, this was part of the AD:

"Comments

Was the public invited to comment? We provided the public the
opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no
comments on the proposal or on the determination of the cost to the
public."

I assume the reason *no one* commented, was because most owners heard
nothing??? Does the FAA notify owners of pending ADs (don't recall any
with my ship)? Perhaps the SSA should check periodically for such
things if they don't already.
Any recourse? Major Bummer if not.

Shawn

[Nyal Williams]

Apparently, the $65 dollar figure was for paying an
A&P the going rate at a metropolitan airport for a
minimum of 1 hour's work to make the pen and ink entry
into the maintenance manual.

I was considering recommending one of these gliders
to a student; too bad!



At 03:24 08 December 2005, Shawn wrote:
>Greg Arnold wrote:
>> Do I correctly understand the AD below to mean that
>>any Pegasus in the
>> US with 3000 hours cannot be flown after January 6,
>>2006? Certainly
>> would have an effect of the market value of this glider,
>>even one with
>> significantly less than 3000 hours. I notice that
>>someone put one on
>> the market today on the SSA site at $15,000 (it has
>>3300 hours), which
>> seems somewhat high for glider that can only be flown
>>for the next month.
>>
>> http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.ns
>>>f/0/29A8C5DEB81B323F862570BD005416CE?OpenDocument
>
>
>Wow! A million dollars or so worth of gliders (51
>ships times $20K
>each) rendered (pun intended) nearly worthless at 3000
>hours. FAA
>estimates the cost per ship at $65. Instruments and
>various bits and
>pieces will have some 'scrap' value, but as ships are
>retired there will
>be a glut of parts decreasing their value. :-(
>Also, this was part of the AD:
>
> 'Comments
>
> Was the public invited to comment? We provided the
>public the
>opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We
>received no
>comments on the proposal or on the determination of
>the cost to the
>public.'
>
>I assume the reason *no one* commented, was because
>most owners heard
>nothing??? Does the FAA notify owners of pending ADs
>(don't recall any
>with my ship)? Perhaps the SSA should check periodically
>for such
>things if they don't already.
>Any recourse? Major Bummer if not.
>
>Shawn
>

[Nyal Williams]

Apparently, the $65 dollar figure was for paying an
A&P the going rate at a metropolitan airport for a
minimum of 1 hour's work to make the pen and ink entry
into the maintenance manual.

I was considering recommending one of these gliders
to a student; too bad!



At 03:24 08 December 2005, Shawn wrote:
>Greg Arnold wrote:
>> Do I correctly understand the AD below to mean that
>>any Pegasus in the
>> US with 3000 hours cannot be flown after January 6,
>>2006? Certainly
>> would have an effect of the market value of this glider,
>>even one with
>> significantly less than 3000 hours. I notice that
>>someone put one on
>> the market today on the SSA site at $15,000 (it has
>>3300 hours), which
>> seems somewhat high for glider that can only be flown
>>for the next month.
>>
>> http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.ns
>>>f/0/29A8C5DEB81B323F862570BD005416CE?OpenDocument
>
>
>Wow! A million dollars or so worth of gliders (51
>ships times $20K
>each) rendered (pun intended) nearly worthless at 3000
>hours. FAA
>estimates the cost per ship at $65. Instruments and
>various bits and
>pieces will have some 'scrap' value, but as ships are
>retired there will
>be a glut of parts decreasing their value. :-(
>Also, this was part of the AD:
>
> 'Comments
>
> Was the public invited to comment? We provided the
>public the
>opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We
>received no
>comments on the proposal or on the determination of
>the cost to the
>public.'
>
>I assume the reason *no one* commented, was because
>most owners heard
>nothing??? Does the FAA notify owners of pending ADs
>(don't recall any
>with my ship)? Perhaps the SSA should check periodically
>for such
>things if they don't already.
>Any recourse? Major Bummer if not.
>
>Shawn
>

[jphoenix]

I posted the following on July 14, also on gliderforum.com, I received
no replies and no replies to the thread. I presume the FAA recieved no
replies either.

1. jphoenix
Jul 14, 2:45 pm show options

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring
From: "jphoenix" > - Find messages by this
author
Date: 14 Jul 2005 15:45:05 -0700
Local: Thurs, Jul 14 2005 2:45 pm
Subject: US Centrair Pegasus group?
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Remove | Report Abuse

Is there a US group/club/association, however loose, of Pegasus owners
out there somewhere? Reason for asking is the FAA is considering the
*possibility* of rulemaking regarding the 3000 hour life limit on the
aircraft and they're requesting input from interested parties prior to
the official rulemaking process.


I understand there will be a rulemaking comment period in the future
*if* the issue develops into an AD - their request for comments at this

time is a preliminary request from the FAA/Industry/Operators
Airworthiness Concern Coordination Group.


If there is a unified voice, or group of interested owners out there
somewhere (US only) send me a reply at , change

the netto to net to reply.


If you own, or know of, a US registered Pegasus over 3000 hours TT, let

me know.


Jim


2.
Jul 15, 8:39 am show options

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring
From: - Find messages by this author
Date: 15 Jul 2005 09:39:39 -0700
Local: Fri, Jul 15 2005 8:39 am
Subject: Re: US Centrair Pegasus group?
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse

Jim:


I know of no such organization; this Usenet group may be about as close

as it comes.


Generally, I don't have a problem with life limits if they can be tied
to genuine airworthiness concerns (as opposed to, for example, an
effort to tail product liability exposure -- not real likely here
because of GARA). 3000 hours is a lot of time. I suspect it won't be
easy to find a U.S. registered Pegasus anywhere near that range unless
it has spent a substantial chunk of its life in club or rental service.

(In fact, I wonder what the highest-time glass ship still in service in

the U.S. might be.)


I'll be interested to hear what you find out and what others think.


Mark -- B9



- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

jphoenix wrote:

> If there is a unified voice, or group of interested owners out there
> somewhere (US only) send me a reply at , change
> the netto to net to reply.


> If you own, or know of, a US registered Pegasus over 3000 hours TT, let
> me know.


> Jim



3. jphoenix
Jul 15, 9:01 am show options

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring
From: "jphoenix" > - Find messages by this
author
Date: 15 Jul 2005 10:01:48 -0700
Local: Fri, Jul 15 2005 9:01 am
Subject: Re: US Centrair Pegasus group?
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Remove | Report Abuse

Your response is the first I've seen or received. The life limit
currently exists in the Flight Manual, however the FAA ACS sheet states

that there may be some misunderstanding about the life limit and they
may issue rulemaking to clarify (in other words mandate the life limit
with a US AD).


This is an opportunity for Pegasus owners to influence the creation of
the NPRM, if necessary, prior to the NPRM being issued. A description
of the ACS process can be found here:


http://www.faa.gov/certification/aircraft/aceACSGuide.doc


This process is followed for al AD's.


After the NPRM is published, another period for comment is afforded.
I'll post the issue on the gliderforum.com, I see there's a Pegasus
thread running there.


Jim


Jim

[jphoenix]

The FAA does notify the SSA of pending AD issues through the AACS
process. They receive an e-mail notification of each AD NPRM relating
to the type groups they suscribe to (such as gliders) from the AOPA -
as do I because I'm the type club representative to the AACS for the
1-26 Association. As a party to the AACS, I can see pre-NPRM issues for
all GA types, including gliders, towplanes, Malibus, etc.

The AACS process affords interested parties an opportunity to
participate in the AD rulemaking in advance of the AD NPRM process.

The AOPA is a key player and facilitator in the AACS.

Jim

[rich]

Nyal Williams wrote:
> Apparently, the $65 dollar figure was for paying an
> A&P the going rate at a metropolitan airport for a
> minimum of 1 hour's work to make the pen and ink entry
> into the maintenance manual.
>
> I was considering recommending one of these gliders
> to a student; too bad!
>
>
>
> At 03:24 08 December 2005, Shawn wrote:
> >Greg Arnold wrote:
> >> Do I correctly understand the AD below to mean that
> >>any Pegasus in the
> >> US with 3000 hours cannot be flown after January 6,
> >>2006? Certainly
> >> would have an effect of the market value of this glider,
> >>even one with
> >> significantly less than 3000 hours. I notice that
> >>someone put one on
> >> the market today on the SSA site at $15,000 (it has
> >>3300 hours), which
> >> seems somewhat high for glider that can only be flown
> >>for the next month.
> >>
> >> http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.ns
> >>>f/0/29A8C5DEB81B323F862570BD005416CE?OpenDocument
> >
> >
> >Wow! A million dollars or so worth of gliders (51
> >ships times $20K
> >each) rendered (pun intended) nearly worthless at 3000
> >hours. FAA
> >estimates the cost per ship at $65. Instruments and
> >various bits and
> >pieces will have some 'scrap' value, but as ships are
> >retired there will
> >be a glut of parts decreasing their value. :-(
> >Also, this was part of the AD:
> >
> > 'Comments
> >
> > Was the public invited to comment? We provided the
> >public the
> >opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We
> >received no
> >comments on the proposal or on the determination of
> >the cost to the
> >public.'
> >
> >I assume the reason *no one* commented, was because
> >most owners heard
> >nothing??? Does the FAA notify owners of pending ADs
> >(don't recall any
> >with my ship)? Perhaps the SSA should check periodically
> >for such
> >things if they don't already.
> >Any recourse? Major Bummer if not.
> >
> >Shawn
> >

[jphoenix]

Regarding the question about recourse - you may apply for an alternate
means of compliance or an adjustment to the compliance time (true for
any US AD) - however, you will have to develop, or provide, an
equivelant level of safety. The FAA guy listed at the bottom of the AD
can help you understand what this means and how to do it.

If you have a type club, or owners group, get in touch with the AOPA
and get on the AACS list.

Jim

[rich]

Nyal Williams wrote:
> Apparently, the $65 dollar figure was for paying an
> A&P the going rate at a metropolitan airport for a
> minimum of 1 hour's work to make the pen and ink entry
> into the maintenance manual.
>
> I was considering recommending one of these gliders
> to a student; too bad!
>
>
>
> At 03:24 08 December 2005, Shawn wrote:
> >Greg Arnold wrote:
> >> Do I correctly understand the AD below to mean that
> >>any Pegasus in the
> >> US with 3000 hours cannot be flown after January 6,
> >>2006? Certainly
> >> would have an effect of the market value of this glider,
> >>even one with
> >> significantly less than 3000 hours. I notice that
> >>someone put one on
> >> the market today on the SSA site at $15,000 (it has
> >>3300 hours), which
> >> seems somewhat high for glider that can only be flown
> >>for the next month.
> >>
> >> http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.ns
> >>>f/0/29A8C5DEB81B323F862570BD005416CE?OpenDocument
> >
> >
> >Wow! A million dollars or so worth of gliders (51
> >ships times $20K
> >each) rendered (pun intended) nearly worthless at 3000
> >hours. FAA
> >estimates the cost per ship at $65. Instruments and
> >various bits and
> >pieces will have some 'scrap' value, but as ships are
> >retired there will
> >be a glut of parts decreasing their value. :-(
> >Also, this was part of the AD:
> >
> > 'Comments
> >
> > Was the public invited to comment? We provided the
> >public the
> >opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We
> >received no
> >comments on the proposal or on the determination of
> >the cost to the
> >public.'
> >
> >I assume the reason *no one* commented, was because
> >most owners heard
> >nothing??? Does the FAA notify owners of pending ADs
> >(don't recall any
> >with my ship)? Perhaps the SSA should check periodically
> >for such
> >things if they don't already.
> >Any recourse? Major Bummer if not.
> >
> >Shawn
> >

[Kevin Brooker]

Looks like a good opertunity to me. The value goes down so its less
expensive to purchase. You buy a 1500 hour ship and its still a
lifetime of use for most pilots. As long as the insurance is not
effected by the AD it shouldn't matter too much.

On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 18:44:37 -0800, Greg Arnold >
wrote:

>Do I correctly understand the AD below to mean that any Pegasus in the
>US with 3000 hours cannot be flown after January 6, 2006? Certainly
>would have an effect of the market value of this glider, even one with
>significantly less than 3000 hours. I notice that someone put one on
>the market today on the SSA site at $15,000 (it has 3300 hours), which
>seems somewhat high for glider that can only be flown for the next month.
>
>http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/29A8C5DEB81B323F862570BD005416CE?OpenDocument

[Mark628CA]

I spoke with Greg Davison at the FAA in Oklahoma City the other day and
he gave me the scoop on the AD and its implications.

Yes, technically there is a 3000 hour life limit on all Pegasus gliders
sold in the US. This is not an FAA rule- it came from Centrair. The
glider is certified to 12,000 hours in Europe, but the US STC was only
for 3000 hours. As a result, the AD had to be issued.

Don't panic, though. Greg has met with Centrair and they have agreed to
issue a 3000 hr. inspection protocol like other gliders require. Once
this inspection reqirement is issued (probably in the Spring of 2006),
the FAA will put out another AD that will supersede this one.

Greg realized that the 3000 hr. limit is not realistic, and Centrair
agrees. It was just a screwup when the glider was originally certified
in the early 1980's. I have been assured that the problem WILL be
fixed. It is just that the FAA had to comply with the original
manufacturer's intent and the resulting limit.

Greg was extremely helpful in explaining the situation. He has promised
to keep poking at Centrair until they come up with the 3000 hr.
inspection regimen. Greg suggested I call him in February 2006 to check
on Centrair's progress.

My Pegasus has around 2400 hrs. so I was more than just a little
concerned. Especially because I usually put 200+ hrs per year on my
glider. I am encouraged by his response, and I am back to getting a
decent night's sleep.

An email to Centrair urging them to work on the inspection protocol
might be a good idea. )

Mark Mocho

[Greg Arnold]

> Generally, I don't have a problem with life limits if they can be tied
> to genuine airworthiness concerns (as opposed to, for example, an
> effort to tail product liability exposure -- not real likely here
> because of GARA). 3000 hours is a lot of time.

120 hours/year for 25 years and you are there.


I suspect it won't be
> easy to find a U.S. registered Pegasus anywhere near that range unless
> it has spent a substantial chunk of its life in club or rental service.

My 1987 Discus has 2500 hours, but is a relative baby since the life
limit on the Discus is 12,000 hours.


>
> (In fact, I wonder what the highest-time glass ship still in service in
>
> the U.S. might be.)

Well in excess of 3,000, I bet.


>
> Mark -- B9
>
>

[jphoenix]

Greg,

Your quoted comments were from "Mark - B9" - excerpted from my earlier
discussion. Those were not my comments. I do not own a Pegase,
consequently, I have no comment about it, just in case anyone was
wondering.

If I were a type club or a governing body for gliders, I would
certainly have a comment about an AD that mandates a life limit, in
other words an AD that is not addressing an airworthiness issue such as
cracking, corrosion or other failure. This is a life limit issue and
it's very unusual for the FAA to use an AD for this purpose. Life
limits are normally found in TC data sheets or AFM's, etc. In the ACS
that addressed this issue, the FAA themselves stated that this is an
unusual action.

Not that it hasn't happened before, I'm just saying it's unusual. And
that is why someone should have commented on this AD NPRM. I've seen a
few AD's killed in the initial process by comments, so sometimes it
does pay to send in your letters if you are affected.

Jim.

[[email protected]]

300 000 hours ( yes 3 hundred k ) is a 'realistic' lifespan for a
plastic glider. Read the recent OSTIV proceedings if you dont believe
me.

Ian

[Shawn]

wrote:
> 300 000 hours ( yes 3 hundred k ) is a 'realistic' lifespan for a
> plastic glider. Read the recent OSTIV proceedings if you dont believe
> me.

Better start that flight instruction fund for the great grand kids.
:-)

[Raphael Warshaw]

That's ~34 years of flight. Under day/VFR conditions, it would take well
over a century to accumulate if you flew every day. That many years of
exposing a composite structure to sunlight and ozone would worry me a bit,
OSTIV not withstanding. Add turbulence and hard knocks (not to mention
parts availability) and I suspect the lifespan would be significantly less
than 300K hours.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it all turns out.

Ray Warshaw (tongue firmly in cheek)
1LK

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> 300 000 hours ( yes 3 hundred k ) is a 'realistic' lifespan for a
> plastic glider. Read the recent OSTIV proceedings if you dont believe
> me.
>
> Ian
>

[Pat Russell]

Among many well-reasoned points, Mark wrote:

> ...It is just that the FAA had to comply with the original
>manufacturer's intent and the resulting limit...
>

This isn't true at all. FAA doesn't have to do anything more specific
than "keeping the airways safe." They do whatever they feel like
doing.

-Pat

[Nigel Pocock]

At 13:18 09 December 2005, Pat Russell wrote:
>Among many well-reasoned points, Mark wrote:
>
>> ...It is just that the FAA had to comply with the
>>original
>>manufacturer's intent and the resulting limit...
>>
>
>This isn't true at all. FAA doesn't have to do anything
>more specific
>than 'keeping the airways safe.' They do whatever
>they feel like
>doing.
>
>-Pat
>
There was I all ready to hire a shipping container
and buy up all the 3000hr Peguses or Pegii and ship
to the uk
Drat
Nigel

[[email protected]]

jphoenix wrote:
> The FAA does notify the SSA of pending AD issues through the AACS
> process. They receive an e-mail notification of each AD NPRM relating
> to the type groups they suscribe to (such as gliders) from the AOPA -
> as do I because I'm the type club representative to the AACS for the
> 1-26 Association. As a party to the AACS, I can see pre-NPRM issues for
> all GA types, including gliders, towplanes, Malibus, etc.
>
> The AACS process affords interested parties an opportunity to
> participate in the AD rulemaking in advance of the AD NPRM process.
>
> The AOPA is a key player and facilitator in the AACS.
>
> Jim

[[email protected]]

jphoenix wrote:
> The FAA does notify the SSA of pending AD issues through the AACS
> process. They receive an e-mail notification of each AD NPRM relating
> to the type groups they suscribe to (such as gliders) from the AOPA -
> as do I because I'm the type club representative to the AACS for the
> 1-26 Association. As a party to the AACS, I can see pre-NPRM issues for
> all GA types, including gliders, towplanes, Malibus, etc.
>
> The AACS process affords interested parties an opportunity to
> participate in the AD rulemaking in advance of the AD NPRM process.
>
> The AOPA is a key player and facilitator in the AACS.
>
> Jim

If the SSA is in fact being notified by the Feds about pending ADs
which will impact SSA membership, why have they not gotten the word out
in some form or another? Or, giving them the benifit of the doubt,
have they?

Bill Hill

[[email protected]]

If the SSA has been made aware of the pending ADs by the Feds, why have
they not made some effort to make the membership aware of this? Or,
giving them the benifit of the doubt, have they? If this is not
taking place it certainly should be. AOPA seems to be leading the way
in this regard, and since our Executive Director came to us from AOPA,
perhaps he can get some help from his old employer in getting the word
out to the rest of us in a more effective manner. Billy Hill

[jphoenix]

I don't know.

I may have missed it, but I haven't seen any notices about ACS' or AD
NPRM's, only notice after the AD is out.

More on the AOPA website about the ACS process:
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/regairworthiness.html

Jim

[[email protected]]

This info published in SSA E- News on 12/6 based upon Cindy Brickner
notification.
UH

[[email protected]]

> I spoke with Greg Davison at the FAA in Oklahoma City the other day and
> he gave me the scoop on the AD and its implications.
>
<SNIP>
> Don't panic, though. Greg has met with Centrair and they have agreed to
> issue a 3000 hr. inspection protocol like other gliders require. Once
> this inspection reqirement is issued (probably in the Spring of 2006),
> the FAA will put out another AD that will supersede this one.
>
> Greg realized that the 3000 hr. limit is not realistic, and Centrair
> agrees. It was just a screwup when the glider was originally certified
> in the early 1980's. I have been assured that the problem WILL be
> fixed. It is just that the FAA had to comply with the original
> manufacturer's intent and the resulting limit.
>
> Greg was extremely helpful in explaining the situation. He has promised
> to keep poking at Centrair until they come up with the 3000 hr.
> inspection regimen. Greg suggested I call him in February 2006 to check
> on Centrair's progress.

OK, this thread probably has limited interest for most glider pilots.
But I've still been waiting for several days for someone to jump in
with, "Hey, this FAA guy sounds like a breath of fresh air. Yeah, the
FAA feels compelled (surprise) to enforce the manufacturer's life limit
but they seem to have a very practical attitude about it. And they're
working to get it fixed. Things haven't always been so. Thanks, FAA."

Sure, it would be nice if the Feds ignored the useless rules and
enforced only the ones that really make sense. But then how do they
look in front of Congress if some yo-yo goes into cloud trying to climb
through a wave window, pulls the wings off a Pegasus, and drops the
debris into a crowded schoolyard? And he shouldn't even have been
flying the aircraft because the manufacturer said it was dangerous!!!!!

We don't always have it so good. Let's give the FAA a little slack on
this one. Sounds like they know what needs to be done even if it will
take longer than anyone likes.

Or maybe it's not the FAA, it's just some relatively clear-headed guys
who work there and know us. Even more reason to say "thank you."

Chip Bearden

[MickiMinner]

Yes, the FAA DOES notify the SSA of pending AD issues.....
The SSA then posts it on the weekly E-news as this is the quickest way
to reach the membership.
Subscribe to the E-news from SSA by going to the SSA website and
registering. (It's FREE!)
Charlie-Lite

[jphoenix]

I get the E-news weekly, the notices posted there are the actual AD's.
These notices are not the NPRM or ACS'.

The ACS dids not receive input responses from the SSA on the Pegasus
ACS, only the AOPA commented on the proposal. I've not seen any ACS
responses from the SSA on any glider ACS in the past year (since I've
had access via the 1-26 Association). There are some older ACS's
(comment periods closed a couple of months ago) on DG rudders, Twin
Astir elevators, DG-800B prop bolts, etc. - old issues, there's LBA
AD's already on these and the FAA is mirroring those AD's for US
owners.

If you have a type club or owners group, get in touch with the AOPA and
you may participate in these ACS' and possibly help craft these AD's,
or at least provide input regarding the suitability of the method of
compliance or cost.

Jim

[Bob Whelan]

wrote:
>>I spoke with Greg Davison at the FAA in Oklahoma City the other day and
>>he gave me the scoop on the AD and its implications.
>>
>
> <SNIP>
>
>>Don't panic, though. Greg has met with Centrair and they have agreed to
>>issue a 3000 hr. inspection protocol like other gliders require. Once
>>this inspection reqirement is issued (probably in the Spring of 2006),
>>the FAA will put out another AD that will supersede this one.
>>
>>Greg realized that the 3000 hr. limit is not realistic, and Centrair
>>agrees. It was just a screwup when the glider was originally certified
>>in the early 1980's. I have been assured that the problem WILL be
>>fixed. It is just that the FAA had to comply with the original
>>manufacturer's intent and the resulting limit.
>>
>>Greg was extremely helpful in explaining the situation. He has promised
>>to keep poking at Centrair until they come up with the 3000 hr.
>>inspection regimen. Greg suggested I call him in February 2006 to check
>>on Centrair's progress.
>
>
> OK, this thread probably has limited interest for most glider pilots.
> But I've still been waiting for several days for someone to jump in
> with, "Hey, this FAA guy sounds like a breath of fresh air. Yeah, the
> FAA feels compelled (surprise) to enforce the manufacturer's life limit
> but they seem to have a very practical attitude about it. And they're
> working to get it fixed. Things haven't always been so. Thanks, FAA."
>
> Sure, it would be nice if the Feds ignored the useless rules and
> enforced only the ones that really make sense. But then how do they
> look in front of Congress if some yo-yo goes into cloud trying to climb
> through a wave window, pulls the wings off a Pegasus, and drops the
> debris into a crowded schoolyard? And he shouldn't even have been
> flying the aircraft because the manufacturer said it was dangerous!!!!!
>
> We don't always have it so good. Let's give the FAA a little slack on
> this one. Sounds like they know what needs to be done even if it will
> take longer than anyone likes.
>
> Or maybe it's not the FAA, it's just some relatively clear-headed guys
> who work there and know us. Even more reason to say "thank you."
>
> Chip Bearden
>
I second what Chip wrote. While I'm no fan of bloated, CYA-driven
bureaucracies I get to pay for whether I want to or not, and while I
find the humor in "We're from the government; we're here to help,"
disturbingly and frequently too close to the mark, I found Greg
Davison's attitude refreshingly common-sense, and arguably as pro-active
as is likely to be found in a Federal bureaucracy.

Though not a Pegasus owner, I had already been thinking prior to Chip's
post - and belatedly now say - "Thank you, Greg!" for picking up and
running with this particular ball.

Bob Whelan

[Doug]

Jim,

How did you hear about the proposal? I occasionally visit gliderforums.com
but missed your message on the AD until it was too late to respond. I
certainly never received anything from the FAA. You would think that if
they were contemplating such a drastic AD they would notify the owners of
the aircraft involved. After all, they already have our names, addresses
and foreskins from our firstborn.

I also signed up for the SSA E-news but never got anything and forgot about
it. Guess the "server" forgot me so I'll re-up.

Doug

"jphoenix" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I get the E-news weekly, the notices posted there are the actual AD's.
> These notices are not the NPRM or ACS'.
>
> The ACS dids not receive input responses from the SSA on the Pegasus
> ACS, only the AOPA commented on the proposal. I've not seen any ACS
> responses from the SSA on any glider ACS in the past year (since I've
> had access via the 1-26 Association). There are some older ACS's
> (comment periods closed a couple of months ago) on DG rudders, Twin
> Astir elevators, DG-800B prop bolts, etc. - old issues, there's LBA
> AD's already on these and the FAA is mirroring those AD's for US
> owners.
>
> If you have a type club or owners group, get in touch with the AOPA and
> you may participate in these ACS' and possibly help craft these AD's,
> or at least provide input regarding the suitability of the method of
> compliance or cost.
>
> Jim
>

[Doug]

No, but you can buy up all the new rudder pedals sold to comply with the
last AD and send them back to France!

"Nigel Pocock" > wrote in message
...
> At 13:18 09 December 2005, Pat Russell wrote:
>>Among many well-reasoned points, Mark wrote:
>>
>>> ...It is just that the FAA had to comply with the
>>>original
>>>manufacturer's intent and the resulting limit...
>>>
>>
>>This isn't true at all. FAA doesn't have to do anything
>>more specific
>>than 'keeping the airways safe.' They do whatever
>>they feel like
>>doing.
>>
>>-Pat
>>
> There was I all ready to hire a shipping container
> and buy up all the 3000hr Peguses or Pegii and ship
> to the uk
> Drat
> Nigel
>
>
>

[jphoenix]

Doug,

I get notification through the ACS process. I represent the 1-26
Association for that purpose, however I receive notices on every model
glider because that is the preference I set up. I have access to the
ACS web page and I can view all the ACS' as well as the archived ACS'.

I can also post a response to any model type, but since my remaining
glider is experimental (Nimbus), I will rarely have an opportunity to
post a response to an ACS, unless one comes out against the 1-26.

Jim