Pegasus time limit

[[email protected]]

Has anything developed regarding extending the total time limit on the
Pegasus?

Tom
Idaho

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Has anything developed regarding extending the total time limit on the
> Pegasus?
>
> Tom
> Idaho

I called the SA Centrair in France in late October in order to buy some
parts and I asked them about that issue. The receptionist informed me
that "something's in works" and everything will be communicated in the
USA via the FAA. Her English was certainly better than my French.

But also keep in mind that the Pegase 101a has a life span in Europe of
12000 hours. The units in the US are no different than those in Europe
however there are the "English" issues which took place during the
translation from French to English: if you read the manual it says that
the inspections needs to be performed every 3000 hours, no different
than any other glider, but the translator also said "that the lifespan
of the structure is 3000 hours" which is clearly a mistake. I am
positive that the issue will be resolved. If not just slap on it the
"experimental" sign and just keep on flying.

Jacek
Washington State

[dumass]

There is a SF Bay Area Soaring Club that has a perfectly alright Pegasus already sitting on the ground for more than 1 year. Club members have been calling and calling and calling.
That "something" is already in the works forever and going to be delivered tomorrow.
There seem to be only less than a handful of these ships with exceeded time in the US.
The manufacturer has left the glider business already long time ago and is not really interested anymore.

Yes, it is only a paperwork issue, restating the inspection regime in the handbook and performing a standard 3000h inspection.
But why would they invest more time in these few "freedom fries" owners ?
Wake up guys ! Aint gonna happen !

Dumass

wrote:
Has anything developed regarding extending the total time limit on the
Pegasus?

Tom
Idaho

I called the SA Centrair in France in late October in order to buy some
parts and I asked them about that issue. The receptionist informed me
that "something's in works" and everything will be communicated in the
USA via the FAA. Her English was certainly better than my French.

But also keep in mind that the Pegase 101a has a life span in Europe of
12000 hours. The units in the US are no different than those in Europe
however there are the "English" issues which took place during the
translation from French to English: if you read the manual it says that
the inspections needs to be performed every 3000 hours, no different
than any other glider, but the translator also said "that the lifespan
of the structure is 3000 hours" which is clearly a mistake. I am
positive that the issue will be resolved. If not just slap on it the
"experimental" sign and just keep on flying.

Jacek
Washington State

[[email protected]]

I spoke with Greg Davison at the FAA in OK City recently, and his take
was somewhat less encouraging. It seems that Centrair has been
contacted on a number of occasions in the last fourteen months by
owners and the FAA about the service life limit. Greg reports that they
are "very polite" and continually offer the response that "something"
will be done. As yet, nothing has resulted except these empty promises.

I inquired about other means to get around this issue, such as an
"Alternate Means Of Compliance (AMOC)," Experimental certificate, Time
Machine, etc. Greg informed me that the "Experimental" route is a
non-starter (Sorry Jacek, read the FAR's). Experimental category does
NOT exempt an aircraft from FAA issued AD's, especially ones that
concern airframe structure and life limits.

Likewise, the AMOC route is also pretty much a no-go. In order to
create an AMOC dealing with the structural limits of the airframe, all
the original test data must either be included or duplicated. This
means testing to failure and extensive fatigue tests. The Pegasus spar
was based on another Centrair spar (the Marianne), and the design was
accepted. Unfortunately, all these data are the property of the holder
of the Type Certificate (S.N. Centrair) and unless the data is
released, it has to be duplicated. Meaning, buy a glider and test it
like the factory did. And then break it. As much fun as this sounds, it
is likely to be prohibitively expensive.

Greg is disturbed at the situation. In his words, the FAA is NOT
particularly enamored of the potential to ground an entire fleet of
gliders when a simple solution exists- but only if the cure comes from
S.N. Centrair. What is needed is a Service or Technical Bulletin from
S.N. Centrair that supersedes the Bulletin removing reference to a
(non-existent) 3,000 hr. inspection protocol and emphasizing the 3,000
hr. structural life limit in the U.S.

As Greg put it, this situation became apparent after an owner inquired
about the contradictory references in the Pegase 101 Owners Manual. FAA
requested clarification from S.N. Centrair and they just sidestepped
the issue by stating that the 3,000 hr. limit is the accepted
reference. As a result, Greg and the FAA were forced to issue the AD.
It would have been better if the reference had been to the 3,000 hr.
inspection and such an inspection was offered.

At this time, the ball is in S.N. Centrair's court. The FAA is pretty
much unable to bring pressure on them, and can only work through EASA,
the Eurpoean equivalent of the FAA. Since EASA is a relatively new
organization, having superseded the JAA, it is busy dealing with more
pressing issues- like who gets the corner office, etc.

I suggested a 3,000 hr. service life limit on other French aircraft
(Like the Airbus 380, which may need it more than the Pegase, if what I
have read about their wing problems is true). Maybe if Airbus had to
deal with something like this, S.N. Centrair would be "encouraged" to
step up and provide a 3,000 hr. inspection. Needless to say, I'm not
holding my breath.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> I spoke with Greg Davison at the FAA in OK City recently, and his take
> was somewhat less encouraging. It seems that Centrair has been
> contacted on a number of occasions in the last fourteen months by
> owners and the FAA about the service life limit. Greg reports that they
> are "very polite" and continually offer the response that "something"
> will be done. As yet, nothing has resulted except these empty promises.
>
> I inquired about other means to get around this issue, such as an
> "Alternate Means Of Compliance (AMOC)," Experimental certificate, Time
> Machine, etc. Greg informed me that the "Experimental" route is a
> non-starter (Sorry Jacek, read the FAR's). Experimental category does
> NOT exempt an aircraft from FAA issued AD's, especially ones that
> concern airframe structure and life limits.
>
> Likewise, the AMOC route is also pretty much a no-go. In order to
> create an AMOC dealing with the structural limits of the airframe, all
> the original test data must either be included or duplicated. This
> means testing to failure and extensive fatigue tests. The Pegasus spar
> was based on another Centrair spar (the Marianne), and the design was
> accepted. Unfortunately, all these data are the property of the holder
> of the Type Certificate (S.N. Centrair) and unless the data is
> released, it has to be duplicated. Meaning, buy a glider and test it
> like the factory did. And then break it. As much fun as this sounds, it
> is likely to be prohibitively expensive.
>
> Greg is disturbed at the situation. In his words, the FAA is NOT
> particularly enamored of the potential to ground an entire fleet of
> gliders when a simple solution exists- but only if the cure comes from
> S.N. Centrair. What is needed is a Service or Technical Bulletin from
> S.N. Centrair that supersedes the Bulletin removing reference to a
> (non-existent) 3,000 hr. inspection protocol and emphasizing the 3,000
> hr. structural life limit in the U.S.
>
> As Greg put it, this situation became apparent after an owner inquired
> about the contradictory references in the Pegase 101 Owners Manual. FAA
> requested clarification from S.N. Centrair and they just sidestepped
> the issue by stating that the 3,000 hr. limit is the accepted
> reference. As a result, Greg and the FAA were forced to issue the AD.
> It would have been better if the reference had been to the 3,000 hr.
> inspection and such an inspection was offered.
>
> At this time, the ball is in S.N. Centrair's court. The FAA is pretty
> much unable to bring pressure on them, and can only work through EASA,
> the Eurpoean equivalent of the FAA. Since EASA is a relatively new
> organization, having superseded the JAA, it is busy dealing with more
> pressing issues- like who gets the corner office, etc.
>
> I suggested a 3,000 hr. service life limit on other French aircraft
> (Like the Airbus 380, which may need it more than the Pegase, if what I
> have read about their wing problems is true). Maybe if Airbus had to
> deal with something like this, S.N. Centrair would be "encouraged" to
> step up and provide a 3,000 hr. inspection. Needless to say, I'm not
> holding my breath.

OK...how about this: there is 40 some Pegasus's in the US.....maybe we
all have to get together and write a letter to Centrair and basically
point out the solution to them....that was never done and I don't know
if that is going to bring any results but maybe would be worth
trying....

[[email protected]]

According to the FAA, there are approximately 50 Centrair Pegase 101
gliders in the US. I don't know how effective we are as a group, but
letters to Centrair and emails couldn't do to much harm. They are
French, so probably they dislike us boorish Yanks anyway. (As long as
the Germans aren't singing marching songs)

The address is:
Societe Nouvelle Centrair
B.P. 44, Aerodrome
36300 Le Blanc, France

Email:

[Ian]

wrote:
> According to the FAA, there are approximately 50 Centrair Pegase 101
> gliders in the US. I don't know how effective we are as a group, but
> letters to Centrair and emails couldn't do to much harm.

If the problem is - have I read this right - that a mistranslation
turned a 3,000 hour inspection into a 3,000 hour life, why don't the 50
of you club together, pay for another professional translation, then
ask Centrair simply to inform the FAA by AD that the documentation has
been upgraded?

Minimum work on their part, and probably won't cost each of you that
much.

Sudden thought. What does the UK documentation for the Pegasus say?

Ian

[Doug]

And how do we find said owner who inquired about the contradictions, buy
them a one-way ticket to Baghdad, and have him/her join Saddam for a good
old lynching?

Never stick your hand in the mouth of a rotweiller if you don't want to get
bit.

> As Greg put it, this situation became apparent after an owner inquired
> about the contradictory references in the Pegase 101 Owners Manual. FAA
> requested clarification from S.N. Centrair and they just sidestepped
> the issue by stating that the 3,000 hr. limit is the accepted
> reference. As a result, Greg and the FAA were forced to issue the AD.
> It would have been better if the reference had been to the 3,000 hr.
> inspection and such an inspection was offered.
>

[Doug]

It really is hard to believe that a mistranslation will eventually ground 50
gliders. I think more pressure on the FAA is also needed too. Maybe wishful
thinking, but we owners should try *anything* to protect our investment,
including a new translation.

Doug

"Ian" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> According to the FAA, there are approximately 50 Centrair Pegase 101
>> gliders in the US. I don't know how effective we are as a group, but
>> letters to Centrair and emails couldn't do to much harm.
>
> If the problem is - have I read this right - that a mistranslation
> turned a 3,000 hour inspection into a 3,000 hour life, why don't the 50
> of you club together, pay for another professional translation, then
> ask Centrair simply to inform the FAA by AD that the documentation has
> been upgraded?
>
> Minimum work on their part, and probably won't cost each of you that
> much.
>
> Sudden thought. What does the UK documentation for the Pegasus say?
>
> Ian
>

[[email protected]]

Doug wrote:
> It really is hard to believe that a mistranslation will eventually ground 50
> gliders. I think more pressure on the FAA is also needed too. Maybe wishful
> thinking, but we owners should try *anything* to protect our investment,
> including a new translation.
>
> Doug
>
> "Ian" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > wrote:
> >> According to the FAA, there are approximately 50 Centrair Pegase 101
> >> gliders in the US. I don't know how effective we are as a group, but
> >> letters to Centrair and emails couldn't do to much harm.
> >
> > If the problem is - have I read this right - that a mistranslation
> > turned a 3,000 hour inspection into a 3,000 hour life, why don't the 50
> > of you club together, pay for another professional translation, then
> > ask Centrair simply to inform the FAA by AD that the documentation has
> > been upgraded?
> >
> > Minimum work on their part, and probably won't cost each of you that
> > much.
> >
> > Sudden thought. What does the UK documentation for the Pegasus say?
> >
> > Ian
> >

> > If the problem is - have I read this right - that a mistranslation
> > turned a 3,000 hour inspection into a 3,000 hour life....

That what it is. When I get home I will post on this group exact
language from the manual. It is very obvious to me that it is a
translation issue. On the other hand I don't buy that the FAA is so
helpless. We simply need to pressure them until they will take an
action. There are some Pegs here in the US with 3000 hours+, my is only
1100 hours or should I say "I don't care because I have a plenty of
time? " They were importing the Pegs into the US without a flight
manual in English. I don't emember if the pre-certification ships are
now standard or experimental category but nonetheless something needs
to be done. They are perfectly good gliders capable of some impressive
flights and I think we, the owners of Pegase sailplanes, need to write
a letter(s) or hire a lawyer (how the hell do you spell that...lawyer
or layer) or do something. It is incredible to me that a stupid phrase
in someones poor translation is a base for grounding a good and
airworthy glider.

Jacek
Washington State

P.S. I am curious what the UK manual says....maybe someone can post
that info here and then we can take the issue with the FAA and show
them the UK flight manual, maybe they will listen and that might give
them a chance of a different approach with Centrair?

[ASM]

wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > It really is hard to believe that a mistranslation will eventually ground 50
> > gliders. I think more pressure on the FAA is also needed too. Maybe wishful
> > thinking, but we owners should try *anything* to protect our investment,
> > including a new translation.
> >
> > Doug
> >
> > "Ian" > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >> According to the FAA, there are approximately 50 Centrair Pegase 101
> > >> gliders in the US. I don't know how effective we are as a group, but
> > >> letters to Centrair and emails couldn't do to much harm.
> > >
> > > If the problem is - have I read this right - that a mistranslation
> > > turned a 3,000 hour inspection into a 3,000 hour life, why don't the 50
> > > of you club together, pay for another professional translation, then
> > > ask Centrair simply to inform the FAA by AD that the documentation has
> > > been upgraded?
> > >
> > > Minimum work on their part, and probably won't cost each of you that
> > > much.
> > >
> > > Sudden thought. What does the UK documentation for the Pegasus say?
> > >
> > > Ian
> > >
>
> > > If the problem is - have I read this right - that a mistranslation
> > > turned a 3,000 hour inspection into a 3,000 hour life....
>
> That what it is. When I get home I will post on this group exact
> language from the manual. It is very obvious to me that it is a
> translation issue. On the other hand I don't buy that the FAA is so
> helpless. We simply need to pressure them until they will take an
> action. There are some Pegs here in the US with 3000 hours+, my is only
> 1100 hours or should I say "I don't care because I have a plenty of
> time? " They were importing the Pegs into the US without a flight
> manual in English. I don't emember if the pre-certification ships are
> now standard or experimental category but nonetheless something needs
> to be done. They are perfectly good gliders capable of some impressive
> flights and I think we, the owners of Pegase sailplanes, need to write
> a letter(s) or hire a lawyer (how the hell do you spell that...lawyer
> or layer) or do something. It is incredible to me that a stupid phrase
> in someones poor translation is a base for grounding a good and
> airworthy glider.
>
> Jacek
> Washington State
>
> P.S. I am curious what the UK manual says....maybe someone can post
> that info here and then we can take the issue with the FAA and show
> them the UK flight manual, maybe they will listen and that might give
> them a chance of a different approach with Centrair?


O'K...here is what the manual says:

5.01 - Life Limits

The structure life limit is 3000 hours.

5.1 - Types of Inspections and Intervals

-Small maintenance inspection (S.M.I.)
The small maintenance inspection has it be executed after every glider
assembly
or every 100 flight hours.

-Annual inspection
The program for annual inspection has to be executed when the first of
the two following limits is reached:
-Yearly,
-After 500 flight hours

-General inspection
The program for general inspection should be executed when the first of
the two following limits is reached:
-Every five years
-After 3000 flight hours.

I copied the text above word for word from my sailplane flight manual
dated Dec. 16th 1983. If you really read this carefully it also means
that when you assemble glider you need to have a mechanic (A&P in case
of the US) inspect the glider! Also, the paragraph "General
Inspection" does refer to 5 years- that also means (or can it be
interpreted by another inspector) that the sailplane needs to be
discarded after 5 years ???!!! This is clearly case of poor translation
and in some degree a case of over-zealous FAA inspector

You cannot convince me otherwise. In the mean time we need to keep
pressing the FAA for a corrective action or deletion of this
"controversial" AD.

Jacek
Washington State
Peg Serial #156

[[email protected]]

Jacek, Doug et al,

Jacek's quote from the Pegase Owner's Manual is accurate. There is NO
translation problem. The wording is exact and clear. Unfortunately, the
Centrair factory made a mistake by saying two different things on two
different pages. One statement said "3,000 hour service life" and the
other referred to a "Five year or 3,000 hour inspection." When the
glider was certificated in the US, the reference to the 3,000 hour
service life was used for issuance of the STC- mainly because Centrair
did not provide a 3,000 hour inspection plan. Apparently, they had
promised to do so, but went out of business before coming up with it.

When they ceased operation, the Type Certificate was taken over by a
new entity- Societe Nouvelle Centrair (S.N. Centrair). They also failed
to offer an inspection protocol. That is where we sit now.

When the FAA inquired about the discrepancy in the two pages, S.N.
Centrair once again failed to provide a plan for inspection and
reiterated that the 3,000 hour service life is applicable in the US.
Once the FAA gets information like that from the manufacturer or the
holder of the Type Certificate, the procedure is cut and dried. The FAA
is not allowed to make judgments contrary to factory information
involving service life- unless the FAA determines that the service life
from the factory is too high. S.N. Centrair REDUCED the life limit,
therefore, an AD was issued.

If S.N. Centrair had said that the 3,000 hour inspection was the
governing reference, we would not have this problem. Since no
inspection plan is specifically offered, interpretation could have been
left open to the A&P or I.A. as to what needed to be checked.

As a result of the French holder of the Type Certificate specifically
instructing the FAA to disregard the reference to a 3,000 hour
inspection, the FAA had no choice but to issue an AD requiring owners
to use a pen to cross out the inspection reference. Unless S.N.
Centrair reverses this instruction, the AD stays in effect. If they DO
reverse the decision, the FAA (according to Greg) would be more than
happy to issue an amended AD.

This happened last year, when an AD was issued concerning elevator and
aileron hinge pins on the Centrair 101 gliders. S.N. Centrair issued a
Sevice Bulletin mandating replacement of hinge pins on a specific range
of gliders by serial number and/or hinge pin delivery date. This
bulletin was turned into an AD that required replacement of pins in ALL
Centrair aircraft, regardless of serial number. When this was pointed
out to the FAA, Greg rewrote the AD and we were off the hook. He hopes
something similar can be done in the case of the service life limit,
but it has to come from S.N. Centrair.

Once again, TRANSLATION IS NOT THE ISSUE!

Mark Mocho

[Doug]

So I guess we need the equivalent of a class action lawsuit against SN
Centrair to come up with the 3k hr inspection. Anyone know of a good, cheap
law firm in France?

I'm not bumping against the 3000 hour limit yet as my Pegasus has about 1200
hrs on it. But if we want to sell the glider it sure would be nice to have
that limit dropped.

I am curious to know how the manual reads in other countries since they
don't seem to have the same problem. Anyone have a Brit, German, or French
version floating around?

Doug

"ASM" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>> > It really is hard to believe that a mistranslation will eventually
>> > ground 50
>> > gliders. I think more pressure on the FAA is also needed too. Maybe
>> > wishful
>> > thinking, but we owners should try *anything* to protect our
>> > investment,
>> > including a new translation.
>> >
>> > Doug
>> >
>> > "Ian" > wrote in message
>> > ups.com...
>> > >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >> According to the FAA, there are approximately 50 Centrair Pegase 101
>> > >> gliders in the US. I don't know how effective we are as a group, but
>> > >> letters to Centrair and emails couldn't do to much harm.
>> > >
>> > > If the problem is - have I read this right - that a mistranslation
>> > > turned a 3,000 hour inspection into a 3,000 hour life, why don't the
>> > > 50
>> > > of you club together, pay for another professional translation, then
>> > > ask Centrair simply to inform the FAA by AD that the documentation
>> > > has
>> > > been upgraded?
>> > >
>> > > Minimum work on their part, and probably won't cost each of you that
>> > > much.
>> > >
>> > > Sudden thought. What does the UK documentation for the Pegasus say?
>> > >
>> > > Ian
>> > >
>>
>> > > If the problem is - have I read this right - that a mistranslation
>> > > turned a 3,000 hour inspection into a 3,000 hour life....
>>
>> That what it is. When I get home I will post on this group exact
>> language from the manual. It is very obvious to me that it is a
>> translation issue. On the other hand I don't buy that the FAA is so
>> helpless. We simply need to pressure them until they will take an
>> action. There are some Pegs here in the US with 3000 hours+, my is only
>> 1100 hours or should I say "I don't care because I have a plenty of
>> time? " They were importing the Pegs into the US without a flight
>> manual in English. I don't emember if the pre-certification ships are
>> now standard or experimental category but nonetheless something needs
>> to be done. They are perfectly good gliders capable of some impressive
>> flights and I think we, the owners of Pegase sailplanes, need to write
>> a letter(s) or hire a lawyer (how the hell do you spell that...lawyer
>> or layer) or do something. It is incredible to me that a stupid phrase
>> in someones poor translation is a base for grounding a good and
>> airworthy glider.
>>
>> Jacek
>> Washington State
>>
>> P.S. I am curious what the UK manual says....maybe someone can post
>> that info here and then we can take the issue with the FAA and show
>> them the UK flight manual, maybe they will listen and that might give
>> them a chance of a different approach with Centrair?
>
>
> O'K...here is what the manual says:
>
> 5.01 - Life Limits
>
> The structure life limit is 3000 hours.
>
> 5.1 - Types of Inspections and Intervals
>
> -Small maintenance inspection (S.M.I.)
> The small maintenance inspection has it be executed after every glider
> assembly
> or every 100 flight hours.
>
> -Annual inspection
> The program for annual inspection has to be executed when the first of
> the two following limits is reached:
> -Yearly,
> -After 500 flight hours
>
> -General inspection
> The program for general inspection should be executed when the first of
> the two following limits is reached:
> -Every five years
> -After 3000 flight hours.
>
> I copied the text above word for word from my sailplane flight manual
> dated Dec. 16th 1983. If you really read this carefully it also means
> that when you assemble glider you need to have a mechanic (A&P in case
> of the US) inspect the glider! Also, the paragraph "General
> Inspection" does refer to 5 years- that also means (or can it be
> interpreted by another inspector) that the sailplane needs to be
> discarded after 5 years ???!!! This is clearly case of poor translation
> and in some degree a case of over-zealous FAA inspector
>
> You cannot convince me otherwise. In the mean time we need to keep
> pressing the FAA for a corrective action or deletion of this
> "controversial" AD.
>
> Jacek
> Washington State
> Peg Serial #156
>

[Ian]

ASM wrote:

> O'K...here is what the manual says:

US manual, I assume?

> -Small maintenance inspection (S.M.I.)
> The small maintenance inspection has it be executed after every glider
> assembly
> or every 100 flight hours.

> I copied the text above word for word from my sailplane flight manual
> dated Dec. 16th 1983. If you really read this carefully it also means
> that when you assemble glider you need to have a mechanic (A&P in case
> of the US) inspect the glider!

I think - someone may wish to correct me - that that is indeed the case
in France. I flew at Le Blanc a few times and at St Auban once, and my
understanding was that in both places French gliders had to be
assembled and checked by qualified personnel.

Ian

[[email protected]]

Ian wrote:
> ASM wrote:
>
> > O'K...here is what the manual says:
>
> US manual, I assume?
>
> > -Small maintenance inspection (S.M.I.)
> > The small maintenance inspection has it be executed after every glider
> > assembly
> > or every 100 flight hours.
>
> > I copied the text above word for word from my sailplane flight manual
> > dated Dec. 16th 1983. If you really read this carefully it also means
> > that when you assemble glider you need to have a mechanic (A&P in case
> > of the US) inspect the glider!
>
> I think - someone may wish to correct me - that that is indeed the case
> in France. I flew at Le Blanc a few times and at St Auban once, and my
> understanding was that in both places French gliders had to be
> assembled and checked by qualified personnel.
>
> Ian

To All Pegs Owners in the US:

The problem can be resolved using a lawyer. I spend 4 days calling
around and made some phone calls in Europe. The best answer is a class
action against S.A.Centrair. Please email me directly.

Jacek
Washington State

[dumass]

What a brilliant idea !!
Send the hords of lawyers to France.
The French must be trembling with fear now !

Lets be a little bit more realistic and analyze the business aspects.
Here is a French company that has successfully (and legally) limited its liability exposure in the US market, albeit in a sneaky way.
(Other companies are not even bothering anymore with offering product in the US due to the liability hassle)
The FAA nicely supported SN Centrair by taking the over-time Pegs out of the market.
Why in hell would Centrair pick up new liabilities in the US territory, where they have exited the glider market long time ago.
From a business perspective, they would have to be complete fools to re-engage on this.

For you Peg drivers, I hope that I am wrong. I know the Peg is a nice ship.

Ian wrote:[color=blue][i]
To All Pegs Owners in the US:
The problem can be resolved using a lawyer. I spend 4 days calling
around and made some phone calls in Europe. The best answer is a class
action against S.A.Centrair. Please email me directly.

Jacek
Washington State

[JJ Sinclair]

Oh, my it seems I have lost my Pegasus logbook. Whatever will I do?

I believe the procedure is to buy a new logbook and then make an entry
showing estimated total time.........................

Let's see now, I think it had something like 600 hours on it. Yep, it
was exactly 600 hours.................Done!

When the bureaucracy goes mad, a little creative compliance is called
for. Just to be on the safe side, one might have a glider repair
facility perform a 3000 hour inspection using another manufacturer's
checklist. Grob has a very thorough one.
JJ

[[email protected]]

JJ Sinclair wrote:
> Oh, my it seems I have lost my Pegasus logbook. Whatever will I do?

Well, JJ, you ain't gonna like what happens if you do so. I heard from
a pretty reliable source that a Learjet in Cancun was auctioned off for
$100,000 because the logbooks disappeared with the pilot's luggage and
the FAA basically said that, without documentation, the airframe is
assumed to have reached its service life. So if you didn't have 3,000
hours on your Pegasus before, lose the logbooks and the FAA will say
that you do.

Besides, documenting the assorted AD's issued on the glider over the
years will get a bit more complex at your next annual. Receipts will
help, but logbook entries are needed also.

Mark Mocho

[Nyal Williams]

What a switch! It ain't the 70's no more! Many an
aircraft has been sold with problematic logbooks.
The attitude used to be that you didn't junk a perfectly
good airplane because something had happened to the
logbooks; that was unconscionable and SOMETHING could
be done about it.


At 19:48 04 January 2007, wrote:
>
>JJ Sinclair wrote:
>> Oh, my it seems I have lost my Pegasus logbook. Whatever
>>will I do?
>
>Well, JJ, you ain't gonna like what happens if you
>do so. I heard from
>a pretty reliable source that a Learjet in Cancun was
>auctioned off for
>$100,000 because the logbooks disappeared with the
>pilot's luggage and
>the FAA basically said that, without documentation,
>the airframe is
>assumed to have reached its service life. So if you
>didn't have 3,000
>hours on your Pegasus before, lose the logbooks and
>the FAA will say
>that you do.
>
>Besides, documenting the assorted AD's issued on the
>glider over the
>years will get a bit more complex at your next annual.
>Receipts will
>help, but logbook entries are needed also.
>
>Mark Mocho
>
>

[Nyal Williams]

Sell them in France; ship them over, get them certified
for 12,000hrs there, and re-import with a French POH
and fly experimental.

At 10:12 04 January 2007, Dumass wrote:
>
>What a brilliant idea !!
>Send the hords of lawyers to France.
>The French must be trembling with fear now !
>
>Lets be a little bit more realistic and analyze the
>business aspects.
>Here is a French company that has successfully (and
>legally) limited
>its liability exposure in the US market, albeit in
>a sneaky way.
>(Other companies are not even bothering anymore with
>offering product
>in the US due to the liability hassle)
>The FAA nicely supported SN Centrair by taking the
>over-time Pegs out
>of the market.
>Why in hell would Centrair pick up new liabilities
>in the US territory,
>where they have exited the glider market long time
>ago.
>From a business perspective, they would have to be
>complete fools to
>re-engage on this.
>
>For you Peg drivers, I hope that I am wrong. I know
>the Peg is a nice
>ship.
>
Wrote:
>> Ian wrote:[color=blue][i]
>> To All Pegs Owners in the US:
>> The problem can be resolved using a lawyer. I spend
>>4 days calling
>> around and made some phone calls in Europe. The best
>>answer is a class
>> action against S.A.Centrair. Please email me directly.
>>
>> Jacek
>> Washington State
>
>
>
>
>--
>dumass
>

[Jeremy Zawodny]

Nyal Williams wrote:
> Sell them in France; ship them over, get them certified
> for 12,000hrs there, and re-import with a French POH
> and fly experimental.

You line up the buyers and I'll provide the aircraft. Well, at least
the first one or two. :-)

Jeremy (only half kidding)

[Tony Verhulst]

wrote:

> Well, JJ, you ain't gonna like what happens if you do so. I heard from
> a pretty reliable source that a Learjet in Cancun was auctioned off for
> $100,000 because the logbooks disappeared with the pilot's luggage and
> the FAA basically said that, without documentation, the airframe is
> assumed to have reached its service life.

I'm a member of a (very) small flying club that operates a single
Skylane (C182H). Some years ago, our maintenance officer's car was
broken into and his flight bag was taken. Unfortunately, said bag
included the aircraft logs. With a lot of help from our mechanics, we
re-created the log book as best (and as honestly) as we could. The FAA
gave us zero grief. But, according to one mechanic, the resale value of
the aircraft was significantly reduced because the gaps in the logs
would make some prospective buyers leery. The aircraft is still flying
and is about to undergo it's second engine overhaul since the theft.

What, again, was the resale value of your 3000 hr Peg?

Tony V
http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING

[fbrahic]

Hey guys,

I'm from France, a member a certain california club that has a grounded
Pegasus, and have a cousin who's a lawyer in the south of France.

If you are seriously interested in pursuing this, I could get in touch
with said cousin and find out whether this is anywhere near his area of
expertise and how much it would cost to have him work on it. After
that, if things seem to line up and he thinks there is some hope
through the legal route, he can things forward.

So, if there is serious interest, and someone wants to coordinate this
(collecting money from 50 owners, etc), I'll make the initial phone
calls to assess whether it's worth pushing forward.

Francois

On Jan 4, 1:11 pm, Jeremy Zawodny > wrote:
> Nyal Williams wrote:
> > Sell them in France; ship them over, get them certified
> > for 12,000hrs there, and re-import with a French POH
> > and fly experimental.You line up the buyers and I'll provide the aircraft. Well, at least
> the first one or two. :-)
>
> Jeremy (only half kidding)

[Nyal Williams]

OK, let's try a little advertising:

New Category Gliders!
----
CLIPPED WING PEGASUS

All interested, inquire within.

-------------------------------------------

At 21:12 04 January 2007, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
>Nyal Williams wrote:
>> Sell them in France; ship them over, get them certified
>> for 12,000hrs there, and re-import with a French POH
>> and fly experimental.
>
>You line up the buyers and I'll provide the aircraft.
> Well, at least
>the first one or two. :-)
>
>Jeremy (only half kidding)
>

[Craig]

It is indeed an unfortunate situation. The Peg's a nice ship. It
seems to me that Centrair's reluctance would be primarily economic.
They no longer need the US soaring community as a customer base and
they have a regulatory sunset in place for the 51 STC'd birds that are
in the high liability US market. Sounds like a "get out of jail free"
card to me.

The class action route is likely to be expensive and there may be
statutes of limitations that restrict what can be done, etc. If you
valued each airframe at $15k that's still only $765k for the lot of
them. Rounding up to an even mil. for the whole thing, it's still no
more than a couple of personal injury cases would cost. On a larger
scale, Beechcraft bought up nearly the entire fleet of Starships and
destroyed them for similar reasons if I understand correctly.

The French market may be the best bet if the Pegasus reverts to the
higher hour limit upon re-registration. Are there other countries
where this might work? If so it would spread out the number of ships
flooding the market. The weak dollar doesn't help either. Sorry to
hear the bad news.

So Tom, I'm assuming the weather in Idaho has been crummy and you were
just trolling to see what would come to the surface or do you have a
dog in the fight?

Best regards,
Craig

[Jeremy Zawodny]

fbrahic wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> I'm from France, a member a certain california club that has a grounded
> Pegasus, and have a cousin who's a lawyer in the south of France.
>
> If you are seriously interested in pursuing this, I could get in touch
> with said cousin and find out whether this is anywhere near his area of
> expertise and how much it would cost to have him work on it. After
> that, if things seem to line up and he thinks there is some hope
> through the legal route, he can things forward.
>
> So, if there is serious interest, and someone wants to coordinate this
> (collecting money from 50 owners, etc), I'll make the initial phone
> calls to assess whether it's worth pushing forward.

I suspect that's far more work and difficult to coordinate than simply
selling the 3,000+ hour ships in a foreign marketplace.

Jeremy

[5Z]

On Jan 5, 6:02 pm, "Craig" > wrote:
> Beechcraft bought up nearly the entire fleet of Starships and
> destroyed them for similar reasons if I understand correctly.

Depending on how old the image is, there are still 28 Starships here:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=marana+airpark,+az&ie=UTF8&z=18&ll=32.513069,-111.322065&spn=0.00418,0.004973&t=k&om=1

[Bob Kuykendall]

Got yer Pegasus right here, 623 hours, only minor damage:

Add your wings, fuselage, and tail and be ready to go in no time:

http://www.aigaviation.com/salvage/N31DT/SalvageN31DT.aspx

[Robert Ehrlich]

Craig wrote:
> ...
> The French market may be the best bet if the Pegasus reverts to the
> higher hour limit upon re-registration. Are there other countries
> where this might work? If so it would spread out the number of ships
> flooding the market. The weak dollar doesn't help either. Sorry to
> hear the bad news.
> ...
If I correctly understand the European regulations, it should work in
any contry member of the European Union.

[[email protected]]

What about Canada? I have no idea and don't own a Peg but maybe there
is some FAA loophole if you export the ship to Canada and then
re-import it under a new registration and air worthiness cert.

Just a thought. Canada wouldn't be a terrible distance to drive.



On Jan 5, 6:02 pm, "Craig" > wrote:
> It is indeed an unfortunate situation. The Peg's a nice ship. It
> seems to me that Centrair's reluctance would be primarily economic.
> They no longer need the US soaring community as a customer base and
> they have a regulatory sunset in place for the 51 STC'd birds that are
> in the high liability US market. Sounds like a "get out of jail free"
> card to me.
>
> The class action route is likely to be expensive and there may be
> statutes of limitations that restrict what can be done, etc. If you
> valued each airframe at $15k that's still only $765k for the lot of
> them. Rounding up to an even mil. for the whole thing, it's still no
> more than a couple of personal injury cases would cost. On a larger
> scale, Beechcraft bought up nearly the entire fleet of Starships and
> destroyed them for similar reasons if I understand correctly.
>
> The French market may be the best bet if the Pegasus reverts to the
> higher hour limit upon re-registration. Are there other countries
> where this might work? If so it would spread out the number of ships
> flooding the market. The weak dollar doesn't help either. Sorry to
> hear the bad news.
>
> So Tom, I'm assuming the weather in Idaho has been crummy and you were
> just trolling to see what would come to the surface or do you have a
> dog in the fight?
>
> Best regards,
> Craig

[phil collin]

I was looking for a glider last year and a local club was selling a peg
that had been re-lifed on hours abroad i.e. Europe. So I'm pretty sure
there is a firm doing the work some how...

wrote:
> What about Canada? I have no idea and don't own a Peg but maybe there
> is some FAA loophole if you export the ship to Canada and then
> re-import it under a new registration and air worthiness cert.
>
> Just a thought. Canada wouldn't be a terrible distance to drive.
>
>
>
> On Jan 5, 6:02 pm, "Craig" > wrote:
>> It is indeed an unfortunate situation. The Peg's a nice ship. It
>> seems to me that Centrair's reluctance would be primarily economic.
>> They no longer need the US soaring community as a customer base and
>> they have a regulatory sunset in place for the 51 STC'd birds that are
>> in the high liability US market. Sounds like a "get out of jail free"
>> card to me.
>>
>> The class action route is likely to be expensive and there may be
>> statutes of limitations that restrict what can be done, etc. If you
>> valued each airframe at $15k that's still only $765k for the lot of
>> them. Rounding up to an even mil. for the whole thing, it's still no
>> more than a couple of personal injury cases would cost. On a larger
>> scale, Beechcraft bought up nearly the entire fleet of Starships and
>> destroyed them for similar reasons if I understand correctly.
>>
>> The French market may be the best bet if the Pegasus reverts to the
>> higher hour limit upon re-registration. Are there other countries
>> where this might work? If so it would spread out the number of ships
>> flooding the market. The weak dollar doesn't help either. Sorry to
>> hear the bad news.
>>
>> So Tom, I'm assuming the weather in Idaho has been crummy and you were
>> just trolling to see what would come to the surface or do you have a
>> dog in the fight?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Craig
>

[ASM]

Craig wrote:
> It is indeed an unfortunate situation. The Peg's a nice ship. It
> seems to me that Centrair's reluctance would be primarily economic.
> They no longer need the US soaring community as a customer base and
> they have a regulatory sunset in place for the 51 STC'd birds that are
> in the high liability US market. Sounds like a "get out of jail free"
> card to me.
>
> The class action route is likely to be expensive and there may be
> statutes of limitations that restrict what can be done, etc. If you
> valued each airframe at $15k that's still only $765k for the lot of
> them. Rounding up to an even mil. for the whole thing, it's still no
> more than a couple of personal injury cases would cost. On a larger
> scale, Beechcraft bought up nearly the entire fleet of Starships and
> destroyed them for similar reasons if I understand correctly.
>
> The French market may be the best bet if the Pegasus reverts to the
> higher hour limit upon re-registration. Are there other countries
> where this might work? If so it would spread out the number of ships
> flooding the market. The weak dollar doesn't help either. Sorry to
> hear the bad news.
>
> So Tom, I'm assuming the weather in Idaho has been crummy and you were
> just trolling to see what would come to the surface or do you have a
> dog in the fight?
>
> Best regards,
> Craig

Hi Craig,

15K....where did you get this number from? Who determines the prices of
used gliders?
What you guys need to realize is the fact that the fleet of existing
gliders is getting smaller and in a few short years there will be just
a million dollars sailplanes available and then what? a hang glider?
and no used sailplanes? I guess a wakeup call is really necessary for
the entire soaring community. Period. Some of the postings here are
showing nothing more than just simple ignorance. It is disturbing and
mind boggling.

Jacek
Washington State

[Doug]

I'm still curious about the wording in the manuals from across the pond on
the 3k hrs issue. Also, how do you get around the 3k hrs limit in your
country?

Anyone have a comment?

Doug

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Jacek, Doug et al,
>
> Jacek's quote from the Pegase Owner's Manual is accurate. There is NO
> translation problem. The wording is exact and clear. Unfortunately, the
> Centrair factory made a mistake by saying two different things on two
> different pages. One statement said "3,000 hour service life" and the
> other referred to a "Five year or 3,000 hour inspection." When the
> glider was certificated in the US, the reference to the 3,000 hour
> service life was used for issuance of the STC- mainly because Centrair
> did not provide a 3,000 hour inspection plan. Apparently, they had
> promised to do so, but went out of business before coming up with it.
>
> When they ceased operation, the Type Certificate was taken over by a
> new entity- Societe Nouvelle Centrair (S.N. Centrair). They also failed
> to offer an inspection protocol. That is where we sit now.
>
> When the FAA inquired about the discrepancy in the two pages, S.N.
> Centrair once again failed to provide a plan for inspection and
> reiterated that the 3,000 hour service life is applicable in the US.
> Once the FAA gets information like that from the manufacturer or the
> holder of the Type Certificate, the procedure is cut and dried. The FAA
> is not allowed to make judgments contrary to factory information
> involving service life- unless the FAA determines that the service life
> from the factory is too high. S.N. Centrair REDUCED the life limit,
> therefore, an AD was issued.
>
> If S.N. Centrair had said that the 3,000 hour inspection was the
> governing reference, we would not have this problem. Since no
> inspection plan is specifically offered, interpretation could have been
> left open to the A&P or I.A. as to what needed to be checked.
>
> As a result of the French holder of the Type Certificate specifically
> instructing the FAA to disregard the reference to a 3,000 hour
> inspection, the FAA had no choice but to issue an AD requiring owners
> to use a pen to cross out the inspection reference. Unless S.N.
> Centrair reverses this instruction, the AD stays in effect. If they DO
> reverse the decision, the FAA (according to Greg) would be more than
> happy to issue an amended AD.
>
> This happened last year, when an AD was issued concerning elevator and
> aileron hinge pins on the Centrair 101 gliders. S.N. Centrair issued a
> Sevice Bulletin mandating replacement of hinge pins on a specific range
> of gliders by serial number and/or hinge pin delivery date. This
> bulletin was turned into an AD that required replacement of pins in ALL
> Centrair aircraft, regardless of serial number. When this was pointed
> out to the FAA, Greg rewrote the AD and we were off the hook. He hopes
> something similar can be done in the case of the service life limit,
> but it has to come from S.N. Centrair.
>
> Once again, TRANSLATION IS NOT THE ISSUE!
>
> Mark Mocho
>

[Craig]

> 15K....where did you get this number from? Who determines the prices of
> used gliders?

Hi Jacek,

The $15k number was simply a wag at a bare hull value w/o instruments,
trailer, etc. I could be off by a factor of two and I doubt it would
change the economics for Centrair. No offense was intended & I
apologize if it came off wrong.

Best Regards,
Craig

[Jeremy Zawodny]

Craig wrote:
>> 15K....where did you get this number from? Who determines the prices of
>> used gliders?
>
> Hi Jacek,
>
> The $15k number was simply a wag at a bare hull value w/o instruments,
> trailer, etc. I could be off by a factor of two and I doubt it would
> change the economics for Centrair. No offense was intended & I
> apologize if it came off wrong.

Actually, that $15k value isn't *too far* off the mark in my mind. If
you've got a decent peg that's over the 3,000 limit, you need to factor
in the transport costs of a few thousand dollars and such.

If you start at $20 and add $3k for transport (I have no idea what the
real cost it), you're within a few thousand dollars of what a few pegs
(with far less than 3,000 hours on them) have sold for in the last year.

Jeremy

[tommytoyz]

Why not register the Pegasus in D-registration and fly it here in the
US? FAA licensed pilots are permitted to fly D-registere gliders......

[jb92563]

For those with lots of time and little money:

Go Experimental!

Deregister the glider, disassemble the thing to some degree
(51%)....take pictures, put in some new parts, rivets etc and Build an
experimental glider out of the parts you have available......Call it
what ever you like, probably anything but Pegasus, register it, test
fly, get COA and now you have a glider with little resale value but
lots of fun value......

Oh and by the way, apply for your repairman rating as well since you
built this aircraft and are now qualified to do all the annuals on it.

For those with lots of money:

Mount it on a pole at your local glider club along with your club
banner and buy a new glider!

For those that like to fight and get bloodied:

Hire a french lawyer and ask him to drain you of surplus cash and get
bloody irritated for a couple years so that you will grow to hate your
Pegasus.....which you will eventually leave abandoned for all the
rodents on your airfield to make their home.....better there than in
your new glider right?!

Looks like a pain no matter which way you take it!

Sorry your options look grim....perhaps its just time to move on and
enjoy flying rather than beating a dead horse.

[dumass]

Looks like the Californians decided to bite the bulllet and dump the overtime Peg.
No letters from Centrair (they are wise and shut up)
Unfortunately for the Peg owners looks like my prediction is still holding.
No hords of lawyers packing for France (they know when a case is lost)
We will have a few nice upgrades to the glider fleet here in Canada.

[dumass]

Ohh, there is still that Californian Frenchman (or French Californian or whatever he is) with his French lawyer cousin that maybe still wants to keep on going and collect money from you Peg owners for the lawsuit !!