G102 spigot AD??? What's the status...

[Gary Emerson]

I heard an AD was being considered for the wing spigots on the Grob 102s
(US version AD). Any definite info on where this is headed and when?

Thanks,

Gary

[toad]

On Aug 15, 8:23*pm, Gary Emerson > wrote:
> I heard an AD was being considered for the wing spigots on the Grob 102s
> (US version AD). *Any definite info on where this is headed and when?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gary

Gary,

It is still stuck in the bureaucracy, I anticipate it being issued
when the FAA has the time to get to the low-priority items. I went
ahead and had the work done by XU aviation in Ontario.

Todd Smith

[Gary Emerson]

Gary Emerson wrote:
> I heard an AD was being considered for the wing spigots on the Grob 102s
> (US version AD). Any definite info on where this is headed and when?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gary

Does anyone know where a copy of the service bulletin from grob might be
found online? I googled this quite a bit, but so far no luck coming up
with the actual document. Even the Grob website doesn't list the SB...

[chipsoars]

On Aug 19, 10:47*am, Gary Emerson > wrote:
> Gary Emerson wrote:
> > I heard an AD was being considered for the wing spigots on the Grob 102s
> > (US version AD). *Any definite info on where this is headed and when?
>
> > Thanks,
>
> > Gary
>
> Does anyone know where a copy of the service bulletin from grob might be
> found online? *I googled this quite a bit, but so far no luck coming up
> with the actual document. *Even the Grob website doesn't list the SB...

http://www.grob-aerospace.com/service-and-support/g-102.html

[Gary Emerson]

chipsoars wrote:
> On Aug 19, 10:47 am, Gary Emerson > wrote:
>> Gary Emerson wrote:
>>> I heard an AD was being considered for the wing spigots on the Grob 102s
>>> (US version AD). Any definite info on where this is headed and when?
>>> Thanks,
>>> Gary
>> Does anyone know where a copy of the service bulletin from grob might be
>> found online? I googled this quite a bit, but so far no luck coming up
>> with the actual document. Even the Grob website doesn't list the SB...
>
> http://www.grob-aerospace.com/service-and-support/g-102.html
>


Right, there is a master list, but on the left side SB 306-29 is NOT
shown unfortunately.

[Don Johnstone[_3_]]

If you go to this page your question will be answered

http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/technical/manufacturers/grob.pdf

AD 91-5/2, SB 306-29 issued in 8/91. This should have been completed 17
years ago, I can't believe the FAA is that slow.




At 15:39 19 August 2008, Gary Emerson wrote:
>chipsoars wrote:
>> On Aug 19, 10:47 am, Gary Emerson wrote:
>>> Gary Emerson wrote:
>>>> I heard an AD was being considered for the wing spigots on the Grob
>102s
>>>> (US version AD). Any definite info on where this is headed and
when?
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Gary
>>> Does anyone know where a copy of the service bulletin from grob might
>be
>>> found online? I googled this quite a bit, but so far no luck coming
up
>>> with the actual document. Even the Grob website doesn't list the
SB...
>>
>> http://www.grob-aerospace.com/service-and-support/g-102.html
>>
>
>
>Right, there is a master list, but on the left side SB 306-29 is NOT
>shown unfortunately.
>

[Tim[_1_]]

"Don Johnstone" > wrote in message
...
> If you go to this page your question will be answered
>
> http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/technical/manufacturers/grob.pdf
>
> AD 91-5/2, SB 306-29 issued in 8/91. This should have been completed 17
> years ago, I can't believe the FAA is that slow.
>

It is interesting to note that there have been no SDRs or incidents related
to problems with the spar spigots on G-102s in the US despite the fact that
the AD did not include the G-102 when it was issued for the G-103. This
would seem to indicate that whatever the issue was that prompted the SB to
be issued originally is likely not a problem in the G-102.

I was also surprised at the relative lack of response to the NPRM when it
was first issued last year. I would have thought that just about every
G-102 owner in the US would have responded suggesting that a more sensible
approach to the AD would be an annual inspection of the part with
replacement required if any defect was found, as opposed to the proposed AD
which will require outright replacement regardless of the condition of the
existing part. This is a major and expensive repair that is probably worse
than the problem it proposes to address considering how remote the
possibility of having a problem appears to be based on history.

[Bob Kuykendall]

> I was also surprised at the relative lack of response to the
> NPRM when it was first issued last year...

I'm a bit surprised as well. I rather wonder if the wording of the
thing might have something to do with it: "Replace the spar spigots?
How hard can that be. I'll order them, they'll come in a box. I'll
have my A&P unscrew the old ones, screw in the new ones, and be on my
way!"

In actuality, if the 102 is anything like the 103, replacing the
spigots is fairly major surgery requiring special tools and
techniques. It involves cutting away some relatively massive chunks of
fiberglass at the end of the spar stub and digging out the steel pin
and its attachment to the plywood shear web reinforcement. Then you
can replace that portion of shear web, use a special fixture to locate
and install the new steel pin and its mounting flange, and apply about
8 layers of bias fiberglass over the whole spar end.

Thanks, Bob K.

[toad]

On Aug 19, 2:06*pm, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> > I was also surprised at the relative lack of response to the
> > NPRM when it was first issued last year...
>
> I'm a bit surprised as well. I rather wonder if the wording of the
> thing might have something to do with it: "Replace the spar spigots?
> How hard can that be. I'll order them, they'll come in a box. I'll
> have my A&P unscrew the old ones, screw in the new ones, and be on my
> way!"
>
> In actuality, if the 102 is anything like the 103, replacing the
> spigots is fairly major surgery requiring special tools and
> techniques. It involves cutting away some relatively massive chunks of
> fiberglass at the end of the spar stub and digging out the steel pin
> and its attachment to the plywood shear web reinforcement. Then you
> can replace that portion of shear web, use a special fixture to locate
> and install the new steel pin and its mounting flange, and apply about
> 8 layers of bias fiberglass over the whole spar end.
>
> Thanks, Bob K.

The proposed AD is posted at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/grob_sailplanes/files,
you might have to join the group. I promise to approve quickly. But
the actual instructions are not included in the AD, it's exactly as
Bob described above.

I created the yahoo group to try and communicate with Grob owners and
rally support, we did have limited success in getting owners to
comment on the NPRM. Now we are just waiting to find out what the
friendly fed decides. I went ahead and had it done, cost was $4000
US.

Todd Smith
Grob 102 Std III, 3S

[Gary Emerson]

Don Johnstone wrote:
> If you go to this page your question will be answered
>
> http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/technical/manufacturers/grob.pdf
>
> AD 91-5/2, SB 306-29 issued in 8/91. This should have been completed 17
> years ago, I can't believe the FAA is that slow.
>
>
>
>
> At 15:39 19 August 2008, Gary Emerson wrote:
>> chipsoars wrote:
>>> On Aug 19, 10:47 am, Gary Emerson wrote:
>>>> Gary Emerson wrote:
>>>>> I heard an AD was being considered for the wing spigots on the Grob
>> 102s
>>>>> (US version AD). Any definite info on where this is headed and
> when?
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Gary
>>>> Does anyone know where a copy of the service bulletin from grob might
>> be
>>>> found online? I googled this quite a bit, but so far no luck coming
> up
>>>> with the actual document. Even the Grob website doesn't list the
> SB...
>>> http://www.grob-aerospace.com/service-and-support/g-102.html
>>>
>>
>> Right, there is a master list, but on the left side SB 306-29 is NOT
>> shown unfortunately.
>>

Unless I'm missing something - the link at the top does NOT appear to
provide any details of what exactly is involved with the AD. I'm
looking for the Service Bulletin which describes (hopefully with some
pictures or sketches) the repair.

[Gilbert Smith]

Bob Kuykendall > wrote:

>> I was also surprised at the relative lack of response to the
>> NPRM when it was first issued last year...
>
>I'm a bit surprised as well. I rather wonder if the wording of the
>thing might have something to do with it: "Replace the spar spigots?
>How hard can that be. I'll order them, they'll come in a box. I'll
>have my A&P unscrew the old ones, screw in the new ones, and be on my
>way!"
>
>In actuality, if the 102 is anything like the 103, replacing the
>spigots is fairly major surgery requiring special tools and
>techniques. It involves cutting away some relatively massive chunks of
>fiberglass at the end of the spar stub and digging out the steel pin
>and its attachment to the plywood shear web reinforcement. Then you
>can replace that portion of shear web, use a special fixture to locate
>and install the new steel pin and its mounting flange, and apply about
>8 layers of bias fiberglass over the whole spar end.
>
>Thanks, Bob K.

The G109B had this work mandated for 3000 hours, and Bob is correct -
it is a major procedure because the spigots were welded to the buried
metalwork. Before 3000 hours the welds had to be inspected annually.
The new spigots do screw into the new units.

Gilbert

[toad]

On Aug 19, 2:58*pm, Gary Emerson > wrote:

> Unless I'm missing something - the link at the top does NOT appear to
> provide any details of what exactly is involved with the AD. *I'm
> looking for the Service Bulletin which describes (hopefully with some
> pictures or sketches) the repair.

You aren't missing anything. The SB does not really describe the
repair. Your mechanic has to get the parts and instructions from Grob
in Germany. Bob K. did describe the process though, which is the same
as for a G 103.

Todd

[Don Johnstone[_3_]]

Forgive me if I am wrong but are you saying that Grob issued as a mandatory
replacement 17 years ago was not embodied in the USA? If that is the case I
am amazed. I am not surprised that the SB is not readily available, one
assumes that Grob, having issued a mandatory SD would expect that it was
completed long ago.

You are correct in saying that the mod was brought about by the failure of
a spigot on a Grob 103 wing, this was on the rig a Slingsbys during testing
for the RAF. Several other wing spigots on aircraft in service were found
to be cracked. The reason for the cracking was the wrong spec steel used
to manuafacture the spigots and this only applied to the 100 Grob 103s
built for the RAF and a few others which had been privately sold. Only
gliders showing cracks were grounded, others were subject to regular
inspection until Grob issued the mandatory mod requiring new replaceable
spigots. You are also right, it is a major job and may only be carried out
by organisations approved by Grob. If the FAA follow that line you will
need this:

Grob Aerospace Inc. has appointed Composite Aircraft Repair of Moriarty,
New Mexico as the new authorized service center for the 300+ Grob
Aerospace light aircraft and gliders in the United States.


At 18:58 19 August 2008, Gary Emerson wrote:
>Don Johnstone wrote:
>> If you go to this page your question will be answered
>>
>> http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/technical/manufacturers/grob.pdf
>>
>> AD 91-5/2, SB 306-29 issued in 8/91. This should have been completed
17
>> years ago, I can't believe the FAA is that slow.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> At 15:39 19 August 2008, Gary Emerson wrote:
>>> chipsoars wrote:
>>>> On Aug 19, 10:47 am, Gary Emerson wrote:
>>>>> Gary Emerson wrote:
>>>>>> I heard an AD was being considered for the wing spigots on the
Grob
>>> 102s
>>>>>> (US version AD). Any definite info on where this is headed and
>> when?
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Gary
>>>>> Does anyone know where a copy of the service bulletin from grob
might
>>> be
>>>>> found online? I googled this quite a bit, but so far no luck
coming
>> up
>>>>> with the actual document. Even the Grob website doesn't list the
>> SB...
>>>> http://www.grob-aerospace.com/service-and-support/g-102.html
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, there is a master list, but on the left side SB 306-29 is NOT
>>> shown unfortunately.
>>>
>
>Unless I'm missing something - the link at the top does NOT appear to
>provide any details of what exactly is involved with the AD. I'm
>looking for the Service Bulletin which describes (hopefully with some
>pictures or sketches) the repair.
>

[jcarlyle]

You Grob owners may be interested in this link: http://tinyurl.com/68kg9r
The headline says "Grob Aerospace Files For Insolvency".

-John

[Don Johnstone[_3_]]

Is this alarming?
In 1971 the Design Authority issued an Airworthiness Directive mandating
the replacement of wing spigots on the Grob 102, following a failure on
the Grob 103. Aircraft manufacturers/Design Authorities do not issue
directives, which by their name are mandatory, for the fun of it, in fact
doing so indicates that have screwed up. The work mandated is essential.
Unless I have this completely wrong the FAA decided they knew better and
did not pass this on.
My concern is, how many other AD issued by Design Authorities have been
ignored by the FAA and is it really safe to fly in a glider, or any other
aircraft on the USA register? Can we be assured that essential safety
maintenance has been done?
Looking at the evidence of the Grob 102 the answer has to be no.
Have the FAA ignored other ADs issued by European manufacturers, Airbus
Industrie perhaps?
Scary!!!!!!!



At 00:23 16 August 2008, Gary Emerson wrote:
>I heard an AD was being considered for the wing spigots on the Grob 102s

>(US version AD). Any definite info on where this is headed and when?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Gary
>

[Don Johnstone[_3_]]

Sorry, for 1971 read 1991, 17 years ago

At 08:24 21 August 2008, Don Johnstone wrote:
>Is this alarming?
>In 1971 the Design Authority issued an Airworthiness Directive mandating
>the replacement of wing spigots on the Grob 102, following a failure on
>the Grob 103. Aircraft manufacturers/Design Authorities do not issue
>directives, which by their name are mandatory, for the fun of it, in
fact
>doing so indicates that have screwed up. The work mandated is essential.
>Unless I have this completely wrong the FAA decided they knew better and
>did not pass this on.
>My concern is, how many other AD issued by Design Authorities have been
>ignored by the FAA and is it really safe to fly in a glider, or any
other
>aircraft on the USA register? Can we be assured that essential safety
>maintenance has been done?
>Looking at the evidence of the Grob 102 the answer has to be no.
>Have the FAA ignored other ADs issued by European manufacturers, Airbus
>Industrie perhaps?
>Scary!!!!!!!
>
>
>
>At 00:23 16 August 2008, Gary Emerson wrote:
>>I heard an AD was being considered for the wing spigots on the Grob
102s
>
>>(US version AD). Any definite info on where this is headed and when?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Gary
>>
>

[toad]

On Aug 21, 4:24*am, Don Johnstone > wrote:
> Is this alarming?
> In 1971 the Design Authority issued an Airworthiness Directive mandating
> the replacement of wing spigots on the Grob 102, following a failure on
> the Grob 103. Aircraft manufacturers/Design Authorities do not issue
> directives, which by their name are mandatory, for the fun of it, in fact
> doing so indicates that have screwed up. The work mandated is essential.
> Unless I have this completely wrong the FAA decided they knew better and
> did not pass this on.
> My concern is, how many other AD issued by Design Authorities have been
> ignored by the FAA and is it really safe to fly in a glider, or any other
> aircraft on the USA register? Can we be assured that essential safety
> maintenance has been done?
> Looking at the evidence of the Grob 102 the answer has to be no.
> Have the FAA ignored other ADs issued by European manufacturers, Airbus
> Industrie perhaps?
> Scary!!!!!!!
>

Well, if the European/German equivalent of the FAA issues an AD then
the FAA pretty much automatically issues one as well, but since Grob
only issued a service bulletin, the FAA did not automatically issue an
AD.

Todd Smith

[Gary Emerson]

Don Johnstone wrote:
> Is this alarming?
> In 1971 the Design Authority issued an Airworthiness Directive mandating
> the replacement of wing spigots on the Grob 102, following a failure on
> the Grob 103. Aircraft manufacturers/Design Authorities do not issue
> directives, which by their name are mandatory, for the fun of it, in fact
> doing so indicates that have screwed up. The work mandated is essential.
> Unless I have this completely wrong the FAA decided they knew better and
> did not pass this on.
> My concern is, how many other AD issued by Design Authorities have been
> ignored by the FAA and is it really safe to fly in a glider, or any other
> aircraft on the USA register? Can we be assured that essential safety
> maintenance has been done?
> Looking at the evidence of the Grob 102 the answer has to be no.
> Have the FAA ignored other ADs issued by European manufacturers, Airbus
> Industrie perhaps?
> Scary!!!!!!!
>
>
>
> At 00:23 16 August 2008, Gary Emerson wrote:
>> I heard an AD was being considered for the wing spigots on the Grob 102s
>
>> (US version AD). Any definite info on where this is headed and when?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Gary
>>


This is a question, not a statement...

There is reference to an incorrect material selection in the G103
spigots. Does anyone know if the correct material was used in the G102
spigots?

[Don Johnstone[_3_]]

At 12:39 21 August 2008, Gary Emerson wrote:
>Don Johnstone wrote:
>> Is this alarming?
>> In 1971 the Design Authority issued an Airworthiness Directive
mandating
>> the replacement of wing spigots on the Grob 102, following a failure
on
>> the Grob 103. Aircraft manufacturers/Design Authorities do not issue
>> directives, which by their name are mandatory, for the fun of it, in
>fact
>> doing so indicates that have screwed up. The work mandated is
essential.
>> Unless I have this completely wrong the FAA decided they knew better
and
>> did not pass this on.
>> My concern is, how many other AD issued by Design Authorities have
been
>> ignored by the FAA and is it really safe to fly in a glider, or any
>other
>> aircraft on the USA register? Can we be assured that essential safety
>> maintenance has been done?
>> Looking at the evidence of the Grob 102 the answer has to be no.
>> Have the FAA ignored other ADs issued by European manufacturers,
Airbus
>> Industrie perhaps?
>> Scary!!!!!!!
>>
>>
>>
>> At 00:23 16 August 2008, Gary Emerson wrote:
>>> I heard an AD was being considered for the wing spigots on the Grob
>102s
>>
>>> (US version AD). Any definite info on where this is headed and when?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>
>
>This is a question, not a statement...
>
>There is reference to an incorrect material selection in the G103
>spigots. Does anyone know if the correct material was used in the G102
>spigots?

Difficult, the problem with the G103 spigots was that allegedly they were
manufactured from steel which did not meet the design specification,
however this appears to have prompted a rethink on the whole question of
wing spigot material spec and it would appear that the design authority
was of the view that the existing spec was not good enough, hence the
redesign.
The answer to your specific question is that the G102 spigots were
manufactured to the spec in force at the time they were made but did not
meet the later required spec.
It is true that a service bulletin was issued but make no mistake this was
an Airworthiness Directive taken up by the LBA and the CAA and as far as I
am aware the rest of the world excluding America.
This is getting more scary by the minute.
>

[Don Johnstone[_3_]]

At 12:39 21 August 2008, Gary Emerson wrote:
>Don Johnstone wrote:
>> Is this alarming?
>> In 1971 the Design Authority issued an Airworthiness Directive
mandating
>> the replacement of wing spigots on the Grob 102, following a failure
on
>> the Grob 103. Aircraft manufacturers/Design Authorities do not issue
>> directives, which by their name are mandatory, for the fun of it, in
>fact
>> doing so indicates that have screwed up. The work mandated is
essential.
>> Unless I have this completely wrong the FAA decided they knew better
and
>> did not pass this on.
>> My concern is, how many other AD issued by Design Authorities have
been
>> ignored by the FAA and is it really safe to fly in a glider, or any
>other
>> aircraft on the USA register? Can we be assured that essential safety
>> maintenance has been done?
>> Looking at the evidence of the Grob 102 the answer has to be no.
>> Have the FAA ignored other ADs issued by European manufacturers,
Airbus
>> Industrie perhaps?
>> Scary!!!!!!!
>>
>>
>>
>> At 00:23 16 August 2008, Gary Emerson wrote:
>>> I heard an AD was being considered for the wing spigots on the Grob
>102s
>>
>>> (US version AD). Any definite info on where this is headed and when?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>
>
>This is a question, not a statement...
>
>There is reference to an incorrect material selection in the G103
>spigots. Does anyone know if the correct material was used in the G102
>spigots?

Difficult, the problem with the G103 spigots was that allegedly they were
manufactured from steel which did not meet the design specification,
however this appears to have prompted a rethink on the whole question of
wing spigot material spec and it would appear that the design authority
was of the view that the existing spec was not good enough, hence the
redesign.
The answer to your specific question is that the G102 spigots were
manufactured to the spec in force at the time they were made but did not
meet the later required spec.
It is true that a service bulletin was issued but make no mistake this was
an Airworthiness Directive taken up by the LBA and the CAA and as far as I
am aware the rest of the world excluding America.
This is getting more scary by the minute.
>

[Tim[_1_]]

"Don Johnstone" > wrote
>
> Difficult, the problem with the G103 spigots was that allegedly they were
> manufactured from steel which did not meet the design specification,
> however this appears to have prompted a rethink on the whole question of
> wing spigot material spec and it would appear that the design authority
> was of the view that the existing spec was not good enough, hence the
> redesign.
> The answer to your specific question is that the G102 spigots were
> manufactured to the spec in force at the time they were made but did not
> meet the later required spec.
> It is true that a service bulletin was issued but make no mistake this was
> an Airworthiness Directive taken up by the LBA and the CAA and as far as I
> am aware the rest of the world excluding America.
> This is getting more scary by the minute.
> >

I'm flying one and I'm not the least bit scared. Seems to me that if there
was going to be a problem it would have shown itself sometime in the last 19
yrs or so, eh?

[JJ Sinclair]

On Aug 21, 6:40*am, "Tim" > wrote:
> "Don Johnstone" > wrote
>
>
>
> > Difficult, the problem with the G103 spigots was that allegedly they were
> > manufactured from steel which did not meet the design specification,
> > however this appears to have prompted a rethink on the whole question of
> > wing spigot material spec and it would appear that the design authority
> > was of the view that the existing spec was not good enough, hence the
> > redesign.
> > The answer to your specific question is that the G102 spigots were
> > manufactured to the spec in force at the time they were made but did not
> > meet the later required spec.
> > It is true that a service bulletin was issued but make no mistake this was
> > an Airworthiness Directive taken up by the LBA and the CAA and as far as I
> > am aware the rest of the world excluding America.
> > This is getting more scary by the minute.
>
> I'm flying one and I'm not the least bit scared. *Seems to me that if there
> was going to be a problem it would have shown itself sometime in the last 19
> yrs or so, eh?

And now, JJ's take on the big Grob spigot (and other) screw-ups! Grob
welded the spigots on the G-102 and G-103 to a steel plate and the
British air academy tested a wing and got a crack to form after 10,000
simulated winch launches. Grob came out with a fix where the spigot
screwed into the steel plate. While performing this AD, they also
fixed another little problem to make sure the spigot from one wing
went into the bearing on the other wing, correctly...........some were
found to be a good 10mm short of where they should have been which
meant the spigot arm was loaded farther out than intended. While they
were at it, they also fixed a bunch of control cranks and fittings
that an idiot could see weren't string enough. I owned two G-103's at
the time and had to fork out about $3000 bucks each to fix Grob's
mistakes. A service bulletin was also published to fix the spigots on
the G-102, but for some reason it didn't appeas as an AD at that
time.
Anybody want to discuss Grob's using cast aluminum parts in flight
controls? Type in Grob on the FAA's AD page and just look at what
comes up! I think the G-102 is one of the nicest handling ships I have
ever flown, it has good control harmonics...................but Grob's
engineering sucks.
RIP Grob,
JJ

[Don Johnstone[_3_]]

At 14:31 21 August 2008, JJ Sinclair wrote:
>On Aug 21, 6:40=A0am, "Tim" wrote:
>> "Don Johnstone" wrote
>>
>>
>>
>> > Difficult, the problem with the G103 spigots was that allegedly they
>we=
>re
>> > manufactured from steel which did not meet the design specification,
>> > however this appears to have prompted a rethink on the whole
question
>o=
>f
>> > wing spigot material spec and it would appear that the design
>authority
>> > was of the view that the existing spec was not good enough, hence
the
>> > redesign.
>> > The answer to your specific question is that the G102 spigots were
>> > manufactured to the spec in force at the time they were made but did
>no=
>t
>> > meet the later required spec.
>> > It is true that a service bulletin was issued but make no mistake
this
>=
>was
>> > an Airworthiness Directive taken up by the LBA and the CAA and as
far
>a=
>s I
>> > am aware the rest of the world excluding America.
>> > This is getting more scary by the minute.
>>
>> I'm flying one and I'm not the least bit scared. =A0Seems to me that
if
>t=
>here
>> was going to be a problem it would have shown itself sometime in the
>last=
> 19
>> yrs or so, eh?
>
>And now, JJ's take on the big Grob spigot (and other) screw-ups! Grob
>welded the spigots on the G-102 and G-103 to a steel plate and the
>British air academy tested a wing and got a crack to form after 10,000
>simulated winch launches. Grob came out with a fix where the spigot
>screwed into the steel plate. While performing this AD, they also
>fixed another little problem to make sure the spigot from one wing
>went into the bearing on the other wing, correctly...........some were
>found to be a good 10mm short of where they should have been which
>meant the spigot arm was loaded farther out than intended. While they
>were at it, they also fixed a bunch of control cranks and fittings
>that an idiot could see weren't string enough. I owned two G-103's at
>the time and had to fork out about $3000 bucks each to fix Grob's
>mistakes. A service bulletin was also published to fix the spigots on
>the G-102, but for some reason it didn't appeas as an AD at that
>time.
>Anybody want to discuss Grob's using cast aluminum parts in flight
>controls? Type in Grob on the FAA's AD page and just look at what
>comes up! I think the G-102 is one of the nicest handling ships I have
>ever flown, it has good control harmonics...................but Grob's
>engineering sucks.
>RIP Grob,
>JJ

Almost correct, the failure occurred well forward of where any airframe
was but the tests were conducted on the flight profile that the glider was
expected to do. This was basically winch launches,circuits and thermalling,
and landing. No aerobatics, no high speed flight, no regular
rigging/de-rigging, no cross country flight and no field landings. Having
said all that when the spigot problem was cured and at the end of the
normal testing Slingsbys, who did the test on the G103 were asked to push
the airframe until it broke. They gave up after they broke the rig three
times.
I think you guys are going to have a rough deal. If the work had been done
when it should have been it would have been a deal cheaper with the parts
supplied at cost, about 10% or less of the value of the glider. If US
prices are the same the cost of the job now could exceed the value of the
glider. If a glider was found in the UK now which had not had the AD done
it is unlikely the work would be carried out as the value of the glider
over here would be less than the cost of the work. It is a very
specialised job requiring jigs and professional GRP working, not something
that every repairer can do.
One wonders who would get sued if one did break, not Grob for certain,
they mandated a fix.

[Don Johnstone[_3_]]

At 13:40 21 August 2008, Tim wrote:
>I'm flying one and I'm not the least bit scared. Seems to me that if
>there
>was going to be a problem it would have shown itself sometime in the
last
>19
>yrs or so, eh?

Funny old thing, nobody noticed anything wrong with the Grob 103 until the
spigot sheared, at least it happened on the rig.
The design authority, LBA and CAA considered it vital enough to issue a
mandatory AD but who are they to know.
When I said scary I was thinking more of all the other aircraft on the US
register that are flying about. Have ADs for them been ignored as well?

[toad]

On Aug 21, 7:09*pm, Don Johnstone > wrote:

snip

> The design authority, LBA and CAA considered it vital enough to issue a
> mandatory AD but who are they to know.
> When I said scary I was thinking more of all the other aircraft on the US
> register that are flying about. Have ADs for them been ignored as well?

Let me say it again. The LBA did NOT issue an AD, or the FAA would
have done so also.

Todd Smith

[Don Johnstone[_3_]]

At 02:18 22 August 2008, toad wrote:
>On Aug 21, 7:09=A0pm, Don Johnstone wrote:
>
>snip
>
>> The design authority, LBA and CAA considered it vital enough to issue
a
>> mandatory AD but who are they to know.
>> When I said scary I was thinking more of all the other aircraft on the
>US
>> register that are flying about. Have ADs for them been ignored as
well?
>
>Let me say it again. The LBA did NOT issue an AD, or the FAA would
>have done so also.
>
>Todd Smith

Sorry Todd you are mistaken, the LBA did issue an AD see

http://www2.lba.de/dokumente/ad/1991-005-2-e.pdf

[toad]

On Aug 22, 3:39*am, Don Johnstone > wrote:

> >Todd Smith
>
> Sorry Todd you are mistaken, the LBA did issue an AD see
>
> http://www2.lba.de/dokumente/ad/1991-005-2-e.pdf

Don,

It's quite possible that I am mistaken. That has happened before :-)

It was explained to me that if the certifying country issued an AD
then the FAA was automatically required to issue an AD as well. And
the story I heard, which relied on memories from 1991, so could be
wrong, was that the LBA did not issue an actual AD. Some G102 owners
did have it done at the time in the US.

The document you posted seems to talk about an Australian AD not a
German AD.

I found a page of LBA AD's at http://www2.lba.de/dokumente/ad/html/ads-grob/index-grob.htm

I can find the Spar spigot replacement AD for the G103 there, but not
G102.

Thanks
Todd

[toad]

On Aug 21, 4:24*pm, Don Johnstone > wrote:
> At 14:31 21 August 2008, JJ Sinclair wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Aug 21, 6:40=A0am, "Tim" *wrote:
> >> "Don Johnstone" *wrote
>
> >> > Difficult, the problem with the G103 spigots was that allegedly they
> >we=
> >re
> >> > manufactured from steel which did not meet the design specification,
> >> > however this appears to have prompted a rethink on the whole
> question
> >o=
> >f
> >> > wing spigot material spec and it would appear that the design
> >authority
> >> > was of the view that the existing spec was not good enough, hence
> the
> >> > redesign.
> >> > The answer to your specific question is that the G102 spigots were
> >> > manufactured to the spec in force at the time they were made but did
> >no=
> >t
> >> > meet the later required spec.
> >> > It is true that a service bulletin was issued but make no mistake
> this
> >=
> >was
> >> > an Airworthiness Directive taken up by the LBA and the CAA and as
> far
> >a=
> >s I
> >> > am aware the rest of the world excluding America.
> >> > This is getting more scary by the minute.
>
> >> I'm flying one and I'm not the least bit scared. =A0Seems to me that
> if
> >t=
> >here
> >> was going to be a problem it would have shown itself sometime in the
> >last=
> > 19
> >> yrs or so, eh?
>
> >And now, JJ's take on the big Grob spigot (and other) screw-ups! Grob
> >welded the spigots on the G-102 and G-103 to a steel plate and the
> >British air academy tested a wing and got a crack to form after 10,000
> >simulated winch launches. Grob came out with a fix where the spigot
> >screwed into the steel plate. While performing this AD, they also
> >fixed another little problem to make sure the spigot from one wing
> >went into the bearing on the other wing, correctly...........some were
> >found to be a good 10mm short of where they should have been which
> >meant the spigot arm was loaded farther out than intended. While they
> >were at it, they also fixed a bunch of control cranks and fittings
> >that an idiot could see weren't string enough. I owned two G-103's at
> >the time and had to fork out about $3000 bucks each to fix Grob's
> >mistakes. A service bulletin was also published to fix the spigots on
> >the G-102, but for some reason it didn't appeas as an AD at that
> >time.
> >Anybody want to discuss Grob's using cast aluminum parts in flight
> >controls? Type in Grob on the FAA's AD page and just look at what
> >comes up! I think the G-102 is one of the nicest handling ships I have
> >ever flown, it has good control harmonics...................but Grob's
> >engineering sucks.
> >RIP Grob,
> >JJ
>
> Almost correct, the failure occurred well forward of where any airframe
> was but the tests were conducted on the flight profile that the glider was
> expected to do. This was basically winch launches,circuits and thermalling,
> and landing. No aerobatics, no high speed flight, no regular
> rigging/de-rigging, no cross country flight and no field landings. Having
> said all that when the spigot problem was cured and at the end of the
> normal testing Slingsbys, who did the test on the G103 were asked to push
> the airframe until it broke. They gave up after they broke the rig three
> times.
> I think you guys are going to have a rough deal. If the work had been done
> when it should have been it would have been a deal cheaper with the parts
> supplied at cost, about 10% or less of the value of the glider. If US
> prices are the same the cost of the job now could exceed the value of the
> glider. If a glider was found in the UK now which had not had the AD done
> it is unlikely the work would be carried out as the value of the glider
> over here would be less than the cost of the work. It is a very
> specialised job requiring jigs and professional GRP working, not something
> that every repairer can do.
> One wonders who would get sued if one did break, not Grob for certain,
> they mandated a fix.

Those jigs and the knowledge does still exist in North America. I had
the job done by XU Aviation in Ontario for $4000US last winter. Parts
are available from Grob, I believe that they made a set of new spigots
for all existing aircraft at the time of the SB and some sets were
just waiting.

Since a G102 in the US costs about $20,000, the repair is definitely
worth the money.

Todd

[Don Johnstone[_3_]]

At 10:25 22 August 2008, toad wrote:
>
>Those jigs and the knowledge does still exist in North America. I had
>the job done by XU Aviation in Ontario for $4000US last winter. Parts
>are available from Grob, I believe that they made a set of new spigots
>for all existing aircraft at the time of the SB and some sets were
>just waiting.
>
>Since a G102 in the US costs about $20,000, the repair is definitely
>worth the money.
>
>Todd

That would make a difference, they are changing hands over here for £6500
or less, with trailer and even less in mainland Europe
>

[Don Johnstone[_3_]]

At 10:20 22 August 2008, toad wrote:
>On Aug 22, 3:39=A0am, Don Johnstone wrote:
>
>> >Todd Smith
>>
>> Sorry Todd you are mistaken, the LBA did issue an AD see
>>
>> http://www2.lba.de/dokumente/ad/1991-005-2-e.pdf
>
>Don,
>
>It's quite possible that I am mistaken. That has happened before :-)
>
>It was explained to me that if the certifying country issued an AD
>then the FAA was automatically required to issue an AD as well. And
>the story I heard, which relied on memories from 1991, so could be
>wrong, was that the LBA did not issue an actual AD. Some G102 owners
>did have it done at the time in the US.
>
>The document you posted seems to talk about an Australian AD not a
>German AD.
>
>I found a page of LBA AD's at
>http://www2.lba.de/dokumente/ad/html/ads-grob=
>/index-grob.htm
>
>I can find the Spar spigot replacement AD for the G103 there, but not
>G102.
>
>Thanks
>Todd

The Australian thing threw me at first, the document is an LBA AD, and the
reference to Australia is in the Reason section.

[Mark Wright[_2_]]

>The Australian thing threw me at first, the document is an LBA AD, and
the
>reference to Australia is in the Reason section.
>

Don,
I don't recall anyone accusing you of reason ! ;)

[Mark Wright[_2_]]

At 20:54 22 August 2008, Mark Wright wrote:
>>The Australian thing threw me at first, the document is an LBA AD, and
>the
>>reference to Australia is in the Reason section.
>>
>
>Don,
>I don't recall anyone accusing you of reason ! ;)

Oh Well ! Back 2 urasb ! More sense anyway !