DG-300/303 owners...

You should take a look at this:

http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/holm-dg300-e.html

Marc

On 4/7/07 12:34 AM, in article
, "Marc Ramsey"
wrote:

You should take a look at this:

http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/holm-dg300-e.html

Marc

My German skills are non-existant. Can anyone tell me if the lengthier
German part mentions which serial numbers are affected, because the English
part says the manufacturing error began sometime during the production run.
Presumably that means some of the early DG-300's were built right.

Thanks,
Bullwinkle

On Apr 7, 6:01 am, Bullwinkle wrote:
On 4/7/07 12:34 AM, in article
, "Marc Ramsey"

wrote:
You should take a look at this:

http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/holm-dg300-e.html

Marc

My German skills are non-existant. Can anyone tell me if the lengthier
German part mentions which serial numbers are affected, because the English
part says the manufacturing error began sometime during the production run.
Presumably that means some of the early DG-300's were built right.

Thanks,
Bullwinkle

You can try translating the DG webpage with this one:

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/tr

Just drop the URL into it, and choose "German to English".

-John W

On 4/7/07 5:16 AM, in article
, "rasposter"
wrote:

On Apr 7, 6:01 am, Bullwinkle wrote:
On 4/7/07 12:34 AM, in article
, "Marc Ramsey"

wrote:
You should take a look at this:

http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/holm-dg300-e.html

Marc

My German skills are non-existant. Can anyone tell me if the lengthier
German part mentions which serial numbers are affected, because the English
part says the manufacturing error began sometime during the production run.
Presumably that means some of the early DG-300's were built right.

Thanks,
Bullwinkle

You can try translating the DG webpage with this one:

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/tr

Just drop the URL into it, and choose "German to English".

-John W


OK: thanks!

Did that, and to answer my own question: no, no serial number range is
listed. Hopefully that will come out as DG and Elan/AMS continue to work the
problem.

As a summary, much of the longer German portion appears to be heavy duty
mental handwringing over what DG should do with the info that the spars are
weaker: ground the fleet, require a very expensive inspection, or just
impose some restrictions on speeds and weights. Clearly they have done the
latter.

I have to believe that Elan/AMS has sufficient manufacturing records to
determine when they changed their process, either by serial number, or by
date (from which affected serial numbers could be derived). You'd think
they'd keep those records for legal reasons, if no other.

Hoping for further clarification,
Thanks,
Bullwinkle

On Apr 7, 7:28 am, Bullwinkle wrote:
On 4/7/07 5:16 AM, in article
. com, "rasposter"





wrote:
On Apr 7, 6:01 am, Bullwinkle wrote:
On 4/7/07 12:34 AM, in article
, "Marc Ramsey"

wrote:
You should take a look at this:

http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/holm-dg300-e.html

Marc

My German skills are non-existant. Can anyone tell me if the lengthier
German part mentions which serial numbers are affected, because the English
part says the manufacturing error began sometime during the production run.
Presumably that means some of the early DG-300's were built right.

Thanks,
Bullwinkle

You can try translating the DG webpage with this one:

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/tr

Just drop the URL into it, and choose "German to English".

-John W

OK: thanks!

Did that, and to answer my own question: no, no serial number range is
listed. Hopefully that will come out as DG and Elan/AMS continue to work the
problem.

As a summary, much of the longer German portion appears to be heavy duty
mental handwringing over what DG should do with the info that the spars are
weaker: ground the fleet, require a very expensive inspection, or just
impose some restrictions on speeds and weights. Clearly they have done the
latter.

I have to believe that Elan/AMS has sufficient manufacturing records to
determine when they changed their process, either by serial number, or by
date (from which affected serial numbers could be derived). You'd think
they'd keep those records for legal reasons, if no other.

Hoping for further clarification,
Thanks,
Bullwinkle- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


My wife is a native speaker of German. I asked her to read this and
even though she isn't familiar with some of the terminology here is a
summary of generally what it says.

The glider that was inspected which resulted in this discovery is
about 20 years old and they did not report its serial number. At some
point ELAN started manufacturing the wings not to design
specifications. They apparently started using epoxy resins rather
than polyester resins (as were specified) in the affected part of the
spars possibly to reduce the curing times. This was done without
notification let alone approval from Glaser-Dirks. ELAN is aware that
they did this and ELAN does not dispute doing it but says they refuse
to take on any inspection costs. Also, they have been unresponsive to
DG's inquiries regarding this matter.

DG estimates the inspection cost to be around 6,000 euros and repair
cost could easily come to 5,000 euros per wing. DG says to maintain
consistency the inspection and repairs should all be done at the DG
factory in Germany so there will also be shipping costs. DG goes on
to say this option is not really discussion worthy for the pilots.
They rather opted for doing calculations and endurance tests on the
affected parts to prove that they are still sufficiently stable and
that the airplanes can be flown safely at reduced speeds and use.
This is apparently why they decided to just reduce the speeds, take
off weight and limit use. They say the current fleet is about 500
gliders worldwide.

I, for one, bought a DG-300 for its superior strength among other
reasons. We will have to wait for more clarification from DG but at
this point it seems that strength has now been reduced. Since this is
admittedly the fault of ELAN for not following the correct
manufacturing process and not notifying DG that they were altering the
manufacturing process this seems like a negligence issue. I would
hope they would do something to rectify the situation.

Bob
DG-300, S/N 3E-127

On Apr 7, 2:34 am, Marc Ramsey wrote:
You should take a look at this:

http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/holm-dg300-e.html

Marc

Try this:
http://translate.google.com/translat...language_tools

wrote:
I, for one, bought a DG-300 for its superior strength among other
reasons. We will have to wait for more clarification from DG but at
this point it seems that strength has now been reduced. Since this is
admittedly the fault of ELAN for not following the correct
manufacturing process and not notifying DG that they were altering the
manufacturing process this seems like a negligence issue. I would
hope they would do something to rectify the situation.

I sold mine several years ago, so I don't really have much of a stake in
this (at the moment, anyway), but when I bought my 303 Acro, the check
wasn't payable to ELAN, it was payable to Glaser-Dirks (which is, of
course, not quite the same company as DG-Flugzeugbau).

When subcontractor spar fabrication "innovations" resulted in our Duo
being grounded, Schempp-Hirth immediately took responsibility, found a
practical inspection and repair protocol, trained repair shops in their
major markets to inspect and repair (and flew SH technicians worldwide
to deal with the rest), and had most of the gliders back in the air in
less than two months without charging the owners a dime.

The situations aren't exactly comparable, but if I ever find myself
buying another new glider, this sort of behavior will no doubt influence
the choice...

Marc

On Apr 7, 11:47 am, Marc Ramsey wrote:
wrote:
I, for one, bought a DG-300 for its superior strength among other
reasons. We will have to wait for more clarification from DG but at
this point it seems that strength has now been reduced. Since this is
admittedly the fault of ELAN for not following the correct
manufacturing process and not notifying DG that they were altering the
manufacturing process this seems like a negligence issue. I would
hope they would do something to rectify the situation.

I sold mine several years ago, so I don't really have much of a stake in
this (at the moment, anyway), but when I bought my 303 Acro, the check
wasn't payable to ELAN, it was payable to Glaser-Dirks (which is, of
course, not quite the same company as DG-Flugzeugbau).

When subcontractor spar fabrication "innovations" resulted in our Duo
being grounded, Schempp-Hirth immediately took responsibility, found a
practical inspection and repair protocol, trained repair shops in their
major markets to inspect and repair (and flew SH technicians worldwide
to deal with the rest), and had most of the gliders back in the air in
less than two months without charging the owners a dime.

The situations aren't exactly comparable, but if I ever find myself
buying another new glider, this sort of behavior will no doubt influence
the choice...

Marc


I'm wondering why they have not issued a TN on this. Also, they
certainly know the S/N of the one where this was discovered as well as
any other tested. It seemed like they tested more than one.

In 1986 there was a mass balance issue that could have caused
flutter. They issued a TN and a very specific list of S/N's for
that. You'd think they could do the same here. ELAN seems to have
clammed up and mayby that's where the list needs to come from.
They're probably worried about liability and maybe they should be.

wrote:
I'm wondering why they have not issued a TN on this. Also, they
certainly know the S/N of the one where this was discovered as well as
any other tested. It seemed like they tested more than one.

Issuing a TN would imply that DG is the responsible party. In reality,
I believe that DG still holds the EASA equivalent of the type
certificate for the 300/303, in which case they are the only ones that
can issue an official TN (and they have issued TNs for the 300/303 in
recent years). I too ran the German portion of the notice through a
translator when I first found it, and there were several paragraphs
devoted to convincing the reader that DG is not responsible, don't
expect us to do anything, it's all ELAN's fault, etc.


In 1986 there was a mass balance issue that could have caused
flutter. They issued a TN and a very specific list of S/N's for
that. You'd think they could do the same here. ELAN seems to have
clammed up and mayby that's where the list needs to come from.
They're probably worried about liability and maybe they should be.

ELAN has been out of the aircraft business for several years, so I doubt
they'll have anything to say. The relationship between ELAN's former
aircraft business and AMS has never been clear to me. AMS produced and
sold to end-users something less than twenty 303s after they took over
the production rights, so they may get stuck with the liability for those.

But, as far as I know, ELAN was always a subcontractor to Glaser-Dirks
(and briefly DG) and never sold gliders directly to end-users (other
than perhaps acting as the agent for sales in Slovenia). If that is the
case, depending on how the reorganization was structured and German law,
DG may well end up holding the bag for the other 480 or so gliders,
which might explain the rather odd way of issuing a notice...

Marc

On Apr 7, 1:31 pm, Marc Ramsey wrote:
wrote:
I'm wondering why they have not issued a TN on this. Also, they
certainly know the S/N of the one where this was discovered as well as
any other tested. It seemed like they tested more than one.

Issuing a TN would imply that DG is the responsible party. In reality,
I believe that DG still holds the EASA equivalent of the type
certificate for the 300/303, in which case they are the only ones that
can issue an official TN (and they have issued TNs for the 300/303 in
recent years). I too ran the German portion of the notice through a
translator when I first found it, and there were several paragraphs
devoted to convincing the reader that DG is not responsible, don't
expect us to do anything, it's all ELAN's fault, etc.

In 1986 there was a mass balance issue that could have caused
flutter. They issued a TN and a very specific list of S/N's for
that. You'd think they could do the same here. ELAN seems to have
clammed up and mayby that's where the list needs to come from.
They're probably worried about liability and maybe they should be.

ELAN has been out of the aircraft business for several years, so I doubt
they'll have anything to say. The relationship between ELAN's former
aircraft business and AMS has never been clear to me. AMS produced and
sold to end-users something less than twenty 303s after they took over
the production rights, so they may get stuck with the liability for those.

But, as far as I know, ELAN was always a subcontractor to Glaser-Dirks
(and briefly DG) and never sold gliders directly to end-users (other
than perhaps acting as the agent for sales in Slovenia). If that is the
case, depending on how the reorganization was structured and German law,
DG may well end up holding the bag for the other 480 or so gliders,
which might explain the rather odd way of issuing a notice...

Marc


That was my wife's take on it as well. DG has performed these tests
and they are not going to do any more and ELAN isn't saying much.
They said they tested 8 wings and found this problem in 3 of them.
They said they don't know when the change in materials started or
ended, just that it did happen. My guess is the early 300's and late
303's are not affected but without a list of serial numbers who
knows. And maybe it didn't affect all the ones where the epoxy resin
was used.

Perhaps this is all an april fools joke. Or perhaps not. DG has
posted this on their web site but not published a technical note so
therefore the FAA will not publish an AD. At least I don't see how
they could without anything official from DG. Without that do the
operating limitations really change? Will all 300 owners see this?
Probably not and they will continue to operate their aircraft under
the offical operating limitations. When I go to the DG web site to
look for issues pertaining to my 300 I check the TN's. I would not
know about this if I didn't see it here.

I guess an email to DG is in order. I'd like to at least know the
serial number of the glider where this was initially discovered as
well as the numbers on the ones from the other 8 wings tested
indicating the 3 where it was present and the 5 where it wasn't. Like
you said I'll also be sure to let them know if I were to be in the
market for a new glider this sort of behavior would make me not
consider DG and before finding this out I would have considered DG
first.

Bob