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

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

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

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

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?

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.

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" 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?

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

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.

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