AMS Flight Out of business

On Jun 13, 2:13*pm, NG wrote:

...As such the standard airowrthiness certificate remained revoked...

I think I remember reading about this case a long time ago. Do you
mean that the glider has still not been issued an airworthiness
certificate? If so, I'm sorry to hear that.

Also, can you describe how you came to purchase the glider from AMS
and not from DG Flugzeugbau? I'm not sure I understand how AMS was
entitled to sell to the public gliders that they ostensibly made under
license for DG.

Thanks, Bob K.

On Jun 13, 4:15*pm, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Jun 13, 2:13*pm, NG wrote:

...As such the standard airowrthiness certificate remained revoked...

I think I remember reading about this case a long time ago. Do you
mean that the glider has still not been issued an airworthiness
certificate? If so, I'm sorry to hear that.

Also, can you describe how you came to purchase the glider from AMS
and not from DG Flugzeugbau? I'm not sure I understand how AMS was
entitled to sell to the public gliders that they ostensibly made under
license for DG.

Thanks, Bob K.

Bob

I think AMS had a license to manufacture gliders from the old Glasser
Dirks. I don't think that was just an agreement as a subcontractor
(which might have been the case with Elan at one time) - i.e. they
could sell the gliders themselves. I do not know if the new DG
extended that license. But I suspect the terms around all this is part
of the issue with the very frosty relationship between the new DG and
AMS Flight.

I think DG tried here to solve the problem with this USA based AMS
build glider that was not their doing and this is an unfortunate NTSB
ruling for some USA owners. Anybody else have any opinion if this only
affects the AMS built DG-500, DG-505 models, all other AMS built
gliders were experimental - right? You'd hope that the FAA would be
liable here for continuing to grant USA registration to AMS
manufactured DG gliders, oh one could wish...

Darryl
(ex owner of an AMS built DG-303 -- registered experimental).

Bob and Daryl:

The glider remained without an airworthiness certificate in the United
States. The glider could have been registered as experimental but of
course this would devaluate it remarkably since it is a twin glider
and has the capacity to be used in a commercial settings for rides for
hire. It is my understanding that AMS continued to build the fuselage
for the DG-1000 for an extended period of time although this is not
now the case. AMS built the complete 500 series entirely at their
factory in Slovenia except for the motor version which was built at
the DG factory. As far as I know the DG-300 series were all built at
AMS but all of them were experimental and never type certified in the
United States.

Prior to purchasing the glider directly from AMS I contacted my local
FSDO. I was told that I would have no trouble getting a standard
airworthiness certificate. I was also told by no less than the small
aircraft directorate for gliders in Kansas City, that the build in
Slovenia would not be a problem as long as the glider was sent to DG
for inspection prior to import into the U.S. AMS omitted this last
step, probably because of the frosty relationship between DG and AMS,
thus starting the cascade of problems. As it turns out it did not
matter to the court that the glider was subsequently inspected by DG,
the court found that the build in Slovenia without DG supervision
doomed the glider to never receiving a standard airworthiness
certificate in the United States. So one moral of the story is if the
FAA promises you anything be skeptical, even if it is in writing. And
even if it is in writing don't expect that the federal court will
allow it into evidence.

At trial the FAA held to the position that the build by the AMS
factory was not acceptable because the U.S. has no bilateral aviation
safety agreement with Slovenia (so called BASA). However if one goes
and reads the United States type certificate for the DG-500 series,
G08CE Revision 2, the ONLY acceptable place and country of manufacture
is stated as AMS Flight, d.o.o. in the country of Slovenia. So in
effect the judge did not hold the FAA to its own type certificate and
tacitly accepted the FAA's position that this was "just an error". I
think you can appreciate the flavor of the trial. It is impossible
to fight with the FAA when the NTSB federal court will not hold the
FAA to their own type certificate.

Neil