Yikes, glad I don't have a Pegasus!

If the SSA has been made aware of the pending ADs by the Feds, why have
they not made some effort to make the membership aware of this? Or,
giving them the benifit of the doubt, have they? If this is not
taking place it certainly should be. AOPA seems to be leading the way
in this regard, and since our Executive Director came to us from AOPA,
perhaps he can get some help from his old employer in getting the word
out to the rest of us in a more effective manner. Billy Hill

I don't know.

I may have missed it, but I haven't seen any notices about ACS' or AD
NPRM's, only notice after the AD is out.

More on the AOPA website about the ACS process:
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulat...orthiness.html

Jim

This info published in SSA E- News on 12/6 based upon Cindy Brickner
notification.
UH

I spoke with Greg Davison at the FAA in Oklahoma City the other day and
he gave me the scoop on the AD and its implications.

SNIP
Don't panic, though. Greg has met with Centrair and they have agreed to
issue a 3000 hr. inspection protocol like other gliders require. Once
this inspection reqirement is issued (probably in the Spring of 2006),
the FAA will put out another AD that will supersede this one.

Greg realized that the 3000 hr. limit is not realistic, and Centrair
agrees. It was just a screwup when the glider was originally certified
in the early 1980's. I have been assured that the problem WILL be
fixed. It is just that the FAA had to comply with the original
manufacturer's intent and the resulting limit.

Greg was extremely helpful in explaining the situation. He has promised
to keep poking at Centrair until they come up with the 3000 hr.
inspection regimen. Greg suggested I call him in February 2006 to check
on Centrair's progress.

OK, this thread probably has limited interest for most glider pilots.
But I've still been waiting for several days for someone to jump in
with, "Hey, this FAA guy sounds like a breath of fresh air. Yeah, the
FAA feels compelled (surprise) to enforce the manufacturer's life limit
but they seem to have a very practical attitude about it. And they're
working to get it fixed. Things haven't always been so. Thanks, FAA."

Sure, it would be nice if the Feds ignored the useless rules and
enforced only the ones that really make sense. But then how do they
look in front of Congress if some yo-yo goes into cloud trying to climb
through a wave window, pulls the wings off a Pegasus, and drops the
debris into a crowded schoolyard? And he shouldn't even have been
flying the aircraft because the manufacturer said it was dangerous!!!!!

We don't always have it so good. Let's give the FAA a little slack on
this one. Sounds like they know what needs to be done even if it will
take longer than anyone likes.

Or maybe it's not the FAA, it's just some relatively clear-headed guys
who work there and know us. Even more reason to say "thank you."

Chip Bearden

Yes, the FAA DOES notify the SSA of pending AD issues.....
The SSA then posts it on the weekly E-news as this is the quickest way
to reach the membership.
Subscribe to the E-news from SSA by going to the SSA website and
registering. (It's FREE!)
Charlie-Lite

I get the E-news weekly, the notices posted there are the actual AD's.
These notices are not the NPRM or ACS'.

The ACS dids not receive input responses from the SSA on the Pegasus
ACS, only the AOPA commented on the proposal. I've not seen any ACS
responses from the SSA on any glider ACS in the past year (since I've
had access via the 1-26 Association). There are some older ACS's
(comment periods closed a couple of months ago) on DG rudders, Twin
Astir elevators, DG-800B prop bolts, etc. - old issues, there's LBA
AD's already on these and the FAA is mirroring those AD's for US
owners.

If you have a type club or owners group, get in touch with the AOPA and
you may participate in these ACS' and possibly help craft these AD's,
or at least provide input regarding the suitability of the method of
compliance or cost.

Jim

wrote:
I spoke with Greg Davison at the FAA in Oklahoma City the other day and
he gave me the scoop on the AD and its implications.


SNIP

Don't panic, though. Greg has met with Centrair and they have agreed to
issue a 3000 hr. inspection protocol like other gliders require. Once
this inspection reqirement is issued (probably in the Spring of 2006),
the FAA will put out another AD that will supersede this one.

Greg realized that the 3000 hr. limit is not realistic, and Centrair
agrees. It was just a screwup when the glider was originally certified
in the early 1980's. I have been assured that the problem WILL be
fixed. It is just that the FAA had to comply with the original
manufacturer's intent and the resulting limit.

Greg was extremely helpful in explaining the situation. He has promised
to keep poking at Centrair until they come up with the 3000 hr.
inspection regimen. Greg suggested I call him in February 2006 to check
on Centrair's progress.


OK, this thread probably has limited interest for most glider pilots.
But I've still been waiting for several days for someone to jump in
with, "Hey, this FAA guy sounds like a breath of fresh air. Yeah, the
FAA feels compelled (surprise) to enforce the manufacturer's life limit
but they seem to have a very practical attitude about it. And they're
working to get it fixed. Things haven't always been so. Thanks, FAA."

Sure, it would be nice if the Feds ignored the useless rules and
enforced only the ones that really make sense. But then how do they
look in front of Congress if some yo-yo goes into cloud trying to climb
through a wave window, pulls the wings off a Pegasus, and drops the
debris into a crowded schoolyard? And he shouldn't even have been
flying the aircraft because the manufacturer said it was dangerous!!!!!

We don't always have it so good. Let's give the FAA a little slack on
this one. Sounds like they know what needs to be done even if it will
take longer than anyone likes.

Or maybe it's not the FAA, it's just some relatively clear-headed guys
who work there and know us. Even more reason to say "thank you."

Chip Bearden

I second what Chip wrote. While I'm no fan of bloated, CYA-driven
bureaucracies I get to pay for whether I want to or not, and while I
find the humor in "We're from the government; we're here to help,"
disturbingly and frequently too close to the mark, I found Greg
Davison's attitude refreshingly common-sense, and arguably as pro-active
as is likely to be found in a Federal bureaucracy.

Though not a Pegasus owner, I had already been thinking prior to Chip's
post - and belatedly now say - "Thank you, Greg!" for picking up and
running with this particular ball.

Bob Whelan

Jim,

How did you hear about the proposal? I occasionally visit gliderforums.com
but missed your message on the AD until it was too late to respond. I
certainly never received anything from the FAA. You would think that if
they were contemplating such a drastic AD they would notify the owners of
the aircraft involved. After all, they already have our names, addresses
and foreskins from our firstborn.

I also signed up for the SSA E-news but never got anything and forgot about
it. Guess the "server" forgot me so I'll re-up.

Doug

"jphoenix" wrote in message
oups.com...
I get the E-news weekly, the notices posted there are the actual AD's.
These notices are not the NPRM or ACS'.

The ACS dids not receive input responses from the SSA on the Pegasus
ACS, only the AOPA commented on the proposal. I've not seen any ACS
responses from the SSA on any glider ACS in the past year (since I've
had access via the 1-26 Association). There are some older ACS's
(comment periods closed a couple of months ago) on DG rudders, Twin
Astir elevators, DG-800B prop bolts, etc. - old issues, there's LBA
AD's already on these and the FAA is mirroring those AD's for US
owners.

If you have a type club or owners group, get in touch with the AOPA and
you may participate in these ACS' and possibly help craft these AD's,
or at least provide input regarding the suitability of the method of
compliance or cost.

Jim

No, but you can buy up all the new rudder pedals sold to comply with the
last AD and send them back to France!

"Nigel Pocock" wrote in message
...
At 13:18 09 December 2005, Pat Russell wrote:
Among many well-reasoned points, Mark wrote:

...It is just that the FAA had to comply with the
original
manufacturer's intent and the resulting limit...


This isn't true at all. FAA doesn't have to do anything
more specific
than 'keeping the airways safe.' They do whatever
they feel like
doing.

-Pat

There was I all ready to hire a shipping container
and buy up all the 3000hr Peguses or Pegii and ship
to the uk
Drat
Nigel

Doug,

I get notification through the ACS process. I represent the 1-26
Association for that purpose, however I receive notices on every model
glider because that is the preference I set up. I have access to the
ACS web page and I can view all the ACS' as well as the archived ACS'.

I can also post a response to any model type, but since my remaining
glider is experimental (Nimbus), I will rarely have an opportunity to
post a response to an ACS, unless one comes out against the 1-26.

Jim