FAA Revoking Standard Airworthiness Certificate DG-505

On 18 Okt., 07:56, Jack wrote:
First the problems with the DG-300 spars, and now the DG-505
paperwork. In both cases DG apparently feel that they are absolved
of any responsibility to their customers--and have little concern
for future sales, apparently.

Fine airplanes, as a rule: damn poor attitude, though.

Have DG never heard of customer support after the sale? There must
be people here in the US who would be willing to help US owners of
both types sort through these problems with minimal cost and
frustration, if DG would be willing to do their part to coordinate.

Expecting customers to ship a glider back to Europe at the owner's
expense to solve factory production or government paperwork
problems, is not a foundation on which to build trust. Perhaps
they should remember that designing good aircraft is only one part
of the business.

The FAA have their own problems, of course. How nice it would be
if DG could show it is on a higher plane.

Jack

Hi Jack

Sorry to say, but nearly everything in your posting is wrong. Let me
explain:

1. The glider was built and sold by and paid to AMS. DG had just no
shares in that business. I only had allowed AMS to use our molds -
that's all!

2. As described below the customer was aware of the problems and
ordered one of our inspector to the US. We prepared everything, but
then he cancelled the journey.

3. We did not write any invoice to the (non-)customer. We did the
preperation as service. That is our policy.

4. Obviously the problems were caused by the FAA - that is completely
outside of our control.

5. The customer is aware that inspite of sending the glider to Germany
for an inspection we also can repeat the visit we had prepared some
years ago. We need to inspect the glider personally - then we are
allowed to issue the necessary paperwork. Although we did not sell the
glider, it is self-evident for us to offer our help, wherever it is
needed.

6. Jack, you definetely will know it already:
DG also had no shares in the business of the DG-300's with the spar
problem. These gliders were neither built nor sold by DG Flugzeugbau.
It is very simple to inform yourself and you should do it, before you
are writing such a nonsense!

Best Greetings
Friedel Weber

DG-Flugzeugbau GmbH

Soaring - Touch the Sky!

On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 08:21:29 -0700 (PDT), Frank Whiteley
wrote:

On Oct 18, 1:03*am, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Oct 17, 10:47*pm, Frank Whiteley wrote:



On Oct 17, 5:06*pm, NG wrote:

We imported a DG-505 Elan Orion built at the AMS Flight, d.o.o. (AMS)
factory in Slovenia in 2006. *It came with a Slovenian Certificate of
Airworthiness and an AMS data plate. *It was built under a German
Standard Airworthiness Certificate which designates AMS in Slovenia as
the manufacturer. *DG is the owner of the European Standard Flight
Certificate.

At the time of import the U.S. Standard Type Certificate designated
the DG factory in Germany as the only acceptable manufacturer making
no mention of AMS in Slovenia. *To correct this situation the Small
Aircraft Directorate at the FAA for gliders rewrote the type
certificate to make AMS in Slovenia an acceptable manufacturer. *This
in part allowed the glider to receive a U.S. Standard Airworthiness
Certificate.

Also the glider did not have a German certificate of airworthiness but
only a Slovenian certificate of airworthiness. *AMS had not sent the
aircraft to Germany to receive a German certificate of airworthiness.
The FAA was initially demanding a German airworthiness certificate but
again the FAA directorate modified the U.S. certificate to make any
EASA (the new European Union aviation administration) member nation as
an acceptable supplier of an airworthiness certificate. *Because
Slovenia was on the cusp of being a member of EASA in 2006 (and now is
a full member) the designated airworthiness representative granted the
U.S. Standard Airworthiness Certificate.

Now 2 years later the FAA has told us its own actions were a mistake
and is about to revoke the standard airworthiness certificate if we do
not relinquish it freely. *The FAA is saying that the changes to the
U.S. certificate that were made by the directorate in Kansas City were
in error. * They are indicating that they did not realize that Elan
aircraft were not built in Germany and because the FAA has no
bilateral agreement (BASA) with Slovenia the certificate must be
relinquished.

Can the FAA do this at this late date? *DG and AMS have not been
willing to resolve this issue and have basically said that the only
alternative is for us to ship the aircraft back to Germany and have
the aircraft reissued at our own expense.

Thanks for any help!
N505LG
************************************************** ***********************
N505LG

As I read posting from individual in Germany (DG) they will still
reactivate the procedure to send an inspector to you here in US and
inspect bird and issue DE certification.

From a dollar and time point of view vs shipping bird back to DE for
inspection (and possible damage shipping which would be more out of
pocket) I'd look closely to bringing inspector over and tie up the
problem and get back in the air without any revocation hanging over ur
shoulders.

You can fight the Govt but may in end lose and have to try to fall
back on DG inspector (if they are still willing to help at that time).
They may keep the current offer open only for a reasonable time???

Fly safe

Big John

The "individual" posting from Germany, is the owner of Glaser Dirks. I would say that indicates a willingness to support
the brand even when the aircraft in question is not one Glaser Dirks built.

Particularly since , as he pointed ,out the aircraft in question is built by an unrelated company that purchased the
rights and moulds for the design. DGs only interest in this is some reputational risk, because the aircraft built by AMS
are recognised as DG designs. Apparently Mr Weber is prepared to go to a lot of trouble to help.

Your problem, as ever appears to be over active bureaucracy in the land of the free. If it is any consolation we have
the same problem in the Third World, aggravated by incompetence and arrogance. We have the CAA here refusing to accept
EASA Type certification, apparently some half qualified (non aviator, non aero) engineer knows more about this than EASA
or Schleicher, or Schempp-Hirth or Glaser Dirks... The problems vary but the source of the problems are remarkably
consistent.

Bruce

Tech Support wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 08:21:29 -0700 (PDT), Frank Whiteley
wrote:

On Oct 18, 1:03 am, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Oct 17, 10:47 pm, Frank Whiteley wrote:



On Oct 17, 5:06 pm, NG wrote:
We imported a DG-505 Elan Orion built at the AMS Flight, d.o.o. (AMS)
factory in Slovenia in 2006. It came with a Slovenian Certificate of
Airworthiness and an AMS data plate. It was built under a German
Standard Airworthiness Certificate which designates AMS in Slovenia as
the manufacturer. DG is the owner of the European Standard Flight
Certificate.
At the time of import the U.S. Standard Type Certificate designated
the DG factory in Germany as the only acceptable manufacturer making
no mention of AMS in Slovenia. To correct this situation the Small
Aircraft Directorate at the FAA for gliders rewrote the type
certificate to make AMS in Slovenia an acceptable manufacturer. This
in part allowed the glider to receive a U.S. Standard Airworthiness
Certificate.
Also the glider did not have a German certificate of airworthiness but
only a Slovenian certificate of airworthiness. AMS had not sent the
aircraft to Germany to receive a German certificate of airworthiness.
The FAA was initially demanding a German airworthiness certificate but
again the FAA directorate modified the U.S. certificate to make any
EASA (the new European Union aviation administration) member nation as
an acceptable supplier of an airworthiness certificate. Because
Slovenia was on the cusp of being a member of EASA in 2006 (and now is
a full member) the designated airworthiness representative granted the
U.S. Standard Airworthiness Certificate.
Now 2 years later the FAA has told us its own actions were a mistake
and is about to revoke the standard airworthiness certificate if we do
not relinquish it freely. The FAA is saying that the changes to the
U.S. certificate that were made by the directorate in Kansas City were
in error. They are indicating that they did not realize that Elan
aircraft were not built in Germany and because the FAA has no
bilateral agreement (BASA) with Slovenia the certificate must be
relinquished.
Can the FAA do this at this late date? DG and AMS have not been
willing to resolve this issue and have basically said that the only
alternative is for us to ship the aircraft back to Germany and have
the aircraft reissued at our own expense.
Thanks for any help!
N505LG
************************************************** ***********************
N505LG

As I read posting from individual in Germany (DG) they will still
reactivate the procedure to send an inspector to you here in US and
inspect bird and issue DE certification.

From a dollar and time point of view vs shipping bird back to DE for
inspection (and possible damage shipping which would be more out of
pocket) I'd look closely to bringing inspector over and tie up the
problem and get back in the air without any revocation hanging over ur
shoulders.

You can fight the Govt but may in end lose and have to try to fall
back on DG inspector (if they are still willing to help at that time).
They may keep the current offer open only for a reasonable time???

Fly safe

Big John

On Oct 19, 3:06*am, Bruce wrote:
The "individual" posting from Germany, is the owner of Glaser Dirks. I would say that indicates a willingness to support
the brand even when the aircraft in question is not one Glaser Dirks built.

Hi Darryl

I know the history - was sloppy in my edit, so - Sorry to make it more confusing.

But the point was that the previous incarnation of the DG company Glaser-Dirks, sold the rights to manufacture certain
models to AMS way back in 1978.
Glaser Dirks went into insolvency in 1996 when they got into production problems with the 800B. Subsequently Mr Wolf and
Mr and Mrs Weber purchased the assets, with basically no operational interruption.
It was not wound up though - so Glaser Dirks and the current DG Flugzeugbau have commercial continuity.

I am sure this is a problem for the current DG which has to honour arrangements made in 1978, to try to protect their
brand - which is the only reason I can see them being prepared to help.

For what it is worth the other two big manufacturers also made versions of this mistake.
Schempp-hirth has problems with license built Std Cirrus aircraft. They at least sold the design and had a clean
separation from the new manufacture. However - certification problems are cropping up now that Grob is in insolvency.
Schleicher have smaller problems with the Pegase which is a derivative of the ASW20, but is at least different enough
that they are distanced from the problems.

Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Oct 19, 3:06 am, Bruce wrote:
The "individual" posting from Germany, is the owner of Glaser Dirks. I would say that indicates a willingness to support
the brand even when the aircraft in question is not one Glaser Dirks built.

Particularly since , as he pointed ,out the aircraft in question is built by an unrelated company that purchased the
rights and moulds for the design. DGs only interest in this is some reputational risk, because the aircraft built by AMS
are recognised as DG designs. Apparently Mr Weber is prepared to go to a lot of trouble to help.

SNIP

On Oct 19, 10:47*pm, Bruce wrote:
snip
Schleicher have smaller problems with the Pegase which is a derivative of the ASW20, but is at least different enough
that they are distanced from the problems.

snip

Interesting - I never thought Schleicher had anything to do with the
Pegase once they had sorted out the original problems over Centrair
effectively stealing their designs and so on. Could you illuminate me
please, as I own a Pegase!

On Oct 19, 11:54*pm, Cats wrote:
On Oct 19, 10:47*pm, Bruce wrote:
snip

Schleicher have smaller problems with the Pegase which is a derivative of the ASW20, but is at least different enough
that they are distanced from the problems.

snip

Interesting - I never thought Schleicher had anything to do with the
Pegase once they had sorted out the original problems over Centrair
effectively stealing their designs and so on. *Could you illuminate me
please, as I own a Pegase!

And I think more an ASW-19 clone than an ASW-20, but I know not
exactly an ASW-19.

Darryl

Cats wrote:
On Oct 19, 10:47*pm, Bruce wrote:
snip
Schleicher have smaller problems with the Pegase which is a derivative of the ASW20, but is at least different enough
that they are distanced from the problems.

snip

Interesting - I never thought Schleicher had anything to do with the
Pegase once they had sorted out the original problems over Centrair
effectively stealing their designs and so on. Could you illuminate me
please, as I own a Pegase!

Does "effectively stealing" means no stealing at all? Schleicher has
nothing to do with the Pegasus. Strange as such lies are long living.


--

Michel TALON

On 20 Oct, 09:01, (Michel Talon) wrote:

Does "effectively stealing" means no stealing at all? Schleicher has
nothing to do with the Pegasus. Strange as such lies are long living.

I thought the Pegase fuselage was a direct copy of the ASW-19 - easily
done, since Centrair were building the ASW-19F at the time. Then to
add insult to injury they gave the Pegase a better wing than the
ASW-19 had ...

Ian

On Oct 20, 10:45*am, Ian wrote:
On 20 Oct, 09:01, (Michel Talon) wrote:

Does "effectively stealing" means no stealing at all? Schleicher has
nothing to do with the Pegasus. Strange as such lies are long living.

I thought the Pegase fuselage was a direct copy of the ASW-19 - easily
done, since Centrair were building the ASW-19F at the time. Then to
add insult to injury they gave the Pegase a better wing than the
ASW-19 had ...


That's my understanding - and I also thought the ASW19 & ASW20 had
almost identical fuselages. But I also thought it was all sorted out
20 years ago or so, and there was nothing ongoing.