If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
DG "service contract" revisited
Finally, someone is taking legal action against DG Flugzeugbau.
Those who understand German can follow the Nordrhein-Westfalen chapter of the German Aeroclub he http://www.aeroclub-nrw.de/htmd/01h-aktuelles.htm On a related note, the EASA continues to sabotage DG's effort to force us to sign contracts, in order to obtain new manuals. The updated Type Certificate Data Sheets for LS gliders clearly state that you can use the old OR the new (May 2011) manuals. http://easa.europa.eu/certification/...S_Sailplanes-0 Also, DG tries to force you to pay for the contract in all the years from 2009 if you need a service in, say, 2016. Apart from being extremely questionable from a legal standpoint, this raises the question: Why should anyone pay for a yearly contract with DG at all, then? It is much better to put an equivalent sum into your own savings account, so you are able to pay ransom money if ever needed. Meanwhile, the interest you earn on your own money may buy you a Flarm, or enable you to take the wife / girlfriend (or both) out for an evening in town. Happy soaring, Lars Peder Replace numbers with post1.tele.dk to answer by email |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
DG
At 10:55 21 October 2011, Lars Peder Hansen wrote:
Finally, someone is taking legal action against DG Flugzeugbau. Those who understand German can follow the Nordrhein-Westfalen chapter of the German Aeroclub he http://www.aeroclub-nrw.de/htmd/01h-aktuelles.htm On a related note, the EASA continues to sabotage DG's effort to force us to sign contracts, in order to obtain new manuals. The updated Type Certificate Data Sheets for LS gliders clearly state that you can use the old OR the new (May 2011) manuals. http://easa.europa.eu/certification/...S_Sailplanes-0 Also, DG tries to force you to pay for the contract in all the years from 2009 if you need a service in, say, 2016. Apart from being extremely questionable from a legal standpoint, this raises the question: Why should anyone pay for a yearly contract with DG at all, then? It is much better to put an equivalent sum into your own savings account, so you are able to pay ransom money if ever needed. Meanwhile, the interest you earn on your own money may buy you a Flarm, or enable you to take the wife / girlfriend (or both) out for an evening in town. Happy soaring, Lars Peder Replace numbers with post1.tele.dk to answer by email I don't think EASA had much option but to include all the old flight and service manuals in the TCDS. DG are serial numbering the new manuals to each individual glider to discourage copying or lending. Surely that means that if DG haven't provided a "new" manaul for your glider then the original manual is the latest one available for your individual glider because there is no "new" manual with your exact serial number. Of course if DG have created a serial numbered manual for your glider then they are breaking the law (specifically EC regulation 2042/2003) by not "making available" the "updated" manauls to the aircraft owner/operator. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
DG
They try to make it look like the manual is tied to the individual glider,
by creating a front page with the ac. serial number and some kind of internal DG checksum. As we all know this is against regulations. Our local National Aviation Authority in Denmark require the new manuals used in maintenance programs, but they specifically state that it does not need to be tied to any specific ac, and that owners "are not required to be part af a subscription program of any kind". I guess that is the closest they can come to saying "copy away, folks!" ;-) Lars Peder "Andrew Warbrick" wrote in message .com... At 10:55 21 October 2011, Lars Peder Hansen wrote: Finally, someone is taking legal action against DG Flugzeugbau. Those who understand German can follow the Nordrhein-Westfalen chapter of the German Aeroclub he http://www.aeroclub-nrw.de/htmd/01h-aktuelles.htm On a related note, the EASA continues to sabotage DG's effort to force us to sign contracts, in order to obtain new manuals. The updated Type Certificate Data Sheets for LS gliders clearly state that you can use the old OR the new (May 2011) manuals. http://easa.europa.eu/certification/...S_Sailplanes-0 Also, DG tries to force you to pay for the contract in all the years from 2009 if you need a service in, say, 2016. Apart from being extremely questionable from a legal standpoint, this raises the question: Why should anyone pay for a yearly contract with DG at all, then? It is much better to put an equivalent sum into your own savings account, so you are able to pay ransom money if ever needed. Meanwhile, the interest you earn on your own money may buy you a Flarm, or enable you to take the wife / girlfriend (or both) out for an evening in town. Happy soaring, Lars Peder Replace numbers with post1.tele.dk to answer by email I don't think EASA had much option but to include all the old flight and service manuals in the TCDS. DG are serial numbering the new manuals to each individual glider to discourage copying or lending. Surely that means that if DG haven't provided a "new" manaul for your glider then the original manual is the latest one available for your individual glider because there is no "new" manual with your exact serial number. Of course if DG have created a serial numbered manual for your glider then they are breaking the law (specifically EC regulation 2042/2003) by not "making available" the "updated" manauls to the aircraft owner/operator. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
DG "service contract" revisited
DG has another distasteful business practice that isn't well known,
yet. If you sign up for the service contract, they will automatically (without even asking you in advance) charge your credit card for subsequent years. Guess how I know? -John On Oct 21, 6:55 am, "Lars Peder Hansen" wrote: Finally, someone is taking legal action against DG Flugzeugbau. Those who understand German can follow the Nordrhein-Westfalen chapter of the German Aeroclub hehttp://www.aeroclub-nrw.de/htmd/01h-aktuelles.htm On a related note, the EASA continues to sabotage DG's effort to force us to sign contracts, in order to obtain new manuals. The updated Type Certificate Data Sheets for LS gliders clearly state that you can use the old OR the new (May 2011) manuals. http://easa.europa.eu/certification/...ocs/aircrafts/... Also, DG tries to force you to pay for the contract in all the years from 2009 if you need a service in, say, 2016. Apart from being extremely questionable from a legal standpoint, this raises the question: Why should anyone pay for a yearly contract with DG at all, then? It is much better to put an equivalent sum into your own savings account, so you are able to pay ransom money if ever needed. Meanwhile, the interest you earn on your own money may buy you a Flarm, or enable you to take the wife / girlfriend (or both) out for an evening in town. Happy soaring, Lars Peder Replace numbers with post1.tele.dk to answer by email |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
DG "service contract" revisited
I live in fear that one day I will need some semi-trivial inexpensive
part (i.e. springs in the airbrakes) for my glider and have to pay the "DG-ransom" to obtain said part, back dated to time immemorial. On top of that my glider has a Standard Airworthiness Certificate (rather than Experimental*) which limits what I can do to replace that semi-trivial inexpensive part. Any thoughts on conversion from Standard to Experimental? Does that help me in any way? Or is there a downside such as lowering the resale value? Thanks, John * I own a DG-101G ELAN. If you look at http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinqu...DG-10&PageNo=1 you will find that it is about 50/50 if any particular DG-10X is Standard or Experimental certified. Was it common practice back in the 80's to pick/choose Standard versus Experimental? What was the rational when choosing one over the other? It seems that many/most newer gliders are Experimental. So I ask again, would it help me to reclassify my ship as Experimental? If so, how complicated is it to make the change? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
DG "service contract" revisited
On 21 oct, 09:48, ContestID67 wrote:
I live in fear that one day I will need some semi-trivial inexpensive part (i.e. springs in the airbrakes) for my glider and have to pay the "DG-ransom" to obtain said part, back dated to time immemorial. On top of that my glider has a Standard Airworthiness Certificate (rather than Experimental*) which limits what I can do to replace that semi-trivial inexpensive part. *Any thoughts on conversion from Standard to Experimental? *Does that help me in any way? *Or is there a downside such as lowering the resale value? Thanks, John * I own a DG-101G ELAN. *If you look athttp://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/AcftRef_Results.aspx?Mfrtxt=&... you will find that it is about 50/50 if any particular DG-10X is Standard or Experimental certified. *Was it common practice back in the 80's to pick/choose Standard versus Experimental? *What was the rational when choosing one over the other? * It seems that many/most newer gliders are Experimental. *So I ask again, would it help me to reclassify my ship as Experimental? *If so, how complicated is it to make the change? Last year I needed 2 part that cost 45 euros. They charge me 100 euros s/h and 245 euros for the annual contract. 400 euros for 2 rubber tube for my landing gear. S6 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
DG "service contract" revisited
John,
Going from Standard to Experimental for my old ASW-19 was very simple. I needed to fill out an 8130-6 form, write a program letter, and then have the FSDO rep check the actual airframe for serial number match and display of the Experimental placard. It did not affect the resale value in the slightest. The ease of the process might depend on your FSDO, though. As Dan said above, having an Experimental airworthiness allows us to do more with our aircraft. That's why my LS8 is Experimental, even though it's eligible to be Standard. -John On Oct 21, 9:48 am, ContestID67 wrote: I live in fear that one day I will need some semi-trivial inexpensive part (i.e. springs in the airbrakes) for my glider and have to pay the "DG-ransom" to obtain said part, back dated to time immemorial. On top of that my glider has a Standard Airworthiness Certificate (rather than Experimental*) which limits what I can do to replace that semi-trivial inexpensive part. Any thoughts on conversion from Standard to Experimental? Does that help me in any way? Or is there a downside such as lowering the resale value? Thanks, John |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
DG "service contract" revisited
On Friday, October 21, 2011 11:03:46 AM UTC-4, John Carlyle wrote:
John, Going from Standard to Experimental for my old ASW-19 was very simple. I needed to fill out an 8130-6 form, write a program letter, and then have the FSDO rep check the actual airframe for serial number match and display of the Experimental placard. It did not affect the resale value in the slightest. The ease of the process might depend on your FSDO, though. As Dan said above, having an Experimental airworthiness allows us to do more with our aircraft. That's why my LS8 is Experimental, even though it's eligible to be Standard. -John On Oct 21, 9:48 am, ContestID67 wrote: I live in fear that one day I will need some semi-trivial inexpensive part (i.e. springs in the airbrakes) for my glider and have to pay the "DG-ransom" to obtain said part, back dated to time immemorial. On top of that my glider has a Standard Airworthiness Certificate (rather than Experimental*) which limits what I can do to replace that semi-trivial inexpensive part. Any thoughts on conversion from Standard to Experimental? Does that help me in any way? Or is there a downside such as lowering the resale value? Thanks, John hi, I know this is an old post but I have a DG 400 (experimental) and think there might be fundamental misunderstanding of experimental aircraft and maintenance practices. In the USA there in NO difference regarding standard or experimental aircraft regarding 'owner accomplished' maintenance unless the owner also built the aircraft. Unless you built your ship (I don't know of any owner built glass ships) you fall under identical maintenance FAR 43 requirements as a standard airworthiness aircraft regarding owner done maintenance, there are 31 items an owner can accomplish. Experimental none owner built doesn't really do much as far as maintenance practices.. it just really means your annual is called a condition inspection and can be done by a AP not an IA... that's about all it does. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
DG "service contract" revisited
On Sunday, December 15, 2013 4:45:52 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, October 21, 2011 11:03:46 AM UTC-4, John Carlyle wrote: John, Going from Standard to Experimental for my old ASW-19 was very simple. I needed to fill out an 8130-6 form, write a program letter, and then have the FSDO rep check the actual airframe for serial number match and display of the Experimental placard. It did not affect the resale value in the slightest. The ease of the process might depend on your FSDO, though. As Dan said above, having an Experimental airworthiness allows us to do more with our aircraft. That's why my LS8 is Experimental, even though it's eligible to be Standard. -John On Oct 21, 9:48 am, ContestID67 wrote: I live in fear that one day I will need some semi-trivial inexpensive part (i.e. springs in the airbrakes) for my glider and have to pay the "DG-ransom" to obtain said part, back dated to time immemorial. On top of that my glider has a Standard Airworthiness Certificate (rather than Experimental*) which limits what I can do to replace that semi-trivial inexpensive part. Any thoughts on conversion from Standard to Experimental? Does that help me in any way? Or is there a downside such as lowering the resale value? Thanks, John hi, I know this is an old post but I have a DG 400 (experimental) and think there might be fundamental misunderstanding of experimental aircraft and maintenance practices. In the USA there in NO difference regarding standard or experimental aircraft regarding 'owner accomplished' maintenance unless the owner also built the aircraft. Unless you built your ship (I don't know of any owner built glass ships) you fall under identical maintenance FAR 43 requirements as a standard airworthiness aircraft regarding owner done maintenance, there are 31 items an owner can accomplish. Experimental none owner built doesn't really do much as far as maintenance practices.. it just really means your annual is called a condition inspection and can be done by a AP not an IA... that's about all it does. Regarding builders of glass gliders: Brad Hill has built a Russia AC-4c, Apis, and the Tetra-15. Other have done so. I believe there are additional HP-24's currently under construction. See http://www.seattleglidercouncil.org/...1_Towline..pdf and https://www.facebook.com/pages/HP-24...4951?ref=br_tf See also http://www.eaa72.org/newsletters/2008/newsjul08.pdf Frank Whiteley |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
DG "service contract" revisited
I know there are few, but the Americal Falcon (and its sister) and the HP-24
fall into the Experimental Amateur Built category and are of FRP construction. As for the yearly inspection - there are a lot more A&Ps around than IAs. Having said that, George Applebay signs my glider off annually even though it's "Experimental". wrote in message ... On Friday, October 21, 2011 11:03:46 AM UTC-4, John Carlyle wrote: John, Going from Standard to Experimental for my old ASW-19 was very simple. I needed to fill out an 8130-6 form, write a program letter, and then have the FSDO rep check the actual airframe for serial number match and display of the Experimental placard. It did not affect the resale value in the slightest. The ease of the process might depend on your FSDO, though. As Dan said above, having an Experimental airworthiness allows us to do more with our aircraft. That's why my LS8 is Experimental, even though it's eligible to be Standard. -John On Oct 21, 9:48 am, ContestID67 wrote: I live in fear that one day I will need some semi-trivial inexpensive part (i.e. springs in the airbrakes) for my glider and have to pay the "DG-ransom" to obtain said part, back dated to time immemorial. On top of that my glider has a Standard Airworthiness Certificate (rather than Experimental*) which limits what I can do to replace that semi-trivial inexpensive part. Any thoughts on conversion from Standard to Experimental? Does that help me in any way? Or is there a downside such as lowering the resale value? Thanks, John hi, I know this is an old post but I have a DG 400 (experimental) and think there might be fundamental misunderstanding of experimental aircraft and maintenance practices. In the USA there in NO difference regarding standard or experimental aircraft regarding 'owner accomplished' maintenance unless the owner also built the aircraft. Unless you built your ship (I don't know of any owner built glass ships) you fall under identical maintenance FAR 43 requirements as a standard airworthiness aircraft regarding owner done maintenance, there are 31 items an owner can accomplish. Experimental none owner built doesn't really do much as far as maintenance practices.. it just really means your annual is called a condition inspection and can be done by a AP not an IA... that's about all it does. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"For Claims Service Press 4" | Mitchell Holman[_3_] | Aviation Photos | 3 | July 6th 09 10:55 PM |
"Stealth" Secret Service aircraft | No Name | Piloting | 10 | August 21st 08 12:12 AM |
"Osprey Fire - Days Before Big Contract Awarded" | Mike[_7_] | Naval Aviation | 0 | April 18th 08 07:29 PM |
Parker Service "letter" | [email protected] | Piloting | 7 | March 26th 08 11:32 PM |
The Good, the Bad, the Ugly: AirGizmo PIREP, PS Engineering CD/Intercom woes, XM "service" | Jay Honeck | Owning | 34 | December 15th 06 03:02 AM |