Yikes, glad I don't have a Pegasus!

Do I correctly understand the AD below to mean that any Pegasus in the
US with 3000 hours cannot be flown after January 6, 2006? Certainly
would have an effect of the market value of this glider, even one with
significantly less than 3000 hours. I notice that someone put one on
the market today on the SSA site at $15,000 (it has 3300 hours), which
seems somewhat high for glider that can only be flown for the next month.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...E?OpenDocument

Greg Arnold wrote:
Do I correctly understand the AD below to mean that any Pegasus in the
US with 3000 hours cannot be flown after January 6, 2006? Certainly
would have an effect of the market value of this glider, even one with
significantly less than 3000 hours. I notice that someone put one on
the market today on the SSA site at $15,000 (it has 3300 hours), which
seems somewhat high for glider that can only be flown for the next month.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...E?OpenDocument


Wow! A million dollars or so worth of gliders (51 ships times $20K
each) rendered (pun intended) nearly worthless at 3000 hours. FAA
estimates the cost per ship at $65. Instruments and various bits and
pieces will have some "scrap" value, but as ships are retired there will
be a glut of parts decreasing their value. :-(
Also, this was part of the AD:

"Comments

Was the public invited to comment? We provided the public the
opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no
comments on the proposal or on the determination of the cost to the
public."

I assume the reason *no one* commented, was because most owners heard
nothing??? Does the FAA notify owners of pending ADs (don't recall any
with my ship)? Perhaps the SSA should check periodically for such
things if they don't already.
Any recourse? Major Bummer if not.

Shawn

I posted the following on July 14, also on gliderforum.com, I received
no replies and no replies to the thread. I presume the FAA recieved no
replies either.

1. jphoenix
Jul 14, 2:45 pm show options

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring
From: "jphoenix" - Find messages by this
author
Date: 14 Jul 2005 15:45:05 -0700
Local: Thurs, Jul 14 2005 2:45 pm
Subject: US Centrair Pegasus group?
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Remove | Report Abuse

Is there a US group/club/association, however loose, of Pegasus owners
out there somewhere? Reason for asking is the FAA is considering the
*possibility* of rulemaking regarding the 3000 hour life limit on the
aircraft and they're requesting input from interested parties prior to
the official rulemaking process.


I understand there will be a rulemaking comment period in the future
*if* the issue develops into an AD - their request for comments at this

time is a preliminary request from the FAA/Industry/Operators
Airworthiness Concern Coordination Group.


If there is a unified voice, or group of interested owners out there
somewhere (US only) send me a reply at , change

the netto to net to reply.


If you own, or know of, a US registered Pegasus over 3000 hours TT, let

me know.


Jim


2.
Jul 15, 8:39 am show options

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring
From: - Find messages by this author
Date: 15 Jul 2005 09:39:39 -0700
Local: Fri, Jul 15 2005 8:39 am
Subject: US Centrair Pegasus group?
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse

Jim:


I know of no such organization; this Usenet group may be about as close

as it comes.


Generally, I don't have a problem with life limits if they can be tied
to genuine airworthiness concerns (as opposed to, for example, an
effort to tail product liability exposure -- not real likely here
because of GARA). 3000 hours is a lot of time. I suspect it won't be
easy to find a U.S. registered Pegasus anywhere near that range unless
it has spent a substantial chunk of its life in club or rental service.

(In fact, I wonder what the highest-time glass ship still in service in

the U.S. might be.)


I'll be interested to hear what you find out and what others think.


Mark -- B9



- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

jphoenix wrote:

If there is a unified voice, or group of interested owners out there
somewhere (US only) send me a reply at , change
the netto to net to reply.


If you own, or know of, a US registered Pegasus over 3000 hours TT, let
me know.


Jim



3. jphoenix
Jul 15, 9:01 am show options

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring
From: "jphoenix" - Find messages by this
author
Date: 15 Jul 2005 10:01:48 -0700
Local: Fri, Jul 15 2005 9:01 am
Subject: US Centrair Pegasus group?
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Remove | Report Abuse

Your response is the first I've seen or received. The life limit
currently exists in the Flight Manual, however the FAA ACS sheet states

that there may be some misunderstanding about the life limit and they
may issue rulemaking to clarify (in other words mandate the life limit
with a US AD).


This is an opportunity for Pegasus owners to influence the creation of
the NPRM, if necessary, prior to the NPRM being issued. A description
of the ACS process can be found he


http://www.faa.gov/certification/air...ceACSGuide.doc


This process is followed for al AD's.


After the NPRM is published, another period for comment is afforded.
I'll post the issue on the gliderforum.com, I see there's a Pegasus
thread running there.


Jim


Jim

Generally, I don't have a problem with life limits if they can be tied
to genuine airworthiness concerns (as opposed to, for example, an
effort to tail product liability exposure -- not real likely here
because of GARA). 3000 hours is a lot of time.

120 hours/year for 25 years and you are there.


I suspect it won't be
easy to find a U.S. registered Pegasus anywhere near that range unless
it has spent a substantial chunk of its life in club or rental service.

My 1987 Discus has 2500 hours, but is a relative baby since the life
limit on the Discus is 12,000 hours.



(In fact, I wonder what the highest-time glass ship still in service in

the U.S. might be.)

Well in excess of 3,000, I bet.



Mark -- B9

Greg,

Your quoted comments were from "Mark - B9" - excerpted from my earlier
discussion. Those were not my comments. I do not own a Pegase,
consequently, I have no comment about it, just in case anyone was
wondering.

If I were a type club or a governing body for gliders, I would
certainly have a comment about an AD that mandates a life limit, in
other words an AD that is not addressing an airworthiness issue such as
cracking, corrosion or other failure. This is a life limit issue and
it's very unusual for the FAA to use an AD for this purpose. Life
limits are normally found in TC data sheets or AFM's, etc. In the ACS
that addressed this issue, the FAA themselves stated that this is an
unusual action.

Not that it hasn't happened before, I'm just saying it's unusual. And
that is why someone should have commented on this AD NPRM. I've seen a
few AD's killed in the initial process by comments, so sometimes it
does pay to send in your letters if you are affected.

Jim.

The FAA does notify the SSA of pending AD issues through the AACS
process. They receive an e-mail notification of each AD NPRM relating
to the type groups they suscribe to (such as gliders) from the AOPA -
as do I because I'm the type club representative to the AACS for the
1-26 Association. As a party to the AACS, I can see pre-NPRM issues for
all GA types, including gliders, towplanes, Malibus, etc.

The AACS process affords interested parties an opportunity to
participate in the AD rulemaking in advance of the AD NPRM process.

The AOPA is a key player and facilitator in the AACS.

Jim

jphoenix wrote:
The FAA does notify the SSA of pending AD issues through the AACS
process. They receive an e-mail notification of each AD NPRM relating
to the type groups they suscribe to (such as gliders) from the AOPA -
as do I because I'm the type club representative to the AACS for the
1-26 Association. As a party to the AACS, I can see pre-NPRM issues for
all GA types, including gliders, towplanes, Malibus, etc.

The AACS process affords interested parties an opportunity to
participate in the AD rulemaking in advance of the AD NPRM process.

The AOPA is a key player and facilitator in the AACS.

Jim

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

jphoenix wrote:
The FAA does notify the SSA of pending AD issues through the AACS
process. They receive an e-mail notification of each AD NPRM relating
to the type groups they suscribe to (such as gliders) from the AOPA -
as do I because I'm the type club representative to the AACS for the
1-26 Association. As a party to the AACS, I can see pre-NPRM issues for
all GA types, including gliders, towplanes, Malibus, etc.

The AACS process affords interested parties an opportunity to
participate in the AD rulemaking in advance of the AD NPRM process.

The AOPA is a key player and facilitator in the AACS.

Jim

If the SSA is in fact being notified by the Feds about pending ADs
which will impact SSA membership, why have they not gotten the word out
in some form or another? Or, giving them the benifit of the doubt,
have they?

Bill 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