DG's in competition?

On Thursday, July 26, 2012 4:50:21 PM UTC-7, Chris Klix, US and Canadian DG/LS Agent wrote:
On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 1:40:32 PM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:
> Thanks everyone!! Very insightful answers.
> And thank you Al Gore for inventing the Internet!!!
>
> Rick

I intentionally don’t comment much on these groups because of the time it can take away from other important matters, but in this case, as a US DG dealer I feel I am obligated to correct some of the misinformation I am reading. First, Eric is actually correct. The Service contract only applies to aircraft that the current DG Flugzeugbau Company did not originally build. It only applies to gliders built before they were founded in 1996 and formerly built by Rolladen-Schneider and Glaser-Dirks, both of which went out of business. All gliders built by DG Flugzeugbau, according to Mr. Weber, will never have such a service agreement as long as DG stays in business, even for gliders no longer in production. EASA has made it much more expensive in recent years to support these older gliders and the service agreement helps pay these expenses. Granted there are many opinions about better ways this could have been handled so not to disgruntle existing owners, but the service agreement does not have anything to do with the quality or performance of the gliders built by DG Flugzeugbau. Regarding the comments about bankruptcy; Mr. Weber is a very wealthy man and has his hands in many other ventures as well. He has the means and says he will never let the company go into bankruptcy. In fact with the orders I placed with them to fulfill my USG contract to supply 19 gliders to the USAFA, I am sure they are well in the black. Second, please note aircraft with Experimental certificates that were not certificated in the armature built category still must be maintained safe and airworthy with FAA approved parts. Also, contrary to many beliefs, AD’s can and many times do apply to these aircraft when the same model would have later received a type certificate. In such cases the AD will state in the Applicability section “certified in any category”. Third, DG is the only German glider manufacturer that has done crash testing and developed the dual wall construction cockpit for better crash worthiness. They have since been in the forefront in safety features such as the making the Röger hook and Piggott-hook features standard on all their gliders. They also came out with many other safety features such as the NOAH system for quicker cockpit emergency exiting. There is perhaps a compromise to safety and maximum performance but that is not to say DG gliders have not done well in competition. Here are the Competition results so you can see for yourself: http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/wettbew...rgebnisse.html.
Chris

Correction to my previous post, in the following text I meant to write “certificated in any category” not certified in any category. It should read as follows: Also, contrary to many beliefs, AD’s can and many times do apply to these aircraft when the same model would have later received a type certificate. In such cases the AD will state in the Applicability section “certificated in any category”.

Mr. Weber is a very wealthy man and has his hands in many other ventures as well. He has the means and says he will never let the company go into bankruptcy. In fact with the orders I placed with them to fulfill my USG contract to supply 19 gliders to the USAFA, I am sure they are well in the black. Second, please note aircraft with Experimental certificates that were not certificated in the armature built category still must be maintained safe and airworthy with FAA approved parts. Also, contrary to many beliefs, AD’s can and many times do apply to these aircraft when the same model would have later received a type certificate. In such cases the AD will state in the Applicability section “certified in any category”.
Chris

Chris,
You are not suggesting "Too big to fail" are you. Kidding aside, I have it straight from the FAA (Repeatedly) that an airplane certified in any Experimental category, Including Exhibition and Racing, has no requirement whatsoever to use FAA approved parts. An "Experimental" by its very nature has not been shown (Or have any need to) comply with FAA standards. Why would the parts that make up such an airplane need to be compliant? Are you saying there is FAA approved metric aviation hardware?

On Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:56:48 PM UTC-7, K wrote:
Mr. Weber is a very wealthy man and has his hands in many other ventures as well. He has the means and says he will never let the company go into bankruptcy. In fact with the orders I placed with them to fulfill my USG contract to supply 19 gliders to the USAFA, I am sure they are well in the black. Second, please note aircraft with Experimental certificates that were not certificated in the armature built category still must be maintained safe and airworthy with FAA approved parts. Also, contrary to many beliefs, AD’s can and many times do apply to these aircraft when the same model would have later received a type certificate. In such cases the AD will state in the Applicability section “certified in any category”. Chris Chris, You are not suggesting "Too big to fail" are you. Kidding aside, I have it straight from the FAA (Repeatedly) that an airplane certified in any Experimental category, Including Exhibition and Racing, has no requirement whatsoever to use FAA approved parts. An "Experimental" by its very nature has not been shown (Or have any need to) comply with FAA standards. Why would the parts that make up such an airplane need to be compliant? Are you saying there is FAA approved metric aviation hardware?

OK, I admit the term I used “FAA approved parts” is miss leading and should only be used when referring to aircraft with standard airworthiness certificates. My mistake; however what I should have said is the FAA certifying office is responsible for ensuring the aircraft is safe and airworthy. Aircraft instruments and equipment installed and used must be inspected and maintained in accordance with the applicable requirements of parts 43 and 91. Glider aircraft represent approximately 25 percent of the experimental exhibition fleet and we are privileged to have this category available to us for foreign production aircraft. However, if we in the relatively small soaring community of experimental certificated gliders abuse this privilege it could easily be taken away from us.

The point I am trying to make is we must all be careful what we say on these public forum sites, myself included as you just pointed out, so not to encourage others who may not have the same common sense as you or I to just arbitrarily install un-airworthy parts.

Regarding your question of FAA approved metric hardware, actually for gliders with a TC the hardware used by the manufacturer is FAA approved through the bilateral agreement, most of which it’s quality is controlled by the DIN standards.
Chris

On Friday, July 27, 2012 1:50:44 PM UTC-7, S. Murry wrote:
If I lived in Europe and needed EASA-approved "flight manuals" annually,
perhaps I would be willing to pay the annual fee (I guess I would have no
choice besides selling my glider). However, living in the US, I do not
need this, all I need (maybe) is parts. Charge me a profitable price for
the parts-fine. Charge me by the hour for consultation regarding parts or
service-fine. Charge me an annual fee for something that I probably will
never use, and make it back-dated forever-not fine. I have no problem
paying for services rendered, but I have a big problem with being charged
for things I don't need or want.

Just to add on to what Stefan said, I've owned three DG gliders over the years, including one purchased new from the (Glaser-Dirks) factory. I've been quite happy with service provided by the factory, and the US distributors, including Chris, who goes out of his way to batch orders for small parts to reduce shipping costs.

Chris, quite sadly, I won't buy another legacy DG or LS glider, as the annual fee adds a significant amount to the ownership costs. Nor will I ever buy a new DG or LS glider, as I can't trust that the the company won't seek to add additional fees in the future. Unlike Mr. Weber, I'm not a wealthy man, and I can't take the chance that ownership of one of these gliders will end up being a financial burden, or lose part of its resale value overnight...

Marc

Error in the Chris' claim concerning excluded gliders: NOT limited
to those he specified, also excluded are those produced by AMS
(mine in 2001, for example). I could not get from Mr Weber how
AMS could produce gliders without having generated some
(licensing?) revenue for his company, but alas, he was adamant
that my glider is also subject to the fees.

I also agree with many of the other DG owners who have written
he wonderful machine in almost every way, I love it dearly,
but I wouldn't buy a pencil from any company led by anyone from
DG's management team. IMO: despicable.

cheers,

--ken


At 00:04 28 July 2012, wrote:
On Friday, July 27, 2012 1:50:44 PM UTC-7, S. Murry wrote:
If I lived in Europe and needed EASA-approved "flight
manuals" annually,
=
=20
perhaps I would be willing to pay the annual fee (I guess I
would have
n=
o =20
choice besides selling my glider). However, living in the US,
I do not =
=20
need this, all I need (maybe) is parts. Charge me a
profitable price
for=
=20
the parts-fine. Charge me by the hour for consultation
regarding parts
o=
r =20
service-fine. Charge me an annual fee for something that I
probably
will=
=20
never use, and make it back-dated forever-not fine. I have
no problem =
=20
paying for services rendered, but I have a big problem with
being
charged=
=20
for things I don't need or want.

Just to add on to what Stefan said, I've owned three DG gliders
over the
ye=
ars, including one purchased new from the (Glaser-Dirks)
factory. I've
bee=
n quite happy with service provided by the factory, and the US
distributors=
, including Chris, who goes out of his way to batch orders for
small parts
=
to reduce shipping costs. =20

Chris, quite sadly, I won't buy another legacy DG or LS glider,
as the
annu=
al fee adds a significant amount to the ownership costs. Nor
will I ever
b=
uy a new DG or LS glider, as I can't trust that the the company
won't seek
=
to add additional fees in the future. Unlike Mr. Weber, I'm not
a wealthy
=
man, and I can't take the chance that ownership of one of these
gliders
wil=
l end up being a financial burden, or lose part of its resale
value
overnig=
ht...

Marc

On Saturday, July 28, 2012 3:43:13 PM UTC-7, Ken Flaton wrote:
Error in the Chris' claim concerning excluded gliders: NOT limited to those he specified, also excluded are those produced by AMS (mine in 2001, for example). I could not get from Mr Weber how AMS could produce gliders without having generated some (licensing?) revenue for his company, but alas, he was adamant that my glider is also subject to the fees. I also agree with many of the other DG owners who have written he wonderful machine in almost every way, I love it dearly, but I wouldn't buy a pencil from any company led by anyone from DG's management team. IMO: despicable. cheers, --ken At 00:04 28 July 2012, wrote: On Friday, July 27, 2012 1:50:44 PM UTC-7, S. Murry wrote: If I lived in Europe and needed EASA-approved "flight manuals" annually, = =20 perhaps I would be willing to pay the annual fee (I guess I would have n= o =20 choice besides selling my glider). However, living in the US, I do not = =20 need this, all I need (maybe) is parts. Charge me a profitable price for= =20 the parts-fine. Charge me by the hour for consultation regarding parts o= r =20 service-fine. Charge me an annual fee for something that I probably will= =20 never use, and make it back-dated forever-not fine. I have no problem = =20 paying for services rendered, but I have a big problem with being charged= =20 for things I don't need or want. Just to add on to what Stefan said, I've owned three DG gliders over the ye= ars, including one purchased new from the (Glaser-Dirks) factory. I've bee= n quite happy with service provided by the factory, and the US distributors= , including Chris, who goes out of his way to batch orders for small parts = to reduce shipping costs. =20 Chris, quite sadly, I won't buy another legacy DG or LS glider, as the annu= al fee adds a significant amount to the ownership costs. Nor will I ever b= uy a new DG or LS glider, as I can't trust that the the company won't seek = to add additional fees in the future. Unlike Mr. Weber, I'm not a wealthy = man, and I can't take the chance that ownership of one of these gliders wil= l end up being a financial burden, or lose part of its resale value overnig= ht... Marc

Yes, there are some exceptions with gliders built by Elan, the company prior to it becoming AMS, but I was not going to get that deap into the details here. Perhaps there are even some AMS gliders included, I am not sure, but I have never been given any information as to how they selected the exceptions they did, other than these are gliders they did not build. I don't like the service agreement either and have verbilized it many times to Mr. Weber and others at DG. The bottom line is Mr. Weber has annouced his retirment early this year and that Holger Back the current manager is becoming a partner in the business. Perhaps with time Holger will be able to find a sollution that everyone can live with.
Chris

On 7/17/12 1:40 PM, wrote:
And thank you Al Gore for inventing the Internet!!!

"In the 1980s and 1990s, he promoted legislation that funded an
expansion of the ARPANET, allowing greater public access, eventually
leading to the creation of the Internet."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore...ion_technology

So he was instrumental in making it happen. And he never claimed to
have invented the internet. ...stupid "sound bite" politics.