FAA Revoking Standard Airworthiness Certificate DG-505
NG
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
Darryl Ramm
Is there a reason (e.g. commercial use?) you cannot go experimental
racing/exhibition. Otherwise I'd suggest taking your problem to an
aviation lawyer. AOPA legal services may be a good place to start.
Darryl
Bob Kuykendall
> 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.
Just curious, did you buy the ship through one of their dealers, and
if so, what do they have to say about this situation?
Bob K.
Frank Whiteley
Appear to be four in the US. You might also advise the FAA
Governmental Liaison Committee if you haven't already done so.
Frank Whiteley
Frank Whiteley
Sorry, meant SSA Governmental Liaison Committee.
Jack
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
Darryl Ramm
After sale? DG did not make a sale here. From what I can see based on
the registration date of this glider this was likely sold by a US
Dealer of AMS Flight. DG was not involved. If the USA Dealer or AMS
Flight stated the aircraft was type certificated in the USA they
should fix the issue. Maybe the AMS dealer was sloppy or unaware of an
issue (but they ought to still help fix it), maybe he thought it would
be registered as experimntal. First question again is does the glider
need to be type certificated or will experimental do. It looks like it
is registered to two individual owners, if it's just for private
flying then stop all the hassle now and go experimental.
If the problem was the glider needed a real live German certificate of
airworthiness at time of import then it may well be that DG cannot
just go and retroactively do paperwork to fix this. Maybe time to get
am aviation lawyer involved. Of course if it turns out that DG can do
something and is just sitting on their hands it's a different matter,
but until somebody knows for sure...
Darryl
Darryl Ramm
There are more than four, there are over 20 DG-500/DG-505/DG-500M etc.
variants in the USA and they list different permutations of
manufactures. The FAA database for these gliders looks a bit of a mess
if you try to match dates/claimed manufacturers etc.
Darryl
NG
certification would be paramount to its resale value. This was
recognized by the small aircraft directorate at the FAA in Kansas City
and is part of the reason that the U.S. type certificate was modified
in 2006 (see above). As an experimental the aircraft cannot be used
for commercial rides. When giving rides for fun and not for pay as we
always do we will have to announce to the passenger that this is an
experimental and as such does not have the safety of a standard
certified aircraft. We will be limited to a 300 mile range of usual
activity. We cannot fly over populated areas (Phoenix suburbs).
Without requesting and receiving written permission from the FAA we
will not be able to fly outside of the 300 mile radius of a stated
home base in a usual manner.
The aircraft was purchased from AMS directly. At the time of the
initial certification problems we contacted DG and purchased a 2 way
ticket for a DG/German FAA inspector to come to the U.S. to inspect
and place a German airworthiness certificate on the aircraft. We paid
a special German FAA (LBA) fee for after factory inspection, bought
the airline ticket, and 4 days hotel fees. When the FAA decided to
grant the standard certificate without jumping through this hoop we
called off the inspector but lost all this money since none of it was
refundable (expedia ticket and reservations).
Now Mr. Dirks and Mr. Weber at DG have stated that the only way to fix
the problem is to send the aircraft back to Germany apparently for re-
issue. We feel that the AMS and DG oversight to distribute the
aircraft with proper paperwork to meet standard certification as
agreed upon in the purchase deal, and the flip flopping of the FAA 2
years after the fact has placed an undo burden on us as buyers.
Frank Whiteley
FWIW, there are only four (DG505KK, DG505KM, DG505LG, and DG505PB)
with the same aircraft code as AMS production, 3802559, all DG 505's
AKA DG500 Elan Orion. I've been in contact with a club that has
another. They had been called and had to go over their paperwork as
the FAA had said one entered the US without the German inspection.
Looks like they were looking for indications of other problems.
Whether it was FAA CYA...who knows? If they called about other DG5XX
variants, then it sounds like findings from an internal audit. Too
bad, as the next NG post indicates they may have lost an opportunity
to correct it with a post import German inspection, or not, as the
factory is requesting return for re-issue. AOPA may know of
precedents.
Frank
we...@dg-flugzeugbau.de
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!
Unknown
*************************************************************************
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
Bruce
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
Darryl Ramm
Bruce
Correct except, you are extending part of the confusion. Glasser
Dirks Flugzeugbau does not exist anymore. That company went insolvent
years ago. Weber helped finance DG Flugzeugbau which took over the
assets of Glasser Dirks. And gliders made by AMS Flight are just that,
made by another company, under a deal that has ties back to Glasser
Dirks and ELAN (yes the the ski manufacturer) days when both those
companies worked closely together on manufacturing etc. Then Part of
Elan became AMS=Flight, and by now I'm sure DG Flugzeugbau is
regretting that whole deal/arrangement.
Sounds like good offer by DG to send an enginner to the USA.
Darryl
(Past owner of a AMS manufactured DG-303 Acro)
Bruce
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 <bg...@wesgray.co.za> 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>
Cats
<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!
Darryl Ramm
And I think more an ASW-19 clone than an ASW-20, but I know not
exactly an ASW-19.
Darryl
Michel Talon
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
Ian
> 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
Cats
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.
Ian
An ASW-20 is more-or-less just a flapped ASW-19, isn't it? I, too, had
the impression that the Schleicher-Centrair fight was settled years
ago ... but I'd be very surprised indeed if Schleicher had any
responsibility at all for Pegase airworthiness issues.
Ian
PS Wikipedia suggests that the Pegase uses the ASW-20 fuselage.
Martin Gregorie
>
> 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.
Centrair were building the ASW-20 under license, not the ASW-19. All
ASW-20Fs were built by Centrair. The Pegase fuselage is almost identical
to the 20: the boom is slightly bigger diameter (an ASW-20 tail dolly
won't quite fit a Pegase) and the underwing cockpit vent intakes on the
20 were blocked and replaced by a nose intake. If you look carefully at a
Pegase you can just see where the the 20's intakes were by looking for
waviness in reflections off the gelcoat.
I believe that the 19 and 20 have almost identical fuselages - probably
the biggest difference between all three are the wing roots, since all
three gliders have different wing sections.
--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |
Cats
<snip>
>
> PS Wikipedia suggests that the Pegase uses the ASW-20 fuselage.
Wikipedia also suggests:
"The ASW 20 is an FAI 15 metre Class glider designed by Gerhard Waibel
and built by Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co. Its fuselage is nearly
identical to the ASW19's, mated to newly designed wings for the 15
metre Class."
So I suspect the three gliders are all very similar in most of the
fuselage.
Michel Talon
The fuselage is vaguely similar, as is the case with a lot of other
gliders of the same period. The wings are a completely new design from
the french institute for aeronotics (ONERA). Everybody having flown both
the Pegase and the ASW 19 know how their handling is different.
--
Michel TALON
Ian
wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 02:59:28 -0700, Cats wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Centrair were building the ASW-20 under license, not the ASW-19. All
> ASW-20Fs were built by Centrair. The Pegase fuselage is almost identical
> to the 20: the boom is slightly bigger diameter (an ASW-20 tail dolly
I'm pretty sure that when I was flying at Le Blanc we used tail
dollies interchangeably between Pegases and ASW-20s. Of course, they
might all have been Pegase ones, on reflection ...
Ian
Ian
> Ian <ian.gro...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> The fuselage is vaguely similar, as is the case with a lot of other
> gliders of the same period. The wings are a completely new design from
> the french institute for aeronotics (ONERA). Everybody having flown both
> the Pegase and the ASW 19 know how their handling is different.
"Vaguely similar" does not quite cover "you can see where they taped
over the vents in the mould", I think...
Ian
Andrew Warbrick
>
>> The fuselage is vaguely similar, as is the case with a lot of other
>> gliders of the same period. The wings are a completely new design from
>> the french institute for aeronotics (ONERA). Everybody having flown
both
>> the Pegase and the ASW 19 know how their handling is different.
>
>"Vaguely similar" does not quite cover "you can see where they taped
>over the vents in the mould", I think...
>
>Ian
>
are very different. The handling of the Pegase and the ASW20, on the other
hand, are very similar.
jcarlyle
trailer it came with), and when I asked how the ships compared he said
"the ASW-19 handled like a sports car while the Pegase felt like a
truck".
-John
On Oct 20, 11:45 am, Andrew Warbrick
Martin Gregorie
> I'm pretty sure that when I was flying at Le Blanc we used tail dollies
> interchangeably between Pegases and ASW-20s. Of course, they might all
> have been Pegase ones, on reflection ...
>
The difference was pretty small. The difference wasn't apparent to the
eye, but I'd read that Centrair had increased the boom diameter, so we
tried my ASW-20 dolly on it to see if there really was a difference. I'd
say the Pegase tail boom diameter was 3mm bigger at most. From memory the
dolly fitted onto the boom OK, but the catches wouldn't go over centre
with the normal amount of pressure.
My dolly was a good snug fit on the '20 and had a fairly thin, firm
lining. With a larger diameter moulding and a thicker, softer lining it
may have fit on the Pegase too.
Bob Kuykendall
I don't have much to add, I just wanted to quote this for posterity.
Thanks, Bob K.
Bruce
made an unauthorised derivative without flaps and different airfoils (on the B and D models) and called it a Pegase.
Fuselage is largely ASW20, but with changes to tail boom diameter and wing root fillet.
Schleicher's problem with the Pegase is that people perceive it as being a "modified Schleicher" and since Centrair is
no longer involved they try to get Schleicher to help them. The fact that it was - like many of the the current Chinese
cars , an unauthorised reverse engineering job of a replaced model, that must have cost some ASW24/27 sales is easily
forgotten. Similarly when there is a problem with a Pegase component you get speculation about the ASW design.
It is another example of undesirable consequences eventuating from appointing a third party to build a derivative of a
mainstream manufacturers design.
Michel Talon
> The previous owner of my ASW-19b bought a Pegase (to get the new Cobra
> trailer it came with), and when I asked how the ships compared he said
> "the ASW-19 handled like a sports car while the Pegase felt like a
> truck".
>
So, if i compare your post with the preceding post claiming that the
Pegase has the same handling as the ASW 20, i deduce that the ASW 20
handles like a truck! The truth is that the ASW19, the Pegase and the
ASW20 each have different wings and handle differently. The fuselage is
a completly minor aspect of the ship, the wings are vastly more
important. The ship which is of the same category as the Pegase is
rather the LS4, although with a different handling.
--
Michel TALON
bythes...@gmail.com
I am buying a DG505 Orion from South Africa - I need to figure out the best way to get the paperwork in order. It will ship in the next month, but right now I have options of getting it here and doing things to make the registration go better - ANY IDEAS, or Thoughts are appreciated.
bhanson at ideal-interiors dot com
WH
Bill Hanson