http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/betreuung-e.html
I think DG has to re think their business model bigtime, who will buy
a new DG in the future?
best regards
Jeroen
In light of the world economy and the "profit" from sales of
sailplanes, it is understandable and reasonable to charge for
services. There is no free lunch.
How many sailplane companies got rich making sailplanes? Any? How
many have folded?
GA
Mike Schumann
"Jeroen" <jeroen...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:971b86a9-4186-4f40...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
In short,
Soon they plan to publish a TM which states that you have to pay a
yearly fee to update your flight manual, without paying you can not
pass your ARC inspection (so you are grounded.)
from the original contact:
Die Gebühr für den Betreuungsvertrag beträgt für jedes laufende
Kalenderjahr – unabhängig vom Datum des Vertragsabschlusses -
pauschal 245,00 Euro für Privatflugzeughalter und 195,00 Euro für
Vereine und Jugendliche bis 25 Jahre - jeweils zzgl. 19% Umsatzsteuer,
soweit sie gesetzlich vorgeschrieben ist.
The cost of this will be 245 euro+VAT per year.
there is a "nice" discussion going at http://www.segelflug.de/wwwboard/index.html
(sorry, it's in German.....)
On 13 dec, 18:26, "Mike Schumann" <mike-nos...@traditions-nospam.com>
wrote:
> What exactly is the issue???
>
> Mike Schumann
>
> "Jeroen" <jeroen.j....@googlemail.com> wrote in message
Here is a link via google translate to the top of the thread
discussing this - http://tiny.cc/xjIdH
There will likely be problems with this but it may work. Links do work
with Google translate, you just have to keep clicking on them and
ignore the pop-up translate balloon. Use the 'Flat" and "Cascade"
buttons to hide/show the thread messages if needed.
Some pissed off folks there.
Darryl
Well I don't blame them. I just read most of that thread on
Segelflug.de, and having to cough up 245 euros (that's $360 BTW) every
year, just for the privilege of keeping your paperwork legal seems a
bit hard to swallow. Seems that DG will issue a new AD every year that
makes the POH obsolete, and the only way to leep it current is to have
a service contract with DG. Not sure how this will work with the FAA,
but this may affect us as well.
I can see DG's point as well. It is costing them a fortune to maintain
the paperwork with EASA, and DG is really not getting any revenue from
the existing owners. Although taxing the existing owners 245 euros per
year is going to be a nice revenue stream, it will cause a ton of bad
feelings towards the brand. As one post on the german board states,
Schleicher, and Schempp Hirth must be celebrating this brilliant
marketing for them.
On a side note have any other aircraft manufacturers ever tried to
pull such a stunt?
Peter
P.S. here is a link to the translated statement from DG http://tinyurl.com/ycblsy8
>I can see DG's point as well. It is costing them a fortune to maintain
>the paperwork with EASA, and DG is really not getting any revenue from
>the existing owners.
Some maths:
According to DG themselves they pay about 6.000 Euro per year for EASA
paperwork of all the Glaser-Dirks and LS gliders.
(source: http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/tech-mitteilungen-d.html)
Affected are 1.791 Glaser Dirks gliders (source:
http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/Data/dg-typen-total-d.pdf)
and 2482 LS gliders (up to LS-7, source www.wikipedia.de),
making 4273 gliders.
Deduct a couple (200? 300?) of DG's and LS's which are not flying
anymore, multiplay the resulting number by an average fee of 220
Euro, and you still get over $1.000.000 revenue pear year with
absolutely no additional work.
Nice.
>Although taxing the existing owners 245 euros per
>year is going to be a nice revenue stream, it will cause a ton of bad
>feelings towards the brand.
I am pretty sure that I know a company that desperately needs money.
Immediately.
Whatever the cost.
I'd be very suprised if this company didn't fold up soon.
Looks like my club with 2 DG-300 and one DG-505 is going to loose lots
of money ... :(
But will a manual change trigger an AD? Check out the TNs (TMs in
German) for the LS8 here: http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/Data/TM-LS/LS8/All-tn_ls8-e.pdf
Look at TN 8009 andTN 8009. What LS did with these TNs was to replace
the English flight and maintenance manuals with newer versions, but
note specifically that they never became ADs. However, the manual
changes made in TN 8011 did become an AD. What RS did in TN 8011 was
insert words about the fin battery and how it affected trim. Thus,
8011 affected safety of operation, while 8008 and 8009 did not.
I think what happens to experimental LS / DG aircraft in the US if DG
goes through with this "tax" will depend on if they can make an annual
justification to the FAA that the manual change affects safety and is
therefore worthy of an AD. This will necessarily involve engineering
time, and thus DG might not find it to be cost effective for 245 Euros
per plane. Of course, they could raise the annual fee...
For sure it's a desperate attempt to get money into DG as Andreas
said, and in my view unethical to boot.
-John
To me, this is pure blackmail, which I have told Mr. Weber in an email. If
we mobilize all Glaser-Dirks and pre-DG LS owners, maybe they will come to
their senses.
- And if you own a glider from one of the other manufacturers, join in. If
DG gets away with this, then others will follow..
Cheers,
Lars Peder
DG-600, Denmark
Replace numbers with post1.tele.dk to reply by email
"Jeroen" <jeroen...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:971b86a9-4186-4f40...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
John Galloway
Why surprising? EASA is at the root of all of this. They are throwing
fees at these guys like they are Boeing.
UH
Refreshing; capitalism without attendant disaster.
Those that dissent will be forced to land out in faraway places in the
jungle, never to be seen again.
Brad
I wonder about the change in the value of my DG-200.
Steve
DG-200
(The only DG I'll ever buy.)
That's pretty likely. I know if I owned one, about now I'd be
thinking of how to get rid of it.
If I did own one, I'd be really tempted to call DG up and ask how long
it will take for them to ship me a new aileron (or maybe even a whole
wing). If the answer came back that they no longer have the part
available, I'd seriously question their concept of "supporting" these
older gliders.
Stuff like this pisses me off, and I don't even have a DG!
The answer to that one is simple, when I needed a new aileron for my
LS6 DG simply refused to help. They just want money for doing
absolutely nothing.
Concerning the LS-6 parts: the LS-6 and LS-4 rights have been bought
(after strange goings-on during the LS bankruptcy procedures) by AMS
Flight. It is normal that DG doesn't want to get involved. But it
seems AMS is not really interested either in aftermarket problems with
gliders they didn't produce nor sell...
>Some maths:
>
>Affected are 1.791 Glaser Dirks gliders (source:
>http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/Data/dg-typen-total-d.pdf)
>
>and 2482 LS gliders (up to LS-7, source www.wikipedia.de),
>making 4273 gliders.
You also must deduct the gliders built by the newly named DG firm
after 1996. For them, DG grants the service free of charge.
Still, the total must be somewhere between 2000-3000 gliders affected.
Aldo Cernezzi
I fall into line. No misunderstandings: Me and as I suppose most of
the DG/LS owners are willing to pay for service. But here you shall
pay for nothing. And a public autority helps with the encachement ?
Unbelievable.
/Robert
stephanevdv skrev:
> Strictly speaking, they want to charge for the continuing
> airworthiness of gliders they themselves DID NOT PRODUCE. They could
> just as well refuse to assume this risk. Many other European
> sailplanes have been "orphaned" that way, the new owner of the rights
> deciding no longer to sustain the airworthiness of planes produced
> under the former owner (e.g. the Wassmer, Br�guet, Fauvel, Focke-Wulf,
The announcement, copied below, mentions the EASA costs in one
sentence but goes into more detail about the costs of answering
emailed questions, leaving the impression that it is the actions of
the owners themselves creating these costs by generating more
questions than DG can afford to deal with. Then, a service contract is
'offered' and a little lower in the annoucment it becomes clear that
in Europe, at least, this service contract will become mandatory.
If I was the owner of DG I would have handled this by releasing some
details of the cost study he cites, more details about EASA costs,
etc. (I'll bet the costs of the DG300 wing spar problem was included,
and it should not have been, as DG, the current and not the former
company, was on the hook for that one.) Again, I am sympathetic the
the owner of DG, but reading his presentations over the years he does
come across a bit arrogant at times and this is one of those times.
Brian
FROM DG:::::::::::::::::
DG-Flugzeugbau.de : Service Agreement
Cost Of Continued Support For Aircraft Built By The Former
Manufacturers Glaser-Dirks And Rolladen-Schneider
When DG Flugzeugbau was founded in 1996, it agreed without question to
continue the complete type support for any DG aircraft built to that
date.
At the same time, the Internet evolved into a mass-communication
medium, enabling pilots from all over the world to post their support
questions directly to the original manufacturer and type supporter.
This presented us with a steadily increasing flood of support
questions, and as you know, we answered them all.
Channelling the inquiries and the creation of the technical support
forum brought some temporary relive, but was eaten-up quickly by the
exponentially increasing flood of support questions.
The acquisition of the LS types from Rolladen-Schneider aggravated the
situation. And a temporary transfer of the LS-4 and LS-6
responsibility to Slovenia didn’t work out. AMS turned silent after a
short while, and the pilots begun calling us again.
Political pressure put on EASA to balance their budget from 2004 on
caused extra bureaucracy and soaring cost for us.
Continued support of the old aircraft types developed into a
substantial financial loss within the company. We did a detailed cost
analysis early in 2009, which revealed support yielding in a net loss
of multiple hundred thousands Euro each year, which had to be absorbed
and subsidized by other departments within the company.
This cannot continue as is, it would endanger the health of whole
company!
There is no question that selling a quite expensive new aircraft
creates a substantial after-sale support responsibility. We take this
as granted, therefore nothing will change for the aircraft
manufactured by DG Flugzeugbau GmbH since 1996, about 700 in total.
(The same, if one of these gliders is sold to another customer!)
Therefore, nothing will change for existing and future aircraft
manufactured by DG Flugzeugbau GmbH, after-sales support remains free
of charge.
However, what shall we do with all the old aircraft we inherited but
never sold? For which we never received a single penny and therefore
have no legal obligation to provide free service? These Glaser-Dirks
and Rolladen-Schneider aircraft are subject of the following.
We are unable to continue providing free service for aircraft
manufactured by Glaser-Dirks and Rolladen Schneider.
However, to assist you to keep your aircraft airworthy and in good
shape, we offer you a service agreement for an annual fee. Starting
with the year 2010 the following support services for Glaser-Dirks and
Rolladen-Schneider aircraft are only available through this service
agreement:
* Technical support
* Spare part support, as long as technically possible for us, even
for 30 years old aircraft. (Applicable also when ordering through an
aviation maintenance shop)
* Supporting material for service bulletins and airworthiness
directives. (free, except for the delivery of required material)
* Technical drawings (free)
* Required maintenance instructions (free)
* Manuals (free again)
* 50% Rebates on inspection procedures for service time extensions
* Special bonus from our Service Department: When your aircraft is
serviced through us, we will charge reduced working rates, with
savings up to the price of a one-year service agreement.
* Aero Clubs (and private people too) ordering a new aircraft from
us will receive free coverage of their existing DG and LS fleet.
* The prices for electronic manuals ordered after June 30, 2009
will be reimbursed when signing the annual service agreement.
A service bulletin issued at the end of this year and approved by EASA
will state the new regulations for service manuals: (1) Existing
service manuals will expire with the end of the year and have to be
replaced by new service manuals. (2) New service manuals are valid for
one year and will automatically expire thereafter. (3) Service manuals
must be renewed through a paid annual update service, which will at
least replace the cover page stating the new effectivity period.
Service manuals are mandatory for the operation of the aircraft.
The annual premium for the service agreement will be 245.00 Euro flat.
Owners up to 25 years of age and Aero Clubs get a reduced premium of
195.00 Euro. Where required by law, the adequate VAT or sales tax will
be added.
These prices assume owners enter the service agreement right away and
are calculated to provide the best value for the money. It will not
work out as savings to fly without service contract for a year or two
since intermediate cost and possibly recalculated new service
contracts might add up higher.
We can imagine that most affected pilots will be startled reading this
news. It is agreeably not so easy to accept paying for something that
was free for so long time.
However, we think it is only fair to ask aircraft owners to contribute
their share for covering the service cost of aircraft, which we
support but never earned any revenue on. In our heart we have strong
ties to all glider pilots in the world. But in the interest of these
pilots, we cannot continue subsidizing the community out of our own
pockets, as we have done for 13 years, and this way risk the ruin of
yet another manufacturer….
The only other alternative to paid service contracts would be to
abandon all type responsibility and service for the aircraft built by
Glaser-Dirks and Rolladen-Schneider. But we believe this would be in
noon’s interest.
Here You find the form for the service agreement. Please read it
carefully, complete all fields and sign it. Then send it to us via
letter, FAX or e-mail (as PDF document), and transfer the first
premium. This helps us to provide you with continued service without
interruption.
Thank you in advance.
Friedel Weber und Holger Back
Uh, what? There actually IS another very reasonable alternative. They
can charge for the services they provide on a "pay-per" basis. That
way owners that need something can pay for it. I have gotten some
design drawings from them in the past. I would gladly have paid for
them. However, I don't want to continue to pay for "nothing".
Do you think this might truly be a last gasp at staying afloat as a
manufacturer? Sounds like a desperate, short term fix at staying alive
to me. It's gonna hurt them long term by killing off a lot of customer
loyalty.
DG parts and services are not inexpensive, by any means. Most of us
don't gripe about it, but gladly pay if available.This should be a non
issue. I think, their shortcomings does not stem from the lack of
profits made from goods and and aftermarket services. They are clearly
wanting to make up in loss of sales and profits, in an easy, less than
honest way. I am not a lawyer, and I am not even sure if there is any
legal ground against such highway robbery. Maybe organizations like
the SSA and the like, could influance their attempts, with kind words
or legal actions ? Widespread boycott maybe the only option. I too
think, that if they lower themselfs to this kind of extorsions, what
is there to stop them from doing others?? 6PK
>
>http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/betreuung-e.html
>
>I think DG has to re think their business model bigtime, who will buy
>a new DG in the future?
Mr. Weber considered, back in 1996, it was wise to acquire an existing
production line, a stock of spare parts and some good aircraft designs
(the dg800, 303 and others).
Similarly, later he considered wise to acquire the LS line as well,
and fought hard against the competition to secure the LS heritage.
I think I'm not mistaken if I say Mr. Weber and the DG factory are not
producing any new original design.
If he wanted to escape from any responsibilty towards Glaser Dirks and
Rolladen Schneider products, he should better have created a new
company and new designs of his own.
Titolarity of the existing orphan fleets might have probably been
taken in charge by other firms, in the same way as Streifeneder (for
example) is keeping the Glasflugels alive, without asking a compulsory
yearly fee.
I'm pretty sure some parts may be unavailable for older gliders, like
new wings; nevertheless, one still has to pay for the yearly fee. So,
the fee does not secure the possibility of fixing any broken part of
an older glider.
If MR. Weber and DG can really put this new policy into practice, it
must primarily be the fault of the insolvency administrators (or
whatever it's called in the english legal jargon). They must have made
a very bad job.
Sure I will not ground my dg600, but the damage to the image of the
company and its owner is immense.
Summary of increased costs for my flying in Italy in 2010:
+ 100 Euros over the annual fee of my club
+ 290 Euros for inspection of DG600 (VAT included)
+ 160/360 Euro for the new compulsory personal insurance in
competitions
+ 10 Euros over the annual fee of the national federation
________________
Total: between 560 and 760 Euros of increased costs. No good news.
Aldo Cernezzi
> Total: between 560 and 760 Euros of increased costs. No good news.
>
> Aldo Cernezzi
As a glider owner within EASA I sympathise with you Aldo. What we need
is somewhere in the world (with good gliding conditions) to set up a
sort of Tax Haven but in our terms a Bureaucrat Free Haven where we
can all go to fly free from regulation, tax, airspace, bullshit etc,
etc. Any thoughts (on earth but outside the Artic Circle)?
Jim
Africa?
I particularly like the way that Weber says that customers of HIS
company (ie since 1966-ish) won't have to pay. Anyone care to bet on
how long THAT will last?
RobertW
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:38:39 -0800 (PST), glider <gli...@tds.net>
wrote:
Following this thread I'm a bit confused. I own a DG-600 in the U.S.
It's in the Experimental category because it was imported and DG
didn't, wouldn't, could not get FAA approval for this glider to be a
Standard Airworthiness. Probably more like it wasn't cost effective, I
understand that strategy. It's got 6 maybe 8 TN's and no AD's. About 5
years ago it had a failure inside the wing at the root for the support
for the spoiler bearing assembly. I couldn't lock the spoilers shut on
the side that broke, couldn't get over center. Emailing DG asking
about this they didn't have a clue even though some of the DG-300's
have had this happen it cost me close to $2500 to have this repaired.
If I subscribe to this extortion will I get better support? Why do I
have to revise my POH every year if there's no changes?
Only a fool... flies a DG tool.....
Steve
DG-200
The English version is clearly not Weber's writing. Did anyone hack their
homepage ?
Anyway, as someone on the German forum at www.segelflug.de pointed out, no
one is legally obliged to go to DG's website. So please all Glaser-Dirks and
Rolladen Schneider owners around the World, wait and do nothing! If/when
your country's legal bodies (FAA, BGA, LBA, ...) sends out information based
on DG's TM's then it may be time to act.
Hopefully, the aviation authorities around the World will see through this
money-printing scheme, and not endorse it by issuing local directives.
.. And, from Sunday, the days get longer and spring is underway in the
Northern Hemisphere ;-)
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all (well, maybe except a certain
German factory owner)
Lars Peder
DG-600, Denmark
"Lars Peder Hansen" <lars.ped...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:4b27e366$0$56786$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
In the German version of the FAQ Weber states that those who fly
"experimental" registered aircraft in US and Australia "rather not our
service will probably take up" (werden wohl eher nicht unseren Service
in Anspruch nehmen). He apparently feels he's on solid legal ground
using EASA rules to screw over European owners, but recognizes that he
can't do the same in US and Australia.
Herr Weber really isn't very clever. I can think of a number of ways
that he could have approached this that wouldn't have resulted in the
kind of firestorm that we've seen here on RAS and on
http://www.segelflug.de/wwwboard/index.html. He really has created a
problem for himself that could have been avoided with a cooler
approach.
-John
On Dec 19, 5:05 am, "Lars Peder Hansen" <lars.peder.han...@127.0.0.1>
wrote:
> At the time of writing (Saturday morning 11:03 Danish time) The English
> version athttp://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/betreuung-e.htmlhas a FAQ section
Comment from a non DG owner. I did a project rehabbing a DG101 and the
factory could not have been more helpful and prompt with parts and
information.
My real question is- do you think that by DG not getting this revenue
stream, and then failing, that you will be better off?
And yes, they could weel still fail.
I think- as an admitted outsider, that it would be a shame if they
went under and support went away.
FWIW
UH
> My real question is- do you think that by DG not getting this revenue
> stream, and then failing, that you will be better off?
I think that DG will get about a third of what they are expecting, and
that it will not be enough and that they will still end up
involuntarily restructured. I think that was inevitable regardless of
shenanigans like this.
My thinking is that few in Europe will voluntarily remit their E 245
until it is absolutely necessarily, that is, when EASA accepts and
recognizes the technical note that invalidates the prior year's
manuals. That might take a while.
Here in the US, I think even fewer will send in their money. Most will
wait to see if EASA goes along, and then will wait for about another
year to see if the FAA goes along with EASA and issues an
airworthiness directive for a foreign technical note that has no
technical merit. In the meantime they will quietly lobby their
favorite FAA officials.
Those in the US with DGs and LSs that carry special airworthy
certificates for the purposes of operating an Experimental, Racing
aircraft will be looking closely at the operating limitations document
that accompanies the special airworthiness certificate.
As for what happens when DG restructures again, I think that will be a
whimper, not a bang. Small aircraft, even racing gliders, are not
rocket science. We flew our little Aeroncas and Stinsons and Funks and
Ercoupes long after the firms that made then had gone to dust. When we
needed parts, we found them in the PMA system, or we made them for our
own airplanes as permitted under 14CFR21.303(b)2.
Boy, this sure is starting to look like a good time to make gliders in
the US!
Thanks, Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com
Absolutely! Any financial angels out there?
Bob, wouldn't it make sense to certify new US gliders under the SLA
regulations?
Why Certify? What is the advantage to .... anybody? I'd rather have
an Experimental any day.
No, the specs on an SLA aircraft are too restrictive. Modern glass
ships
are considered too-high performance because of their VNE speed. For
that
matter we can't train sport pilots in our club because we have an L13
Blanik,
whose VNE speed is too high (120 kts). (Actually we can just about
get it to 90
if we point it straight down.)
My impression is that the glider SLA specs are written to describe the
Scweitzer 2-33 and 1-26.
-- Matt
The relevant SLA limitations from Wikipedia edited for gliders:
The Federal Aviation Administration defines an SLA glider as having a
maximum gross takeoff weight of not more than 1,320 pounds; a maximum
airspeed in level flight of 120 knots (220 km/h; 140 mph); a maximum
stall speed of 45 knots (83 km/h; 52 mph); either one or two seats;
fixed undercarriage.
I don't think those limitations would be unreasonable for trainers or
club gliders which is what we need for club expansion. For example,
an ASK-21 or G103 falls under them nicely. The advantage is that they
can be manufactured without a cumbersome standard type certificate or
manufacturing certificate - hopefully at a lower cost than JAR-22
gliders imported from Europe.
High performance racing gliders would still be Experimental - unless
we could get the FAA to allow retractable gear and increase max
allowable Vne to 146 kts. There's a precedent for folding rollers
and a GW increase to 1,430 pounds for SLA seaplanes.
Since sailplanes are the quintessential 'sport light aircraft' It
might not require anything more than just asking in the right way.
We'd need:
GW not more than 1430 Lbs
Vne not to exceed 146 knots
Single retractable wheel
I don't think that is the issue. No one wants DG to go out of business.
That would benefit no one. Among other things, we would never see the
result of its interesting project to develop an electric sustainer system.
I don't have a DG, but if I did I would be quite happy to pay DG for the
value of the services it provided me. If all old DG owners do that, DG
would get enough money to cover the cost of those services.
The problem is that rather than doing things in a reasonable way, DG has
decided to extort money from owners, quite regardless of whether those
owners are using any services of DG. I have had 4 gliders over the past
10 years, and never once have had occasion to use any support services
of the manufacturers.
Weber promises to support all the gliders he built, but why should
anyone believe him? He says that when he purchased DG he promised to
support all old gliders, and we see what that promise was worth.
Also, why would anyone pay 245 euros for a year's support from a company
that by its owner's admission will likely be out of business well before
the end of the support period?
I question Weber's business sense, as I would think that this new policy
will really hurt sales of new gliders. If insolvency was a possibility
before, it probably is a certainty now.
RIP, DG.
> The Federal Aviation Administration defines an SLA glider as having a
> maximum gross takeoff weight of not more than 1,320 pounds; a maximum
> airspeed in level flight of 120 knots (220 km/h; 140 mph); a maximum
> stall speed of 45 knots (83 km/h; 52 mph); either one or two seats;
> fixed undercarriage.
>
> I don't think those limitations would be unreasonable for trainers or
> club gliders which is what we need for club expansion. For example, an
> ASK-21 or G103 falls under them nicely. The advantage is that they can
> be manufactured without a cumbersome standard type certificate or
> manufacturing certificate - hopefully at a lower cost than JAR-22
> gliders imported from Europe.
>
I'm curious. How, exactly is max airspeed in level flight calculated for
an SLA glider? I'd argue that a glider *has* no measurable maximum
airspeed in level flight, since if you try to fly it level in still air
it will inevitably stall.
It certainly isn't VNE or that would exclude the ASK-21, since its VNE is
151 kts.
--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |
> > Boy, this sure is starting to look like a good time to make gliders in
> > the US!
>
> Absolutely! Any financial angels out there?
>
> Bob, wouldn't it make sense to certify new US gliders under the SLA
> regulations?
Others have pretty much said my piece on this. I would far rather work
within the bounds of Experimental, Amateur Built. Though I can see the
advantage of SLA for a light, simple two-seater.
Right now, what I really need are people like Brad, to take the time
and help me ramp up the tooling and work the kinks out of my system
while we build their gliders. Money would be nice too, but I need help
like that more than money.
Thanks, Bob K.
> Dear Sir
>
> We definitely know that nobody is happy with our
> new Service Agreement. I have tried to explain very
> carefully the background and the necessity for this
> matter.
> www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/betreuung-e.html
> (There is a new version available now.)
>
> But obviously many people do not like to read
> informations and the background. Although the
> article is read and checked by several people of the
> company as carefully as no other one on our website,
> they do not trust on the content.
> Be sure that each statement of the article is correct!
> But they don't believe that and publish their own
> imaginations and prejudices against our facts.
>
> I do not think that it is worth to answer to those guys.
> That is not a serious discussion, because they do not
> want to learn something what they did not know before.
> They have no knowledge how a company like DG has to
> work, but they have their opinion. Full Stop.
>
> That is the reason why I do not read r.a.s , segelflug.de
> and others. Everybody can send me an email and he will
> get an answer. But to answer in a forum does not help.
>
> If you like you can post this statement in r.a.s or others.
>
> -------
> Always happy landings
>
> Friedel Weber
> - Geschäftsführer/Managing Dir -
> we...@dg-flugzeugbau.de
>
> DG Flugzeugbau GmbH, Bruchsal
> Manufacturer of High-Performance Sailplanes
> AG Mannheim HRB 231792
>
> http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de
>
> Segelfliegen - Touch the Sky!
>> Dear Sir,
>> I hope you read R.A.S (Rec- Aviation-Soaring.)
>> There are many, many people complaining of new
>> charges for assistance from DG.
>> In the USA, I was Eastern US Dealer and I sold DG
>> sailplanes for several years. And, I [own] a DG 800 that
>> is being repaired by my son in Arizona. You must make
>> a good reply to the people making noise on r.a.s.
>> DG does not need bad publicity.
>> Sincerely,
>> Robert (Bob) Gaines
>> Atlanta, Georgia
>> USA
AFAIK, it isn't. The Vne limitation rule was for Sport Light
AIRPLANES with engines and cruise speeds. Gliders just happen to fall
under the same rules.
A major focus of the SLA rules is to insure they are "simple aircraft"
that can be flown by pilots with "abbreviated" training. Gliders
intrinsically meet that requirement which the FAA recognizes by
allowing 14 year olds to solo.
I think a small expansion of the SLA regulations to make them more
friendly to gliders wouldn't be that difficult.
For example, we could argue that the 'cruise' speed for a glider is
best L/D and that a higher Vne just provides a greater safety margin
in an upset. Retractable gear is a 'safety' issue in that it provides
for a better L/D which makes it easier for a glider to get back to the
airport. Neither would have any impact on air traffic control which
seems to be the FAA's major concern with the SLA regulations.
I understand where Bob K is coming from. However, the main advantage
of glider SLA certification rules is that they allow extended
production without the expense of standard class certification which
should reduce the unit costs.
I really object to the term 'abbreviated' training in context with any
sort of flight training. Aircraft may be more or less complex, but
training must always adequate to the task, whether to fulfill an FAA
or insurance requirement. Anyone can read these posts and could
clearly get the wrong impression from such a statement.
Last time I checked SLA was either a data/telecommunications 'Service
Level Agreement' or the 'Symbionese Liberation Army'. In aviation,
the term used by the alphabet organizations (and wikipedia) is LSA or
perhaps S-LSA, as in 'special'. Using the correct term, Light Sport
Aircraft, adds to the credibility of posts. Using and repeating the
incorrect term by posters that should clearly know better is
bothersome.
Whether it's laziness or being in a rush, please think and review your
posts and provide links where appropriate.
Vent off,
Frank Whiteley
> ...Last time I checked SLA was either a data/telecommunications 'Service
> Level Agreement' or...
Actually, I think that SLA in that context is right on topic...
Bob "SAP on, SAP off" K.
> For example, we could argue that the 'cruise' speed for a glider is best
> L/D and that a higher Vne just provides a greater safety margin in an
> upset. Retractable gear is a 'safety' issue in that it provides for a
> better L/D which makes it easier for a glider to get back to the
> airport. Neither would have any impact on air traffic control which
> seems to be the FAA's major concern with the SLA regulations.
>
If both those points were taken on board it would appear to be near
perfect since virtually all gliders except flapped types would fall into
the SLA category.
> I understand where Bob K is coming from. However, the main advantage of
> glider SLA certification rules is that they allow extended production
> without the expense of standard class certification which should reduce
> the unit costs.
>
Understood, but without extension to cover unflapped gliders with
retracts it wouldn't produce many interesting toys. Worse still it could
lead to the reappearance of deep-gutted gliders with buried wheels like
some of the early fixed wheel Std Class gliders. Antonov A-15, I'm
looking at you.
Now why does DG HAVE to work this way? In my 40+ years of business
experience there's always been at least a few ways forward for any
particular problem. But Herr Weber's mind is absolutely closed to any
other course than the one he's picked. This fact, plus his willingness
to use EASA as a weapon to force payment, speaks to a very urgent need
for cash. His need for money overrides normal caution and busines
sense that he and his company might be viewed as simple
extortionists.
I agree with Greg Arnold that Weber's made a lousy business decision,
and echo Greg's "RIP DG" statement.
-John
On Dec 19, 11:22 pm, Bob Kuykendall <b...@hpaircraft.com> wrote:
> Bob Gaines emailed Freidel Weber about this situation, and asked me to
> post this reply to RAS
[snip]
> > We definitely know that nobody is happy with our
> > new Service Agreement. I have tried to explain very
> > carefully the background and the necessity for this
> > matter.
[snip]
> > Although the
> > article is read and checked by several people of the
> > company as carefully as no other one on our website,
> > they do not trust on the content.
> > Be sure that each statement of the article is correct!
> > But they don't believe that and publish their own
> > imaginations and prejudices against our facts.
>
> > I do not think that it is worth to answer to those guys...
SLA is the official FAA acronym for Sport Light Aircraft even though,
as you note, it has other uses.
I put 'abbreviated' in single quotes to show it's dubious nature.
Please.
A search of www.faa.gov does not resolve to 'sport light aircraft' in
any results. SLA resolves to a handful of varying objects, but not
aircraft.
Using LSA or sport light aircraft (in any order) only results Light
Sport Aircraft links. See CFR 14 Part 1.1 for regulatory definitions
and abbreviations.
FWIW, there are over 1400 results pointing to FAA acronyms. Seems
like each doc has its own acronym list.
Maybe you're thinking about Sport Pilot?
Quoted or not, still a rather poor choice of words IMVHO. It simply
doesn't exist conceptually nor factually. Neither sport pilot nor
glider pilot ratings result from abbreviated types of training. They
are commensurate with the pilot privileges granted.
Frank
Frank Whiteley
> On Dec 18, 8:23 am, jimboffin <j...@boffins.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 18 Dec, 13:57, cernauta <na...@email.it> wrote:
>>
>>> Total: between 560 and 760 Euros of increased costs. No good news.
>>> Aldo Cernezzi
>> As a glider owner within EASA I sympathise with you Aldo. What we need
>> is somewhere in the world (with good gliding conditions) to set up a
>> sort of Tax Haven but in our terms a Bureaucrat Free Haven where we
>> can all go to fly free from regulation, tax, airspace, bullshit etc,
>> etc. Any thoughts (on earth but outside the Artic Circle)?
>>
>> Jim
>
> Africa?
Regrettably much of Africa is catching the regulatory flu too.
Still - southern skies are relatively large and vast tracts are largely
free of control. There is a lot of South Africa where they don't have
primary , let alone secondary radar coverage...
go to OLC and look at the 1000+ km flights this season from -
Bitterwasser (12) and
Pokweni (25) - Namibia
Soaring Safaris (2)- (Bloemfontein)
Gariep (2 - but the season is only starting now)
Worcester - Cape Gliding Club if you want to fly mountains.
Bureaucrats are working on making this harder of course. Most recently
by insisting that Soaring be subject to oversight by a new
"recreational" authority with no plan, no legal framework to operate in
and no interest in anything much except making money, and ensuring that
the CAA is not troubled by anything of a non-commercial nature.
That said a lot of proactive hard work but the SSSA (and others) is
keeping things relatively soaring friendly.
Australia and New Zealand are great except for their remoteness.
Somalia. No taxes, no regulation, no bureaucrats whatsoever. Heck, even
no state. Complete freedom. No security whatsoever either, though.
I cannot think of a better motivation to not land out.
--
tienshanman
They don't like DG's scheme to force older DG and LS aircraft owners
to pony up cash, and are working against the Weber edict. It sounds
like they won't enforce compulsory grounding in the UK upon non-
payment of the DG/LS annual "tax", unless they are forced to do so by
the CAA.
Hopefully more national societies will come out with statements like
this from the BGA.
-John
From DG's website, they will no longer sell parts to non-service
contract holders, and I think they will try to force their reps. not
to sell stocked parts either. Perhaps they will put pressure on the
reps. not to work on those gliders even. As the owner of an exempt
DG303, I wonder if pilots without service contracts will want to have
me buy parts for them and how they would react to that, and how they
will enforce all this. Messy for everyone.
Here is the latest from DG:
What are the consequences of not signing the Support Agreement?
* The glider will not be supported by DG Fluzeugbau or its
appointed representatives.
* The owner[s] will not be able to participate in the ‘Technical
Support’ programme detailed above.
* The owner[s] will not be able to obtain spare parts or technical
support materials for their glider[s] from DG Flugzeugbau or its
representative.
* The current maintenance documents, issued by the manufacturer,
are a pre-requisite for a compliant maintenance schedule. Since
current and valid maintenance documents for gliders affected by this
notice will only be available from DG Flugzeugbau under the terms of a
signed Support Agreement, owners not participating in the agreement
will not be able to produce valid documentation for their C of A
check.
It is probably legal because they can charge whatever they want, but
it is a VERY BAD business decision. If they are really doing it to
stave off bankruptcy, it's not going to work.
>From DG's website, they will no longer sell parts to non-service
>contract holders, and I think they will try to force their reps. not
>to sell stocked parts either. Perhaps they will put pressure on the
>reps. not to work on those gliders even. As the owner of an exempt
>DG303, I wonder if pilots without service contracts will want to have
>me buy parts for them and how they would react to that, and how they
>will enforce all this. Messy for everyone.
Few people seem to understand that this fee is not a case of
optimizing Mr. Weber's income.
This fee is the desperate attempt to avoid bancruptcy.
Well Brian,
you have the choice:
Option 1:
- Pay the fees, keep DG alive (at least until you were able to sell
your 303 for a halfways decent price) and the supply with spare parts
up.
Option 2:
- Do not pay the fee, watch DG go belly up (and your DG-303 loose a
lot of its resale value) and start to pray that someone else is going
to provide you with spare parts in the future. Be assured that anyone
buying the type certificate and the spare parts from DG is going to
try to get his investment back from you.
Your choice.
Cheers
Andreas,
whose club own two DG-300's and one DG-505, but is going to order a
Duo Discus XL tomorrow.
p.s.
Anyone out there who wants a good DG-300 and a good DG-505?
They expect me to pay them $300-400 per year for the privilege of
owning a 1972 LS-1C and may someday need access to tech support?????
Friedel knows what part of his anatomy he can blow this out of. It
has to be THE WORST business decision ever made and I think it will
backfire on him.
Of course, if it does backfire, he is just going to say "nein, gehen
Sie zur Hölle!" (and that's if he is polite) every time someone says
"please help."
To me, he bought the type certificates, it is his responsibility to
support them!
Where is the SSA? Where is the FAA?
Forgive me if I am seeming to double post. I thought I made a
response earlier, but do not find it.
On Dec 21, 11:44 am, jcarlyle <jmcarl...@gmail.com> wrote:
1. If we do not agree with DG, we are all thieves, beneath his
contempt, and unworthy of owning older LS and DG gliders.
2. Weber said: "There is no comparable process in the frequently
quoted automotive industry. If a control rod breaks on a 30 years old
car, then it is just broken, and nobody cares. A control linkage
problem on a 30 years old DG-100 caused the design of a reinforced
joint, which had to be installed into any existing aircraft of this 30
years old type. And the type supporter is in charge to organize this
global upgrade."
In the US, at least, there is a Statute of Repose (the General
Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994) which limits an aircraft
manufacturer to 18 years liability, In LaHaye v. Galvin Flying
Service, Inc. (2005), the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said it applied
to foreign aircraft manufacturers too. Therefore, in the US, DG is
not liable for any LS or DG aircraft built before 1991.
Contrary to Weber's assertion, the automotive analogy is a pretty good
one. Imagine that the "New MG Company" is formed to take over
responsibility for support for old MG sports cars. After doing this for
a while, the owner of the new company decides that MG owners are
insufficiently appreciative of his services. Some owners, for example,
call up and talk to him on the phone and don't pay him anything for
this. And others are unappreciative of his redesign of the old owner
manuals (see Weber's latest post on the DG page about the services he
has provided owners, including redesign of the old manuals --
http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/betreuung-e.html#T-C).
Upset that his support of MGs has not turned out to be as lucrative as
expected, the New MG Company arranges for the appropriate governmental
authorities to rule that MG's are unsafe and cannot be driven on public
roads. However, this ruling will not apply to MGs for which an annual
fee of 245 euros is paid to the New MG Company.
>
> In the US, at least, there is a Statute of Repose (the General
> Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994) which limits an aircraft
> manufacturer to 18 years liability, In LaHaye v. Galvin Flying
> Service, Inc. (2005), the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said it applied
> to foreign aircraft manufacturers too. Therefore, in the US, DG is
> not liable for any LS or DG aircraft built before 1991.
I am not sure this is relevant, since the current company only acquired
the assets of the old companies and not the liabilities. I doubt that
DG is liable for any DG or LS produced by its predecessor companies.
And I believe the current company has only been around since 1996.
When LS went bust the resale value of old LS's was hardly affected.
What is hurting the resale value of old LS and DG gliders is these
shenanigans from DG.
Last year a friend was contemplating buying a used LS6 and asked for
my advice. Basically my response was that the LS6 is one of the nicest
gliders ever built but I wouldn't buy one now because DG won't provide
service when you actually need it. Looks like I was right. He bought
it anyway, and now eight of us at my club are in this mess.
I'm actually wondering whether it would be worthwile to sue DG for
loss of resale value before they go bust.
Why doesn't Webber try raise a round of funding and get on with life.
Sure he diluted his equity position but at least the company is still
going!!
Al
snip;
"It is probably legal because they can charge whatever they want, but
it is a VERY BAD business decision. If they are really doing it to
stave off bankruptcy, it's not going to work.'"
It is LEGAL to charge whatever one company feels the market will bare
(right or wrong), but extortion is not! 6PK
This extortion can't be tolerated!
The SSA Convention in Little Rock this January features a talk by the
DG/LS "team" regarding a "new self launch two seater". It would send
a strong signal if no one showed up for the talk. The sound of
crickets in the room might just let them know that they can't expect
to treat their customer base with such arrogance and contempt and
still continue with business as usual.
All presentations from the DG/LS company should be boycotted.
WD
There's no reason why DG shouldn't charge customers for support when
they request it. It's a pretty common practice for lots of different
kinds of products. Companies that do this usually offer more than one
option. Either enter into a service agreement or pay for each service
request individually.
It was great that DG gave phone/email technical support for free up
until now. I have taken advantage of that myself. I would have gladly
paid for it had there been a charge. I don't think anyone would argue
against paying for services (tech support) and/or parts from DG for
these legacy ships.
So the question I have is; why won't he just institute a "pay-per-
request" policy for supporting the older ships? Maybe his assertion
that he has "given away" a lot of support since 96 is a bit over
hyped. He must have run the numbers. Maybe charging for support won't
make the amount of money he needs because it isn't as common as he
says. If that's the case, then he is truly trying to rob people.
But you see, that is exactly what he is claiming. If a control rod
breaks due to a faulty design in a 30 year old LS, he is saying that
it is up to DG to provide the fix worldwide.
He said, " A control linkage
> problem on a 30 years old DG-100 caused the design of a reinforced
> joint, which had to be installed into any existing aircraft of this 30
> years old type. And the type supporter is in charge to organize this
> global upgrade."
DG might engineer the fix out of the goodness of their hearts (and
expect to make money off it), but in the US they have no liability for
the faulty design of that 30 year old ship. He can charge whatever he
wants for the fix if it involves hardware that has to be gotten from
DG, but it is not up to DG to provide a fix someone else's 30 year old
design.
Let's look at the LS-1C. It has a couple of factory ADs. Just for
the sake of argument, let's say I buy a 1972 LS-1 from a club in
France and cannot read the log books, so I have no idea whether the
ADs had been taken care of by the club. The club had not been paying
the DG tax. At the time, there are only 4 LS-1Cs in the US (not
counting this one), the owners are unsure what the ADs are, and I need
copies for the FAA anyway. I am going to be unable to find out what
the 40 year old factory ADs were unless nor get a rigging manual in
English unless I pony up $400 FIRST???
I can see paying a few bucks for the manual--not $400--but access to
the ADs should be free.
BTW, unless you think this is an absurd example, buying a glider from
France, that is exactly the situation I found myself in in 2005, when
I bought my 1972 LS-1C from the club in Rouen. Fortunately, I was
able to take advantage of Herr Weber's generosity by downloading the
ADs and the manual from the DG website, and all it cost him was the
cost of the webserver because all of the work and engineering had been
done by Wolf Lemke in 1970. The factory had actually taken care of
the ADs on my glider when the glider was made, so all of the expense
had been covered by Lemke and Schneider.
Providing this inflrmation, DG was out practically no money and could
have charged a few bucks for the manual to cover the cost to xerox
it. Well, they have now re-written the manuals for the LS-1C and I
will not be able to get an annual unless I pay him $400??? Why? To
fix someone else's 40 year old minor errors that had not caused
problems (remember, DG is not liable for problems to a 38 year old
glider)? Or so DG could make more money?
I have absolutely nothing against DG making a few bucks to xerox a
manual written 40 years ago by someone else and mailing it to me, but
$400 is skyjacking. And as I said, access to the ADs should ALWAYS be
free, no matter who caused them or who engineered the fix.
And where is DG in informing people of this tax? Posting it on their
website which I (and probably a couple thousand other LS and DG
owners) never look at? I only received notice from them today because
I subscribe to the FREE DG emailed newsletter where he offers a FREE
downloadable calendar, and he mentions that there is a "a 'bad
surprise' for some of you" and gives a link "but we must say, that
the complete article is not finished yet."
Weber and DG has gone about this all wrong from the start and he is
not even in damage control mode. He is in confrontation mode. I
think Herr Weber is going to be in for a big surprise. Instead of
being handed an influx of $800,000-$1M+ a year from LS and DG owners,
he will be handed his head. If that happens, do not be surprised when
he announces first that DG will supply no more engineering or parts
for pre-'96 gliders whatsoever (they already don't do the latter), and
then after a while, that DG is out of business.
I think that DG is planning when they re-write the LS manuals to "fix
errors" to add (1) a manual expiration date and (2) verbiage to force
the use of current manuals during an annual inspection. But they can
only force this requirement upon LS owners IF they can get these new
manuals blessed with an AD.
National organizations and owners need to lobby the LBA, the CAA, the
FAA, etc., to insure that DG doesn't force this money grabbing scheme
using expiration dates via legal edict.
-John
On Dec 22, 1:53 pm, raulb <ra...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> Well, they have now re-written the manuals for the LS-1C and I
> will not be able to get an annual unless I pay him $400???
>
> [ snip ]
When LS went under, who took care of LS parts and service?
Has ELAN (AMS) given the problem back to DG?
Can money be made in building sailplanes?
Is there a market for these beautuiful machines?
Just asking.
GA
>
> Friedel knows what part of his anatomy he can blow this out of. It
> has to be THE WORST business decision ever made and I think it will
> backfire on him.
>
Agree. This will backfire on them. No way people will consider DG or LS
in the future if they keep treating their customers like this.
/AndersP
> So the question I have is; why won't he just institute a "pay-per-
> request" policy for supporting the older ships? Maybe his assertion that
> he has "given away" a lot of support since 96 is a bit over hyped. He
> must have run the numbers. Maybe charging for support won't make the
> amount of money he needs because it isn't as common as he says. If
> that's the case, then he is truly trying to rob people.
>
The approach you're suggesting seems to be exactly what Glasfazer has
instituted to support Glasflugel gliders.
Today I saw a note on the BGA site about the tailplane attachment having
failed on an H.201B Libelle and, as a result, recommending that the
optional TN 201-13e, which was issued in 1972, be accomplished. This
consists of simply replacing the attachment, a captive bolt with a light
spring, with an improved version. In the process of looking up the TN,
which has not been carried out on my glider, I found the following text.
The original text is available here: http://www.streifly.de/service-e.htm
=========================================================================
Information for our customers:
As type certificate holder for all Glasflügel gliders here we will
release the Technical Notes (TNs) and Airworthiness Directives (ADs).
Until the end of 2007 the access to all TNs was free of charge.
Because of the increasing officialism of EASA, however, we are charged
enormously. Much to our regret we are not able to pay those costs by
ourselves any more and have to pass those costs partly to our customers.
* Three times we are charged regularly for our business license as
manufacturing enterprise, as development enterprise and as service
enterprise.
* For every Glasflügel glider type which we serve, we have to pay an
annual fee.
* For every Technical Note which we release, we are charged again by
EASA.
* Furthermore, the costs of issuing the Technical Notes become more
and more extensive. For example, to issue the TNs for transponder
installation we had to provide comprehensive evidences. For meeting
the EASA requirements it needed more then 100 hours work alone to
write all documents and to phone to the authorities.
And all for gliders, which are not produced any more for decades.
However, we feel committed to the brand "Glasflügel" as well as to our
customers and want to hold on the type certificate; because without a
type certificate holder these gliders would lose the permit.
We appreciate your understanding that finally we have chosen the
following approach: In the future all newly issued TNs will not be free
of charge any more. The TNs will come into force only in connection with
a release note. If you want to order this release note from us, please
let us know the type of glider, the license number and depending on the
TN some more details. All data will be entered into the release note.
=========================================================================
This looks like a reasonable approach to me now that EASA has imposed
unwanted bureaucracy on gliding and then made us all, manufacturers and
operators, pay the unwanted lardarse's wages.
If I read the website correctly, the last free TNs for Libelles will be
201-37 and 301-40, which deal with transponder installation and were
issued in 31 January 2008. At present there are no more recent
TNs.
Sine I have no idea when this announcement was made I've copied this to
Jim Hammerton at the BGA just to make sure he's seen it too.
--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |
On Dec 22, 11:36 am, glider <gli...@tds.net> wrote:
> If or when DG goes under, who will take care of support?
Aircraft mechanics and composites repair facilities, just like always.
The structures are relatively simple and relatively well understood,
and smart guys like JJ and Rex Mayes and others like them have been
fixing these ships for years with only relatively modest factory
support.
> When LS went under, who took care of LS parts and service?
>
> Has ELAN (AMS) given the problem back to DG?
Heh, good point. If you come to the Reno convention two years hence,
I'll make sure you get a "Got Ondulation?" T-shirt.
> Can money be made in building sailplanes?
I do not know, but that's the way I am betting. If you made a bundle
selling business software installations and charging massively for
support contracts, it'll seem like peanuts. But I believe that for a
privileged few the money is there if you are willing to work hard to
earn it, and the privilege comes at its own huge cost in time and
effort. It is, as ever it was, not for the faint of heart.
> Is there a market for these beautuiful machines?
There has been, and I think there probably will be. But it's not just
there for the taking, it has to be earned.
Thanks, Bob K.
snip:
"National organizations and owners need to lobby the LBA, the CAA, the
> FAA, etc., to insure that DG doesn't force this money grabbing scheme
> using expiration dates via legal edict."
Ok. Now that I see about 77 posting relating to this DG mess, mention
of LBA, CAA, FAA etc..where does the SSA stand ? 6PK
Remember- They're not happy till you're not happy.
UH
First 3 are regulatory/enforcement bodies- how does SSA fit into that
type of grouping? Any of the first 3 could choose not to recognize the
DG scheme, though in this world of nothing but manufacturer "approved
data", it is highly unlikely they would.
SSA has no such position or authority. It could disagree and say so,
but that's about it.
Most likely this will die of it's own poisoning.
It is a true shame that companies important to our sport are under
such pressure.
UH
You don't want to train sport pilots. You want to train glider
pilots, so they can operate above 10,000MSL, whether flying an E-LSA
or S-LSA glider or other sailplane. Use of an S-LSA glider trainer
could be a realistic option. Bringing a TC'd glider to market so you
could give rides, well....... As BD has previously asserted, if the
2-33 were to be brought to market today, it wouldn't be certified.
The Peregrine project is currently mothballed, as the owners, who
bought the TC and imported the design, tooling, and an engineer
stateside cannot get anyone in the FAA to sign off manufacturing
certification. From what I'm told, they did everything the FAA
requested, including many things not required for an almost two year
detour in the process. They even agreed to continue use of the TC
compliant Polish aluminum and Russian steel as getting materials
substitutions approval was an insurmountable barrier. Could it be
revived and TC'd? Perhaps, but the estimated cost was seven figures
and there's no commercial money available. Could it be revived as an
S-LSA (good for clubs, not for FBO's)? Maybe, except for this one
little statement:
CFR 14 Part 21.190a(2)
(2) The aircraft must not have been previously issued a standard,
primary, restricted, limited, or provisional airworthiness
certificate, or an equivalent airworthiness certificate issued by a
foreign civil aviation authority.
Perhaps meeting the ASTM consensus standards and switching to domestic
aluminum and steel sources would make it a different aircraft. Though
I think they did bang together a couple under some provision as one
was flown by Freedom's Wings in Canada for a spell and they did have
spare parts production authority (and parts for 10 airframes). So the
S-LSA door may be closed to them.
There was a move from the FAA Small Airplane Directorate a few years
ago to have all imported sailplanes TC'd. It started to move forward,
but then the EU and EASA may have gotten in the way, but that's only a
temporary delay I suspect.
Frank Whiteley
Even though I do not fly a DG/LS this is still concerning because of
the precedent it sets.
If I were a DG/LS owner in the US, I would get a group of owners
together and contact the FAA office that issues AD’s for small
aircraft and discuss this situation. About 10 years ago I contacted
them to obtain a couple AMOC’s. The guy there at that time was very
helpful, reasonable and was relatively easy to get on the phone. Lobby
with the FAA to make sure they understand what the new TN is all
about. Believe me, the FAA does not always understand what is going on
with these TN’s from manufactures (the reason I had to obtain
AMOC’s).
Could this go beyond the issue of just annual fees? If DG somehow
gets the FAA to issue an AD to force the adoption of new manual /
inspection requirements with an annual expiration, what happens if DG
subsequently goes bankrupt? Who would be around that could issue a
‘new’ approved manual the next year? Could this result in a grounding
of all the legacy DG/LS gliders, or would there be a workaround
somewhere in the system?
I hope this works out best for everyone, and I hope DG finds a more
appropriate revenue source to keep them in business. They go out, no
one wins.
Regards,
Chuck
Seeing how the FAA has acted on the Pegasus issue, I would not count
on the FAA to be reasonable nor effective with DG.
I know the situation with Centrair was not nice for those involved (it
affected a club I used to belong to) but what exactly do you want the
FAA to do? They had a type certificate owner who basically told
everybody to piss off and drop dead. I don't see why FAA would or
should step in and be creative and write or borrow inspection
procedures. And I am not sure that going the experimental route was
really an option - you still need to comply with an inspection program
which effectively did not exist. Or am I missing something?
As for DG I don't see the connection with Centrair at all. A little
voice inside my head hopes that the FAA sees this as silly/an
unnecessary burden. We'll see.
Darryl
Darryl
You will find PIK's and others, but only one single Centrair 101
Cheers,
Lars Peder
DG-600, Denmark
http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/g/rg_regulations_fnc.php
http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/g/doc/Regulation/l_14020070601en00030020.pdf
just the fee to type certify the DG100 was 6,000 euros, and the annual
fee is 900 euros. So, for the first year somebody had to pay 6,900
euros, or 115 euros per glider if the 60 glider number is correct (I
have no idea the actual number). The fact that one never buys from or
needs DG is the problem, without regular transactions to mark-up and
so fund the process, there is no money to pay the EASA fees. So, where
will the money come from? Should DG add 6,900 euros to the cost of
each DG100 or LS10 to pay for this? And if DG can't find a way,
perhaps they will just walk away from the type certification. The
typical response to non-payment of the fee to EASA has been to
decertify and ground the aircraft.
DG appears to have paid 90,000 euros to certify 13 (acquired) glider
types for the first year and will have to pay 11,700 euros every year,
and that is just one fee, not all the other fees which are listed in
detail:
http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/g/doc/Regulation/l_14020070601en00030020.pdf
also not included is DG's internal costs to comply with and administer
all this. I do not intend this post to defend Mr. Weber, the amount of
the 'service contract', the way funds are being raised, or Mr. Weber's
tone and attitude. I think that all holders of type certificates are
in a very tough spot and it is clearly a fact that some means of
paying the type certificate fees will have to be developed, and
ultimately these fees will have to be paid by the owners of the
affected gliders.
Brian
> ...The typical response to non-payment of the fee
> to EASA has been to decertify and ground the aircraft...
Can you give an example of that happening? I really am curious about
that.
Thanks, Bob K.
Yes, but I wonder if he's aware of it. He claims to not read any of the
relevant news groups / bulletin boards.
Tony V.
Here is the URL: http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/c/c_sas_aircraft.php#
All he is trying to do is to raise $800,000-$1M+ from people who have
no need for him or his company. What in the world can he possibly do
to make it worth $3-400 a year, EVERY YEAR, to me and my 38 year old
LS-1C? The last AD on the LS-1C was BEFORE MY GLIDER WAS EVEN MADE!
What he is doing is to try and save his company, I understand and
sympathize, I really do because I lost my company (only mine was due
to a crooked bookkeeper). The way he is trying is just going to
backfire and make him personna non grata while DG & LS sailplanes
become pariahs.
2nd, Weber knows very well how the crap is coming down on his head and
that is why he is stonewalling. He says he will not even talk to
owners because we have said bad things about him, and he has not even
heard the vitriol that I am thinking.
Well, perhaps I am implying I know more about the EASA than I do, I
was mainly making the point that there are fees to be paid. It doesn't
appear that anyone stops paying the fees very often, but it does
happen:
"EASA Certification Information 2009 - 09: Suspension of EASA Type
Certificate EASA.IM.A.171 by the European Aviation Safety Agency for
the Eclipse Model EA500 aircraft for administrative reasons."
and note that at the bottom, the contact person is EASA Accounts
Receivable. As I understand it they didn't pay, game over.
BTW, I've been up to see Brad's HP24 and it is looking good. Do you
have any idea how EASA will deal with owner builders? They seem quite
fee oriented.
Brian
> ...BTW, I've been up to see Brad's HP24 and it is looking good. Do you
> have any idea how EASA will deal with owner builders? They seem quite
> fee oriented.
Thanks! Brad has certainly worked well and hard on this project.
I don't know what provisions EASA has for amateur-built aircraft. But
if folks are building RV-series homebuilt airplanes there I don't know
why they couldn't be building kit gliders there as well.
Bob K.
> 1st, Weber can abandon the TCs. There was a URL posted earlier that
> listed 'Special Airworthiness" category gliders whose TCs have been
> "abandoned" and which have not been grounded be EASA. These include
> Centrair, Diamant, Glasflugel, Pik, PZL, Salto, Scheibe, Slingsby, SZD,
> and others. EASA did not ground these gliders just because the former
> TC owners have "abandoned" their TCs.
>
This list is wrong in at least one case. Glasfaser (Hansjörg Streifeneder
and son) have the TCs for Glasflugel gliders and, according to their
website, are not intending to abandon them. AFAIK these TCs have never
been abandoned because Glasfaser aquired them when Glasflugel folded.
> This list is wrong in at least one case...
Martin, the only Glasflügel model listed is 304B. The SAS document
lists Brauchle Segelflugzeugbau und Charter GmbH; Lindenberg, Germany,
as the former certificate holder. I suspect that the story there is a
bit complicated.
Regardless, I that Raul's point is valid; EASA doesn't seem to be
going out of their way to make trouble for individual owners, just the
manufacturers that they seem to presume to hold the deep pockets.
One think that I'd watch for is the case of the lifetime extensions
that the manufacturers have been doling out with TCs in 3000-hour
increments. I suspect that SAS classification brings that to a halt
except where the specific inspection regimen has already been
developed.
Thanks, Bob K.
So in this big picture can somebody explain just what spare parts
support is available from DG for these "non-DG Flugzeugbau
manufactured" gliders it owns the type certificates for?
Does DG have any spare parts on hand for the DG-30x, DG-50x, LS-4 and
LS-6? Did all the tooling for the DG-30x and DG-50x end up at Elan/AMS-
Flight via Elan and is the LS-4 and LS-6 tooling also at AMS-Flight
via their purchase post collapse of LS? Is there cooperation between
DG and AMS-Flight to ensure parts availability, that relationship
seems pretty strained (I'm being polite).
It would seem awkward if DG wants to charge for support to do
paperwork etc. but there may be some interesting parts availability
issues if they don't have access to the original tooling/molds. I'm
thinking things like replacement control surfaces, and similar.
I understand manufacturers being upset about EASA costs but the whole
way this has been presented by DG is about the worst possible way it
could be done. As Bob has pointed out, it's a non-starter, people just
won't pay, and this is doomed to fail. All it will really achieve is
to generate huge bad-will against DG Flugzeugbau and raise concerns
about their viability. If I had a new shiny DG thing on order right
now I'd be thinking hard about canceling the order if DG's business is
really so badly at risk - which is what the messaging from Webber
implies.
Darryl
I have an LS1f that I've owned for 3 years now. I have already had
trouble finding parts. In one instance, I needed a 6mm coencentric
bolt. DG estimated it would cost me $300-$400US to have one machined
via outsourcing the original LS design drawings. A machined 6mm
bolt!!! Needless to say, I was not happy. So I decided to send a
question (along with some comments) to Mr Weber personally and ask if
this new service contract revenue will enable them to produce and
provide a wider supply of spare parts at more "normal" prices.
Here's his reply:
Of course we will do "everything" to provide you with the necessary
spare parts.
But if a special part - which cannot be used in other LS gliders - is
out of stock, we of course need to produce a small new quantity. And
that might cost!
Dave
> ...In one instance, I needed a 6mm coencentric
> bolt. DG estimated it would cost me $300-$400US to have one machined
> via outsourcing the original LS design drawings. A machined 6mm
> bolt!!!...
I make and buy lots of little onesey-twosey specialty hardware like
that, and it is never as expensive as you describe. What I can't make
on my little Chinese 9x20 lathe I shop out on www.mfgquote.com. Feel
free to drop me a line when you need a thing like that, I'd be glad to
offer what guidance I can.
Thanks, Bob K.
"Existing aircraft are not necessarily grounded if the type-
maintaining organization disappears for any reason. However, if an
incident happens due to a design flaw and no type supporter
organization exists to develop a remedy to that flaw, all existing
aircraft of that type might become grounded permanently."
So it's basically an insurance policy in the case that something comes
up that needs engineering work to fix. When was the last time that
happened to these older types?
The DG-300/303 Elan in the last few years.
No doubt the cost of that weighted on Webber's approach to this. Again
a large part of what they did in footing test costs, working on
resolution that kept DG-300/303s flying was good. But maybe there
could have been more, who knows. The communication however around that
again was not great, with stuff, photos of spar problems, leaking out
on German forums and an overall black eye for DG. You would have
thought that would have given them a clue about PR and messaging.
The other thing to consider in this is it is not charity. Somebody
buys a manufacturer (or their IP/tooling) and their marketing brand.
They are leveraging that brand to establish their new business and in
the case of aircraft there is always the risk of problems with the
existing fleet, both to the owners and the TC holder. While I have
sympathy for the costs piled onto manufacturers I have a problem with
somebody who goes out and acquires two separate companies or their
assets both with legacy products to support and then complains about
it and tries ramming this subscription idea down owners throats.
I noticed McLean aviation the DG dealer in the UK is supporting this
support subscription plan (see Flugzeugbau). I wonder how much
feedback McLean is getting from owners, and how this sits with the BGA
opposition to this whole subscription approach. And why does DG just
mention the UK dealer, were the other dealers approached and all
declined to participate in this like McLean has? Or at least decline
to publicly identify they will participate in this? I've had very good
experiences with DG USA agents on support and help for DG gliders
(both "real" DG and Elan gliders) and suspect they are pretty
embarrassed about this whole subscription idea.
Darryl
> The DG-300/303 Elan in the last few years...
The interesting thing about the DG300 debacle was that, so far as we
know, it made absolutely no operational difference in the aircraft.
We'd never have known about it if it wasn't revealed in the course of
the repair of unrelated damage.
Furthermore, if you go by the dictates of 14CFR23, even with the
ondulated fibers the wing spars would still go to 5.3*1.5=8g which is
strong enough for a utility category glider. The trouble is that they
wouldn't go to 6.4*1.725=~11g as required by the more stringent JAR22
required in Europe.
Darryl, I know you've seen this, but for everyone else here's a
description I wrote of the DG300 wing spar issue, with several semi-
helpful diagrams:
http://www.hpaircraft.com/misc/dg300spars.htm
Thanks, Bob K.
The DG300 will most likely be supported no matter what, as some DG's
were produced and sold by Mr. Webber, including mine and I think the
one D. Ramm had. Also I've bought parts for mine including the gear
handle lock spring, a spare turbulator pitot (was told it was the last
one) the elevator bolt retaining spring, and a nose hook. All came
with certification paperwork.
The way things are going it seems DG will have to give up the TC's.
Did Herr Weber not know this would be required of his company when he
bought DG?