DG "service contract" revisited

[Lars Peder Hansen]

Finally, someone is taking legal action against DG Flugzeugbau.

Those who understand German can follow the Nordrhein-Westfalen chapter of
the German Aeroclub here: http://www.aeroclub-nrw.de/htmd/01h-aktuelles.htm



On a related note, the EASA continues to sabotage DG's effort to force us to
sign contracts, in order to obtain new manuals. The updated Type Certificate
Data Sheets for LS gliders clearly state that you can use the old OR the new
(May 2011) manuals.

http://easa.europa.eu/certification/type-certificates/docs/aircrafts/EASA-TCDS-A.095_LS_Sailplanes-0



Also, DG tries to force you to pay for the contract in all the years from
2009 if you need a service in, say, 2016. Apart from being extremely
questionable from a legal standpoint, this raises the question: Why should
anyone pay for a yearly contract with DG at all, then? It is much better to
put an equivalent sum into your own savings account, so you are able to pay
ransom money if ever needed. Meanwhile, the interest you earn on your own
money may buy you a Flarm, or enable you to take the wife / girlfriend (or
both) out for an evening in town.



Happy soaring,

Lars Peder



Replace numbers with post1.tele.dk to answer by email

[Andrew Warbrick]

I don't think EASA had much option but to include all the old flight and
service manuals in the TCDS. DG are serial numbering the new manuals to
each individual glider to discourage copying or lending. Surely that means
that if DG haven't provided a "new" manaul for your glider then the
original manual is the latest one available for your individual glider
because there is no "new" manual with your exact serial number.

Of course if DG have created a serial numbered manual for your glider then
they are breaking the law (specifically EC regulation 2042/2003) by not
"making available" the "updated" manauls to the aircraft owner/operator.

[Lars Peder Hansen]

They try to make it look like the manual is tied to the individual glider,
by creating a front page with the ac. serial number and some kind of
internal DG checksum. As we all know this is against regulations.
Our local National Aviation Authority in Denmark require the new manuals
used in maintenance programs, but they specifically state that it does not
need to be tied to any specific ac, and that owners "are not required to be
part af a subscription program of any kind". I guess that is the closest
they can come to saying "copy away, folks!" ;-)

Lars Peder


"Andrew Warbrick" <awar...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4ea16247$0$28623$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com...

[jcarlyle]

DG has another distasteful business practice that isn't well known,
yet. If you sign up for the service contract, they will automatically
(without even asking you in advance) charge your credit card for
subsequent years. Guess how I know?

-John

On Oct 21, 6:55 am, "Lars Peder Hansen" <lars.peder.han...@127.0.0.1>
wrote:

> Finally, someone is taking legal action against DG Flugzeugbau.
>
> Those who understand German can follow the Nordrhein-Westfalen chapter of
> the German Aeroclub here:http://www.aeroclub-nrw.de/htmd/01h-aktuelles.htm
>
> On a related note, the EASA continues to sabotage DG's effort to force us to
> sign contracts, in order to obtain new manuals. The updated Type Certificate
> Data Sheets for LS gliders clearly state that you can use the old OR the new
> (May 2011) manuals.
>

> http://easa.europa.eu/certification/type-certificates/docs/aircrafts/...

[ContestID67]

I live in fear that one day I will need some semi-trivial inexpensive
part (i.e. springs in the airbrakes) for my glider and have to pay the
"DG-ransom" to obtain said part, back dated to time immemorial.

On top of that my glider has a Standard Airworthiness Certificate
(rather than Experimental*) which limits what I can do to replace that
semi-trivial inexpensive part. Any thoughts on conversion from
Standard to Experimental? Does that help me in any way? Or is there
a downside such as lowering the resale value?

Thanks, John

* I own a DG-101G ELAN. If you look at
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/AcftRef_Results.aspx?Mfrtxt=&Modeltxt=DG-10&PageNo=1
you will find that it is about 50/50 if any particular DG-10X is
Standard or Experimental certified. Was it common practice back in
the 80's to pick/choose Standard versus Experimental? What was the
rational when choosing one over the other? It seems that many/most
newer gliders are Experimental. So I ask again, would it help me to
reclassify my ship as Experimental? If so, how complicated is it to
make the change?

[bish]

> > Replace numbers with post1.tele.dk to answer by email- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -
>
> - Afficher le texte des messages précédents -

DG gives you 3 days to refuse to pay then it charge you automatically.
This is illegal in Canada.
S6

[Dan Marotta]

Random comments to the above messages:

With Photo Shop, I can copy a page and insert my serial number.

Most folks I've talked to, regard Experimental as better than Standard as it
allows us to do a lot more things with our aircraft. I don't think it has
any effect on value, besides, these things are NOT an investment, they're
expensive toys.

I really wanted another (3rd) LS-6, but this crap convinced me to move on.
I'm now enjoying my LAK-17a...

Screw DG and all their horses.


"bish" <fly...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:59cd00cb-15f1-4526...@x25g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

[bish]

On 21 oct, 09:48, ContestID67 <jhder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I live in fear that one day I will need some semi-trivial inexpensive
> part (i.e. springs in the airbrakes) for my glider and have to pay the
> "DG-ransom" to obtain said part, back dated to time immemorial.
>
> On top of that my glider has a Standard Airworthiness Certificate
> (rather than Experimental*) which limits what I can do to replace that
> semi-trivial inexpensive part.  Any thoughts on conversion from
> Standard to Experimental?  Does that help me in any way?  Or is there
> a downside such as lowering the resale value?
>
> Thanks, John
>

> * I own a DG-101G ELAN.  If you look athttp://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/AcftRef_Results.aspx?Mfrtxt=&...

> you will find that it is about 50/50 if any particular DG-10X is
> Standard or Experimental certified.  Was it common practice back in
> the 80's to pick/choose Standard versus Experimental?  What was the
> rational when choosing one over the other?   It seems that many/most
> newer gliders are Experimental.  So I ask again, would it help me to
> reclassify my ship as Experimental?  If so, how complicated is it to
> make the change?

Last year I needed 2 part that cost 45 euros. They charge me 100
euros s/h and 245 euros for the annual contract.
400 euros for 2 rubber tube for my landing gear.
S6

[jcarlyle]

It might be different in Canada than in the US. How is DG's "3 days to
pay" notification sent?

I never received anything by post or e-mail, the charge just appeared
on my credit card at the end of the month. A DG rep confirmed that DG
was renewing automatically without notification.

-John

[bish]

> > S6- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -

>
> - Afficher le texte des messages précédents -

I was sent a email saying which credit card they will use
S6

[jcarlyle]

John,

Going from Standard to Experimental for my old ASW-19 was very simple.
I needed to fill out an 8130-6 form, write a program letter, and then
have the FSDO rep check the actual airframe for serial number match
and display of the Experimental placard. It did not affect the resale
value in the slightest. The ease of the process might depend on your
FSDO, though.

As Dan said above, having an Experimental airworthiness allows us to
do more with our aircraft. That's why my LS8 is Experimental, even
though it's eligible to be Standard.

-John

[johngalloway]

On Oct 21, 1:44 pm, jcarlyle <jmcarl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> DG has another distasteful business practice that isn't well known,
> yet. If you sign up for the service contract, they will automatically
> (without even asking you in advance) charge your credit card for
> subsequent years. Guess how I know?
>
> -John
>

...and being a "recurrent payment" from a credit card you cannot stop
it without their agreement. Even if you cancel your card it will
find its way to a new one of the same type. This was discussed on
U.R.A.S a year or so ago. I have been caught by this in another
context. Now I never ever set up any recurring payment from a credit
or debit card for anything. Many companies do not tell you that you
are setting one up when you start e.g. a subscription.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/banking/recurring-payments

John Galloway

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Oct 21, 6:48 am, ContestID67 <jhder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I live in fear that one day I will need some semi-trivial inexpensive
> part (i.e. springs in the airbrakes) for my glider and have to pay the
> "DG-ransom" to obtain said part, back dated to time immemorial.

Here in the US, 14CFR§21.303(b)2 makes provisions for the installation
of owner-produced parts on certificated aircraft in cases where the
originals are impractical to obtain. I think you can make a good case
that that is the situation that prevails here.

This article has some good information about owner-produced parts, and
also offers a cautionary tale about how it can go wrong:

http://150cessna.tripod.com/parts.html

Thanks, Bob K.

[jcarlyle]

John,

Many thanks for that information! So DG might have set their service
contract up like a "book of the month" club, whereby you have to
specifically cancel to get out of future years of service contracts?
How sneaky can they get? There's absolutely no mention of that in the
documents I have from DG! I think I'll send them both an e-mail and a
letter cancelling the contract for next year, and see if they honor my
request.

I must say that while I have gotten the new maintenance manual, parts,
and drawings from DG, I'm not happy with their "service". It's a long
story, but the gist is that DG claims that since the landing gear fork
movement measurements in my LS8 meet their specifications, the reason
my gear collapsed after hitting a bump in a cornfield (after 50 foot
of ground roll, as proven by a picture) was due to the gear handle
being unlocked. Not likely unless I unlocked the gear lever with my
teeth, since both hands and both feet were fairly busy at the time
with other activities.

-John

[Mike Schumann]

You can always dispute the charge with your credit card company and they
will issue a chargeback to DG. In the US, if a company has too many
chargebacks, they loose the ability to accept credit cards.

--
Mike Schumann

[jcarlyle]

Yes, I I was aware of that. Because of the gear collapse, though, it
was advantageous to keep the service contract going, even if DG did
renew it by underhanded means.

-John


On Oct 21, 2:27 pm, Mike Schumann <mike-nos...@traditions-nospam.com>
wrote:

[johngalloway]

On Oct 21, 7:27 pm, Mike Schumann <mike-nos...@traditions-nospam.com>
wrote:

That's the problem with a recurring payment - when you dispute it with
the credit card company they will, quite correctly, tell you that you
have authorised a recurring payment and that there are, therefore, no
grounds to dispute it through them. The fact that you weren't aware
of it cuts no ice with them. If I pay for any service by card that
could in any way turn into a recurring payment I specify that I wish
it recorded that I am not authorising a recurring payment and have
been surprised to find how often the default position of the other
side was to put the transaction through as one. Examples have been -
home insurance, breakdown cover, vehicle insurance, credit card
protection policy etc. Some send a renewal notice with the fact that
the payment will be automatically taken buried in the text - hoping
that you miss it. They may do this less in the US but DG is
European.

John Galloway

[brianDG303]

There are systems for example B of A's "shop safe" that let you create
a unique credit card number with a designated life span, usually 12
months at most. It conceals the true card number and prevents use
after the date you set. But you have to know when to use it, and the
DG auto-charge has caught most people by surprise. I am exempt from
the service fee but one possible way around the fee for people who are
stuck with it would be to form a buying club, three DG 200's pay one
fee and buy the parts for that service contract.

[jim wynhoff]

> fee and buy the parts for that service contract.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Is anyone going to be surprised when DG folds? I'm not. Like many
others I would not consider purchase of a legacy LS or DG, nor would I
consider a new DG glider, even if happened to clearly outperform the
competition.

[Mike Schumann]

You need to challenge this with your credit card company in writing.
From my personal experience, the credit card company will always side
with the customer unless the merchant can provide a clear signed
agreement authorizing the charge. Even then, the customer can prevail
if there is a question of whether the signature is forged or not.

US law gives credit card customers a lot of clout in these areas,
regardless of where the merchant is located.

--
Mike Schumann

[Sean Fidler]

Yeah! I love my Lak17a. Great glider!

[Sean Fidler]

Wow. This business practice is incredibly poor. I cannot believe that anyone would buy a new glider from this company ever again. I hope your cause is able to win a legal case and stop it quickly but I imagine the result would be a bankruptcy. Amazing that they have the balls to stay the course regardless of all the complaints. Its been a couple years now correct?

I for one will never touch a DG for this reason.

Sean

[Lars Peder Hansen]

They moved the announcement, you can find it here:
http://www.aeroclub-nrw.de/htmd/13h-aktuelles-technik.htm or on their
facebook site: https://www.facebook.com/aeroclub.nrw


"Lars Peder Hansen" <lars.ped...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:4ea14f96$0$56789$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...

> Finally, someone is taking legal action against DG Flugzeugbau.
>
> Those who understand German can follow the Nordrhein-Westfalen chapter of
> the German Aeroclub here:
> http://www.aeroclub-nrw.de/htmd/01h-aktuelles.htm

> .......

[jrsilv...@gmail.com]

hi,

I know this is an old post but I have a DG 400 (experimental) and think there might be fundamental misunderstanding of experimental aircraft and maintenance practices. In the USA there in NO difference regarding standard or experimental aircraft regarding 'owner accomplished' maintenance unless the owner also built the aircraft. Unless you built your ship (I don't know of any owner built glass ships) you fall under identical maintenance FAR 43 requirements as a standard airworthiness aircraft regarding owner done maintenance, there are 31 items an owner can accomplish. Experimental none owner built doesn't really do much as far as maintenance practices.. it just really means your annual is called a condition inspection and can be done by a AP not an IA... that's about all it does.

[Frank Whiteley]

Regarding builders of glass gliders:

Brad Hill has built a Russia AC-4c, Apis, and the Tetra-15. Other have done so. I believe there are additional HP-24's currently under construction. See http://www.seattleglidercouncil.org/towline_online/2012-04-01_Towline.pdf and
https://www.facebook.com/pages/HP-24-Sailplane-Project/200931354951?ref=br_tf

See also http://www.eaa72.org/newsletters/2008/newsjul08.pdf

Frank Whiteley

[Dan Marotta]

I know there are few, but the Americal Falcon (and its sister) and the HP-24
fall into the Experimental Amateur Built category and are of FRP
construction.

As for the yearly inspection - there are a lot more A&Ps around than IAs.
Having said that, George Applebay signs my glider off annually even though
it's "Experimental".

<jrsilv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:043d625e-ec41-4591...@googlegroups.com...

[Bob Kuykendall]

As for experimental, racing aircraft, who can do maintenance and sign it off is specified in the Operating Limitations that accompany the special airworthiness certificate. The few such aircraft I am familiar with have operating limitations that are basically the same as experimental, amateur-built.

As for experimental, amateur-built aircraft, unless it is specifically prohibited by the Operating Limitations (and I have never, ever, seen such a restriction), anybody or any creature may perform any maintenance, repairs, or modifications on the aircraft and sign them off. Anybody. Or any creature. Being human is not a requirement:

http://www.wanttaja.com/avlinks/MAINT.HTM

For some major repairs or modifications, you are required to notify the FAA, and they push you back into your Phase I testing for a while. But, again, anybody can do those repairs or modifications.

The only privilege conferred by the repairbeing certificate is that of conducting and signing off the annual condition inspection. That's it. That inspection can also be conducted by an A&P; IA certification is not required.

Thanks, Bob K.

[Morgans]

"Bob Kuykendall" <b...@hpaircraft.com> wrote in message
news:59ff8cc1-f57d-4934...@googlegroups.com...

> As for experimental, racing aircraft, who can do maintenance and sign it
> off is specified in the Operating Limitations that accompany the special
> airworthiness certificate. The few such aircraft I am familiar with have
> operating limitations that are basically the same as experimental,
> amateur-built.
>
> As for experimental, amateur-built aircraft, unless it is specifically
> prohibited by the Operating Limitations (and I have never, ever, seen such
> a restriction), anybody or any creature may perform any maintenance,
> repairs, or modifications on the aircraft and sign them off. Anybody. Or
> any creature. Being human is not a requirement:
>
> http://www.wanttaja.com/avlinks/MAINT.HTM
>
> For some major repairs or modifications, you are required to notify the
> FAA, and they push you back into your Phase I testing for a while. But,
> again, anybody can do those repairs or modifications.
>
> The only privilege conferred by the repairbeing certificate is that of
> conducting and signing off the annual condition inspection. That's it.
> That inspection can also be conducted by an A&P; IA certification is not
> required.
>
> Thanks, Bob K.
>

Thanks for that, Bob. I thought that was the case, but was not sure enough
to speak up. I even had a post partway composed and deleted it.
--
Jim in NC


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com