FACT: Anything Done. Anything actually true; That which happened.

Ian,
we could accept as fact. The factory admits it invited the individual to
fly. The factory admits that he met their requirements, prior to him showing
up to fly. The factory admitted it took the glider apart before the
completion of the individual taking a check ride.

The conjecture, is the weather and personal opinion on the factory's part as
to whether the individual was competent to fly, which seems basis-less
without an unbiased report from the instructor ( check-ride pilot).



FACT: The individual suffered financial loss, due to decisions made my the
factory for WHATEVER reason they chose, in denying him to fly the ship,
AFTER they pre-arranged that opportunity.

They should re-imburse the individual for his monetary loss and CLEARLY
develop a written procedure for minimum experience required to allow
individuals to test fly their glider...however stringent they'd like...but
it should be done FIRST!


This seems amazingly simple and for you to argue to the contrary seems like
you simply don't get the relationship of the manufacturer inviting the
individual PRIOR TO the actual event. They knew everything about his
background and he complied with all their requests...

I don't really care what you choose to lable the issue, for me...in my view
as a U.S. Manufacturer...This is absolutely lousy customer service and I
concur with previous posters on RAS that I would not even consider
purchasing a product from this company based on their customer service...The
Factory is being granted the opportunity to resolve the problem and level
with the purchasing community and instead they are trying to simply SPIN it
all their way...a very foolish and costly mistake in my humble opinion.



Respectfully,


Steve Hill