On 2/3/2015 1:30 PM, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 14:15 03 February 2015, Bob Whelan wrote:

Major snip

True in glider design, too. The trick is to know - or at lest to remain
within
- one's limitations.

YMWV
Bob W.

P.S. I believe Dick Johnson was a degreed aeronautical engineer. His
entire

working life was spent in the engineering field, and his extracurricular
soaring-and-sailplane-design-and-testing-related body of work was
prodigious.
He likely passed on from heart failure in his mid-eighties while flying
the

Ventus he owned for decades - the one in which he drilled lube access
holes.
Make of all that what works for yourself!

Up until today I was firmly of the opinion that EASA and their regulation
was an unnecessary imposition on gliding. I had always believed that no-one
who flew a type certified glider would make structural modifications
without consulting the type certificate holder and obtaining their approval
for a modification, I simply did not believe that anyone could be THAT
irresponsible. I seems I was wrong, which is nothing new. I suppose that
EASA is a necessary evil while there are those who think that such behavior
is acceptable. What worries me most is that these actions are taken by
people who are described as well respected and qualified engineers. It
certainly increases my understanding of the attitude of EASA to FAA
licensed engineers.
I am well aware that in the past such modifications were made to simple
wood and fabric constructed gliders, cutting and patching a hole in fabric
or indeed metal skins is a completely different matter to drilling holes in
a GRP structure, the best that can be said is that such action has not
failed, YET, or maybe not.
To say that a course of action is ok because A.N Other did it and got away
with it is not safe practice, especially when it encourages those without
knowledge to try an "inspired" fix.
If you can produce a note of compliance, a relevant AD or tech note, from
the type certificate holder I will of course take it all back.


Hmmm...should I have also mentioned that - in the U.S. - it was (may still be)
quite common for early-imported, eventually ATC-ed gliders to be initially
licensed in the "Experimental - Exhibition and Racing" category, after which,
should reciprocal LBA/FAA certification eventually occur, the current owner
could choose to either retain the Exp-E&R certificate or switch the ship into
the ATC category? The switch didn't happen automatically. Left for another
discussion is the differing rights and responsibilities legally open to owners
of U.S.-licensed ships in either category...

Left for interested readers is to research Dick Johnson's 1981, S/N 29, Ventus
A's licensing category. (For the Anal Police, complain to the NTSB if you're
unhappy they weren't able to type in the correct verbiage for the ship's
certificate in their Full Narrative Report...all my experimentally licensed
sailplanes had the wording I've used above.)

Again - readers are entitled to draw their own conclusions and hold their
individual opinions. Isn't the concept of individual responsibility wonderful? :-)

Regards,
Bob W.