DO YOUR CONTOL CHECKS!

There is no legal requirement to comply with the AD.
The insurance company may say that the owner/operator
did not practice due diligence by not complying with
the manufacturers recomendation but. I recall a PIK-20
that was destroyed by failure to connect the elevator
a number of years back. It was totaled and they replaced
it. Any insurance guys out there have an opinion on
this?

Gee,

Since my(our) premiums pay for these claims, when
does the insurance company not have to pay?

Stewart Kissel wrote:
Gee,

Since my(our) premiums pay for these claims, when
does the insurance company not have to pay?

Most of us buy insurance to protect us from accidents, including ones we
contribute to, and the policies I've bought (generally from the SSA
insurer) do this.

The insurance company lays out the things they will not pay for in the
policy; generally, this would include things like fraud, a non-covered
pilot flying the glider, non-payment of the premium, deliberate damage
by the policy holder, and probably things like acts of war and perhaps
radioactive contamination, but it's been a while since I studied my policy.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Stewart Kissel wrote in message ...
Gee,

Since my(our) premiums pay for these claims, when
does the insurance company not have to pay?

When you haven't done what you are supposed to: current BFR and annual
inspection.

IMPORTANT:

The A/P who signs off on the annual MUST be registered and current.
Most of us assume that the guy in the shop has done all of the
necessary paperwork, but when was the last time you actually checked
the guy's credentials? Probably never. Well, if he is faking it your
insurance company can (and probably will) deny the claim. You can
check his credentials with the FAA. The same thing goes for the CFIG
who signs off on your BFR.
If you think that you can claim ignorance or "acting in good faith",
well you can forget it. This falls into you either comply or you
don't. Period. Of course, you can always gamble that your insurance
company won't catch it. In this case: GOOD LUCK! You can always sue
the offending A/P or instructor, but the odds on this tactic are poor
at best.

Tom Seim
Richland, WA

At 21:06 04 April 2004, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 11:40:06 +1200, Bruce Hoult
wrote:

In article ,
Stewart Kissel wrote:

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?...00417&ntsbno=C
H
I04CA090&akey=1

That looks more like: 'if the manufacturer issues an
AD [1], you'd
probably better do it, whether you legally have to
or not'.

-- Bruce

[1] in this case, installing a locking device onto
L'Hotellier
connectors.

This is the subject of a BGA AD in 1993 for the ASW-20,
so I don't see
where you get the 'manufacturer AD' bit from, even
though it does
appear in ASW-20 TN-17 on extending the service life
beyond 3000
hours.

As the AD in question refers to the requirement for
a locking pin in
the Hotellier, I'm a bit gobsmacked that these couplings
could ever
have been used without a locking pin or shroud: there's
no way you
could inspect the check hole after assembly (other
than poking
something through it) on wing control circuits in the
ASW-20 and other
gliders. Admittedly you can see the check hole for
the elevator, but
that's the only one that is easy to check by inspection
on a '20.

--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :


Martin,

You can see some of the check holes through the hatch
relatively easily (the airbrake ones as I recall).
I was always under the impression that the requirement
for the pin was because the spring loaded wedge could
get gunged up with old greasy crud to the point where
the spring would not push the wedge (or the spring
could break through fatigue and the wedge could work
loose). I always felt safest if, having fitted the
pin, I pushed the wedge up against the pin and gently
tried to pull the L'Hotelier off the ball (as a check
against the cup/wedge being worn enough to detach).

On 5 Apr 2004 08:35:48 GMT, Andrew Warbrick
wrote:

You can see some of the check holes through the hatch
relatively easily (the airbrake ones as I recall).

Those are the only ones that offer a side view: the flaps and aileron
connections show their topsides to the hatch - hence my comment, as
you'd really need a light and mirror to do the visual check.

I was always under the impression that the requirement
for the pin was because the spring loaded wedge could
get gunged up with old greasy crud to the point where
the spring would not push the wedge (or the spring
could break through fatigue and the wedge could work
loose). I always felt safest if, having fitted the
pin, I pushed the wedge up against the pin and gently
tried to pull the L'Hotelier off the ball (as a check
against the cup/wedge being worn enough to detach).

My '20 has spring locking shrouds (I never can remember their correct
name) on all Hotelliers except the elevator, which has a pin. Like
you, I do a rattle test on the Hotelliers after assembly and before
doing positives: checking for wear is a good point, but I use the test
mainly as a check that all the springs are holding things in place.

--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

At 08:42 06 April 2004, Andy Henderson wrote:
Well!

He's lucky to get away with that!

Yes, a talk is required. Not a bollocking, but a sensible
talk as to
the the cause and solution of the problem. Let's not
forget the tug
pilot and others on the ground could have been killed.
Therefore the
matter can not just be left to the 'competition' pilot.
I wonder what solution he came up with in the few minutes
between
launches. The only acceptable one would have been to
fit safety pin's
to all L'Hotellier fitting's.

Positive checks would not always have found the problem
which causesd
this accident.

'The safety pin or wire prevents the locking plate
from backing out
and thus allowing the socket to inadvertently disengage
from its
corresponding ball'.

Do some of you still fly without safety pins?

If you do don't you are risking your own and other's
lives.

Lets hope we all have a safe season.

Happy flying!

Regards

Andy

The spring prevents the locking plate backing out and
thus allowing the socket to inadvertently disengage
from its corresponding ball.

The pin prevents three things.
1. If the mechanism is bunged up with crud the spring
may not be strong enough to move the locking plate
so the socket may be only over the ball, not locked
(should be possible to verify this by trying to pull
the socket off the ball).
2. The spring may be broken through fatigue allowing
the locking plate to back out (you should be able to
feel this by verifying that the spring pushes the locking
plate to the end of its travel when released).
3. If the socket is not properly engaged the locking
plate will not be fully home and the hole will not
be visible, fitting a pin cures this problem but so
does a visual inspection of the holes.

As I understand it, the AD was issued in response to
an incident where the spring was either broken or insufficiently
strong to move the locking plate in a gunged up connector.

I never flew my 20 without pins, but then I fly in
a country where the airworthiness organisation issued
an AD requiring pins to be fitted. If I were in a country
where this was not mandatory then I would consider
flying without pins as long as I had verified that
the locking plate was moving freely, the spring returned
it to the end of its travel and felt strong enough,
that the hole in the locking plate was clearly visible
with the L'Hotelier fitted and that the socket would
not pull off the ball and the pin on the end of the
ball was proud of the slot in the socket (on the flap,
airbrake and elevator connections of the 20).

However, in the case under discussion, the fitting
of the pins was not a factor, the complete failure
to connect the elevator was the problem, having a pin
on a bit of string won't save you in this case.

It's also worth noting that a loose pin can be almost
as dangerous as a disconnected elevator. The pilot
I bought my share in the 20 from contemplated bailing
out on one occasion when the elevator safety pin worked
its way far enough out of the hole in the L'Hotelier
to foul on the structure of the fin and prevent full
elevator travel, fortunately with the application of
a bit of brute force the pin bent and he regained control.
You should make sure that the pin cannot work its way
out in this fashion.

Regards,

Andrew