DG-300/303 owners...

On 4/7/07 12:34 AM, in article
, "Marc Ramsey"
wrote:

You should take a look at this:

http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/holm-dg300-e.html

Marc

My German skills are non-existant. Can anyone tell me if the lengthier
German part mentions which serial numbers are affected, because the English
part says the manufacturing error began sometime during the production run.
Presumably that means some of the early DG-300's were built right.

Thanks,
Bullwinkle

On Apr 7, 6:01 am, Bullwinkle wrote:
On 4/7/07 12:34 AM, in article
, "Marc Ramsey"

wrote:
You should take a look at this:

http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/holm-dg300-e.html

Marc

My German skills are non-existant. Can anyone tell me if the lengthier
German part mentions which serial numbers are affected, because the English
part says the manufacturing error began sometime during the production run.
Presumably that means some of the early DG-300's were built right.

Thanks,
Bullwinkle

You can try translating the DG webpage with this one:

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/tr

Just drop the URL into it, and choose "German to English".

-John W

On 4/7/07 5:16 AM, in article
, "rasposter"
wrote:

On Apr 7, 6:01 am, Bullwinkle wrote:
On 4/7/07 12:34 AM, in article
, "Marc Ramsey"

wrote:
You should take a look at this:

http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/holm-dg300-e.html

Marc

My German skills are non-existant. Can anyone tell me if the lengthier
German part mentions which serial numbers are affected, because the English
part says the manufacturing error began sometime during the production run.
Presumably that means some of the early DG-300's were built right.

Thanks,
Bullwinkle

You can try translating the DG webpage with this one:

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/tr

Just drop the URL into it, and choose "German to English".

-John W


OK: thanks!

Did that, and to answer my own question: no, no serial number range is
listed. Hopefully that will come out as DG and Elan/AMS continue to work the
problem.

As a summary, much of the longer German portion appears to be heavy duty
mental handwringing over what DG should do with the info that the spars are
weaker: ground the fleet, require a very expensive inspection, or just
impose some restrictions on speeds and weights. Clearly they have done the
latter.

I have to believe that Elan/AMS has sufficient manufacturing records to
determine when they changed their process, either by serial number, or by
date (from which affected serial numbers could be derived). You'd think
they'd keep those records for legal reasons, if no other.

Hoping for further clarification,
Thanks,
Bullwinkle

On Apr 7, 7:28 am, Bullwinkle wrote:
On 4/7/07 5:16 AM, in article
. com, "rasposter"





wrote:
On Apr 7, 6:01 am, Bullwinkle wrote:
On 4/7/07 12:34 AM, in article
, "Marc Ramsey"

wrote:
You should take a look at this:

http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/holm-dg300-e.html

Marc

My German skills are non-existant. Can anyone tell me if the lengthier
German part mentions which serial numbers are affected, because the English
part says the manufacturing error began sometime during the production run.
Presumably that means some of the early DG-300's were built right.

Thanks,
Bullwinkle

You can try translating the DG webpage with this one:

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/tr

Just drop the URL into it, and choose "German to English".

-John W

OK: thanks!

Did that, and to answer my own question: no, no serial number range is
listed. Hopefully that will come out as DG and Elan/AMS continue to work the
problem.

As a summary, much of the longer German portion appears to be heavy duty
mental handwringing over what DG should do with the info that the spars are
weaker: ground the fleet, require a very expensive inspection, or just
impose some restrictions on speeds and weights. Clearly they have done the
latter.

I have to believe that Elan/AMS has sufficient manufacturing records to
determine when they changed their process, either by serial number, or by
date (from which affected serial numbers could be derived). You'd think
they'd keep those records for legal reasons, if no other.

Hoping for further clarification,
Thanks,
Bullwinkle- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


My wife is a native speaker of German. I asked her to read this and
even though she isn't familiar with some of the terminology here is a
summary of generally what it says.

The glider that was inspected which resulted in this discovery is
about 20 years old and they did not report its serial number. At some
point ELAN started manufacturing the wings not to design
specifications. They apparently started using epoxy resins rather
than polyester resins (as were specified) in the affected part of the
spars possibly to reduce the curing times. This was done without
notification let alone approval from Glaser-Dirks. ELAN is aware that
they did this and ELAN does not dispute doing it but says they refuse
to take on any inspection costs. Also, they have been unresponsive to
DG's inquiries regarding this matter.

DG estimates the inspection cost to be around 6,000 euros and repair
cost could easily come to 5,000 euros per wing. DG says to maintain
consistency the inspection and repairs should all be done at the DG
factory in Germany so there will also be shipping costs. DG goes on
to say this option is not really discussion worthy for the pilots.
They rather opted for doing calculations and endurance tests on the
affected parts to prove that they are still sufficiently stable and
that the airplanes can be flown safely at reduced speeds and use.
This is apparently why they decided to just reduce the speeds, take
off weight and limit use. They say the current fleet is about 500
gliders worldwide.

I, for one, bought a DG-300 for its superior strength among other
reasons. We will have to wait for more clarification from DG but at
this point it seems that strength has now been reduced. Since this is
admittedly the fault of ELAN for not following the correct
manufacturing process and not notifying DG that they were altering the
manufacturing process this seems like a negligence issue. I would
hope they would do something to rectify the situation.

Bob
DG-300, S/N 3E-127

wrote:
I, for one, bought a DG-300 for its superior strength among other
reasons. We will have to wait for more clarification from DG but at
this point it seems that strength has now been reduced. Since this is
admittedly the fault of ELAN for not following the correct
manufacturing process and not notifying DG that they were altering the
manufacturing process this seems like a negligence issue. I would
hope they would do something to rectify the situation.

I sold mine several years ago, so I don't really have much of a stake in
this (at the moment, anyway), but when I bought my 303 Acro, the check
wasn't payable to ELAN, it was payable to Glaser-Dirks (which is, of
course, not quite the same company as DG-Flugzeugbau).

When subcontractor spar fabrication "innovations" resulted in our Duo
being grounded, Schempp-Hirth immediately took responsibility, found a
practical inspection and repair protocol, trained repair shops in their
major markets to inspect and repair (and flew SH technicians worldwide
to deal with the rest), and had most of the gliders back in the air in
less than two months without charging the owners a dime.

The situations aren't exactly comparable, but if I ever find myself
buying another new glider, this sort of behavior will no doubt influence
the choice...

Marc

On Apr 7, 11:47 am, Marc Ramsey wrote:
wrote:
I, for one, bought a DG-300 for its superior strength among other
reasons. We will have to wait for more clarification from DG but at
this point it seems that strength has now been reduced. Since this is
admittedly the fault of ELAN for not following the correct
manufacturing process and not notifying DG that they were altering the
manufacturing process this seems like a negligence issue. I would
hope they would do something to rectify the situation.

I sold mine several years ago, so I don't really have much of a stake in
this (at the moment, anyway), but when I bought my 303 Acro, the check
wasn't payable to ELAN, it was payable to Glaser-Dirks (which is, of
course, not quite the same company as DG-Flugzeugbau).

When subcontractor spar fabrication "innovations" resulted in our Duo
being grounded, Schempp-Hirth immediately took responsibility, found a
practical inspection and repair protocol, trained repair shops in their
major markets to inspect and repair (and flew SH technicians worldwide
to deal with the rest), and had most of the gliders back in the air in
less than two months without charging the owners a dime.

The situations aren't exactly comparable, but if I ever find myself
buying another new glider, this sort of behavior will no doubt influence
the choice...

Marc


I'm wondering why they have not issued a TN on this. Also, they
certainly know the S/N of the one where this was discovered as well as
any other tested. It seemed like they tested more than one.

In 1986 there was a mass balance issue that could have caused
flutter. They issued a TN and a very specific list of S/N's for
that. You'd think they could do the same here. ELAN seems to have
clammed up and mayby that's where the list needs to come from.
They're probably worried about liability and maybe they should be.

wrote:
I'm wondering why they have not issued a TN on this. Also, they
certainly know the S/N of the one where this was discovered as well as
any other tested. It seemed like they tested more than one.

Issuing a TN would imply that DG is the responsible party. In reality,
I believe that DG still holds the EASA equivalent of the type
certificate for the 300/303, in which case they are the only ones that
can issue an official TN (and they have issued TNs for the 300/303 in
recent years). I too ran the German portion of the notice through a
translator when I first found it, and there were several paragraphs
devoted to convincing the reader that DG is not responsible, don't
expect us to do anything, it's all ELAN's fault, etc.


In 1986 there was a mass balance issue that could have caused
flutter. They issued a TN and a very specific list of S/N's for
that. You'd think they could do the same here. ELAN seems to have
clammed up and mayby that's where the list needs to come from.
They're probably worried about liability and maybe they should be.

ELAN has been out of the aircraft business for several years, so I doubt
they'll have anything to say. The relationship between ELAN's former
aircraft business and AMS has never been clear to me. AMS produced and
sold to end-users something less than twenty 303s after they took over
the production rights, so they may get stuck with the liability for those.

But, as far as I know, ELAN was always a subcontractor to Glaser-Dirks
(and briefly DG) and never sold gliders directly to end-users (other
than perhaps acting as the agent for sales in Slovenia). If that is the
case, depending on how the reorganization was structured and German law,
DG may well end up holding the bag for the other 480 or so gliders,
which might explain the rather odd way of issuing a notice...

Marc

On 7 Apr 2007 10:59:27 -0700, wrote:

I, for one, bought a DG-300 for its superior strength among other
reasons. We will have to wait for more clarification from DG but at
this point it seems that strength has now been reduced. Since this is
admittedly the fault of ELAN for not following the correct
manufacturing process and not notifying DG that they were altering the
manufacturing process this seems like a negligence issue. I would
hope they would do something to rectify the situation.


DG decided this:
- NO inspection required

If you decide not to perform an inspection, these new limits will
become valid for a DG-300/DG-303 Acro:

- Vne limited from 270 kp/h to 250 kp/h
- Va limited from 200 to 175 kp/h
- Maximum T/O weight limited from 525 to 450 kg
- 6 kg lower limit of mass of non-carrying structure
- aerobatics prohibited

Apart from the max T/O weight (and the prohibition of aerobatics for
the DG-303 Acro) none of this limitations is going to have any
practical influence on aircraft handling, don't you agree?




Bye
Andreas

Ok guys,

I did a bit of research on the issue. Here the key points from DG's
posting with some additional information about DG's and Elan's
history. For those who wonder, I'm a native German speaker :-) :

The issue:
- Elan, who has been producing all DG 300/303 since its launch (up it
being taken over by AMS-Flight in 1999), apparently changed the
production process of the main spar at some unknown point in the past
without Glaser-Dirks (the DG predecessor) approval leading to the
possibility of faulty main spars (not all main spars produced by them
are necessary faulty).
- The glider that initially revealed the faulty main spar as a result
of a servere landing accident is about 20 years old with aprox. 1500h.
- There are about 500 DG-300/303 gliders still flying with an average
age of about 15 years and a total of about 1 million hours.
- No DG 300/303 has ever had a failed wing in flight as a result of
structural failure.
- The required breaking strength of the wing at the time of
certification was 1.725 times the max allowed in flight-load. The
actual certification test to failure was stopped at 2.1 times the max
allowed in-flight load without the wing failing.
- DG does not now how many gliders are affected, out of 8 tested 3 had
a faulty main spar.
- To test the wing is difficult and expensive, the wing has to be cut
open.

Possible solutions:
1. All gliders will be grounded
2. All gliders will have to be inspected within a reasonable time
period and repaired if necessary. The inspection would cost around EUR
6000 per glider, a repair, if necessary can easily reach EUR 5000. All
gliders would have to come to DG's factory in Germany since it would
be near impossible to develop guidelines about what is still
acceptable and what has to be repaired.
3. DG tries, using calculations, tests to failure and load tests on
faulty main spars, to prove that even faulty main spars have enough
strength as a result of the very high structural reserves of the
original design. This approach might allow to continue operating the
glider with reduced operating limits without the need for inspections
and repairs.

DG decided to go the 3. route to avoid having to ground all gliders
and has spent to date about EUR 10,000 to do the required testing.
Based on the suprisingly good results when testing the faulty main
spars they got the following operating limitations approved by the
EASA (European FAA equivalent):

New Operating Limits for all DG-300/303:
- Max speed reduced from 270 km/h to 250 km/h
- Maneuvering speed reduced from 200 km/h to 175 km/h
- MTOW reduced from 525 kg to 450 kg
- No aerobatics (also applies to the DG-300 Acro)

If you want to avoid these limitations you will have to get the glider
inspected and repaired if necessary.

The liability/legal issues/responsability:
The great majority of the affected gliders were delivered by & paid to
Glaser-Dirks which went bankrupt in 1996. The current DG-Flugzeugbau
only took over the Type Certificates and spare part supply but not the
product liability, the actual gliders and faulty main spars were not
manufactured by Glaser-Dirks but by Elan which does not dispute this.

Elan refuses to shoulder any costs related to the investigation of the
faulty main spars and does not respond to any inquiries. All gliders
with faulty main spars produced by Elan are out of warranty.

About 10 gliders were produced by Elan or its successor AMS-Flight and
delivered by the current DG-Flugzeugbau, all these gliders are out of
warranty as well.

AMS-Flight was established in 1999 to continue Elan's existing
aircraft production and took over the entire Elan Flight Division of
Elan as of Sep. 1st, 1999. AMS produced and delivered about 25 gliders
under their own responsibility and claims, that they converted the
production process back to the original specifications. However, they
don't seem to be able to state when and starting with which serial
number they did so. It is likely that the only DG-303s that are still
under warranty are technically ok but nobody knows for sure and only
an inspection will be able to prove that.


Here the companies' time lines & current sales:
1973 - Glaser-Dirks Flugzeugbau GmbH founded, prudction of the DG-100
begins
1978 - Elan founded
1983 - DG-300 introduced and produced by Elan
1996 - Glaser-Dirks Flugzeugbau GmbH goes bankrupt - DG Flugzeugbau
GmbH buys up key parts of Glaser-Dirks (excluding the product
liability of the DG-300 series), Elan continues to produce the
DG-300/303.
1999 - AMS-Flight established to continue Elan's existing aircraft
production, takes over the entire Elan Flight Division of Elan as of
Sep. 1st, 1999.
2006 - AMS-Flight stops DG-303 ELAN manufacturing. As of February 2006
444 DG-300 ELAN & 67 DG-303 ELAN gliders were produced.
2006 - AMS sales EUR 2.4 million (projected), 40 employees
2006 - DG sales EUR 7 million (delivered 50 planes), 75 Employees


The potential costs of fixing all affected DG-300/303 gliders
Inspection: 500 gliders in service x EUR 6000 per inspection = EUR
3,000,000
Repairs: 188 gliders (3 out of 8) x EUR 5000 per repair = EUR
940,000

Total (without any related costs): EUR 3,940,000 (approx. USD
5,265,000)

Looking at that total you can see that this could potentially bankrupt
either company (with related loss of employment), hence DG's close
look at their legal responibility...

I'm not taking any sides on this, look at above facts and judge for
yourself. Either way there will only be losers in this messy affair...

Markus

Hi guys,

John Giddy pointed out an important restriction I left out in my
summary above (not sure how I missed that, sorry
about that):

- Maximum mass of non-lifting parts is reduced from 246 kg (542 lb) to
240 kg (529 lb)

So the complete set of new restrictions to the operational limits is
as follows:

- Max speed reduced from 270 km/h (146 kt) to 250 km/h (135 kt)
- Maneuvering speed reduced from 200 km/h (108 kt) to 175 km/h (94 kt)
- MTOW reduced from 525 kg (1157 lb) to 450 kg (992 lb)
- Maximum mass of non-lifting parts reduced from 246 kg (542 lb) to
240 kg (529 lb)
- No aerobatics (also applies to the DG-300 Acro)

DG's definition of non-lifting parts is as follows:

- Fuselage (with permanently installed equipment, canopy, and main
pins)
- Cockpit load (Pilot + parachute + equipment for instance tail fin
battery in baggage compartment instead of in tail fin)
- Horizontal tail

This means that your max. cockpit load is reduced by 6 kg (13 lb) all
other things being equal.

I just saw that DG apparently just posted the complete English
translation of their German posting:

http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/holm-dg300-e.html

I hope this helps,

Markus