Blanik L-13

No, the FAA has not approved a repair. There is an EASA approval but the last word I got from "those in the know" the license holder was going to approach the FAA to get the approval done. A big part of that approval is that all repair individuals have to be trained by the group having the approval in Europe. The first thought was that interested USA repair personnel would go there to be trained and then the FAA would be approached for approval.. Allegedly there were no USA repair shops that jumped on that idea. Supposedly, now the plan is to get FAA approval first and hopefully train USA repair personnel here not in Europe. This is still a work in progress and realistically, the longer it goes the less likely it will happen.





Prison yard, more likely. Didn't the FAA approve a fix for these L13's? I think this is another "let me buy your Blanik for pennies so I can profit from my immorality". Forgive me if I'm wrong.
http://home.nwi.net/~blanikam/ba/news.htm

The AMOC (alternative method of compliance) for FAA Project AT00794CE-G may indeed take time to resolve. My intention was to caution US owners of affected L-13's that some people that are offering to purchase these "gate exhibits" on the cheap may in fact be planning on "flipping" these gliders for a huge margin if returned to service via an AMOC, thereby taking advantage of those who may not have received the notice. For example, the two offers posted on RAS, and , are suspiciously first-timers here. On the other hand, they could both be quite innocent. I owned an L-13 and sold it in the late 90's but still feel quite bad for the new owner who later had to ground it. It may already be too late for some, unfortunately.

On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 3:26:08 PM UTC-7, Duster wrote:
The AMOC (alternative method of compliance) for FAA Project AT00794CE-G may indeed take time to resolve. My intention was to caution US owners of affected L-13's that some people that are offering to purchase these "gate exhibits" on the cheap may in fact be planning on "flipping" these gliders for a huge margin if returned to service via an AMOC, thereby taking advantage of those who may not have received the notice. For example, the two offers posted on RAS, and , are suspiciously first-timers here. On the other hand, they could both be quite innocent. I owned an L-13 and sold it in the late 90's but still feel quite bad for the new owner who later had to ground it. It may already be too late for some, unfortunately.

"A huge margin" on a Blanik, that's a laugh!
Jim

At 23:26 27 April 2017, JS wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 3:26:08 PM UTC-7, Duster wrote:
The AMOC (alternative method of compliance) for FAA Project
AT00794CE-G
m=
ay indeed take time to resolve. My intention was to caution US owners of
af=
fected L-13's that some people that are offering to purchase these "gate
ex=
hibits" on the cheap may in fact be planning on "flipping" these gliders
fo=
r a huge margin if returned to service via an AMOC, thereby taking
advantag=
e of those who may not have received the notice. For example, the two
offer=
s posted on RAS, and , are
suspiciously=
first-timers here. On the other hand, they could both be quite innocent.
I=
owned an L-13 and sold it in the late 90's but still feel quite bad for
th=
e new owner who later had to ground it. It may already be too late for
some=
, unfortunately.

"A huge margin" on a Blanik, that's a laugh!
Jim

A 6500 euro parts kit excluding several weeks of labour. One done at a
nearby club ended in a bill that was more than the insurance value of the
aircraft. Huge margin, indeed.

With the huge margins maybe a derivative market of Lark calls and puts will develop.