A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

DG "service contract" revisited



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 16th 13, 06:37 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bob Kuykendall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,345
Default DG "service contract" revisited

As for experimental, racing aircraft, who can do maintenance and sign it off is specified in the Operating Limitations that accompany the special airworthiness certificate. The few such aircraft I am familiar with have operating limitations that are basically the same as experimental, amateur-built.

As for experimental, amateur-built aircraft, unless it is specifically prohibited by the Operating Limitations (and I have never, ever, seen such a restriction), anybody or any creature may perform any maintenance, repairs, or modifications on the aircraft and sign them off. Anybody. Or any creature.. Being human is not a requirement:

http://www.wanttaja.com/avlinks/MAINT.HTM

For some major repairs or modifications, you are required to notify the FAA, and they push you back into your Phase I testing for a while. But, again, anybody can do those repairs or modifications.

The only privilege conferred by the repairbeing certificate is that of conducting and signing off the annual condition inspection. That's it. That inspection can also be conducted by an A&P; IA certification is not required.

Thanks, Bob K.



On Sunday, December 15, 2013 3:45:52 PM UTC-8, wrote:

I know this is an old post but I have a DG 400 (experimental) and think there might be fundamental misunderstanding of experimental aircraft and maintenance practices. In the USA there in NO difference regarding standard or experimental aircraft regarding 'owner accomplished' maintenance unless the owner also built the aircraft. Unless you built your ship (I don't know of any owner built glass ships) you fall under identical maintenance FAR 43 requirements as a standard airworthiness aircraft regarding owner done maintenance, there are 31 items an owner can accomplish. Experimental none owner built doesn't really do much as far as maintenance practices.. it just really means your annual is called a condition inspection and can be done by a AP not an IA... that's about all it does.


  #2  
Old October 21st 11, 06:07 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bob Kuykendall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,345
Default DG "service contract" revisited

On Oct 21, 6:48*am, ContestID67 wrote:
I live in fear that one day I will need some semi-trivial inexpensive
part (i.e. springs in the airbrakes) for my glider and have to pay the
"DG-ransom" to obtain said part, back dated to time immemorial.


Here in the US, 14CFR§21.303(b)2 makes provisions for the installation
of owner-produced parts on certificated aircraft in cases where the
originals are impractical to obtain. I think you can make a good case
that that is the situation that prevails here.

This article has some good information about owner-produced parts, and
also offers a cautionary tale about how it can go wrong:

http://150cessna.tripod.com/parts.html

Thanks, Bob K.
  #3  
Old October 21st 11, 02:58 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
bish
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default DG "service contract" revisited

On 21 oct, 08:44, jcarlyle wrote:
DG has another distasteful business practice that isn't well known,
yet. If you sign up for the service contract, they will automatically
(without even asking you in advance) charge your credit card for
subsequent years. Guess how I know?

-John

On Oct 21, 6:55 am, "Lars Peder Hansen"
wrote:



Finally, someone is taking legal action against DG Flugzeugbau.


Those who understand German can follow the Nordrhein-Westfalen chapter of
the German Aeroclub hehttp://www.aeroclub-nrw.de/htmd/01h-aktuelles.htm


On a related note, the EASA continues to sabotage DG's effort to force us to
sign contracts, in order to obtain new manuals. The updated Type Certificate
Data Sheets for LS gliders clearly state that you can use the old OR the new
(May 2011) manuals.


http://easa.europa.eu/certification/...ocs/aircrafts/...


Also, DG tries to force you to pay for the contract in all the years from
2009 if you need a service in, say, 2016. Apart from being extremely
questionable from a legal standpoint, this raises the question: Why should
anyone pay for a yearly contract with DG at all, then? It is much better to
put an equivalent sum into your own savings account, so you are able to pay
ransom money if ever needed. Meanwhile, the interest you earn on your own
money may buy you a Flarm, or enable you to take the wife / girlfriend (or
both) out for an evening in town.


Happy soaring,


Lars Peder


Replace numbers with post1.tele.dk to answer by email- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -


- Afficher le texte des messages précédents -


DG gives you 3 days to refuse to pay then it charge you automatically.
This is illegal in Canada.
S6
  #4  
Old October 21st 11, 03:07 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,601
Default DG "service contract" revisited

Random comments to the above messages:

With Photo Shop, I can copy a page and insert my serial number.

Most folks I've talked to, regard Experimental as better than Standard as it
allows us to do a lot more things with our aircraft. I don't think it has
any effect on value, besides, these things are NOT an investment, they're
expensive toys.

I really wanted another (3rd) LS-6, but this crap convinced me to move on.
I'm now enjoying my LAK-17a...

Screw DG and all their horses.


"bish" wrote in message
...
On 21 oct, 08:44, jcarlyle wrote:
DG has another distasteful business practice that isn't well known,
yet. If you sign up for the service contract, they will automatically
(without even asking you in advance) charge your credit card for
subsequent years. Guess how I know?

-John

On Oct 21, 6:55 am, "Lars Peder Hansen"
wrote:



Finally, someone is taking legal action against DG Flugzeugbau.


Those who understand German can follow the Nordrhein-Westfalen chapter
of
the German Aeroclub
hehttp://www.aeroclub-nrw.de/htmd/01h-aktuelles.htm


On a related note, the EASA continues to sabotage DG's effort to force
us to
sign contracts, in order to obtain new manuals. The updated Type
Certificate
Data Sheets for LS gliders clearly state that you can use the old OR the
new
(May 2011) manuals.


http://easa.europa.eu/certification/...ocs/aircrafts/...


Also, DG tries to force you to pay for the contract in all the years
from
2009 if you need a service in, say, 2016. Apart from being extremely
questionable from a legal standpoint, this raises the question: Why
should
anyone pay for a yearly contract with DG at all, then? It is much better
to
put an equivalent sum into your own savings account, so you are able to
pay
ransom money if ever needed. Meanwhile, the interest you earn on your
own
money may buy you a Flarm, or enable you to take the wife / girlfriend
(or
both) out for an evening in town.


Happy soaring,


Lars Peder


Replace numbers with post1.tele.dk to answer by email- Masquer le texte
des messages précédents -


- Afficher le texte des messages précédents -


DG gives you 3 days to refuse to pay then it charge you automatically.
This is illegal in Canada.
S6

  #5  
Old October 23rd 11, 01:38 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Sean Fidler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,005
Default DG "service contract" revisited

Yeah! I love my Lak17a. Great glider!
  #6  
Old October 23rd 11, 01:45 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Sean Fidler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,005
Default DG "service contract" revisited

Wow. This business practice is incredibly poor. I cannot believe that anyone would buy a new glider from this company ever again. I hope your cause is able to win a legal case and stop it quickly but I imagine the result would be a bankruptcy. Amazing that they have the balls to stay the course regardless of all the complaints. Its been a couple years now correct?

I for one will never touch a DG for this reason.

Sean
  #7  
Old October 21st 11, 03:10 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
jcarlyle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 522
Default DG "service contract" revisited

It might be different in Canada than in the US. How is DG's "3 days to
pay" notification sent?

I never received anything by post or e-mail, the charge just appeared
on my credit card at the end of the month. A DG rep confirmed that DG
was renewing automatically without notification.

-John

On Oct 21, 9:58 am, bish wrote:
DG gives you 3 days to refuse to pay then it charge you automatically.
This is illegal in Canada.
S6


  #8  
Old October 21st 11, 04:17 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
bish
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default DG "service contract" revisited

On 21 oct, 10:10, jcarlyle wrote:
It might be different in Canada than in the US. How is DG's "3 days to
pay" notification sent?

I never received anything by post or e-mail, the charge just appeared
on my credit card at the end of the month. A DG rep confirmed that DG
was renewing automatically without notification.

-John

On Oct 21, 9:58 am, bish wrote:



DG gives you 3 days to refuse to pay then it charge you automatically.
This is illegal in Canada.
S6- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -


- Afficher le texte des messages précédents -


I was sent a email saying which credit card they will use
S6
  #9  
Old October 21st 11, 07:27 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Mike Schumann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 539
Default DG "service contract" revisited

On 10/21/2011 10:10 AM, jcarlyle wrote:
It might be different in Canada than in the US. How is DG's "3 days to
pay" notification sent?

I never received anything by post or e-mail, the charge just appeared
on my credit card at the end of the month. A DG rep confirmed that DG
was renewing automatically without notification.

-John

On Oct 21, 9:58 am, wrote:
DG gives you 3 days to refuse to pay then it charge you automatically.
This is illegal in Canada.
S6


You can always dispute the charge with your credit card company and they
will issue a chargeback to DG. In the US, if a company has too many
chargebacks, they loose the ability to accept credit cards.

--
Mike Schumann
  #10  
Old October 21st 11, 07:52 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
jcarlyle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 522
Default DG "service contract" revisited

Yes, I I was aware of that. Because of the gear collapse, though, it
was advantageous to keep the service contract going, even if DG did
renew it by underhanded means.

-John


On Oct 21, 2:27 pm, Mike Schumann
wrote:

You can always dispute the charge with your credit card company and they
will issue a chargeback to DG. In the US, if a company has too many
chargebacks, they loose the ability to accept credit cards.

--
Mike Schumann


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"For Claims Service Press 4" Mitchell Holman[_3_] Aviation Photos 3 July 6th 09 10:55 PM
"Stealth" Secret Service aircraft No Name Piloting 10 August 21st 08 12:12 AM
"Osprey Fire - Days Before Big Contract Awarded" Mike[_7_] Naval Aviation 0 April 18th 08 07:29 PM
Parker Service "letter" [email protected] Piloting 7 March 26th 08 11:32 PM
The Good, the Bad, the Ugly: AirGizmo PIREP, PS Engineering CD/Intercom woes, XM "service" Jay Honeck Owning 34 December 15th 06 03:02 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.