Ventus B, Discus ect aileron connecting rod/slide lube

At 22:58 03 February 2015, wrote:
On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 3:45:05 PM UTC-5, Don Johnstone wrote:
=20

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-o=
ne
who flew a type certified glider would make structural modifications
without consulting the type certificate holder and obtaining their
approv=
al
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
behavi=
or
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
fabri=
c
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
awa=
y
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.

I'm not so sure what Mr Johnson did would fall into the category of some
re=
ally bad action as the writer above seems to imply.
The maintenance and repair manuals required as part of instructions for
con=
tinued airworthiness specify various levels of damage and how they are to
b=
e handled. Come small holes commonly can be taped over, at least
temporaril=
y. It is quite possible the hole Mr Johnson described falls in that
range.
=
As as aero engineer by degree, he certainly would have made the proper
judg=
ement.
Sometimes, to get access to inner stuff to keep older gliders flying, a
hol=
e may need to be cut. Obviously it should be repaired as appropriate. In
tr=
uth and composite repair is commonly easier that one in metal.
That said, Joe Winglifter should not just cut holes in stuff obviously.
EASA is an evil that is best avoided at all costs. In my view it has
contri=
buted little, if anything to our little part of the universe, yet has
added=
much cost and aggravation to those it affects.
UH =20

You may well be right, Mr Johnson may have had the necessary skills and
knowledge to safely take action, I do not have too much of a problem with
that. What does concern me, and imho should concern all of us, that someone
with the knowledge and experience to make an informed decision may be
acceptable, but there was a suggestion or encouragement for those who do
not have that knowledge or experience to attempt to copy him. That still
does not explain why it should be necessary to apply lubricant to an item
that was designed to have none. Perhaps the best advice would be to consult
the type certificate holder for their opinion, they still make the Ventus
so that should not be a difficult task. As far as I know Schempp Hirth are
not like Friedel Weber at DG and do not charge an exorbitant price for very
little, inter alia blaming it on EASA. If the controls are stiff perhaps a
proper investigation into the cause as against treating the symptoms might
be a more responsible approach.

Let's not forget that manufacturers and licensing agencies don't always
get it right. If they did, we wouldn't have so many airworthiness
directives and mandatory service bulletins...


On 2/3/2015 7:12 PM, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 22:58 03 February 2015, wrote:
On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 3:45:05 PM UTC-5, Don Johnstone wrote:
=20

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-o=
ne
who flew a type certified glider would make structural modifications
without consulting the type certificate holder and obtaining their
approv=
al
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
behavi=
or
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
fabri=
c
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
awa=
y
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.
I'm not so sure what Mr Johnson did would fall into the category of some
re=
ally bad action as the writer above seems to imply.
The maintenance and repair manuals required as part of instructions for
con=
tinued airworthiness specify various levels of damage and how they are to
b=
e handled. Come small holes commonly can be taped over, at least
temporaril=
y. It is quite possible the hole Mr Johnson described falls in that
range.
=
As as aero engineer by degree, he certainly would have made the proper
judg=
ement.
Sometimes, to get access to inner stuff to keep older gliders flying, a
hol=
e may need to be cut. Obviously it should be repaired as appropriate. In
tr=
uth and composite repair is commonly easier that one in metal.
That said, Joe Winglifter should not just cut holes in stuff obviously.
EASA is an evil that is best avoided at all costs. In my view it has
contri=
buted little, if anything to our little part of the universe, yet has
added=
much cost and aggravation to those it affects.
UH =20

You may well be right, Mr Johnson may have had the necessary skills and
knowledge to safely take action, I do not have too much of a problem with
that. What does concern me, and imho should concern all of us, that someone
with the knowledge and experience to make an informed decision may be
acceptable, but there was a suggestion or encouragement for those who do
not have that knowledge or experience to attempt to copy him. That still
does not explain why it should be necessary to apply lubricant to an item
that was designed to have none. Perhaps the best advice would be to consult
the type certificate holder for their opinion, they still make the Ventus
so that should not be a difficult task. As far as I know Schempp Hirth are
not like Friedel Weber at DG and do not charge an exorbitant price for very
little, inter alia blaming it on EASA. If the controls are stiff perhaps a
proper investigation into the cause as against treating the symptoms might
be a more responsible approach.


--
Dan Marotta

On 2/4/2015 8:52 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
Let's not forget that manufacturers and licensing agencies don't always get it
right. If they did, we wouldn't have so many airworthiness directives and
mandatory service bulletins...


Not to mention - in the U.S., anyway - alternative methods of compliance,
which are FAA-approved alternatives to the original FAA-issued Airworthiness
Directive and which typically come into being when people (read: [typically]
owners, repair shops, users and others with an economic interest in the
aircraft affected) feel sufficiently strongly that they convince the FAA the
original FAA-mandated fix (AD) can be accomplished in an alternative
(typically less draconian/expensive) manner (AMOC).

Ah, perfection; thou art indeed a virtue!

Ah, thread drift...

Bob W.