Discus CS grounded in France

That's not the full repair . I agree that I would
prefer one that didn't need a repair - but mainly because
it didn't have holes cut in the wing skins to do the
work. I was also very pleased that ours were OK.

I might prefer one which did need a repair as I suspect that finding
a void, poking a wire into it to find a much larger hidden air pocket
will trigger a much more detailed inspection of the spar cap than just
using a video. That would lead to a very thorough filling of the
voids.
Limiting the inspection to a video of the rear of the upper spar cap
won't find hidden air pockets. This may all be changing with Discus
CS.
I also wonder if an ultrasonic inspection could be done which could
map
the spar cap to shear web interface.

The airworthiness of passed or repaired wings is not
in the eye of the beholder - unless you have some technical
information to show otherwise - or perhaps you think
the factory, the LBA and the local airworthiness organisations
are incompetent or part of a conspiracy?

The perceived airworthiness of a wing is very much in the eye of
the beholder. Whether a glider flys regularly or sits in a box for
several seasons because the owner can't sell it and is too nervous
to fly it is based more on perception of safety than actual safety.
Some pilots stop flying after a bout with rough air. I'm not charging
incompetence or conspiracy but in an earlier posting I mentioned
Deming
and my belief that there is a process problem which is more serious
than just the Czech factory and Schemp-Hirth. The process problem has
more to do with how the wing and spar are designed and assembled and
whether the construction method leads to tightly consistant results
every
single time or variability in results. Variability leads to failure.
Not
knowing if you always get the right amount of glue on the spar joint
is
a process which is out of control. German craftsmen may decrease the
variability and Czech employees may increase the variability but it is
the process which needs to be changed.


Firstly, only spars built at the Czech factory were
built incorrectly using an simple error in the technique
which has been identified and we can be pretty sure
it has been eliminated.

Right, a 'simple error in the technique' lead to wingsbreaking
off in normal flight. We can be 'pretty sure' it has been
eliminated because we sent our best German craftsmen to the Czech factory
to, once again, show them how to spread glue on a spar cap. The problem
is eliminated, Murphys Law will not rear its ugly head around here
again.

I am not sure what point is being made in the above.
As far as I am aware Murphy's Law is spread evenly
throughout human activity. I thought that's what it
was about. And are you suggesting that retraining
cannot possibly correct a production error?

Process again. Murphy's Law should serve as a constant reminder to
look
for areas where it can occur and minimize its ability to occur. It's
not
entirely random. If applying adhesive to 30 feet of a spar cap and
web is part and parcel of a process which simultaneously applies glue
to several hundred feet of rib and wing edges and if it is possible to
miss a few spots every 20 or so wings then there will always be spar
caps which are not completely glued together. Retraining might
minimize the occurence but it probably won't eliminate it.