Debacle: Flight test of Diana-2

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 13:18:22 UTC, Mark Dickson
wrote:

The organisers were aware of Naresh's
experience prior to the event and had agreed he could
fly the aircraft.

We don't actually know that, do we?

Ian

--

At 13:24 14 October 2005, Mark Dickson wrote:
At 15:24 13 October 2005, wrote:
Naresh,Would you please share with us:
- What are your total glider hours flown as PIC ?
- Total hours flown in gliders with L/D40.
- Actual hours flown in gliders with L/D40 this year.

You mentioned only having 4 log books and 1250 flights.
Mark


This is irrelevant. The organisers were aware of Naresh's
experience prior to the event and had agreed he could
fly the aircraft. They had allowed him to go to considerable
trouble, travel and expense for no reason. They owe
him an apology.

Mark

No 15 metre glider should be tricky to fly these days.
It simply would
not get a Certificate of Airworthiness.
Glider manufacturers should be falling over backwards
to show us how
safe and 'flyable' their products are. This Diana
story makes me
suspicious. What are the manufacturers trying to hide?

Ray

On 14 Oct 2005 13:37:45 GMT, Ray Hart
wrote:

No 15 metre glider should be tricky to fly these days.
It simply would
not get a Certificate of Airworthiness.
Glider manufacturers should be falling over backwards
to show us how
safe and 'flyable' their products are. This Diana
story makes me
suspicious. What are the manufacturers trying to hide?

You got the point.
I'd suggest to ask pilots who saw the Diana 2 at the European gliding
competions, especially about the aerotow launches.


I still remember when Tilo Holighaus came to my home airfield with the
brand-new Discus 2 which had had its maiden flight the week before and
whose flight testing had barely begun.

He didn't know me at all but immediately let me fly his brand new toy
when I asked him...!


Bye
Andreas

I still remember when Tilo Holighaus came to my home airfield with the
brand-new Discus 2 which had had its maiden flight the week before and
whose flight testing had barely begun.

He didn't know me at all but immediately let me fly his brand new toy
when I asked him...!

Your omitting the fact that Tilo Holighaus runs a factory that sells
100+ gliders a year with an average price of 100,000+ Euros. If you'd
crash his Discus 2 at the same time you're describing, its merely an
expense for H&S - they could build another 10 in a matter of a month.
Where Diana 2 crash would probably put Beres out of building gliders
for much longer. I believe he did the right thing, it's just the way he
did it that is unacceptable.

GK wrote:

"I believe he did the right thing, it's just the way he
did it that is unacceptable."

Nice contradiction. Is this like saying he did the right thing, but he
did the wrong thing? Bottom line is he did many wrong things, then
tried to double talk around it rather than dealing with it in the
proper manner.

Hi All,

Detailed photographs of Diana-2. I have limited the size of the photos
to 800 pixels, but if someone wants a specific photo, please ask.

The description of the photos is on top of the photo (once you open it).

http://www.neshe.com/gallery/main.ph...g2_itemId=1620

These also contain your's truly going for his ASK-21 check-ride.

Best,
Naresh

From my perspective...speaking as the owner of a manufacturing company that
sells a product to consumers here in the U.S., I believe the factory rep and
Mr. Beres owe more than an apology. They should write a check to cover
expenses suffered AT THEIR REQUEST...

The conjecture of this group sometimes amazes me. When a manufacturer
invites someone to review their product...whether to write about it...or to
buy one, they have ethical guidelines that all the rest of us consumers
deserve to hear about. In my estimation, the manufacturer has not handled
themselves in ANY format consistent with the term ETHICAL.

The facts of the situation have been well documented and while there's
argument as to specifics, the much larger issue of how a manufacturer
handles themself, with regard to its customers is perhaps the single most
impressive issue we get to witness and use as the determination of whether
to support their product.

For a new product to survive in the market, manufacturers need to be very
solidly behind their product from every facet of it's intended role. If the
Diana2 is REALLY as good and safe and better than anything out there, as
it's claimed, then surely a guy with 1200+ accident free flights and one who
demonstrated his proficiency to an unbiased instructor...deserves better
treatment than this...

If I...were Bogumil Beres...I'd simply reach into my own back pocket...and
I'd write the man a check....and a letter of apology...and level with
everyone here in RAS that they made a bad decision...and that they
understand better from the exchange, what WE as the consumer
expect...otherwise, he may find his product flushing it's way down the drain
and his investment simply....ruined. Personally, I don't think the "world
class" level racing pilots out there are enough to build a company on...at
some point Mr. Beres will need "normal pilots" to want to purchase his
glider, if he expects sales to continue and his company to flourish.


Respectfully,


Steve.

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 17:33:31 UTC, Steve Hill
wrote:

The facts of the situation have been well documented

They have? I have seen claims, but nothing I'd call facts.

Ian
--

On 14 Oct 2005 17:33:31 GMT, Steve Hill
wrote:

From my perspective...speaking as the owner of a manufacturing company that
sells a product to consumers here in the U.S., I believe the factory rep and
Mr. Beres owe more than an apology. They should write a check to cover
expenses suffered AT THEIR REQUEST...

The conjecture of this group sometimes amazes me. When a manufacturer
invites someone to review their product...whether to write about it...or to
buy one, they have ethical guidelines that all the rest of us consumers
deserve to hear about. In my estimation, the manufacturer has not handled
themselves in ANY format consistent with the term ETHICAL.

The facts of the situation have been well documented and while there's
argument as to specifics, the much larger issue of how a manufacturer
handles themself, with regard to its customers is perhaps the single most
impressive issue we get to witness and use as the determination of whether
to support their product.

For a new product to survive in the market, manufacturers need to be very
solidly behind their product from every facet of it's intended role. If the
Diana2 is REALLY as good and safe and better than anything out there, as
it's claimed, then surely a guy with 1200+ accident free flights and one who
demonstrated his proficiency to an unbiased instructor...deserves better
treatment than this...

If I...were Bogumil Beres...I'd simply reach into my own back pocket...and
I'd write the man a check....and a letter of apology...and level with
everyone here in RAS that they made a bad decision...and that they
understand better from the exchange, what WE as the consumer
expect...otherwise, he may find his product flushing it's way down the drain
and his investment simply....ruined. Personally, I don't think the "world
class" level racing pilots out there are enough to build a company on...at
some point Mr. Beres will need "normal pilots" to want to purchase his
glider, if he expects sales to continue and his company to flourish.


Respectfully,


Steve.


Very well put!

FACT: Anything Done. Anything actually true; That which happened.

Ian,
we could accept as fact. The factory admits it invited the individual to
fly. The factory admits that he met their requirements, prior to him showing
up to fly. The factory admitted it took the glider apart before the
completion of the individual taking a check ride.

The conjecture, is the weather and personal opinion on the factory's part as
to whether the individual was competent to fly, which seems basis-less
without an unbiased report from the instructor ( check-ride pilot).



FACT: The individual suffered financial loss, due to decisions made my the
factory for WHATEVER reason they chose, in denying him to fly the ship,
AFTER they pre-arranged that opportunity.

They should re-imburse the individual for his monetary loss and CLEARLY
develop a written procedure for minimum experience required to allow
individuals to test fly their glider...however stringent they'd like...but
it should be done FIRST!


This seems amazingly simple and for you to argue to the contrary seems like
you simply don't get the relationship of the manufacturer inviting the
individual PRIOR TO the actual event. They knew everything about his
background and he complied with all their requests...

I don't really care what you choose to lable the issue, for me...in my view
as a U.S. Manufacturer...This is absolutely lousy customer service and I
concur with previous posters on RAS that I would not even consider
purchasing a product from this company based on their customer service...The
Factory is being granted the opportunity to resolve the problem and level
with the purchasing community and instead they are trying to simply SPIN it
all their way...a very foolish and costly mistake in my humble opinion.



Respectfully,


Steve Hill