Debacle: Flight test of Diana-2

Any company that truly acts as if the customer is always right is in for a
relatively short existence.

A company exists to make money - the products and services are vehicles.

In this case my standard comment to people who protest loudly about not getting
something for free is simple. Meet me half way and become a customer. Customers
are the very small subset of people who are profitable for me to make happy.
Very happy. We have customers who have stayed with us for over ten years. (in IT
that is pretty good) We also started making ends meet when we fired the
uneconomical customers. Customers actually pay me for stuff. Hell if all the
prospects and abusers were all right I would be begging on street corners...

It is the vendor's prerogative to decide who he or she will sell to. In this
case - given the limited market, and potential costs I would certainly be
cautious about "tyre kickers".

So - Yes the desirable customer is always right, and small businesses have a
duty to be careful about deciding who those desirable customers are.

Stanford Korwin wrote:
If You have to be kidding. Whatever happened to 'the

customer
is always right'. If these people want our money they
have to get real and realise that they have to earn
it. We are talking about the same people who made the
Puchaz after all, large credibility gap there I would
think.



No Don, the customer is not always right - he is very
often very wrong - and, in any event, he has to qualify
as a genuine, twenty four carat, customer.

Equally, we are not talking about about the same people
who made the Puchacz - or any known credibility gap
- at least known to me.

I have to say that, having traded with Poland until
fairly recently, and knowing Mr. Beres, the designer
and manufacturer of the Diana, I am not prepared to
accept Mr. Sharma's version of events and I strongly
suspect that BB was absolutely correct.

I have never heard of Mr. Sharma before, I cannot understand
why he should have been invited to test fly this sailplane
- except at his own request - I find his whole attitude
questionable and I rather suspect that Bogumil Beres
sensed that all was not as it seemed and decided not
to take any chances.

Good for him - I would have done exactly the same.

sta13.






















--
Bruce Greeff
Std Cirrus #57
I'm no-T at the address above.

- We are talking about the same people who made the
Puchaz after all, large credibility gap there I would
think.

Not even close, besides you cant even spell Puchacz so what
possibly can you tell about credibility of this fine trainer? Other
than repeating what you heard...

Since Mr. Mueller has taken the initiative to mention bits of my
conversation with him and his "opinions" here. I would like to clarify
my position:

The following is my side of the story:

1. For the purpose of the event at which Mr. Mueller invited me, I NEVER
said to him that I'd come to see the glider even if I couldn't fly it.

2. The rigging and de-rigging was not being shown for the purpose of
presentation. Since Mr. Beres told me that he was packing up to go back
to Poland. If what Mr. Mueller asserts is true, I should've seen the
rigging after they de-rigged the glider, which was not so.

3. It is an untrue assertion that I went to Zurich to meet a friend. The
fact is actually that I brought another aviation passionate friend with
me to see the Diana FROM Italy. A friend of mine from Zurich wanted to
come and have breakfast with me, to which I declined so he came to the
Birrfeld airfield for a few minutes to shake hands and say hello. His
photo is at the photogallery. Please get this right, the ONLY reason I
came 432kms from Italy was since Diana-2 people had sent me an
invitation to come to fly. The trip took 5hours each way and just to
make sure that I'd not be too tired to fly the Diana, and for the SAKE
OF SAFETY, it was imperative to stay the night in Zurich and not make
the 5+ hour trip directly. Maybe Mr. Mueller could make this trip in 3
hours, but I cannot. Check out www.viamichelen.com about the time and
distance, Mr. Mueller, before making unjustifiable statements.

4. Check-ride: The ONLY question that the check-pilot asked me while
flying, "so do you want to buy the Diana-2". I thought, why is he asking
me this question?, thats between the Diana-2 people and myself, and
primarily its for me to think about after I know that I like flying the
Diana-2!!!. I told the check-pilot, "maybe, but not before the end of
the year". I know what the pilot said in front of all the people who
where around there, that I flew well. How the versions, changed when I
left is left to imagination. The strange thing is that Mr. Mueller told
me on the phone two days back, that the check-pilot told him after the
flight that I had no intention of buying the Diana-2 in the near future.
Furthermore, I find that a very strange question for the check-pilot
to ask, and especially, even stranger since I'd told Mr. Mueller on our
skype chat a few days before making the unfortunate trip to Birrfeld, I
was not going to buy the glider immediately. I have a log of my skype
chats and will be happy to put it here.

5. The check-ride time: Of course the 2:00pm time was set, however, I'd
asked the check pilot that I wanted to go for lunch at 1:30 and that I'd
be back in 45mins. To which he was fine. I was back at the grid at 2:15
and we took off at around 2:30. Lastly, if the weather would've been
bad, I'd been ok with not flying the Diana-2. The weather was a
spotlessly bright sky at the time the third Diana-flight had landed.

6. THREATS TO ME: In the phone conversation two days back, Mr. Mueller
also "told" me to change the title of my blog during the conversation
and threatened me to not talk about the day any more. He threatened me
not to put the video up on the site, since THEY KNOW THAT the video will
corroborate my part well. I told him that BEFORE starting to take the
video, I had asked both Mr. Beres and Mr. Mueller, in the presence of
other people there, if it was ok to take the video. They were more than
happy and willing. That for me is a legal and binding permission.

I cannot understand why Mr. Mueller continues to make up stories to hide
the facts. I now firmly believe, that to give an opportunity to make-up
to the Diana-2 team (in my previous post), was my second mistake. I'm
publically retracting that offer. I'd like to put an end to this story,
and do not ever want to deal with Diana-2 team and Mr. Mueller in the
future.

Best regards
Naresh


Alexander wrote:

Ted Wagner wrote:

Your response does not explain your behavior to a fellow glider pilot and
potential customer. You did not just fail to communicate with him -- you
ignored, insulted and humiliated him.

Ted Wagner
Chandler, AZ, USA
Ventus-2c "2NO"


It is not my personal policy nor is it a policy of the company to get
involved in emotional exchanges on a public forum. I believe I have
addressed all the questions concerning the issue that prevails the
choice whether an interested person can fly Diana 2 - which is safety
- and I believe that every experienced glider pilot should understand
this question more than well. But let me just say some additional words
as a lot of posts are based on incomplete facts and misunderstanding:

Mr. Sharma said to me during a phone call before the presentation that
he would come even if he couldn't fly our glider.

Numbers don't mean anything. Even a pilot with 4000 hours or a world
champion requires sometimes a check flight. And not only hours or types
flown are relevant to whether somebody can fly - also the momentary
personal constitution, the emotional state, the behavior on the
airfield or other factors are a decision point. All other pilots apart
from Mr. Sharma flew in Birrfeld before and knew the local
particularities. It is not possible to set a standard for prerequisites
for customers in test flying. Also the weather may change. There is no
guarantee of what will happen when we drive to the airfield. For us it
is normal that we have to expect not to be able to fly. This is
probably different in indoor-skiing or go-cart racing but not in
aviation.

De-rigging and rigging belongs to a presentation and it has nothing to
do with whether a client can fly a glider or not. Within few minutes
our glider can be assembled for the customer flight.

With regard to the check flight (agreed at 2.00 pm) to which Mr. Sharma
came with a delay, I personally agreed with the instructor to give me a
clear sign / a clear yes that would mean that Mr. Sharma could fly our
glider. The instructor did not give me such a sign. But at the same
time the instructor tried to be polite to Mr. Sharma. When I spoke with
the instructor later when Mr. Sharma was not any more present the
instructor clearly affirmed not to allow Mr. Sharma fly our glider.

We are sorry that it was not possible for Mr. Sharma to make a test
flight.

I am convinced that Mr. Sharma misunderstood the situation and his
reaction made it impossible for me to reason with him.

By the way Mr. Sharma was not the only pilot who didn't have the
chance to fly Diana 2 during the presentation days. There were other
(very experienced) pilots who didn't have the opportunity to fly due
to weather conditions and other reasons. They understood it, took it in
a friendly way, and will take their chance to test Diana 2 when the
next opportunity arrives. One of them came all the way from USA,
another one came from the Netherlands which is much further than Italy.
These glider fellows as well as all other participants thanked for the
friendly assistance and the time spent together on the airfield. The
fact that they couldn't make their flight didn't change their
opinion about the product, the service, instead they were happy to just
be present and enjoyed being with us.

Mr. Sharma came of his own will. The distance from Birrfeld to Italy is
short, 3-4 hours on the highway and it is not necessary to spend a
night in Zurich in order to arrive at Birrfeld. Mr. Sharma told me on
the phone on the day prior to the presentation in Birrfeld that he
takes the chance to make a private visit to Zurich with a friend.

Indeed I called Mr. Sharma last evening trying to talk about mutual
misunderstandings but due to his reaction a calm conversation was not
possible.

------------------------------------

For those interested in more information about Diana 2 and our team you
can subscribe to my English and German speaking Newsletter by sending
an email with "subscribe" and your name to
or just call me (+49-178-358 83 08).

Cheers
Alexander Mueller
www.dianasegelflugzeuge.com

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 19:29:26 UTC, Steve Hill
wrote:

FACT: The individual suffered financial loss

No he didn't. Or perhaps you could explain what income he would have
received if he had taken the test flight after all.

Ian

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 16:04:49 UTC, Shawn
sdotcurry@bresnananotherdotnet wrote:

I think you need to expect to accept remuneration for your expenses and
perhaps your time as a reasonable alternative.

If he has the test flight and decides not to buy, should he pay
compensation?

Ian



--

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 16:38:08 UTC, Don Johnstone
wrote:

You have to be kidding. Whatever happened to 'the customer
is always right'.

It's a load of nonsense. No-one has a right to fly any aircraft.

Ian

--

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 08:35:37 UTC,
"anti-spam-add-remove-dashes-and-dot---naresh-"
"anti-spam-add-remove-dashes-and-dot---naresh-"@-neshe-dot-com
wrote:

If what Mr. Mueller asserts is true, I should've seen the
rigging after they de-rigged the glider, which was not so.

Not at all. If a test flight starts with a rigging demonstration, they
wouldn't rig it unless the had a test flight customer, would they?

Ian


--

Hello,

For anyone who is interested in Diana-2, 18 technical points that you
need to investigate yourself:

http://www.neshe.com/?q=node/43

Best regards,
Naresh

Ok..as much as I've enjoyed the discussion this seems to be a case of
sour grapes now. Isn't the list of points something that should be done
for every plane that is going to be purchased...new or used? Now that
you've had your say...why keep pushing? And please do not post saying
it's all innocent. You might want to try to review other planes
then...in your blog...as fully as you seem to do the Diana-2, piont by
point. Thanks.

Larry
anti-spam-add-remove-dashes-and-dot---naresh- wrote:
Hello,

For anyone who is interested in Diana-2, 18 technical points that you
need to investigate yourself:

http://www.neshe.com/?q=node/43

Best regards,
Naresh

Personally I think you are burying the hatchet deeply
for personal reasons, and I really believe you had no
intention to buy this ship. That said, lets look at your list.
Many of your suggestions are just common sense
stuff, but many are tainted with your personal feelings.

Item 2 is subjective at best. You may FEEL that
all controls should be of the auto-hookup type,
but that is not a certification requirement.
Your opinion here is irrelevant........

Item 4 is subjective at best. The aircraft meets JAR 22.

Item 5 is conjecture on your part. You are
presupposng a failure mode not in evidence
by inferring that it is problematic.

Item 8 is patently incorrect. Carbon structures do
not "store energy". Your description of the
failure mode shows a lack of understanding of
composite structures.

Item 13 is again subjective. Properly assembled trailing
edges do not delaminate regardless of their construction
method. Your presupposition that fabric wrapped edges
are superior is not based in fact, just an opinion you hold.
Attempting to show one Trailing Edge construction method
as superior to another again shows the limitations of your
composite construction background.

Item 15 is pure conjecture. You are asking that a JAR 22
aircraft manufacturer test for a condition that occurs only
when a pilot makes an error and flys the aircraft incorrectly.
IF this test was required, the conservative folks adninistering
JAR 22 would see that it was added to the cert plan. YOU
appear to be afraid of the small crosssection of the tail boom and
seem to be inventing a reason to make it appear less than desirable.

Item 17 is a prudent thought, but horribly skewed your personal
perspective. You said the paint is too thin. Compared to what??
Is that viewpoint based on cosmetics or a by a MIL thickness
check against the manufacturers recommended film thicknesses?
I suspect you have no idea how much or little paint is needed for
UV protection and what the finish requirements are.. Absent the
specific resin used and the finish content, you are in no position to
comment on UV protection issues. Yes you may FEEL the finish
was "very thin", but in fact, that is your PERCEPTION, not a fact per se.

I would hope that you would try to post facts on your site instead of
opinions.
It would be a nice change.........