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
  #21  
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!
  #22  
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
  #23  
Old October 29th 11, 07:47 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Lars Peder Hansen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default DG "service contract" revisited

They moved the announcement, you can find it he
http://www.aeroclub-nrw.de/htmd/13h-...es-technik.htm or on their
facebook site: https://www.facebook.com/aeroclub.nrw


"Lars Peder Hansen" wrote in message
k...
Finally, someone is taking legal action against DG Flugzeugbau.

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

Lars Peder
Replace numbers with post1.tele.dk to answer by email



  #24  
Old December 16th 13, 12:45 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default DG "service contract" revisited

On Friday, October 21, 2011 11:03:46 AM UTC-4, John Carlyle wrote:
John,



Going from Standard to Experimental for my old ASW-19 was very simple.

I needed to fill out an 8130-6 form, write a program letter, and then

have the FSDO rep check the actual airframe for serial number match

and display of the Experimental placard. It did not affect the resale

value in the slightest. The ease of the process might depend on your

FSDO, though.



As Dan said above, having an Experimental airworthiness allows us to

do more with our aircraft. That's why my LS8 is Experimental, even

though it's eligible to be Standard.



-John



On Oct 21, 9:48 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.




On top of that my glider has a Standard Airworthiness Certificate


(rather than Experimental*) which limits what I can do to replace that


semi-trivial inexpensive part. Any thoughts on conversion from


Standard to Experimental? Does that help me in any way? Or is there


a downside such as lowering the resale value?




Thanks, John


hi,

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.
  #25  
Old December 16th 13, 04:01 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Frank Whiteley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,099
Default DG "service contract" revisited

On Sunday, December 15, 2013 4:45:52 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, October 21, 2011 11:03:46 AM UTC-4, John Carlyle wrote:

John,








Going from Standard to Experimental for my old ASW-19 was very simple.




I needed to fill out an 8130-6 form, write a program letter, and then




have the FSDO rep check the actual airframe for serial number match




and display of the Experimental placard. It did not affect the resale




value in the slightest. The ease of the process might depend on your




FSDO, though.








As Dan said above, having an Experimental airworthiness allows us to




do more with our aircraft. That's why my LS8 is Experimental, even




though it's eligible to be Standard.








-John








On Oct 21, 9:48 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.








On top of that my glider has a Standard Airworthiness Certificate




(rather than Experimental*) which limits what I can do to replace that




semi-trivial inexpensive part. Any thoughts on conversion from




Standard to Experimental? Does that help me in any way? Or is there




a downside such as lowering the resale value?








Thanks, John




hi,



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.


Regarding builders of glass gliders:

Brad Hill has built a Russia AC-4c, Apis, and the Tetra-15. Other have done so. I believe there are additional HP-24's currently under construction. See http://www.seattleglidercouncil.org/...1_Towline..pdf and
https://www.facebook.com/pages/HP-24...4951?ref=br_tf

See also http://www.eaa72.org/newsletters/2008/newsjul08.pdf

Frank Whiteley
  #26  
Old December 16th 13, 05:28 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,601
Default DG "service contract" revisited

I know there are few, but the Americal Falcon (and its sister) and the HP-24
fall into the Experimental Amateur Built category and are of FRP
construction.

As for the yearly inspection - there are a lot more A&Ps around than IAs.
Having said that, George Applebay signs my glider off annually even though
it's "Experimental".

wrote in message
...
On Friday, October 21, 2011 11:03:46 AM UTC-4, John Carlyle wrote:
John,



Going from Standard to Experimental for my old ASW-19 was very simple.

I needed to fill out an 8130-6 form, write a program letter, and then

have the FSDO rep check the actual airframe for serial number match

and display of the Experimental placard. It did not affect the resale

value in the slightest. The ease of the process might depend on your

FSDO, though.



As Dan said above, having an Experimental airworthiness allows us to

do more with our aircraft. That's why my LS8 is Experimental, even

though it's eligible to be Standard.



-John



On Oct 21, 9:48 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.




On top of that my glider has a Standard Airworthiness Certificate


(rather than Experimental*) which limits what I can do to replace that


semi-trivial inexpensive part. Any thoughts on conversion from


Standard to Experimental? Does that help me in any way? Or is there


a downside such as lowering the resale value?




Thanks, John


hi,

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.

  #27  
Old December 16th 13, 07:37 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.


  #28  
Old December 16th 13, 10:36 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Morgans[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,924
Default DG "service contract" revisited


"Bob Kuykendall" wrote in message
...
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.

Thanks for that, Bob. I thought that was the case, but was not sure enough
to speak up. I even had a post partway composed and deleted it.
--
Jim in NC


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

 




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 27th 08 12:32 AM
The Good, the Bad, the Ugly: AirGizmo PIREP, PS Engineering CD/Intercom woes, XM "service" Jay Honeck Owning 34 December 15th 06 04:02 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.