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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
DG "service contract" revisited
Yeah! I love my Lak17a. Great glider!
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |