Pam,

I totally support your sentiments. Additionally, on several occasions I have deliberately left a rigging item "undone" in full view and on three occasions the error was not discovered by the second "inspector" who I might add were all pilots with many years experience. They all would have signed off the DI if I hadn't then intervened. From my viewpoint there is no substitute for doing the inspection properly yourself and taking full and sole responsibility for that.

Regards,

Geoff V

At 04:56 PM 16/05/2011, Pam Kurstjens wrote:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
        boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002E_01CC13EA.39BBB660"
Content-Language: en-au

Anyone who countersigns somebody else's rigging is nuts. Unless they have observed and checked it every inch of the way, fully understand the glider type they are signing off for, AND are willing to accept liability. Why do we expose our fellow glider pilots to this enormous burden of responsibility?
Pam


From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Matthew Gage
Sent: Monday, 16 May 2011 2:01 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident

Rolf, in this I agree with Mike - there is no way that a duplicate control check (or even DI) would have found the problem. Sadly, such a person would have spent months in court defending themselves, costing them many thousands with no prospect of any insurance helping them.

In practice, the UK do have a 2nd inspection - just with no signature. The accident report even says this was done !

Is it the check that improves safety or the signature ????


On 16/05/2011, at 13:35 , rolf a. buelter wrote:


Yea, way more important to cover your ass against litigation then document a second chance to get it right!

Allays your miserable Mr. Buelter

> Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 10:54:25 +1000
> To: <mailto:aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net>aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net > From: <mailto:mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com>mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com
> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
>
>
> Lots of lessons in the Foka crash.
>
> One big one is how fortunate it was the BGA and there was no second
> sigmnature on the DI after rigging.
>
> Mike
> Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments since 1978
> phone Int'l + 61 746 355784
> fax Int'l + 61 746 358796
> cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784
>
> email: <mailto:mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com>mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com
> website: <http://www.borgeltinstruments.com>www.borgeltinstruments.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> <mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net>Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
> To check or change subscription details, visit:
> <http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring>http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
<mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net>Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
<http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring>http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

Reply via email to