Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
Hi Peter, I know and understand the case well! It seems you miss my point, this case was eventually found in favour of the club and the club was all OK. Fine you would think, however it cost them about $80K to that point and had to sell gliders to pay the bill! 15 years or so later they are still affected. The bottom of the harbour would be a start! Tom From: Peter F Bradshaw p...@exadios.com To: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2011 12:21 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident Hi Tom; I do not know about the Boonah case but I suspect that logic did win in that case and either you did not understand it or it dictated an result with which you do not agree. On Mon, 16 May 2011, tom claffey wrote: Unfortunately logic does not always win in the law area. Just ask Boonah club members what it cost the club when the family of a tug pilot sued after the wings came off the tug! They hadn't even rigged it and the dead pilot had DI'd it! Tom From: Peter F Bradshaw p...@exadios.com To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2011 11:10 AM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident Hi Mike; On Tue, 17 May 2011, Mike Borgelt wrote: At 10:16 PM 16/05/2011, you wrote: Hi Ron; A lawsuit like what? You are responding to a mail that hypothesizes that lawsuits are possible. There is no actual lawsuit. Read it again. He didn't say there was, just that there is the possibility in similar situations. Hence my use of the word hypothesizes - a word that gives his argument more dignity than it deserves. I sure wouldn't try your legal defence. So are you telling the Court, Sir, that even though you knew there was no way of positively checking, you signed that the aircraft had been rigged correctly?. The second signer is not signing that the aircraft has been rigged correctly. The signer is stating that he or she has checked the rigging in a competent and reasonable manner. This is a different proposition in law and in fact. I think the lesson to be learnt from this accident is that, as somebody else here has noted, that DI tickets should be issued on a per aircraft type basis. Plainly, in this case, neither the riggers nor the people who checked the rigging knew how to rig or check this particular aircraft type. It might even be worse than a civil suit which even if you win is going to cost thousands to tens of thousands of dollars to defend with the loss of time, stress, worry etc. You might run into a coroner or Public prosectuor who wants to make a name for him or herself and find yourself on a criminal charge. What is this? Fear Mongering 101? How did we jump from civil lawsuits to criminal proceedings? The problem with your argument is that it is one best tailored to the idea that the best way to live our lives is to enter a windowless room, close and lock the door, and sit quietly in the dark. The truth of the matter is that each of us perform actions and take risks every day in order to live our lives. Any of us may be sued at any time. How far the plaintiff gets is a function of the merit of their case. The best defense is to perform in a competent and reasonable manner. Further the best way to operate our sport is to perform in a competent and reasonable manner and cross checking is an important part of this paradigm. 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: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com website: www.borgeltinstruments.com Cheers Cheers -- Peter F Bradshaw: http://www.exadios.com (public keys avaliable there). Personal site: http://personal.exadios.com I love truth, and the way the government still uses it occasionally to keep us guessing. - Sam Kekovich. ___ 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
Hi Tom; So what is the point of the argument now? Is it that Boonah Gliding Club should be immune from lawsuits? On Tue, 17 May 2011, tom claffey wrote: Hi Peter, I know and understand the case well! It seems you miss my point, this case was eventually found in favour of the club and the club was all OK. Fine you would think, however it cost them about $80K to that point and had to sell gliders to pay the bill! 15 years or so later they are still affected. The bottom of the harbour would be a start! Tom From: Peter F Bradshaw p...@exadios.com To: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2011 12:21 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident Hi Tom; I do not know about the Boonah case but I suspect that logic did win in that case and either you did not understand it or it dictated an result with which you do not agree. On Mon, 16 May 2011, tom claffey wrote: Unfortunately logic does not always win in the law area. Just ask Boonah club members what it cost the club when the family of a tug pilot sued after the wings came off the tug! They hadn't even rigged it and the dead pilot had DI'd it! Tom From: Peter F Bradshaw p...@exadios.com To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2011 11:10 AM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident Hi Mike; On Tue, 17 May 2011, Mike Borgelt wrote: At 10:16 PM 16/05/2011, you wrote: Hi Ron; A lawsuit like what? You are responding to a mail that hypothesizes that lawsuits are possible. There is no actual lawsuit. Read it again. He didn't say there was, just that there is the possibility in similar situations. Hence my use of the word hypothesizes - a word that gives his argument more dignity than it deserves. I sure wouldn't try your legal defence. So are you telling the Court, Sir, that even though you knew there was no way of positively checking, you signed that the aircraft had been rigged correctly?. The second signer is not signing that the aircraft has been rigged correctly. The signer is stating that he or she has checked the rigging in a competent and reasonable manner. This is a different proposition in law and in fact. I think the lesson to be learnt from this accident is that, as somebody else here has noted, that DI tickets should be issued on a per aircraft type basis. Plainly, in this case, neither the riggers nor the people who checked the rigging knew how to rig or check this particular aircraft type. It might even be worse than a civil suit which even if you win is going to cost thousands to tens of thousands of dollars to defend with the loss of time, stress, worry etc. You might run into a coroner or Public prosectuor who wants to make a name for him or herself and find yourself on a criminal charge. What is this? Fear Mongering 101? How did we jump from civil lawsuits to criminal proceedings? The problem with your argument is that it is one best tailored to the idea that the best way to live our lives is to enter a windowless room, close and lock the door, and sit quietly in the dark. The truth of the matter is that each of us perform actions and take risks every day in order to live our lives. Any of us may be sued at any time. How far the plaintiff gets is a function of the merit of their case. The best defense is to perform in a competent and reasonable manner. Further the best way to operate our sport is to perform in a competent and reasonable manner and cross checking is an important part of this paradigm. Cheers Cheers Cheers -- Peter F Bradshaw: http://www.exadios.com (public keys avaliable there). Personal site: http://personal.exadios.com I love truth, and the way the government still uses it occasionally to keep us guessing. - Sam Kekovich. ___ 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
You are the one arguing? My point is that you can be sued, win, and still lose a lot of money! Are you a lawyer? Tom From: Peter F Bradshaw p...@exadios.com To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2011 8:15 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident Hi Tom; So what is the point of the argument now? Is it that Boonah Gliding Club should be immune from lawsuits? On Tue, 17 May 2011, tom claffey wrote: Hi Peter, I know and understand the case well! It seems you miss my point, this case was eventually found in favour of the club and the club was all OK. Fine you would think, however it cost them about $80K to that point and had to sell gliders to pay the bill! 15 years or so later they are still affected. The bottom of the harbour would be a start! Tom From: Peter F Bradshaw p...@exadios.com To: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2011 12:21 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident Hi Tom; I do not know about the Boonah case but I suspect that logic did win in that case and either you did not understand it or it dictated an result with which you do not agree. On Mon, 16 May 2011, tom claffey wrote: Unfortunately logic does not always win in the law area. Just ask Boonah club members what it cost the club when the family of a tug pilot sued after the wings came off the tug! They hadn't even rigged it and the dead pilot had DI'd it! Tom From: Peter F Bradshaw p...@exadios.com To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2011 11:10 AM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident Hi Mike; On Tue, 17 May 2011, Mike Borgelt wrote: At 10:16 PM 16/05/2011, you wrote: Hi Ron; A lawsuit like what? You are responding to a mail that hypothesizes that lawsuits are possible. There is no actual lawsuit. Read it again. He didn't say there was, just that there is the possibility in similar situations. Hence my use of the word hypothesizes - a word that gives his argument more dignity than it deserves. I sure wouldn't try your legal defence. So are you telling the Court, Sir, that even though you knew there was no way of positively checking, you signed that the aircraft had been rigged correctly?. The second signer is not signing that the aircraft has been rigged correctly. The signer is stating that he or she has checked the rigging in a competent and reasonable manner. This is a different proposition in law and in fact. I think the lesson to be learnt from this accident is that, as somebody else here has noted, that DI tickets should be issued on a per aircraft type basis. Plainly, in this case, neither the riggers nor the people who checked the rigging knew how to rig or check this particular aircraft type. It might even be worse than a civil suit which even if you win is going to cost thousands to tens of thousands of dollars to defend with the loss of time, stress, worry etc. You might run into a coroner or Public prosectuor who wants to make a name for him or herself and find yourself on a criminal charge. What is this? Fear Mongering 101? How did we jump from civil lawsuits to criminal proceedings? The problem with your argument is that it is one best tailored to the idea that the best way to live our lives is to enter a windowless room, close and lock the door, and sit quietly in the dark. The truth of the matter is that each of us perform actions and take risks every day in order to live our lives. Any of us may be sued at any time. How far the plaintiff gets is a function of the merit of their case. The best defense is to perform in a competent and reasonable manner. Further the best way to operate our sport is to perform in a competent and reasonable manner and cross checking is an important part of this paradigm. Cheers Cheers Cheers -- Peter F Bradshaw: http://www.exadios.com (public keys avaliable there). Personal site: http://personal.exadios.com I love truth, and the way the government still uses it occasionally to keep us guessing. - Sam Kekovich. ___ 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
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: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net From: 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: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ 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 ___ 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
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.netaus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net From: mailto:mborg...@borgeltinstruments.commborg...@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.commborg...@borgeltinstruments.com website: http://www.borgeltinstruments.comwww.borgeltinstruments.com ___ Aus-soaring mailing list mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.netAus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaringhttp://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.netAus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaringhttp://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
Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
Geoff your argument explains precisely why we DO need a second rigging inspection! Things do get forgotten or missed (especially by more experienced pilots). I am more than happy to sign off on a duplicate inspection having made damn sure that it is right, why? Not because the risk of litigation but because I care about the safety of my fellow pilots and myself. It is absolutely clear that a second inspection will significantly reduce the risk of a mistake. John Parncutt From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Geoff Vincent Sent: Monday, 16 May 2011 5:31 PM To: p...@kurstjens.com; Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.; 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.' Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident 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 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: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net From: 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: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ 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 ___ 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
Hi; In this case, the fact that there was no resonable check for the bottom pin engagement would be a sufficient defense in any litigation. On Mon, 16 May 2011, John Parncutt wrote: Geoff your argument explains precisely why we DO need a second rigging inspection! Things do get forgotten or missed (especially by more experienced pilots). I am more than happy to sign off on a duplicate inspection having made damn sure that it is right, why? Not because the risk of litigation but because I care about the safety of my fellow pilots and myself. It is absolutely clear that a second inspection will significantly reduce the risk of a mistake. John Parncutt From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Geoff Vincent Sent: Monday, 16 May 2011 5:31 PM To: p...@kurstjens.com; Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.; 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.' Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident 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 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: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net From: 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: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com website: www.borgeltinstruments.com Cheers -- Peter F Bradshaw: http://www.exadios.com (public keys avaliable there). Personal site: http://personal.exadios.com I love truth, and the way the government still uses it occasionally to keep us guessing. - Sam Kekovich. ___ 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
Having saved my life through a duplicate inspection I support the concept of dual checks and thorough Daily inspections. (duh ) In brief, I was returning a glider to service after maintenance, rigged it and due to the nature of the work and the time out of service I was copping a bit of ribbing from my friends. I moved the glider away from the group and in the quiet had a friend assist with the duplicate inspection. When we got to the elevator it didn't work, ie when moving the joystick the elevator didn't move !! Now this was a bit of a shock, it was a Hornet so miss rigging is pretty well damned impossible. What had happened, was a person helping during the maintenance had disconnected the elevator push rod at a point down next to the wheel, which cannot be seen unless you contort yourself. He didn't tell me he had done it and wasn't around when I reassembled the seat pan, hiding it even further. The joystick being spring loaded felt connected when moved. Duplicate inspections aren't a new thing, they were introduced back at the start of WW1. Thats about 100 years ago. Probably for very good reason. Checking the correct rigging and the operation of the controls is something that just shouldn't be forgotten, overlooked or negated. It isn't rocket science. Even if you are on some remote paddock with a motor glider and no one is around you can jam the stick and at least check the controls are at least connected. This has also been highlighted when modern gliders have been incorrectly rigged, in some cases main pins not in safety, and in one case I know of, no drag pins inserted and the gliders had been flying for some time. Missed by a number of people during subsequent Daily inspections. Much food for thought me thinks. The Foka accident was indeed tragic and highlights the dangers of flying. It also reinforces the old axiom of, if in doubt check and check again. If still in doubt, perhaps not flying might be a good option. Thats my two bobs work. Cheers Patch. - Original Message - From: John Parncutt jparn...@bigpond.net.au To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Sent: Monday, 16 May, 2011 6:46:34 PM GMT +10:00 Canberra / Melbourne / Sydney Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident Geoff your argument explains precisely why we DO need a second rigging inspection! Things do get forgotten or missed (especially by more experienced pilots). I am more than happy to sign off on a duplicate inspection having made damn sure that it is right, why? Not because the risk of litigation but because I care about the safety of my fellow pilots and myself. It is absolutely clear that a second inspection will significantly reduce the risk of a mistake. John Parncutt From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Geoff Vincent Sent: Monday, 16 May 2011 5:31 PM To: p...@kurstjens.com; Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.; 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.' Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
What proof is there that a second rigging inspection, done by another pilot who is not required to have any experience on the type, will 'significantly reduce the risk of a mistake'? This I suspect is pure conjecture. Geoff's email shows that he knows his aircraft, and the other people do not. There are very few technical experts out there, just glider pilots with a wide variety of experience levels. There is even a potential hazard, in that this person might actually loosen or undo or dislodge the safety on a connection that they are not familiar with, and I for one will always go back and re-inspect my handiwork after someone else has had their hands on it. I'm not saying that people don't make mistakes. I'm not saying that someone else should not help the pilot check things after rigging, e.g. a positive control check. I am saying that the there should be only one signature on the maintenance release. Pam From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of John Parncutt Sent: Monday, 16 May 2011 6:47 PM To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.' Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident Geoff your argument explains precisely why we DO need a second rigging inspection! Things do get forgotten or missed (especially by more experienced pilots). I am more than happy to sign off on a duplicate inspection having made damn sure that it is right, why? Not because the risk of litigation but because I care about the safety of my fellow pilots and myself. It is absolutely clear that a second inspection will significantly reduce the risk of a mistake. John Parncutt From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Geoff Vincent Sent: Monday, 16 May 2011 5:31 PM To: p...@kurstjens.com; Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.; 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.' Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident 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 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: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net From: 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: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
Hi, This definitely correct as long as both the person who is responsible for rigging the glider and and the one that does second inspection has some knowledge / experience with the glider in question. In this instance, according to the report, no one involved in rigging the Foka before the accident, had any experience to speak of with this aircraft type. The other important aspect of the accident is the role of a modified, unauthorized rigging tool. Had the original non-cranked T-wrench was used, they would not be able to engage the lower bevel bolt partially using the hand force alone. Regards Jarek It is absolutely clear that a second inspection will significantly reduce the risk of a mistake. John Parncutt From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Geoff Vincent Sent: Monday, 16 May 2011 5:31 PM To: p...@kurstjens.com; Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.; 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.' Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident 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: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net From: 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: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ 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 ___ 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___ 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
I will never ever ever do this second signature-it is beyond belief that an organisation would force it members to expose them selves to the possibility of suit like this. I have to sign enough shit at work over which i have no control, so to do something like this in my private life is madness. Unless I do it and control it i dont sign it. Ron On 16 May 2011 08:56, Pam Kurstjens p...@kurstjens.com wrote: 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: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net From: 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: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ 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 ___ 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
Hi Gary It was not a large Vic club it was B.S.S. in W.A. the rest is true, and the A/C was totalled as a result, but the pilot was uninjured. From memory there was a fair bit of legal fur flying around as a result of the loss of the glider. and an A.D. followed to colour code all Glasflugel skew bars as a result of this disaster! Chris Runeckles On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 7:20 PM, gstev...@bigpond.com wrote: Hi Patch, Glad you are still around to tell the story! From my viewpoint the following tale is pure hearsay, but maybe you can confirm its truth? Perhaps it was reported to the GFA, under accidents and incidents?? Many years ago a Libelle in a large Victorian club was launched after an annual inspection. Can't recall the exact story outcome, other than it did not go well. Investigation showed that during the Form 2 inspection the left and right aileron drives had been removed, and then inadvertently refitted, so that the left drive was on the RHS, and vice versa. This had the effect of reversing the aileron input! Between assembly and launch, *4 * control check inspections were made, the first by the inspector doing the actual work, and the last by the pilot doing the test flight. Obviously the re-assembly mistake was not picked up! Why not? There is much to mull over in this story, be it totally true or not! However one thing is very clear, and Geoff Vincent, I think, also makes the point in his post: It is one thing to LOOK: It is a completely different thing to SEE. Perhaps a member of this forum who is a professional Psychologist, might like to make comment here? Regards, Gary - Original Message - *From:* Ruth Patching patch...@westnet.com.au *To:* Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net *Sent:* Monday, May 16, 2011 7:55 PM *Subject:* Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident Having saved my life through a duplicate inspection I support the concept of dual checks and thorough Daily inspections. (duh) In brief, I was returning a glider to service after maintenance, rigged it and due to the nature of the work and the time out of service I was copping a bit of ribbing from my friends. I moved the glider away from the group and in the quiet had a friend assist with the duplicate inspection. When we got to the elevator it didn't work, ie when moving the joystick the elevator didn't move !! Now this was a bit of a shock, it was a Hornet so miss rigging is pretty well damned impossible. What had happened, was a person helping during the maintenance had disconnected the elevator push rod at a point down next to the wheel, which cannot be seen unless you contort yourself. He didn't tell me he had done it and wasn't around when I reassembled the seat pan, hiding it even further. The joystick being spring loaded felt connected when moved. Duplicate inspections aren't a new thing, they were introduced back at the start of WW1. Thats about 100 years ago. Probably for very good reason. Checking the correct rigging and the operation of the controls is something that just shouldn't be forgotten, overlooked or negated. It isn't rocket science. Even if you are on some remote paddock with a motor glider and no one is around you can jam the stick and at least check the controls are at least connected. This has also been highlighted when modern gliders have been incorrectly rigged, in some cases main pins not in safety, and in one case I know of, no drag pins inserted and the gliders had been flying for some time. Missed by a number of people during subsequent Daily inspections. Much food for thought me thinks. The Foka accident was indeed tragic and highlights the dangers of flying. It also reinforces the old axiom of, if in doubt check and check again. If still in doubt, perhaps not flying might be a good option. Thats my two bobs work. Cheers Patch. - Original Message - From: John Parncutt jparn...@bigpond.net.au To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Sent: Monday, 16 May, 2011 6:46:34 PM GMT +10:00 Canberra / Melbourne / Sydney Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident Geoff your argument explains precisely why we DO need a second rigging inspection! Things do get forgotten or missed (especially by more experienced pilots). I am more than happy to sign off on a duplicate inspection having made damn sure that it is right, why? Not because the risk of litigation but because I care about the safety of my fellow pilots and myself. It is absolutely clear that a second inspection will significantly * reduce* the risk of a mistake. John Parncutt *From:* aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] *On Behalf Of *Geoff Vincent *Sent:* Monday, 16 May 2011 5:31 PM *To:* p...@kurstjens.com; Discussion of issues relating
Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
Does that mean you don't sign the book when you do a daily inspection Ron? (I'm assuming you have a DI rating) the risks of litigation are the same if something went wrong and it was deemed in the subsequent inquiry to be as a result of something missed during the daily inspection. A duplicate inspection is just that, a second inspection covering control and strutural connections why is it any more onerous to sign off on that? John -Original Message- From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Ron Sanders Sent: Monday, 16 May 2011 9:24 PM To: p...@kurstjens.com; Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident I will never ever ever do this second signature-it is beyond belief that an organisation would force it members to expose them selves to the possibility of suit like this. I have to sign enough shit at work over which i have no control, so to do something like this in my private life is madness. Unless I do it and control it i dont sign it. Ron On 16 May 2011 08:56, Pam Kurstjens p...@kurstjens.com wrote: Anyone who countersigns somebody elses 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: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net From: 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: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ 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 ___ 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 ___ 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
I agree that this accident appears to have been inevitable given the chain of circumstances and that duplicate inspection would not really have played any part in the outcome. My point is that some of the comments on this forum are suggesting that duplicate inspections are a bad idea because they carry the risk of litigation, which I find to be an unfortunate indictment on a modern way of thinking. A little like the situation where a doctor happens to be on hand to provide life saving skills at an accident scene, but walks away leaving the unfortunate victim to die because of the fear of being sued. I think that it should be fairly obvious that anybody rigging or performing duplicate checking of a glider should have some knowledge of that gliders particular control and structural connections. If they don't they should get advice from someone who does, or is able to correctly interpret the gliders operating manual. The function of the duplicate inspector should be to go through all control and structural connections and also check correct sense of controls. If they find anything that concerns them they should bring that to the attention on the person who rigged and initially inspected the glider. John From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Jarek Mosiejewski Sent: Monday, 16 May 2011 8:39 PM To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.' Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident Hi, This definitely correct as long as both the person who is responsible for rigging the glider and and the one that does second inspection has some knowledge / experience with the glider in question. In this instance, according to the report, no one involved in rigging the Foka before the accident, had any experience to speak of with this aircraft type. The other important aspect of the accident is the role of a modified, unauthorized rigging tool. Had the original non-cranked T-wrench was used, they would not be able to engage the lower bevel bolt partially using the hand force alone. Regards Jarek It is absolutely clear that a second inspection will significantly reduce the risk of a mistake. John Parncutt From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Geoff Vincent Sent: Monday, 16 May 2011 5:31 PM To: p...@kurstjens.com; Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.; 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.' Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident 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 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: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net From: 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
Hi Gary and Chris and all, Also happened to a Hornet, same thing, 4 independent inspections. Blaniks were also good in that it was easy to reverse the rudder when re cabling. Good point, what are you looking for? I have seen/heard too many instances where things are observed by pure chance. A story, We used Super Cubs for a long time at Bacchus Marsh. One day I noticed one of them taxiing to the line was more nose high on the ground than normal. Not a lot but enough. I mentioned to the clubs duty pilot that the Cub was broken, more than likely one of the bolts holding the tail wheel assembly had sheared off. Being from one of the other clubs he told me everything was OK in his eyes. I suggested that he might want to go and have a look, if nothing to prove me wrong. Anyway he did go and have a look and surprise, I was right. He came back and asked me how I knew that something was wrong. Some years before I had noticed the same thing but didn't say anything. On the next flight the glider pilots were surprised to see the tail wheel assembly detach itself and fall away, never to be found. An expensive mistake. Our best instrument is eyeball mark one. When rigging and or inspecting it is important to train yourself to OBSERVE what you are looking at. Slow down, don't feel pressured, like me, remove the glider from the onlookers if needed and start again. If you don't know the type ask the owner to walk around with you while asking questions. Too many haven't in the past, and that's the sad part. Patch - Original Message - From: gstev...@bigpond.com To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Sent: Monday, 16 May, 2011 9:20:03 PM (GMT+1000) Auto-Detected Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident Hi Patch, Glad you are still around to tell the story! From my viewpoint the following tale is pure hearsay, but maybe you can confirm its truth? Perhaps it was reported to the GFA, under accidents and incidents?? Many years ago a Libelle in a large Victorian club was launched after an annual inspection. Can't recall the exact story outcome, other than it did not go well. Investigation showed that during the Form 2 inspection the left and right aileron drives had been removed, and then inadvertently refitted, so that the left drive was on the RHS, and vice versa. This had the effect of reversing the aileron input! Between assembly and launch, 4 control check inspections were made, the first by the inspector doing the actual work, and the last by the pilot doing the test flight. Obviously the re-assembly mistake was not picked up! Why not? There is much to mull over in this story, be it totally true or not! However one thing is very clear, and Geoff Vincent, I think, also makes the point in his post: It is one thing to LOOK: It is a completely different thing to SEE. Perhaps a member of this forum who is a professional Psychologist, might like to make comment here? Regards, Gary - Original Message - From: Ruth Patching To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 7:55 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident Having saved my life through a duplicate inspection I support the concept of dual checks and thorough Daily inspections. (duh) In brief, I was returning a glider to service after maintenance, rigged it and due to the nature of the work and the time out of service I was copping a bit of ribbing from my friends. I moved the glider away from the group and in the quiet had a friend assist with the duplicate inspection. When we got to the elevator it didn't work, ie when moving the joystick the elevator didn't move !! Now this was a bit of a shock, it was a Hornet so miss rigging is pretty well damned impossible. What had happened, was a person helping during the maintenance had disconnected the elevator push rod at a point down next to the wheel, which cannot be seen unless you contort yourself. He didn't tell me he had done it and wasn't around when I reassembled the seat pan, hiding it even further. The joystick being spring loaded felt connected when moved. Duplicate inspections aren't a new thing, they were introduced back at the start of WW1. Thats about 100 years ago. Probably for very good reason. Checking the correct rigging and the operation of the controls is something that just shouldn't be forgotten, overlooked or negated. It isn't rocket science. Even if you are on some remote paddock with a motor glider and no one is around you can jam the stick and at least check the controls are at least connected. This has also been highlighted when modern gliders have been incorrectly rigged, in some cases main pins not in safety, and in one case I know of, no drag pins inserted and the gliders had been flying for some time. Missed by a number of people during subsequent Daily inspections. Much
Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
Jarek, You are so right there about the T handle. Would have been pretty obvious something was wrong. Patch - Original Message - From: Jarek Mosiejewski jar...@optusnet.com.au To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Sent: Monday, 16 May, 2011 8:39:18 PM (GMT+1000) Auto-Detected Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident Hi, This definitely correct as long as both the person who is responsible for rigging the glider and and the one that does second inspection has some knowledge / experience with the glider in question. In this instance, according to the report, no one involved in rigging the Foka before the accident, had any experience to speak of with this aircraft type. The other important aspect of the accident is the role of a modified, unauthorized rigging tool. Had the original non-cranked T-wrench was used, they would not be able to engage the lower bevel bolt partially using the hand force alone. Regards Jarek It is absolutely clear that a second inspection will significantly reduce the risk of a mistake. John Parncutt From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Geoff Vincent Sent: Monday, 16 May 2011 5:31 PM To: p...@kurstjens.com; Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.; 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.' Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident 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: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net From: 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: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ 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 ___ 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 ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
in Sweden behind a Super Cub that had a rope reel, not sure if it was Tost. On the second flight the rope did no fully unwind, as a consequence I was towed at approx 20m behind the aircraft, made for a very interesting flight. I'm not sure if a novice would have coped, even the instructor had a job staying in position. -Original Message- From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Roger Druce Sent: Monday, 16 May 2011 3:16 PM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: [Aus-soaring] Tug tow rope reeling in kit operation I was wondering if there was any operator in Australia already employing Tost tow rope reeling in kit with their tug aircraft so as to retract the rope for descent landing. How has the experience been both in regard to the equipment fitted to the tug and also the operational benefits/problems? Reply to group or privately as you feel. Thanks Roger Druce ___ 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 -- Message: 3 Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 16:56:30 +1000 From: Pam Kurstjens p...@kurstjens.com Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.' aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Message-ID: 002d01cc1396$680fa660$382ef320$@com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net From: 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: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ 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 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/private/aus-soaring/attachments/20110516/090b8a58/attachment.html -- Message: 4 Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 17:16:24 +1000 From: Mike Borgelt mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Tug tow rope reeling in kit operation To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Message-ID: 7bca94$6vk...@ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed At 04:37 PM 16/05/2011, you wrote: I have flown a DG1000 in Sweden behind a Super Cub that had a rope reel, not sure if it was Tost. On the second flight the rope did no fully unwind
Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
John, Very nicely put. I also tend to agree with the sentiments expressed by Geoff Vincent, Ian Patching, and Steve Deadman, which would (almost) seem like a contradiction in terms. However do keep in mind that in a gathering of 10 glider pilots we might get 15 different opinions on any given subject. Matt Gage (and others), have told us that a wing frequency test will pick-up a cone disengagement problem in all aircraft that use this method for securing the wings. I think this is extremely valuable information, and is one of the most important outcomes to date ensuing from the setting up this forum. Thank you Simon. If we can save one life and all that . As a small aside, I have rigged an IS 28B2 now and again (thank God not on a regular basis), but enough to know how it all works. This aircraft uses the same principle as the Foka. In my opinion the principle works very well. I must point out however that in the case of the IS 28B2 everything is clearly visible. To move on, it is now very apparent that in order to prevent a re-occurrence of this accident it is essential that the regulating authorities take on board the information on wing frequency, and disseminate it all the owners of gliders that use this connection method. Is it possible for members of this forum who have had the experience, to give us some typical wing frequency figures for cones engaged, as opposed to cones disengaged, for various aircraft, and in particular the Foka? If not can experiments be done to give us some guide lines? Gary - Original Message - From: John Parncutt To: 'Jarek Mosiejewski' ; 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.' Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 10:23 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident I agree that this accident appears to have been inevitable given the chain of circumstances and that duplicate inspection would not really have played any part in the outcome. My point is that some of the comments on this forum are suggesting that duplicate inspections are a bad idea because they carry the risk of litigation, which I find to be an unfortunate indictment on a modern way of thinking. A little like the situation where a doctor happens to be on hand to provide life saving skills at an accident scene, but walks away leaving the unfortunate victim to die because of the fear of being sued. I think that it should be fairly obvious that anybody rigging or performing duplicate checking of a glider should have some knowledge of that gliders particular control and structural connections. If they don't they should get advice from someone who does, or is able to correctly interpret the gliders operating manual. The function of the duplicate inspector should be to go through all control and structural connections and also check correct sense of controls. If they find anything that concerns them they should bring that to the attention on the person who rigged and initially inspected the glider. John From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Jarek Mosiejewski Sent: Monday, 16 May 2011 8:39 PM To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.' Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident Hi, This definitely correct as long as both the person who is responsible for rigging the glider and and the one that does second inspection has some knowledge / experience with the glider in question. In this instance, according to the report, no one involved in rigging the Foka before the accident, had any experience to speak of with this aircraft type. The other important aspect of the accident is the role of a modified, unauthorized rigging tool. Had the original non-cranked T-wrench was used, they would not be able to engage the lower bevel bolt partially using the hand force alone. Regards Jarek It is absolutely clear that a second inspection will significantly reduce the risk of a mistake. John Parncutt From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Geoff Vincent Sent: Monday, 16 May 2011 5:31 PM To: p...@kurstjens.com; Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.; 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.' Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
At 06:46 PM 16/05/2011, you wrote: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary==_NextPart_000_002B_01CC13F9.94B0C920 Content-Language: en-au Geoff your argument explains precisely why we DO need a second rigging inspection! Things do get forgotten or missed (especially by more experienced pilots). I am more than happy to sign off on a duplicate inspection having made damn sure that it is right, why? Not because the risk of litigation but because I care about the safety of my fellow pilots and myself. It is absolutely clear that a second inspection will significantly reduce the risk of a mistake. John Parncutt So Geoff has run the experiment and because the results don't fit your pre/mis conceptions you dismiss the observational evidence. You aren't a climate scientist by any chance are you? 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: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
At 10:02 PM 16/05/2011, you wrote: Hi Gary It was not a large Vic club it was B.S.S. in W.A. the rest is true, and the A/C was totalled as a result, but the pilot was uninjured. From memory there was a fair bit of legal fur flying around as a result of the loss of the glider. and an A.D. followed to colour code all Glasflugel skew bars as a result of this disaster! Chris Runeckles Chris, It happened again at Benalla with a Hornet. Catch up in the next 10 days or so? Will be in Perth this evening. 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: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
At 10:16 PM 16/05/2011, you wrote: Hi Ron; A lawsuit like what? You are responding to a mail that hypothesises that lawsuits are possible. There is no actual lawsuit. Read it again. He didn't say there was, just that there is the possibility in similar situations. I sure wouldn't try your legal defence. So are you telling the Court, Sir, that even though you knew there was no way of positively checking, you signed that the aircraft had been rigged correctly?. It might even be worse than a civil suit which even if you win is going to cost thousands to tens of thousands of dollars to defend with the loss of time, stress, worry etc. You might run into a coroner or Public prosectuor who wants to make a name for him or herself and find yourself on a criminal charge. 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: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
Hi Mike; On Tue, 17 May 2011, Mike Borgelt wrote: At 10:16 PM 16/05/2011, you wrote: Hi Ron; A lawsuit like what? You are responding to a mail that hypothesizes that lawsuits are possible. There is no actual lawsuit. Read it again. He didn't say there was, just that there is the possibility in similar situations. Hence my use of the word hypothesizes - a word that gives his argument more dignity than it deserves. I sure wouldn't try your legal defence. So are you telling the Court, Sir, that even though you knew there was no way of positively checking, you signed that the aircraft had been rigged correctly?. The second signer is not signing that the aircraft has been rigged correctly. The signer is stating that he or she has checked the rigging in a competent and reasonable manner. This is a different proposition in law and in fact. I think the lesson to be learnt from this accident is that, as somebody else here has noted, that DI tickets should be issued on a per aircraft type basis. Plainly, in this case, neither the riggers nor the people who checked the rigging knew how to rig or check this particular aircraft type. It might even be worse than a civil suit which even if you win is going to cost thousands to tens of thousands of dollars to defend with the loss of time, stress, worry etc. You might run into a coroner or Public prosectuor who wants to make a name for him or herself and find yourself on a criminal charge. What is this? Fear Mongering 101? How did we jump from civil lawsuits to criminal proceedings? The problem with your argument is that it is one best tailored to the idea that the best way to live our lives is to enter a windowless room, close and lock the door, and sit quietly in the dark. The truth of the matter is that each of us perform actions and take risks every day in order to live our lives. Any of us may be sued at any time. How far the plaintiff gets is a function of the merit of their case. The best defense is to perform in a competent and reasonable manner. Further the best way to operate our sport is to perform in a competent and reasonable manner and cross checking is an important part of this paradigm. 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: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com website: www.borgeltinstruments.com Cheers -- Peter F Bradshaw: http://www.exadios.com (public keys avaliable there). Personal site: http://personal.exadios.com I love truth, and the way the government still uses it occasionally to keep us guessing. - Sam Kekovich. ___ 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
At 11:10 AM 17/05/2011, you wrote: Hi Mike; On Tue, 17 May 2011, Mike Borgelt wrote: At 10:16 PM 16/05/2011, you wrote: Hi Ron; A lawsuit like what? You are responding to a mail that hypothesizes that lawsuits are possible. There is no actual lawsuit. Read it again. He didn't say there was, just that there is the possibility in similar situations. Hence my use of the word hypothesizes - a word that gives his argument more dignity than it deserves. I sure wouldn't try your legal defence. So are you telling the Court, Sir, that even though you knew there was no way of positively checking, you signed that the aircraft had been rigged correctly?. The second signer is not signing that the aircraft has been rigged correctly. The signer is stating that he or she has checked the rigging in a competent and reasonable manner. This is a different proposition in law and in fact. I think the lesson to be learnt from this accident is that, as somebody else here has noted, that DI tickets should be issued on a per aircraft type basis. Plainly, in this case, neither the riggers nor the people who checked the rigging knew how to rig or check this particular aircraft type. It might even be worse than a civil suit which even if you win is going to cost thousands to tens of thousands of dollars to defend with the loss of time, stress, worry etc. You might run into a coroner or Public prosectuor who wants to make a name for him or herself and find yourself on a criminal charge. What is this? Fear Mongering 101? How did we jump from civil lawsuits to criminal proceedings? The problem with your argument is that it is one best tailored to the idea that the best way to live our lives is to enter a windowless room, close and lock the door, and sit quietly in the dark. The truth of the matter is that each of us perform actions and take risks every day in order to live our lives. Any of us may be sued at any time. How far the plaintiff gets is a function of the merit of their case. The best defense is to perform in a competent and reasonable manner. Further the best way to operate our sport is to perform in a competent and reasonable manner and cross checking is an important part of this paradigm. Great , you want to introduce even more bureaucracy and bullshit into a sport already suffering from a surfeit of it. In powered aviation there is no DI ticket. It comes with the PPL. Regardless of whether somebody signed the maintenance release the normal practice is to do a pre-flight inspection before getting in to fly. This is the same as what you do in a DI. You don't have to find some other qualified person to verify the oil level or the fuel quantity, both of which could easily result in outcomes similar to incorrect rigging. Once you take off you are the person solely responsible for your actions, why should it be any different during flight preparation? Many of the people here are missing the point. If you feel comfortable having someone else inspect your rigging work then you are free to find someone to do that. Nobody will stop you. What some people here are objecting to is the compulsion to find another person to SIGN for it and risk their hull and 3rd party insurance if they can't don't get that signature. The Maintenance Release is a legal document. A signature would likely carry more weight than Fred had a look and said he couldn't find anything wrong with it.. This seems an unnecessary risk to your fortune and maybe freedom for something that is of no advantage to you. If you think these bad legal outcomes can't happen I feel sorry for you. I'll take a legal risk for earning a living or some other thing that benefits me. I won't do so so that someone else can get a benefit that puts me at risk and I would not expect anyone else to do so for me. In any case the reason the second signature requirement is there is most likely that it was done to make it more difficult for people to fly outside gliding clubs. I'm not aware of any rigging error accidents in the immediate period leading up to the introduction of this requirement. This, of course, is utterly hypocritical of an organisation which won't investigate and publish accident reports for fear of litigation. I'm sure the GFA nomenklatura and their minions are very active. Pity there is little achievement, particularly in the safety sphere. We've learned more about safety here in the last couple of days than has come out of the GFA in a long time We just had someone admit to taking off the retractable towrope jammed in the tug. Depending where this happened he may have just lost his backup release ability. Here's another possibility: As the combination is approaching the fence it unjams and pays out. The glider is now not gaining energy and may hit the fence. When the rope pays out completely it may break from the sudden jerk. Even if these things don't happen he's now in a higher than normal
Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
Unfortunately logic does not always win in the law area. Just ask Boonah club members what it cost the club when the family of a tug pilot sued after the wings came off the tug! They hadn't even rigged it and the dead pilot had DI'd it! Tom From: Peter F Bradshaw p...@exadios.com To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2011 11:10 AM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident Hi Mike; On Tue, 17 May 2011, Mike Borgelt wrote: At 10:16 PM 16/05/2011, you wrote: Hi Ron; A lawsuit like what? You are responding to a mail that hypothesizes that lawsuits are possible. There is no actual lawsuit. Read it again. He didn't say there was, just that there is the possibility in similar situations. Hence my use of the word hypothesizes - a word that gives his argument more dignity than it deserves. I sure wouldn't try your legal defence. So are you telling the Court, Sir, that even though you knew there was no way of positively checking, you signed that the aircraft had been rigged correctly?. The second signer is not signing that the aircraft has been rigged correctly. The signer is stating that he or she has checked the rigging in a competent and reasonable manner. This is a different proposition in law and in fact. I think the lesson to be learnt from this accident is that, as somebody else here has noted, that DI tickets should be issued on a per aircraft type basis. Plainly, in this case, neither the riggers nor the people who checked the rigging knew how to rig or check this particular aircraft type. It might even be worse than a civil suit which even if you win is going to cost thousands to tens of thousands of dollars to defend with the loss of time, stress, worry etc. You might run into a coroner or Public prosectuor who wants to make a name for him or herself and find yourself on a criminal charge. What is this? Fear Mongering 101? How did we jump from civil lawsuits to criminal proceedings? The problem with your argument is that it is one best tailored to the idea that the best way to live our lives is to enter a windowless room, close and lock the door, and sit quietly in the dark. The truth of the matter is that each of us perform actions and take risks every day in order to live our lives. Any of us may be sued at any time. How far the plaintiff gets is a function of the merit of their case. The best defense is to perform in a competent and reasonable manner. Further the best way to operate our sport is to perform in a competent and reasonable manner and cross checking is an important part of this paradigm. 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: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com website: www.borgeltinstruments.com Cheers -- Peter F Bradshaw: http://www.exadios.com (public keys avaliable there). Personal site: http://personal.exadios.com I love truth, and the way the government still uses it occasionally to keep us guessing. - Sam Kekovich. ___ 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
Peter You live in a halcyon world where you will always be able to find a second person available, every day that you rig your glider, who happens to have a DI ticket for that same glider type. If you support that, then clearly you also support the final total demise of gliding, and that will be very safe for everybody when all gliders are in museums because you have made it totally impractical for anybody to go and rig and fly their glider. Total nonsense. Pam -Original Message- From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Peter F Bradshaw Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2011 11:11 AM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident Hi Mike; On Tue, 17 May 2011, Mike Borgelt wrote: At 10:16 PM 16/05/2011, you wrote: Hi Ron; A lawsuit like what? You are responding to a mail that hypothesizes that lawsuits are possible. There is no actual lawsuit. Read it again. He didn't say there was, just that there is the possibility in similar situations. Hence my use of the word hypothesizes - a word that gives his argument more dignity than it deserves. I sure wouldn't try your legal defence. So are you telling the Court, Sir, that even though you knew there was no way of positively checking, you signed that the aircraft had been rigged correctly?. The second signer is not signing that the aircraft has been rigged correctly. The signer is stating that he or she has checked the rigging in a competent and reasonable manner. This is a different proposition in law and in fact. I think the lesson to be learnt from this accident is that, as somebody else here has noted, that DI tickets should be issued on a per aircraft type basis. Plainly, in this case, neither the riggers nor the people who checked the rigging knew how to rig or check this particular aircraft type. It might even be worse than a civil suit which even if you win is going to cost thousands to tens of thousands of dollars to defend with the loss of time, stress, worry etc. You might run into a coroner or Public prosectuor who wants to make a name for him or herself and find yourself on a criminal charge. What is this? Fear Mongering 101? How did we jump from civil lawsuits to criminal proceedings? The problem with your argument is that it is one best tailored to the idea that the best way to live our lives is to enter a windowless room, close and lock the door, and sit quietly in the dark. The truth of the matter is that each of us perform actions and take risks every day in order to live our lives. Any of us may be sued at any time. How far the plaintiff gets is a function of the merit of their case. The best defense is to perform in a competent and reasonable manner. Further the best way to operate our sport is to perform in a competent and reasonable manner and cross checking is an important part of this paradigm. 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: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com website: www.borgeltinstruments.com Cheers -- Peter F Bradshaw: http://www.exadios.com (public keys avaliable there). Personal site: http://personal.exadios.com I love truth, and the way the government still uses it occasionally to keep us guessing. - Sam Kekovich. ___ 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
Hi Pam; As I understand it you are at perfect liberty to fly your glider without having it checked after rigging as things stand now. In fact I think you are free to fly it without doing a DI youself. If that's what you want to do - go for it. On Tue, 17 May 2011, Pam Kurstjens wrote: Peter You live in a halcyon world where you will always be able to find a second person available, every day that you rig your glider, who happens to have a DI ticket for that same glider type. If you support that, then clearly you also support the final total demise of gliding, and that will be very safe for everybody when all gliders are in museums because you have made it totally impractical for anybody to go and rig and fly their glider. Total nonsense. Pam -Original Message- From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Peter F Bradshaw Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2011 11:11 AM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident Hi Mike; On Tue, 17 May 2011, Mike Borgelt wrote: At 10:16 PM 16/05/2011, you wrote: Hi Ron; A lawsuit like what? You are responding to a mail that hypothesizes that lawsuits are possible. There is no actual lawsuit. Read it again. He didn't say there was, just that there is the possibility in similar situations. Hence my use of the word hypothesizes - a word that gives his argument more dignity than it deserves. I sure wouldn't try your legal defence. So are you telling the Court, Sir, that even though you knew there was no way of positively checking, you signed that the aircraft had been rigged correctly?. The second signer is not signing that the aircraft has been rigged correctly. The signer is stating that he or she has checked the rigging in a competent and reasonable manner. This is a different proposition in law and in fact. I think the lesson to be learnt from this accident is that, as somebody else here has noted, that DI tickets should be issued on a per aircraft type basis. Plainly, in this case, neither the riggers nor the people who checked the rigging knew how to rig or check this particular aircraft type. It might even be worse than a civil suit which even if you win is going to cost thousands to tens of thousands of dollars to defend with the loss of time, stress, worry etc. You might run into a coroner or Public prosectuor who wants to make a name for him or herself and find yourself on a criminal charge. What is this? Fear Mongering 101? How did we jump from civil lawsuits to criminal proceedings? The problem with your argument is that it is one best tailored to the idea that the best way to live our lives is to enter a windowless room, close and lock the door, and sit quietly in the dark. The truth of the matter is that each of us perform actions and take risks every day in order to live our lives. Any of us may be sued at any time. How far the plaintiff gets is a function of the merit of their case. The best defense is to perform in a competent and reasonable manner. Further the best way to operate our sport is to perform in a competent and reasonable manner and cross checking is an important part of this paradigm. 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: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com website: www.borgeltinstruments.com Cheers Cheers -- Peter F Bradshaw: http://www.exadios.com (public keys avaliable there). Personal site: http://personal.exadios.com I love truth, and the way the government still uses it occasionally to keep us guessing. - Sam Kekovich. ___ 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
Tom, I was trying to find a way to say that simply - you saved me the trouble. However, looking at the MOSP, I don't see a requirement for a signature for an Independent Inspection 6.2 DAILY INSPECTION Before each days' operation and after each rigging all sailplanes must receive a Daily Inspection in accordance with the procedures in the GFA Daily Inspector's Handbook. This inspection may only be performed by persons who are authorised as a Daily Inspector for that particular construction category or in the case of powered sailplanes, for that particular type. When the Daily Inspection is completed the Inspector certifies so in the Daily Inspection Record (GFA Form 1) which is in the same booklet as the Maintenance Release. 6.3 INDEPENDENT INSPECTIONS An independent inspection is required each time a control circuit is reconnected. When performing the independent inspection, the inspector must check that all parts are correctly attached, that all controls have correct safety locking, that the controls move in the correct sense and that there is full and free movement. The minimum qualification for performing Independent Inspections is a Daily Inspector Authorisation. Matt On 17/05/2011, at 11:59 , tom claffey wrote: Unfortunately logic does not always win in the law area. Just ask Boonah club members what it cost the club when the family of a tug pilot sued after the wings came off the tug! They hadn't even rigged it and the dead pilot had DI'd it! Tom From: Peter F Bradshaw p...@exadios.com To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2011 11:10 AM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident Hi Mike; On Tue, 17 May 2011, Mike Borgelt wrote: At 10:16 PM 16/05/2011, you wrote: Hi Ron; A lawsuit like what? You are responding to a mail that hypothesizes that lawsuits are possible. There is no actual lawsuit. Read it again. He didn't say there was, just that there is the possibility in similar situations. Hence my use of the word hypothesizes - a word that gives his argument more dignity than it deserves. I sure wouldn't try your legal defence. So are you telling the Court, Sir, that even though you knew there was no way of positively checking, you signed that the aircraft had been rigged correctly?. The second signer is not signing that the aircraft has been rigged correctly. The signer is stating that he or she has checked the rigging in a competent and reasonable manner. This is a different proposition in law and in fact. I think the lesson to be learnt from this accident is that, as somebody else here has noted, that DI tickets should be issued on a per aircraft type basis. Plainly, in this case, neither the riggers nor the people who checked the rigging knew how to rig or check this particular aircraft type. It might even be worse than a civil suit which even if you win is going to cost thousands to tens of thousands of dollars to defend with the loss of time, stress, worry etc. You might run into a coroner or Public prosectuor who wants to make a name for him or herself and find yourself on a criminal charge. What is this? Fear Mongering 101? How did we jump from civil lawsuits to criminal proceedings? The problem with your argument is that it is one best tailored to the idea that the best way to live our lives is to enter a windowless room, close and lock the door, and sit quietly in the dark. The truth of the matter is that each of us perform actions and take risks every day in order to live our lives. Any of us may be sued at any time. How far the plaintiff gets is a function of the merit of their case. The best defense is to perform in a competent and reasonable manner. Further the best way to operate our sport is to perform in a competent and reasonable manner and cross checking is an important part of this paradigm. 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: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com website: www.borgeltinstruments.com Cheers -- Peter F Bradshaw: http://www.exadios.com (public keys avaliable there). Personal site: http://personal.exadios.com I love truth, and the way the government still uses it occasionally to keep us guessing. - Sam Kekovich. ___ 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
Hi Tom; I do not know about the Boonah case but I suspect that logic did win in that case and either you did not understand it or it dictated an result with which you do not agree. On Mon, 16 May 2011, tom claffey wrote: Unfortunately logic does not always win in the law area. Just ask Boonah club members what it cost the club when the family of a tug pilot sued after the wings came off the tug! They hadn't even rigged it and the dead pilot had DI'd it! Tom From: Peter F Bradshaw p...@exadios.com To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2011 11:10 AM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident Hi Mike; On Tue, 17 May 2011, Mike Borgelt wrote: At 10:16 PM 16/05/2011, you wrote: Hi Ron; A lawsuit like what? You are responding to a mail that hypothesizes that lawsuits are possible. There is no actual lawsuit. Read it again. He didn't say there was, just that there is the possibility in similar situations. Hence my use of the word hypothesizes - a word that gives his argument more dignity than it deserves. I sure wouldn't try your legal defence. So are you telling the Court, Sir, that even though you knew there was no way of positively checking, you signed that the aircraft had been rigged correctly?. The second signer is not signing that the aircraft has been rigged correctly. The signer is stating that he or she has checked the rigging in a competent and reasonable manner. This is a different proposition in law and in fact. I think the lesson to be learnt from this accident is that, as somebody else here has noted, that DI tickets should be issued on a per aircraft type basis. Plainly, in this case, neither the riggers nor the people who checked the rigging knew how to rig or check this particular aircraft type. It might even be worse than a civil suit which even if you win is going to cost thousands to tens of thousands of dollars to defend with the loss of time, stress, worry etc. You might run into a coroner or Public prosectuor who wants to make a name for him or herself and find yourself on a criminal charge. What is this? Fear Mongering 101? How did we jump from civil lawsuits to criminal proceedings? The problem with your argument is that it is one best tailored to the idea that the best way to live our lives is to enter a windowless room, close and lock the door, and sit quietly in the dark. The truth of the matter is that each of us perform actions and take risks every day in order to live our lives. Any of us may be sued at any time. How far the plaintiff gets is a function of the merit of their case. The best defense is to perform in a competent and reasonable manner. Further the best way to operate our sport is to perform in a competent and reasonable manner and cross checking is an important part of this paradigm. 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: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com website: www.borgeltinstruments.com Cheers Cheers -- Peter F Bradshaw: http://www.exadios.com (public keys avaliable there). Personal site: http://personal.exadios.com I love truth, and the way the government still uses it occasionally to keep us guessing. - Sam Kekovich. ___ 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
6.3 INDEPENDENT INSPECTIONS An independent inspection is required each time a control circuit is reconnected. When performing the independent inspection, the inspector must check that all parts are correctly attached, that all controls have correct safety locking, that the controls move in the correct sense and that there is full and free movement. The minimum qualification for performing Independent Inspections is a Daily Inspector Authorisation. Haven't looked at all of the MOSP, but the above certainly seems to be limited to control circuit reconnection and not all elements of reassembly. I'm sure the Foka in question would have complied with the requirements of 6.3 Not gunna dig down to find my MOSP in the boxes to see if there is more as we a busily packing to migrate to Queensland. :-)) :-)) I'm sure I will be corrected if I have missed something. Chris - Original Message - From: Matthew Gage To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 11:47 AM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident Tom, I was trying to find a way to say that simply - you saved me the trouble. However, looking at the MOSP, I don't see a requirement for a signature for an Independent Inspection 6.2 DAILY INSPECTION Before each days' operation and after each rigging all sailplanes must receive a Daily Inspection in accordance with the procedures in the GFA Daily Inspector's Handbook. This inspection may only be performed by persons who are authorised as a Daily Inspector for that particular construction category or in the case of powered sailplanes, for that particular type. When the Daily Inspection is completed the Inspector certifies so in the Daily Inspection Record (GFA Form 1) which is in the same booklet as the Maintenance Release. 6.3 INDEPENDENT INSPECTIONS An independent inspection is required each time a control circuit is reconnected. When performing the independent inspection, the inspector must check that all parts are correctly attached, that all controls have correct safety locking, that the controls move in the correct sense and that there is full and free movement. The minimum qualification for performing Independent Inspections is a Daily Inspector Authorisation. Matt On 17/05/2011, at 11:59 , tom claffey wrote: Unfortunately logic does not always win in the law area. Just ask Boonah club members what it cost the club when the family of a tug pilot sued after the wings came off the tug! They hadn't even rigged it and the dead pilot had DI'd it! Tom From: Peter F Bradshaw p...@exadios.com To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2011 11:10 AM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident Hi Mike; On Tue, 17 May 2011, Mike Borgelt wrote: At 10:16 PM 16/05/2011, you wrote: Hi Ron; A lawsuit like what? You are responding to a mail that hypothesizes that lawsuits are possible. There is no actual lawsuit. Read it again. He didn't say there was, just that there is the possibility in similar situations. Hence my use of the word hypothesizes - a word that gives his argument more dignity than it deserves. I sure wouldn't try your legal defence. So are you telling the Court, Sir, that even though you knew there was no way of positively checking, you signed that the aircraft had been rigged correctly?. The second signer is not signing that the aircraft has been rigged correctly. The signer is stating that he or she has checked the rigging in a competent and reasonable manner. This is a different proposition in law and in fact. I think the lesson to be learnt from this accident is that, as somebody else here has noted, that DI tickets should be issued on a per aircraft type basis. Plainly, in this case, neither the riggers nor the people who checked the rigging knew how to rig or check this particular aircraft type. It might even be worse than a civil suit which even if you win is going to cost thousands to tens of thousands of dollars to defend with the loss of time, stress, worry etc. You might run into a coroner or Public prosectuor who wants to make a name for him or herself and find yourself on a criminal charge. What is this? Fear Mongering 101? How did we jump from civil lawsuits to criminal proceedings? The problem with your argument is that it is one best tailored to the idea that the best way to live our lives is to enter a windowless room, close and lock the door, and sit quietly in the dark. The truth of the matter is that each of us perform actions and take risks every day in order to live our lives. Any of us may be sued
Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
It could be inferred that MOSP 6.3 applies only to control connections and not to other connections. There is no explicit requirement for an independent check of the wing and tailplane attachments. Personally I think that an independent check is a good idea when possible, particulary with complex rigging, but making it a mandatory requirement seems a bit odd. If you can get the wings on my Discus without connecting the controls positively and in the correct sense, you will have pushed somewhat harder than I can :) I have a one-person rigging system, but apparently I can't go flying unless there is another DI rated person handy. It seems to me that if you want to know who is responsible for your safety, whether in aviation or any other activity, look in a mirror. Takeoffs are optional. Landings are compulsory. Cheers /Tim/ /tra dire e fare c'è mezzo il mare/ On 17/05/2011 12:17, Matthew Gage wrote: Tom, I was trying to find a way to say that simply - you saved me the trouble. However, looking at the MOSP, I don't see a requirement for a signature for an Independent Inspection *6.2DAILY INSPECTION* Before each days' operation and after each rigging all sailplanes must receive a Daily Inspection in accordance with the procedures in the GFA Daily Inspector's Handbook. This inspection may only be performed by persons who are authorised as a Daily Inspector for that particular construction category or in the case of powered sailplanes, for that particular type. When the Daily Inspection is completed the Inspector certifies so in the Daily Inspection Record (GFA Form 1) which is in the same booklet as the Maintenance Release. * * *6.3INDEPENDENT INSPECTIONS* An independent inspection is required each time a control circuit is reconnected. When performing the independent inspection, the inspector must check that all parts are correctly attached, that all controls have correct safety locking, that the controls move in the correct sense and that there is full and free movement. The minimum qualification for performing Independent Inspections is a Daily Inspector Authorisation. Matt On 17/05/2011, at 11:59 , tom claffey wrote: Unfortunately logic does not always win in the law area. Just ask Boonah club members what it cost the club when the family of a tug pilot sued after the wings came off the tug! They hadn't even rigged it and the dead pilot had DI'd it! Tom *From:* Peter F Bradshaw p...@exadios.com mailto:p...@exadios.com *To:* Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net mailto:aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net *Sent:* Tuesday, 17 May 2011 11:10 AM *Subject:* Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident Hi Mike; On Tue, 17 May 2011, Mike Borgelt wrote: At 10:16 PM 16/05/2011, you wrote: Hi Ron; A lawsuit like what? You are responding to a mail that hypothesizes that lawsuits are possible. There is no actual lawsuit. Read it again. He didn't say there was, just that there is the possibility in similar situations. Hence my use of the word hypothesizes - a word that gives his argument more dignity than it deserves. I sure wouldn't try your legal defence. So are you telling the Court, Sir, that even though you knew there was no way of positively checking, you signed that the aircraft had been rigged correctly?. The second signer is not signing that the aircraft has been rigged correctly. The signer is stating that he or she has checked the rigging in a competent and reasonable manner. This is a different proposition in law and in fact. I think the lesson to be learnt from this accident is that, as somebody else here has noted, that DI tickets should be issued on a per aircraft type basis. Plainly, in this case, neither the riggers nor the people who checked the rigging knew how to rig or check this particular aircraft type. It might even be worse than a civil suit which even if you win is going to cost thousands to tens of thousands of dollars to defend with the loss of time, stress, worry etc. You might run into a coroner or Public prosectuor who wants to make a name for him or herself and find yourself on a criminal charge. What is this? Fear Mongering 101? How did we jump from civil lawsuits to criminal proceedings? The problem with your argument is that it is one best tailored to the idea that the best way to live our lives is to enter a windowless room, close and lock the door, and sit quietly in the dark. The truth of the matter is that each of us perform actions and take risks every day in order to live our lives. Any of us may be sued at any time. How far the plaintiff gets is a function of the merit of their case. The best defense is to perform in a competent and reasonable manner. Further the best way to operate our sport is to perform in a competent and reasonable manner and cross checking is an important
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: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
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: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net From: 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: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ 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
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: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net From: 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: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ 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 ___ 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
More importantly, if it did happen in Australia, is there a procedure that following the accident would resolve what the problem was? Cheers Paul On 16 May 2011 14:01, Matthew Gage m...@knightschallenge.com wrote: 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: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net From: 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: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ 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 ___ 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
Every aircraft is different, we all know that. Even aircraft of the same type can have slight differences between them, for a lot of reasons. These reasons can range anywhere from slight changes during the OEM's production run, through to the incorporation of (or not yet incorporated) AD's, through possibly other modifications (authorized or not), to repairs, to the inevitable effects of normal wear and tear in service. From a flying, i.e., operational point of view, all pilots need type ratings for each type of aircraft they fly, but not usually for individual aircraft of a given type, unless there is something different about it, i.e., modifications etc. From a preparation, i.e., a rigging and or DIing point of view, all that is currently required of an individual is the generic DI Certificate. It could be argued that the system which trains / briefs / certifies pilots to fly an aircraft is good enough, but I think we have to recognize that the system which trains / briefs / certifies riggers and DIers is far more relaxed, and arguably, that it is too relaxed, as the circumstances surrounding the rigging of this Foka clearly indicate. Perhaps we should consider the introduction of a more rigorous system of type ratings for riggers and DIers, similar to what we have for pilots. Perhaps we should also consider creating type specific DI sheets, at least for those types of aircraft that have critical features that warrant special vigilance. Paul, regarding your question if it did happen in Australia, is there a procedure that following the accident would resolve what the problem was?, all you need do is search the archives a few years back, and you will find a long discussion on that issue. - Original Message - From: Paul Bart To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 2:38 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident More importantly, if it did happen in Australia, is there a procedure that following the accident would resolve what the problem was? Cheers Paul On 16 May 2011 14:01, Matthew Gage m...@knightschallenge.com wrote: 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: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net From: 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: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ 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 ___ 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___ 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
The same fixing system is in the IS28, IS29, IS30 which we have in our club. We usually have terrible trouble reassembling the IS29 in our club from misaligning the lower cone. This is because it does not have a turtle deck to remove and we cannot see the lower cone like this Foka. As for this accident, I wonder whether a wing frequency test as part of the DI would have revealed that something was wrong with the connection? This is not mentioned in the report. PeterS On 14/05/2011 7:49 PM, Christopher Mc Donnell wrote: Family reaction. 9 http://www.lep.co.uk/news/traffic-and-transport/family_plea_over_gliders_1_3379631 ___ 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
Yes Peter you make an interesting point about the wing frequency test, our club used to have two IS28's and one day we discovered during that particular test that the bolts had indeed not aligned properly. From observation I don't think that many people are checking wing frequency during DI's, whilst most modern gliders have simple main pin arrangements I still think this is a worthwhile part of the DI since it also allows you to listen for loose object within the wing and look for any sign of damage within the wing structure (especially in wood) I would suggest that anyone with a glider with that style of fitting ensure that they include wing frequency test in their DI. Cheers, John From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Peter Stephenson Sent: Sunday, 15 May 2011 12:23 AM To: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Cc: Lindsay Mitchell; Vince Everett Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident The same fixing system is in the IS28, IS29, IS30 which we have in our club. We usually have terrible trouble reassembling the IS29 in our club from misaligning the lower cone. This is because it does not have a turtle deck to remove and we cannot see the lower cone like this Foka. As for this accident, I wonder whether a wing frequency test as part of the DI would have revealed that something was wrong with the connection? This is not mentioned in the report. PeterS On 14/05/2011 7:49 PM, Christopher Mc Donnell wrote: Family reaction. 9 http://www.lep.co.uk/news/traffic-and-transport/family_plea_over_gliders_1_3 379631 ___ 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
