Phil Benke at Caboolture has a Tost winch in his Super Dimona.
Regards
Michael
-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
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, 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
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
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, as a consequence I
was towed at approx 20m behind the aircraft, made for a very
interesting flight. I'm not
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
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
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, 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,
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
I dont say much on this list, but this time ive got to:
Why does everybody rely on somebody else, especially in this age of
litigation. It would appear that the number of people who are actually
prepared to take responsibility for their actions are diminishing every day.
When I was flying,
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
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
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.
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:
://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
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
-Original Message-
From: Roger Druce rogdr...@optusnet.com.au
Sent: Monday, 16 May 2011 3:15
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
Subject: [Aus-soaring] Tug tow rope reeling in kit operation
I was wondering if there was any
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
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.
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
This was sent to me last night.
From the US I guess.
Good picture quality
Chris
- Original Message -
From: János Bauer
To: Christopher Mc Donnell
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 10:13 PM
Subject: RE: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
Hi Christopher,
I'm just reading this list, but maybe this
More hearsay.
The Caproni A21 has a similar outer wing panel connection.Here's the NTSB
report on one that came apart.
...on their takeoff roll, the glider's right wing deflected upwards (about 90
degrees)...
Had heard from this aircraft's previous owner that the pilot's assistant had
N.B
.(the pilot) shook both wings to make sure they were secured
From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Jim
Staniforth
Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2011 9:29 AM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Tim and others
My belief is that the requirement to have a
second inspection performed and signed for is a
consequence of an item in the Civil Aviation
Regulations requiring a duplicate inspection if,
in the course of maintenance, a control circuit
is disconnected in any aircraft. And that
Wombat wrote:
We are unlikely to change this by talking about
it - so can we please talk about something else now?
Wombat
Hey Wombat, just because you write a reasoned post doesn't mean that the rest
of us can't continue to spout more nonsense.
Now, what else can I start here - we had
We are unlikely to change this by talking about
it - so can we please talk about something else now?
Wombat
Hey Wombat, just because you write a reasoned post doesn't mean that
the rest of us can't continue to spout more nonsense.
Now, what else can I start here - we had jets,
Maybe he thought logic would work here.
John
On 17 May 2011 13:37, tom.wilk...@internode.on.net wrote:
We are unlikely to change this by talking about
it - so can we please talk about something else now?
Wombat
Hey Wombat, just because you write a reasoned post doesn't mean that
Must be time for some Blanik bashing surely?
On Tue 17/05/11 3:07 PM , tom.wilk...@internode.on.net sent:
We are unlikely to change this by talking about
it - so can we please talk about something else now?
Wombat
Hey Wombat, just because you write a reasoned post doesn't
41 matches
Mail list logo
