Mal Bruce wrote:
Ok guys,
I did a bit of research on the issue. Here the key points from DG's
posting with some additional information about DG's and Elan's
history. For those who wonder, I'm a native German speaker :-) :
The issue: - Elan, who has been producing all DG 300/303 since its
launch (up it being taken over by AMS-Flight in 1999), apparently
changed the production process of the main spar at some unknown point
in the past without Glaser-Dirks (the DG predecessor) approval
leading to the possibility of faulty main spars (not all main spars
produced by them are necessary faulty). - The glider that initially
revealed the faulty main spar as a result of a servere landing
accident is about 20 years old with aprox. 1500h. - There are about
500 DG-300/303 gliders still flying with an average age of about 15
years and a total of about 1 million hours. - No DG 300/303 has ever
had a failed wing in flight as a result of structural failure. - The
required breaking strength of the wing at the time of certification
was 1.725 times the max allowed in flight-load. The actual
certification test to failure was stopped at 2.1 times the max
allowed in-flight load without the wing failing. - DG does not now
how many gliders are affected, out of 8 tested 3 had a faulty main
spar. - To test the wing is difficult and expensive, the wing has to
be cut open.
Possible solutions: 1. All gliders will be grounded 2. All gliders
will have to be inspected within a reasonable time period and
repaired if necessary. The inspection would cost around EUR 6000 per
glider, a repair, if necessary can easily reach EUR 5000. All gliders
would have to come to DG's factory in Germany since it would be near
impossible to develop guidelines about what is still acceptable and
what has to be repaired. 3. DG tries, using calculations, tests to
failure and load tests on faulty main spars, to prove that even
faulty main spars have enough strength as a result of the very high
structural reserves of the original design. This approach might allow
to continue operating the glider with reduced operating limits
without the need for inspections and repairs.
DG decided to go the 3. route to avoid having to ground all gliders
and has spent to date about EUR 10,000 to do the required testing.
Based on the suprisingly good results when testing the faulty main
spars they got the following operating limitations approved by the
EASA (European FAA equivalent):
New Operating Limits for all DG-300/303: - Max speed reduced from 270
km/h to 250 km/h - Maneuvering speed reduced from 200 km/h to 175
km/h - MTOW reduced from 525 kg to 450 kg - No aerobatics (also
applies to the DG-300 Acro)
If you want to avoid these limitations you will have to get the
glider inspected and repaired if necessary.
The liability/legal issues/responsability: The great majority of the
affected gliders were delivered by & paid to Glaser-Dirks which went
bankrupt in 1996. The current DG-Flugzeugbau only took over the Type
Certificates and spare part supply but not the product liability, the
actual gliders and faulty main spars were not manufactured by
Glaser-Dirks but by Elan which does not dispute this.
Elan refuses to shoulder any costs related to the investigation of
the faulty main spars and does not respond to any inquiries. All
gliders with faulty main spars produced by Elan are out of warranty.
About 10 gliders were produced by Elan or its successor AMS-Flight
and delivered by the current DG-Flugzeugbau, all these gliders are
out of warranty as well.
AMS-Flight was established in 1999 to continue Elan's existing
aircraft production and took over the entire Elan Flight Division of
Elan as of Sep. 1st, 1999. AMS produced and delivered about 25
gliders under their own responsibility and claims, that they
converted the production process back to the original specifications.
However, they don't seem to be able to state when and starting with
which serial number they did so. It is likely that the only DG-303s
that are still under warranty are technically ok but nobody knows for
sure and only an inspection will be able to prove that.
Here the companies' time lines & current sales: 1973 - Glaser-Dirks
Flugzeugbau GmbH founded, prudction of the DG-100 begins 1978 - Elan
founded 1983 - DG-300 introduced and produced by Elan 1996 -
Glaser-Dirks Flugzeugbau GmbH goes bankrupt -> DG Flugzeugbau GmbH
buys up key parts of Glaser-Dirks (excluding the product liability of
the DG-300 series), Elan continues to produce the DG-300/303. 1999 -
AMS-Flight established to continue Elan's existing aircraft
production, takes over the entire Elan Flight Division of Elan as of
Sep. 1st, 1999. 2006 - AMS-Flight stops DG-303 ELAN manufacturing. As
of February 2006 444 DG-300 ELAN & 67 DG-303 ELAN gliders were
produced. 2006 - AMS sales EUR 2.4 million (projected), 40 employees
2006 - DG sales EUR 7 million (delivered 50 planes), 75 Employees
The potential costs of fixing all affected DG-300/303 gliders
Inspection: 500 gliders in service x EUR 6000 per inspection = EUR
3,000,000 Repairs: 188 gliders (3 out of 8) x EUR 5000 per repair
= EUR 940,000
Total (without any related costs): EUR 3,940,000 (approx. USD
5,265,000)
Looking at that total you can see that this could potentially
bankrupt either company (with related loss of employment), hence DG's
close look at their legal responibility...
I'm not taking any sides on this, look at above facts and judge for
yourself. Either way there will only be losers in this messy
affair...
Markus
Hi Markus
I don't speak German, but on looking through the German text pointed to
by the link, I came across this list of what I believe to be the changes
to the Specification:
Dazu werden die Betriebsgrenzen aller DG-300 Baureihen auf die
folgenden Werte beschränkt:
* Die Höchstgeschwindigkeit wird herunter gesetzt von 270 km/h auf 250 km/h
* Die Manövergeschwindigkeit herunter gesetzt von 200 km/h auf 175 km/h
* Die Höchstmasse mit Wasserballast wird beschränkt von 525 kg auf 450 kg
* Die Masse der nichttragenden Teile wird um 6 kg reduziert auf 240 kg
* Kunstflug wird verboten
Wer diese Einschränkungen nicht hinnehmen will und seine Maschine
weiterr unbeschränkt betreiben möchte, muss sie untersuchen und evt.
reparieren lassen.
The item not mentioned in any of the English translations I have seen is
the fourth point, which I take to be the change in the permissible
Weight of Non-lifting Parts. (MWNLP)
This value is important, because, in our case at least, it is this
figure which determines the maximum cockpit load, apart from the Max.
seat load of 110 kg.
If the same 75kg was subtracted from the MWNLP, instead of the 6 kg
specifed in point 4 above, a ridiculous figure results.
John G.
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
