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, <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > *To:* Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in > Australia.<[email protected]> > *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" <[email protected]> > To: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." < > [email protected]> > 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:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Geoff Vincent > *Sent:* Monday, 16 May 2011 5:31 PM > *To:* [email protected]; 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:* [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>] > *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: [email protected] > > From: [email protected] > > 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: [email protected] > > website: www.borgeltinstruments.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Aus-soaring mailing list > > [email protected] > > To check or change subscription details, visit: > > http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring > _______________________________________________ > Aus-soaring mailing list > [email protected] > To check or change subscription details, visit: > http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring > > _______________________________________________ > Aus-soaring mailing list > [email protected] > To check or change subscription details, visit: > http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring > > _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list > [email protected] To check or change subscription > details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Aus-soaring mailing list > [email protected] > To check or change subscription details, visit: > http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring > > > _______________________________________________ > Aus-soaring mailing list > [email protected] > To check or change subscription details, visit: > http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring >
_______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
