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 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
