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 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 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
_______________________________________________ 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
