"I then proposed a solution. It was deemed workable and was subsequently
adopted. The meeting proceeded to draft a change to the regulations
.............."
Well, what was it ?
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: ec...@internode.on.net
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] rigging controls checks (Foka etc)
Mike and others
Please let me help by providing some background information.
Soon after the duplicate inspection was introduced I discussed the
issue with a senior GFA airworthiness person and voiced my concern
about this new requirement.
The GFA acted on my approach. About a year later I was asked
to attend one of the annual RTO (A) meetings in Melbourne where this
topic was high on the agenda. In an introduction the chairman pointed
out that CASA wanted GFA to apply standard GA procedures and
amend their documentation accordingly. GFA decided to comply with
the CASA request.
In a nutshell, this is how the issue evolved.
In my presentation I focused primarily on the operational problems but
also raised some of the issues already discussed here. The legal
implications were only just touched on at the time.
The meeting felt that the duplicate inspection was especially troublesome
for pilots who want to operate their self launching gliders on their own and
away from an established gliding infrastructure.
I then proposed a solution. It was deemed workable and was subsequently
adopted. The meeting proceeded to draft a change to the regulations but
I'm unable to say where the issue got bogged.
Kind regards to all
Bernard Eckey
----- Original Message -----
From:
"Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia."
@lists.internode.on.net>
To:
"Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia."
Cc:
Sent:
Mon, 23 May 2011 12:43:50 +1000
Subject:
Re: [Aus-soaring] rigging controls checks (Foka etc)
At 02:14 PM 17/05/2011, you wrote:
>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 duplicate inspection must be signed for by the
>person who does it.
Terrific. NOBODY seems to know for sure where this requirement came
from. It wasn't around before 2002. Will somebody who knows for sure
please let us all know?
Since when did rigging a glider out of its trailer become
maintenance? It is really normal OPERATIONS due to the nature of the
aircraft. In most of the gliding world most gliders live in trailers
and it is usual to rig each day or each weekend.
The control systems are design to be broken and re-assembled at
specific points which are inspectable after the controls have been
hooked up. This is definitely not the same as dis-assembly of parts
of the control circuit that are not accessible or inspectable during
a pre flight check. In some gliders the glider must actually be
partially de rigged to inspect the control hookups after rigging. The
Nimbus 3DM is one so it wouldn't be a case of a second inspector
coming along after rigging, he or she would need to be present during
the process. Is his "independent"? I could also argue that the second
inspection is likely to result in the interruption of other people's
pre flight preparation with attendant risks.
It seems other major gliding countries do not have a second signature
after rigging requirement, probably in recognition of the special
nature of sailplane operations. The BGA doesn't. The FAA of the US
has a specific waiver against a second inspection for sailplanes. It
was briefly considered by some after a Genesis lost its tailplane as
the tug went to full throttle at a Nationals but quickly dismissed on
the grounds that nobody would be dumb enough to sign. If it doesn't
get signed for, it didn't happen.
Some feel they are happier if a second person inspects after rigging,
some are happier if nobody else goes near the controls after they
have personally inspected their own work. This should be a matter of
personal preference not a rule exposing innocent bystanders to legal
risk and pilots and glider owners to risk their hull and third party
insurance in the event they cannot find someone to provide a second
signature.
I thought the GFA was formed so that gliding would not be subject to
rules from the rest of aviation that were stupid, unnecessary and
inappropriate for the nature of gliding operations. It seems I was mistaken.
So what's next? Ban all single seat gliders because pilots cannot be
trusted to make the right in flight decisions on their own?
Ponder the nature of the insurance coverage for your actions in
providing a second inspection. It is the GFA BBL. Not only will you
be facing possible legal action from the deceased's family(in the
event of death but also there's the possibility of the pilot suing
you over injury or damage to his glider) you'll be suing the BBL
insurer to get him to pay out. Ask the Lake Keepit Club about what
happened after the BBL declined to cover one of their instructors on
a minor technicality. They won, eventually, but their out of pocket
legal expenses were several times the original claim.
BTW if you do hull damage and fail to have had a second signature
after rigging and the glider is subsequently damaged I'm told by an
aviation insurance broker that the company cannot deny coverage
unless the lack of the second signature was the proximate cause of
the accident i.e. the controls becoming unhooked caused the problem
that led to the accident. He told me this was well established in
insurance law. You can take this how you like. You probably will have
to fight to get them to pay though. The bloke was emphatic that he
thought a company that would do this was acting unethically. Draw
your own conclusions
>In the case of gliders with automatic control couplings there is a
>good argument that the rule is not relevant to the rigging situation
>if nothing else has been done to alter the control circuits than to
>open up and re-close a joint in the system that is designed for the
purpose.
Which is the same even when the controls aren't automatic hookup. If
you think an auto hookup cannot go wrong you are mistaken. The load
bearing points can be damaged. The control won't be "not hooked up"
but there may be enough play to lead to flutter. I've had it happen
but found it during the preflight after rigging
>We are unlikely to change this by talking about it - so can we
>please talk about something else now?
>
>Wombat
Well we won't change it by ignoring it. Why do I have the sneaking
suspicion that you are the guilty party here and /or know more than
you are admitting here?
Mike
_______________________________________________
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
@lists.internode.on.net>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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
